The two biggest mistakes an owner and/or manager of a company can make are: one, to believe that that there are no 'brains' at the bottom of the organization; and/or two, alternatively, not to care if there is or there isn't.
In other words, mistake number 1 is to run a company unilaterally. (i.e. all the power comes from the top).
And mistake number 2 is to run a company narcissistically (meaning people in the middle and at the bottom of the organization essentially 'don't exist, and usually in conjunction with this, all the money tends to flow to the top of the organization and only 'scraps' and 'dribbles' of it flow back down again.
(The polarity of the 'top-heavy' pathological company is the 'bottom-heavy' pathological company where either there is not solid leadership from the top and/or for example, 'pathological unions or agents' undermine and sabotage the overall health of the organization. This too, might be a factor in some cases for manufacturing companies choosing to abandon America in search of lower labor costs on foreign shores. No extreme labor unions to deal with).
The healthier alternatives are to:
1. Run a company dialectically meaning that as ideally as possible, the top embraces the bottom of the organization and gains valuable feedback from the input of the bottom -- and middle -- of the organization.
2. A humanistic-existential, ethical owner/manager knows that a company needs a healthy profit to sustain itself and to stay competitive in the industry, but he or she does not believe in 'exploiting' or 'gouging' or 'juicing' or 'disrespecting' either the people within the organization -- and/or the people outside the organization, namely the suppliers and the customers/potential customers. In exchange, the people at the bottom and the middle of the organization tend to show greater respect and harmony with the 'Humanistic-Existential-Ethical-Dialectic' (HEED) leaders at the top of the organization flow chart.
From a DGB perspective, these are the two most important factors in distinguishing a healthy, vibrant organization, from an unstable, unhealthy one.
-- DGBN, November 27th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
An Important Dialectic Split: Entropy and The Status Quo vs. New Action and Change
Fear and anxiety dictate much of human behavior.
There are some people who thrive on change, and opening new doors.
But there are probably considerably more who don't.
When we are talking about serious change in our lives,
Anxiety and fear can reach terrifying proportions.
.....................................................................
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The doer alone learneth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
...........................................................................
Entropy is stifling, freezing, cementing...often, the older we get, the more entropy sets in and stifles change...meaning the less we want to change, the more we fear change, and/or the less passionate and courageous energy we have for 'gazing at the abyss' in order to propel us forward into change...
If we have a solid job and/or career, we are afraid of losing it; if we are making enough money to pay our bills, then we are afraid to take the lunge that might propel us downward rather than upward...down towards the abyss...
However frightening or boring or alienating or crushing our present job may be,
As we gaze into our 'psychological abyss',
The 'economic abyss' can be ten times more terrifying and immobilizing,
Better to be an automaton, a robot, a puppet on a string, a scapegoat for organizational failure, a man or woman without feelings, a man or woman without a conscience, a monster, a cutthroat, a manipulater, a victim or a victimizer, a 'backroom' player,
Than to be a man or a woman without a job,
Or dropping to a job that doesn't pay the bills.
And thus entropy sets in,
Entropy conquers all,
Entropy reigns,
While creative genius,
Silently flows away in a pool of existential blood,
Or freezes up in our own internal tombstone,
Thank God for hobbies...
Or creativity might never get out...
DGBN, November 26th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,
Are still in process...
There are some people who thrive on change, and opening new doors.
But there are probably considerably more who don't.
When we are talking about serious change in our lives,
Anxiety and fear can reach terrifying proportions.
.....................................................................
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The doer alone learneth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
...........................................................................
Entropy is stifling, freezing, cementing...often, the older we get, the more entropy sets in and stifles change...meaning the less we want to change, the more we fear change, and/or the less passionate and courageous energy we have for 'gazing at the abyss' in order to propel us forward into change...
If we have a solid job and/or career, we are afraid of losing it; if we are making enough money to pay our bills, then we are afraid to take the lunge that might propel us downward rather than upward...down towards the abyss...
However frightening or boring or alienating or crushing our present job may be,
As we gaze into our 'psychological abyss',
The 'economic abyss' can be ten times more terrifying and immobilizing,
Better to be an automaton, a robot, a puppet on a string, a scapegoat for organizational failure, a man or woman without feelings, a man or woman without a conscience, a monster, a cutthroat, a manipulater, a victim or a victimizer, a 'backroom' player,
Than to be a man or a woman without a job,
Or dropping to a job that doesn't pay the bills.
And thus entropy sets in,
Entropy conquers all,
Entropy reigns,
While creative genius,
Silently flows away in a pool of existential blood,
Or freezes up in our own internal tombstone,
Thank God for hobbies...
Or creativity might never get out...
DGBN, November 26th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,
Are still in process...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Dialectic (Polar) Splits From The Beginning of Western Philosophy to Current American Philosophical, Political, and Capitalist Splits: Part 2
In this essay, I will advance my thinking from Part 1 this two part essay.
Indeed, this 'dialectic split' line of thinking exists throughout 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy' from top to bottom and from bottom to top. It is perhaps only here more than elsewhere that I am trying to bring extra clarity to the use of my terminology and concepts.
My thesis is essentially this -- and I will call it a 'post-Hegelian' thesis:
The history of Western philosophy is a history of 'dialectical splits' -- philosophically, psychologically, mythologically, religiously, scientifically, economically, politically, legally, artistically, racially, sexually, biologically, culturally, medically...Have I missed anything?
These dialectic splits tend to cause either attraction and/or repulsion, love and/or hate, chemical bonding and/or conflict-strife, co-operation and/or competition, engagement and/or alienation, progression and/or regression, or Mexican standoffs-impasses...
One can even talk about the dilectical split, the dialectical playoff, between life and death, or living and dying. Here, DGB Philosophy existentializes Freud.
In Freudian mechanistic-scientific language, you won't hear me/DGB Philosophy talking about 'life' and 'death' instincts; but in common existential language, you will hear me/DGB Philosophy talking about 'life vs. death impulses', or 'life vs. death playoffs' or 'life vs. death choices' or 'life vs. death existential splits'.
Unfortunately, our pleasure mechanism does not always side with what is nutritionally good for us. Too much coffee, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, food...are obvious examples. These can all take us down a faster than normal 'death path'.
'Dieting intelligently' and 'exercising' are generally not considered 'pleasurable choices' but these moment to moment choices in the long run -- or even the short run -- are likely to take us down a much 'healthier path of living'; indeed, the older we get, the more crucial role they may play in the difference between a sustained healthier and older life vs. a significantly shorter one. The more we play the 'death cards' -- smoking, drinking, drugs, alcohol, overeating, underexercising -- the more we are likely to speed up our demise.
Having said this, life isn't all about living a 'long, boring life', and thus, we often find ourselves 'going against' what might be generally considered 'more healthy' for us from a 'longevity' point of view. Given a choice, I think most of us would generally prefer to go to a restaurant or a bar and/or a movie on a Friday or Saturday night -- than a health store or a gym. Most of us would likely prefer to do the 'health store' or 'gym' visit on a Saturday or Sunday morning. But of course, everyone is different.
Negotiating the dialectic split between a 'longer and more boring life' vs. a 'shorter but more exciting one' is just another of many, many dialectical splits that confront us with 'either/or' choices and/or some sort of compromise between the two extreme polarities.
Some of these dialectic splits we might be 'excruciatingly aware of', whereas others may operate below our level of general consciousness. Indeed, the 'life and death split' we may not be aware of until we are on death's door. Life is often like that. It takes the approach of death, the contact with death, and/or a 'near death experience' -- to 'existentially wake us up'.
'Peace' and 'war' is another dialectic split. Obviously, peace tends to support and enhance life whereas war tends to 'speed up death'. And yet, over and over again, man keeps coming back to war whenever and wherever other important dialectic splits can't be negotiated democratically and/or peacefully.
This brings us back to recognizing the difference between 'power-dialectics' (the aim here being to 'overpower', 'intimidate', 'conquer' our opponent/competitor) vs. 'democratic dialectics' (where the importance of 'homeostatic balance' and recognizing the importance of 'equal rights and responsibilities' and 'win-win solutions' is crucial to the dialectic negotiating process).
'Manipulation' and 'covert/hidden narcissistic goals/agendas' often play a sneaky role in 'splitting the difference' between a blatant power-dialectic and a truly egalitarian-democratic one.
What may seem to be 'a deal that is too good to be true' -- probably is.
A mortgage company might put out the 'bait' of a 'sub-prime mortgage rate' -- a mortgage rate that is too good to be true' -- and hide 'the trojan horse/virus' in the contract that is going to 'financially destroy you a few years later'.
Sound familiar anyone?
Capitalism is self-destructing in America in its own toxic waste.
Now there are three final arguments that I would like to get out here before I finish this little essay on dialectic splits.
Firstly, if the American government decided that it wanted to 'get involved' in the American housing market and prodded the mortgage and banking companies to offer an extra 'stimulant' for 'lower income earners' to buy houses -- i.e. 'sub-prime' rates -- then they are partly accountable for this Wall Street fiasco. They are even doubly accountable if they knew that the mortgage/banking companies were going to throw 'hidden trojan viruses' into the mortgage contracts -- meaning radical increases in interest rates a few years into the contract.
The primary engineer(s) behind the 'mortgage trojan virus contracts' are the men and/or women who should be held most accountable for the Wall Street Titanic Disaster. They obviously shouldn't be walking away with millions and millions of dollars made up of money that they have basically 'stolen' from American homeowners (or ex-homeowners) and/or 'bailout money' they have received from the American government to artifically prop up their collapsing empires. Furthermore, probably they should be in jail.
'Trojan virus contracts' should be illegal.
So too, should 'rollover contracts' (contracts that allow a company like a 'fitness company' to get into your bank account and never get out. Actually, these too are trojan virus contracts).
As 'democracy' should be largely 'transparent', so too should 'contracts'.
A fitness company should not be allowed to coerce a customer into signing a contract that the customer basically needs to take to a lawyer before he or she should sign it. I will never sign another 'rollover' contract. It is a license for the fitness companies to 'gouge' and 'steal'.
Same with cell-phone contracts. These contracts shouldn't be allowed to be more than a year long. Ideally, the best contracts are no contracts. You pay as you go -- either cash up front or on a monthly credit basis, and when you stop paying, you stop your service, or your service is cut off. Obviously, phone companies need to be compensated for the value of their phones, but long contracts should be a license for these phone companies to hold their ex-customers up for ransom when the customer doesn't want, or can't afford, the service any longer.
Contracts that an employer gives a non-unionized employee or contractor should be legally approved by a 'labor board' before they are allowed to be used. Otherwise, they are quite likely to be 'narcissistically exploitive' in favor of the usually much richer and more powerful employer.
Free trade has definitely not been good for America as a whole. It is a license for American manufacturing employers to betray American workers by closing up their manufacturing plants in America and re-establishing them in 'dirt cheap labor' countries that allow the owners of these companies to rake in much larger profits at the expense of the betrayed American workforce.
Who has Bush protected during the eight years he has been in power -- and who is he still trying to protect even as he leaves power? The American manufacturing owner? Or the American worker? I think the answer is rather obvious. Tariffs existed for good reason: they protected the American workforce from 'cheaper workforces' and 'cheaper goods' coming in from 'cheaper countries'.
It might be counter-argued that 'cheaper goods' is better for the American consumer. But not if the American consumer is unemployed. And not if the 'safety' of the foreign product is so compromised that it could be a significant danger to you, or your family, or your pet. It is much easier to control the 'safety standards' of American goods, for the most part, although dangerous narcissistic safety compromises can be made in America too. But the safety problems most recently seem to be coming from China and Mexico, less so from America -- unless we are talking pharmaceutical drugs.
Even 'illegal immigrants' coming from Mexico into America -- we can easily see how this too fits into the whole 'free trade' syndrome. American farmers and manufacturers take advantage of these illegal immigrants to get a cheaper workforce that Bush and The Republican Party have basically turned a 'blind eye' too. Why? Because, once again, it is good for the American manufacturing owner. And who is the American manufacturing owner most likely to financially support and sponsor -- why, The American Republican Party, of course. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The only group left out of this whole 'back-scratching exercise' -- this 'two out of three ain't bad' collusion -- is the American manufacturing workforce.
'Protectionism' for Bush and The Republican Party has meant protecting the American manufacturing owners, corporations, and conglomerates.
It has not meant 'protecting' the American manufacturing worker.
Bush and The Republican Party have basically supported and given their blessing to the 'exodus' of American manufacturing plants to 'cheap labor' countries.
And Bush and The Republican Party talk about 'patriotism'.
I certainly hope that Obama is moving in a different, better direction.
However, I shake my head in amazement at this massive government spending,
And worse,
Billions of dollars going out to the business owners who caused this whole problem to start with.
I've said enough for tonight.
DGBN, Nov. 25th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
..................................................
Indeed, this 'dialectic split' line of thinking exists throughout 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy' from top to bottom and from bottom to top. It is perhaps only here more than elsewhere that I am trying to bring extra clarity to the use of my terminology and concepts.
My thesis is essentially this -- and I will call it a 'post-Hegelian' thesis:
The history of Western philosophy is a history of 'dialectical splits' -- philosophically, psychologically, mythologically, religiously, scientifically, economically, politically, legally, artistically, racially, sexually, biologically, culturally, medically...Have I missed anything?
These dialectic splits tend to cause either attraction and/or repulsion, love and/or hate, chemical bonding and/or conflict-strife, co-operation and/or competition, engagement and/or alienation, progression and/or regression, or Mexican standoffs-impasses...
One can even talk about the dilectical split, the dialectical playoff, between life and death, or living and dying. Here, DGB Philosophy existentializes Freud.
In Freudian mechanistic-scientific language, you won't hear me/DGB Philosophy talking about 'life' and 'death' instincts; but in common existential language, you will hear me/DGB Philosophy talking about 'life vs. death impulses', or 'life vs. death playoffs' or 'life vs. death choices' or 'life vs. death existential splits'.
Unfortunately, our pleasure mechanism does not always side with what is nutritionally good for us. Too much coffee, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, food...are obvious examples. These can all take us down a faster than normal 'death path'.
'Dieting intelligently' and 'exercising' are generally not considered 'pleasurable choices' but these moment to moment choices in the long run -- or even the short run -- are likely to take us down a much 'healthier path of living'; indeed, the older we get, the more crucial role they may play in the difference between a sustained healthier and older life vs. a significantly shorter one. The more we play the 'death cards' -- smoking, drinking, drugs, alcohol, overeating, underexercising -- the more we are likely to speed up our demise.
Having said this, life isn't all about living a 'long, boring life', and thus, we often find ourselves 'going against' what might be generally considered 'more healthy' for us from a 'longevity' point of view. Given a choice, I think most of us would generally prefer to go to a restaurant or a bar and/or a movie on a Friday or Saturday night -- than a health store or a gym. Most of us would likely prefer to do the 'health store' or 'gym' visit on a Saturday or Sunday morning. But of course, everyone is different.
Negotiating the dialectic split between a 'longer and more boring life' vs. a 'shorter but more exciting one' is just another of many, many dialectical splits that confront us with 'either/or' choices and/or some sort of compromise between the two extreme polarities.
Some of these dialectic splits we might be 'excruciatingly aware of', whereas others may operate below our level of general consciousness. Indeed, the 'life and death split' we may not be aware of until we are on death's door. Life is often like that. It takes the approach of death, the contact with death, and/or a 'near death experience' -- to 'existentially wake us up'.
'Peace' and 'war' is another dialectic split. Obviously, peace tends to support and enhance life whereas war tends to 'speed up death'. And yet, over and over again, man keeps coming back to war whenever and wherever other important dialectic splits can't be negotiated democratically and/or peacefully.
This brings us back to recognizing the difference between 'power-dialectics' (the aim here being to 'overpower', 'intimidate', 'conquer' our opponent/competitor) vs. 'democratic dialectics' (where the importance of 'homeostatic balance' and recognizing the importance of 'equal rights and responsibilities' and 'win-win solutions' is crucial to the dialectic negotiating process).
'Manipulation' and 'covert/hidden narcissistic goals/agendas' often play a sneaky role in 'splitting the difference' between a blatant power-dialectic and a truly egalitarian-democratic one.
What may seem to be 'a deal that is too good to be true' -- probably is.
A mortgage company might put out the 'bait' of a 'sub-prime mortgage rate' -- a mortgage rate that is too good to be true' -- and hide 'the trojan horse/virus' in the contract that is going to 'financially destroy you a few years later'.
Sound familiar anyone?
Capitalism is self-destructing in America in its own toxic waste.
Now there are three final arguments that I would like to get out here before I finish this little essay on dialectic splits.
Firstly, if the American government decided that it wanted to 'get involved' in the American housing market and prodded the mortgage and banking companies to offer an extra 'stimulant' for 'lower income earners' to buy houses -- i.e. 'sub-prime' rates -- then they are partly accountable for this Wall Street fiasco. They are even doubly accountable if they knew that the mortgage/banking companies were going to throw 'hidden trojan viruses' into the mortgage contracts -- meaning radical increases in interest rates a few years into the contract.
The primary engineer(s) behind the 'mortgage trojan virus contracts' are the men and/or women who should be held most accountable for the Wall Street Titanic Disaster. They obviously shouldn't be walking away with millions and millions of dollars made up of money that they have basically 'stolen' from American homeowners (or ex-homeowners) and/or 'bailout money' they have received from the American government to artifically prop up their collapsing empires. Furthermore, probably they should be in jail.
'Trojan virus contracts' should be illegal.
So too, should 'rollover contracts' (contracts that allow a company like a 'fitness company' to get into your bank account and never get out. Actually, these too are trojan virus contracts).
As 'democracy' should be largely 'transparent', so too should 'contracts'.
A fitness company should not be allowed to coerce a customer into signing a contract that the customer basically needs to take to a lawyer before he or she should sign it. I will never sign another 'rollover' contract. It is a license for the fitness companies to 'gouge' and 'steal'.
Same with cell-phone contracts. These contracts shouldn't be allowed to be more than a year long. Ideally, the best contracts are no contracts. You pay as you go -- either cash up front or on a monthly credit basis, and when you stop paying, you stop your service, or your service is cut off. Obviously, phone companies need to be compensated for the value of their phones, but long contracts should be a license for these phone companies to hold their ex-customers up for ransom when the customer doesn't want, or can't afford, the service any longer.
Contracts that an employer gives a non-unionized employee or contractor should be legally approved by a 'labor board' before they are allowed to be used. Otherwise, they are quite likely to be 'narcissistically exploitive' in favor of the usually much richer and more powerful employer.
Free trade has definitely not been good for America as a whole. It is a license for American manufacturing employers to betray American workers by closing up their manufacturing plants in America and re-establishing them in 'dirt cheap labor' countries that allow the owners of these companies to rake in much larger profits at the expense of the betrayed American workforce.
Who has Bush protected during the eight years he has been in power -- and who is he still trying to protect even as he leaves power? The American manufacturing owner? Or the American worker? I think the answer is rather obvious. Tariffs existed for good reason: they protected the American workforce from 'cheaper workforces' and 'cheaper goods' coming in from 'cheaper countries'.
It might be counter-argued that 'cheaper goods' is better for the American consumer. But not if the American consumer is unemployed. And not if the 'safety' of the foreign product is so compromised that it could be a significant danger to you, or your family, or your pet. It is much easier to control the 'safety standards' of American goods, for the most part, although dangerous narcissistic safety compromises can be made in America too. But the safety problems most recently seem to be coming from China and Mexico, less so from America -- unless we are talking pharmaceutical drugs.
Even 'illegal immigrants' coming from Mexico into America -- we can easily see how this too fits into the whole 'free trade' syndrome. American farmers and manufacturers take advantage of these illegal immigrants to get a cheaper workforce that Bush and The Republican Party have basically turned a 'blind eye' too. Why? Because, once again, it is good for the American manufacturing owner. And who is the American manufacturing owner most likely to financially support and sponsor -- why, The American Republican Party, of course. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The only group left out of this whole 'back-scratching exercise' -- this 'two out of three ain't bad' collusion -- is the American manufacturing workforce.
'Protectionism' for Bush and The Republican Party has meant protecting the American manufacturing owners, corporations, and conglomerates.
It has not meant 'protecting' the American manufacturing worker.
Bush and The Republican Party have basically supported and given their blessing to the 'exodus' of American manufacturing plants to 'cheap labor' countries.
And Bush and The Republican Party talk about 'patriotism'.
I certainly hope that Obama is moving in a different, better direction.
However, I shake my head in amazement at this massive government spending,
And worse,
Billions of dollars going out to the business owners who caused this whole problem to start with.
I've said enough for tonight.
DGBN, Nov. 25th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
..................................................
Dialectic (Polar) Splits From The Beginning of Western Philosophy to Current American Philosophical, Political, and Capitalist Splits: Part 1
The ideological-philosophical-dialectic division between the American Republican Party and the American Democratic Party is as old as the beginning of Western philosophy.
The term 'dialectic' is used here to denote any such polar split in human nature, human behavior, philosophical/political ideology, and/or life in general.
There are literally thousands, probably millions, of such 'polar, dialectical splits'.
Any time you can think of two 'opposites' or even 'striking differences', you can think of the potential -- and/or the actuality - for bi-polar, dialectic splits.
DGB Philosophy focuses on these dialectic (polar) splits as the core or essence of its approach to philosophy. And because there are probably millions of such potential or actual 'dialectical splits', that is why DGB Philosophy calls itself a 'Multi-Bi-Polar' (as well as 'Dialectic-Democratic' and 'Humanistic-Existential' Philosophy.
In doing this, DGB Philosophy takes after 'Hegelian Philosophy' which is often called 'Hegelian Dialectic Philosophy'. Hegel's masterpiece philosophical book is called: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' (or 'The Phenomenology of Mind', depending on the particular German translation that is being used).
Now Western Dialectic Philosophy runs much, much deeper in Western history than Hegel himself who was the philosopher who probably most clearly articulated the dynamics of the dialectic. It is from Hegel, that the classic dialectic formula of: 1. 'thesis', 2. 'anti-thesis', and 3. 'synthesis' -- grew and evolved.
Western Dialectic Philosophy can be traced at least as far back into Ancient Greece as Anaxamander (611BC to 547BC) -- and shortly afterwards, to arguably the most esteemed (Pre-Socratic) Ancient Greek philosopher in Western history -- Heraclitus (535-475 BC) (who has had infuential significance of the evolution of 'pantheism', Spinoza, the Romantic Movement, Einstein, General Semantics, Gestalt Therapy, and many, many more philosophers, scientists, poets, and Institutions alike).
Indeed, Anaxamander and Heraclitus -- between the two of them -- created one of the most fascinating and important dialectics in Western history: what DGB Philosophy will call the polarity and paradox between 'Authoritarian, Power-Dialectics' (Anaxamander)and 'Democratic Balance Dialectics' (Heraclitus).
Anaxamander can be viewed as an ancient 'pre-Hegelian' and 'pre-Darwinian' philosopher. He partly articulated the idea of 'survival of the fittest' -- but with a very interesting 'un-Darwinian' twist to it.
Perhaps I am taking some 'creative liberties' here and giving a 21st century spin to an ancient Greek philosophy that was articulated some 2600 years ago. But I believe this 'DGB spin' to Anaxamander's dialectic philosophy captures the essence of what he was saying -- with some much newer 'dialectic terminology' attached to it.
For Anaxamander, the world starts essentially in Chaos. (I will look up his word for it in a minute. Found it! 'Apeiron' which translates as 'The Boundless') Then this 'chaotic world' -- the undifferentiated, unarticulated Universe if you will -- is 'differentiated into opposite pairs of twos' -- let us say for example, 'black' and 'white'.
In this example here, 'black and white', between the two of them, create both our first dialectical pair, and also our first 'dialectical split'. In essence, the two dialectical polarities start to 'compete' with each other for 'power'. It is in this interpretation of Anaxamander's ancient philosophy, that I give the name 'power-dialectics' to his philosophical outlook on things -- and essentially, in the way that the world works.
'Black' and 'white' compete for 'power' -- and this in essence is exactly the same thing that happens with every dialectic opposite, with every dialectic split. There is a 'competition for power' -- a 'survival of the fittest' in pre-Darwinian terms, or even a 'will to power' in Nietzschean terms -- but with one important 'twist' to this pre-Hegelian, pre-Darwinian, pre-Nietzschean, even pre-Freudian, pre-Jungian, and pre-Gestalt theory. Dialectic theory runs deep, deep, deep in the history and evolution of Western philosophy, psychology, politics, medicine, law, culture...The same is true in Eastern philosophy where the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' may or may not be older than Anaxamander's philosophy. Indeed, Anaxamander's philosophy is a Western version of 'yin' and 'yang' philosophy -- with out the addition of the theory of 'dialectic balance' which in Western philosophy would be added by Heraclitus.
However, as I have now alluded to twice, there is a very interesting 'twist' to Anaxamander's ancient 'power-dialectic' theory that gives it a unique character all of its own, perhaps never to be better articulated -- or even fully articulated again at all -- in Western history. Actually, let me correct myself there. Derrida clearly articulated the idea in his philosophy of 'Deconstruction'. The idea -- first clearly stated by Anaxamander -- is that power comes and goes, it is never permanent, and what is 'up' today will be 'down' tomorrow. It is kind of a version of the old saying that 'what goes up, must come down'. But even better than this, it is the first clear articulation of the idea of 'cosmic justice': the idea that 'what goes around, comes around'.
This is the most powerful component of Anaxamander's ancient dialectic philosophy, and it comes down to us, only in 'fragments' of what he said, the most powerful fragment probably being this one below:
.........................................................................
From Anaximander, Wikipedia...
Anaximander maintains that all dying things are returning to the element from which they came (apeiron). The one surviving fragment of Anaximander's writing deals with this matter. Simplicius transmitted it as a quotation, which describes the balanced and mutual changes of the elements:[10]
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
..............................................................................
From 'The Free Dictionary' on the internet...
Anaximander (ənăk'sĭmăn`dər), c.611–c.547 B.C., Greek philosopher, b. Miletus; pupil of Thales Thales (thā`lēz), c.636–c.546 B.C.
He (Anaximander) made the first attempt to offer a detailed explanation of all aspects of nature. Anaximander argued that since there are so many different sorts of things, they must all have originated from something less differentiated than water, and this primary source, the boundless or the indefinite (apeiron), had always existed, filled all space, and, by its constant motion, separated opposites out from itself, e.g., hot and cold, moist and dry. These opposites interact by encroaching on one another and thus repay one another's "injustice." The result is a plurality of worlds that successively decay and return to the indefinite. The notion of the indefinite and its processes prefigured the later conception of the indestructibility of matter. Anaximander also had a theory of the relation of earth to the heavenly bodies, important in the history of astronomy. His view that man achieved his physical state by adaptation to environment, that life had evolved from moisture, and that man developed from fish, anticipates the theory of evolution.
..............................................................................
Power-dialectics create the dynamics behind 'dictatorships', 'authoritarianism, 'imperialism', 'unilateralism', 'righteousness' vs. 'rebellion', 'domination' vs 'submission', and 'the master-slave relationship as first fully articulated by Hegel. Power-dialectics are all about 'conquering or overpowering the will of others in order to get one's own way'. This is the essence of 'unilateralism' and 'imperialism' as well. It can work -- but it usually ends in human tragedy, destruction, self-destruction, rebellion, anarchy, war, civil war, and the like -- because people's rights and wishes -- those who are not a part of the 'power-group' -- are being violated and suppressed.
This is always the achilles heal of 'power-dialetics' and the reason why there is always a push in the world towards 'freedom, equal rights, and democracy' -- what will be called 'democratic(-equal-rights-balanced)-dialectics'.
There is one further point that I would like to make about Anaximander that I almost forgot.
Specifically, Anaxamander, in his own way, without inventing the 'terminology', foreshadowed and anticipated Alfred Adler's theory of 'compensation'
Worded more concretely still, Anaxamander basically argued that 'the weaker opponent will always make adjustments -- or compensations -- that will make the weaker opponent stronger to the point where they will eventually usurp the stronger opponent which will then become the weaker opponent -- and this 'dialectic power-dance' (my terminology of course, not his) will continue through the ongoing course and evolution of history --
....................................................................
'For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.'
.........................................................................
There is 'evolutionary intelligence' in even the so-called 'simplest and/or dumbest of (God's/Nature's) creatures'.
Even the supposedly simplest of bacteria will eventually make 'evolutionary adjustments, or compensations, or 'mutations' -- that will eventually, if exposed often enough to 'anti-biotics' -- become 'immune' to, or 'stronger' than the anti-biotics.
And similarly, Republican 'dirty' campaign tactics which worked in previous elections (Bush vs. Kerry, the Florida voting scandal, robo-calls, negative stereotyping, fear-mongering...) the Democrats have made 'adjustments' or 'compensations' or 'mutations' for in this election...
Which is why McCain and The Republicans are this time going to go down in defeat to a smarter Obama-led Democratic Party.
Of course, I could be wrong.
But I don't think so.
We shall see.
We will move on, in a day or two, to a discussion of the more 'democratic-dialectics' of the ancient Greek philosopher -- Heraclitus.
How many days to the American election? 4 or 5? When is it? November 3rd or 4th? Sorry, I have to check with CNN. I don't have a vote. I'm Canadian. Who's counting? Who's watching?
The whole world is watching.
America, you need to get it 'right' this time.
Bush -- and 'Republican Unilateralism' (read 'imperialism') -- was not the answer.
America needs a more integrative, 'democratic-dialectic', and 'foreign friendly' President as opposed to a divisive, 'power-dialectic', and 'walk all over the world', President.
Otherwise, more and more war is America's future -- and the world's future.
It's the Republican way.
-- dgb, October 31st, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 7:13 AM 0 comments
The term 'dialectic' is used here to denote any such polar split in human nature, human behavior, philosophical/political ideology, and/or life in general.
There are literally thousands, probably millions, of such 'polar, dialectical splits'.
Any time you can think of two 'opposites' or even 'striking differences', you can think of the potential -- and/or the actuality - for bi-polar, dialectic splits.
DGB Philosophy focuses on these dialectic (polar) splits as the core or essence of its approach to philosophy. And because there are probably millions of such potential or actual 'dialectical splits', that is why DGB Philosophy calls itself a 'Multi-Bi-Polar' (as well as 'Dialectic-Democratic' and 'Humanistic-Existential' Philosophy.
In doing this, DGB Philosophy takes after 'Hegelian Philosophy' which is often called 'Hegelian Dialectic Philosophy'. Hegel's masterpiece philosophical book is called: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' (or 'The Phenomenology of Mind', depending on the particular German translation that is being used).
Now Western Dialectic Philosophy runs much, much deeper in Western history than Hegel himself who was the philosopher who probably most clearly articulated the dynamics of the dialectic. It is from Hegel, that the classic dialectic formula of: 1. 'thesis', 2. 'anti-thesis', and 3. 'synthesis' -- grew and evolved.
Western Dialectic Philosophy can be traced at least as far back into Ancient Greece as Anaxamander (611BC to 547BC) -- and shortly afterwards, to arguably the most esteemed (Pre-Socratic) Ancient Greek philosopher in Western history -- Heraclitus (535-475 BC) (who has had infuential significance of the evolution of 'pantheism', Spinoza, the Romantic Movement, Einstein, General Semantics, Gestalt Therapy, and many, many more philosophers, scientists, poets, and Institutions alike).
Indeed, Anaxamander and Heraclitus -- between the two of them -- created one of the most fascinating and important dialectics in Western history: what DGB Philosophy will call the polarity and paradox between 'Authoritarian, Power-Dialectics' (Anaxamander)and 'Democratic Balance Dialectics' (Heraclitus).
Anaxamander can be viewed as an ancient 'pre-Hegelian' and 'pre-Darwinian' philosopher. He partly articulated the idea of 'survival of the fittest' -- but with a very interesting 'un-Darwinian' twist to it.
Perhaps I am taking some 'creative liberties' here and giving a 21st century spin to an ancient Greek philosophy that was articulated some 2600 years ago. But I believe this 'DGB spin' to Anaxamander's dialectic philosophy captures the essence of what he was saying -- with some much newer 'dialectic terminology' attached to it.
For Anaxamander, the world starts essentially in Chaos. (I will look up his word for it in a minute. Found it! 'Apeiron' which translates as 'The Boundless') Then this 'chaotic world' -- the undifferentiated, unarticulated Universe if you will -- is 'differentiated into opposite pairs of twos' -- let us say for example, 'black' and 'white'.
In this example here, 'black and white', between the two of them, create both our first dialectical pair, and also our first 'dialectical split'. In essence, the two dialectical polarities start to 'compete' with each other for 'power'. It is in this interpretation of Anaxamander's ancient philosophy, that I give the name 'power-dialectics' to his philosophical outlook on things -- and essentially, in the way that the world works.
'Black' and 'white' compete for 'power' -- and this in essence is exactly the same thing that happens with every dialectic opposite, with every dialectic split. There is a 'competition for power' -- a 'survival of the fittest' in pre-Darwinian terms, or even a 'will to power' in Nietzschean terms -- but with one important 'twist' to this pre-Hegelian, pre-Darwinian, pre-Nietzschean, even pre-Freudian, pre-Jungian, and pre-Gestalt theory. Dialectic theory runs deep, deep, deep in the history and evolution of Western philosophy, psychology, politics, medicine, law, culture...The same is true in Eastern philosophy where the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' may or may not be older than Anaxamander's philosophy. Indeed, Anaxamander's philosophy is a Western version of 'yin' and 'yang' philosophy -- with out the addition of the theory of 'dialectic balance' which in Western philosophy would be added by Heraclitus.
However, as I have now alluded to twice, there is a very interesting 'twist' to Anaxamander's ancient 'power-dialectic' theory that gives it a unique character all of its own, perhaps never to be better articulated -- or even fully articulated again at all -- in Western history. Actually, let me correct myself there. Derrida clearly articulated the idea in his philosophy of 'Deconstruction'. The idea -- first clearly stated by Anaxamander -- is that power comes and goes, it is never permanent, and what is 'up' today will be 'down' tomorrow. It is kind of a version of the old saying that 'what goes up, must come down'. But even better than this, it is the first clear articulation of the idea of 'cosmic justice': the idea that 'what goes around, comes around'.
This is the most powerful component of Anaxamander's ancient dialectic philosophy, and it comes down to us, only in 'fragments' of what he said, the most powerful fragment probably being this one below:
.........................................................................
From Anaximander, Wikipedia...
Anaximander maintains that all dying things are returning to the element from which they came (apeiron). The one surviving fragment of Anaximander's writing deals with this matter. Simplicius transmitted it as a quotation, which describes the balanced and mutual changes of the elements:[10]
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
..............................................................................
From 'The Free Dictionary' on the internet...
Anaximander (ənăk'sĭmăn`dər), c.611–c.547 B.C., Greek philosopher, b. Miletus; pupil of Thales Thales (thā`lēz), c.636–c.546 B.C.
He (Anaximander) made the first attempt to offer a detailed explanation of all aspects of nature. Anaximander argued that since there are so many different sorts of things, they must all have originated from something less differentiated than water, and this primary source, the boundless or the indefinite (apeiron), had always existed, filled all space, and, by its constant motion, separated opposites out from itself, e.g., hot and cold, moist and dry. These opposites interact by encroaching on one another and thus repay one another's "injustice." The result is a plurality of worlds that successively decay and return to the indefinite. The notion of the indefinite and its processes prefigured the later conception of the indestructibility of matter. Anaximander also had a theory of the relation of earth to the heavenly bodies, important in the history of astronomy. His view that man achieved his physical state by adaptation to environment, that life had evolved from moisture, and that man developed from fish, anticipates the theory of evolution.
..............................................................................
Power-dialectics create the dynamics behind 'dictatorships', 'authoritarianism, 'imperialism', 'unilateralism', 'righteousness' vs. 'rebellion', 'domination' vs 'submission', and 'the master-slave relationship as first fully articulated by Hegel. Power-dialectics are all about 'conquering or overpowering the will of others in order to get one's own way'. This is the essence of 'unilateralism' and 'imperialism' as well. It can work -- but it usually ends in human tragedy, destruction, self-destruction, rebellion, anarchy, war, civil war, and the like -- because people's rights and wishes -- those who are not a part of the 'power-group' -- are being violated and suppressed.
This is always the achilles heal of 'power-dialetics' and the reason why there is always a push in the world towards 'freedom, equal rights, and democracy' -- what will be called 'democratic(-equal-rights-balanced)-dialectics'.
There is one further point that I would like to make about Anaximander that I almost forgot.
Specifically, Anaxamander, in his own way, without inventing the 'terminology', foreshadowed and anticipated Alfred Adler's theory of 'compensation'
Worded more concretely still, Anaxamander basically argued that 'the weaker opponent will always make adjustments -- or compensations -- that will make the weaker opponent stronger to the point where they will eventually usurp the stronger opponent which will then become the weaker opponent -- and this 'dialectic power-dance' (my terminology of course, not his) will continue through the ongoing course and evolution of history --
....................................................................
'For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.'
.........................................................................
There is 'evolutionary intelligence' in even the so-called 'simplest and/or dumbest of (God's/Nature's) creatures'.
Even the supposedly simplest of bacteria will eventually make 'evolutionary adjustments, or compensations, or 'mutations' -- that will eventually, if exposed often enough to 'anti-biotics' -- become 'immune' to, or 'stronger' than the anti-biotics.
And similarly, Republican 'dirty' campaign tactics which worked in previous elections (Bush vs. Kerry, the Florida voting scandal, robo-calls, negative stereotyping, fear-mongering...) the Democrats have made 'adjustments' or 'compensations' or 'mutations' for in this election...
Which is why McCain and The Republicans are this time going to go down in defeat to a smarter Obama-led Democratic Party.
Of course, I could be wrong.
But I don't think so.
We shall see.
We will move on, in a day or two, to a discussion of the more 'democratic-dialectics' of the ancient Greek philosopher -- Heraclitus.
How many days to the American election? 4 or 5? When is it? November 3rd or 4th? Sorry, I have to check with CNN. I don't have a vote. I'm Canadian. Who's counting? Who's watching?
The whole world is watching.
America, you need to get it 'right' this time.
Bush -- and 'Republican Unilateralism' (read 'imperialism') -- was not the answer.
America needs a more integrative, 'democratic-dialectic', and 'foreign friendly' President as opposed to a divisive, 'power-dialectic', and 'walk all over the world', President.
Otherwise, more and more war is America's future -- and the world's future.
It's the Republican way.
-- dgb, October 31st, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 7:13 AM 0 comments
Monday, November 24, 2008
'Good' Capitalism is Not Rocket Science...
Good Capitalism is not rocket science...
It is capitalism with integrity.
It is capitalism with reciprocity.
The silver rule.
Don't do unto others what you would not want them to do to you.
-- DGBN, Nov. 24th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process....
....................................................................
It is capitalism with integrity.
It is capitalism with reciprocity.
The silver rule.
Don't do unto others what you would not want them to do to you.
-- DGBN, Nov. 24th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process....
....................................................................
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. Adam Smith and 'The Wealth of Nations'
Introduction
......................................................
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. -- Adam Smith, 'The Wealth of Nations', published in 1776, the same year as The American Declaration of Independence.
Editorial Comments by DGBN: It is exactly in not talking about the benevolence and the integrity and the character and the ethics and the compassion of the businessman both for his employees and his customers -- i.e., the Wall Street businessman in the most recent indictment of 21st century, Globalized, Narcissistic Capitalism -- that Capitalism self-destructs, indeed, burns and gasps for air and pleads for help in its own toxic poison.
..................................................................
Smith also believed that a division of labour would effect a great increase in production. One example he used was the making of pins. One worker could probably make only twenty pins per day. However, if ten people divided up the eighteen steps required to make a pin, they could make a combined amount of 48,000 pins in one day.
-- Adam Smith, 'The Wealth of Nations', 1776.
Editorial Comments by DGBN (in tribute to Hegel, Marx, and Fromm relative to 'Capitalism and 'the alienation of labour'): 48,000 pins for Western consumers -- and 10 employees existentially dead or dying on the assembly line, trying to breath some semblance of life into their 'robotic job'.
.............................................................................
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations
I like Adam Smith. However, I think that Adam Smith forsaw some of the ultimate weaknesses of unbridled 'free market' Capitalism even as he was writing about it, trumpeting it, and reassuring people that there were enough 'checks and balances' in place in free market Capitalism -- the 'invisible hand' if you will -- to offset what he distrusted most in the system and the process: specifically, the unbridled greed and narcissism of businessmen.
I may be wrong. I am just starting to read an abridged version of The Wealth of Nations, and I have no background in economics except for seeing the way a particular business is run every day I go to work.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on. Most of it is pretty simple 'Narcissism 101'. There are good businesses and bad businesses, better businesses and worse one. The best ones pay their workers well, especially the ones they want to keep; the worst ones gouge everyone -- employee and customer alike -- for as long as they can get away with it and profitably stay in business.
I call 'Good Capitalism' -- Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical, Win-Win' Capitalism. Businessmen and women win, employees win, customers win.
The negative 'Narcissistic and Alienating side-effects' of 'Bad Capitalism' -- the stuff that Karl Marx 'went nuts against' -- that is, THE Karl Marx that most of America has learned to hate, that is, THE Karl Marx, the 'humanistic, raging pitbull' who would make Sarah Palin look tame by comparison but at least I can unreservedly call Karl Marx 'humanistic'; Sarah Palin I would really have to struggle to find her 'humanistic' side although I am sure it is there somewhere.
We have just started to 'deconstruct' Toxic Unbridled 21st Century Narcissistic Capitalism...and hopefully, 'reconstruct' a healthier brand of 'Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical, Win-Win Capitalism' from the first ones ashes...
I have quite a bit of reading to do as we continue this process. Rome wasn't built overnight. I don't think Rome was destroyed overnight either. Toxic narcissism just poisoned its way through Rome.
Roman Narcissism needed to be deconstructed and detoxified.
Rebuilt.
The same can be said for modern, 21st Century, Globalized, Narcissitic Capitalism.
The type of American Capitalism that believes in dismantling its 'home-grown, American manufacturing facilities' in order to re-build these same manufacturing facilities in countries with 'cheaper labour' in order to bring back 'bigger profits' for its investors...
This is Capitalism for the American manufacturing business owner, not for the American business employee.
This is Capitalism for Wall Street; not for Main Street.
But George Bush does not want to talk anything about 'Protectionism'.
Because George Bush wants to 'protect' the American manufacturing business owner; not the American business employee.
George Bush wants to protect Wall Street; not Main Street.
Because that is the Republican way.
Protect the business manufacturing investors on Wall Street because they provide the Main Corporate Lobbyists and Financiers that back the Republican Party.
'You scratch my back and I'll scratch your back.
You support me and I'll support you.
It's the Narcissistic Capitalist Way.
It's the Washington Way.
It's the Wall Street Way.
'Two out of three ain't bad'.
It worked pretty well,
Until this 'cuddly collusion between Washington and Wall Street' started to break down -- fortunately, before the election -- and turn into a 'toxic twosome' -- and a toxic bowl of American soup for everyone,
Before that,
The American Manufacturing Business Investors -- were 'winning'.
Before that, and before the most recent election, The Republican Party -- were 'winning'.
It was only the Main Street American People -- the manufacturing employees laid off in the dust of 'Global Capitalism' and the misled 'down the toxic garden path' mortgage consumers -- who were 'losing'.
And they weren't paying the Republican bills.
'Two out of three ain't bad.'
However, 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time'. I have to research who said that.
'I'll let you be in my dream if you let me be in yours.' Bob Dylan said that.
The Republicans are on their way out.
The Democrats are on their way in.
Wall Street obviously needs to be watched and regulated.
Washington obviously needs to be watched and regulated.
Main Street needs to be 'uplifted' and 'reinvigorated'...
So that they too can go back to chasing The American Dream.
Wall Street and Main Street need to be dialectically and democratically engaged.
Wall Street and Main Street need to be ethically engaged.
Wall Street and Main Street need to be humanistically and existentially engaged.
Wall Street and Main Street need to be constantly negotiating for 'win-win solutions'.
Not 'I win, you lose -- we are closing this manufacturing plant and building a new one overseas'.
Or 'I win, you lose -- sorry you lost your home.'
This is Toxic, Narcissistic Capitalism.
The contrast that I am starting to develop here is the essence of 'DGB Ethical, Win-Win, Capitalism'.
I do not pretend to be an economist.
I am a philosopher,
An idealist,
A realist,
A deconstructionist,
A reconstructionist,
An integrationist,
And I hope and believe -- like I think the American people hope and believe -- that Obama is of a similar mindset. He is heading the same direction -- towards a better integration of Wall Street and Main Street Capitalism.
I am looking for a type of Capitalism where 1. the government; 2. the bankers; 3. the business investors; 4. the business employees; and 5. the customers/consumers
-- can all play in the same ball game, all play by the same rules -- ethical rules with integrity and character behind them for one and for all; not greed, greed, and more unbridled greed by any one or more of the five participants.
We have a long way to go, a long way to rebuild,
But Rome wasn't re-built overnight.
As Obama said,
Don't expect any 'magic pills'.
It is going to take a while,
Everyone taking a good, honest look in the mirror,
And everyone working hard in the same direction.
For the good of the whole,
And each of the individual participants,
And/Or groups of participants,
That make up the whole.
Not the good of Me, Me, and More Me...
The type of 'self-love' that Adam Smith was talking about,
In the quote at the beginning of this essay,
Is the 'poison-pill' of Narcissistic, Global Capitalism,
Self-destructing on Wall Street -- and throughout America,
With reverberations being deeply felt around the world.
-- DGBN, November 23rd, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain.
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism.
-- Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process...
.....................................................................
Why Religions Exist: What Kind of God Do You Want To Worship? What Kind of God Do You Want To Be?
Religions exist for a number of reasons. Such as:
1. To help counter-act man's propensity for unbridled narcissism -- meaning, selfishness, greed, egotism, self-infatuation, etc.
2. To help explain the unexplainable -- such as Creation.
3. To compensate for a fear of death and dying -- and anxiously contemplating the great 'abyss of non-existence'.
4. To help compensate for, and alleviate, man's alienation -- from himself, from his family, from his friends, from his community, from his government, from his fellow man, from his work, from nature and his environment...
Unfortunately, religions often come with 'significant side-effects' -- like bad drugs -- and as such, they should also come with a great big 'Caveat Emptor' sign -- 'Buyer Beware!.
Here are some of the potential negative side-effects of religion, particularly 'pathological religions' -- religions that are bad for individuals and bad for the evolution, wholism, and harmony of mankind.
1. More and more religious, ethical, and moral righteousness at the expense of less and less tolerance and respect for the rights of others to hold different opinions, beliefs, faiths...
2. Loss of reason and rationality, observation and empiricism, common sense...
3. A propensity for not only extreme righteousness and intolerance but also even worse -- divisionism, hatred, and violence -- the very things that most religions say that they are trying to preach against...
4. A tendency towards 'religious dependence', giving up one's own uniqueness and indepedence, one's own critical, reasonable and rational faculties relative to what is right and wrong, good and bad, a tendency towards 'submission to religious authority, and to authority in general, a tendency towards 'dominance and submission' attitudes, and even 'sado-masochistic' attitudes...
5. A tendency towards 'self-denial', and towards an unhealthy attitude regarding 'Gods' and 'Idols'. This unhealthy -- non-humanistic-existential, non -democratic-dialectic -- attitude can be expressed something like this: I am nothing and you are everything. (See my various essays on 'Gods, Myths, Archetypes, and Idols'). The relevant passages in The Bible (The Ten Commandments) are these:
.............................................................................................................
Do not have any other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
..........................................................................................................................................................
These three passages are full of hypocrisy and pathology -- they exasperate religious and human intolerance, they demonize competing religions and Gods, and more than that, they in effect 'existentially castrate' and dehumanize man. They seek to turn grown men and women into helpless children, grown men and women facing the wrath of a Domineering, Sado-Masochist God -- throught the mediating over-righteous force of a priest or minister gone too far -- like a child confronting an authoritarian, anal-retentive, overbearing, righteous-angry, jealous, possessive parent.
This is no way to raise a child.
And it is no way to preach to a Congregation.
If we want to believe in God and religion, then we have the choice as individual and collective humans -- providing we don't believe in a God who wants to take away this freedom of choice -- to believe in the type of God and religion we want to.
I have a Protestant background.
My parents are good, religious people.
There are no better role models for the 'potential good in humanely practised orthodox religion' than my parents.
However, 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy' -- the name of my evolving, life-long philosophical treatise -- is aiming to do something different here.
My main 'spiritual-religious' role models are: Spinoza, Hegel, and Nietzsche.
From Spinoza, I take his very unorthodox Jewish brand of 'Spiritual-Romantic Pantheism and/or Deism'.
From Hegel, I take his theory of 'dialectic-evolution': thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- and start all over again, hopefully at a 'higher level of human evolution'.
From Nietzsche, I take his love of man and life, of helping to make men (and women) into 'Supermen' and 'Superwomen'. of looking inside us to 'find the God within each and everyone of us'.
Is the God within us a God of assertiveness, reason and rationality, passion and compassion, love of life, love for man and nature, for embracing love, life, and nature?
Or is the God within us full of rage and hate, divisionism and violence, jealousy and possessiveness, destroying people, destroying mankind?
Most religions and preachers have it completely wrong.
Man is not helpless and dependent in the face of God.
Unless we wish to equate God with Nature, and Nature with God.
Which is not a bad idea at all. Indeed, it is an unorthodox Spinozian Pantheist spiritual-religious position.
God is in Nature and Nature is in God. God is in man, and man is in God. God is everywhere and everything. Spinoza said that. (And he was 'ex-communicated' -- it could have been worse -- by the Holland Jewish religious orthodoxy for saying that. Even though the Holland Jews were fleeing the onslaught of the Spanish Inquisition where I believe it was the Spanish Roman Catholics who were torturing and killing Jews who only wanted the 'freedom to think and practise their own brand of religion'. Hypocrisy -- thy name is 'Narcissistic-Righteous Man'.
Certainly, to some extent, man can be helpless in the face of Nature.
But not entirely. If we kill Nature, then Nature will kill us. Because there will be no 'God-Nature' left to support us.
God is man. And man is God.
The two are inter-connected.
Dialectically and democratically connected.
Nietzsche said that 'God is dead'.
I say that 'God is very much alive -- and living inside of man.'
It is only a question of 'What kind of God we choose to be'.
And 'what kind of God we choose to worship'.
A God of love.
Or a God of war.
A God of 'Narcissisitic, Unethical Capitalism'.
Or a God of 'Ethical, Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism'.
A God of Authoritarianism, Jealousy, Possessiveness, Hypocrisy, Rage, and Righteousness...
Or a God of Reason and Rationality, Passion and Compassion, Self-Assertiveness and Social Sensitivity, Embracing Enlightenment Principles, Embracing Romantic Principles, Embracing Humanistic-Existential Principles, Embracing Ethical and Moral Principles that are good for us as well as being good for others...
It is your God.
And your Religion. Or non-religion.
It is your life.
You choose.
-- DGBN, Nov. 23rd, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process...
1. To help counter-act man's propensity for unbridled narcissism -- meaning, selfishness, greed, egotism, self-infatuation, etc.
2. To help explain the unexplainable -- such as Creation.
3. To compensate for a fear of death and dying -- and anxiously contemplating the great 'abyss of non-existence'.
4. To help compensate for, and alleviate, man's alienation -- from himself, from his family, from his friends, from his community, from his government, from his fellow man, from his work, from nature and his environment...
Unfortunately, religions often come with 'significant side-effects' -- like bad drugs -- and as such, they should also come with a great big 'Caveat Emptor' sign -- 'Buyer Beware!.
Here are some of the potential negative side-effects of religion, particularly 'pathological religions' -- religions that are bad for individuals and bad for the evolution, wholism, and harmony of mankind.
1. More and more religious, ethical, and moral righteousness at the expense of less and less tolerance and respect for the rights of others to hold different opinions, beliefs, faiths...
2. Loss of reason and rationality, observation and empiricism, common sense...
3. A propensity for not only extreme righteousness and intolerance but also even worse -- divisionism, hatred, and violence -- the very things that most religions say that they are trying to preach against...
4. A tendency towards 'religious dependence', giving up one's own uniqueness and indepedence, one's own critical, reasonable and rational faculties relative to what is right and wrong, good and bad, a tendency towards 'submission to religious authority, and to authority in general, a tendency towards 'dominance and submission' attitudes, and even 'sado-masochistic' attitudes...
5. A tendency towards 'self-denial', and towards an unhealthy attitude regarding 'Gods' and 'Idols'. This unhealthy -- non-humanistic-existential, non -democratic-dialectic -- attitude can be expressed something like this: I am nothing and you are everything. (See my various essays on 'Gods, Myths, Archetypes, and Idols'). The relevant passages in The Bible (The Ten Commandments) are these:
.............................................................................................................
Do not have any other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
..........................................................................................................................................................
These three passages are full of hypocrisy and pathology -- they exasperate religious and human intolerance, they demonize competing religions and Gods, and more than that, they in effect 'existentially castrate' and dehumanize man. They seek to turn grown men and women into helpless children, grown men and women facing the wrath of a Domineering, Sado-Masochist God -- throught the mediating over-righteous force of a priest or minister gone too far -- like a child confronting an authoritarian, anal-retentive, overbearing, righteous-angry, jealous, possessive parent.
This is no way to raise a child.
And it is no way to preach to a Congregation.
If we want to believe in God and religion, then we have the choice as individual and collective humans -- providing we don't believe in a God who wants to take away this freedom of choice -- to believe in the type of God and religion we want to.
I have a Protestant background.
My parents are good, religious people.
There are no better role models for the 'potential good in humanely practised orthodox religion' than my parents.
However, 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy' -- the name of my evolving, life-long philosophical treatise -- is aiming to do something different here.
My main 'spiritual-religious' role models are: Spinoza, Hegel, and Nietzsche.
From Spinoza, I take his very unorthodox Jewish brand of 'Spiritual-Romantic Pantheism and/or Deism'.
From Hegel, I take his theory of 'dialectic-evolution': thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- and start all over again, hopefully at a 'higher level of human evolution'.
From Nietzsche, I take his love of man and life, of helping to make men (and women) into 'Supermen' and 'Superwomen'. of looking inside us to 'find the God within each and everyone of us'.
Is the God within us a God of assertiveness, reason and rationality, passion and compassion, love of life, love for man and nature, for embracing love, life, and nature?
Or is the God within us full of rage and hate, divisionism and violence, jealousy and possessiveness, destroying people, destroying mankind?
Most religions and preachers have it completely wrong.
Man is not helpless and dependent in the face of God.
Unless we wish to equate God with Nature, and Nature with God.
Which is not a bad idea at all. Indeed, it is an unorthodox Spinozian Pantheist spiritual-religious position.
God is in Nature and Nature is in God. God is in man, and man is in God. God is everywhere and everything. Spinoza said that. (And he was 'ex-communicated' -- it could have been worse -- by the Holland Jewish religious orthodoxy for saying that. Even though the Holland Jews were fleeing the onslaught of the Spanish Inquisition where I believe it was the Spanish Roman Catholics who were torturing and killing Jews who only wanted the 'freedom to think and practise their own brand of religion'. Hypocrisy -- thy name is 'Narcissistic-Righteous Man'.
Certainly, to some extent, man can be helpless in the face of Nature.
But not entirely. If we kill Nature, then Nature will kill us. Because there will be no 'God-Nature' left to support us.
God is man. And man is God.
The two are inter-connected.
Dialectically and democratically connected.
Nietzsche said that 'God is dead'.
I say that 'God is very much alive -- and living inside of man.'
It is only a question of 'What kind of God we choose to be'.
And 'what kind of God we choose to worship'.
A God of love.
Or a God of war.
A God of 'Narcissisitic, Unethical Capitalism'.
Or a God of 'Ethical, Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism'.
A God of Authoritarianism, Jealousy, Possessiveness, Hypocrisy, Rage, and Righteousness...
Or a God of Reason and Rationality, Passion and Compassion, Self-Assertiveness and Social Sensitivity, Embracing Enlightenment Principles, Embracing Romantic Principles, Embracing Humanistic-Existential Principles, Embracing Ethical and Moral Principles that are good for us as well as being good for others...
It is your God.
And your Religion. Or non-religion.
It is your life.
You choose.
-- DGBN, Nov. 23rd, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
