The Antithetical discourse was I believe first suggested as far back as
Plato. But the ownership of this is couched within the very discourse that
follows. Does it matter who proposed it - what is the value of the argument,
is or should be, the area of judgement. This is so often forgotten when
applying treatments based on the 'findings' of the 'gurus' - the fact that
'they' said it is the value - not what they said!

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 17 June 1999 12:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PHILOSOPHY IN THERAPY 1


A fair amount of the more heated discussions on controversial topics,
beliefs
and claims may be viewed in an revealing light if we simplify and apply some
of the teachings of the great philosophers.

For instance, the special form of dialectic or discourse focused on by the
German philosopher, George Hegel (1770-1831) may be expressed in the form of
a thesis (the concept), an antithesis (an opposing concept) and a synthesis
(putting together the pieces from the thesis-antithesis conflict).

He pointed out that thesis and antithesis do not destroy one another, but
the
conflict leads to a superior synthesis. This synthesis, in turn, due to
its
own inadequacies, will spawn further theses and antitheses, thereby
producing
a higher order synthesis, and so on and so forth. Without conflict, Hegel
maintained that progress is impossible.

The relevance of this to the passionate responses by some group members to
antithetical or opposing views is obvious. Possibly, Hegel's point that
this
conflict is healthy and essential to progress will enable more folk to
appreciate that acquiescence or constant agreement, though it may win
friends
and influence people, is not very good for progress of knowledge.

One of Hegel's most familiar examples is the "master-slave relationship".
The concept of a master is the thesis and the concept of the slave is the
antithesis. The master just happens to be a master because he has slaves.
He is defined by what he is not. Superficially, this may suggest that the
slave owes his existence and identity to his master, but the reverse is true
- the master is defined by having the slave. So, in fact, the concept of
master (the thesis) is defined by the concept of slave (antithesis) and vice
versa. In essence, the master thus is slave to the slave and the slave is
master to his master.

Now let us apply this to the world of fitness and gurus - a guru is nothing
unless he has disciples and the disciples are nothing unless they have a
guru
 Who is in a better position or are they in perfect symbiotic balance?

The guru enjoys a position of apparent superiority and status, which
undoubtedly stokes the fires of egotism. Any threat to his status quo
endangers his self-worth, his mental equanimity and his reason for
existence.
 The slave, on the other hand, needs the master more for his survival needs
(like food and shelter), so a threat to his status quo as someone so low on
the ladder of life does not threaten self-worth and so forth in anything
like
the same way.

Is this perfect symbiosis? Who has the better deal? Is the guru really a
guru or is he really a slave to his own weaknesses?

What about the guru who wants to be accepted as the best guru in the world?
Does he not need the worship of his subjects, more than anyone else in the
world? Does he then not become the greatest slave in the world to his
slaves? He becomes less than the least of his subjects! What a "Catch 22"
situation! So, would YOU really like to become the best guru in the world
(in therapy, training, medicine etc)? Do you really want to have some
catchy
procedure named after you?

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%