Email Feedback From One of My Readers -- Paul Baioni -- on Essay 18.2.

Introduction,

Paul and I have had -- and still have -- our differences of opinion mainly on the issue of 'freewill vs. determinism' but I enjoy his counter-arguments and differences of opinion just the same. Here is a sample of his style and content of philosophical argument. Also, I thank Paul for keeping up with his emails not only for the content of his feedback, and the development of his own ideas, but also -- and yes this is a 'narcissistic reason' -- partly because as in this case, I have accidently lost or deleted one of my essays, or an old version of one of my essays and then been able to recover it again through our emails. db

.....................................................................................

Hello Dave,

Whoa, I think you need a break!!!! Just kidding. You asked more
questions
than I believe you answered for sure. I have read it once, and will
read it
again. I can follow this, mostly at least, because I am not as
intimately
familiar with the works and teachings of these philosophers and such as
you
are. Even though I have only a partial understanding, I can grasp the
concepts rather easily and can understand the dilemma that you are
questioning. And in that light I would like to respond in my own rather
simplified way of reasoning and understanding of man and our existence.
Of
course you know my position, and I know yours, contrasting styles in
many
ways, not only in presentation but also conceptually.

You reference God in such a variety of ways that you definitely are
struggling with the concept of his existence. You even to some extent
question his existence. God is alive, God is everything, God is dead,
and
God is nothing. Does that clear it up for you????? Let me explain if I
can
in a more detailed way.

God is alive in the sense that he plays a very important role in our
society. God(s) has/have been the explanation for everything that man
in his
limited wisdom has been unable to explain. If I don't know, it must be
God
sent, or created by God, or at the hands of God, or the work of God.
God has
also been associated with everything that man considers good, just as
the
Devil is associated with evil. Blind faith in God is a very strong
influence
for man. A belief, especially a strong one, no matter what the source
is, or
its verifiability, its origin, SP, IP, religion or whatever, is real to
man
and drives man's actions. Based on the fact that he exerts such a
strong
indirect influence in society, he is very much alive.

God is everything. God is responsible for everything that we know,
everything we see, feel, dream, every experience, and every event in
our
lives. God is responsible for the evolution of everything in man's
existence, good, evil, finite, infinite, pleasure and pain, physical
and
mental, therefore being the creator, his is everything that evolution
has
produced. He is all positive and negative energies. Polar concepts just
like
so many other things in our lives. God is also the energy that drives
it
all, the light, electromagnetic, sound, and every other influence that
the
scientists have been able to discover, conceptualize and those they
have yet
to imagine. It all ties together to form our existence. God truly is
everything. God is Nature, not just earthly nature, but the natural
order of
things, physics laws, etc.

God is dead. In man's limited understanding of our existence, God is
totally
an indirect influence, he is a creator, but not a controller. By not
having
direct influence, he could easily be considered dead. We can not
imagine his
being, we can not understand his power or influence. We truly do not
know
God for what he really is. Failing to understand, failing to define,
failing
to find any verifiable evidence of his existence, in human terms God is
dead. Do we have any physical evidence to support anything that has
been
conceived to be God?

God is nothing. There is no God except as having been defined by
scripture.
His influence is only imaginary, that is, being only an influence
because
man has defined him as an influence in many ways through the
scriptures. He
has basically only been defined in man's mind. God neither controls nor
manipulates anything. He is purely creation, that is all. By
definition,
things without influence of any kind are deemed non-existent, for every
other known thing in our existence exerts influence of some kind. A
vacuum,
void of any element of any kind is considered sterile, nothingness,
much
like the vast majority of space found in our universe.

Religion is philosophy, both are based on pure beliefs, faith,
conceptualizations of the unproveable. Politics and law are man created
philosophies, but based on the individual IP's of those that created
them,
similar to religion except that religion is based on perceptions of an
unknown, while politics and law are based more upon a democratic
process of
creation. Science is also based on perceptions, but grounded in
empirical
evidence, thereby differentiating it from religion which is based upon
conjecture. Lacking in many ways a democratic process of creation, it
also
differs from politics and law. They are similar in the respect to the
influence they carry on our beliefs, our IP, and SP in general. All are
intricate to the creation of all other philosophies, individual and
social.

Man's is an emotional and mental mess, driven by so many humanly
natural
desires which are all based on what we consider polar concepts. The
internal
struggle is very real for it is based on our beliefs, real or
imaginary, and
they are what drive our IP and our resulting actions and our paths in
life.
This is the basis of all human existence. To say that any one is better
or
worse than another is purely subjective, for they are all natural and
all
purely human desires and emotions. To grade them as good or bad is to
measure them in light of SP. SP exists in all forms with extremely
varying
concepts. To Americans, SP is grounded in totally different
fundamentals
than anywhere else in the world. All SPs are developed from collective
IP of
their creators, so each is based on equal ground. So how can we stand
in
judgment of SP's that are different from our own? Were they not created
from
the same source, from the same creator, God, since he is ultimately
responsible for our entire existence? Does he judge one over another?
Does
he not influence the creation of all, dare I say through the natural
evolution of everything? So how can we judge what he does not? Man is
the
embodiment of all desires, yes I agree with you on that, and that is
such a
natural thing that we dare not argue with that, but is that bad or
wrong? I
say not!!!!!!

Does that mean I have to accept everything that is against what I
believe?
No again. My IP is my personal guide, just as with everyone else. If I
perceive injustice, it is my choice to react or to let live. If the
injustice is such that I feel the need to react, to counteract the pain
created for others, then that is my prerogative, just as everyone has
the
choice to act according to their own IP.

Humans are perfect. Humans are terribly flawed. Humans are everything
that
we are, nothing more or less than we were created to be. We live as we
must,
and die when we will. We have little control over our birth and almost
as
little control over our death. We live, we breathe, we learn, we
develop, we
are inhabited by an IP that is created and formulated from genetics and
environment, and it guides our actions until one day we live no more.
This
totally natural process occurs mostly with minimal control. We suffer,
we
rejoice, we feel for others while ignoring most of what happens around
us,
we exist in a world that could end through no fault of our own. Our
time is
limited, highly controlled by nature, and in that respect we are
terribly
flawed.

I have read your poem, "God is the Bridge." You basically admit to the
fact
that everything is connected. You talked about an absolute, a meaning
to it
all, the essence of our existence, which is basically the concept that
I
have tried to impress upon you from the beginning. Everything is
connected
through nature. Man, earth, God and the entire universe. There is a
bridge
and it is a very simple concept, the absolute meaning of it all.
Everything
you wrote is true, you just can't seem to take the final leap and give
up
the notion of control. To be totally connected, to be totally equal, to
be
totally bridged, we must come to a single thread of truth about our
existence. All men were created equal, in fact, everything in our
existence
was created equally, all emotions and desires are equal, all are
evolved,
all are uncontrollable (in a very basic sense), and all interact in a
way
that drives our existence, our evolution, our creation and our demise.
If
you take away any single part of our existence, things will change, the
evolution will be altered and forever cast in a new light. It doesn't
matter
what that thing is, it impacts. Our thoughts will change, our beliefs
will
be altered, our actions will shift, and all this shifts the evolution
for
everyone. Every single action is accounted for, every single thought is
accounted for, every single physical/natural event is accounted for and
it
all occurs in the same natural environment known as the evolution of
our
existence.

But you are wrong about one statement you made. It takes two to start a
war,
not just one. If I have something you want, and I am not willing to
give it
to you voluntarily, then I am contributing to the war. If I have
beliefs
that make it impossible for me to cede control or to give up, then I am
also
creating the war. For if you hit me, and I do not hit back, there would
be
no war. So to say that one person can create war is wrong. Many people
tried
to create war on Jesus, and his apostles, but without retaliatory
efforts,
there was no war. This sometimes leads to an extermination effort, such
as
the Jews in Germany, or the Crusades, or many other similar actions by
insane humans, but that is not war. Just like they say it takes two to
tango, it takes two to start a war. I could go much deeper into this,
but
time does not permit that here.

You fear that you may be considered an evangelist (maybe an
exaggeration),
but when you consider that you are attempting to influence people
concerning
concepts that are highly personal in nature, the way we feel, what we
believe, then yes you could be considered in that light. When you try
to
tell others that what they are doing or what they believe or feel is
wrong,
then you are seen in a very similar light. If you hold yourself to a
strictly objective level and present facts without judgment (for that
is a
very personal and subjective thing) then you will be okay. You can
influence
without criticism, for people get defensive when you tell them that
what
they believe is wrong, or bad. Do not insult someone's intelligence by
telling them that their personal beliefs are wrong, let them figure it
out
for themselves. If I read what you write and am influenced by it, then
that
is okay, but don't ever tell me what to believe or that what I believe
is
wrong, at least not directly. Stay objective, present facts and let
people
do with that information what they want, or what they will.

God and nature are one in the same, man is a byproduct of those forces
that
were created billions of years ago, by whom, or what I do not know. But
I do
believe that everything has all evolved and is continually evolving,
being
and becoming. We never will be, we are always becoming.

Personally, I rather enjoyed reading through your personal dilemma. Is
that
morbid for me to enjoy your personal struggle? I think it is wonderful
that
you are curious enough to push the envelope of our limited
comprehension,
seeking enlightenment. You crave knowledge and understanding and that
is a
great personal attribute to have. The struggle of comprehension is the
pain
which makes the gains all that more enjoyable, for without
understanding
suffering, we know not joy. I, like you, understand the connection
between
conflict, the challenging dialectic that builds bridges of
understanding.
The greater the bridge, the closer we get to the "absolute". Keep up
the
construction, one day you may find what gives you peace, the inner
peace
that comes from an ultimate understanding of our existence. In that
search
somewhere, you will realize the importance that acceptance of the
uncontrollable plays in that. I may hold different beliefs, but my
level of
inner peace is very high, and that is what all humans seek, for with
that
comes the ability to be happy, to grow, expand and reach our true
potential.
The negatives surrounding the unknown fade and all energies are focused
on
positive growth and greater peace.

Did I grasp your concepts well enough, I could have addressed each
statement
individually, but I felt that I understood enough to cover my response
in a
broader sense. Was I right or did I miss the whole point?

Good luck and back to you,
Paul


.....................................................................................




The main purpose of any humanistic religion -- as I see it -- is to counter-balance man's propensity for selfishness, greed, excess, egotism and narcissism with the opposite characteristics such as altruism, caring, love, generosity, helping people who are struggling, moderation, ethics and morality. Much of this is supposed to be taught in families and at school as well being demonstrated by good role models in society such as politicians. But as religion loses power and narcissism gains power - espcially when kids see narcissism rampant at home with parents who are not getting along and/or not spending enough time at home, all of the characteristics designed to counteract human narcissism start to lose their power as well. Humanism dies the more narcissism prevails. There are two types of 'anti-humanism'. One is the anti-humanism of 'self-denial'. The second is the anti-humanism of 'narcissistic excess'. Both need to be balanced in the middle by a combination of 'self-assertiveness' and 'social sensitivity'.

Religion is still feeling the fallout of Nietzsche. Nietzsche bombarded Christiianity and Judaism with his criticisms of a 'religious herd morality' and 'the preaching of self-denial' in this life in order to atone for 'original sin' and to be accepted by God into a much better 'afterlife'. Nietzsche in particular and humanists in general protested that this was all 'balderdash' - and a waste of human life. Individualism and enjoying this life should be the ideal; not the condemned. Gradually, people took more and more heed, and orthodox religion lost more and more power.

However, as Hegel has written, and I am partly paraphrasing, 'Any theory, any philosophy, any lifestyle, any religion carries with it the seeds of its own destruction'. The limitations, weaknesses, hypocrisies, and anti-humanism of religion was exposed by Nietzsche but so too is the philosophy of Nietzsche and current Western culture and society showing all the limitations, weaknesses, hypocrisies, and anti-humanism of too much Nietzsche and too much narcissism. Ethical narcissism is leading us to to the brink of ethical nihilism.

The solution to the problem is simpler in theory than it is in practice: balance. I will try to capture the spirit of this balance and the spirit of 'humanistic religion, spirituality, deism, and/or pantheism' in the following poem that I wrote a few years ago and have been updating ever since. It is called: 'God Is The Bridge'. It idealizes balance as the 'bridge and the zone of health between pathological extremes'.

Second Paper on Gap Humanistic-Existential Pantheism

Those who dwell...among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. . . Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. The more clearly we can focus our attention on
the wonders and realities of the universe about us,
the less taste we shall have for destruction.
Rachel Carson




In dealing with the religion one has been taught, one has a number of choices -- and this goes, not only for religion, but for everything that one has every been taught. The formula that follows incidentally, is predominantly a Gestalt formula, which is a modification of some earlier Freudian (Psychoanalytic) ideas. One can/could also easily turn or construe this in Hegelian terms as a 'Hegelian evolutionary-learning formula' as well: 1. 'Introjection' (thesis): Simply 'swallow whole' everything one has been taught and don't challenge anything that one has been taught; 2. Rebellion and Rejection (anti-thesis): Rebel against and reject everything that one has been taught -- and in essence, 'throw it all back up again, out one's mouth', because one has come to the conclusion that it is all toxic and pathological, and has not one iota of 'nutritional value'; 3. Assimilation (integration, synthesis): One 'chews' and 'absorbs' the beliefs that one concludes are 'nutritional' while 'spitting back up and out' the beliefs that one concludes are 'toxic and pathological'.

Everything that I have written, and will continue to write, in this philosophical process and system (structure) follows this basic formula -- that is why this philosophical venue is partly called 'Hegel's Hotel'. I follow classic Hegelian dialectical theory in my thinking -- with some 'humanistic-existential and non-deterministic' modifications -- which makes me a 'post-Hegelian philosopher'.

So here is the number one problem: How do I fit 'non-secular' ideas and beliefs into a 'secular philosophical process and system' -- or is attempting to do this in itself a 'pathological process' because it defies 'secular, empirical sensory validation and reasoning'? For you 'hard line secular-empirical philosophers' out there who choose to completely reject any form or type of religion that defies standard secular-empirical -epistemological principle -- and from this, choose to become either 'atheist' (don't believe in God) or 'agnostic' (have no way of proving or not proving the existence or non-existence of God), I have no problem with either of your philosophical positions. Because from a strictly 'secular, empirical, epistemological' point of view -- the point of view that has been the foundation of both our democratic system of science and medicine, and our system of law, going back at least to the 'Enlightenment' period of Western philosophy. (See both the internet 'Wikipedia' articles on the Enlightenment, and a very good synopsis of the history of the Enlightenment by Paul Brians -- underneath the Wikipedia articles (Google) Created by Paul Brians March 11, 1998. Last revised May 18, 2000. This gives a very good background on much of the 'humanistic-existential' philosophical historical tradition that is central to my own evolution of philosophical thought development -- and as such, is creating the impetus here and now to 'reconcile and integrate' these ideas with my orthodox but very liberal rendition of the Protestant beliefs that come from my family background.

View these ideas to come as being very formative, in their infancy, if you will, as I struggle to find a 'spiritual and/or religious' position that is consistent with my post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean multi-dialectical, humanistic-existential, philosophical position. For those of you who are strongly religious in an orthodox, traditional way, you do not have to read what is to follow. You can spit my ideas out if you don't like them. Or -- if you are struggling with your own sense of 'spiritual-religous self' and are looking for some form of integrationism between 'secular-empirical, Enlightenment-Romantic philosophy' and more traditional spiritual-religous beliefs and values -- much like what Spinoza was doing in his time, and perhaps even before that, Heraclitus in his time -- then maybe you will find something below that is provocative, inspiring, innovative, and/or just some kind of quasi 'spiritual-philosophical foundation' that you can rest your head on and/or build from. Welcome to a new area of evolution in my post-Hegelian philosophical thought. This is not for the Conservative-minded.

Firstly, the main problem I have with most contemporary, hardline, orthodox religions is this:

Their appeal to the unchallenged authoritarianism -- and often the 'sado-maschocistic delivery and moral enforcement' -- of the Church, its rulers, its customs, its supposed 'revealers of the words of God' (i.e, the Pope, priests, ministers, evangelists, and the like) at the expense of what i would call more 'humanistic-existential and Enlightenment-Romantic' beliefs and values.

Now let me be very clear on this next point: sometimes, indeed oftentimes, traditional orthodox religous values and humanistic-existential, Enlightement-Romantic values are very compatible and interchangeable with each other -- especially in such areas as: 'loving, caring, altruism, generosity, helping others, particularly helping those who are struggling in whatever way, family values, and so on...'

Where traditional, orthodox religions and proponents of humanistic-existential, Enlightenment-Romantic values tend to split company -- not totally but to a significant degree -- is in such inter-related areas as: hedonism, narcissism, sex and sexuality, sensuality, egotism, individualism, rebelliousness, 'living in the here-and-now -- and enjoying it' -- and the like.

For most proponents of humanistic-existential and Enlightenment-Romantic values, I would say that there is generally much more of a 'liberal-mindedness, an acceptance and/or a tolerance' of a significant degree of the types of 'narcissistic-hedonistic' activities mentioned above that is not generally nearly as accepted and/or tolerated as by most orthodox religions.

The reason is simple: the orthodox religions know as well as anyone -- or better -- that human narcissim and hedonism can, when it is taken too far, be the root of much human evil, destructiveness, and self-destructiveness.

However, paradoxically, hedonism and narcissism can also be the core of much human pleasure and enjoyment in living. To eliminate all forms of human hedonism and narcissism from living -- which I would say is next to impossible because they are 'hard-wired' into us -- arguably by 'God', perhaps partly for reasons of continuing Creation and Evolution (would anyone -- or nearly as many people, as often -- have sexual intercourse if the experience was generally 'painful'?).

Thus, proponents of orthodox religious beliefs and values have, can, and do, come into conflict with proponents of Humanistic-Existential-Romantic-Enlightenment beliefs and values (let's short form this and call the latter types 'HERE' types) over the extent of how much 'hedonism' and 'narcissism' should play a part in people's 'normal, moral, day-to-day behavior and living'.

How do we resolve this conflict? Or do we?

The argument goes a long way back -- back to the 14th and 15th century. I cite the Paul Brians article from the internet mentioned above:

.......................................................................................

The Renaissance Humanists

In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and France a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary political debate. Almost all of them were practicing Catholics. They argued that the proper worship of God involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that crown of creation: humanity. By celebrating the human race and its capacities they argued they were worshiping God more appropriately than gloomy priests and monks who harped on original sin and continuously called upon people to confess and humble themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that humans were like God, created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative power. The painter, the architect, the musician, and the scholar, by exercising their intellectual powers, were fulfilling divine purposes.


This celebration of human capacity, though it was mixed in the Renaissance with elements of gloom and superstition (witchcraft trials flourished in this period as they never had during the Middle Ages), was to bestow a powerful legacy on Europeans. The goal of Renaissance humanists was to recapture some of the pride, breadth of spirit, and creativity of the ancient Greeks and Romans, to replicate their successes and go beyond them. Europeans developed the belief that tradition could and should be used to promote change. By cleaning and sharpening the tools of antiquity, they could reshape their own time.


.....................................................................................


This shows that humanism (or humanistic-existentialism) and religion do not need to be divorced from each other but often are divorced from each other on matters of what it means -- and/or should mean -- to be human.

The philosophical problem for me becomes: how do I philosophically, morally, and spiritually reconcile and/or integrate -- if this is possible -- Nietzsche, religion, humanism, and existentialism? And how do I reconcile and/or integrate -- again if this is possible -- Nietzsche's most infamous and provocative philosophical assertion, 'God is dead!', with religion, spirituality, humanism, and humanistic-existentialism?

Let me get a number of Gap-DGBN definitions onto paper and working as a backdrop here as quickly as possible:

1. 'Gap' refers to the 'void(s)', the 'abyss(es)' in human existence, in human philosophy, in truth, in ethics, in all of human life and culture...The term 'gap' was first taken from a Gestalt book by Fritz Perls where he said -- and I am paraphrasing here because it could take me a while to find the exact quote (it was about 20 years ago that I read it) -- that his form of psychotherapy (Gestalt Therapy) basically dealt with diagnosing and dialectically working with the 'gaps in peoples lives and personalities'.

2. 'DGBN' is an acronym partly for: 1. my name; 2. 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations' (which is what I am doing here in this essay as well in most of my other essays); and 3. 'Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism' which is my main lament and criticism against Western culture.

3. 'Humanism' in Gap-DGBN Philosophy refers to 'compassion', 'empathy', 'sensitivity', 'altruism', 'love', 'generosity', 'caring' in human philosophy and human behavior;

4. 'Existentialism' in Gap-DGBN Philosophy refers to the 'accountability' of each and everyone of us to our own 'selfhood', and a 'willingness to take responsibility for own own thoughts, feelings, actions, and lack of actions, capabilities, potentialities, limitations, failures, successes...and 'bridging the gap between being and becoming' both in our personal lives and ideally in the betterment of mankind...

5. Humanistic-existentialism integrates the best of both capitalist and socialist ideology and idealism -- human self-assertiveness and individuality with human compassion, sensitivity, and caring about others.


Now where does Nietzsche fit in the scheme of these definitions? I would call Nietzsche a full blown existentialist (individualist) but not a humanist in the sense that Nietzsche did not philosophically, or in his own life, show much, if any, support for human empathy, compassion, altruism, caring about others, etc. His was a very 'un-compassionate' philosophy -- Capitalist-narcissistic-conservative ideology and idealism both at its best in terms of its existential-individualistic values and its worst in terms of its hard line narcissistic-ultra-Darwinian idea of 'who cares if you walk over your neighbor and what he or she wants as long as you get what you want'. Nietzsche -- even if he was totally against Nazism, German Nationalism, and Antisemitism -- still did/does not sound like he was a very compassionate, caring, humanistic person. It was all about Nietzsche and his own personal and philosophical brand of narcissism. From what From what I have read, he fell significantly in love at least twice, maybe three times -- and does not seem to have much success in love -- spurned twice in two different marriage proposals with two different women (1. a young Dutch woman, Mathilde Trampedach, in 1876; and 2. a young Russian girl, Lou Andreas-Salome, in 1882, who later became an intimate of Freud); and -- perhaps he even fell in love with Richard Wagner's wife Cosima -- see Alan Ryan's short essay on the internet, 'The Will To Madness', January 24th, 1999...


The Will to Madness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story of Friedrich Nietzsche's fateful relationship with Richard and Cosima Wagner.
By ALAN RYAN



....................................................................................


Nietzsche was not without friends but for the most part he was a usually physically sick and, from most accounts, was a psychologically lonely man who perhaps -- and this is my interpretation -- compensated for some of the core of his deficiencies in health and love -- with a very compelling, charismatic, articulate intellect 'that blew most, if not all, of his academic and non-academic competitors and adversaries away'. He did indeed create a philosophical earthquake of the highest proportions in both in Western philosophy, psychology, and Western culture as a whole, starting in the late 19th century -- and with us ever since -- the repercussions and fallout of which we are still very much feeling today. Did Nietzsche 'free' us from 'oppressive, anti-humanistic, anti-self-oriented religion, only to condemn us to a polar opposite and equally oppressive and bad life of -- 'self-infatuated, anti-compassionate, narcissism'?

Once again, Anaxamander's Fragment (and Law) comes to mind -- the 'Case of the Swinging Pendulum' -- black and white, male and female, religious and anti-religious, bourgeois and the proletariat forces will never be or become totally divorced from each other, as hard as they might try, as much as they each might vie and fight for their own particular and 'unique form of philosophical and narcissistic lifestyle supremacy' (or 'will to power'), first one taking the spotlight while the other is in the shadows, then a 'reversal of fortunes' while the tide turns or the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, and what was bright is now dim, what was dim is now bright, what was up is now down, what was down is now up....always consciously or unconsciously, purposely or non-purposely, freely or deterministically, looking for that perfect, mystical, mythical dialectical union...that oasis of life, or is it a mirage...like the perfect sexual, emotional, and spiritual intercourse...before the perfect union is over...every good thing has to come to an end sooner or later...and if you hang onto what was once a 'perfect union' for too long because you are afraid to lose it...which you inevitably will...you develop what Fritz Perls called a 'hanging on bite' which is no longer 'good contact' but rather 'pathological, symbiotic confluence' because everything and everyone must go through the natural life process of 'contact' and 'withdrawl' (the Gestalt therapists call this process 'organismic self-regulation') and 'too much of anything for too long is a bad thing...it's eventually going to turn stale, stagnant, and/or toxic'...everything and everyone is 'in flux' (Heraclitus)...and eventually everything and everyone in contact with something or someone else is going to have to go through a temporary or permanent state of withdrawl and individuation again...either in health and/or in pathology...only to hopefully and ideally come back together again stronger and more united than ever...this is my own Gap-DGBN integrative (post-Anaxamanderian, post-Heraclitean, post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, post-Christian brand of philosophical, psychological, political and religious-spiritual ideology and idealism. Nietzsche and Christianity (narcissism and altruism) need to meet in the middle. Divorced from each other they are both intolerable. Same too with Plato and Aristotle. Same too with the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Same too with Apollo and Dionysus. Same too with Adam Smith and Marx (Capitalism and Socialism), Conservativism and Liberalism. Same too with 'superego' and 'id', 'personna' and 'shadow', 'topdog' and 'underdog'...humanism and existentialism. For each belief, value, goal, and action, there is a counter-belief, counter-value, counter-goal, and counter-action. For each philosophy there is a counter-philosophy. The 'truth' and the 'ethics' of it all usually somewhere between the 'swinging pendulums of human extremism and righteousness'. Gap-DGBN Philosophy, through the reincarnation and embellishment of Anaxamander's Fragment and Law, and through Hegel's Hotel, is -- if you permit my boldness and partial egotism (I have played the 'underdog' a lot more in life than I have played the 'topdog') -- here to show you the way.

dgbn, Feb. 18th, 2007.