Metaphysical Categories, DGBN (Post-Hegelian) Philosophy, and The Dialectical Force of Man-Nature-God (Updated Dec. 18/19th, 2008)

Sometimes it can be rather amusing to look at the supposed 'differences' between philosophy and psychology.

Philosophy -- at least 'Deconstructive, Post-Modern' Philosophy' -- often seeks to 'deconstruct' what psychology has 'constructed'. I am thinking mainly of the type of Deconstructive Philosophy that David Hume 'created for himself' and other radical philosophical skeptics to follow in his footsteps -- where, for example, he denied the 'existence' of what is usually taken for granted in the realm of psychology -- 'The Self'.

What's with this?

Well, Hume's 'deconstructive logic' -- as much as you or I might feel like strangling him at times -- does carry some epistemological weight.

However, if you follow it where Hume took it, then you will be left with very little 'so-called knowledge' left to carry around in your mind because in Hume's philosophy practically every generalization becomes 'un-generalized'.

Indeed, in Humean philosophy, not even the 'mind' or at least the 'self' is construed to exist.

In effect, all generalizations are to be distrusted and disbanded because 'if you can't see them, then they don't exist'. Essentially, Humean Philosophy -- as well as being the logical extension and application of 'empiricism taken to the limit and beyond...('radical empiricism') -- was basically also the philosophical bridge between Heraclites' brand of pre-Socratic ancient Greek Philosophy ('You can't step into the same river twice') and the radical empirical philosophy-psychology of 'Behaviorism' that was to follow Hume into the 20th century as developed mainly by B.F. Skinner.


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

From the internet...(Google: Greek Philosophy, Heraclitus...)

Heraclitus, along with Parmenides, is probably the most significant philosopher of ancient Greece until Socrates and Plato; in fact, Heraclitus's philosophy is perhaps even more fundamental in the formation of the European mind than any other thinker in European history, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Why? Heraclitus, like Parmenides, postulated a model of nature and the universe which created the foundation for all other speculation on physics and metaphysics. The ideas that the universe is in constant change and that there is an underlying order or reason to this change—the Logos—form the essential foundation of the European world view. Everytime you walk into a science, economics, or political science course, to some extent everything you do in that class originates with Heraclitus's speculations on change and the Logos.


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

From Wikipedia (Google: B.F.Skinner)

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an influential American psychologist, author, inventor, advocate for social reform [1][2]and poet.[3] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.[4] He invented the operant conditioning chamber, innovated his own philosophy of science called Radical Behaviorism,[5] and founded his own school of experimental research psychology – the experimental analysis of behavior. His analysis of human behavior culminated in his work Verbal Behavior, which has recently seen enormous increase in interest experimentally and in applied settings.[6] He discovered and advanced the rate of response as a dependent variable in psychological research. He invented the cumulative recorder to measure rate of responding as part of his highly influential work on schedules of reinforcement.[7] [8] In a recent survey, Skinner was listed as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.[9] He was a prolific author, publishing 21 books and 180 articles.[10] [11]

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

Following 'Humean-Skinnerian logic' -- You may be able to see your 'physical, empirical self' if you look at a mirror but if you look at the same mirror you are not going to see your 'Psychological Self' -- therefore -- empirically speaking at least -- your psychological self does not exist.

The same goes for such Freudian concepts as 'Ego' and 'Id' and 'Superego'. If you can't see them, then they don't exist.

Of course back in Hume's day, they couldn't see 'bacteria' and 'viruses' but that was not to say that they didn't exist. Things and living entities that you don't see can still kill you -- indeed, they are probably more dangerous in the fact that they are not seen such as 'the car you don't see'. Or the mugger you don't see...

In philosophy, you learn about 'epistemology' (the study of knowledge) whereas in Freudian -- or Post-Freudian -- Psychology, you learn about 'Central Ego Function' --and then you would probably proceed to start studying 'epistemology' as one of the main 'ego functions or processes' within the confines of 'The Central Ego'.

In other words, in psychology, it is almost like we 'need' to 'invent internal structural systems' -- kind of like 'organs in the mind' -- except that there is no, physical empirical basis on which to believe that these 'ego structures' actually exist except as 'mythological entities' much like 'Gods' -- with the same intended purpose: to explain things which are otherwise difficult if not downright impossible to explain.

It would be easy to argue -- and I will take up this argument again on behalf of David Hume -- that this is one of man's central 'mental features or characteristics': making up 'things' or 'structures' that don't exist -- or worded another way -- 'turning physical or psychological processes (Would Hume even accept the existence of 'psychological and/or epistemological processes? -- you can't see them!) into non-existent, and totally man-made 'conceptual structures or constructions' -- and calling them 'real'!

In fact, this is one of the main problems with 'classification systems' in general: they 'conceptually funnel' knowledge into particular categories that may or may not exist -- 'phenomenomologically', 'biologically', 'physically', 'chemically', and so on...

'Categories' can be mentally dangerous generalizations and ideas because we think they are real -- and give them supposedly real characteristics -- 'conceptual characteristics' which may or may not structurally fit the reality of the 'thing-in-itself'. If we have done a good job conceptually characterizing the 'thing-in-itself', then we can likely make pretty accurate generalizations and predictions about how the thing-in-itself can be expected to behave, what it is likely to do and/or not do, and so on. The tree that I see on my front yard tonight will likely still be there in the morning. Unless something very catastrophic happens, the sun that rose from the horizon this morning -- even if I cannot see it during most winter days -- we can reasonably expect will rise again from the same horizon tomorrow. It's been doing that for thousands of years. Presumably. I'm not quite that old but I'm pretty sure it has risen every day of my life. Even that is a lot of days.

So the point here is that some categories, generalizations, interpretations, and predictions have more 'star power' than others. Others don't have quite that much star power. Weather generalizations and predictions can be right or wrong. Their reliability isn't nearly as high as the 'sun coming up every morning' generalization. Sun rises have much more 'generalizations star power' than 'weather reports'. However, I still trust that we are probably going to get hit with some kind of a snow storm at some point tomorrow. (Hopefully, it is after the rush hour, and even better, after I have finished dispatching for the day.)

'Black and white man-made categories or classification systems' don't allow for the existence of 'hybrids' -- or anything that exists outside of the 'mental box' of the classifyer's 'classification system'.

That is, until someone pipes up and says: 'I don't like this particular classification system; I'm going to make a new one up that is better...(We can read on the internet this morning about the first man to 'have a baby'! (That was back on June 8th, 2008. Now I am updating on Dec. 18th, 2008.)Life doesn't believe in always following nice, neat, clean, man-made classification systems or categories...)

Thus, for anyone who has set about the task of learning a particular branch of knowledge, it is important to know that you are basically at the mercy -- and the power -- of the particular person or organization 'who has structured and classified the knowledge in a particular way' so that you only get to learn about the type of knowledge that is 'inside the classification box'; not outside. This is why you often here the cry -- 'Think outside the box'.

That is, think outside the classification box -- or you might miss some important types of knowledge that otherwise will not be taught to you.

There is value in constantly changing up any 'Classificaiton Box' -- or 'flexibly being able to smoothly move from one Classification Box to another -- such as from Psychoanalysis, to Jungian Psychology, to Adlerian Psychology, to Behavorial Psychology, to Gestalt Therapy, to Transactional Analysis, and so on -- just as there is value in being able to speak and understand different languages -- each language making up another different type of 'Classification Box'.

This is why 'DGB Philosophy' uses a lot of 'hyphenated words' -- like 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology'. 'DGBN' not only narcissistically stands for my name -- David Gordon Bain -- it also, stands for what I philosophically do -- which is 'dialectical gap-bridging negotiations (DGBN)' between different phiilosophical systems, different psychological systems, bringing philosophical and psychological systems together...and every other type of system dialectically together in an effort to create a different type of 'hybrid-classification system' that has its own unique form of 'funtionality and value' like dialectically integrating a 'normal gas car with a propane or natural gas car, or with a hydrogen or electrical car' so that you improve energy efficiency, reduce your dependency on normal gas but still have normal gas if you can't find a propane or natural gas station or can't run your car on hydrogen or electricity until you take it home and 're-charge' it for a night...

'Integrative solutions' to problems are often superior to 'either/or solutions'. 'Either/or' solutions to problems can have strong negative side-effects -- pertaining to the polar-side you are ignoring as opposed to championing. Integrative solutions ideally champion the 'best of both polar worlds' while aiming to minimize the potential conflict and disharmony that comes from 'idolizing' one side of the conflict while neglecting, ignoring, suppressing, and/or 'demonizing' the other side. Integrative solutions search for that 'happy medium' -- Aristotle's 'middle path' -- where both sides get at least part of what they want while allowing the other side to get the most important part of what they want as well. Call it 'compromise' if you wish or even better a 'win-win' integrative solution where 'harmony and homeostatic balance' is achieved -- at least until something or someone comes along to upset the balance and set conflict in motion again...or someone comes along and creates something even better...evolution at its best...

In the case of old fashioned, new fashioned, and hybrid cars, we can say that our classification system is 'physically or empirically grounded' because we can see the 'gas tank' or the 'propane tank' or the 'natural gas tank' or the 'electical outlet' where we might have to plug our car into an electrical cord that goes into an outlet in the wall.

Same with the taxi business where we can actually see the difference between 'voice' and 'computer' dispatching and an 'integrative computer-voice dispatching system'.

However, once we enter the world of 'internal psychology' -- or even 'religion' for that matter, we can't say the same thing about 'The Central Mediating Ego' or 'The Righteous-Ethical Topdog' or 'The Narcissistic Topdog (or Underdog)' or 'The Nurturing-Supportive Topdog' -- or 'The Soul' -- or 'God'.

These last types of 'classification systems' are 'metaphysical systems' and may even deserve to be called 'Mythological Systems' -- meaning not that they may or may not have functional value -- but rather, that their 'physical-empirical' basis cannot be proven or verified without a doubt; and on this basis, is subject to 'legitmate epistemological dispute and controversy' -- if not downright 'skepticism'. Remember: 'Metaphysics' means basically -- 'above and beyond physics' as first categorized by Aristotle.

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

From the internet...(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Aristotle's Metaphysics

First published Sun Oct 8, 2000; substantive revision Mon Jun 9, 2008
The first major work in the history of philosophy to bear the title “Metaphysics” was the treatise by Aristotle that we have come to know by that name. But Aristotle himself did not use that title or even describe his field of study as ‘metaphysics’; the name was evidently coined by the first century C.E. editor who assembled the treatise we know as Aristotle's Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle's works. The title ‘metaphysics’ — literally, ‘after the Physics’ — very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (ta phusika). In this entry, we discuss the ideas that are developed in Aristotle's treatise.

1. The Subject Matter of Aristotle's Metaphysics
2. The Categories
3. The Role of Substance in the Study of Being Qua Being
4. The Fundamental Principles: Axioms
5. What is Substance?
6. Substance, Matter, and Subject
7. Substance and Essence
8. Substances as Hylomorphic Compounds
9. Substance and Definition
10. Substances and Universals
11. Substance as Cause of Being
12. Actuality and Potentiality
13. Unity Reconsidered
14. Glossary of Aristotelian Terminology

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


It must be made absolutely clear that unlike Hume and Skinner, I am not saything that metaphysical and mythological systems have no value -- because oftentimes I believe they do -- rather, what I am saying is that there value may not be in their 'epistemological reality' but rather in their 'Projected-Self-Idealism' and their 'Projected Philosophical Idealism'.

As long as we are willing to call a spade a spade -- and not say that it is something else, as long as we are willing to admit and own up to the fact that our 'Metaphysical/Mythological Structure or Construction' is exactly that and not necessarily an 'epistmeological reality', that it is our own form of 'projected self-idealism' -- then we cannot be accused of being 'epistemologically fraudulent', of trying to propogate some sort of Mythologcial Entity onto the world in the name of 'Epistemological Truth'.

Thus, when I use the term 'God' -- I do so 'mythologically' as a 'projected form of self-idealism and philosopohical idealism; nothing more, nothing less. I do not use the term 'God' as an 'epistemological reality' -- although admittedly, often it is tempting to go here. Mainly, I use the term 'God', philosophically, metaphysically, mythologically, and spiritually, as a 'projected form of self and philosophical idealism' -- although, epistemolgicallly, I will jump one step further...

'Nature' is a physical reality; so too, are 'natural processes' which can be either 'physically (empirically) watched and/or 'reasonably/logically inferred' by 'scientific, and/or rationally-empirical minds'...

It does not take too much rational-empirical logic/reason to jump to the theory of 'intelligent design' -- that nature is intelligently designed. Furthermore, it does not take too much more 'rational-empirical logic/reason' to jump to the assumption that if 'nature is intelligently designed', then that possibly/probably? means that somewhere out there, there is -- or at least was at one time --an 'intelligent designer'. Dare we call this inferred 'intelligent designer' -- 'God' -- and if so, does the name 'God' stand on the basis of 'reasonable empirical (natural, physical) evidence -- even if there are at least one or more 'metaphysical jumps in logic' that take us from 'Nature' to 'God'?

Well, there is a problem here. Actually, there is more than one of them.

Firstly, what if 'Nature' -- from 'The Earth' to 'Life on Earth' to possibly even 'Life in the rest of the Universe' was simply created by a 'Very Superior Being' who is now dead -- like all other forms of life eventually die over time -- or a 'Superior Race of Beings' that are/were vastly more intelligent than man, and much further along the 'evolution route'...Are we going to believe in perhaps a different way than Nietzsche meant it, that 'God is dead!', and/or that 'God is/was a Superior Race of Beings'? Secondly, the idea of 'God' is so emotionally laden for most people who believe in 'God' that it is rather obvious that there is much more psychologicallly and philosophically at stake than believing that 'God' is/was simply a 'More Intelligent Being than Man' and/or a 'More Intelligent Race of Beings than God' and/or that if 'God' ever existed at one point in time, it is also quite possible/probable that God is now dead -- having died like all of the rest of us will one day...

No...this is not why 'God' -- and religion -- exists for most people who believe in God. Epistemologically, most people believe in God firstly, out of 'purely assumptive Faith' -- this is the rather shaky assumptive foundation for their belief in 'God'. But more than this, 'God' exists for most people because they cannot see their own 'projected Idol(s), their own projected 'Self-Energy', and their own 'projected form of Self and Philosophical Idealism' hidden, even buried, beneath their religious beliefs...

To properly understand God and Religion, man has to have the courage to look at his own Self-Projected Energy and Philosophical Idealism as a 'compensatory measure' either taken to alleviate underlying psychological-philosophical anxiety such as 'the fear of death and/or the fear of freedom and/or the fear of being essentially alone in a warm or cold universe of his or her own personal, phenomenonological-existential making... Or religion and God is simply what they were taught to believe in, and they really haven't decided to take either the time and/or the energy to challenge all of, or any of, the associated beliefs.

In essence, the belief in God as an 'epistemological reality' -- for the most part (and I can hear millions of angry people wanting to get a piece of me here...) is a 'smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show' for underlying 'existential anxiety'. Still, metaphysically and mythologically, the belief in God can still serve a valuable, functional purpose (like helping us to feel less alone in the world, and helping us to help others in need of help...).

Personally, as a philosophical, metaphysical, mythological, and spiritual entity, I view God as The Master Dialectical Integrating, Unifying -- and Separating --Force behind all of Nature, Evolution, and Creation...

Life for me, and for DGB Philosophy, is primarily the accidental and/or purposeful, pleasant and/or unpleasant, 'collision' of similar and/or opposing forces to 'create new chemical and psychological bonds -- and to destroy (deconstruct) old ones that are no longer functional...

This is starting to sound like 'Star Wars' here (let the 'Force' be with you! -- and we are definitely not talking about Schopenhauer's (or 'Hobbes') philosophical type of 'narcissistic, nasty, brutish killing Life and Death Force here' -- although both the world and man can encompass all of this; nor are we talking about Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' or the more humanistic (feminist?) Nietzschean rendition of the 'The Will to Self-Empowerment' although man can show both of these features as well -- both in their positive and negative aspects; nor are we totally talking about the types of forces entailed in Freud's metaphysical concepts of 'Life and Death Instinct' playing off against each other although I like parts of this classification system as well but again, this is not completely what I am talking about.

Rather, the metaphysical-mythological-spiritual classification system that I use is more of a combination of: Anaxamander, Heraclitus, the Han Philosophers, Spinoza, Hegel, and Perls...with backup support from Schopenhauer (The world can be, and often is. 'brutish and nasty'!), Nietzsche (The Birth of Tragedy, and the potential for dramatic tragedy in the collision of Apollo and Dionysus), Freud (Ego, Superego, and Id, life and death instinct, traumacy, seduction, assault, and narcissism), Jung (the Persona, The Shadow, and the Archetypes, and Berne (Nurturing Parent, Righteous Parent, Adult, Adaptive Child, Rebellious Child, Natural Child...), and Perls (Topdog and Underdog), hotseat and empty chair work...)

What I am talking about in terms of the number one 'philosophical and spiritual force' in DGB Philosophy-Psychology supersedes everything that we have talked about in the last paragraph. I am talking about a force that unites Western and Eastern Philosophy -- at its best; a force that integrates and unites many of the similar but different philosophical systems that make up the history of Western philosophy -- from Thales, Anixamander, Heraclitus, and the Han Philosophers to present day philosophical processes and/or systems such as DGB Philosophy-Psychology.

I am talking about what I consider to be the 'master key stroke of God' -- and here I am talking about my own projective ideal system -- but also moving beyond this because I am integrating much of Western philosophical and psychological history -- not to mention Chinese 'yin' and 'yang' theory. Perhaps I am moving into 'Intelligent Design' Theory -- into the realm of theology, the realm of metaphysics and mythology, and who knows -- maybe even into the realm of epistemology and 'epistemological truth' on a 'natural basis' at least -- because the 'force' I am talking about is so prevalent, so dominating, so all-encompassing, so potentially tied into evolution and creation theory, that it is hard not to believe that there wasn't at least at some point in time an 'Incredibly Intelligent and Sophisticated Designer or Creator' -- to which I give the name 'God' behind this Creation. The force that I call the 'master key stroke of God' -- is 'The Force of The Dialectic'... This Force is neither good nor bad -- it is 'Beyond Good and Evil' (but not in the Nietzschean sense), indeed, often it brings good and evil into the same physical and psychological space...It is 'beyond life and death' and indeed, often encompasses elements of life and death in the same physical and psychological space.

The Force of the Dialectic is largely unpredictable -- at work in the 'hot seat and empty chair technique' in Gestalt Therapy; at work in a different way between the Analyst and the client on the 'Psychoanalytic Couch', at work in any human encounter, any encounter where two or more objects, two or more processes, two or more living entitities, come together, collide together, make love together, make hate together, randomly or on purpose, chaoticallly or with intended purpose, integratively or with no resulting integration...Postives and negatives coming together, positives and positives coming together, negatives and negatives coming together -- and either 'finding a chemical fit' -- or not. I'm talking about the coming together and breaking apart of 'chemical molecules' on every microscopic and macroscopic level of existence...a dog and a cat coming together and...well...fighting like cats and dogs...or a cat and a dog coming together...and somebody snaps a picture of them 'cuddling together on the same couch'...

This is 'The Dialectical Force' that I am trying to describe here in DGB Philosophy-Psychology...Others have been here before me...many, many others...but I am just trying to put it altogether in one 'muliti-dialectical-integrative package'. Hegel, was the ultimate dialectical mastermind but he basically only touched on epistemology -- he spoke of 'The Absolute' in terms of 'Absolute Knowledge'. Others -- Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, have extrapolated in some 'post-Hegelian' way on what Hegel wrote -- improving on some of his largest weaknesses.

When I speak of The Dialectical Force, I speak not only of the evolution of knowledge but also of the evolution of existence and life -- of being and becoming, of life and death. This to me, is the full extent of The Mystical, Metaphysical, and partly Mythological Dialectical Force.

For me, The Dialectical Force is the key Creative-Destructive-Evolutionary-Working Force of Nature and/or God. We start in the earth and return to the earth, and in between, we differentiate into opposites, unify into 'dialectical wholisms' and then differentiate again into opposites, in effect, a 'splitting apart' and 'uniting' of molecules -- splitting, combining, splitting, combining... (almost sounds like the North American marriage and divorce scene) -- on the macroscopic as well as the microscopic level -- not too much different than what the combination of Anaxamander and Heraclitus (pre-Socratic) Greece and the Han Philosophers (ancient China) were saying back around the 500 BCs...that would be over 2500 years ago...

Add in some 17th century Spinozian pantheistic ideas and some 19th century Schelling and Hegelian ideas to boot...and you are starting to come pretty close to the essence of this 'spiritual-pantheist-deist smorgasboard' that I am writing about here...With some Nietzschean, Freudian, Jungian, and Gestalt 'spices' added for flavor...(You will get their stronger flavors in other essays...)

And that is where I will leave things today on this fine Sunday morning...and a month later on this fine Sunday evening...and now most recently, on this cold Friday, December evening, with a big expected snowstorm coming in tomorrow.

Our weather people could be right, or they could be wrong. Generalizations and predictions are never sure things although some have more 'star power' than others.

I trust that the snowstorm will indeed arrive sometime tomorrow.

And I trust even more that, unless something catastrophic happens tonight -- touch wood that it doesn't -- I will be at work tomorrow for my scheduled afternoon shift.

Goodnight.

-- dgb, June 8th, 2008, modified and updated, July 5th, and July 12th, 2008, December 18th-19th, 2008.

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...

Pantheism (From the internet)

PANTHEISM

is the belief that the universe is divine and nature is sacred.
It fuses religion and science, and concern for humans with concern for nature.
It provides the most solid basis for environmental ethics.
It is a religion that requires no faith other than common sense,
no revelation other than open eyes and a mind open to evidence,
no guru other than your own self.

For an outline, see Basic principles of scientific pantheism. Top.

From The Humanist Association of Canada: What is Humanism? (See also: Hegel and Tragedy)

WHAT IS HUMANISM?

Humanism is a dynamic and religion-free way of life that affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical and meaningful lives, aspiring to the greater good of humanity. Humanism is guided by reason and scientific inquiry, inspired by music and art, and motivated by ethics, compassion and fairness.

The earliest written record of Humanist philosophy originated in ancient Greece thousands of years ago. This philosophy turned to human beings rather than gods to solve human problems. Democritus (460-351 BCE), a progressive thinker, atomic theorist, and Greek philosopher, asserted that human beings can set higher standards of personal integrity and social responsibility by guiding their lives by rational, moral, fair and compassionate means, rather than invoking imaginary or mystical sanctions.

Humanists support secular and scientific approaches to addressing the wide range of issues important to us all. This is why Humanists advocate keeping government and religion separate. Secular laws are the fairest and most realistic way that people of all faiths and philosophies can be considered as truly equal under the law.

TWELVE PRINCIPLES OF HUMANISM

1. Humanism aims at the full development of every human being.

2. Humanists uphold the broadest application of democratic principles in all human relationships.

3. Humanists advocate the use of the scientific method, both as a guide to distinguish fact from fiction and to help develop beneficial and creative uses of science and technology.

4. Humanists affirm the dignity of every person and the right of the individual to maximum possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.

5. Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.

6. Humanists call for the continued improvement of society so that no one may be deprived of the basic necessities of life, and for institutions and conditions to provide every person with opportunities for developing their full potential.

7. Humanists support the development and extension of fundamental human freedoms, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supplemented by UN International Covenants comprising the United Nations Bill of Human Rights.

8. Humanists advocate peaceful resolution of conflicts between individuals, groups, and nations.

9. The humanist ethic encourages development of the positive potentialities in human nature, and approves conduct based on a sense of responsibility to oneself and to all other persons.

10. Humanists reject beliefs held in absence of verifiable evidence, such as beliefs based solely on dogma, revelation, mysticism or appeals to the supernatural.

11. Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings.

12. Humanists affirm that human beings are completely a part of nature, and that our survival is dependent upon a healthy planet that provides us and all other forms of life with a life-supporting environment.

HUMANIST ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

Box 8752 , Station T, Ottawa, ON K1G 3J1
Toll-free: 1.877.HUMANS.1 (1.877.486-2671)
Fax: 613.739.4801
Email: humanist.canada@gmail.com

On God, Nature, Man -- and The Path of The Homeostatically Balanced, Multi-Integrative Dialectic

If you think -- or try to argue the existence -- of God in terms of epistemology, rationality, and/or empiricism, then you are probably on shaky grounds. Because God, for the most part, or the most common-sense part, defies rational-empirical epistemology.

Better instead, to argue the existence of God in terms of 'religious and/or spiritual idealism'.

In this scenario, it is better also to take personal responsibility for the contents and direction of your self-projected spiritual idealism.

My form of self-projected, spiritual idealism comes mainly from the influence of such philosophers as Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, and Schelling -- a romantic form of integrative (homeostatically balanced) dialectical negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism (the different spiritual parts of Man, Nature, and God all coming together into one 'multi-dialectic-humanistic-existential-unified whole'.

By this 'Heraclitean-Spinozian-Hegelian-Schellian' interpretation of the romantic integrative spirituality ofo Man, Nature, and God -- there are parts of God, Nature, and Man in all of us -- and we all need to 'triangulate the respective energies of these three life forces -- 1. God (Transcendence, Creativity, Becoming, The Wish to Soar High in the Universe...); 2. Nature (Being, Here and Now, Groundedness, Beauty, Homeostatic Balance, Multi-Dialectic Unity, Harmony and Wholism, Evolution...); and 3. Man (The Bridge between Man, Nature and God seeking elements of everything above -- a romantic-spiritual unity between these three sets of life forces).

In a nutshell then, according to my DGB vision of romantic-spiritual idealism...

Man must homeostatically balance elements of God, Nature, and his/her own creative needs of freedom, being and becoming within a social-political-natural environment of multi-dialectic-negotiation and integration.

-- dgb, July 25th, 2008.

Gods, Myths, Philosophers -- and Projected 'Self-Energy Centres'

Gods, Myths, Religion, Philosophers - and Projected 'Self-Energy Centers'

People think that yesterday's God's and myths are dead - a product of 'primitive' man who simply didn't 'know' any better. We all know myths are - well, false. Or are they? Epistemologically they may or may not be false. They probably are. But the same can be said about today's Gods and religions as well. Are we so arrogantly bold as to believe that our own God(s) and religion(s) has any more epistemological claim to 'truth' than ancient Greek mythology? If we think we do - we shouldn't. They are both the product of the same creative psyche - projecting a combination of symbolism and need into the outside world...and into 'heaven'.

We need to be accountable for our own projections - they are products of our own psyche, our own active, creative imaginations, usually built from some percentage, some proportion, of experiential truth and fictional fantasy. A projection is usually either a 'stereotype' and/or an 'archetype'. Stereotypes we lay on our friends, families, lovers, and enemies. Again, they usually contain a combination of truth and fiction.

Archetypes we lay on our 'Gods' - and in DGB Philosophy, also our 'great philosophers from the past'. They too, usually contain a combination of truth and fiction. Epistemologically, they usually contain mainly or totally - fictions. However, psychically, they contain 'truths' and these truths may be viewed as a combination of projected 'energy centers' and 'ego functions'. If we re-introject (swallow whole) the projective imagery that we originally spat out at the world in the form of Gods, myths, and religious symbolism - then we give ourselves the opportunity of 'taking back' our 'energy centers' and 'ego-functions' that we may have lost in our projections, suppressions, repressions, and/or denials. In effect, our Gods are us. We simply have to take re-ownership of them.

We can do this if we look at our Gods differently - specifically, as energy centers, ego-functions, and areas of self-empowerment that we gave up to the world in the form of our projections - our Gods, myths, religion - combined with a willingness to go back to an earlier state of being, both in childhood and in more primitive states of being in a relationship and in society - an authoritarian society where we 'hang onto' a portion of our ego - or an 'ego-state' - that is still willing to play the role of the 'submissive servant or slave': 'You're right, I'm wrong'; you're good, I'm bad; you're perfect, I'm imperfect; you're the master, I'm the slave. This is the 'dialectic dance' of the 'master/slave' relationship. It is still played out in business every day we go to work. It is still played out in many marriages and relationships, in most schools, in many doctor-patient relationships, in most expert-layperson relationships, professional-nonprofessional relationships, academic-nonacademic relationship, rock star or professional athlete/groupie relationship...and in most Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques...

More than anything perhaps, we have a tendency to project the 'master/slave' relationship into our relationship with God...or vicariously into our relationship with our priest, pastor, minister, favorite evangelist...God knows everything; I know nothing; God is good; I am bad...God is right; I am wrong...God is pure; I am a sinner...

This is authoritarian religion with the 'poison masked as candy' being the 'submissive ecstasy' perhaps of being in the company of someone or something much, much greater than ourselves. Bow down to the Pedestalized Idol...Gain your ecstasy by feeling secure and safe in the hands of Someone who protects all of us lesser beings...Bow down to the False Idol...This is the message of Authoritarian Religion....

We need a new type of religion - one that combines good will and compassion, safety and security, rootedness and community - with an unwillingness to bow down to all False Idols - either in heaven or in earth.

I think I can find that directive in The Ten Commandments...Here is it is from the internet...

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

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.

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

This is the Nietzschean Commandment - the commandment that separates all 'humanistic-existential' religions from 'authoritarian' ones although Nietzsche would have made no such distinction. This is my modification of Nietzsche.

In humanistic-existential religions there will be no 'false idols' - indeed, there will be no idols period. We will re-introject all of our 'projected false idols' and turn them into a new and integrative, multi-dialectical, humanistic-existential form of 'self-empowerment'. As our false idols crumble into the dust our 'suppressed' and 'repressed', 'denied' and 'avoided' energy-centres and ego-functions will slowly start to come alive again. We will start to regain our full humanness...our 'all too humanness'... In DGB Humanistic-Existential Religion (Deism-Pantheism), we will not deny man's sensuality, sexuality, and romanticism (Dionysus, Aphrodite...)but rather aim to integrate it with reason, ethics, integrity (Apollo). One can say that DGB Humanistic-Existential Religion is a religion born partly from Nietzsche's first masterpiece - 'The Birth of Tragedy'.

And that is where I will leave the creative birth of DGB MDHE (Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential) Mythology and Religion today...

I can feel the spirit of Spinoza, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, and Perls all running through my blood as I write...Dead men, dead spirits - still alive and scorching through my fingers...Are these my own 'false idols'? Or are they my bridge to some form of new 'integrative self-empowerment'? For myself, I believe the latter.

Of course, your are entirely free to decide for yourself...and what you believe is good for you...Many orthodox religious institutions - whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Jewish - do much good for the community around it. They serve a pressing need for compassion, safety, and rootedness...particularly in today's more and more alienated and stressful urban environment that is creating more and more estranged, unrooted or uprooted, anxious people. But overly righteous, anal-retentive, authoritarian religions can and do come with some significant 'side effects' - or even 'main effects' - that can be - indeed are - disturbing in their own right. This is where orthodox religion lost many, many thousands of old or potentially new 'customers' that simply were not 'buying' what orthodox religion was selling anymore...DGB MDHE Pantheism-Deism offers no religious rituals...just a different way of looking at 'God', religion, and spirituality that is not authoritarian and which aims to integrate with science, nature, evolution, romanticism - and humanistic-existentialism.

This approach to a 'new, integrative' religion and spirituality is probably best captured in my much re-worked poem - 'God Is The Bridge'...

dgb, April 11th-12th, 2008.

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

God Is The Bridge

God Is The Bridge

Between reason and passion.

Between thought and action.

Between impulse and restraint.

God is the bridge

Between spirituality and sensuality.

Between love and lust.

Between alienation and communion.

God is the bridge

Between being creative and being created.

Between being and becoming.

Between being human and being God-like.

God is the bridge

Between narcissism and altruism.

Between self-assertiveness and social sensitivity.

Between giving and getting.

God is the bridge

Between positive and negative.

Between yin' and yang'.

Between wife and husband.

God is the bridge

Between religion and science.

Between religion and atheism.

Between science and art.

God is the bridge

Between wholism and reductionism

Between abstractionism and concrete particularity.

Between dialectical opposition and dialectical unity.

God is the bridge

Between Israel and Palestine.

Between Christians and Muslims

Between Protestants and Catholics.

Between black and white.

God is the bridge

Between parent and child.

Between righteousness and rebelliousness.

Between parental restraint and teenage impulse.

God is the bridge

Between technology and humanism.

Between industrialism and ecological balance.

Between working to feed your family and working to create your soul.

God is the bridge

Between Conservatism and Liberalism.

Between Capitalism and Socialism.

Between Masculinism and Feminism.

God is the bridge

Between nature and man.

Between God and man.

Between man and man.

God can be found

In the gap, the abyss, the chasm,

That separates you from me.

God is the bridge,

The tightrope,

That we both need the courage to climb onto,

To put aside our fear

And righteousness

And mutual blaming,

To rediscover our humanity...

To rediscover...

The creative, democratic,

Contactful, assertive,

Respectful, empathic,

Dialogue or dialectic,

That brings people back together in differential unity,

The 'I and Thou, here and now',

That we both need to engage in,

To bridge the gap,

Between us,

To rediscover...

The 'God' between us.

God is the bridge between you and me.

DGB, originally written Sept. 29th, 2004; modified June 17th, June 25th, Nov. 23rd, Nov. 27th, 2006, Jan. 25th, 2007, Feb. 19th, 2007, Sept 5th, 2007.

On God, Multi-Dialectic-Polarityism, Humanistic-Existentialism, and Religion

In this article, I will aim to give new meaning and purpose to the idea of 'God', 'religion' -- and the purpose of religion. I call this type of religion which I view as a creative integration of 'pantheism and deism' as opposed to religion in any type of 'institutionalized and ritualized manner -- 'Multi-Dialectical-Humanistic-Existential' spiritualism and religion. It is a philosophical and logical extension of 'DGB Philosophy' and the rest of the contents of 'Hegel's Hotel'. (See my profile for a brief discussion of DGB Philosophy and Hegel's Hotel...) What follows is a brief synopsis of how I arrived at where I arrived philosophically, spiritually, and religiously:

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

If God created man in his/her own image, then God is definitely 'multi-bi-polar' Because man -- and life in general -- is definitely 'multi-bi-polar' from protons and electrons, to acids and bases, males and females, deficiencies and excesses, right and wrong, good and bad, narcissistic and altruistic, dominant and submissive, authoritarian and democratic...and on and on we could go.

If man wants to teach and preach a religion that fully acknowledges and accepts the multi-bi-polarity of both man and God, then religion has to move away from 'righteous, either/or, narcissistic and/or anti-narcissistic -- extremist and divisive -- religion'.

Rather it has to move towards a full 'humanistic-existential' religion that teaches and preaches 'dialectic and democratic integrationism'; not authoritarian righteousness, submission and divisionism.

It has to urge man to be accountable to himself, and to other people, plants, animals, and resources that he has to share the earth with; and at the same time, it has to urge man to be 'humanistic and compassionate' -- within the realm of accountablity -- again, to himself, and to other people, plants, and animals that he has to share the earth with.

Furthermore, a 'bi-polar, humanistic-existential' religion -- as opposed to either a 'narcissistic or anti-narcissistic righteous' religion has to teach people that 'utopia' is not in 'heaven'; neither is 'purgatory' in hell'; rather that the earth -- and man's life -- is the 'dialectical meeting place between heaven and hell', and that 'utopia' can be achieved right here on earth if we all aim for the right 'homeostatic, dialectic balance' between the 'spirituality' of Heaven and the 'sensuality' of Hell; between the reason, logic, ethics, morals, restraint and integrity of 'Heaven' vs. the pleasure and biological impulses of 'Hell'.

Stated differently, what I just said above -- before everyone gets 'their shorts in a knot' and starts 'throwing eggs at my work' -- is simply a reformulation of Nietzsche's classic first book -- 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- where Nietzsche trumpeted the value of ancient Greek tragedy and pre-Socratic philosophy as being basically the ideal 'humanistic-existential dialectical/homeostatic balance' between 'Apollonianism' (Heaven -- and man's ethical-restraining and spiritual side) and 'Dionysianism' (Hell and man's pleasure-seeking, biological impulse side).

'The Birth of Tragedy' is a greatly undervalued masterpiece of philosophical work as it 'dialectically bridged the gap' between Hegel -- and the birth of much of modern psychology: specifically, Freud and Psychoanalysis, Jung and Jungian Psychology, and Perls and Gestalt Therapy, among many other similar but different schools of psychology and psychotherapy.

Which brings me to my second last point: 'Heaven' from a psychological, analytic perspective can be viewed as an external projection of man's 'spiritual and ethical' side (his externalized 'Superego' or 'Topdog') while 'Hell' can paradoxically and bi-polarly be viewed as an external projection of man's 'sensual and pleasure-seeking' side (his externalized 'Id', 'Shadow', or 'Underdog'). It is no coincidence in my mind that 'heaven', 'superego', and 'topdog' are all located 'above' while 'hell', 'id', 'shadow', and 'underdog' are all located 'below'. This is the internal workings of the human mind and psyche -- externalized in mythology and religion as well as in every other aspect of his life and culture.

What I think a 'dialectical-humanistic-existential' religion should be teaching then is 'utopia-here-on-earth-by-way-of-dialectical-integration-and-homeostatic-balance-between-heaven-and-hell-God-and-The-Devil-Apollo-and-Dionysus-spirituality-and-sensuality-superego-and-id-persona-and-shadow-topdog-and-underdog-male-and-female-black-and-white-Christian-and-Muslim-parent-and-child-man-and-animal-man-and-earth...' I call this 'Multi-Dialectic-Evolutionism-Differential-Unity-and-Wholism'.

One last thing: If man's 'ethical restraint system' functions alone, man self-destructs (religiously speaking this type of person is 'obsessed with heaven'); if man's pleasure-seeking system functions alone, man self-destructs (religiously speaking, this type of person is 'obsessed with hell'). If man's 'humanism' functions alone (politically, these type of people are often referred to as 'bleeding heart liberals'), then man self-destructs (not enough accountability); if man's 'existentialism' functions alone (politically, these type of people are often called 'cold-hearted, redneck, conservatives'), man again self-destructs. The type of utopia that we all should be looking for is 'dialectical-integrative-balance-between-heaven-and-hell-here-on-earth-here-and-now'.

Perhaps it is also no coincidence that the half way and meeting point between the 'brain' and the 'loins' is the 'heart'. If we want to get closer to utopia-on-earth, then we all have to have more heart...integrating our brain with our loins...our ethical restraints and our compassion with our biological-pleasure-seeking impulses. Neither side can fulfill man's individual and collective self-actualized destiny nor man's peace and differential unity within himself, his fellow man, and his natural environment -- alone.* -- dgb, April 4th, 2008.

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

*The 'triadic-dialectic' between 'mind', 'heart' and 'loins' with the heart being the meeting place between these 'three different energy zones in the body' is an idea that I picked up and slightly embellished (the heart as the meeting place) from Plato. I'm not a big Plato fan but this idea has stayed with me over many years. The idea of a 'triadic-dialectic' in man can also be found in Freud's work with his division of 'superego' (social conscience), 'ego' (conflict-mediating part of the mind), and 'id' (biological impluses). The difference between this triadic division of the 'mind-brain-psyche' and Plato's is that Freud's model is 'all within the divisional functions of the mind if you will' whereas Plato's model seems to include the body -- the 'heart' and the 'loins'.

I look at this article as a 'gateway' article. There should be more articles to come in the development of these 'freshly developed' thoughts... -- dgb, April 5th, 2008.

God, Religion, Bi-polarities, Idols, and False Expectations

One of my friends wrote that she believed in God but not in religion. Or at least she didn't believe in institutionalized religion. I at least partly support this line of thinking. Institutionalized religion can create many different types of problems -- some of them worse than the types of problems it attempts to solve.

Most institutionalized forms of religion (notice I said 'most', not 'all') are full of 'righteousness' and 'narcissism' -- and that to me indicates the hand of man, not the hand of God. Even those religion that work extra hard to preach such things as: 'altruism', 'love', 'generosity', 'caring', 'community', 'family', 'not being greedy or selfish', 'tolerance', 'acceptance', etc., etc., -- these characteristics too reflect the hand -- and the mind -- of man, not the hand of God...Man is 'multi-bi-polar' in my mind, and this latter set of characteristics simply reflect a second line of 'bi-polar thinking' in man...

So here is one 'dialectical bi-polarity' that we find in many religions and churches (mosques, synagogues, temples...): the bi-polarity between righteousness on the one hand and tolerance/acceptance on the other hand. A second bi-polarity is between narcissism and altruism; and a third bi-polarity is between dominance and submission or even sadism and masochism. Some bi-polarities in religion are either suppressed and/or hidden. When they are hidden, we call them 'hypocrisies' such as when the Roman Catholic Church was preaching a life of 'self-denial' and 'giving everything possible to the Church' while the leaders of the Church were indulging in every luxury, fantasy, and narcissitic pleasure imaginable based on everything that was given to them by the people of their Church in the name of 'piety'. Or when a preacher/evangelist on television is preaching a 'very stringent sexual morality' to thousands and thousands of people but then is found to be visiting prostitutes in his spare time and/or engaging in very 'liberal sexual practises' inside his own Church. Hypocrisy -- thy name is 'man' (based on unintegrated 'bi-polarities' in the personalities of many, many individual people including even those leaders who we at least start out by idealizing and/or idolizing the most, that is, until they fall off the bandwagon of the 'most esteemed pedestal' that we unrealistically put them on to begin with.) We expect our leaders to be 'super-human' -- until we find over the course of time that they are just as human as each and everyone of us is who have falsely idealized and idolized them. We love to hold our leaders to unrealistic expectations -- and then 'trash' them when they 'fall from glory' because they can't or don't live up to these unrealistic expectatins that we placed on them in the first place. Call it the 'honeymoon' and 'after the honeymoon' effect...

There are at least three more bi-polarities that are worth investigating relative to the workings of many religions: specifically, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism, and authoritarianism vs. democracy. We will only look briefly at the last one in the context of this essay.

Most religions are flat out 'authoriarian'. They tell you what to do -- in the name of God -- and they expect you to do it. Which begs the question: 'Why not teach, preach, and practice democracy in Church?' Indeed, this is part of a larger question that needs investigating: 'Why do we teach, preach -- and indeed almost worship -- democracy (or purported democracy) in our political speeches and yet generally fail to practise it in our homes and families, in our place of work and business, and in our various religions and the institutions where these religions are practised? Where is the consistency and logic in this type of reasoning and behaving?

The answer as I see it is this: Man in general is conflicted and 'bi-polar' within his psyche between 'authoriarianism' and 'democracy'. And these two 'dialectical opposites' continue to 'dialectically dance' with each other every living day of our life -- at work, at home, in government, and even in our various religions.

Both authoritarianism and democracy have their strengths and weaknesses (for example, more unilateralism and speed of decision-making in an authoritarian context vs. generally more respect for the group and the various individuals in the group in the context of a democracy). Man is constantly sliding back and forth between authoritarianism and democracy as he reaches for the advantages and strengths of each while getting into trouble with the disadvantages and weaknesses of each.

Again, as in many instances of the thousands of possible 'dialectical dances' we can do, the answer will often for many lie somewhere in the middle such as in the integrative realm of an 'authoritarian democracy' or a 'democratic authoritarianism (or autocracy)'.

Regardless, 'democracy' rarely reaches into religion which is why we might ask ourselves: 'Why are we so ready and willing to submit and adapt ourselves to a basically authoritarian and dominant-submissive environment. What would it take to get from a basically 'righteous, narcissistic and/or anti-narcissistic, dominant-submissive' process of practising religion to a more 'democratic-dialectic-humanistic-existential' process of practising religion?'

Those are the two questions that I will leave you with today...

dgb, April 4th, 2008.

God, Jesus Christ, Religion, Preachers, and Politicians

Let's try to get to the bottom of the Reverend Wright controversy which is probably close to impossible because there are numerous different ways I could take this essay but regardless, let's at least open up some of these different avenues and see where they take us...

First, by way of an introduction, let me say this: We are all philosophers and we are all preachers -- stated more specifically, we all 'philosophize' about what we think is 'true' (epistemology) and 'right' (ethics); and we all 'preach' our epistemological and ethical philosophy relative to what we believe is 'true' and 'right'. Obviously some people are more righteous than other people (or stated differrently, some more tolerant and accepting than others), and also, some people are more openly straightforward with their righteousness, whereas others hide it more...

Relative to righteousness, we all have our private and/or public 'soapboxes' -- some more public than others -- upon which we preach our unique, individual philosophy. Some of these individual philosophies are healthier than others; some are more pathological than others. There is an intimate tie between philosophical and psychological health; indeed, 'mental-emotional' health can just as easily and rightly be referred to as 'philosophical-psychological' health.

President Bush has his soapbox. Reverand Wright has -- or had -- his soapbox. Senator Obama, both the Clintons, and McCain all have their own separate, individual 'soapboxes' on which they preach their own individual -- and/or party -- politics and/or religion.

I have my soapbox. This essay is my soapbox. 'Hegel's Hotel' is my soapbox. With whatever credibility and respect that I have here as a private philosopher and writer, I am here to say what I think is right and wrong about different elements of both Canadian and American poltics as well as in some cases such as this one -- religion, preachers, and the Church. There are those who believe that politics and relgion should not be mixed -- such as many of America's foundational philosopher-politicans, most notably, I believe, Thomas Jefferson -- but increasingly these days it is obvious that there are more and more people who believe that politics and religion can and should be mixed.

From a religious standpoint, the Reverand Wright is obviously one of them.

There is a time to be righteous and there is a time to be tolerant and the best philosopher-preachers have the best sense of timing about when to be which.

I preach a mixture of righteousnes and tolerance and try to get the timing right on both.

Let me begin by giving you this as a backdrop: We are all a mixture of 'epistemologically right' and 'epistemologically wrong' perceptions and beliefs, of 'ethically good' and 'ethically bad' values... We can talk about President Bush the 'right' and President Bush the 'wrong', of President Bush the 'good' and President Bush the 'bad'...and each and everyone of us will have a combination of similar and/or different judgments in this regard...Bush started out strong with America's trust and respect; it is obvious now that he lost most of this trust and respect to most Americans somewhere along the way in his length of time as President. Too many false assertions and assumptions...too many bad value judgments in the minds of most Americans today -- I would say.

We could go throught this same editorial process with Reverend Wright, Obama, both Bill and Hillary Clinton, McCain, myself, you, America, Canada...and so on..

We are all a mixture of right and wrong epistemology, of good and bad ethics, of good and bad tricks...There are no perfect idols or ideals amongst us -- some of us may make better leaders than others -- but we are all walking imperfections of right and wrong, good and bad. There are no Gods amongst us...nor should anyone -- in politics or in religion -- have the audacity and the arrogance to try to quote God... This is blatant man-made projection...man manipulating the use of God to serve his or her own political, religious, economic, philosophical and/or any other form of narcissistic purpose.

I am not a big religious person -- my religious, spritual, and/or anti-religous perspectives are far from fully developed at this point in time. They are still evolving...but at the same time, my religious-spiritual blogsite-section now contains over ten essays I believe...

Regardless, I found myself reaching for a recital of 'The Ten Commandments' on the internet this morning. (Isn't the internet wonderful in this respect as I didn't need to go digging around my townhouse for a bible or inside The Bible to find what I was looking for...just by googling 'The Ten Commandments', I could quickly find what I wanted. Some might equate this with 'fast food' -- lacking in full nutritional value -- but for a writer/philosopher like myself who wants to find something quickly and then get back to my essay, it truly is amazing what an 'enormous liberary resource' I have at my immediate fingertips. I often shake my head at the 'technological and resource advantages' I have today over someone like say Kant, Hegel, and/or Marx who must have ploughed through thousands of pages of books to get the information they needed.)

Here is my favorite commandment incidently (I believe it is the fourth commandment):

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

4 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.
.....................................................................................

This to me is a very 'humanistic-existential' commandment -- trust and respect your own resources, your own perceptions and beliefs, your own value judgments, your own integrtiy, and your own actions. Let no man, woman -- or God -- stand above you on a pedestal.

Unfortunately, there is a problem here -- a big problem. The Ten Commandments are not consistent -- or at least if they are consistent when taken as a whole -- are not 'humanistic-existential'; indeed, taken as a whole they lean much closer to 'authoritarianism', 'dominance-submission', and 'sado-masochism'. Look at the first four commandments when taken together:

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

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
2. Do not have any other gods before me.

3. 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.

4. 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,

5. But showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

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

Taken alone, Commandment 3 seems 'humanistic-existential'. However, in the context of the first five commandments, it seems that God is saying in effect: 'Don't trust, respect, love, idolize, or idealize any other God -- but me -- for I am a jealous God. You can submit to me all you want because that is the way I like it.'

Gee, that sounds more like man talking rather than any God that I am willing to respect, love, idealize, and/or worship. A God that is into 'egotism, narcissism, authoritarianism, jealousy, dominance, and the type of sadism that can be seen in the 'God, Abraham, and Isaac' parable. In effect, the anti-thesis of 'Jesus Christ'. How do you explain that one? Look at the Ten Commandments, and the God, Abraham, and Isaac parable -- and it certainly does not seem that Jesus Christ was created in God's image. Rather, it seems much more plausable that God was created in man's image. Furthermore, it seems much more plausable that 'God' and 'Jesus Christ' can be viewed as 'projective-identifications' of one of the deepest polarities and conflict-issues in man's psyche, psychology, and philosophy: the polarity between narcissism, selfishness, jealousy, possessiveness and conditional love on the one hand vs. altruism, empathy, social sensitivity, generosity and love on the other hand. Projected: the jealousy, narcissism, dominance, and conditional love of God vs. the generosity and unconditional love of Jesus Christ. One might even say a projection of the 'masculine vs. feminine' side of man or in Eastern tradition the 'yin' vs. 'yang' in man -- and the need for harmonious unity and balance between the two.

I realize that I may be offending some of you who may hold a much more traditional viewpoint towards God and Jesus Christ but I cannot be anyone other than who I am. And right now -- as of this minute, arrived at by argumentative deduction during the course of this essay -- that is exactly how I view God and Jesus Christ. It is totally consistent with all of my other viewpoints in Hegel's Hotel. It is a post-Hegelian-Freudian-Jungian-Gestalt analysis: that God and Jesus Christ reflect opposing projective identifications and arhetypes in man's personality. When man is worshipinng God and Jesus Christ, he is in effect worshipping the 'twin polariities of masculinism and feminism, or 'yin and yang' in man's psyche.

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

I said that at the beginning that this essay had the potential of taking me in many different directions some of which I might not expect, and, believe me, I am as shocked as you probably are at the direction it just took me...Now let us move on and get back to the Reverend Wright...

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


I respect that the Reverend Wright is a fiery speaker, that he says what he believes, and I don't even mind that he mixed 'politics' with 'religion' in his sermons. To hear someone say that 'governments fail' is a refreshing change for me compared to the usual sermon of individual people 'failing through their sins of being human'. Preaching politics in a religious forum in my mind is better than preaching religion in a political forum -- especially when 'God' is being used in a political forum to justify appropriate or inappropriate political actions.

However, it is rather obvious in my mind that the Reverend Wright committed some rather glaring professional and 'humanistic' errors. In this regard, I was thinking of some of the 'ethical transgressions' that the Reverend Wright committed and here was the first one I came up with again as I looked at the Ten Commandments:

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

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.

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

Well, for a week or two I was oblivious to what had transpired in this 'Reverend Wright scandal' and then one morning I finally heard a 'fuller version' (courtesy of CNN) of the original much smaller soundbite that had created the substance of this political-religous controversy.

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

'God damn America.' -- Reverend Wright

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

This was the smallest soundbite-essence of what Reverend Wright said within the fuller context of his more complete sermon. The fuller context of the sermon talked about 'political failings' all through history -- and directly or indirectly about political oppression and killings resulting from political failings.

Well, the fuller context of the sermon does give the American people a better perspective on where the Reverend was coming from in his sermon -- but his first ethical-religous-political violation can be found right in The Ten Commandments...a part of the second commandment if the interpretation I am reading off the internet can be assumed to be an accurate interpretation...

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

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.

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


I think I have heard it stated in other ways such as; 'Thou shalt not speak the Lord's name in vain.' But either version will do...

Now most of us have heard the Lord's name used in profanity or in a thousand and one different ways but for a preacher to use God's name in profanity and/or as a manipulative tool to further his own political-religous agenda -- is basically inexcusable. Reverend Wright was essentially projecting his own condemnation of America -- inexcusably -- onto God. That was ethical transgression number 1.

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

Secondly,

This is my own epistemological and ethical commandment:

'Beware of loose associations and tight, stereotypical distinctions. They are epistemologically prone to error -- and worse -- tend to be ethically divisive, destructive, and self-destructive.'

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

This was Reverend Wright's second epistemological error and ethical transgression -- and it was arguably worse than the first.

Which America was the Reverend talking about? Good America or Bad America. Was he referring to White America? And worse, was he loosely associating White America with Bad America?

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

Again, there was no excuse for Reverend Wright's 'loose associations' and 'tight, stereotypical distinctions' relative to the history of politics in general -- and particularly, American politics and oppression.

How racial, how anti-white, how anti-America were Reverend Wrights sermons? Was there significant humanism underlying his speeches -- or were they all about anger, rage, and hate...in stereotypical, racial fashion? Loose associations and tight stereotypical distinctions can take you to angy, violent places where it is not humanistically good for you to go.

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

America seems to be interested in two things but more so the second than the first:

1. Just how radical, racial, and/or anti-American were Reverend Wright's sermons?; and

2. To what extent are Obama's real personal philosophical views closely or not at all closely associated with what the Reverend Wright was preaching?


I saw Obama interviewed by Larry King a couple of weeks after this controversy broke loose and I thought that Obama handled himself -- and the Wright issue -- quite well. He's getting a reputation as the 'Tefelon Man' -- as he uses his gliding rhetoric to 'smooth' over problems. But once again, the American people are sick and tired of smooth rhetoric -- without substance, character, and integrity giving a strong, solid foundation to this smooth rhetoric. The American people want both an elegant speaker and a man of character, integrity, and substnace that has the willpower, the intellect, and the power to change the way politics is conducted in Washington.

Two issues in particular have left some seeds of doubt in the minds of people listenting to Obama: 1. his Michigan free trade speech in contrast to the contradicting contents of the leaked political letter by someone associated with his campaign; and 2. the Reverennd Wright controversy.

Should these controversies be viewed as possible precursors of more of the same to come?

Or should they be viewed as issues and controversies blown out of context by a Clinton campaign and/or a news media starving to rub something bad onto Obama's character and campaign?

We wait to see.

dgb, March 30th, 2008, revised and updated April 1-2, 2008.

Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, Posted on the internet, March 15th, 2008

Opening Comments by dgb: 'I like to post the occasional well-written article in 'Hegel's Hotel' that I think deserves further recognition and exposure and which I want to use as a starting point by which to bring a particular issue into focus and express my own viewpoints on the same, or a similar, issue. The article below fits into this category. It is called 'Reverend Wright and Barrack' -- by Gerald Posner, posted on the internet on March 15th, 2008. If the author has any problem with its inclusion here, I will quickly remove it. Until then, I will assume that it is okay to re-post here as it can freely and easily be found on the internet simply by googling 'Reverend Wright'.' -- dgb, March 30th, 2008/

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

Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, March 15th, 2008.


I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.

I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.

The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.

Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.

A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.

There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.

If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.

Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."

But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.

And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.

Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.

Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?

Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.

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

Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection

John Martin of ABC News says "Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism." Garry Wills calls Posner "a superb investigative reporter," while the Los Angeles Times dubs him "a classic-style investigative journalist." "His work is painstakingly honest journalism" concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his "exhaustive research techniques" and The Boston Globe determined Posner is "an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research." "A resourceful investigator and skillful writer," says The Dallas Morning News.

Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.

He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC's TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive "Cultural Chatter" column. Read a profile about Gerald's work in Publisher's Weekly.

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

Email Feedback From My Dad Regarding My Poem, 'God is the Bridge'

Gordon Bain" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: God is the Bridge
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:50:31 -0400

I am having some trying days of late, but today is bright and while it
is
cold, it is fun to think.

I go back a little and come to your God is a Bridge thinking, or is Man
the
Bridge?

It occurs to me that without question, God is the Bridge.

There are countless times in life when the load gets heavy, and you
must try
to understand the unthinkable...the questions for which there are no
logical
answers. It is then we can look to the stars and imagine beyond, as
your
mother does most every clear night. She is not crazy with man contrived
theological passions. She simply finds solace and calmness in the
belief of
a greater power ... God...and allows her uncertainties and unanswerable
questions ..indeed all of her hurts and despair .. and we all have
them.. to
ride the stars (read that crossing the bridge) through the vastness of
incalculable space to a place of perfection, serenity and
understanding. It
is a bright and happy place where a person can set their load down, and
find
solace. It allows her to have inner strength that is enviable. In other
words that which she cannot understand she gives to God.

It is said you rarely see an athiest in the heat of battle. In truth,
most
all of the world with its billions of people believe in a greater
power. We
are in a state of self love and me..ness right now. If those less
endowed
could not reach out to their God, how could they bridge the death and
destruction of world savagery, or explain their children dying of
hunger and
disease?

I think your Mom is right. I have thought about it a lot in my time,
tried
to be smart, said clever things to suggest I had an angle on the
religion
thing. I come back to the simple belief in a greater power. As Einstein
remarked in his later life, no matter how many answers are found, there
are
ten thousand times more that are unexplainable except to view and
explain it
as the work of a greater power. Paraphrased and pulled from my memory
of
what he said, but that is the gist of it.

So David, I was quite fascinated with your God is the Bridge poem, for
all
of the reasons given. I hold that the title is suggestive, soothing,
and
meaningful. It is worthy of a scholar's rendering. However, it would be
easy
to crash under the weight of needing to have this God-like state proven
beyond a shadow of doubt. Then it would be a bridge to nothingness,
literally.

Dad