Dialectical Mixture
The history of philosophy is to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments. Undignified as such a treatment may seem to some of my colleagues, I shall have to take account of this clash and explain a good many of the divergences of philosophies by it.
Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries when philosophizing to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions.
Yet his temperament really gives him stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or another, making for a more sentimental or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament.
Wanting a universe that suits it, he believes in any representation of the universe that does suit it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character and in his heart considers them incompetent and ‘not in It,' in the philosophical business, even though they may far excel him in dialectical ability.
William James in his 1906 essay, The Present Dilemma of Philosophy, is explaining not just the thoughts of philosophers, but the thoughts of all humans. The mental, physical and emotional traits of humans have been clashing long before recorded time. Temperament is a quality of consciousness that is firmly rooted in beliefs.
Philosophers may open the door for people to align their temperament with similar forms of energy that have a similar temperament, but all humans based their experiences on a unique and personal belief structure that creates physical choices and experiences. Once a belief structure is aligned with similar belief structures a chain reaction is set in motion which creates collective experiences, but each experience is different in that collective whole.
Religion, politics and other aspects of my belief system are constantly shifting and changing based not only on my temperament, but the temperament of all the energy I collect in my consciousness. The boundaries of my beliefs continue to expand after each experience and I become more aware of different elements that have been covered by a temperament that suite a particular energy flow at any given point in linear time.
Since duality and separation are also elements of my individual belief structure, I tend to opposed opposite beliefs and thoughts. I immediately defend my own beliefs and find data that will confirm the credence of my thoughts. I do this in several different ways, but the outcome is usually a right or wrong judgment. The now age philosophy is centering itself in integration, not separation. Rather that disputing and disclaiming conflicting philosophical issues and choosing an isolated approach to solving a particular dilemma, integration blends different philosophies, so the solution is a more accurate representation of individual realties existing simultaneously within a diverse collective consciousness.
Diverse temperaments and unique beliefs create an awareness of self; the ego becomes aware of similarities rather than differences in temperament and creates a reality to suit those similarities, which is a more integrated and unique temperament.
The tools to tweak my temperament are created every moment by impulses. Acceptance is the chisel that is craving a path of awareness large enough to fit all the philosophical rhetoric into an integrated context, so body consciousness can expand in its own dialectal mixture.

Help



