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...