authorityresearch.com

Institution for Authority Research

Article on Diaprax

The Identification of Paradigms:
Your paradigm determines your worth.

by Dean Gotcher

March, 2009

(revised 12-18-09)

Whether anybody reads this article all the way through or not (including the article Civil Disobedience: and it side effects), I have learned much from writing it, i.e. them. It has helped me tie up some loose ends.  For those who do read it you will understand what is coming, not just how we got here.

For the humanist and "Christian" humanist it has too much scripture, (I also use the KJV¹, which instantly closes "enlightened" minds), and it supports the wrong paradigm, i.e. the wrong way of thinking (proving open minds really don't have open minds).  This is sad because if they, i.e. the "enlightened," really knew how they came to their way of thinking (which is used to' justify' what they are doing), they "might" be upset with themselves, and "maybe" not do it.

For the "Christian" it is too academic, has too much scripture, and hurts their feelings, i.e. "I just go too far."  They need just a little flesh, actually maybe a lot, in their Christianity to make it go down better. 

"But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause."  "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin."  "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."  "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." John 15:25, 11, 18, 19;3:20)

This article is written for the believer, i.e. "the fundamental, religious, extremist," those for which the 'hate crime' is actually written.  Since the 'Church', i.e. the apostate church, i.e. Church Growth, Emergent Church, ..., has joined hands with the world, it hates those who expose it of its sin, identifying believers as being hateful, if recognizing them at all.  For the believer this article will be grievous as well as encouraging.  This article will explain how things have come to be the way they are, and will only be readable in bits and pieces, i.e. over time, or be a demanding endurance read from top to bottom (at times, I hate to admit, mind numbing, i.e. "Do I want to think this hard").  It is an involved study of our times, inculcating at times—to say over and over, very repetitive to get the point across—explaining the "justification" for the persecution of believers, i.e. persecution done "in Jesus name," with the mega church at the helm. 

Nevertheless, if you bother to read it for understanding, i.e. not with a "critical theory" attitude, it will give you a deeper, maybe life changing, understanding of the battle between the temporal and the spiritual realms in government, in education, in the workplace, in the church, in the family, and in yourself.  I know by writing this article it will tick some people off.  Like casting pearls before swine, they will turn and practice their "critical theory" attitude on me.  In the face of that, it is written for the believer, that he might be strengthened in faith, prepared to endure to the end, in Christ, having it settled in his mind, once and for all, that the struggle is worth it.  In part I also wrote this for my own children's and grandchildren's sake, in the hope that Irvin Yalom is incorrect: "The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;"  (Yalom)

It might help to read it through briskly, not getting bogged down in any one area, but noting things you want to remember or cover more in detail.  Then coming back and re-read for clearer understanding.  In this way you will have a grasp of the whole subject matter. (When I research I usually re-read the material several times over, just to make sure I know for certain what the author is saying.) 

Dean Gotcher

If you refuse to hear the truth, eventually you can not hear truth. 

"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.  For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
    They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
    Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19

"... it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

[In this article all bracketed information is information not found in the original quotation. It is information added by me.]  This is an ongoing research project on my part which includes the ongoing correction of typos, lengthy sentence paragraphs, etc.  Since there is a lot of helpful information in these articles, I hope that my writing inadequacy does not stop you from perusing it. To print endnotes, open endnotes file and print. (Class notes)

Some of the sources, other than the Word of God, quoted in this article are as follows: the bolded name references the author and their book in the article.

Adorno, Theodor,  The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno)
                         ,  Introduction to Sociology
Allport, Gordon, The Nature of Prejudice
Barker, Roger, Child Behavior and Development (Barker)
Benne, Kenneth,   Human Relations in Curriculum Change (Benne)
                        ,  Society as Educator in an Age of Transition
Bloom, Benjamin, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect
"Bloom's Taxonomies:"
            Benjamin Bloom,  et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain  (Bloom, Book 1: Cognitive Domain)
            David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain  (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain)
Brightman, Edgar S.,   “A Personalistic Philosophy of History,”   Journal of Bible and Religion
Bronner, Stephen Eric, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists  (Bronner)
Brookover, Wilbur,  A Sociology of Education (Brookover)
                           ,  Socialization in the School
Brown, Norman O.,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (Brown)
Coleman, James, The Adolescent Society (Coleman)
                         , Community Conflict
Dewey, John,  Democracy and Education  (Dewey)
                   ,  “Social Psychology,” Psychological Review, I July, 1894
Drucker, Peter,  ‘More freedom’ or ‘more harmony’? Henriette Roland Holst, Jacques Engels and the influence of class and gender on socialists’ sexual attitudes. Paper submitted to the seminar on “Labour organizations and sexuality”, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon  5 October 2001 (Drucker)
Federal Education Grant: Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program, December 1969 (BSTEP)                   
Finlayson, James Gordon,  Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics
Freire, Paulo, The Politics of Education:  Culture Power and Liberation
Freud, Sigmund,  Civilization and Its Discontents
Friedrich, Carl,  The Philosophy of Hegel  (Friedrich)
Fromm, Erick,  Escape from Freedom (Fromm)
Gramsci, Antonio,   Selections from the PRISON NOTEBOOKS (Gramsci)
Habermas, Jürgen,  Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other
                           ,  Knowledge & Human Interest
                           ,  The Theory of Communicative Action
Havelock, Ronald G., A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education  (Havelock)
Havighurst, Robert and Hilda Taba  Adolescent Character and Personality
G. F. W. Hegel,
Henry, Patrick, June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the Virginia Convention of 1788 (P. Henry)
Horkheimer, Max,  Kritische Theori
                           ,  Eclipse of Reason
                           ,  Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung 
Howard, Jane,  Please Touch: A Guide Tour of the Human Potential Movement                          , 
Jay, Martin,  The Dialectical Imagination (Jay)
Laszlo, Irvin,  A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order
Lewis, John,  The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx
Lukacs, Georg,  History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism? (Lukacs)
King, Martin Luther, Jr.,  “Facing the Challenge of a New Age,” Papers
                                    ,  “How Should a Christian Think About Man.” Papers
                                    ,  Strength to Love
                                    ,  Stride Toward Freedom The Montgomery Story
                                    ,  “What is Man?”
                                    ,  Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?
Lenin, Vladimir,  Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks’ Success May 12, 1920
Marcuse, Herbart,  Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud (Marcuse)
                           , Relevance of Reality
Marx, Karl,  Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, ed. Joseph O’Malley  (Marx, Critique)
                 ,  Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy by T. B. Bottomore (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore)
                 ,  The Holy Family
Maslow, Abraham,  The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (Maslow, Reaches)
                             ,  The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Volumes I and II. Lowry R.J. ed. (Maslow, Journals)
                             ,  Maslow on Management  (Maslow, Management)
Moreno, J. L.,  Who Shall Survive?
Obama, Barrack Hussein, Speech in Berlin, Summer, 2008 ("tearing down walls")
                                      , Speech in Prague Sunday, April 5, 2009 ("velvet revolution")
Reich, Wilhelm, The Mass Psychology of Fascism  (Reich)
Rogers, Carl,  on becoming a person: a therapist view of psychotherapy (Rogers)
Seay, George Russell, Jr.,  Theologian of Synthesis:  The Dialectical Method of Martin Luther King, Jr. as Revealed in His Critical Thinking on Theology, History, and Ethics  (Seay)
Trojanowicz, Robert Trojanowicz, Dr.,  Community Policing  The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing 
Tyler, Ralph W., “Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction,” Trends in Student Personnel Work, E. G. Williamson, Ed.
Vygotsky, L. S.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
Wheat, Leonard F., Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God  (Wheat)
Williams, Preston N., “An Analysis of the Conception of Love and Its Influence on Justice in the Thought of Martin Luther King Jr.” Journal of Religious Ethics vol. 18, 20.  (Williams)
Yalom, Irvin D.,  Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy (Yalom)

The Identification of Paradigms. Part I
Originally an introduction to the article Civil Disobedience: and its side affects.

The Identification of Paradigms. Part II
The Identification of Paradigms. Part III

"For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." 2 Corinthians 2:9-11 

Since we are both in Christ (if you are in Christ), "we are obedient in all things," i.e. "all things" which proceed from God.  As Christ was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father, forgiving us of our sins (paying for our debt of sin), when you forgive someone "in the person of Christ," I then, being in Christ, forgive them also.  Since the forgiveness is in the obedience of Christ (he would have both of us to forgive them as he forgave us), when I forgive, "in the person of Christ," I do it for your sake and when you forgive, "in the person of Christ," you do it for my sake.  In His way, because we are both in the obedience of Christ, "obedient in all things," Satan can not "get an advantage of us," separate us from Christ and from one another.  For our relationship with Christ is not through our relationship with one another, i.e. through our selfish, psychosomatic nature (what we can get out of the situation for ourselves), but our relationship is instead based upon our relationship with Christ Jesus, i.e. in His relationship, i.e. in His obedience to His Father, i.e. in His Spirit. "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." 1 John 4:13 Thus, "in the person of Christ;" in God's Patriarchal Paradigm (in Christ's obedience to His Heavenly Father, on our behalf), "we are not ignorant of his devices," i.e. not ignorant of Satan's devices (devices: nohma, way of thinking or purpose), and thereby do not participle in Satan's Heresiarchal Paradigm (in his rebellion against God, justifying himself in his own eyes), in his vendetta of hate against obedience to God's authority. The hate of the Father (a Heresiarchal Paradigm) begins when our Eros, our mind set upon the flesh and the world, is restrained, i.e. suppressed by demanded obedience to He who is above our flesh, God (a Patriarchal Paradigm).  Only in the act (praxis) of God (shown in Christ's "obedience in all things," that is in his obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things), and in our act (praxis) our repentance for our sin against him (our doubt in and therefore disobedience against him), and in the work of the Holy Spirit within us, can we overcome our hate for the Father (his laws of restraint) and our love for this world.  Our love for ourselves and this world is. manifested in the way we think, i.e. leaning unto our own understanding, leaning upon the flesh, ours and others, i.e. not being "obedient in all things" according to God's will. 

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:12

But, when we are ignorant of Satan's devices (his way of thinking), then our fleshly nature, our love for this world (Eros), can be disguised as 'Christian' love in human relationship (what we can get out of the situation, i.e. our relationship with the world, for ourselves).  In this way, leaning to our own understanding, trusting in ourselves to know good from evil (basing value and worth upon human reasoning), Eros can be liberated even "in the name of Jesus," i.e. having a semblance of love i.e. calling itself agape.   Thereby we can, in ignorance, love our own flesh, and the flesh of mankind below (love the things of this world, temporal), while perceiving our love as being Spiritual, i.e. having that love which comes from above.  Love is all about trust, faith, and "obedience," trust in, faith in, and obedience to our Heavenly Father who is above our human nature, our nature (and our reasoning) which seeks to be loved by (and to love) the things of this world.

"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:1,2

The book of John is all about the Son's obedience "in all things" to His Heavenly Father, i.e. always being subject to His Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. his love for He who is above (greater than) the world "in all things."  His obedience to His Father (above) is what His Love is all about.  All of the Word of God is about obedience to God (above) "in all things."  It is also all about man's disobedience (below), i.e. his heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. his love for this world (below) even though he might claim his love is from God.  Apart from God's love in us (made available by His Son's love for His Father and thereby His love for us, and His and His Fathers Love "shed abroad in our hearts by His Holy Spirit") we can not love him, we can not be "obedient to all things."  Your "obedience in all things" (to that which is above) is a manifestation of his love in us, the "proof" of His Spirit in us.  Our justification is not found in our love and obedience, but in our faith in God, with love and obedience following, as the work and the witness of the Holy Spirit, i.e. Christ, in us. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us."  Romans 5:1-5 It can only be this way, in any other way we go the way of the world (below), being taken advantage of by Satan, even though we might think we are doing it "in the name of Jesus," being ignorant of "Satan's devices," i.e. Satan's Heresiarchal Paradigm.  (Before God's justification, self justification and social justification—the witness of human reasoning, i.e. the dialectical process in praxis—are evil.)  "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [praxis]; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."  Colossians 3:9-11  The old man is of the devil's praxis, lying and calling it love, the new man is of God's praxis, knowing and proclaiming the truth, "obedient in all things," in His Love.

Laying a foundation from which to understand the Paradigm of God and the Paradigm of man.  God's paradigm is not man's paradigm.  God's way of thinking is not man's way of thinking.  In fact you can not think God's way without God doing it through you. "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."  2 Corinthians 2:16

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9

Paradigms are different ways of thinking. This article will deal with paradigms alone.  What started out as a few pages of introduce to my article: Civil Disobedience: and its side affects has turned into this extensive dissertation.  Without knowing the difference between paradigms (different ways of thinking), you can not understand the effect civil disobedience has had upon people.  This is why "paradigm change" is such an important issue to understand, especially regarding the breakdown of, and attack upon, not only the traditional home, but also upon sovereignty, and "fundamentalism," i.e. persecution of believers and the true Church. "And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.  And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.  For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.  But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.  And the gospel must first be published among all nations.  But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.  Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."  Mark 13:5-13

How a paradigm change is done: 

If, to be at one with the village, i.e. to have peace within the village, i.e. to have unity in the village, any truth which causes division within the village, which causes disunity, must not be preached or taught, but instead be dialogued until only its useful parts, that which is common to our common humanity, comes into consensus with the village, then, herein lies the 'brilliance' of the dialectical process, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, everyone will get along in the village and the divisiveness of nationalism (ours vs. theirs), sovereignty (mine vs. yours), and 'fundamentalism,' (absolute right and truth), will never arise again.  In this way truth is swallowed up by, i.e. transformed into, social harmony, and man's thoughts and man's ways will be freed from Godly restraint, i.e. his unchanging ways and thoughts.  His paradigm, which causes division within the village, will be negated and replaced with man's paradigm. Thus truth, faith, and knowing will be replaced with opinions, human reasoning, and feelings; righteousness will be replaced with social ethics, i.e. democratic ethics; the soul will be replaced with Eros, Id, and Ego; Spirit from above (God, i.e. eternal) will be replaced with spirit which is below (man, i.e. temporal); and Christ, at one with the Father, will be replaced with Christ, at one with man.  Thus liberty in law, i.e. freedom from the law of the flesh, a liberty which can only come from God, who is above the law of the flesh, is replaced with the liberation of the flesh.  That which is of the world, i.e. "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," is thus turned into common human nature, negating "lust," turning it into that which is 'common' to all mankind, i.e. normal, and thereby negating God above, defining Him, and those who believe upon Him in faith, i.e. following Him in "blind" obedience, as, neurotic, abnormal, antisocial, behavior.  Turning that which is good into evil.  Evil being obedience to God, i.e. "trusting in the Lord with all your heart," i.e. dividing mankind into those who are saved and lost, good and evil, according to their obedience to or rebellion against God's will (an above-below, i.e. patriarch paradigm), and turning that which is evil into good.  Good being the act (praxis) of questioning God and his authority, i.e. "leaning to your own understanding."  Everyone in the village must be taxonomising along a continuum which, from one side considers those worthless, irrational, and therefore irrelevant (evil, hateful) who obey God by faith, i.e. labeling them as lower order thinkers, unadaptable to change, maladjusted, negative, divisive, intolerant, prejudiced, to where, as they progressively move across the continuum to the other side they will be exonerated as they learn how to question God's will, or the will of any authority figure which inhibits social harmony.  From then on every thought and every action must be weighed in light of man's collective will in the moment, i.e. his immediate collective "felt" needs," i.e. according to his human nature.  In this way, using an "enlightened" way of thinking, a Heresiarchal Paradigm, higher order thinking skills, "change" can be initiated and forever sustained.  

God's paradigm is not man's paradigm:

"He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.  And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.  Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Romans 4:20-25

Different paradigms:  What is your social ID? What is your social worth? Your worth, or lack of it, is found either in a pre-established condition, or along a continuum of "changeability," i.e. in your adaptability to change, i.e. your tolerance for ambiguity, your method of analysis used for the sake of initiating and sustaining human relationships.  Your worth is either found in the patriarchal paradigm (tradition), or somewhere along a continuum or spectrum from where you begin the process of change by abdicating your analysis of the meaning and purpose of life from your parent's or God's words and commands, where you begin to find your "purpose"  in life through finding "equality," or common ground with others, i.e. the matriarchal paradigm (transition based upon analysis of life from within yourself, i.e. your feelings and affections for others, below—human relationship—become more important than the words and commands of "He who is above;" "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife."  Genesis 3:17—Adam becoming equal with the woman becoming equal with God, following Satan's method of analysis, i.e. "ye shall be as gods"  Genesis 3:5) to becoming transformed into the heresiarchal paradigm (transformation; transformization, democratization, conscientization, etc). The conscience-confusion-consensus spectrum moves all participants into a world where science (fact or truth) becomes valid only when it is fused with sensuousness (humanism, i.e. behavior science, i.e. behavior has meaning and value only in a social context, where truth is not found outside of the human experience but is only 'knowable' within the social-environmental "moment").

Those who think with a patriarchal paradigm analyze life from a source outside of, or greater than their sensual-reasoning (self-social-environmental) experience (they have faith in the words and commands of a higher authority, i.e. parent, teacher, boss, ..., God and therefore they make life decisions based upon those commands or words, i.e. respecting higher authority).  Those who begin to move along the spectrum or continuum of "change" begin by analyzing their life from their own feelings, while still attempting to maintain respect for authority (which leads to confusion).  Those who finally embrace or abdicate to the heresiarchal paradigm analyze their life, and the life of others, from the perspective of "change" (questioning all things which inhibit or negate sensual relationship with mankind and the world, i.e. everything becomes social-environmental in nature where human-environmental relationship becomes both the "drive" and the "purpose" for living).  In the patriarchal paradigm Objective truth supersedes subjective truth (retaining a top-down structure of thought) whereas in the heresiarchal paradigm subjective truth and objective truth unite upon common ground (initiating and sustaining a self-social-environmental structure of thought). 

Whether in work or in play, the dialectical process brings all participants into a closer walk with the world "spirit," where work becomes play and play becomes work, both united upon a common social praxis. Your social worth increases as you embrace and learn how to use the heresiarchal paradigm for the "purpose" of initiating and sustaining community (common-unity).   “Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society.”  “Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society.” (Articles 66 and 14 from the "former" USSR Constitution, and the Americas Constitution)  “In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole.” “Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals.” “The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health.” (Maslow, Management)

I will write of paradigms as in direct correlation to a person or a group of people (personalizing them), since, which paradigm is being used at any given moment, defines who a person is or a group of people are, i.e. how they are  justifying their thoughts and actions (praxis).  It all comes down to justification, i.e. in whose eyes you find and fulfill your "purpose" in life (in God, i.e. in Christ, i.e. through faith in His Word, or in mankind, i.e. yourself, the neighbors, the community, the region, the nation, the continent, the world, the cosmos, i.e. through sensuousness). In the end, as it was in the beginning, it is only an either-or condition.  God is not confused, man is. While man may think there is a gray (or a rainbow) world of morals, there is no gray with God.  With God, "black is black and white is white" when it comes down to what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong.  “Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose.”  (P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee responding to brainwashing attempts by the North Korean's, January 19th, 1953—their efforts to replace a patriarchal paradigm with a heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. replace didactic reasoning with dialectical reasoning, i.e. replace deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, etc.)

"How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"  John 5:44

The patriarchal paradigm:

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."  2 Corinthian 10:5

Those who think and act according to the patriarchal paradigm are obedient to higher authority "in all things."  The person of group of people are justified in their actions based upon their obedience to the one in authority, whether that authority is right or wrong in their commands or actions.  The patriarchal paradigm, without question, embraces and does God's will, the parent's will, or some higher authority's will (with God, who is good, this is for good, with man who is not good, when he is in God's will, for good or when he is apart from or especially against God's will, for evil).  In secular-spiritual structure, Jesus' actions (Son of God, Son of man) were justified in his "obedience" to His Heavenly Father, i.e. the patriarch. 

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;  And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."  2 Corinthians 10:3-6

We are to "cast down," i.e. not just rejected but destroyed, annihilate (with spiritual force), any thought which would counter our Heavenly Father's will.  This includes those things which are internal, "imaginations," and those things were are external, "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge" (' gnwsiv, gnosis') "of God," i.e. not the gnosis of Gnosticism which is experiential knowledge (dialectical knowledge), i.e. sensual knowledge, but rather word and spirit knowledge which comes by faith in God, in His Word, and the power of his Holy Spirit.  We are therefore to bring "into captivity every thought," whether it be within us, or external to us, which attempts to be equal or greater than our Heavenly Father, and is not subject "to the obedience of Christ," who was and is "obedient" to His Heavenly Father "in all things."  Therefore his actions were justified in his "obedience" to higher authority, i.e. in his "obedience" to God His Heavenly Father, a structure of thought known as a patriarchal paradigm, in both the Heavenly realm and the earthly realm, i.e. the Heavenly Family and the earthly family.

The matriarchal paradigm:

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.  Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.  As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Revelation 3:15-21

The matriarchal paradigm does their own thing just going along to get along, i.e. "neither cold nor hot." Those who think and act according to the matriarchal paradigm seek "safe" zones and try to avoid or prevent confrontation. Their desire is for a world of peace.  While working for it they can not function outside of their feelings, i.e. their desire for those in the world to have relationship with those in the world around them, i.e. for the family, i.e. all the children, to "enjoy the day together."

The heresiarchal paradigm:

 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."  Luke 16:15

The heresiarchal paradigm justifies man's common humanistic will. Those who think and act (theory and practice) according to the heresiarchal paradigm initiate and sustain the change of a persons paradigm from the patriarchal paradigm, through the matriarchal paradigm, to the heresiarchal paradigm by a complex and subtle method of manipulation, utilizing conflict and crisis (along with personal dissatisfactions toward the patriarchal paradigm) as the medium for change.  Those who think with the heresiarchal paradigm see the patriarchal paradigm, the matriarchal paradigm, and the heresiarchal paradigm as along a continuum, or a taxonomy of different ways of thinking (from lower to higher order "thinking skills").  According to those who use the continuum method,  all paradigms appear to merge (synthesize, generalize, assimilate) into the heresiarchal paradigm, along many different levels or areas of interest, all arriving there through the use of the dialectical process.  A person progresses farther down the heresiarchal continuum with his increased use of the dialectical process, thus the term progressivism, i.e. transforming ("changing") the "old" way of doing things with "new" ideas, findings, or opportunities. 

A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations." (Havelock)

“During the period of innovation, an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it.  It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment."  (BSTEP)

The dialectical process is a humanistic way of thinking which is used in the resolution of crisis, i.e. used in making decisions, i.e. used in removing barriers to progress.  The dialectical process is used to identify and control—neutralize, marginalize, remove, or change, i.e. convert—"resisters of innovations."  In this way the future world of peace and harmony can be created with "change," i.e. innovation.  For example: by changing the learning environment from where the teacher is in front of the class, inculcating facts to the students, all the students sitting in rows, to where the teacher is discovering facts with the students, traveling between tables circled by students in small discussion groups, both teacher and student change their structure of thought, from an above-below, patriarchal paradigm, where only the teacher creates or reveals the facts and the students are to memorize them and demonstrate that they have learned them (developing didactic, deductive reasoning through the use of teaching and preaching), to a just below, heresiarchal paradigm where the students can create their own world, a world in harmony with their "feelings" and their "thoughts," a world of "change" (developing dialogic, dialectic, inductive reasoning through the use of dialogue).  In this way (using the heresiarchal way of thinking—using the continuum system), by restructuring the learning environment from an above-below to a just "us" below system, the next generation's ideology will be changed from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm. Since everybody is so involved in the "period of innovation," (everybody being "in the moment") the coup d'etat of the heresiarchal learning environment over the patriarchal learning environmental takes place with the change of paradigm environments going unnoticed ("invisible") until it is to late. Those who think with a patriarchal paradigm do not understand (to their demise) that with a change in problem solving environment (learning and communicating structure) a change in the person's ideology will follow.  The way a person thinks while solving crises, i.e. making decisions, directly correlates with his ideology.  

"Ideologies are, expressions of the structure and are modified by modifications of the structure."  (Gramsci) 

Change the structure, i.e. the paradigm, and the person, to fit within the "new" structure, (so he can have his voice heard), will change his ideology.  Try to change his ideology and he will more than likely resist and fight.  Leave his ideology alone and change the structure and, by his participation, even in an effort to preserve his ideology, he will change his ideology.  In this way his ideology will come into alignment with the new structure.  By working within the structure he may never know what hit him.  The force for change of structure is the persons desire to be heard, his desire for social approval to retain or defend his ideology.  He will therefore sacrifice his ideology upon the pagan alter (the dialectical structure) of social approval. "A paradigm is a fundamental frame of reference on which researchers in a given discipline rely to structure and guide their research."  (source:  www.thebrain.mcgill.ca)

"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5   "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content."  Philippians 4:11 [Dissatisfaction is the dynamo which makes the dialectical process work.  Without the discontent it can not be initiated and sustained.]

"How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses."  Jeremiah 5:7  [It is either God's way or the world's way.  Even though a man may not assemble "in the harlots' house," his paradigm of leaning upon his own understanding, not letting God direct his steps, condemns him.]

How the heresiarchal paradigm divides so it can conquer the patriarchal paradigm:

Those who think with a patriarchal paradigm see the continuum method itself as wrong and evil (as diabolical).  Therefore, for the heresiarchal paradigm to come into "bloom," it must be able to, by craftiness, find where a person is along the continuum at any given moment without its intentions being identified and itself being blocked.  For the dialectical process to function, the essential element for its success is to find a person's interest, i.e. for the most part patriarchal paradigm blocked interests (parental principles which block, i.e. inhibit, the child's interests), i.e. dissatisfaction created by the patriarchal paradigms' demands and commands and discontentment towards the way things are (parental authority).  Only when a person's dissatisfaction is available for use by those who think with a heresiarchal paradigm ("change agents"), are they able to facilitate "change" of a person's paradigm (called a "paradigm shift").  The "shift" is really a change in focus from He who is above man's nature, i.e. what God says (parental principles), to that which is below, i.e. human nature itself,  i.e. how we "feel" and what we "think," (childish interests).  By getting everyone who is "listening to themselves," "getting in touch with their feelings," to unit on a common interest, i.e. a common cause,  they will stop listening to principle, i.e. those who are perceived as blocking or inhibiting the "purpose" of achieving the common interest, i.e. common cause, the room can be divided between principle and interest with interest superseding principle.  In this way the facilitator is able to divide the room between those of the future and those of the past, placing everyone on the continuum of change.  Those who are resistant to change, those who are principle minded, will either have to abdicate to those who want change, those who are interest minded, or be left out of making decisions regarding the future.  The process of change, lead by the facilitator of change, i.e. the 'change agent,' will therefore take control of the interest for the sake of the "common cause," the negation of principle.  By dividing principle from interest he is able to conquer both interest and principle, bringing all who participated in the process, for the sake of interest, under their control to be used to annihilate what is left of principle.

"… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist … For to accept that solution, even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [the child's standpoint; their interest included in making decisions, objective truth changeable by subjective 'truth'] other than that of the bourgeoisie [the parent's standpoint; their principles control in making decisions, subjective truth subject to objective truth].  And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [the children must refuse to see the world according to their parent's standpoint, i.e. see the world through their parent's eyes, they must refuse to accept the parent as final authority, as ultimate principle]."  "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the parent] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [see the world through the child's eyes, become child centered (child interest minded), i.e. "What is in the best 'interest' of my child according to the "village"], it is lost [the patriarchal paradigm is moribund]."  (Lukacs)

Principle (objective truth) is annihilated by those who seek only after interest (subjective truth), who turned the control of their interest over to those who help liberate them from principle (those who turn objective truth, which is above subjective truth, i.e. spiritual, i.e. not equal to or subject to the temporal, i.e.  above the temporal, i.e. the "moment," into being equal with subjective truth, making objective truth temporal, of the "moment," changeable, social, experiential, carnal, worldly, demonic). By chasing after their interest, without principle to restrain them and protect them, they fall into debt to the facilitating process, eventually becoming slaves to the world system (used, abused, and destroyed by the beast for the beasts "purpose").  Objective truth in the case is not to be found above man but within man (the "divine spark," i.e. the individual, finding his way back to oneness with himself and the "cosmic spirit," i.e. society, i.e. the kingdoms of the world united and directed by Satan, presenting himself as a god above mankind, the god amongst god's).  When man becomes liberated from God above his nature, he becomes a slave to his nature as he becomes a slave to the world system and "the prince of the power of the air."  "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."  Ephesians 2:2, 3  

This is how divide and conquer works, how those who think with the heresiarchal paradigm do their evil deeds (praxis).  As Satan divided the woman in the Garden in Eden from God, through facilitating change, he helped her become her own person.  By influencing and encouraging her to focus upon her own interest, her own feelings, he helped her make change easy and thereby overcome the restraint of principle.  By her change of paradigms, by her new way of thinking, he was able to conquer both her and Adam (who followed after his "higher order thinking" system instead of after God).  By the negation of the patriarchal paradigm in their perception, by their rejection of living by God's paradigm, their hedge of protection from vanity, lust, and pride was removed, and the love of this world took control of their lives.  They thus, falling subject to the dialectical process, began their walk down the pathway of the heresiarchal paradigm, down the pathway of death, as have all who followed. Sin is the rejection of God's patriarchal paradigm with Him being The Patriarch "over all the heavens and the earth."

"Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family [the authority of the traditional, patriarchal family] is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society) 

When the parents question (abdicate) their authority, authority given by God (authority not given by the government, i.e. the government can only protect the patriarchal family by not influencing and controlling the patriarchal family for its own end), they remove the child's hedge of protection from the world system, from the pedophile system.  I say pedophile since psychology and sociology are both based upon patricide and incest which are not just physical, but mental and social as well, where lust is liberated "as long as everybody can participate and no one is hurt," whatever that means.  "All are at risk," (all are potential victims to those who won't allow them to "play"), and "No one will be left behind," (all must be influenced and encouraged to "play," mandated by the government, i.e. socialism, for the sake of a "healthy" society).

“The only emancipation ... is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart is the proletariat [the disenfranchised-adolescent].” Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'  

The heresiarchal paradigm can be correlated to the proletariat, i.e. the children or especially the adolescent, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm.  (See my article Christianity and Diaprax, the section on James Coleman to understand the "purpose" for creating an adolescent society and how "change agents," those who have influence and power over it, can then use the "adolescent society" to make social change.)  The patriarchal paradigm can be correlated to the bourgeoisie, i.e. the parent, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm. (See my article Deductive-Inductive Reasoning Part II, the section on the French Revolution to understand the connection between the proletariat and bourgeoisie and the negation of the patriarchal family.) If the proletariat (the children, those of the heresiarchal paradigm) are to overcome the bourgeoisie (the parent, those of the patriarchal paradigm), the solution is for the proletariat to get the bourgeoisie to move over onto their dialectical (scientific) structure, i.e. their turf (so the parents can become child centered, concerned about the children's feelings while making decisions, i.e. feelings based), otherwise the proletariat can not initiate and sustain "change," i.e. they can not praxis the dialectical process and overcome parental authority by getting their parents to overthrow their own system of commands, abdicating their office of authority and giving their children and themselves over to socialists, by their willful participation in the "sharing of feelings" process, i.e. rediscovering their "child within."   The "class standpoint" is tenement to observing the world from the children's world view, which, if done properly, effectively negates the parent's office of authority. 

Instead of the child feeling guilty for disobeying the parents, the parents feel guilty for having hurt the child's feelings, preventing their potential, i.e. their dreams and imaginations, from being realized, etc.  In this way, conviction, confession, and repentance are moved ("shifted") from conviction for not obeying higher authority, confession before higher authority, and repentance to higher authority, to conviction for working against society—for supporting the patriarchal paradigm, confession before society—for having supported the patriarchal paradigm, and repentance to society—to no longer support the patriarchal paradigm but from now on to work with society in fighting against and overthrowing the patriarchal paradigm).  The haves (the parents who control the child's world with the power of their "thou shalt not") and have-not's (the children who have no power over their world because of the parents "thou shalt not"), when synthesized (come into partnership via consensus), negate the haves and the have-nots (there is no above-below paradigm since their is no longer a "thou shalt not" over the children).  As the parents abdicates their position of authority over the children in an effort to find harmony with the children (to get rid of the children's discontentment toward the parent's authoritative behavior, i.e. their "thou shalt not"), the children must also reject the parent's authority position, not only of their parents but also of their own, in favor of the voice of the collective, therefore the haves and have-not's are transform into socialists.  The "village," i.e. the facilitation who "helps" resolves the "crises," i.e. who brings the village to the decision "moment," now has control over the "thou shalt not."   All this is done for the "purpose" of initiating and sustaining human relationships, i.e. to initiate and sustain the feeling of consensus (cosmic oneness).  This is how you get the masses of people to volunteer their time, work, pay their taxis (which keeps them having to work), dedicate their children, their land, and their business to, and generally live their lives out, serving you.  This is why, when socialist get into power, they are so hard to remove, they will live and die to keep the "gravy train" rolling your goods their way.

A famous transformational Marxist, György Lukács, put it this way (note: correlate "the bourgeoisie" to "the parents" and "the proletariat" to "the children"): "... the bourgeoisie fighting on its own ground will prove superior to the proletariat ... it is self-evident that the bourgeoisie fighting on its own ground will be both more experienced and more expert… the superiority of the proletariat must lie exclusively in its ability to see society from the centre as a coherent whole. This means that it is able to act in such a way as to change reality [reality in the next generation is not found in obedience to authority but instead in social equality]; in the class consciousness [contempt toward parental authority] of the proletariat [the child] theory and practice coincide [carnal inclinations are rationalized, collectively, and then put into social practice] ... The proletariat [the child] cannot liberate itself as a class [all children are suppressed by parental authority] without simultaneously abolishing class society [eliminating parent-child, teacher-student, etc. hierarchy] as such. For that reason its consciousness [society inductively reasoned with feelings being the core, uniting all participants], the last class consciousness in the history of mankind, must both lay bare the nature of society [socialist nature is not patriarchal in nature] and achieve an increasingly inward fusion of theory and practice.
    …the bourgeoisie [parental authority] automatically obtains the upper hand when its opponents [the children in rebellion] abandon their own position [position of equality put into practice, i.e. all in contempt toward parental authority and showing it collectively]....destroy this unity [children's feelings and the freedom to act upon them] they cut the nerve that binds proletarian theory [children's feelings and thought being rationally justified in consensus binding them in the hope of attaining "the dream"] to proletarian action [children's consensus put into action, action in overthrowing the patriarchal paradigm]. They reduce theory to the ‘scientific’ treatment of the symptoms ...and as for practice they are themselves reduced to being buffeted about aimlessly and uncontrollably [sulking rebellious children without a cause or purpose, without a blueprint, a map, for global dominance over the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. unable to realize a lawless world ruled by the lawless one]." (Lukacs)  [bracketed information definitely not Lukacs' but added by me.]

Replacing the word bourgeoisie with the word parent and proletariat with children the prior quotation, by György Lukács, is more clearly defined. The parents "fighting on their own ground," setting policy only by their patriarchal paradigm (obedience or chastening), "will prove superior to the" children "... it is self-evident that the" parent "fighting on" their "own ground will be both more experienced and more expert ... the superiority of the" children "must lie exclusively in their ability to see society from the center as a coherent whole, as a" repressed, disenfranchised class (collective, i.e. community) seeking freedom from a tyrant.  "This means that" the children must be "able to act in such a way as to change reality;" through their collective (consensus) contempt for parental authority, when their thoughts and their feelings are united in action [the "purpose" for creating an adolescent society, i.e. the disenfranchised, not being either a child or an adult, so that they can create their own future world of being both]... the children "cannot liberate" themselves as a collective "without simultaneously abolishing the" parent-child, patriarchal paradigm.  "For that reason" they must become conscious of their potential freedom from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. parental authority, and grasp the true meaning of community, putting their own feelings and their own thoughts into collective action, redefining reality based upon their own impulses and interests, acting upon their own collectively realized nature, i.e. "achieve an increasing inward fusion of theory and practice."
    The parents "automatically obtain the upper hand when" the children "abandon their own position," i.e. the 'purpose' of life is to live it without parental controls.... But by destroying the unity of the children, united by consensus, i.e. collective experiential moments outside of parental control (as in the group grade classroom, i.e. the grade is not based upon the individual students ability to learn facts but rather is based upon his willingness to think and feel within and perform, praxis, for a common group outcome), "they cut the nerve that binds" the children's thoughts and feelings with the children's actions.  "They reduce" thought to simply the action of analyzing their feelings .... "and as far as practice" goes,  i.e. the praxis of negating the patriarchal paradigm, the children "are themselves reduced to being" upset about the situation but unable to do anything about it.  [This is the same pattern used in "purpose driven" church, replacing God's authority from above with the "grass roots" voice from below, i.e. frustrating those who want to go with God's Word from above.]

“The administrators must learn who the skeptics are, for they represent a potentially powerful force for change.”  “Persons satisfied with things as they are must be helped to acquire convictions for change and arrive at that state of dissatisfaction.”  “Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction.”  (Benne)

According to those who practice (praxis) the heresiarchal paradigm, your social worth, your adaptability to change, is somewhere along a continuum.  The further you move from one end of the continuum towards the other, i.e. the more adept you become in the use of the dialectical process, the more worthy you are in holding an office, running a business, ministering, having a family, being listened to, administering "care" to others, i.e. facilitating change, etc, the more worthy you are in being encouraged and supported, emotionally and financially, by the system.  Those of the patriarchal paradigm are the least worthy of all since they are seen as the greatest threat, i.e. they are seen as a barrier to "change," i.e. blocking the dialectical process, the heresiarchal paradigm, and thereby inhibiting social harmony.  If those who think with the patriarchal paradigm can not be converted, by their participation in the continuum system, they must be neutralized, marginalized, and removed (extruded) from any environment where policy is being planned and carried out, including the traditional home (what Karl Marx referred to as "the earthly family").  The heresiarchal idea is that if the patriarchal paradigm of God, who demands obedience, is irrelevant, then the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home, which demands obedience (teaching the next generation to think and act in the same way, i.e. obedience), is also irrelevant. 

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be destroyed in theory and in practice."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

“God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority.” (Adorno) [Adorno's paraphrase of Karl Marx's Feuerbach Thesis #4] 

Once a person, or society, becomes cognizant that the patriarchal paradigm on earth ("the earthly family," "the parental image") is the source of ("is discovered to be the secret of") the patriarchal paradigm in heaven ("the heavenly family"), the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the traditional home on earth "must be destroyed."  The word "annihilated" is used instead of "destroyed" in some translations. The traditional home, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm on earth, is annihilated when preaching and teaching is replaced with "theory and practice," as a means for knowing truth.  When preaching and teaching (from above) is replaced with dialoguing opinions (from below), and then putting opinions (theory) into action (practice), the patriarchal paradigm is annihilated.  In this way, i.e. through the heresiarchal way, truth is changed from being absolute, as given from above, to being relative to the given situation below. Therefore, if you annihilate the patriarchal paradigm on earth, you won't have to worry about (be cognizant of) the patriarchal paradigm in heaven. After all has been said and done, it has always been about the annihilation of the belief in God through the annihilation of the traditional home, the barrier to "change."  

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1

By putting "theory" into "practice," belief is negated.  By treating opinion, speculation, imagination, innovation, theory, etc. as a fact and putting it into practice, action, or behavior (all three the same) you negate belief, you negate faith.  You can not do one without restraining or destroying the other.  By the use of the dialectical process, belief, as a justification for behavior is replaced with "theory" as a justification for behavior.  As you replace belief with opinion (theory), for whatever reason, even if you do it to "defend" your belief (you can not defend your faith, your faith defends you, i.e. it is the shield, Ephesians 6:16, if you try to defend your faith through dialogue), your paradigm is "changed," i.e. the patriarchal paradigm is annihilated.  By your very participation in the dialectical process, how you perceive reality, how you determine what is right and what is wrong, is changed from that which is above to that which is below. Those who do the process do not see right and wrong that way, i.e. as determined by He who is above, i.e. an above-below, higher-lower paradigm.  They only see life as being between the uneducated (the illiterate, the inexperienced, the close-minded, the intolerant of ambiguity, the traditional, those "locked" in the past, i.e. the incorrectly education, the "neurotic," etc.) and the educated (the enlightened, the experienced, the open-minded, the tolerant of ambiguity, the transformational, those in "touch" with the present, working for the future, i.e. the correctly re-educated, the self-actualized). 

"Philosophy comes to a close when man makes himself free to act in conformity with reason: translation of the concept into reality."  (Herbart Marcuse Relevance of Reality, referring to Hegel's Phenomenolgy of the Spirit) 

You are changed from faith to sight, i.e. from what "is" and "is not" to what "seems to be," when your personal feeling and thought, i.e. when your perception of things (your "concept" of life or what Karl Marx called a "tendency," a "semblance"), is "rationally" put into action (praxis).  Reality is changed (you change reality) when your reasoning is freed to respond to your discontentment with the present reality, i.e. when your reasoning justifies the negation of the object or condition of your discontentment (justifies temper tantrums, i.e. hard heartedness towards authority and their commands, as a means to "change").  In other words, when you are momentarily freed from the need for philosophy (free from your discontentment with the way things are because the condition which produced the discontentment is negated), reality is momentarily changed.  In dialectical thought, philosophy is not to be held onto, it is not the objective, it is only there to be used in initiating and sustaining the process of negation, in the praxis (practice) of annihilating the condition of dissatisfaction which brought it into being in the first place, that condition being the traditional home, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm.  In the heresiarchal paradigm your experience of life is freed from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the higher authority who "restrains" you from your own experience, i.e. your own human nature in action, when you make experience itself the basis of reality. "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." (Rogers)   In this way your "physical actions" are changed as your "social actions" are changed, changed based upon your own perception of the world, as seen through your eyes and known by your own experiences, by what "seems to be" to you.

"A change in action-ideology, a real acceptance of a changed set of facts and values, a change in the perceived social world—all three are but different expressions of the same process," "Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception." (Kurt Lewin) emphasis added [Perception is what "seems to be" real to you and "drives" your social action.]

“The words ‘seem to’ are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Rogers) emphasis in original 

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 16:25 emphasis added

By changing a person's perception of the world (allowing his feelings and thoughts to be a part of the deciding factor of what is real) and putting his new found perception into action, both his physical and his social action is changed (this is what happened in Genesis 3:1-6).  By changing how a person observes things around him, how he perceives what is real (reality), and giving him freedom to act out his perceived world, he will change his world.  For a humanist, reality is when man's eyes and ears become human eyes and ears, no longer looking or listening to He who is above man but now only listening to that which is of man, "only that which is of Nature" where "... the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.” (Karl Marx)

"In order to progress from these ‘facts’ to facts in the true meaning of the word it is necessary to perceive their historical conditioning as such and to abandon the point of view that would see them as immediately given: they must themselves be subjected to a historical and dialectical examination." (Lukacs)

For the process of "change" to become reality it must first be accepted by all participants working towards a consensus decision that "oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." (Maslow, Reaches)  "Ought" is an internal dissatisfaction with the way things are. "Oughtiness" are 'facts' of discontentment towards the rules (and restraints) of a patriarchal paradigm. The famous Transformational Marxist, George Lukacs, knew that how a person accepted a fact as a fact had to be changed, if he was going to be changed.  Facts could no longer be accepted "as given," from above, but 'facts' had to be discovered from within ones' own life experience, i.e. within their dissatisfaction toward authority, discovered, analyzed, and socially utilized for a common cause, if the person was to change his world, i.e. change his values and beliefs, making himself subject to his and others collective perception of the world and no longer subject to someone else's objective definition of it.  It is only when "the new system of values and beliefs dominates the individual's perception" (Kurt Lewin quoted in Benne) that he is willing and able to change his own world from that which is above (the way things are) to that which is below (the way that things "ought" to be and "can" be).  The 10 spies changed their world (or did not change their world) because their perception (of the facts) were based upon things below (sight) and not on things above (faith in God's word). "And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:33 Their perception, based upon sensuousness, negated faith in God and obedience to His Word.

"The conception of the ideal family situation for the child:  (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity, and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." (Adorno)

“The scientific study of ideology can only be made on the basis of theory.” (Adorno)  [Science (the dialectical process) when applied to an ideal or a truth must treat it as an opinion.]

“... to grasp philosophies and other ideological systems in theory as realities and to treat them as such in praxis .” (Karl Korsch quoted in Bronner)  [All ideals must be accepted as legitimate theories (opinions) and tested as a theory by the dialectical process (through dialogue and consensus) to see if they are relevant or irrelevant to individual-social life.  This praxis makes all ideals subject to a materialistic testing to determine their legitimacy, successfully negating any ideal outside of human nature.]

"Habermas argues that theoretical and practical are isometric . They are different voices of one and the same reason." (James Gordon Finlayson  Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics)  [Theory and practice are equal, i.e. the individual humanistic nature is equal to the humanistic society, i.e.  internally, in his thoughts, and externally, in his actions with other of like reasoning, when all are united in theory and practice there is cosmic unity in action (praxis).]

“The ideal of the group is consensus in action.”  (Benne)

Lewin "believed that 'incorrect stereotypes (prejudices ) are functionally equivalent to wrong concepts (theories).'" "The basic task of re-education is to change the individual’s social perception, thereby changing the individual’s social action."  (Benne) [You either have to remove elements from the individual social perception which inhibit his potential social action, i.e. through violent revolution, or condition him to accept and treat these elements as irrelevant, i.e. "changing the individual's social action" by "changing the individual's social perception" through re-education, i.e. through brainwashing.] 

According to the heresiarchal paradigm, ideals can not be found outside of human nature, i.e. they must be sensual, therefore they must be expressed in opinion format ("I feel," "I think,") to be sensible, i.e. rational.  In this way of thinking, ideals must aid and abet human nature, i.e. initiate and sustain reality based upon human opinions and is therefore equal to people uniting in theory and practice, i.e. in finding common thoughts and feelings and putting them into common social action ("consensus in action").  Playing and working are therefore no longer divided, i.e. alienated from one another as they are in the patriarchal paradigm, but are united, i.e. no longer hampered by external forces or restraint. "'Incorrect stereotypes (prejudices )" are absolutes or facts or truths which are established from above (beyond human nature) which define people below and are "wrong concepts (theories)" when they can not be converted into an opinion format, i.e. they "resist change" and retain a patriarchal structure. In the heresiarchal paradigm, social action is no longer to be based upon what higher authority teaches and preaches as absolute or fact or truth, i.e. commands from above, i.e. God, parent, boss, etc. but social action is to be based upon social perception below, i.e. according to human nature, making reality subject to the general consensus of what is best for society.  This process can be witness when attending meetings where Robert's Rules of Order are replaced with dialogue and the consensus process, lead by a facilitator and not an honest chairman.  By changing the constellation of the classroom environment (from teacher over students to teachers working with students as in a partnership), you change the students' perception of the world, you change his behavior, his "social action," and you change his "ideology."  This same pattern applies to all institutions, whether education, work, government, organization, etc.

"The full development of private personality is identified with the aims of humanity as a whole and with the idea of progress." (Dewey) 

Progress is getting the individual to change "with the aims of humanity as a whole," and progress is when humanity "changes" as the individual changes, i.e. he identifies his "purpose" as the same as the "aims of humanity as a whole."   In other words, the individual changes his perception of society, i.e. replaces the patriarchal paradigm as a means to solving social issues with the heresiarchal paradigm, as society changes its perception of the individual, i.e. sees its "purpose" as helping individuals change their way of thinking from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm.  The individual sees his need to change i.e. sees his need to be alignment with society, and society sees it need to change the individual, i.e. sees its need to help the individual become aligned with society.

In 1954, Aldous Huxley published his first new age book The Doors of Perception and the movement for "change," i.e. coming back through "the door in the wall," pushed America over the dialectical precipice. The change in perception was based upon the following condition: remove the patriarchal paradigm from public view, in the media (entertainment and news), in social functions, in the workplace, in government, etc.  By focusing upon the exceptions to the rule (to trigger cognition of change) and the acceptance of a plurality of conditions for a norm (accept deviancy as a part of the norm), public perception of "proper" social behavior can be changed. 

As stated by Marx (quoted above), if we can get rid of (treat as irrelevant) the patriarchal paradigm, as found in the traditional home, i.e. "on the earth," then we can get rid of (consider as irrelevant) the patriarchal paradigm which is "in heaven."  If we can change the way parents communicate with their children (teachers with their students, bosses with their employees, ministers with their congregation, etc., getting them to dialogue with their children (students, workers, congregation, etc.) in an effort of find common ground (to keep unity in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in the church, etc.), i.e. sharing feelings and thoughts (theory or opinion) and focusing upon human "felt" needs, and putting them into action (practice or praxis), instead of preaching and teaching and demanding obedience and using chastening, we can get rid of the concept of a patriarchal God who preaches and teaches and demands obedience and uses chastening. In this way the patriarchal paradigm of God will become foreign to society, as well as to the individual (making the believer an alien in his own land).  By attaching man's thoughts and actions to voices below, to "identify with the aims of humanity as a whole and with the idea of progress," man's thoughts and actions can be detached from the voice above. With socialist processing, any anti-social behavior can be replaced with social behavior.  Since, according to Marx, the idea of God originates from the perception of the patriarchal paradigm as practiced in the traditional home, and then carried into private business, i.e. capitulation in the home carried into capitalism in the market place, then the patriarchal home must be annihilated if capitalism is to be annihilated. "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression."  “Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression.” (Brown) Therefore the traditional home along with private business, the breeding ground for the patriarchal paradigm, must be eradicated if man is to get rid of the idea of God and become himself.

"Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.  Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away."  "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble."  Proverbs 4:14-15, 18-19  "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."  2 Timothy 3:7

In a dialectical world, your worth is based upon where along the continuum of "change" you happen to be at any given moment:  The farther you move in the direction of the heresiarchal paradigm the higher your social worth.   Those who think with heresiarchal way of thinking, rejecting two roads, one above and one below, one good and one evil. Using the dialectical process, they identify all behavior as being somewhere along one road.  All roads to them are actually one, and all people are becoming one—all are becoming humanistic as they participate in the dialectical process, traveling down the heresiarchal pathway of "change."  Those who reject the one road continuum, those who set their mind on things above, i.e. walking on the upper road, using the patriarchal paradigm for direction, are labeled by those with the one road continuum, i.e. those using the dialectical process, as not being above but rather trailing behind (removing the above-below paradigm from their sight and thereby rescuing their conscience from guilt).  The patriarch in mind are described as living "in the dark ages," as holding up social progress, as hindering those on the road below, as endangering the lives of themselves and others, as impeding those who are trying to press ahead down the heresiarchal road of innovation, as being hateful toward those who are adaptable to "change," as intolerant of those who are plastic—plastikos, i.e. experimental, flexible, tolerant of ambiguity, etc. 

"Any time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself," (Piaget)

"This role [bringing the biological nature of man into union with social life] played by action (or by praxis) has been abundantly emphasized by Marx, who quite rightly went so far as to consider perception itself as an 'activity' of the sense organs."  (Jean Piaget  Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child: Development of Teaching Methods)  bracketed information added while emphasis was in the original

“Memory is not education, answers are not knowledge. Certainty and memory are the enemies of thinking, the destroyer of creativity and originality.”   (William Glasser,  Schools Without Failure)

“The organized subject-matter of the adult and the specialist cannot provide the starting point when education is based in theory and practice upon experience.” (John Dewey Experience and Education)

Dialectical "learning takes place especially through a spontaneous and autonomous effort of the pupil, with the teacher only exercising a function of friendly guide.  To discover a truth oneself, without external suggestions or assistance, is to create—even if the truth is an old one.  It demonstrates a mastery of the method, and indicates that in any case one has entered the phase of intellectual maturity in which one may discover new truths."  (Gramsci) emphasis added

"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself."  "Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding."  "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding."  Proverbs 18:2; 4:1; 15:32  

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.  For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.  Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."  1 Corinthians 1:18-21 

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness."  Ephesians 4:17-19

The patriarchal paradigm:  On the one side of the Heresiarchal continuum, the patriarchal paradigm, with its demanding of doing right and not doing wrong (right and wrong as being defined by higher authority) as paramount in making decisions, is perceived as "there-and-then."  Standards to be lived by are established outside of (beyond or above) one's own 'here-and-now' (sensual) nature and are to be accepted and obeyed without question, i.e. including respect for the office of authority which establishes them.  Instructions in the patriarchal paradigm originate beyond temporal "sense perception," and are to be followed even though they might conflict with sensual comprehension at the time they are given.  For example: God's instructions to the 12 spies, to check out the promised land for occupation, did not make sense to the 10 spies.  They rejected the patriarchal paradigm in evaluating the situation by leaning to their own understanding, their "here-and now," negating God's "there-and-then," in their mind.  Thereby, by their rejection of faith in God, by their murmuring, the people joined in, which lead to the death of all who left Egypt, except for the two who had faith in God's word, Joshua and Caleb  (Numbers 13:16 - 14:11)  Abraham trusted in God and His promise of an heir as he took his son out to sacrifice him to God in faith. (Genesis 22:1-14)  In the patriarchal paradigm, rules and facts (the scriptures) are to be memorized, studied, and applied whether they make sense at the time or not, i.e. commands from above direct behavior below, i.e. faith based (cognitive domain over the affective domain; objective truth ruling over subjective truth, the parent ruling over the child, the husband ruling over the home, God ruling over the affairs of men, etc.).  It is not that feelings are not permitted, it is that they must always be subject to the facts (to the truth) and to the authority inculcating the facts.  Therefore self-control and self-discipline are required in the learning experience.  Those with the heresiarchal paradigm hate, i.e. carry a grudge, a vendetta against the patriarchal paradigm.

"The environment consists of those conditions that promote or hinder, stimulate or inhibit, the characteristic activities of a living being."  "The problems are such things as the relations of mind and matter; body and soul; humanity and physical nature; the individual and society; theory—or knowledge, and practice—or doing."   "... between mind as the end and spirit of action and the body as its organ and means.... the connection of mental activity with that of the nervous system." " ... the measure of worth" is "animated by a social spirit ... presented only when certain conditions are met.... a common experience ... work and play in association with others."  "The absence of a social environment ... renders ... knowledge inapplicable to life and so infertile in character."  (Dewey)

"Marx is referred to as 'the founder of the philosophy of praxis.'"  "Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action."  (introduction to Gramsci)  emphasis added

"The inseparable link... between theory and practice, thought and action" is a persons thoughts, his dissatisfactions toward restraints, (which are internal), and his desire to put his and others dissatisfaction toward restraint into social action.  By realigning his loyalty to the group of discontents and calling it consensus, he can with the aid of the collective, remove the object which produces dissatisfactions without a guilty conscience. It's not hate, it's just social action seeking "liberty, fraternity, and equality," i.e. "justice" and "beauty."  In this way a "doctor," for the sake of physical, mental, and social health, i.e. "choice," can perform abortions while feeling bad or thinking it might be wrong.  "Personally I would not do it, but it is her 'choice' which I must honour."  This "logic" applies to all issues of health, i.e. physical, mental, and social so make sure you are not the object of dissatisfaction in the moment of decision, i.e. consensus, or like an unborn child you might be annihilated, i.e. your life support negated for the sake of "liberty, fraternity, and equality," i.e. "justice" and "beauty," i.e. for the greater cause.

"The relation  between theory and practice becomes even closer the more the conception is vitally and radically innovatory and opposed to old ways of thinking." (Gramsci)

The more that thought systematically criticizes and combats the "old ways of thinking" the closer theory is to practice, i.e. "change" can be put into practice. "Question authority."  "Question everything."  "If it feels good, just do it."  Theory and practice is bringing the philosophical process, i.e. the desire for "change," into the mind and heart of the masses (everyone must become a philosopher, i.e. thinking outside the box) and then helping them (the masses, "the grassroots" movement) to put philosophy into practice (praxis),  thereby negating the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the "old ways of thinking."

"The basic innovation introduced by the philosophy of praxis is the demonstration that there is no abstract 'human nature', fixed and immutable (a concept which derives from religious and transcendentalist thought), but that human nature is the totality of historically determined social relations."  "The philosophy of praxis cannot but present itself as superseding the existing mode of thinking and existing concrete thought."   (Gramsci)

"The basic change introduced by .... praxis is" that human nature is neither good nor bad but a product of its upbringing in a good or bad environment.  The bad environment, being pre-determined by those with the heresiarchal paradigm is "the existing mode of thinking and existing concrete thought" subject to the established way of doing things (the patriarchal paradigm and its ridged laws of restraint upon human nature).   Praxis rejects subordination to higher authority.  Those with the heresiarchal paradigm refuse to be subordinate to the patriarchal paradigm.  They must "supersede" it at all times, in all places, concerning all things.  "For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its ‘obedience to laws;'"  Laws which are "impenetrable, fatalistic and immutable."  (Lukacs)  “Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change.” (Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right  ed. Joseph O’Malley)

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."  1 Corinthians 2:11-15

John Dewey was key to the progressive move of the dialectical process across America during the turn of the 20th century. The patriarchal environment has "conditions" (obedience and chastening) which, when put into practice, hinders or inhibits the corporal nature of man, i.e. inhibits the carnal "characteristic activities of the living being," while the heresiarchal environment has "conditions"  (sensuousness and spontaneity; open-ended and non-directive; collective consensual experience) which, when put into practice, promotes and stimulates the corporal, i.e. stimulates the carnal "characteristic activities of the living being."  Socialism, i.e. communism can not be initiated and sustained from the former, but can only be given "birth" and nurtured from the latter.   "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."  (Brookover)  If the behavior pattern of the adult leader of the group is "authoritarian," the child will be judgmental in his thinking and acting, i.e. he will be concerned about having "right" and not "wrong" thoughts and behavior, i.e. he will be patriarchal in his paradigm, but if the behavior pattern of adult leader of the group is permissive, then the child will be "tolerant of ambiguity" in his thoughts and behavior, i.e. he will be matriarchal or heresiarchal in his paradigm, concerned about his "rights."  This is why kindergarten was such an important part of education to the liberals since it introduced the patriarchal children to a heresiarchal world, with the patriarchal parents' giving their blessing, naively given of course. "Parallel to the common school a network of kindergartens and other institutions would develop, in which, even before the school age, children would be habituated to a  certain collective discipline." (Gramsci)   

"We will know that our knowledge of the authoritarian character structure is truly scientific when an average authoritarian character will be able to read the information on the subject and then regard his own authoritarian character as undesirable or sick or pathological and will go about trying to get rid of it.” (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management; Maslow, Management from here on.) emphasis added. 

“In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality.” (Jay) emphasis added  "Personal relations between men have this character of alienation. Hegel and Marx have laid the foundations for the understanding of the problem of alienation.” (Fromm) emphasis added  

"One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Yalom) emphasis added

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group."  (Kurt Lewin quoted in Benne) emphasis added 

It was with this understanding of group dynamics, that the group environment had to be changed if the person's perception of reality was to be changed. The environment had to be changed from one in which the leader instructed and directed the group to where the group discovered from within itself its course of action, thereby changing the perception of reality as being away from and against leadership which presented itself as above or against human nature to where reality was perceived as being from below, where leadership was in partnership with human nature itself.  It was therefore understood that proper preparations were necessary, both in the leadership style and the constellation of the group, if changes in a person's perception were to take place. “Feelings of not belonging can be forestalled by making everyone feel welcome and wanted from the very beginning.”  “It is probable that the individual who does not belong will act in ways not conducive to good group action.” “The best approach is to help him feel that he does belong and that he is wanted, whether or not his ideas are similar to those of the group.” “Give him a ‘we’ feeling if possible, and avoid any ‘you vs. us’ attitude by word or gesture.” “For re-education seems to be increased whenever a strong we-feeling is created.”  (Kurt Lewin in Benne) emphasis added

 “The individual is emancipated in the social group.” (Brown)  emphasis added 

Kurt Lewin understood the power of the group, i.e. its influence upon the people within it, a condition known as group dynamics. "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately."  (Kurt Lewin quoted in Bennie)  If man was to be freed from the effects of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. emancipated from restraint from above his nature, then the manipulation of the group environment, especially in the small group, which would be easier to manage, was the best pathway to follow.  “The small group struck him [Kurt Lewin] as the obvious link between individual and social dynamics.” (Jane Howard  Please Touch: A Guide Tour of the Human Potential Movement)  In this way, through the power of the group, i.e. its dynamic power upon the individual, the ideology of Marx was brought into full play throughout the American culture without the name of Karl Marx showing up ("scaring people off").  “It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities… only in a socialist society.” (Karl Marx)  "The 'collective' character of our more pressing problems of change has been suggested and the necessity for 'collective' solutions affirmed." "... a democratic methodology must be anti-individualistic."  "To stress the essential character of certain universals in group life is in no way to contradict the need for special and unique developments where threats to common welfare are not involved." "The need is for a restructuring of the community itself. This means often the profound reshaping of characters." (Benne) emphasis added 

In the power of group dynamics, the perception of what rules and laws are relevant for the day, and which ones are "outdated," come into active daily life (established contracts become changeable, based upon the perceived situation, i.e. promises to be kept and absolutes become irrelevant or are negated as social conditions change), affecting every facet of culture.  This especially affects the traditional, patriarchal home, including marriage.  "‘Real life teaches us that love, like comradeship, seeks to radiate in many different directions’. ‘Our diversity in character and inclination and in our circumstances is too great to make rules that would apply always to everyone.’ In the socialist future monogamy would ‘completely disappear’"  (Peter Drucker quoting Engels; Drucker) emphasis added

“The immediate effect of spiritual factors on the realm of the corporal is an illusion.” (Adorno) 

By rejecting "spiritual factors," i.e. the choice of right or wrong as established by God, i.e. by higher authority, the dialectical process has only one "choice" from which to base reality upon, "illusion," i.e. perception, i.e. "seems to be," from the "here-and-now," con-temporary, temporal, here-below.  Therefore, to them, if you are not illusional, if you are claiming that there is no "immediate effect of spiritual factors on the realm of the corporal," if you are claiming that there is not God above man directing his steps, you are real, otherwise you are illusional, i.e. neurotic.  When you come into the room espousing absolutes, refusing to put them down, i.e. "in all your ways acknowledging Him" (Proverbs 3:6a), you are being too argumentative, "Thou dost protest to much" (from which statement we got the word Protestant) and have "Just gone to far," becoming "illusional."

Adorno's book is key to public school curriculum development.   His work along with others helped to develop education upon the heresiarchal paradigm (Bloom's Taxonomies were "justified" by "research" done by and books written by men like Adorno).  According to the heresiarchal paradigm, when the parent or God, i.e. he who is above, has the right to determine and enforce, i.e. reward or punish, what they see as right or wrong behavior, over and against the corporal (bodily, natural, carnal) behavior below, this condition is considered as "spiritual," even in a secular form.  It is a condition which alienates a person from his carnal nature below (understood to mean the want of a gratifying object present in nature, i.e. things in nature of immediate interest to the person, capable of immediate gratification, therefore material in nature).  Because of the patriarchal demand for adherence to that which is above, that which blocks natural inclination, it is perceived as not in harmony, agreement, or alignment with nature, i.e. perceived as being above nature, i.e. spiritual. “The immediate task is to unmask human alienation in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form.” (Karl Marx Selected writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy) In other words: Now that we have gotten man to quit looking up to God for answers to life problems, looking to God to solve crisis, looking for God to help him in making decisions, we now need to help man to stop looking up to parents, bosses, ministers, elected officials, etc. for the same reason (Don't turn to God for answers.  Don't turn to the minister for answers, turn to "us," i.e. the group, i.e. the "we" for answers, it's more humane that way, especially with facilitators ("change agents") using the process to guide the way.  (Ministers are not to come between the redeemed and God, they are simply to assist them in their walk with God, through reproof, correction, rebuke, and encouragement, always taking them to God and His Word regarding the issues of life and death).  It is the condition of reification (rigidity; parental commands) and alienation (self-restraint, self-control; the separation of the person from relationship with the world, by suppressing his natural tendencies to relate with the world around him because of his fear of force or force from higher authority, i.e. ensuing judgment) which must be "changed," i.e. negated.

"When the dialectical method destroys the fiction of the immortality of the categories it also destroys their reified character and clears the way to a knowledge of reality [Socialism]." (Lukacs)

The dialectical method, the method used to initiate and sustain the heresiarchal paradigm, not only "destroys" respect for authority, i.e. the acceptance of the patriarchal paradigm as the only condition or system to live by, i.e. "destroys the fiction of the immortality of the categories," i.e. God over man, parents over child, teachers over students, business owners over workers, etc., for all times and all places (not the person but the top-down system itself), but it also "destroys" respect for authority's laws, i.e. "destroys ... their reified character," i.e. absolute obedience to higher authority, faith in their promises, and acceptance of their commands, as given, as right. "Reality" would thereafter be based  upon the dialectical interpretation or "better yet" extrapolation, i.e. the "scientific method" of discovering the nature of things.  In this way the spiritual, above and below (God and parent), would be negated through the emancipation of human nature. An example of this praxis would be: Anyone serving in the office of President of the United States of American, who thinks dialectically, can not and must not be loyal to the Constitution of the United States of America, a contract which holds government agents and their agencies accountable to the contract of the citizens.  Citizens are not the "grass roots," a perceived mass of dissatisfied (unstable) people defined through dialectical evaluation, i.e. polls and surveys, guided by the ideology of facilitators, i.e. socialist.  All such documents must be treated as an obstacle to global social harmony.  He must present a perception that he is in agreement with the contract while he uses his power of office to circumvent it, i.e. negate it.  By using executive orders and pressuring for legislative laws to create committees, i.e. committees with appointed officials over every fascist of public life, i.e. committees with legislative, executive and judicial powers, he is able to circumvent the limiting powers of the Constitution over government.  Thereby, being able to negate the power of the Constitution, i.e. the inalienable rights of the people to limit the power of government upon their personal lives, all elected officials and military personnel would become subject to his influence and power.  Such has been the method used by those who have usurped power from the citizens over the centuries, by those who have utilized the dialectical process for their "purpose" of finding and uniting upon common cause—"common-ism," to negate "first cause,"  i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, to negate the right of the father to raise his children according to his beliefs so that socialist (humanists) can re-educate them to their beliefs, to negate the voice of anyone who might cause social disharmony.

“What is particularly important here is that recognition of one's own individuality is the basis for recognition of the individuality of everyone, and for the democratic concept of the dignity of man.”  (Adorno) 

Dignity is our perception of ourselves based upon our perception of someone else's perception of us (our perception of their body language and spoken language helps us in determining what their perception is of us is, i.e. their perception of our worth to them).  Dignity shapes the value, i.e. the worth of our life upon a social perspective. Value and worth of self is therefore shaped according to social interpretations of worth.  Self-esteem, i.e. human dignity is generated from group-esteem.  Your increased worth to the group or society (perceived worth) increases your self-esteem, your dignity.  Therefore, in dialectical thought, if your death is of worth to others, i.e. your life is a burden to them, costing them time, money, discomfort and/or embarrassment, then you should "gladly" die with dignity.  Death is no longer an issue of sin before God, but a social issue with man.  The "sting" of death is not removed by God's promise of eternal life to the redeemed but by "the democratic concept of" no fear of God and therefore no fear of judgment. "And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."  Romans 3:17, 18

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."  Revelation 14:6,7

By finding what it is in the individual (his temporal desires) which correlates or is common with all other individuals (their temporal desires) in a social setting (what I call common-ism) and building unity upon that commonality (tolerant of the carnal nature of man), both sacred (private) and secular (public) forms of "anti-democratic" behavior, i.e. both manifesting a patriarchal paradigm, can be identified, de-reified, and de-alienated (de-illusion-ised) through social praxis (group activities which focus upon human relationship building as a basis for project outcomes—"purpose driven," i.e. putting pressure on resistors to change).  "The leader has skills in human relations and can manage the interplay of individual differences so that human energy may be controlled in pursuit of common goals. . .  Leadership of this type [is] based on liberation [a heresiarchal paradigm; permissiveness, "tolerance of ambiguity," the opinions of men] rather than domination [a patriarchal paradigm; obedience, intolerance to ambiguity, the authority of God's Word]."  (Brookover)  In education, which concerns itself with curriculum development (which determines the paradigm developed within the students, which is based upon the environmental conditions utilized in the learning experience), when the shift is from learning facts to learning "changing facts," i.e. the incorporation of "feelings," i.e. synthesizing the cognitive and affective domains, i.e. developing human relationship skills, i.e. communication skills, a paradigm change is taking place. “In the area of human relations, individual and group process becomes the curriculum.” “A change in curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents, and other laymen, and in administrators.” “Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns.”  (Benne)  It is under these conditions, determined by those in authority, along with the paradigm they are using, that human behavior is developed for a pre-determined outcome, either an above-below outcome (a patriarchal paradigm) or a just below outcome (a heresiarchal outcome).

    "The first task of believers in democratic ethics is, therefore, the theoretical job of translating democratic values into methodological norms for the control of processes of planned change. The second task is the practical one of devising ways, in training teachers or others as social engineers, to develop the skills and techniques for effective stimulation and induction of change in persons and groups and the social-psychological knowledge required for accurate diagnosis of change-situations in integral relation to developing commitments to the norms of democratic methodology."  
    "It is the faith of the democrat that no conflict can best be resolved unless all relevant and available human experience and insight is brought to bear on its resolution. No conflict is fully resolved until all have come, through deliberation, to accept the resolution as their own. [This action alone negates a religious, above-below, patriarchal foundation.] The best common action on this view must involve the minds and purposes of those engaged in it as well as their bodily efforts. The methods of democratic co-operation are thus oriented, as we have stressed before, to the utilization of all available human resources—resources of purpose, experience, and insight in the planning, the execution, and the evaluation of common action. It is this full utilization of human resources in the guidance of common action that justifies the democrat’s faith that democratic co-operation leads to policies and programs which are more relevant to existing conditions, more sensitive to all human values, more generally satisfying to the men concerned, and more enduring than policies and programs based on any other mode of social co-operation."
    "The democratic theory is that, in the last analysis, authority resides in the group [authority therefore is not in God, the parent, the citizen, the boss, etc. (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm), but in the facilitator who manipulates the environment which initiates and sustains (i.e. controls), the group's behavior and determines the outcome—the negation of the patriarchal paradigm by the use of the heresiarchal paradigm]," (Benne) 

The book Human Relations in Curriculum Change is key to laboratory training on group development and control, known as National Training Laboratories.   National Training Laboratories (NTL's) are regional facilities where facilitators are trained on how to apply the dialectical process and the heresiarchal continuum in all institutions of this nation.  They began their Marxist mission in 1947 and continue today.  Your tax dollars support them.  Human Relations in Curriculum Change is a book I refer to as A Cookbook on Humans (Phil Ring).

"It is crucially important for children to see firsthand a society that encourages and supports democratic values."  (Ralph W. Tyler, “Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction,” Trends in Student Personnel Work, E. G. Williamson, Ed.) 

Ralph Tyler was an advisor to six U.S. presidents and made sure the continuum process was applied to all educational institutions from preschool to Graduate and beyond.  He was active in the Delphi project both here in the States and in Europe, and worked unceasingly in developing a government run by the committee system (a soviet system) for America, working to develop a collective based society (facilitated meetings, with a diverse group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, with a pre-determined outcome, i.e. the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, especially in setting policies for others, from the home to the highest offices in the land), patterned after the Soviet Politburo system. What he defines as a "comprehensive" education system is the pattern for a comprehensive political system, i.e. a Soviet Politburo system for a global society.  The Politburo is head, the oversight of the network of soviets which connected all branches of government under one controlling organ of "change." It circumvented the election system (their were elections but the appointed people of the soviets made sure the dialectical process was the praxis of all branches of government and citizen institutions). 

Benjamin Bloom, the author of Taxonomies of Education Objectives, dedicated his book, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain, to Ralph Tyler. “To Ralph W. Tyler, whose ideas on evaluation have been a constant source of stimulation to his colleagues in examining, and whose energy and patience have never failed us.” (ibid)  Forty years later he stated that he had "adopted Ralph W. Tyler's idea of an educational objective as a change in behavior; ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, [which included] covert as well as overt states and responses." (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Retrospect)   Bloom wrote: “Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be ‘unprovable.’” (ibid) 

Ralph Tyler rescued Hilda Taba, the famous Marxist, from being deported back to Communist Estonia during the "McCarthy era."  The "Red's" of the fifties are now the "Green's" of the 21's century. Chameleons know how to change their color without changing their "purpose," i.e. going undetected until they eat (process, i.e. annihilate, i.e. synthesize, i.e. change) something they want converted into a more useful format, i.e. of greater worth, i.e. your worthless until your useful parts are a part of their body.  By "helping" you find what it is in you that you have in common with them (of worth to them), you can work with (within) them for the common purpose, i.e. progress, i.e. growth, i.e. change. 

"Trasformismo.  This term was used to describe the process where by the so-called 'historical' Left and Right parties converge until there ceased to be any substantive difference—a 'revolution' without a 'revolution' or a 'passive revolution.'"  (Gramsci)

Transformation is a stage where you can not tell the caterpillar from the butterfly (a green substance) but in this case you are being transformed, not into any predetermined state, but instead you are being transformed into the process of "change" itself.  Nobody knows for sure what the outcome will be (except God, apart from God we would not know).  The issue is therefore, when and how to move the "passive revolution" through a "velvet revolution" into a "violent revolution," to totally destroy the barricades of the patriarchal paradigm, without resulting in a Thermidor (implosion) or a fatal backlash (explosion, i.e. Fascism—according to those who reason from the heresiarchal paradigm, when you remove God as the final authority, and the patriarchal paradigm remains in place, then a man becomes that final authority, resulting in Fascism—extreme partisanship, thus to get rid of the "fundamental secular extremists" you must get rid of the "fundamental religious extremists" at the same time with an unrelenting attack upon the patriarchal paradigm itself—which is correlated with both).

“Sense experience must be the basis of all science.  Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature.”  (Karl Marx  emphasis added) [I will reference this quotation frequently throughout the rest of this paper since it so clearly describes the dialectical process and its connection to Genesis 3:1-6.] 

In the Garden in Eden, as recorded in Genesis 3:1-6 we see the dialectical process, the heresiarchal paradigm put into practice.  The "sensuous need" to "touch" the tree, the "sense perception" that there was nothing wrong with the tree (from a naturalistic standpoint she was right), in that, according to human perception, it did not appear poisonous and appeared to be like the rest of the trees, good for food and pleasing to the eyes.  And thus, by human reasoning (by the pride of life, by tying reasoning to the uniting of flesh and the earth, evaluating God's word from human, carnal perception, i.e. leaning upon one's own understanding, being "academic" with God's revealed world), God's warning regarding it was seen as irrational and therefore his position on the matter became irrelevant (she was detoxified of the patriarchal paradigm). In this way of thinking, by the use of the dialectical process (by the use of the "scientific process"), she was "scientifically justified" in eating of its fruit, in having a "sense experience," the whole process proceeding only "from Nature."  There it is—Karl Marx and the dialectical process, right there in praxis, in the Garden in Eden. There is nothing new under the sun. 

The Apostle Paul warns Timothy to avoid the effects of the dialectical process, as recorded in 1 Timothy 6:20. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane (and) vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."  emphasis added.  You can use the scientific process on rocks, plants, and animals but the moment you use "the scientific process" (which then is not true science) on man you destroy faith, i.e. "keeping that which is committed to his trust," and make man material (of this world only).  This is why the process is called dialectical materialism or historical materialism.  You can add scriptures to it or sing chores' all you want but you are on its turf, walking down its pathway. 

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  Hebrews 11:6 

Faith begins, in a secular form, when the child accepts the parent as the final word, i.e. as the first cause, i.e. as the a priori. To promote the questioning of authority would only serve to negate that early experience in a child's life.  "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me [turn them away from faith in Him], it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."  Matthew 18:3-6, 10 Though the 'wisdom' of men may build cities and kingdoms the word of God saves souls. To use the tools of "kingdom building" upon the souls of men is to market mankind upon the world system.  By moving your faith in God and His Word to faith in yourself and in others, you err concerning the faith, and will easily follow those who profess such error, justifying to yourself you are doing it "in his name."

We are to be content before God, not contentious with man. "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him [John the Baptist], saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." Luke 3:14  "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."  Hebrews 13:5 "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content."  Philippians 4:11 28 The contentious judge their environment based upon what they can get out of it for themselves, criticizing those who inhibit their carnal desires as being hateful or ignorant or uncaring and quickly join in with others to change that environment and remove those who initiate and sustain it's "unhealthy" characteristics.  Getting something out of the environment for yourself can be disguised as "getting something out of it for others," disguised as spiritual "purpose."

The Apostle Paul warned of such men, i.e. men who deny God (denying God can take place in a church board meeting by turning to reports and polls and surveys—human perception—instead of turning to God and His Word—revelation—for direction.  Reports and feedback loops, with scripture thrown in to bless them, is the same as cutting and pasting scriptures to fit them into the "church program," i.e. the social "purpose." The byproduct of  "purpose" is always unrighteousness since "purpose" always builds upon man's "sensuous needs" and not upon God's will.  God's directing is always death to sensuousness (consensus) as a compass for direction. As a little leaven leavens a whole lump of dough so are the "success stories" of being "purpose driven," justifying its use in all spiritual (social) matters. One step in this direction moves you away from the knowledge of God and his righteousness.  Walk down a wicked pathway begins with the first step, which might "seem to be" right at the time (human perception trumping God's directing—a heresiarchal paradigm).  "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.  But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God."  Romans 1:28-2:11

If there is any contending it should be for the faith, liberty in the Spirit, not for the respect of men, bondage to the flesh.  "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God." Philippians 1:27, 28  If there is any "common" found in the church it must be salvation and faith in God and His Word. The church is not founded upon human nature and wisdom, guided by those who deny "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," turning to polls and surveys and men's opinions when they make decisions for the body of Christ, "in the name of Jesus." "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.  But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.  Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.  These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever."  Jude: 3-13  Having faith in God and His revealed Word leads you in the way of righteousness, what you have in common with others of like faith is liberty in the Spirit.  Depending upon human perception leads you in the way of lasciviousness.  Building unity upon what you have in common with others of like perception is bondage to the flesh.

"Without exception, patients enter group therapy with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group—their primary family [the patriarchal paradigm]."  (Yalom)

". . . personality is a product of the social environment of the past . . . very resistant to fundamental change."  (Adorno)

Group therapy (the group grade classroom, teambuilding meeting) is used "'to expose the patient, under more favorable circumstances, to emotional situations which he could not handle in the past [i.e. when he was too weak or cowardly to attack and annihilate the patriarchal paradigm, so that he can] undergo a corrective emotional experience suitable to repair the traumatic influence of previous experience.' [i.e. he can connect his emotions to social cause instead of having them restrained by and subjugated to higher cause]."  (Franz Alexander as quoted in Yalom)  "Through the therapist's continued willingness to verbalize and to confront the calamity calmly [confront the child's fear of punishment for doing "wrong" (wrong determined by the patriarch) by creating a 'safe environment' and group acceptance], patients gradually realize the irrationality of the feared calamity [the 'irrationality' of the patriarchal paradigm, the "irrationality" of God's command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil]."  "The therapist assists the patient to clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then ... to detoxify, to disconfirm the reality of this danger." [The dialectical reality being "You will not die if you reject God and His Word"] "He reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied [parent above, child below; patriarchal paradigm].  ... the patient changes the past by reconstituting it [negates the patriarchal paradigm by participating in the heresiarchal paradigm. Simply participating does the trick, the liberating experience won't be forgotten]."  (Yalom) emphasis added   "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." (Fromm)

Bloom put it this way: “This is not to suggest that education in an open society [heresiarchal paradigm] does not attempt to develop personal and social values.  It does indeed. But more than in traditional societies [patriarchal paradigm] it allows the individual a greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung¹”  “¹Often this is too challenging a goal for the individual to achieve on his own [i.e. they need a facilitator or "change agent" to assist them in overcoming the effects of the patriarchal paradigm, to help them in their paradigm "shift"], and the net effect is either maladjustment [becoming individualistic and isolated from society (rebellious);  "lacking harmony with one's environment from failure to adjust one's desires to the conditions of one's life"  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary; "Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual authorities, but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness."  Erick Fromm Escape from Freedom] or the embracing of a philosophy of life developed by others ["embrace" Fascism, i.e. a dominating society, only on a nationalistic scale]. Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950  [Fromm and Adorno were both Marxists]” (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain, p. 166)  [All certified teachers in your community are certified according to their ability to initiate and sustain the dialectic methods of these books in their classrooms, i.e. all public schools are accredited based upon their use of this method, all accredited private schools use this method as well.  More publishers who develop home school material are going this way as they hire staff trained in this method, who "help" them incorporate more modern educational ("academic") methods in their material.]

The agenda, for those who use the dialectical process, is to use it to humanize man (detoxify him of the patriarchal paradigm).  This was the same agenda Satan had for Adam and Eve, to humanize them, and it worked (used in an academic setting, I call this process secularized Satanism, intellectualized witchcraft). This is why Paul warned Timothy to "avoid" it.  If you can't, you will become a witness of God's unchanging Word (his patriarchal paradigm).  The word witness means martyr (i.e. social rejection and potentially violent death). Marx did say destroy (annihilate) didn't he?  The number of lives which have been violently taken by this process over the years numbers in the 100's of millions and it just keeps rolling on (including abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc.), that is until the Lord returns to judge those nations and people who use it and serve under it, for the "purpose" of "social harmony" and "world peace."  You don't have to pull the trigger of the gun to be guilty of the crime.  When you participate in or "tolerate" this process you are not innocent.  There are no innocent bystanders, as social-engineers, socio-psychologist, psychoanalysts, behavior scientists, facilitators, "Christian" counselors, etc. like to see themselves.

“But science insists that action is initiated by forces impinging upon the individual, and that caprice [impulse, deviancy, mimesis, man's carnal nature, i.e. the laws of the flesh, i.e. dopamine] is only another name for behavior for which we have not yet found a cause.” (Rogers) ["We don't know where the laws of the flesh come from, but since they are of Nature, they must be all right.  We just have to figure out how to control them for social 'purpose,' without getting ourselves hurt."]

When the "scientific process" is used on man, then the law of the flesh, caprice, sensuousness and spontaneity, redirected for social cause, becomes the source for the desired outcome, i.e. humanism. The scriptures warn us of this source and its outcome. "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.  If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.  Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.  I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."  Romans 7:14-25  "Science" can only find the fallen nature of man and make it the law from which to build (through technology, i.e. tools of manipulation) the "new" society.  

"… in all metaphysics [reality beyond sense perception] the object remains untouched and unaltered [non-material] so that thought remains contemplative and fails to become practical;"  (Lukacs)  [It is not enough to think annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm (death to America), you must actively participate in the annihilation of the dialectical paradigm ("How did America die?  It participated in the dialectical process for the 'purpose' of world peace.").  If you can think it but can not see it or know it experientially (mold it, shape it, and rearrange it (destroy it and make it into something else, i.e. create something new with it, i.e. change it), it is not real.]

"Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception." (Kurt Lewin  in Benne)

By changing the social setting in which a person is learning, i.e. the environment in which he is experiencing life, the person's perception of reality is changed and as a result he changes his "physical action" and his "social action" to maintain contact with reality. (For the Heresiarchal this is the only way back to the tower of Babel, i.e. global harmony, man making a name for himself, Genesis 11:1-9)  How "the significant other" (Paul Tillich) communicates (whether he is strict or permissive in his communication) affects how a person will communicate with himself and with others.  We naturally gravitate toward permissive unless we are fearful of correction by the "strict."  The believer does not have this fear, something the heresiarch can not comprehend (he can only comprehend God's judgment, not God's grace and mercy, knowable only in repentance, the covering of one's sins by the blood of the Lamb, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).  In a traditional home, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, facts and truth take on importance over personal feelings and thoughts, i.e. human desires, facts and truths being inculcated through the praxis of reward and punishment, i.e. internal discipline and external chastening (temporal perception, i.e. sight—sensuousness, is superseded by spiritual perception, i.e. faith in God or the parents word takes precedents over the world within and the world without, i.e. reasoning is to He who is above sensuousness). 

In a transformational society, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, facts take on importance only when they are discovered through dialogue and can assist in human relationship building ("are practical"), whether working on a project or not (temporal perception, i.e. sight supersedes spiritual perception, i.e. faith in God or the parents' word is denigrated or negated in favor of the world within and the world without).  "The first phase of practical judgment: clarification of common purpose—the projection of a desired state of affairs. The notion of should carry a universal reference " "The second phase of practical judgment: the survey and assessment of the existing state of affairs."  "The third phase of practical judgment: the fusion of the ideal and existent in a program of action."  " This requires that the organization develop an atmosphere which permits individuals and sub-groups to mature and communicate effectively their unique contributions to organizational change and improvement."  (Benne) emphasis added   Practical means, 1) the "purpose" must be cognitively practical, i.e. of sensual knowledge, of experiential knowledge ("sense perception" and not of faith) which can fit within (relate with and assist in supplying) the immediate sensual needs of all can participate in resolution and not just a few, 2) the "purpose" must be affectively practical, i.e. of sensual value (the immediate "sensuous needs" identified and employed) where sensual needs can fit within (relate with and assist in supporting) the ensuing social action, and 3) the psycho-motor practical, i.e. sensual skills (the immediate "sense experience") which all must participate in if social unity is to be initiated and sustained for the cause of, i.e. for the "purpose" of "the negation of negation," i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm. 

By taking God, parent, teacher, etc. away from standing in front of the classroom, lecturing, i.e. preaching and teaching, and having them instead dialogue with the students in a teamwork, cooperative partnership, the world can be changed from an above-below paradigm into an "us" below paradigm. In this way reality is no longer outside of or above ones own sensual perception but is now only understandable through ones own sensual perception.  Thus 'obedience to laws' which are 'impenetrable, fatalistic and immutable,' are perceived as impractical, irrational, and therefore justifiable treated as  irrelevant in regards to ones own experiences.  This is why you get that "deer in the headlights" look from those in the process when you try to speak the truth to them.  They just can't comprehend reality anymore, without their "sensuous needs" being met.  "Make me, i.e. my group in me, feel good and I will listen to you.  I sure don't want to learn anything from you which will turn the group on me, i.e. which will present "a major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication" with others, i.e. "the community of ....."

“The major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person, or the other group.”  (Rogers)

"The moral point of view can only be realized under conditions of communication that ensure that everyone tests the acceptability of a norm, implemented in a general practice, also from the perspective of his own understanding of himself and of the world." (Jürgen Habermas Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other)

"Your not from these parts are you?" (A citizen of Damascus, Ohio to Phil Worts.) Through the use of the dialectical process "ingroup-outgroup" (above-below) thinking is replaced with "pre-group-post-group" thinking, i.e. just us becoming one.  By secularizing the spiritual upon a dialectical format (through dialogue and consensus), and then demythologizing (detoxifying) the secular upon the dialectical format (getting 'patriarchal' organizations to put aside their differences to fight a common cause through the use of dialogue and consensus), both the patriarchal secular and the patriarchal sacred (both dialectically seen as spiritual), are negated (they negate themselves by their participation in the process).  By the patriarchal minded citizens refusing to present the gospel "up front," while fighting their battles for home, land, and nation, i.e. building walls, they lose their footing and fall into the enemies territory. You can fight for a common cause without putting aside your differences, that is what the enemy really hates and wants to overcome. If the heresiarchal can pressure you into putting aside your differences to fight them, most of their battle is won.  Without obedience to God, without his direction and help, liberty, from which we derive our inalienable rights, is lost.

"But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.  He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.  A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.  And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."  Matthew 12:15-21

    The gospel message is not an earthly political message as many have made it.  Jesus went to the cross, not for political change (in the "here-and-now"), but for the change of hearts, i.e. the redemption of souls.  While the gospel message will have an effect upon those in political office and those who place them there, even changing the political office itself, i.e. limiting the power of government due to the recognition of the wickedness of man's heart and the need to limit his power while he is in office lest he use the office for his own personal gain at the expense of the citizens, the gospel can not be used as a socialist platform without doing political damage and misrepresentation of scripture, i.e. producing another gospel.
    Jesus Christ hung on the cross for our sins, that we "should live unto righteousness," not for the removal of human strife and suffering on a global scale, or for isolationism or empiricism "in Jesus name" on a local or nationalistic scale. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."  1 Peter 2:24  We are to care for those who are without food, clothing, etc., but that is not the "purpose" of the church.  It is the called out ones, out of the world system, the dialectical process, the heresiarchal paradigm, for the "purpose" of presenting the gospel to the lost.  "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them." Matthew 11:5 emphasis added
    Those government agencies which build their platform upon the removal of poverty, i.e. for "equality of opportunity," built upon the platform of Judas, i.e. for their own personal gain, as the scriptures explain: "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.  Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?  This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.  Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.  For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."  John 12:3-8  emphasis added  There was not political system presented by Jesus for man to move onto for the cause of world peace. He, himself, is coming back to put his political system of Peace, i.e. Himself, in place.  Peace is a personal experience for the believer only, which can only come from God himself, by His Holy Spirit and can not come from the social environment. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27  God's peace is greater than our understanding therefore it is impossible for us to use it as a political agenda. "And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."  Philippians 4:7 
    Those who praxis the heresiarchal paradigm set out to annihilate the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. destroy those who restrain or limit government's power over the patriarchal paradigm, because they believe that man is developed by social environment forces and not by authority with absolute standards outside of man's immediate sensuous experience, they refuse to recognize the depravity (deceitfulness and wickedness) of the human heart, i.e. their heart. They therefore must set out to annihilate the gospel message, by misreading it i.e. preach and teach dialoguing another gospel, (see the article Why I Use the King James Bible) to prevent the changing of men's hearts to an above-below paradigm and thereby initiating and sustaining a limited form of government, i.e. limited as to its power over the souls of men (thus providing for the freedom of the conscience).

"By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious, struggling to circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." (Brown)

“Does the group find it possible to dispense with the creaking machinery of parliamentary procedure?”  “Rules set early before the group understands the limitations which these rules apply to the discussion may serve autocratic ends [the patriarchal paradigm] later in the discussion.”  “The description of the goal should represent group consensus, not majority vote.”  “All members must feel commitment to the same goal or there will be continuous friction.”  “The ideal of the group is consensus in action.”  “The expectation which the group is building as to successful group discussion is toward consensus as the only adequate basis for common action.”  “Agreement throughout the institutional social system is reached only through consensus—getting techniques in open discussion.”  (Benne) emphasis added

The workers’ council  spells the political and economic defeat of reification. In the period following the dictatorship it will eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary ."  (Lukacs) emphasis added  ["The worker's councils" are where the citizens are guided by, i.e. controlled by the use of the dialogue to consensus process while working on a social project.  "Reification" is government run by representation of the citizens according to their principles, i.e. to accept as real, directions for conduct outside of human sense perception, i.e. where principles of right and wrong direct interests, and citizens accept and obey conditions which limit or inhibit their human nature, i.e. government which limits or inhibits democracy which leads to the "tyranny of the masses."  "The dictatorship" is when the democratic party brings all parties under its dialectical process, i.e. dialogue, consensus, bipartisan, and succeeds in taking over the representative form of government.  The elimination of "the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary" is the annihilation of any limited form of government which serves and protects the patriarchal paradigm from socialist onslaught against it.]

The negation of the patriarchal paradigm, labeled as an "ingroup-outgroup" process, is the sole "purpose" of the heresiarchal paradigm. Whether the project, which brought people together in the first place, is ever completed, their participation in the dialectical process serves its "purpose." That purpose being the reattachment (realignment) of their "sensuous needs" to their current "sense perception,"  i.e. gratification of a desired object, i.e. group harmony while working on a project, which builds unity upon the liberation of sensuousness and spontaneity perceived as "brotherly love."  In this way "sense experience,"  "only that which proceeds from Nature," becomes the outcome of even the most "caring," "purpose driven" meeting.

“Obedience and loyalty are the first requirements of the ingroup member. What is called power‑seeking and clannishness in the outgroup is transformed into moral righteousness, self‑defense, and loyalty in the ingroup.” “The ingroup must be kept pure and strong. The only methods of doing this are to liquidate the outgroups altogether, to keep them entirely subordinate, or to segregate them in such a way as to minimize contact with the ingroups.” [the gospel presents none of these as its method; "in the world but not of it" does not mean "to minimize contact" it just means not to participate in the world system, i.e. do the dialectical process.  It has not called us to "liquidate" anyone or make people "entirely subordinate" to it, as some, calling themselves "Christians," have done over the millen-nia, and still continue to do.] “Patriotism . . . viewing America as an ingroup in relation to other nations as outgroups. . . ‘patriotism’  . . . involves blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing group way, and rejection of other nations as outgroups. . . .The inability to identify with humanity takes the political form of nationalism ” (Adorno)  

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost."  (Maslow, Further Reaches)

Any fact (i.e. absolute, belief) which does not relate with participants in the dialectical moment is perceived as irrational or "impractical" (metaphysical, i.e. beyond common human understanding and "purpose"), and is therefore treated as irrelevant to the moment.  They are not necessarily opposed, i.e. you can share your "opinion," but it is simply treated as irrational (impractical) and therefore irrelevant to the moment (Do you get the pattern?).  That is the power of the process, its ability to negate its potential rejection from the room by its ability to tie into each participant's personal "needs," his thoughts and his feelings, i.e. his perception that he must have human approval (i.e. the respect of men, including "Godly men" who don't seem to go to the Word of God to defend their position) to get his point across.  By this subtle and intricate process the facilitator is able to get him to confront and question, i.e. condemn his own belief's by willingly putting them to the side for the cause of the moment, i.e. group harmony.  Because of its "tolerance," i.e. "We are not telling you that you are wrong, you can keep your position. It is just that your position does not assist 'us' in solving the immediate problem, 'here-and-now,'" it forces the one with absolutes to abdicate his position or appear to be an obstacle (obstinate) to resolving the problem at hand, i.e. divisive.  In this way, by the patriarch's abdication of his position for the sake of the "people" and the project at hand, reality is changed from that which is above human nature (a patriarchal paradigm), to human nature and nature itself (a heresiarchal paradigm), i.e. the desire for approval from others and therefore the respect of man, i.e. giving others the benefit of the doubt prevails.  This praxis effectively weakens if not negates a person's religious foundation, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, while, when used within the church, "seeming to" work for a religious "purpose."

"Thomas S Kuhn spent the year 1958-1959 at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavior Sciences, directed by Ralph Tyler, where he finalized his 'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods.'" "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology."  (Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

By using the dialectical process ("so called science"), on man, calling it "behavioral science," and then, to make all things one (general—common) under its system, including the laws of nature themselves, i.e. using it in the true scientific field, it was found that it was not actually a true science after all (only theory being put into practice and not working well at that).  Applying "... practical generalization, ... meaning broad principles of social-moral action or general norms of private and public conduct." in the true sciences ran afoul of the reality of true science and the real world of set laws in nature, i.e. laws established by God.  Since it does not work in "the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology" it was not true science to begin with.  It was a lie, Oops! an opinion, i.e. a theory, which people bought into and treated as a fact or as a truth (for the moment), because the men who came through the door called themselves experts in conflict resolution and we had a lot of conflicts, i.e. obedience to authority, to "anti-resolute," i.e. to praxis "change" on.  The old saying "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." should apply here but the experts kept smiling and kept saying "trust us," and hope springing eternal, fools kept on following them down the Heresiarchal pathway to a promised "better" life.  I use past tense, since the goose is cooked when the temperature gauge pops out, i.e. when you try to insert truth into the conversation and no one is interested in the truth any more.  The truth of God's Word never returns void, even when it is rejected by others.  When you share it, you are strengthened in it as they reject you, i.e. it.  You change you identity in that moment from being one with them to being one with the Word of God.

The heresiarchal paradigm:  On the other side of the continuum, using the dialectical process to develop the heresiarchal paradigm, a pre-determined right-wrong paradigm in a person's mind is brought into question and eventually moved in the direction of negation (it's not wrong its just irrelevant—you probably won't be told that in your face but it will be understood by the "glazed-over" look in their eyes, the sensation of being "extruded" by, i.e. from the group).  In the dialectical process, principled ethics is replaced with situational ethics, i.e. democratic ethics.  Intolerance for ambiguity ("close mindedness," traditional mindedness, "status-quo") is replaced with tolerance for ambiguity (haziness, uncertainty, doubt).  Time honored order is replaced with confusion which is accepted as being "open-mindedness," transformational mindedness.  "Change," i.e. when a person's focus is upon achieving (actualizing) unity with the generally perceived nature of things, i.e. the common, lowest, denominator, becomes the meaning of life.  The common lowest denominator, i.e. the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people, must be brought into action.  Thus all mankind, seeking unity with the environment around them, i.e. the environment which produces the sensation of pleasure (the dynamo and catalyst for social unity), must identify with and unite with their own nature and the nature they find they have in common with others (common-ism).  In this way they can discover their "potential" as a human being, and their "purpose" as a citizen of the "new" world order, i.e. an order where life is based upon sight (the senses) and not faith.  Therefore proper behavior is dependent upon "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" i.e. "felt" needs which are within the reach of all who are participating in the special experience, which therefore demands "sense experience" or action, i.e. thoughts of pleasure put into action (praxis) but "only when it proceeds from Nature" (Karl Marx MEGA I/3, p. 123). 

"Meyers in his study emphasizing group think, Higher Horizons 1961, stated that 'to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shaped by the parents and guardians or by the peer group in the neighborhood' produces 'conflict and tension between parents and children, between students, and peer groups who are not participating in the special opportunities." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." "… Coleman (1961) demonstrates very clearly that during the adolescent periods, under some conditions, the peer group has a greater effect on the students than do teachers and, perhaps, parents.” (Krathwohl, Bloom,  Book 2 Affective Domain, p 83, 84, 82)

    This is the same "special opportunity" as called for by Karl Marx, as revealed in Genesis 3:1-6, where the cognitive domain was guided by the affective domain, where the desire to "touch" the forbidden tree and the perception that it is the tree which was drawing the woman to it, triggering her desire to touch it, which, through the affective domain, the want of the gratifying object, lead her to evaluate the situation, i.e. evaluating it 'rationally,' through her own perception, i.e. leaning to her own understanding (the environment helping her in making a moral, i.e. a "good" decision; crisis means to make a decision). She thus became conscious (conscientization) that there was nothing wrong with the tree after all, resulting in the detoxification of the fear that it might kill her. Besides, the expert, Satan, told her that it wouldn't kill her.  There is nothing like having a facilitator around to make change easy. 
    In dialectical thinking, objective truth is no longer found above man.  Objective truth is the social environment before him, an environment "created" by the facilitator (selecting the right constellation of participants along with the "appropriate information" to create the proper environment—the proper perception—for the potential or all participants to change their paradigm, i.e. changing their reality by changing their experience). 
    By changing group environment to change reality, changes in the individual's perception changes his reality, i.e. producing "group-individual think," interpersonal relationships. Put into action, subjective truth, i.e. our individual human nature, our affective domain (our carnal nature) wanting freedom of expression, which is within in all mankind, i.e. in all of society, becomes the new reality.  Once the process gains momentum it just keeps rolling on or rather cycling downward (recycling is the buzz word used today, as in recycling gets rid of the old by remaking it into the new, not a bad idea until it gets to private land, family, business, body parts, etc., i.e. when someone more worthy than you, i.e. the village, needs something you have it and they keep telling you that they "care" about you and to "trust" them, sort of like an alligator and a frog and a "free pass day" or something like that, alligators are into recycling to—another analogy is the spider and the fly where those doing the process, i.e. the spider, want you, i.e. the fly, to come over for lunch).  In this way the objective truth of God above is replaced with, i.e. swallowed up by the objective truth of "us" or "our" society, as god below.
    The Sophia of the French Revolution ("mother earth"), the symbol of the matriarchal paradigm (leading the masses into global domination, i.e. riding the heresiarchal beast which eventually destroys her), replaces the concept of God above, the patriarch directing man's steps (The statue of Liberty is in line with the French Revolution, "liberty, fraternity, equality"—collective liberty, "human rights," not the American Revolution, "liberty in law"—individual liberty, inalienable rights). While the French Revolution (the French element) provided the impetus of the dialectical process, putting it into practice, if failed due to the philosophical "illiteracy" of the masses (the idea of government by consensus had not griped the masses, nor the military—you have to include the military to prevent Thermidor) and economic rigidity (inflexible laws of economics) which eventually segregated the working force from the movement.  Hegel answered the philosophical "illiteracy" problem (the Germany element), along with "help" from Marx (and Freud), and Marx answered of the "economic" problem (the England element).  "Permanently organized consent,... without force predominating excessively over consent" "where the so-called organs of public opinion—newspapers and associations—under certain situations ... artificially manipulated" the news "to ensure that force [would] appear to be based upon the consent of the majority."  (Gramsci) “Theoretical praxis enters public life through the newspaper and journal of social criticism.” “The philosopher becomes a journalist without ceasing to be a philosopher.” (Marx, Critique) Force was used, when "necessary," to remove any organ of society (the patriarchal head along with the matriarchal head when "necessary") which could be used to return conditions back to their former state (Don't question the authority which gives you the "right" to question authority, i.e. you can question everything but its authority to have you question all authority).
    Hegel's dialectical thought is tied to three stages of development with three stages within those stages and so forth (commonly referred to as thesis confronting antithesis, merging into synthesis).  Reality is actualized, brought into being, as "Consciousness" confronts "Self-Consciousness" and resolves the conflict with social consciousness (social consciousness put into action, i.e. praxis—I add Marx here), i.e. "Free Concrete  mind" where the mind is freed from abstract thought (the mind is freed from arbitrary rules given by parent or God) and united with the "real" world in action.   Consciousness begins with "Sense-Certainty," (sensation which nature must trigger since man is a sensual being), which is confronted with "Perception," (becoming aware of the environment which triggered the sensual moment, yet has elements which counter the sensual), which is resolved with "Force and Understanding," (by confronting the element or elements which counter the sensual, with that which proceeds from nature, a person comes to know himself and his world freed from the irrational—freed from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. parental and Godly authority above his nature, inhibiting free inquiry into nature). The dialectical process 1) begins with a persons thinking upon something, 2) then his awareness of his thinking upon something which is in the world before him (with is actual and therefore attainable under the right conditions), thinking upon something which conflicts with the current rules of conduct and thought, and 3) ends with him putting his thought into action, i.e. discovering scientifically what is real.  Therefore the space-time continuum, that which is concrete and accessible to the scientific mind, is the essential condition from which to determine whether something is real or not, i.e. relevant or irrelevant in the moment, anything beyond space and time (is not material, is not of nature) is not real, i.e. is irrelevant.  Either the current rules of restraint (social restraint upon the individual for the sake of society) or the desire for change from restraint (the individual is seeking unity with society), is real. In either case the patriarchal paradigm is under attack, those who are possessed by the process are out to be annihilated it.
    To create reality, by discovering reality, is the "purpose" for dialectical thinking.  In this way of thinking, if restraint is real, it must come from nature, from the source which triggered thought in the first place (according to dialectical thought, revelation, i.e. anything cognizant outside of nature, is not real—is illusionary—since true thought is mankind coming to know himself in his own nature, "only that which is of Nature"—Marx, i.e. bound to space and time; see Kant's Critique of Pure Reason—which, by the way, negates faith but detaching reasoning from faith—obeying God, and tying it to nature only—trying to be like God).  In this way, the mind, i.e. human reasoning, is freed to relate with that which is common to all mankind, being freed from that which inhibits his nature from being realized (in its full potential), i.e. preventing him from finding unite with society as a whole. Principle no longer resides above human interest (spiritual), telling man how he must live, but is the agent which drives man to unite upon a common interest (temporal), helping him discover "purpose" in life.  Dialectically, principle is not something outside of man's nature, to be achieved by the submission of his nature to "to an alien power," (Tillich) but instead principle is something for man to strive after, i.e. helping him to unite upon a common goal (thereby negating visions and revelation from God above by initiating and sustaining "democratic principles" below).  "A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps."  Proverbs 16:9
    In the dialectical world to create you must destroy, to build bridges (to the heresiarchal paradigm) you must destroy bridges (back to the patriarchal paradigm).  More citizens of their own country have died at the hands of their own government (burning bridges back to the past), through the use of this process (building bridges to the future), than any other system known to man.  Remember Fascism has it roots in the same process.  It just went for cultural "purity," instead of mental "purity."  They both swallow up the traditional family for the sake of their social agenda, the former simply reacts to the latter, i.e. stealing its thunder for its own use. The objective over the past century has been, how can you attain the latter (global, international dominance) without the former (national dominance) capturing the moment for itself. “What The Authoritarian Personality was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian society ─ fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional parental authority was under fire.” (Adorno) emphasis added   Transcending national affections depended upon re-attaching the affective domain (values) to international issues, health (both human and environmental) and welfare on a global scale.  In this way that which is above, i.e. "He," whether God or man, can be negated with that which is below, i.e. "We."  "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
    The word above is as a consequence dropped from human perspective, the cognitive and the affective domains are thus "united," our feelings, our fleshy nature, is no longer subordinate to a higher authority (above) but now subordinate to the social cause which we can empathetically and temporally relate with (us with it and it with us below). That which is above, i.e. "we," (singular and plural), remains only in its ability to "guide" (through deception, i.e. perception) mankind, with man's "willful" participation upon a common goal, world peace, i.e. "We can not do it without you."  Whoever controls the environment which stimulates the affective domain (dopamine emancipation, i.e. sense base stimulus is the basis for relevance) therefore determines the cognitive domain (the appropriate information which will be accepted, i.e. reasoning is reasonable to the senses) and thereby controls the psycho-motor domain (the proper human behavior, i.e. physical response is rational to the senses), resulting in praxis, i.e. the "healthy" social life.  Since the answers are in the questions, whoever selects or determines the "appropriate" questions determines (influenced by social pressure) the "appropriate" answers.  If the questions are cognitive domain based, facts based, truth based, "What do you know?" type questions (without emphasis upon the affective domain), asked in a didactic, deductive reasoning environment, then it is more than likely that a patriarchal response will ensue, i.e. "The 'right' answer is ..."  If the questions are cognitive domain and affective domain in nature, opinion based, feelings based, "How do you, or How did you, feel?" or  "What do you, or What did you, think?" type questions, asked in a dialectic, inductive reasoning environment, then it is more than likely a heresiarchal response, i.e. "change," will ensue from your "willful" participation in the "special opportunity," i.e. "Well, I feel  ....?" or "Well, I think  ... ?"   

"A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority."  "To act on principle is to act disinterestedly, according to a general law, which is above personal considerations."  "In fact self and interest are the same fact; the kind and amount of interest actively taken in a thing reveals and measures the quality of selfhood which exits."  (Dewey) 

    "Principle" is where self is separated from its personal interest, i.e. the self is forced to follow the higher authority's interests, i.e. the parent's interest.  What the followers of democratic ethics do not know, or refuse to know, is that "their interests" are being used for somebody else's interest. Whoever controls the environment of interests is in control of each individual's interests, making them, when they work on a group project, "happy little workers," for the collective interest.  Principles are to be followed in a patriarchal paradigm (they are given from above, all good gifts come from above).  Principles are to be discovered in a heresiarchal paradigm (they are not necessarily ever arrived at but instead give mankind a common goal to work towards, i.e. principle is man discovering his commonality with mankind, in the pursuit of the collective interest of happiness).
    The dialectical idea is to make "happy little workers," i.e. liberating labor from the "sweat of thy face," (Genesis 3:19)  Isn't it interesting, i.e. hypocritical, that most social-psychologists have worked very little in their lives but take great pleasure (pride) in the evaluation of other's at work, acting as innocent bystanders, as lab technicians working on a laboratory experiment, i.e. experimenting on workers (as lab rats) who are laboring to pay them with their tax dollars, while they experiment with their children and their future lives.  If the experiment fails and people suffer and die, since they are above the rest, they come out on top (or at least think they will), making sure they have the best government care possible, while the chattel support them and their cause, the cause of Love, i.e. Eros, "brotherly love," "liberty, fraternity, equality." How they see it is, as long as people have "equality of opportunity" in an orgy of human togetherness, everybody is happy, i.e. there is no consciousness of being rich or poor in the consensus moment (and no conscience as well).  I'm not against making work easier, but this process is not just technology being applied in the workplace on machinery, this process is immorality and debauchery parading as "human resource" development in the workplace on people, this process is evil disguising itself as workforce improvement.

“Only when the process of production is organized on a socialist basis, ... can there be true economic democracy, equality or management and labor, and a high national standard of living.” (Adorno)  emphasis added

"…the dialectic of the moral life is linked to the development of the system of social labour." "Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself until the materialist spell that is cast upon the reproduction of social life, the Biblical curse of necessary labor, is broken technologically."   (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest) emphasis added

“Events of early childhood are of prime importance for the happiness and work-potential of the adult.” "According to the present theory, the effects of environmental forces [patriarchal seen as a negative field of force—restraining natural inquiry in sensual (carnal) human nature, and heresiarchal seen as a positive field of force—initiating and sustaining natural inquiry into sensual (carnal) human nature] in molding the personality are, in general, the more profound the earlier in the life history of the individual they are brought." “Confronted with the rigidity of the adult ... one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individual's life, and since the earlier the influence the more profound it will be, attention becomes focused upon child training.” (Adorno)  emphasis added

"Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood [work-potential]." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." “The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community.” “In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The ‘natural processes’ by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them.” (Coleman) emphasis added   

To restore the Father-son structure would be to carry the parents praxis of accountability to higher authority (whether in play or in labor) into the present and projecting it into the future.  By removing the "negative force field" of the patriarchal paradigm ("weakening of family power") from both play and work then the "positive force field" of social "change" (tolerance of ambiguity, i.e. tolerance of deviancy) would allow for "equality of opportunity."  In dialectical thought, when the "right-wrong," "win-lose" paradigm is replaced with the positivistic, nothing is impossible, human potential, "If it feel's good, just do it," "win-win" paradigm then the "negation of negation" has taken place, and "peace and affirmation has come to man."  As Hegel put it: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him."  (Hegel in Friedrich)  This Hegel-Marx-Freud, socialist, humanistic ideology has now taken over "Christian" ministries.  "Our children are not strengthened when we point out what they've done wrong, but when we commend them for what they've done right." (Josh McDowell and Norm Wakefield,  Chapter 10 Nurturing Christian Values,  The Dad Difference: Creating an environment for your child's sexual wholeness, p. 124).  God states the opposite.   "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16, 17  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."  Ephesians 5:11 "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth ... But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 13 (all verses included below)  We are to proclaim the truth (which chasteness the flesh with its affection for the things of this world, i.e. the affective domain) in Love (which is not the love of this world).  To become child centered, i.e. proletariat centered, is to declare war upon the restraint of parents (and God) upon the "affective domain" and set at liberty the mob of anarchy.  Jacob studied the "shift" in American values, which was starting to take place in the 50's, because of the gradual "positive" change which was taking place in the direction of "a society ruled by its children" where the adolescent society was gaining freedom from its "sufferance from adults."

"These were the years when America first came to be regarded as a 'filiarchy,' a society ruled by its children....In this society money was the primary index of one's power. Yet the young had no true economic clout. Industrial society had defined adolescence as a time of extended childhood rather than one of beginning maturity; and so the only fiscal power teens had was on sufferance from adults." (Jacob speaking of the 50's)

Jacob's "research" on the restraining effects traditional faculty was having upon college students was the "justification" for the development of Bloom's Taxonomies, to negate the effect of the patriarchal paradigm in all educational institutions. “Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain was the publication of Jacob’s Changing Values in College (1957).” (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2 Affective Domain)  The opening of "Pandora's box," i.e. the "affective domain," brought deviancy into perception as a social norm, thereby "shifting" social values from the patriarchal paradigm (adults) toward a heresiarchal paradigm (adolescent) of deviancy and perversity (abomination), to where it has come today. "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual ‘Pandora’s Box.'" "To keep the ‘box’ closed is to deny the existence of the powerful motivational forces ... attitudes and values toward learning which are not shaped by the parents...." (ibid, full quotation below)

"The interest of restoring a youth-adult homosexuality culture, an undercurrent growing around the world, pushing for global equality, carries with it an interest in the boys of adolescent age.  This is true of almost all social-psychology material today.  For example: HANDBOOK of PARENTING Theory and research for practice Edited by MASUD HOGHUGHI NICHOLAS LONG with support for their research from researchers like Charlotte J. Patterson Charlotte J. Patterson

“Marx defines the essence of man as labor and traces the dialectic of labor in history till labor abolishes itself [i.e. the patriarchal paradigm is negated, i.e. the family farm, the family business, etc. is condemned, i.e. categorized as economically  impractical, uncontrollable, unpredictable, and therefore health wise, risky to society].” “Freud suggests that beyond labor at the end of history is love [Eros].” “Love has always been there from the beginning . . . the hidden force supplying the energy devoted to labor and to making history.” “Repressed Eros is the energy of history and labor must be seen as sublimated Eros.... instinctual restraints ... enforced by the hierarchical distribution of scarcity and labor.” “Men ... work in alienation .... labor time is painful time, for alienated labor is absence of gratification, negation of the pleasure principle.” “The irreconcilable conflict is not between work and Eros, but between alienated labor and Eros.” (Brown explaining Freud Civilization and Its Discontents)

[Freud believed that] “The primal father [the traditional home] prepared the ground for progress through enforced constraint on pleasure and enforced abstinence.... the first preconditions for the disciplined ‘labor force’ of the future.” (Brown)  [This condition of labor, working under the "primal father's" control, was considered the source of "neurosis" of labor, i.e. man working "by the sweat of his brow."]

“This carry-over from the study of neurosis to the study of labor in factories is legitimate.” “Work is not about paying the rent anymore—it is about self-fulfillment.” “Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation.” “Partnership is the same as synergy.” “The United States is changing into a managerial society.” “In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole.” “Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals.” “The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health.” (Maslow, Management)

Adorno saw the need for a socialist, heresiarchal, form of government, i.e. socialist minded government coming between a person and their work, socialist minded government coming between the parents and their family, socialist minded government coming between the citizen and their property, socialist minded government coming between the citizen and their religion, socialist minded government coming between the citizen and their "health care provider" (which is anti-inalienable rights, right there), etc., the need to “increase the functions of government so as to reduce the power of business [i.e. control private business (via tax credits) so that the individual family, the patriarchal paradigm, can not take care of itself and help others, sustaining its patriarchal 'prejudice' of private interest over public interest], increase the power of labor, and diminish somewhat the extreme class differences that now exist." (Adorno) It is not an issue that people are poor or without jobs, its just that they can not live outside of socialist government's control, i.e. government policies making sure that people do not have to work under a patriarchal paradigm environment i.e. the business owner over worker, parents over children, teacher over students, God over man, etc. inculcating rigidity (absolutes, stability, righteousness, etc.) into a world seeking after flux (change, instability, abomination).

"For a state to become a state it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating, but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty become very large and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way [therefore people must make compromise the way of 'life' to survive]."  (G. F. Hegel in Friedrich) 

By pushing the owner-worker (rich-poor) condition to an extreme, highlighting immoral business practices with anti-private business propaganda (owners always being portrayed as oppressors, corrupt, and suspect of getting out of paying their fare share, by the media, i.e. pick a few corrupt, i.e. 'patriarchal,' ones to imply that you can not trust the rest—this works for the patriarchal, traditional families as well), private business can be blamed for all types of social ills.  This is easily done by government creating and empowering agencies to "oversee" business, then agents turning their heads the other way, disregarding checks and restraints on business practices (for kickbacks, personal gain or to set crisis in motion) or introducing laws which open the door to fiscal abuse (greed and financial misappropriation, sometimes even perpetuated under the cover of a social cause), until excess and corruption takes place.  Thus resulting in an extreme discrepancy, or the perception of it, between the poor and the rich.  This will trigger resentment, a rising hostility (dissatisfaction) by the less fortunate, the disenfranchised, the lazy, and the socialist minded (heresiarchal minded who can themselves be filthy rich), toward the more fortunate, the entrepreneur, the opportunist, the wealthy lazy and the capitalist minded (patriarchal minded who can themselves be dirt poor, dirt is worth to much today so I will have to say dirt-less poor).  Because of these conditions, government will "have to" intervene with new controls (and new taxation upon the citizens) to rescue society (the state) and the private business from calamity, thereby serving international causes, i.e. our debt in other nations' hands, to do with us as they please when "if" we default.  The perception is, since both private and public interests are tied to one another by government programs and practices, if the public interest collapses, the private interest will collapse as well. In this way the private business interest is first corrupted with and then swallowed up by government interests (international interests), i.e. capitalism is corrupted with and then collapses into socialism resulting in capitalist-socialism, i.e. global fascism, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm is corrupted with and then collapses into the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the truth is corrupted with and then swallowed up by unrighteousness, the church is corrupted with and then swallowed up by social "purpose," etc.   It is in this pressure cooker situation from which social change can be more easily perpetrated. 

"The change of a group atmosphere from autocracy or laissez faire to democracy through a democratic leader amounts to a re-education of the followers toward ‘democratic follower-ship.'”   (Benne)

Adorno saw a need to increase the number of "low scorers" (socialists) in society (through re-education and the workplace) according to his PEC (Politico‑Economic Scale).  He identifying the "low scorers" as having "a tendency to think in sociological rather than moral‑hereditarian terms; a tendency to identify with labor and the ‘common man’ and to oppose the power of business; support for extension of the political and economic functions of government.” (Adorno)  This man's ideology has more impact on your life today than you might care to know.  Most don't seem to care since they are "enjoying" it to much. He taught his hate of the traditional family, in American and European universities:  "... the function possessed by so-called irrational institutions such as the family, ... in so-called rational bourgeois [patriarchal] society ... is in reality irrational." "... the survival of irrational 'moments' of society ... can only survive through irrational institutions like the family, through a kind of work in which the workers do no receive their full return for their labour, but are exploited once again within their closest associates, ... called the germ-cell of society... the irrational conditions of society can only be maintained through the survival of these irrational functions ... of the family."  (Theodor Adorno  Introduction to Sociology)  In this way the followers of the dialectical process, i.e. those following the promoters and manipulators of democratic ethics, are still "slaves," i.e. slave of the flesh, only subject to a different "slave" master, the facilitators of "change."  Satan is the master slave master, the master facilitator, "savoring" the things of man, man's interest and his being the same, the negation of the patriarchal paradigm. "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."  Matthew 16:23  

“Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression.” “The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination.”  (Brown)

“The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: uncritical obedience to the father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhibition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values.” (Adorno) 

“Every neurosis is an example of dynamic adaptation; it is essentially an adaptation to such external conditions as are in themselves irrational and, generally speaking, unfavorable to the growth of the child.” (Fromm)

“Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being.” (Marx, Critique)  

Only that which restores man to his own nature and nature itself, i.e. a socialist environment, is therefore rational.  And that which alienates man from his own nature and nature itself, i.e. an anti-socialist, anti-democratic environment, is irrational.  Thus, looking through a "neo-Marxist lens," the patriarchal paradigm is seen as irrational and therefore must be treated as the source of irrational thought and action in society (a belief-action dichotomy is irrational to a theory-practice paradigm).

"But if moral realism can no longer be defended by appealing to a creationist metaphysics [God above and His revealed word] and to natural law (or their surrogates) [Newtonian law, common law], the validity of moral statements can no longer be assimilated to the truth of esoteric [irrational, impenetrable, immeasurable, religious] statements." "… moral commands were previously justified in a metaphysical [beyond perception of the senses] fashion as elements of a rationally ordered world [world ordered by God]. As long as the cognitive content of morality could be expressed in esoteric statements ['categorical imperatives,' i.e. unquestionable and universal commands constraining human nature] , moral judgments could be viewed as true or false [as through a "patriarchal lens"]."  (Jürgen Habermas Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory.)

When man abandons truth which originates outside of the perception of his senses (i.e. must be accepted by faith), he must abandon moral judgments which produce a true or false outcome and embrace an opinion based, moral relativistic outcome (i.e. a democratic, socialist, communist, i.e. Marxist-Freudian, globalist, New World Order outcome, i.e. the "purpose" of Blooms Taxonomy of Education Objective Books, an Outcome Based Education—OBE, the outcome being a Transformation Marxism, Heresiarchal Paradigm).

"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. ...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and non-authoritarian behaviors are emphasized.” (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Through the therapist's continued willingness to verbalize and to confront the calamity calmly [you won't be punished for how you feel or think], patients gradually realize the irrationality of the feared calamity [fear of chastening by higher authority for speaking out of turn or improperly, i.e. immorally, disrespectfully, etc.]."  “The person must be helped to reexamine many cherished assumptions about himself and his relations to others.” “The familiar must be made strange; many common props, social conventions, status symbols, and ordinary procedural rules are eliminated ..., and the individual’s values and beliefs about himself are challenged.”  (Yalom)

“One of the primary functions of these [matter‑of‑fact] questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety.” (Adorno) emphasis added

“Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism.” (Max Horkheimer Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung)

"Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred."  Matthew 4:3-8

God's taxonomy is explained in the parable of the sower and the different types of soil, i.e. heart conditions.  The seed (the truth) landing "by the way side" (a hard heart, i.e. not interested in the word of God since it provides no personal attraction, i.e. temporal pleasure, i.e. personal gain, therefore it is quickly doubted and easily taken away).  The seed landing "on stony ground" (a human relationship heart, i.e. interested in the word of God until it interferes with human relationships, i.e. friendships; "when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.").  The seed landing "among thorns" (a cares of this world heart, i.e. losing interest in the word of God as they gain interest in the things of the world; "the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in,").  And the seed landing "on good ground" (a humble and receptive heart, i.e. receiving the word of God and living it; "such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred"), see Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23, Mark 4:3-20, and Luke 8:5-15.  

The dialectical taxonomy is based on the spectrum of human reasoning skills, i.e. the fountainhead from which evaluation, i.e. speculative philosophy, is made.  On one end of the spectrum are:

1) those who set their mind on things above (labeled as spiritual), i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. knowledge or knowing is based upon truths and facts handed down by higher authority, as in "How do you know what is right?"  "Because Dad said so, God said so, the Teacher said so, etc." i.e. evaluating their world from God or the parents perspective, i.e. life is all about obedience to the parent's or God's word, thus temporal feeling, the want of a gratifying object, is put under check (self-controlled and self-disciplined seen dialectically as self-repressed or denied life) by the act of carrying out authorities demands (you can preach and teach to this group and they 'might' hear),

2) those who just think about enjoying the day, i.e. go along to get along, i.e. "Don't bring up this subject so we can all enjoy the day," i.e. a matriarchal paradigm (the mothers heart, i.e. her desire that all the children get along, i.e. living in peace is in the avoidance of controversy), i.e. evaluating the world from the basis of feelings, i.e. its all about feelings, i.e. "tend and befriend," ("Just tell me it will all work out, that it's all right."  you can preach and teach to this group but it will avail little since they would rather hear stories), and finally on the other end of the spectrum,

3) those who set their mind on how to negate the way of thinking which inculcates and advocates thinking upon things above, how to annihilate the way of thinking which hinders or blocks man from thinking upon and living according to things below, i.e. inhibits sense based reasoning proceeding from nature (carnal thoughts), which must by liberated and developed, i.e. put into praxis, if man is to know himself personally and socially, i.e. a heresiarchal paradigm  (labeled as reasonable, i.e. temporal, i.e. contemporary) so that the 'human experience' , i.e. sense-based reality negating faith-based reality, can become the origin of life, i.e. evaluating the word through sensuous reasoning, i.e. man is "good," or neither "good" nor "bad," but educated incorrectly, therefore whatever is "good" for mankind is "good" for man and what is "good" for man is "good" for mankind, i.e. man, i.e. mankind, void of spiritual restraint, is the measurement of what is "good."  Thus "good sense" is the "common sense" of man liberated from the rigidity of religion and tradition through the philosophy of praxis, i.e. "common sense" (the past) transformed into "good sense" (the present) through critical thought being put into action.  Dialectically, it is not that "common sense" is bad, it just needs to keep up with the changing times, with human senses to maintain relevance. (Read Antonio Gramsci' book Selections from the PRISON NOTEBOOKS  for more on the subject:) Anyway, Bill Clinton, who attended the Gramsci Institute in Italy, spoke often at "good sense" conferences.

You can preach and teach to this last group but they have hardened their hearts, closed their eyes, and desensitized their ears, and will more than likely turn and rend you. "For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."  Matthew 13:15  For all must come to the Lord in faith, believing upon Him and His Word, or, though they have eyes and ears, they can not perceive and understand and be converted, and their sins forgiven.  "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." Mark 4:12

The "spiritual" (God, the parent, etc.) can be kept around as long as perceived as socially constructive (working for universal wholeness), as seen through "human eyes and human ears" (evaluated dialectically, i.e. seen through neo-Marxist lens) and is therefore "this world" 'reasonable' (measurable and therefore material in nature), i.e. talked about as spiritual but not really so, and therefore common to and in harmony with human and natural cause, and thus is sympathetic to as well as bound by man's nature to approach pleasure (life) and avoid pain (death), i.e. seeking, this world, social love, this world social justice and this world social power for human cause (active in human history for the cause of social transformation).  History, according to dialectical thought and action, is not found in God above human nature, his Word preached and taught as is, dividing man as sheep from goats, but rather history is God and mankind uniting through dialogue, man realizing peace and justice as he unites in his common experience of discovering and caring out "God's" will, his 'dialectical' will that man will unit upon realizing a common love, the love of humanity and the creation, and putting this "love" into praxis.  This is not the God of the Scriptures. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."  Matthew 24:35; 5:18 

We are not to seek after God in and through our common vanities (even calling it world peace and justice), but to seek after God who redeems us from them. "And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:"  Acts 14:15  Through dialogue, we can find (create) a cosmically minded "God," i.e. finding and uniting upon Him with our common vanities, or we can come to know Him through the preaching and teaching of His Word, "turning from these vanities unto the living God."  The moment you correlate God to the passions and thoughts of man (make him socially adaptable), binding him to the works of man and the works of man to him, you have conjured up a dialectical god, a god who all the world can worship and serve together. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26, 27  To know God you must suffer with Christ, not only rejecting your vanities, but also being rejected by the family and the "village" of vanities, those who, because they want common peace and justice, because they want to live in their common vanities (which social cause can only unite upon), they, the family and the "village," must hand you your cross to bear as you follow, not after the interest (vanities) of man, but after the Word of God, Jesus Christ.  Vanity is vanity, being social about it does not stop it from being vanity, it just makes it easier to justify.  "As long as everybody gets a piece of the pie, we can all have peace and justice around here."  The lust for social approval, momentarily satiated in the consensus process, only makes those who participate more addicted to the lust of this world.  They will steal you blind to get more of the drug, i.e. social approval.

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:11 

Those who are truly Spiritual endure all things which the world tempts them with, i.e. throws at them, and are not directed by human nature (guided by stimulus-response and human reasoning). (See Romans 8:4-9) To go to the "extreme" position of the patriarchal paradigm (as seen by the perception of a heresiarchal paradigm), by making human relationship (with self and others) subordinate to obedience to God and His Word, at the cost of breaking off human relationship, will produce this response by the contemporary Christian or Christian Humanists: "Now, you have just gone to far."    

"1. All human behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of needs, 2. the individual will change his established ways of behaving for one of two reasons: to gain increased need satisfaction [approach pleasure—physical, mental, and social] or to avoid decreased need satisfaction [avoid pain—physical, mental and social], and 3. 'augmentation' in the possibilities of needs satisfaction."  (Douglas McGregor as quoted in Benne)  [By rejecting obedience to God in all things as a way of life, there are no limits to the possibilities of what a person can do on their way to Hell.]

'Augmentation' is to create environmental conditions where personal needs (i.e. approach pleasure, avoid pain) in the individual's life becomes perceptively tied to the desire for social approval (i.e. perceived pleasure), and the avoidance of social rejection (i.e. perceived pain), so that the person chooses in the direction of social approval whenever he works on the resolution of personal needs (i.e. his personal needs are therefore evaluated and actualized in the "light" of perceived social needs, i.e. his personal needs are synthesized with perceived social needs).  "The relationship between group and individual action should be such that the individual perceives his out-of-group action as the resumption of a task set in the group and interrupted by the ending of the preceding group meeting.”  (Benne)  Reflectiveness; Truth, therefore, does not lie within or above the individual man, but is realized in his collective experience. Truth is always found in the perceivable social moment. Reality therefore is always subject to how society perceives and experiences itself at any given moment in time as it strives to augment, i.e. increase "needs satisfaction."

"Respect the child.  But not too much his parent.  The two points in a boy's training are, to keep his natural and train off all but that;"  (Emerson quoted in Dewey)

According to John Dewey, we are to "train off" the spiritual, that which comes from above human nature, i.e. that which comes from God or  parent, i.e. both patriarchal in paradigm.  Dewey believed and taught that “God's work is a source of corruptions in individuals.”  (Dewey)

Although "negative" dialecticians say that they do not like to label (and thus be labeled), seeking to negate reification (rejecting the way of thinking which accepts anything above human nature as eternally established—including the dialectical process, i.e. accepting anything "abstract," i.e. intangible, as real, including the definition of terms in a set, i.e. unchanging form; Hint: though they might say this to make you think it, they lie).  The dialectical process is a set religion with many variations to its structure like the religion of Belial.  They love labeling others (why have a continuum?) based upon the method of reasoning they use in solving personal-social problems, i.e. your degree of participation in the dialectical process, i.e. do you rely heavily upon non-human or greater than human directives (a condition they would consider "illusionary," neurotic, phobic), or do you rely upon impulse only, letting your feelings direct your behavior, or do you rely upon personal-social input, i.e. being "in the moment," in your thoughts and actions (theory and practice) always considering the social-environmental ramifications, those controlling the environment (by initiating and sustaining group building behavior and neutralizing, marginalizing and removing non-group or anti-group behavior, i.e. those supporting individualistic behavior) facilitating (manipulating) your reasoning, united with feelings, to build a "better" tomorrow for all (that's a general term).  In this way, your personal loyalty to the things of the past which are not relevant to, or which might impede, the social needs of the present must be set aside if you are to become a part of the new world order of the future.  Thus, if what you want to hold on to (both from above and from below, spiritual and temporal) can not be questioned in the "light" of current times, and put aside for the sake of others, then it is not relevant for the hopes and dreams of the future.  All absolutes must be sacrificed upon the altar of social progress, i.e. your absolutes must become "changeable," if mankind is to be the measure of all things.

"History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency." (Maslow, Journals)

"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process."  (Rogers)

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."  Matthew 7:13, 14

"Higher & lower" is a patriarchal paradigm, a way of thinking of two roads or pathways where you are either on one road or the other, i.e. you can not be on both roads at the same time.  One path is straight and narrow and the other path is broad, one path is above (spiritual) and the other path is below (temporal), one path is right and the other path is wrong, one path is good and the other path is evil, one path is spiritual and the other path is fleshy, one path is from God leading to heaven and the other path is of the world leading to hell.  "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"  Isaiah 5:20, 21  All people are either on one path or road or else they are on the other path or road (i.e. an either-or, if-then paradigm) which is seen as irrational reasoning, as spiritual reasoning by the "prepotency & postpotency," dialectically thinking crowd.  They see the above-below thought structure as religious (spiritual), even when used in the secular realm (it is then seen as Fascist), i.e. judging social life below by the spiritual path above, be it by man (ideals) or God (revelation). 

"Thus ‘Threat orientation,’ so often found in the background of prejudiced children, is lacking in the history of the tolerant child. Only when life is free from intolerable threats, or when these threats are adequately handled with inner strength, can one be at ease with all sorts and conditions of men."  (Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice)

In a dialectical sense this "higher & lower" way of thinking is identified as being the source of restraint of sensuousness and spontaneity (free human nature) under unreasonable, i.e. non-humanistic (repressive), intolerable conditions, where rules and commands produce the tyranny of "repressive" reasoning over sensuousness (Sinnlichkeit), i.e. where the wanting of gratifying objects as well as the sensual awareness of them, i.e. cognition of them, is repressed by the praxis of abdicating one's will to the will of higher authority, i.e. submitting to the authority of a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. an "authoritarian", equated to as a "Hitler" mentality, at least the potential of it. 

 “I could not of course imagine that the method which in the system of logic I have followed is not capable of much elaboration in detail, but at the same time I know that it is the only true method.”  “It is clear that no expositions can be regarded as scientific which do not follow the course of this method, and which are not conformable to its simple rhythm, for that is the course of the thing itself.” (Hegel in Friedrich)

"Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies." Psalms 40:4

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18

"When wisdom [from God] entereth into thine heart, and knowledge [from God] is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things [disobedience, oppositions]; Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; Whose ways are crooked, and froward in their paths:"  Proverbs 16:2:10-15 [bracketed information added]

The dialectical continuum "of prepotency & postpotency" is the measuring device used by those with a heresiarchal paradigm (whereby God is brought "down to earth," i.e. evaluation is not from God and his word, above, i.e. His evaluation over man and the world below for His purpose alone—whereby God directs the steps of men, but rather evaluation is from man below, of, by, and for his purpose alone—whereby man directs his own steps, leaning upon his own understanding, guided by the dialectical process and its "system of logic").  On one end of the spectrum those using a patriarchal paradigm are seen as, not following a path above but rather as "locked" into and guided by the things of the "past," i.e. under control of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. an 'authoritarian personality' blocking mankind from journeying down the pathway of/to social unity and human progress. 

The use of the continuum as a gauge, to determine where a person is on the road of change, is to assist those of the heresiarchal paradigm on how far a person has progressed from a "pre-" processed to a "post-" processed frame of mind and behavior, ("pre- processed Christian" to "post-processed Christian," i.e. post-modern age with no preset rules or standards, i.e. only the process to guide man in the "changing" times, i.e. during the times of crisis).  The "purpose" of the continuum of paradigms is to advance the one road theory, i.e. for the "purpose" of  initiating and sustaining the process of "change," i.e. for the "purpose" of annihilating the patriarchal paradigm, the nemesis of the process with its two road paradigm of good and evil (bringing the conscience back into the room wanting "change," i.e. wanting liberation from the voice from above, i.e. God). In this way history is not the past being repeated (God reintroducing his way into the world), but history is changeableness (mankind, given the right environmental conditions, evolving to a higher social order, i.e. discovering and creating his new world order). The "purpose" in "purpose driven church" is to turn the church (which is called out of the world system by God, sent out to warn the world of God's judgment upon its sins and preach and teach His love for it, i.e. His sending "His only begotten Son" to redeem whosoever from judgment, and the proclaiming of mans need to repent before God, i.e. a two road paradigm) into the one road paradigm (the idea that the churches "purpose" is to develop social harmony, i.e. spread love, by working for social cause, "with God's blessing," i.e. "But the minister said that God blessed it"). "I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings."  Jeremiah 23:21, 22  You can not have it both ways. God above directing man's steps below, and man below discovering his "purpose" through the use of the dialectical process (finding that which man and nature have in common below), can never come to consensus.  The one automatically negates the other.

"He reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied." "The patient [the child, the student, the parent, the congressman, the minister, etc.] changes the past by reconstituting it [only that which fits into the present and advances the future becomes relevant history]." (Yalom) 

By giving the person a "special opportunity" to role-play the traditional home setting in a group setting, he is able, with the help of groups support, to respond "positively" to his own nature and "break free" from the standards of the home environment.  In this way he can rewrite history in his mind, i.e. negate the "negative" history of the traditional (isolationist, empiricist, authoritarian, restraining the flesh) home, justify its "irrationality" to his mind, while creating the "positive" history of the social family (tolerant of diversity, i.e. tolerant of ambiguity, open-minded and nonjudgmental toward the flesh). 

Some people will stay at the "higher & lower" historical view of life, locked in their "prepotency," despite all effort of social-psychologists to bring them up to date.  As Abraham Maslow put it: “We don’t know the answers to the question: What proportion of the population is irreversibly authoritarian? [i.e. "fundamental religious extremists"]” (Maslow, Management)  Ironically, as these men set out to negate God, they become gods themselves. "Yet, who is God’s God?" "Psychotherapists who are deeply depressed and who know that they must be their own superbeing, their own intercessor, are more apt to plunge into final despair." "I have often thought that the inordinately high suicide rate among psychiatrists was one tragic commentary on this dilemma."  (Yalom)  In this line of reasoning people come into therapy with commands which are from above but during and after therapy they are simply commands from the past which are easily cast off as irrelevant by the "felt" needs of the present and the "potential" of the future. “Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself  ‘What would my parents want me to do?’ During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?’” (Rogers)

Jesus Christ is the greatest "fundamental religious extremist," i.e. "authoritarian" (the word used by the heresiarchal to deride those obedient in Christ).  Jesus accepted only his Heavenly Father's will (Matthew 26:42), thus fulfilling the scriptures ("fundamental" - cognitive domain, "literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to life and teaching" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary), information above human perception, i.e. sympathetic discernment founded upon his Father's Words, written and spoken as is, from above)  He did not question his Father's will despite his feelings, i.e. having taking on the form of man, but treated his Father's Words, written and spoken, as sacred ("religious" - affective domain, life's values derived from God above), and he obeyed his Father's will even to death ("extremist" - psychomotor domain, he minded, i.e. put into action the things given to him from above, subjecting his body to obedience to his Father's will in all things, even death). "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."  Luke 24:27; "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." John 19:28; "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."  2 Peter 1:20, 21;  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16, 17;  "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."  John 6:38-40  "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."  1 Peter 2:21-25  These passages describe a true "fundamental religious extremist," who lived without sin, died, and rose again for you and me, calling us to be fundamental, i.e. taking his word as literal, religious, i.e. valuing his word more precious than our own lives, letting him guide us in all things, extremists, i.e. willing to die for the faith, unmoved by the call of the world.

The world will label those who follow after the words of religious men (i.e. men disguising themselves as men of God, committing themselves and their followers to violent acts to support their religious views) as "fundamental religious extremists" and include the true believer amongst them with the original intent of destroying them.  Satan does not care about those who are already his, but he hates those who are the Lords and will attempt to destroy all in his attempt to destroy them.  Those who follow down his heresiarchal pathway are just like him, as described by Jesus.  "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44  Jesus has told us we will be hated by the world and be sought out by the world to be destroyed. (scriptures included later in this article). "But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;"  1 Peter 3:14

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;  In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.  But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.  I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."  Deuteronomy 30:15-20

As you begin your journey down the pathway of the continuum you finding people are becoming dissatisfied with the standards (environmental conditions) which strain against (restrain) their inclination to walk down the pathway of natural inquiry.  This beginning point of the continuum is seen as a transition period between the patriarchal paradigm (facts, the way things are) and the matriarchal paradigm (feelings, the way things "ought" to be). This transition moment is where philosophy is birthed.  Philosophy commences with the dissatisfaction a person experiences when locked into current unchanging conditions (state of affairs) which go against (inhibits) his will or desire to inquire into or relate with a gratifying object in the environment.  It is at this moment he begins to question the way of thinking which sustains the restraining condition. This is where people begin to notice and follow after others walking down the broad pathway, narcissistically seeking after the things below (drawn after those things which are compatible with their temporal nature).  The person is then readily deceivable.  Influenced by his perception of the multitude journeying thereon he is now hesitant in sharing his private convictions.

"Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way."  Psalms 119:37   "The thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit."  Proverbs 12:5   "Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait." Jeremiah 9:8  "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."  Mark 7:21-23  "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."  2 Timothy 3:13

The deceitfulness, which is found in the 'logic' of the continuum, is, while those promoting the continuum theory recognize that we all begin on the broad path, because of the flesh (our carnal nature, i.e. our wanting of a gratifying object in the natural environment which is forbidden by an "authoritarian personality"), they refuse to recognize, or at least openly acknowledge that we also have a yearning for the straight and narrow, i.e. we are all born with a measure of faith, and therefore, by the act of faith readily accepting of a condition which go against our carnal nature, a condition which a psychotherapist, by the name of Irvin Yalom, calls "infantile," "self-deceptive."  He wrote: "Freud referred to ... the group’s ‘need to be governed by unrestricted force . . . it’s extreme passion for authority . . . it’s thirst for obedience.’ Among the strongest of these is man’s need for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnicaring parent, which together with his infinite capacity for self-deception creates a yearning for and a belief in a superbeing." (Yalom) emphasis added   Despite our internal impulses and desires to "do our own thing," we have the attribute of faith which leads to the behavior of obedience to authority.  This attribute of faith, when continued throughout life, according to those are infatuated with the dialectical process, pushing for a world run by "the process," results in a "phobic" mental condition.  Those initiating and sustaining the continuum theory, so that they can 'justify' their disobedience to and rejection of God equate faith in a higher authority as a mental condition they call 'neurosis,'   This dialectical process, and its effect upon the world, is why Jesus made the statement " Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"  Luke 18:8b. This stage along the continuum is the matriarchal-heresiarchal paradigm, where feelings (the affective domain) now predominates a person's thought life (i.e. concerned about the feelings of others towards themselves and enamored with their feelings toward others).  Thus feelings predetermine the worth of any information being learned or thought about, thus determining the value or worth of the environmental condition a person finds themselves in. In the transitional mind, perception predominates over temporal restraints.

“Much stress is laid on the creation of an atmosphere of freedom and spontaneity—voluntary attendance, informality of meetings, freedom of expression in voicing grievances, emotional security, and avoidance of pressure.” (Benne)

The spectrum (continuum): How Carl Rogers saw the change process emerging from within the person:
1. No desire to change. “To provide the experience of being received, in play or group therapy, where the person can be exposed to a receiving climate, without himself having to take any initiative, for a long enough time to experience himself as received.”
2. Experiencing is bound to the structure of the past but subject to change if not blocked by judgmental attitudes in the group. “If the slight loosening and flowing is not blocked then there is a still further loosening and flowing of symbolic expression.”
3. Experiencing when shared is described as in the past, non-present feelings, where the self is explored as an object. [Continue an environment where] “the client feels understood, welcomed, received as he is.”
4. Experiencing is less bound to the structure of the past as he participates in the experiences of the present. “If the client feels himself received in his expressions, behaviors, and experiences at the fourth stage then this sets in motion still further loosening, and the freedom of organismic flow is increased.”
5. Feelings are expressed as in the present, the person' own feelings are now becoming participatory in their perception of the present environment. “Increased loosening of feelings, experiences.”
6. “Self as an object tends to disappear. Experiencing takes on a real process quality, a physiological loosening. Client feels cut loose from his previously stabilized framework.” [Freed from his parents standards and freed to group participation.]
7. “Because of the tendency of the sixth stage to be irreversible, the client goes on into the seventh stage without much need of the therapist’s help. New feelings are experienced, in the therapeutic relationships, used as a clear referent. Personal constructs held loosely.” “Willing to communicate himself in a receptive climate."

"At one end of the continuum [the patriarchal end] the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end [the heresiarchal end] he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness.” (Rogers)

On the other end of the continuum there are those who promote and actively participate in the facilitation of individual and public "change." Their objective is to move (convert) people from what is seen as isolationism or imperialism, passivity or aggression to the acceptance of a condition of sensuousness and spontaneity, "justice" and "freedom." They believe that "the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind  ....  link[ing] the ‘lower’ faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence." (Marcuse)  The "right of sensuousness," the basis of "human rights," is only possible when liberation is founded upon reason reattached to sensuousness (detached in the moment the parent chastened the child for "doing something wrong").  This is correlated with what is called the aesthetic dimension, i.e. as in art, i.e. beauty, i.e. the laws of the flesh self-actualized in social harmony (social harmony meaning self and others united in feelings and thought in play, i.e. action), where equality can be experience by all, i.e. the "equality of opportunity." 

"It is in the essence of play [though put into praxis] that a new relation [a new paradigm] is created between the field of meaning [thought or theory, as in, "What does this situation mean to 'Me?'" or "How does it relate with me?" or rather "How can I relate with it?" i.e. "Does it have relevance or make sense or have value to 'Me,' and do I have relevance or make sense or have value to it?"] and the visual field [perception, as in, reality is only that which I can see (understand) which relates to my nature, i.e. that I can comprehend and therefore apprehend, i.e. that I can know by experiencing for myself] —that is, between situations in thought and real situations ["the imaginary situation" and "the actual [valid, physical] situation," when combined in play (praxis) produce possibility, i.e. potential, i.e. change, i.e. life]. ... play bears little resemblance to the complex, mediated form of thought and volition [choice] it leads to [theory or thought in action is praxis]." "... play provides a much wider background for changes in needs and consciousness ["sensuous need" and "sense perception" become material "only proceeding from Nature." (Marx)]."  "play develops ... movement toward the conscious realization of purpose [the purpose is "change," i.e. motion, action, praxis, pursuing want, i.e. the want of a gratifying object (it is not so much the object you want, it is the potential gratification that it promises in pursuing it, i.e. you never want to arrive for then the "purpose" of motion—"change," i.e. pleasure begins to die, what Freud called "castration.")]."   "Purpose decides the game and justifies the activity, [i.e. purpose is social praxis where all participate in determining the goal and in performing it without outside direction and pressure (interference), i.e. play is in the work, and work is in the play] as the ultimate goal, ["purpose"] determines the ... affective attitude of play."  "Purpose" is when internal sensual gratification ("the field of meaning") and external sensual gratification ("the visual field" being pursued and being pursed by) are uniting in pleasure, in change.  "In play, action is subordinated to meaning [action must be tied to thought, i.e. practice must derive its purpose from thought, i.e. theory, i.e. everybody's opinion which makes sense to them (which in itself negates (circumvents, i.e. does not need) the conscience, for in free, i.e. sensual and spontaneous play their is no conscience required, i.e. no negation guiding purpose)]."  "The child, in thinking, he acts."  [Therefore reality, according to the heresiarchal paradigm] "should be 'created' rather than 'imposed.'" [In dialectical thought, as you 'create' you destroy, i.e. you negate the patriarchal paradigm which 'imposes' its will (status quo), and conversely when you 'impose' your will (demonstrate a patriarchal paradigm) you inhibit or block 'creativity,' i.e. you negate the heresiarchal paradigm (change).] "Human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process [a dialectical process] by which [we] grow into the intellectual life of those around us."  (L. S. Vygotsky  Mind In Society:  The Development of Higher Psychological Processes) [In other words, we become one great big orgiastic, Dionysian, dopaminergicly intoxicated, dialectically transmuted, Genesis 3:1-6 brain, acquiescing to illusion and calling it reality, i.e. "chasing after the dragon," i.e. the serpent as it leads us to its lair.]  

Humanistic reasoning (the heresiarchal paradigm), does not accept things "as given," i.e. where "sensuous needs," i.e. feelings, i.e. desires are detached from reasoning, i.e. one's own thoughts are suppressed, i.e. submitted to a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. accepting as absolute the condition of absolutes, i.e. facts declared by another as eternally established;  Humanistic reasoning must therefore negate "I AM that I AM" from above man, to "I AM that I AM" as being man, i.e. we are all becoming "I AM," i.e. god. Humanistic reasoning must actualize (be able to comprehend and apprehend) reality from both "the field of meaning," i.e. "What does this object or situation mean to Me?" i.e. is it relevant to my "here-and-now," i.e. is it meaningful in relation to my "sensuous need?" and "the visual field," i.e. from a materialistic (worldly) perspective, i.e. through temporal perception, where again reality must be comprehendible and therefore apprehendable, i.e. "only proceeding from Nature," i.e. from human nature, i.e. from my nature and other's nature, so that we can all identify (in common, i.e. in the moment) the feeling of dissatisfaction toward the "as given" situation, i.e. "despising" the restraining paradigm, i.e. having to wait upon directions "from above." Play is then the means and the end in overcoming, i.e. transcending, that which is above, i.e. that which restrains,.  In play, one's own thoughts put into practice become reality.  In this way social play becomes reality, i.e. where "the field of meaning," (I) and "the visual field" (others) unite in praxis.

"He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.  Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.  He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.  They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.  And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?  He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" Isaiah 44:14-20

Children give "life" to inanimate objects in their "creative" play.  When adults do the same, it is idolatry.  When it is done with people, society or community, it is democracy-socialism-communism-globalism-etc., the common element being fallen man, i.e. human nature "alive" in "creative" play.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  John 14:6 

To project man (the image of man) into the creation (making the biological nature of man the standard for society, using mans sense perception as the medium between the two), so that he can be at one with it and find strength and guidance ("purpose") from it, i.e. from social praxis, is to take man, who is created by God, in God's image, for His own good pleasure, and denigrate both God and man, making man's temporal nature the basis of reality, making fallen man and his nature "the way, the truth, and the life."  This is the heart and soul of humanism, the “recognition of one's own individuality [as] the basis for recognition of the individuality of everyone, ... the democratic concept of the dignity of man.” (Adorno)  It is in this way, projecting man's carnal nature upon everything and making it the standard for reality, that the patriarchal paradigm is negated by the heresiarchal paradigm ("but everybody else is doing it"), rejecting Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Father, while even doing it "in the name of Jesus." God has not given man any perceivable thing, person, or group of people to know him by, except his son.  "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."   "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"  John 6:46; 14:9

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven." Deuteronomy 4:15-19

Humanism, through human perception, elevates man to be like God (on humanistic terms, how we "feel" and what we "think") and thereby deceives his heart and turns himself away from knowing God (who he can not come to know through his temporal senses), to serving the world (which is in harmony with his temporal senses), i.e. worshiping the works of his own hands, taking pride in his foolish reasoning, "driven" by his human passion.  By  finding common work, based upon common perception, to satisfy common sensuous need, is an act (praxis) of idolatry, the worshiping of "only that which proceeds from Nature," i.e. worshiping the creation (including "all the host of heaven"), resulting in the condition, the heresiarchal paradigm, where the common vanity of "childhood and youth" becomes the praxis of society. "Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity."  "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity."  Ecclesiastes 11:10, 12:8  To make society the image of reality (because of what we have in common with one another), is to make man the image of reality with all of his wickedness to control, i.e. right and wrong now based upon his perception of "justice," and "beauty."  That is why this process always starts with great hopes and expectation but always ends with a police state, oppressing its citizens. "We must accept the fact that some kind of control of human affairs is inevitable." (Rogers)  Beware, all who go down this pathway, who are "driven" by their passion for doing "good," it is not "the way, the truth, and the life" of God, even if it proclaims its "purpose" is "in the name of Jesus."  Faith comes by hearing God's Word (preached and taught), not by men's opinions (perception) of it being dialogued.  Redefining (transforming) the Word of God into the image of man so that all can participate in it is not of God, it is of another spirit. 

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.  Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."  Hebrews 12:5-11 emphasis added

For those possessed, i.e. bound (blinded) by the dialectical process, the objective, i.e. the "purpose" of life is 1) to identify, i.e. become cognizant of, i.e. conscious of the condition which produces the "grievous" moment, i.e. the moment of "chastening," "rebuke," "scourging," the moment of being 'forced' into resigning one's will, i.e. one's desires, i.e. one's identity, to an higher authority, out of fear of judgment, i.e. hell and the "lake which burneth with fire and brimstone," (Revelation 20:10, 21:8) and then 2) to unite all mankind upon the rejection of that moment, i.e. the forced alienation of self from the world, through the praxis of overcoming, i.e. annihilating the condition which produced the alienation, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm which demands obedience and uses chastening and the fear of judgment to attain it.  But when we refuse to accept, as reality, the given condition which defines reality outside of or above our "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," we negate "the peaceable fruit of righteousness" which can only come from God. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."  1 Samuel 15:23  In refusing to accept commands and truths given by God to us (commands above or outside of our immediate perception or experiential capabilities), as absolute, as given, as "categorical imperatives," we negate "holiness," i.e. "that we might be partakers of his holiness," the condition which follows those who "endure chastening," i.e. those who accept being "exercised thereby." "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."  Proverbs 19:18  "Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee."  Deuteronomy 8:5  "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 3:19  In the moment of chastening, the one doing it must not do it out of wrath ("hot displeasure"), for then it is no longer chastening as unto correction but an act of judgment unto destruction.  "O LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure."  Psalms 6:1; 38:1  Like Satan, those in the heresiarchal way hate God and those he loves, i.e. those who accept His chastening. (They may speak of God's love and at times preach and teach the Word, but they do not do what they preach and teach, for they are not truly in love with God and His Word.  If they were, they would be willing to repent of their use of the dialectical process, repent of their use of "cunning craftiness" to "grow" the church.)

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"  Ephesians 4:14, 15

There are consequences in rejecting the patriarchal paradigm, a paradigm which demands obedience and uses chastening as a means to encourage it (inculcating truth).  "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."  Hegel understood not only the 'cunning' ("cunning craftiness") of humanistic (dialectical) reasoning but also its 'power,' i.e. its effect of negating the patriarchal paradigm in those who participate in the process.  Hegel wrote: "Reasoning is just as cunning as she is powerful.  Her cunning consists principally in the mediating activity which, by casing objects to act and react on each other in accordance with their own nature [the facilitator getting people of differing "opinions" to synthesize, i.e. interplay until they discover their one common opinion which they can comprehend and apprehend, i.e. accepting "only that which is of [their collective] Nature," (Marx) and thereby all are justified (through consensus) in acting upon that opinion, i.e. putting that common theory into practice], in this way, without any direct interference in the process [no one is telling people what they have to do], carries out reason's intentions [reasoning unites mankind as it negates that which divides mankind, or else it is not reasoning, i.e. reasonable, i.e. rational, that is, according to dialectical thought]."  (George Hegel, "Encyklopadie, Erster Theil.  Die Logik"  Berlin, 1840, p. 382, cited in Karl Marx, Capital)  In this way of thinking, even the word of God must be relevant to the social setting.  If it is not helpful in fulfilling the common "purpose," it is irrational and the person speaking it is unreasonable if he persists.  In that case he must be treated as irrelevant, i.e. as one not having a grasp of the current reality of the situation, and therefore must be excluded from "play," until he learns to think and act dialectically that is.  This is also done to keep reality (group perception) free from the authority of God's Word.  If the process is to advance its "purpose," then it is not work (God's work through Christ and the Holy Spirit) which sets us free, i.e. guiding us and directing our steps, but it is man's work in play (our work in the play and our play in the work) which set us free, i.e. guiding us and directing our steps, i.e. justifying human praxis, i.e. making "sin" a moot issue.

"Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.  Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.  Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.  Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.  There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.  Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.  I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say."  1 Corinthians 10:6-15 emphasis added

On this side of the continuum sensuousness is liberated from conditions which restrain it, freed from the "formal logical laws of contradiction," i.e. freed from the laws which "repress" the laws of the flesh, the condition which inhibits the fleshy mind, i.e. "the imagination of the heart" in "play."  In this way, isolationism is perceived as the forced removal of self from the common social praxis, a condition seen as 1) removing the individual (the nation) from his opportunity of a sensuous "full" life (globalism), i.e. he is missing play time (world peace), and 2) removing him from society (the global community), which "needs" his participation, i.e. his physical, mental, and social capital in play time (what health care is really all about). Any action, on the part of an isolationist, in the direction of social control, would be perceived as imperialism, a threat against and attack upon human emancipation, an action preventing "the salvation of culture." i.e. salvation from the patriarchal paradigms whose "repressive controls" are "imposed upon sensuousness," inhibiting the means to world common-ism. This is all that Genesis 3:1-6 was about, not to avoid liberation through isolation (so as not to be influenced by the world) nor to defeat it through imperialism (to make all the world subject to God's word, His way), i.e. not to flee from it or fight against it (thereby staying under patriarchal "domination"), but rather to do it, i.e. eat the fruit, negate the paradigm of restraint by treating it irrelevant through the act of justifying common cause (the "forbidden" tree is just like all the other trees), i.e. praxis "change," making human reasoning, human experience, human feelings and thoughts, the means of determining right from wrong. The continuum is a progressive learning of the following pattern. Don't avoid the patriarch (he is still around).  Don't fight the patriarch (he is to strong).  Ignore the patriarch and do what "seems" right in your dialectical eyes (he might attempt to chasten you or even may kill you, but the dialectical "purpose," the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, is worth the cause. If all is rationally justifiable to the group, i.e. work group, church group, youth group, etc., the patriarch paradigm is irrational and therefore irrelevant. I speak here of the heresiarchal pathway. Whether on the one side of the continuum or on the other you are on the heresiarchal pathway.  One step on this pathway is a step to negate the patriarchal paradigm.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."  2 Corinthians 6:14-18

The traditional home is perceived as isolationistic, i.e. separating itself from the common social praxis, training the next generation to live according to a patriarchal structure, inculcating it, like a disease, into the next generation.  It is also perceived as potentially imperialistic, i.e. Fascist, i.e. the traditional family working to put into office those who would support and promote its "isolationism," i.e. respecting and preserving its inalienable rights, i.e. private home, private business, private lives.  By looking at personal and social action in this "light," Jesus would be perceived as an isolationist when he kept his disciples separated from the world system, (John 17:6-23), and as an empiricist as he confronted the Scribes and Pharisees (John 8:1-59), entered Jerusalem (John 12:12, 13), and troubled the religious-political order of his day (John 11:50).  What was not understood then, nor is understood today is that Jesus was neither.  By being not of an earthly kingdom, i.e. not basing reality upon "human nature," understood through "human rationality," requiring a "human capacity to make choices," from which the dialectical process can only function, he judged the world spiritually, according to His Heavenly Fathers will, and will return to judge the world, i.e. the nations physically, i.e. judging the earthly kingdoms which unite themselves with and upon the dialectical process.  Apart from the work of Christ in the hearts of men, man's destiny is to "perish" (John 3:16) along with the dialectical process.

"King contends that the fundamental question in Christian anthropology is: 'What does it mean to be created in the image of God?'  King’s answer to this question asserts that there are two aspects of human nature that reflects the image of God.... humanity’s rational capacity.... that humanity’s spiritual essence is human rationality.... imagination, creativity, and transcendence.  The image of God is also reflected in human capacity to make choices.  Human freedom, ... fellowship, responsiveness, reason, and conscience.  An abiding expression of man’s higher spiritual nature is freedom.  Man is man because he is free to operate within his destiny.  He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to choose between alternatives.  He is distinguished from animals by his freedom to do evil or to do good and to walk the high road of beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy." (Seay quoting King, “What is Man?” p. 90)

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36  The dialectical process, and those who initiate and sustain the heresiarchal continuum theory through its use, is "of this world," and can not comprehend "not of this world." Therefore anyone who is "not of this world" must be perceived and treated as an enemy "of this world," imposing "not of this world" conditions upon it (spiritual conditions), terrorizing it with imminent judgment (where "homeland security" and the "terrorist act" is taking us). In a secular form this would apply to anyone who segregate themselves, their family, their fellowship, their organization, their nation, from an 'open ended,' ever expanding social praxis.  Those who are possessed by this process are suspect of anyone who promotes limited government, majority vote, private property, a strong conscience, individualism, etc., all seen as in favor of isolationism and empiricism, correlated to ethnocentrism. Note: believers are not ego, ethno, socio, nor antropo-centric, they are Christ centric, which does not fit on the continuum theory road (which can only build upon "human rationality" and "human capacity to make choices," the two things the woman did, assisted by Satan, in the Garden in Eden). Believers do not put their trust in "human rationality," nor upon mans "capacity to make choices," (i.e. right choices through his reasoning "to operate within his destiny," i.e. his destiny of discovering humanity's goodness, its potential, i.e. that humanity is "neither good nor bad by nature, but has the potential for either"  (King “How Should a Christian Think About Man.” Papers, 1: 277).  In dialectical thinking, sense perception must replace sense-certainty if man is to progress beyond divisions, i.e. “The Transition from Sense-Certainty to Sense Perception in Hegel’s Analysis of Consciousness,” (King Jr. 15 October 1952, Papers). Therefore believers must be annihilated if the negation of division ("negation of negation"), i.e. the process of unity, is to be successful.  In other words everyone can and must participate except believers, i.e. those who want to remain as believers.  Believers must be either converted or else neutralized, marginalized, and removed from sight (removed from social perception, even within the "church"), i.e. the quieter the better at first so as not to disturb the conscience of the nominal Church goer).  “Acceptance of religion mainly as an expression of submission to a clear pattern of parental authority is a condition favorable to ethnocentrism.” “... ethnocentrism takes the form of pseudopatriotism; ‘we’ are the best people and the best country in the world, and we should either keep out of world affairs altogether (isolationism) or we should participate ‑‑ but without losing our full sovereignty, power, and economic advantage (imperialism). And in either case we should have the biggest army and navy in the world, and atom bomb monopoly.”  (Adorno)  All throughout the process the common tie is the "expression of submission" to higher authority.  While not naming God directly as the one they are actually after, by focusing upon the patriarchal paradigm they can praxis the process against believers, with all, including the 'church,' willing to participate in choosing "human rationality" as the bases for "making choices." 

"How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"  "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.  For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.  And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."  John 5:44, 12:47-50

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."  2 Corinthians 4:4

All religions take their journey down the dialectical road, all except believers.  That is why believers are the most despised of all.  "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake."  Matthew 24:9  "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake."  Luke 6:22  Don't be deceived, it will be dialectically minded Christians who will put the most effort and money ("change") into the annihilation of the believer.  They have the most to lose, i.e. the respect of men as their "purpose" for promoting the 'gospel,' as well as the most to gain, i.e. the promoting of the 'gospel' for the "purpose" of gaining the respect of men.  For their "salvation" depends upon the emancipation of sensuousness  (as a tool to "win soul for Jesus"), not in the denial of it.  Just look at the marketing they are doing "in the name of Jesus." Jesus said use a net to gather them in (Matthew 4:19, 20), i.e. preach and teach God's Word and the Lord will bring them into His kingdom.  Jesus did not say use a lure to deceive them into the kingdom, i.e. to lure them in (sensuous attraction used to deceive a fish).  Satan does the luring, i.e. the enticing. He does it through dialoguing your feelings and thoughts to find common opinion (interests) between all parties involved, working on a common goal, discovering a common "purpose," actualizing a general, holistic salvation (Genesis 3:1-6), where man and the environment, i.e. culture, i.e. the world (the community of 'believers') are both being redeemed at the same time from the patriarchal paradigm.  Jesus is "not of this world," he is not of this process.  Don't be deceived into correlation that which is above, spiritual, with that which is below, sensual.  When it comes to your relationship with others, or even yourself, it is easy to do, be deceived that is, since none of us like "repressive controls ... imposed upon sensuousness."  "The salvation of culture would involve abolition of repressive controls that civilization has imposed upon sensuousness.  (Marcuse)  Jesus did not come to save culture or even to save the church.  The church is the fellowship of the redeemed, i.e. those who are saved in Christ, "purchased with his own blood," called out from the world system, into God's kingdom. Church in Greek is ekklhsia ekklesia meaning the called out ones, called out of the darkness of this world "into his marvellous light." "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."  I Peter 2:9, 10

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."  Acts 20:28

"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us–ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."  Ephesians 1: 17-23

Those who praxis social-psychology, Transformational Marxism (Marx and Freud synthesized), the Heresiarchal Paradigm, which are simply three different names for the same thing, believe morality must not be established upon faith, or as they see it, non-sensual (nonsense) based reasoning.  Religion which is from above, where life on earth is directed by that which is outside of the temporal senses, where spiritual laws which are above human nature forbid or restrain temporal laws which are from human nature, preventing the praxis of life, must be replaced with religion which is from below, where life on earth is directed by that which proceeds from the temporal senses, where spiritual laws which are above human nature are negated by temporal laws which are from human nature, thereby actualizing the praxis of life.   'Spiritual laws' (perceived as social praxis) must be discovered dialectically, and be based upon a humanistic religion where life, i.e. social life, is directed by the temporal senses, where "sensuous needs," and "sense perception," find actualization in "sense experience,"  which "only proceed from Nature," where 'spiritual laws' must be found in the common life experience of humanity, i.e. mankind living in the moment.  How can it be wrong when it feels so right.

"Truth is a moment in correct praxis."  (Antonio Gramsci, as quoted Jay)

"But the essential point is to see that the classical Western sense of time, Newtonian time, was a religion, which, like all religions, was taken by its adherents to be absolute objective truth.  Once again we see that 'secular rationalism' is really a religion; the new relativistic notion of time is really the disintegration of a religion."  (Brown)

For the heresiarchal paradigm to take root and overcome the patriarchal paradigm reasoning which is based upon science which is tied to absolutes, where laws of nature are recognized as unchangeable, must be changed into reasoning which is based upon science tied to relativity, where laws of  nature are perceived as changeable.  The former type of reasoning when applied to the sciences, requires a designer, a creator, as supported in Newtonian Law—"What is, is," and everything "is disintegrating,"  which defines all things as equalizing ("formal logical laws of contradiction").  Therefore things can not, by their own nature, evolve to a higher state of being, i.e. there are no known natural laws to turn gasses, by their own force, into stars whereby dust is produced.  Therefore the dust of the universe did not just happen, i.e. thus the universe must be made by a creator. With this type of reasoning (didactic), the teaching environment, using inculcation, emphasizes the memorizing of facts and uses deductive reasoning, where facts are treated as certain, taught as given, as a priori, as categorical imperatives (unquestionable and universal). The latter form of reasoning when applied to the sciences, must reject a designer, a creator, as suggested by Einstein's 'theory of relativity.'  "The Kantian theorem that time and space are 'necessary forms of thought [which negates the 'necessity of the conscience'].'" (Brown) For example: the "big bang" theory is just a theory (an opinion) to "justify" that there is no God (at least no God outside the universe, outside of space and time). With this type of reasoning (dialectical), the teaching environment, using dialogue, emphasizes the discovering of 'facts,' where opinions and theories play a key role in the learning experience, where inductive reasoning encourage students to treats facts as uncertain, taught as changeable (evolving), i.e. subject to new information  ("informal, theoretical 'laws,' i.e. opinions of commonality"). 

By uniting Id (sensuousness) and Ego (spontaneity) in the classroom environment [to be explained, later in this article], the 'concept' of a God outside of nature is negated (mans perception of the universe is Godless or at least God has no "purpose" outside of it, i.e. he becomes a social god, only viable in social action, i.e. praxis).  Therefore if there is no God or "purpose" outside of space and time (society being the only god, the only "purpose") then there is no religion, i.e. Spirit above the social spirit, i.e. above the community.  Time is limited for a patriarchal when he presents his case while time is extensive for the heresiarchal when they present their case.  And since time is a product of religion, then with the negation of religion there is no curse of time, there is therefore no pressure to perform in x amount of time—"We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)"  2 Corinthians 6:1, 2 emphasis added.  Therefore learning can be at your own pace, i.e. the block system, not being pressured by time becomes a part of the education experience. The curse of time, being judgment in the there-and-then for one's actions in the here-and-now, pressures the student into a learning experience which excludes or supersedes their sensuous and spontaneous, here-and-now participation and thereby gives the perception that obedience toward a higher authority, i.e. a teacher, the parent, or God is the objective of education, i.e. the "purpose" of life. "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,  Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God."  1 Peter 21:17-21  And since time is correlated to the guilty conscience (promises to keep not kept), then, since the curse of time is negated, so is the curse of the guilty conscience, and promises to be keep.  However, since the "big bang" could not have produce the universe, since there are no laws to allow gasses by their own volition to form into dust (gravitational mass), then the universe requires a designer and a creator.  Therefore it requires the 'necessity' of religion, time, the conscience, and promises to be kept as a "necessary form of thought." "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2  I am not saying that true science can make God known, all it can do is tell you that there is a God, a designer, a creator.  God has revealed himself to us in his Word, preached and taught as us,  He does not reveal himself to us in our Id and Ego discovering cosmic oneness through dialogue and social consensus.  The former is life, the later is death.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 1:26  "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:34-36 

If there is no designer and creator of the universe, there is no sin and thus no judgment for sinning and therefore no need for a savior.  Sin must therefore no longer be defined from God's perspective (sin is what alienates man, who is below, from God, who is above), but from man's perspective (sin is what alienates man from man, here below). “‘Sin’ is the estrangement of man from man.” (Wheat)  "But Brown [the author of the book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History] believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin—namely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot.  (Mike Connor. From the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz)    By accepting the theory as truth, i.e. treating an opinion (i.e. a group opinion, consensus) as a 'fact,' man is "liberated" from the conscience, the truth of God's Word, as well as from the wrath of God.  Therefore morality is emancipated from faith.  In this way, through the dialectical process, where sensuousness and spontaneity are tied to reasoning and vise versa, morality becomes based upon sight, i.e. dialectical materialism or historical materialism.  Thus reasoning becomes sense based, and science which is properly tied to the senses (material), also becomes tied to man's reasoning (opinions, theories, speculations), thereby making laws relative, i.e. situational, i.e. theoretical and therefore progressive, i.e. changeable, i.e. supportive of and supported by the "theory of relativity."

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:3-7 (hyperlink added)

“The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience.” (Fromm)

"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be the father of oneself." (Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

If "freedom and justice" (spontaneity and sensuousness, i.e. the laws of the flesh which are common to all mankind) are to be realized, then reasoning must be freed from extrinsic laws, i.e. freed from parental or Godly restraints, both seen as the initiators and sustainers of disharmony between "individual and universal gratification."  Reasoning must be freed to consent to sensuousness (a condition which existed in childhood before the conscience was strengthened, i.e. before chastening was introduced, i.e. before the patriarch, the parent, entered the room, i.e. before God returned to the Garden in Eden to fellowship with the children). “Freedom, as Fromm argued in Escape from Freedom meant ‘freedom to,’ not merely ‘freedom from.’”  (Jay)  “The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction.” “Freedom from excessive tension and from pressures to adopt a particular viewpoint.” “His efforts need not conform to the views of authority.” (Bloom,  Book I Cognitive Domain) 

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  2 Thessalonians 2:8-12

How your child communicates with himself and with others determines your worth as a parent:  Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book I Cognitive Domain (by Benjamin Bloom) is a book used by teachers to help them in developing curriculum in the classroom.  Curriculum guides the teacher in developing the proper environment and in selecting the appropriate information, from which the child's paradigm (i.e. his way of communicating) will be developed.   The paradigm developed within the child (i.e. the type of communication skills he develops) will help guide him in making decisions in life, both in the community and at home (the home environment as well as the parent's future will be affected by their children's paradigm, i.e. the way they learn to communicate).  In Bloom's taxonomies the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. "freedom and justice," i.e. freedom from the patriarch, i.e. patriarchal God and parents, and justice for human nature, is the more desirable outcome.  "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior."  “Education opens up possibilities for free choice and individual decisions."  "Indoctrination, on the other hand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of free choice and decision.” (Bloom, Book I Cognitive Domain)  Thus how you train your child to communicate with himself and with others determines your worth as a parent and therefore how you communicate with yourself and others determines your worth as a citizen. 

"Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD."  Jeremiah 9: 4-6

When you turn your children over to the heresiarchal paradigm for humanistic programming you are guilty before God of sacrificing your children to the beast, placing them in the fires of Moloch because you had "better" things to do with your time than training up your children in the Lord, fiat experimentum in corpore vili  (let the experiment begin on the worthless thing.)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."  Hosea 4:6

Socialist programming (brainwashing) (re-education) is done by social engineers to gain access to and then control another person's perception of themselves and the world through the use of the affective domain (what the person really values, his real feelings towards things, what he would do if he were not under restraint) through the manipulation of environmental conditions.  While those who practice manipulation are concerned about the "improper" use of it, i.e. "How can groups and individuals be protected from undemocratic manipulation?" (Benne) they do not consider their use of it unethical. "Success depends not upon complete absence of prejudice, but upon beneficial prejudices. The problem is one of determining what is 'beneficial prejudice' in any given instance." (David Krathwohl  "The Myth of Value-Free Evaluation and Evaluator as Negotiations Facilitator-Fact Finder")

“The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual’s life and ultimately the life of an entire people.”  (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2:  Affective Domain) 

"Brainwashing" (washing the patriarchal paradigm from the brain by reconnecting the affective domain to the cognitive and psycho-motor domains, i.e. reconnecting desire to thought and action), when it was done by external force alone, i.e. using the patriarchal paradigms method of  indoctrination, the new conditioning did not 'stick.'  "Why do changes ..., even though enthusiastically launched in the beginning, often slip back into the older patterns?" (Benne)  Since the person being brainwashed by physical abuse only, resented the physical abuse, it was easier for him to retain control of his affective domain.  Although loyalty towards his nation was temporarily suppressed by the use of physical abuse, his conscience was retained, thereby allowing him to be repatriated, i.e. his loyalty easily restored. "If the individual complies merely from fear of punishment rather than through the dictates of his free will and conscience, the new set of values he is expected to accept does not assume in him the position of super-ego, and his re-education therefore remains unrealized." "How can free acceptance of a new system of values be brought about? The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group."  From then on "the new system of values and beliefs dominates the individual's perception." (Benne)  In this way the person is more easily programmed (brainwashed) into communism when his affective domain is incorporated into his indoctrination, thereby "helping" himself change his ideology, his paradigm, with some force, group rejection, used along the way. The conscience ties the person to the "fear of punishment" from a higher authority, an object greater than (transcendent to) his self-perception-environmental nature.  The super-ego unites him to "belongingness to the group," a self-perception-environmental synthesis.

Kurt Lewin wrote: "general principles for changing group culture ... change of group atmosphere, (the system of values which governs the ideology of a group), changes of power constellation within the group (change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group.)" (Benne) emphasis added "This shift in roles cannot be accomplished by a 'hands off' policy. To apply the principle of 'individualistic freedom' merely leads to chaos.  Sometimes people must rather forcefully be made to see what democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole means."  The leaders must "use his power for active re-education." "The more the group members become converted to democracy and learn to play the roles of democracy as followers or leaders, the more can the power of the democratic leader shift to other ends than converting the group members."  (Benne) emphasis added

Cognitive dissonance is “the lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes.” “The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief [to go with the group (which is in your interest) or to hold to your principles and be rejected or "left behind" by the group].”  (Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology)

By bringing a person into willful participation in the process (by identifying and incorporating his interest in the outcome), with some "prodding" (fear of group rejection for preventing a solution to the crisis because of his "moralizing," what I call "micro-terrorism";  it is terrorism but done internally, seeing oneself as causing the suffering or failure of others, i.e. group grade, life raft dilemma, "right-sizing," "saving the earth," etc., i.e. the group, the company, the institution, the community, the world, etc., and its "purpose" will fail—the group gets a bad grade, the company folds, ... all will die, and it will be your fault because you did not give as others gave, you did not tolerate ambiguity, i.e. you did not put up with immoral, incorrect, or "stupid" questions and answers, as others did for the sake of the cause, producing internally a sense of eminent danger to oneself, i.e. fearing socially reject, fearing isolation, being treated as an outcast, feeling like a criminal, hated by all), a condition known as "cognitive-dissonance" where a person is caught between his belief (obey that which is above, God or parent) and his actions (relate with that which is below, his desires to have respect from others, social respect, so as to prosper, i.e. get good grade, keep job, be promoted, be honored, be included in play, loved by other, etc.), the conscience (rigid) was weakened and eventually negated while the super-ego (flexible) was developed.  Certainty was replaced with uncertainty, righteousness was replaced with tolerance of unrighteousness, the voice of God was replaced with the voice of the "village," thus producing a tolerance of ambiguity, i.e. "open-mindedness," and all were caught between the desire for the approval of men, for ones own success, and obedience before God, for ones own witness (God has not called us to successful in the eyes of the world, he has called us to be a witness in Him to the world). 

This is the "whole" of therapy, i.e. of re-education, today.  This is a crime perpetrated upon children, workers, government, the church, etc., which parents and citizens continue to "tolerate." “Re-education must be clever enough in manipulating the subjects to have them think that they are running the show.”  “The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen.”  (Benne) "Dr. Skinner says: 'We must accept the fact that some kind of control of human affairs is inevitable.  We cannot use good sense in human affairs unless someone engages in the design and construction of environmental conditions which affect the behavior of men."   "Environmental changes have always been the condition for the improvement of cultural patterns, and we can hardly use the more effective methods of science without making changes on a grander scale . . ."  “We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion.” “We can predict, from the way individuals perceive the movement of a spot of light in a dark room, whether they tend to be prejudiced or unprejudiced.” “We know how to influence the buying behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine.”  “…our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups. If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow.” (Rogers) The success of brainwashing depends upon a person willful participation in the new set of values (his own included). The flesh, the imagination, and social approval must all be realized, rationalized, harmonized, and actualized by the participants for the process to be successful.

"Education as yet is unable and unwilling to bring all estates and distinctions into its circle. Only Christianity and morality are able to found universal kingdoms on earth." (Karl Marx The Holy Family)

"The school offers an important potential laboratory for the development of a truly experimental social science."  "It is widely recognized that changes in the school program cannot be brought about without the organization and use of groups."  "... the central meaning of 'democracy', in operational terms, is to be found in a methodology by which the ways, the policies, the norms of an institution, the school for example, are to be reconstructed when its traditional ways have fallen into dispute, when the society is confronted by alternative and conflicting views as to the proper direction of social effort, when the institution faces, defines and moves to solve its confronting problems. The democratic norms acquire operational meaning when they are interpreted as requirements of a methodology for resolving social and inter-personal conflicts in such a way that an adequate, mutually satisfactory, and socially wise resolution is effected [by now, in his definition of solution to social crisis, the conscience is negated]. In a social setting where social conflicts tend to take a collective form, where change is inherent in the situation, where planning has become a social necessity, the norms of democracy will acquire directive power and clear meaning only as they are seen to be required elements in a methodology of planned social change, of social engineering." "Those who set out to stimulate changes in the school program require discipline in the diagnosis of the changes that are possible within the social system of the school and the overlapping social systems of school and community."  (Benne)

"The school furnishes opportunities to discover and use facts, principles, and ideas that are more accurate, balanced, and comprehensive than what is provided in most homes, work places, or other social institutions. The school is usually an environment that represents the American social ideals more closely than the larger society."  (Ralph W. Tyler, “Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction,” Trends in Student Personnel Work, E. G. Williamson, Ed.)

“If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate.” (Kenneth Benne  Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago Press. Ill. 1987, p. 259)

“In school controversies, the issue of Communist subversion in the schools is one-sided; as long as it occupies the attention of the community, it is to the advantage of school critics.  In contrast, the issue ‘progressive education vs. traditional education’ offers not differential advantage to either side (unless, of course, progressive education can be identified by its opponents as ‘Communistic’)…” (James Coleman  Community Conflict) [I hope you read that quotation over until you grasp the fact that Coleman is admitting that this process is "Communistic."  Communistic education and progressive education are both heresiarchal, dialectical education.]

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 

"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15

The evidence has shown that the Patriarchal Paradigm does not "program people," as in brainwashing.  Although it is desired, by those in authority, that the child's affective domain be willingly subordinate to the patriarchal paradigm and its rules of conduct, that they would on their own come to love the truth—love God, with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind; affective, cognitive, and psycho-motor (the soul is left out by the world system); "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."  Mark 12:30  "And he [Jesus] answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."  Luke 10:27), there is an understanding that their feelings expressed outwardly as approving, may inwardly be resentful towards authority, i.e. God ill take care of that matter later. (The dialectical process is used to negate love towards that which is above, in the secular realm, the patriarchal parent, to negate love towards He who is above  in the heavenly realm, God). But since God is spirit, the affections of men are to be toward Him and His Word, above the affections of the flesh, i.e. above the things of this world, something which man is incapable of doing, even in the temporal home, though patriarchal in structure.  Apart from His Holy Spirit, God's will can not be carried out with true love, i.e. affection, without the changing of the heart. "And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.  For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."   Mark 7:20-23  "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9

“We must find ways for teaching the techniques of social engineering . . . as the ‘hands and feet’ which the ethical and methodological ‘heart and head’ of democratic action require in today’s world.” (Thomas Sergiovanni  Handbook for Effective Department Leadership, 1994, from Kenneth Benne, “Democratic Ethics in Social Engineering,” Progressive Education 1949; reprinted in Human Relations in Curriculum Change, 1950)

"Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure. Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality.” (Brown)

"Eros belongs mainly to democracy."  (Adorno)

But it is the Heresiarchal Paradigm which initiates and sustains such procedures called brainwashing (re-education) for their desired outcome, the annihilation of the Patriarchal Paradigm.  Anything which is under God's control or the traditional ("authoritarian") parent's control results in what they call "neurosis" in regards to the individual—phobia, paranoia, antisocial behavior, etc., and results in what they call the "neurosis of civilization" in regards to the general public—ethnocentrism, nationalism, isolationism, imperialism, patriotism, etc. equated to prejudice, i.e. potential Fascism, etc. “Confronted with the rigidity of the adult ethnocentrist, one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individuals life, . . .”“For ethnocentric parents, acting by themselves, the prescribed measures would probably be impossible.” “Prejudice tends to be a personality trait.”  “We note that this form of the California Ethnocentrism Scale has four subscales, 1.  Jews, 2. Negroes, 3. Other minorities, and 4. Patriotism.”“'Patriotism' as tested by these particular items obviously does not refer to loyalty to the American creed [dialectically defined].  It has rather a flavor of ‘isolationism’”  “The California research found further, as we might now expect, a tendency for these ‘safety-islanders’ to be vigorously loyal to their churches, sororities, families, and other in-groups.” “All who live outside the ethnocentric circle of safety are viewed with suspicion.” “The same restrictiveness is seen in correlations between ethnocentrism and social and political ‘conservatism—pseudoconservative’ or selective traditionalists ["fundamental religious extremists"].’” (Adorno). 

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

This condition (the presence of the patriarchal paradigm in the world) can only be overcome through dialectical education. “Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated.” (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)  "The hopes of some may be based on the belief that teachers may initiate the necessary changes without due interference from conservative interests.  The difficulty with this is that the teachers are part of the society to be changed and have generally accepted the goals of the controlling groups.  Their change would be little different from the old. . . .  Remote, indeed, then is the possibility of the school’s creating a new society independent of the other forces of social change." " [Kurt] Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group.  The effects of repeated changes from one type of schoolroom social climate to another are yet to be learned.  Lewin views the democratic group atmosphere as more conducive to satisfying social adjustment as well as more harmonious with our ideology."  (Brookover)  "In the area of human relations, individual and group process becomes the curriculum.”  “A change in curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents, and other laymen, and in administrators.”  “Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." "Educators or other change agents must, however, he trained in ways of stimulating and guiding change which incorporate the democratic norms as basic elements of their operating methodology." "We might select, as a first step, for instance, getting parents interested in having more pupil participation in planning in the classroom. With increased skill and increased parent interest two important forces in the situation have been modified and the level of equilibrium of forces should move upward toward more teacher-pupil planning [and education moving away from the traditional parents' control, not only over their children but also, over the classroom experience]."  (Benne)

"the nuclear essence of transcendental evil power ... the bad or evil mother . . . against which the infants cry had proved of no avail.”  (UNESCO Tensions that cause war)

Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP) was a federally funded project used to turn Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan into one big training laboratory.  Through the use of the dialectical process, using a “comprehensive program” (Gestalt—perpetual culture change, performance-based, evaluation, common-ism; permanent revolution "It is our interest and our task to make revolution permanent, until all more or less possessing classes have been force out of their position of dominance, until the proletarian [the next generation, the children, the heresiarchal] has conquered state power [the parent, the patriarchal] . . . . their battle cry must be: 'The Revolution in Permanence'." Karl Marx Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League ) the university was rebuild upon a National Training Laboratory (NTL) format.  The curriculum change (“behavioral science paradigm”) was initiated on Dec. 31, 1967.  With the use of “measurable, laboratory-centered experiences” ("developmental experiences” for the purpose of “systematizing of teacher behavior”) BSTEP provided “alternative solutions” to traditional education.  “Goodness,” “badness,” i.e. time-based measurement were referred to as “the slum of the American educational system.”  With the development of “a new kind of school teacher . . . engaged in teaching as clinical practice, ... function[ing] as a responsible agent of social change” they programmed educators to relate with, manipulate, and evaluate student behavior for the purpose of change. “Old value systems” were modified and new ones developed.  Student teachers were “sensitized” to “diversity,” and “non-Western thought and values" were used in "promoting an understanding of human behavior in humanistic terms.”  (“How do children from upper-class, middle-class, lower-class homes behave?  What are their respective needs?”)  The NTL developed program “facilitated” learning experiences with the “prescriptive” (not just descriptive) cycle of “reflecting (describing, analyzing), proposing (hypothesizing, prescribing), and doing (treating, and observing consequences).”  Faculty Orientation and In-Service Education programs were also build upon the BSTEP experience of "theory and practice."  (BSTEP)

“The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction.” “Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities [the parent's having to watch out for and restrain that which 'naturally' come from the environment, i.e. the child's carnal human nature], demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower.”  (Brown)

"TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS AND LAYMEN who have sought seriously to produce changes in the program of the school recognize the central importance and difficulty of managing the "human factors" inescapably involved in such changes. For, whatever else it may include, a change in the curriculum is a change in the people concerned-in teachers, in students, in parents and other laymen,. in administrators. The people concerned must come to understand and accept the different pattern of schooling. This means change in their knowledge [cognitive domain] pertinent to the school and its programs and purposes. Typically, people involved who were loyal to the older pattern must be helped to transfer their allegiance to the new. This means change in their values [affective domain] with respect to education. Moreover, the people concerned must do some things differently from the way in which they did them before the change. This means changes in their skills [psycho-motor domain]. And, most difficult to predict and control, are changes in the relationships among personnel which changes in the program typically require. A changed way of working for the teacher in the classroom, for example, means changed expectations on the part of the teacher with respect to the students and their behavior as well as changed expectations on the part of the students with respect to the teacher and his behavior. If the change is a sizable one, new reciprocal relations between teachers and parents, students and parents, teachers and supervisors will also have to be worked out. This means changes in the relations of people [changes in paradigms]." "Frequently, educational leadership is worried about the ethics of deliberately setting out to change people, their ideas, their values, their skills and their relationships. What right has a teacher to try to change students and parents?"  (Benne) [Only when you look down upon somebody do you have the right to change them. This negates the continuum theory and makes those who push it liars, the deceived taking pleasure in deceiving others, i.e. you can get paid well by the Federal government doing this stuff on others, actually paid will by 'citizens,' paying their taxes under duress, so that you can do this on them. Nothing like being forced to pay for your own rope. But that is how Democratic ethics, i.e. the dialectical process, socialism, communism, humanism, environmentalism, etc. works.  Those who do this process want your company in the New World Order as much as Satan wants your company in Hell.  To both its not really the arrival which  counts, its the journey on the way, the human relationship building skills being learned on the Heresiarchal pathway.]

"No hypothesis in this body of writings has been fully tested. Nor will it be tested fully until it has been used widely in thoughtful experimentation with actual social changes. The school offers an important potential laboratory for the development of a truly experimental social science. Experimentally minded school workers can develop and improve the hypotheses suggested in these readings as they put them to the test in planning and evaluating changes in the school program."  (Benne)

“Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be ‘unprovable.’” (Benjamin Bloom Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect)

"The work of the National Training Laboratory in Group Development, sponsored by the National Education Association and the Research Center for Group Dynamics, University of Michigan, has helped to advance our understanding of group development in the interrelated contexts of training, research and social action. This latter work has built in some large part upon the frontier theorizing of Kurt Lewin and his associates."  (Benne)

“Believing in the unity of theory and practice, Dewey not only wrote on the subject, but for a time participated in the ‘laboratory school’ for children connected with the University of Chicago.” (John Dewey Education and Democracy)

“... the industrial situation may serve as the new laboratory for the study of the psycho-dynamics.” (Maslow, Management)

Through the fusing of "dynamic psychology" with "applied anthropology and sociology," in problem solving situations, a laboratory type condition can be created in the classroom, and organizational change can be developed and utilized to fulfill Marx's and Freud's dream of creating a humanistic, non-patriarchal, dialectic, materialistic, based society. According to Douglas McGregor, changes in three aspects of personality, in knowledge, "philosophy" (values), and skill, "must be accomplished if teachers or principals or parents or students are to change their conduct." Kurt Lewin saw the re-education process as "a correct sequence of steps, correct timing, and a correct combination of individual and group treatments." "The administrator cannot function as a 'democratic leader' [facilitator of the dialectical process] in the matter of policy formulation unless the teachers change with him by learning the role of democratic participants [pushers and users of the heresiarchal paradigm]. Students will have to make, similar changes in student roles if their teacher is to effect stable changes in his own behavior in terms of democratic control in the classroom." "As teachers work to build mature groups, self-objective about their group needs and ways of working, they are also working to build democratic leaders."  (Benne) "Working to build democratic leaders" is the praxis of turning patriarchal youth into heresiarchal leaders of the future]. “In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues [discuss carnal, worldly desires].” (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain)

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.  These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.  Let no man despise thee."  Titus 2:11-15

"With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God’s eye view, moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation. (1) The fact that moral practice is no longer tied to the individual’s expectation of salvation and an exemplary conduct of life through the person of a redemptive God and the divine plan for salvation has two unwelcome consequences. On the one hand, moral knowledge becomes detached from moral motivation, and on the other, the concept of morally right action becomes differentiated from the conception of a good or godly life." "With the loss of its foundation in the religious promise of salvation, the meaning of normative obligation also changes. The differentiation between strict duties and less binding values, between what is morally right and what is ethically worth striving for, already sharpens moral validity into a normativity to which impartial judgment alone is adequate. The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence."  "This agreement expresses two things: the fallible reason of deliberating subjects who convince one another that a hypothetically introduced norm is worthy of being recognized, and the freedom of legislating subjects who understand themselves as the authors of the norms to which they subject themselves as addressees. The mode of validity of moral norms now bears the traces both of the fallibility of the discovering mind and of the creativity of the constructing mind." (Jürgen Habermas  Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other) emphasis added  [Through the use of dialogue and consensus, moral absolutes are replaced with moral relativism, in this way man can, not only create his own laws, since they precede from his own nature, but also construct a "new" world order built upon them.]

Habermas "wants to claim that all and only those norms that embody a 'universalizable interest' can be justified, and that only justifiable norms are valid." (James Gordon Finlayson,  Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics)

Dialectical programming is a person becoming "liberated" as he is detached from the restraint which comes from above (the Patriarchal paradigm; God, parent, etc) and is reattached to only that restraint which is from below (the Heresiarch paradigm; the community, i.e. common unity found in the flesh).  In this way restraint is no longer derived from forces outside a persons perception but within his perception of the wishes of the community at any moment, i.e. "What is good for the village is good for me."  Where at first his love was for that which is above, over his flesh and thereby restraining it, he is now in love with that which is below, the society in agreement with his flesh, those in harmony with his flesh and thereby helping him liberate his flesh while restraining it only for their own "purpose," the further liberation of the flesh from the effects of the patriarchal paradigm. 

While the Patriarchal paradigm can not in and of itself save a person, the Heresiarchal paradigm negates any concept of salvation coming from above.  Salvation requiring both a personal and a social denial: "denial" of self, i.e. the rejecting of the want of a gratifying object, i.e. a denial of the wants of the flesh, and a denial of the wants of  the "village," i.e. "taking up your cross" since it is "the village," i.e. "the group think," which hands you the cross to carry, the cross symbolizing publicly being shamed, marginalized and removed for not allowing the village freedom from conscience to "do its own thing," taking from it the gratifying object which they have or desire to have, i.e. the respect of men (the lust of the flesh and eyes and the pride of life) as the basis of life.  In a dialectical world the patriarchal-minded person will be accused of not "thinking about others," i.e. therefore they are "hateful" in your thoughts and in your actions, making others feel bad about their want of gratifying objects—along with judging them for their way of attaining, retaining, and utilizing them for the common cause. "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23

Elements necessary to convert a traditional mind into a transformational mind: Brainwashing.

Facilitated meeting:  'open-ended,' 'non-directed,' the person becomes offended by any 'closed' worldview.
Non-judgmental environment:  free to be spontaneous.  Be positive (freedom of sensuousness & spontaneity), not negative (restrain sensuousness & spontaneity).
Dialogue:  express thoughts and feelings on personal-social issue (opinions, i.e. no preaching and teaching).
Social issue:  attended to natural/man made problems/events which (might) affect everyone (temporal).
Diversity:  experience tolerating differences for the sake of solving a common problem (putting aside right and wrong—the patriarchal paradigm for social cause, i.e. social acceptance, i.e. harmony). 
Consensus:  conceding to those things which everyone can embrace. Experiencing the “gratification” of developing unity out of diversity.

Technical definition of brainwashing, how it is done in Communist China.  Have you experienced this process in a group meeting recently?

"changing as a Three-step Procedure: Unfreezing, Moving, and [re] Freezing of a Level."  Kurt Lewin

“The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist’s definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases

(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner’s physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and

(2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people’s standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure.

Most were put into a cell [group] containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance.  Each such cell [group] had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell’s progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image.

 Once this process of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others.

The Chinese have drawn on their cultural sensitivity to the nuances of interpersonal relationships to put together some highly effective but well-known techniques of indoctrination.  Their sophistication about the importance of the small group as a mediator of opinions and attitudes has led to some highly effective techniques of destroying group solidarity, as in the case of the POW’s and of using groups as a mechanism of changing attitudes, as in the political prisons.”  (Interpersonal Dynamics:  Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed.  Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele; The Dorsey Press, 1964.  pp. 462ff, 474.) 

Some argue, in defense of the "group process," that Jesus had a group or team.  The truth is Jesus did not dialogue with the disciples to find common ground with them, but instead preached and taught them the truth, at times as individual disciples and at times while together.  He did not manipulate the environment and use it to orchestrate change since that method would only use the nature of man.  He instructed them as His Heavenly Father instructed Him (John 17). He did not have a "group think" (opinions), but a group know (believers) time while on earth with his disciples. Instead of influencing them through feelings (changing, uncertainty) he persuaded them with evidence (established, certainty).  "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."  John 6: 67-69

For more on Brainwashing see my article: Brainwashing.

"The major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person, or the other group."  (Rogers) 

" And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."  Ephesians 5:11, 12  "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."  2 Timothy 4:2  "And when he [the Holy Spirit] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:"  John 16:8 

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."  Proverbs 9:8-10

If it is so natural for man to accept established order in his life, why do those who want us to be natural, fight so hard against our nature to obey higher authority (could it be they want to be the ones in authority)? "Neither of these modes of collaboration, between persons and groups with different interests in change and between 'theorists' and 'practitioners', comes 'naturally' to people."  (Benne)

"Whenever re-education involves the relinquishment of standards [relinquishment of standards of the traditional home or God] which are contrary to the standards of society at large [Who is determining these standards and how are they being determined?] the feeling of group belongingness seems to be greatly heightened if the members feel free to express openly the very sentiments [resentment for having to obey parents when their commands block personal desires, yet they still retain sentiment and respect for the office of authority of the parents] which are to be dislodged through re-education.” (Benne)

The purpose of "re-education," i.e. brainwashing, is to negate the patriarchal paradigm in the thoughts and actions of the students, to move their sentiments away from the parental structure of obedience and onto the human relationship building structure of tolerance of ambiguity—incest, i.e. homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."  Ephesians 5:12; "But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."  Jude 1:10 

"… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (Krathwohl, Bloom,  Book 2 Cognitive Domain)

In their quest of initiating and sustaining a world based upon social harmony, a society built upon 'beauty' and 'justice' (i.e. creating a people freed from "surplus restraint") culture must be "shifted" onto the heresiarchal paradigm and adapt to a way of thinking which will "lead" them down the broad pathway, along the continuum, of "becoming," i.e. evolving to a "higher culture," an "orgiastic culture" ("Esalen-type, orgiastic, Dionysian-type education"  Maslow, Journals), i.e. following down the dialectical pathway of Eros, working collectively on the project of creating a new world built upon human unity and peace, the new tower of Babel project (breaking down the barriers to communication).

"From this we may conclude that social perception and freedom of choice are interrelated. Following one’s conscience [valuing parental authority, which is ridged, resistant to change, inhibitive, and therefore prohibitive on the heresiarchal continuum] is identical with following the perceived intrinsic requirements of the situation [following the fundamental requirement to obey God or the parent in any given situation]. Only if and when the new set of values is freely accepted, only if it corresponds to one’s superego [valuing social approval, which is readily adaptable to change (adaptable to fit in with human nature, i.e. changing "felt" needs) and therefore required by the heresiarchal continuum], do those changes in social perception occur which, as we have seen, are a prerequisite for a change in conduct and therefore for a lasting effect of re-education. We can now formulate the dilemma which re-education has to face in this way: how can free acceptance of a new system of values [how can a paradigm change] be brought about if the person who is to be educated is in the nature of things, likely to be hostile to the new values and loyal to the old? "  "To bring about change, [the old constellation of] forces have to be upset.” “Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions.” “Group decision facilitates change."  (Benne) 

How can an environment be structures where a person is rejected by those in the room for any "hostility to the new values" and therefore feels burdened by his "old" values, i.e. because they hold him back from group participation. When the environment is structured upon a dialogue format instead of an inculcating format the latter, along with its values, is negated.  By freeing those in the room to voice their "wants," i.e. their dissatisfactions toward restraint, i.e. voicing their opinions instead of their doctrines, everyone's social perception of the world is changed.  Freedom of choice, the banner of the heresiarchal paradigm, negates the patriarchal structure in society.  The conscience, the voice of higher authority, i.e. the parent, the teacher, God, etc., is swallowed up by the super-ego, the voice of the village.

"By making their dissatisfaction known and by upsetting the ‘status quo’ they get things started.”  (Havelock) 

Satan, the first "change agent," helped the woman in the Garden in Eden to express her dissatisfaction and thereby got the "enlightened" pathway going, freeing man from "blind" obedience to God, resulting in death. Genesis 3:1-14  And murmuring helped free the children of Israel from having to obey God, but they all died in the wilderness because of it, except for Joshua and Caleb, the two men of faith and obedience. Numbers 13:26-14:45

The starting point in the continuum is philosophical inquiry:  Philosophy means the love of wisdom—phileo + sophia.  Sophia, the Gnostic eon seeking to understand the essence of god (i.e. love) falls out of the pleroma and, in her frustration on how to get back, gives birth to Demiurge.  Demiurge merges matter and parts of the divine spark and creates man (a Gnostic interpretation of creation).  She, along with Satan (and later a Gnostic Jesus—the Biblical anti-Christ, the heresiarchal Jesus of "love," the lawless Jesus) set out to save man from the effects of Demiurge (the Gnostic, dialectical definition of the patriarchal God, the Father of laws—dualism with flesh as evil and spirit, i.e. divine spark, as good—flesh is not evil, it is our mind set upon it which is evil, it is just flesh, from the dust of the ground, of the world, and man has no "divine spark," an essence of God which has to be returned for his wholeness to be realized), by helping man in his praxis of returning the divine spark (love) back to god (a world of love, i.e. love of the world, an orgiastic Dionysian world in consensus).  Demiurge is the Gnostic view of God as a God with laws of restraint which are counter to god's law of love (Eros).  The Demiurge 'God' is seen as the restrainer of the divine spark, preventing it from becoming actualized back to god, through enlightened man, i.e. repressing the "life impulse" within mankind, where sensuousness and spontaneity (space and time), seeking expression within the world to know themselves in the other, were blocked from doing so because of the patriarchal paradigm and its laws of restraint.  Only through man's participation in the dialectical process, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6 (Satan's anti-genesis, anti-gospel, anti-God, anti-Christ project), i.e. through the use of philosophy (discontentment toward the restraint of love, mans desire for union with the cosmos—Eros), can man (the divine spark in man, i.e. the child reaching out for the forbidden object, i.e. sensual oneness with the cosmos) find freedom from Demiurge (the patriarchal paradigm) and begin his journey down the dialectical pathway, joining others in the hope of realizing a "just," philosophical world, i.e. returning all the divine sparks back to god, who then, through the process of seeing himself from the 'other,' (conscientization; class consciousness),  and overcoming his resistance to "change," comes to know himself, having experienced and delivered himself from his opposite, i.e. god is discovered through the praxis of negating that which is not of god in oneself and in the other and thereby letting god manifest himself. There are as many variations of Gnosticism as there are groups which describe it but this example is fairly representative of them, since their core is dialectical, i.e. essence (love, Eros) coming to know itself, i.e. all is becoming.

By pressuring the parent to suspend his rules, in other words, to participate in philosophical discourse with his children, in the hope of finding common ground with their children's point of view, the parent destroys the patriarch system of the home.  The moment you suspend "your rules," i.e. you don't have faith in them, you change your paradigm.

"The philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is to change it." (Karl Marx  Feuerbach Thesis #11)

"The question has previously always been: what is God? and German philosophy has answered the question in this sense: God is man." (Frederick Engels The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844)

“The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man.” (Marx, Critique)

“Dialectics thereby reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion [emotion, i.e. love. Eros]— both in the external world and in the thought of man — two sets of laws which are identical in substance.” (Engels Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy)

The dialectical, Gnostic god is based upon one word, i.e. "change." Without change (change in perception from what is, to what ought to be, to what can be) he can not experience himself and thereby come to know himself.  What is missing in all of this is that the soul of man, which is God breathed, is individual and eternal. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7  The soul of man is not a part of God (stolen from him therefore collective in nature) so that the essence of man can be returned to god and god thereby restored, now enlightened from the experience, enlightened as to who he is (or can be).  No, the truth is, Man will either spend eternity in hell, separated from God (in torment), or spend eternity in heaven with God (in peace), in either case God is not changed, his love (agape) never changing, i.e. always in agreement with his law.

Karl Marx wrote:

We see that if the Christian religion knows only one Incarnation of God, speculative philosophy has as many incarnations as there are things, just as it has here in every [person-individual*] an incarnation of the Substance, of the Absolute [People-Society-Collective Whole-Community]. The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary [people-individuals] and to say in some mysterious way that there are [fat to skinny people], [happy to sad people], [colored people] and [young to old people]. But the [fat to skinny people], [happy to sad people], [colored people] and [young to old people] that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of [fat to skinny people], semblances of [happy to sad people], semblances of [colored people] and semblances of [young to old people], for they are moments in the life of ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"], this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind. Hence what is delightful in this speculation is to rediscover all the real [people-individuals] there, but as [people-individuals] which have a higher mystical significance, which have grown out of the ether of your brain and not out of the material earth, which are incarnations of ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"], of the Absolute Subject. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"], to real natural [people-individuals], you give on the contrary the natural [people-individuals] a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions [generalizations]. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"] in all the manifestations of its life — the [fat to skinny people], the [happy to sad people], the [colored people] — that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these [people-individuals], how in each one of them ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"] realises itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a [young to old person] to its existence as an [colored person]. Hence the value of the ordinary [people-individuals] no longer consists in their natural qualities [as individuals], but in their speculative quality [as a part of society], which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of ["the Absolute People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"].  (Karl Marx The Holy Family) emphasis added and bracketed information added or substituted as explained below.

*In the previous quotation by Karl Marx I have substituted person-individual for fruit,  People-Society-Collective Whole-Community for Fruit, people-individuals for fruits, fat to skinny people for apples, happy to sad people for pears, colored people for almonds (all people are colored except albinos), young to old people for raisins,  "the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community" for "the Fruit," "the Absolute People-Society-Collective Whole-Community" for "the Absolute Fruit."

God is not changed, it is man who must be changed.   The soul of man is a result of God's creative power and therefore it does not have to be returned to God so that God can come to know who he is. God is not changed by the praxis of man (temporal in nature).  Man is changed by the praxis of God (spiritual above nature).  All Karl Marx did, building upon, while secularizing (demythologizing), the Gnostic theme, was to define man (the individual) as at one with society (god), i.e. the individual finding his identity with society, and society (god) as at one with the individual (man), society finding its identity within the individual.  What it thus 'scientifically' discovered, through the use of the dialectical process, is that man can only find his identity by finding what he has is common with mankind, and vice versa (through the "ether of the brain," the medium of perception), making both man and god (the individual and society) dependent upon each other, "One  for all, and all for one, (the individual for society and society for the individual, man for god and god for man)" all united in Love (Eros calling itself agape to deceive the naive; "All we need is love."  the Beetles).  By getting the next generation hooked on love, the world could be changed, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm negated.

“. . . to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc.”  (Maslow, Management)

". . . fuse & become one—in the mystic fusion, or in the 'good death.'" (Maslow, Journals)

"Psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must affirm." "Whitehead constantly draws attention to the dialectical patterns in mystical thought.  Psychoanalysis, mysticism, poetry, the philosophy of organism, Feuerbach, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen. Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination.” (Brown)

Though philosophers attempt to escape the mystic end of the dialectic process they inevitably keep running back into it. Even Karl Marx saw the mystic power in what he called speculative philosophy (philosophical interpretations). When a person goes through this mental, i.e. dialectical programming, it is no longer person, as an individual, who come to a meeting and leave as an individual but instead it starts as the meeting of "the people," i.e. the collective experience defines the individual person (the concept of individuals, coming and going as individuals, is negated as all individuals are seen as through the eyes of "the people" whatever that might be at the time).  Semblances means to be like, as in "seems to be like" or "appears as," or "appears to be," or "feels like," as in a tentative quality.  By these methods the mind is elevated "above" that which is above (above that which separates man from his social nature), negating that which is above for that which is below, i.e. the minds of men (reasoning and sensuousness united) become social in identity.  All end up looking at the individual through socialist eyes. 
    "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  Matthew 18:20  The two or three individuals never loose their individuality when they come together in Jesus' name.  When they leave, they leave as they came, as individuals in Jesus' name, i.e. not in their name, i.e. as in the group name.  Thus they do not gather together again for the group experience but assemble as individuals in Jesus' name, Jesus being "in the midst of them." When that understanding is lost then the institutional experience, the "speculative quality," the "semblances" of , "the Fruit,"  "the People,"  "the Assembly," the "gather together" experience takes over the purpose for the individual, his individuality before God, meeting with other individuals before God "gather together in Jesus name," (sharing his love for Christ with others and his love for others in Christ) is lost, i.e. swallowed up in the group experience. He then returns for the group experience, "in Jesus name."
    Turning quantity into quality is the "purpose" of those who use of the dialectical process in the heresiarchal paradigm.  For example asking a patriarchal thinking person what the whole of 20 bricks in a pile are he would respond with the quantity answer of 20 bricks.  But when the same question is asked of a heresiarchal thinking person he would respond, "It depends upon the relationship of the bricks to one another."  "Are they still in a pile or are they placed in an attractive pattern, such as a herringbone pattern, as a part of a sidewalk?"  In other words, "The whole is different than the sum of its parts."  The sum would only be the number of bricks (quantity), the whole would include the relationship of the bricks to one another (quality).  If properly arranged, they would be pleasant to walk upon and pleasant to gaze upon ("feelings" and "thought" would be pleasant, harmonious, social in nature if we were talking about people). 
    It is in this way of thinking that Marx saw "the Fruit."  The atomization of the fruit in specific categories would only be counting the fruit, i.e. quantity, but the semblance, "the mystical interconnection" between the fruit, i.e. their association with one another in likeness would reflect a quality.  It is the quality of life which socialism seeks after.  All must come into common-ism, consensus, for there to be "purpose" in life, and all must come into participation with the process to find quality.  Quality, dialectically, is a people thing.  Quality is the dialectical " fusion of fact and desire, of present and future, of existing means and projected ends..." "... when differing points of view and conflicting interests and purposes move with their mutual tensions toward a fusion of goal and into a concerted plan of action." Quality actualized, is "the fusion of the ideal and existent in a program of action." (Benne)  To the heresiarch, the dialectical process brings quality to life ("common purpose" discovered "scientifically," dialectically, materialistically, i.e. de-spiritualized), therefore life is the dialectical process in praxis (dialectically discovered "common purpose" put into social action for the sake of improving the "quality" of life).

"A group becomes a group fully only as it forms a common purpose and decides on a course of action appropriate to that purpose.  The purpose of discussion involves, therefore, the remolding of habits, attitudes, understandings and ways of working . . . in relation to the process of problem definition and solution as a whole."  "'What is our purpose at this point?'  is recognized as one of the most helpful questions that can be asked . . ."  "Purpose:  . . . the building of group-centered attitudes and . . .  the perpetuation of such group-centered behavior." (Kenneth Bennie Human Relations in Curriculum Change) emphasis added

    It is a subtle process but very effective in "changing" a person's focus and thus their 'purpose' in life, shifting their paradigm (the way they see the world) from patriarchal to matriarchal or even all the way to heresiarchal. (It is in times of persecution that the true church has grown the most because it has not had the time to build an institution of its own making in an effort to gain the respect of men "for the 'purpose' of furtherance of 'the gospel,' i.e. for the 'purpose' of 'change.'")  For those on the latter end of the continuum "I have gone to far,"  for Karl Marx was "more right than wrong," i.e. we need "supernatural creation of the mind," "a higher mystical significance, which have grown out of the ether of your brain,"  "Your main interest is then to point out the unity of 'the Fruit' ['the people,' 'the community' of believers] in all the manifestations of its [their] life," "to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits ["mystical interconnection between" the diverse people of the group in unity]."  It is in this way that individuality, outside the group experience has no meaning, i.e. only in the group experience does Jesus, i.e. the social Jesus, manifest himself in "truth."  Outside the group, the group meeting "in Jesus name," the individual does not have the truth.  In this way a collective mind, a "supernatural creation of the mind" is "created" 'in the name of Jesus.'

"Professing themselves to be wise [sophos; sofov], they became fools [morons; mwrainw], And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man [looking at God through human eyes and hearing God through human ears, and thus defining him by human perception via polls and surveys, i.e. the church built upon the grassroots movement of the opinions of men, i.e. in contact with their feelings and 'mother earth', no longer fearing God], and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  Romans 1:22-25

“Philosophy is not outside the world; it simply has a different kind of presence in the world. The world is its ground; it is the spiritual quintessence of its age. The world is the object of its enquiry and concern.; it [philosophy] is the wisdom of the world." "The philosopher appeals to reason not faith, teaches rather than dogmatizes, demands and welcomes the test of being doubted, promises truth, and aims at the achievement of a world ‘becoming philosophical [worldly].’" (Comments by Joseph O’Malley Ed. Marx, Critique)

“Philosophy as theory . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis; it serves to distinguish it from religion, the wisdom of the other world.”  (Marx, Critique)

"Praxis becomes the form of action appropriate to the isolated individual, it becomes his ethics."  "Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,’ the object, reality, as human sensuous activity."  (Lukacs)

“Theoretical praxis enters public life through the newspaper and journal of social criticism.” “The philosopher becomes a journalist without ceasing to be a philosopher.” (Marx, Critique) 

“…philosophy as struggle with error and superstition is also and always enlightenment.” (Bronner)

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

"Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity, … This activity contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life to reflection and conception. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith, and thus the period of destruction commences."  (Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.)

"The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply.  It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden." (Karl Marx The Holy Family)  emphasis added

"It may be said that Philosophy first commences when ... a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of Religion are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life becomes dissolved." (Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.)

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."  2 Corinthians 10:5, 6

“… the man who has achieved a philosophy of life – who knows who he is – has arrived at this truth through painful intellectual effort in which the more complex mental processes [evaluating, through one's own reasoning power and senses, whether something is right or wrong] of the Cognitive Taxonomy are clearly functioning.  Judges problems in terms of situation, issues, purposes, and consequences involved rather than in terms of fixed, dogmatic precepts ….” “Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals.” “A basic tenet of liberal education is that it is by means of intellectual effort that a philosophy of life in large measure is formed.”  (Bloom, Book I Cognitive Domain )

 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3  "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."  Colossians 2:8

“The major ingredient required in such instruments is that the problem be sufficiently subtle and complex … that the generalized set which we wish to observe can be brought into play.” “We are not interested in whether the problem is solved accurately or with elegance.” “We want the student to lead the good life and become a good man in all his parts.” “… the greatest good for the greatest number.”  (Bloom, Book I Cognitive Domain)

Globalism and World peace through Paradigm Change:
According to those who measure you with this continuum or taxonomy, you are becoming as you journey down the dialectical pathway, that is, unless you are one of  the few who refuse to move from your unmoving faith in God, refusing to move away from the pathway of righteousness, i.e. the pathway from above.  Kenneth Benne defines these people as those with 'non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations' (Benne), people who, he wrote, must be treated as evil instead of as good ("as a vice rather than a virtue"), where those from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the remnant, i.e. labeled the "neurotic" people, i.e. those seen as fighting against their own human nature, i.e. "in denial" of their "true" identity, i.e. rejecting their potential, those remaining faithful to a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. unchangeable in a 'rapidly changing world,' those who are therefore labeled as 'fundamental religious extremist' by those in the heresiarchal paradigm (social-psychologists, i.e. 'change agents'), are seen as needing to participate in mandatory governmental health care programs (for their own good and everybody else's good) if they are to ever have any hope of becoming "responsible citizens."

"Human rights and duties are grounded in the institutions and ideologies of a culture, not in a nature independent of man’s social relationships [i.e. not in God's will].  If human rights are to be guaranteed, they must be guaranteed by appropriate social, political, and economic controls of human behavior, not by opposition to these."  (Benne) 

The dialectical agenda and "human rights" are built upon this one platform: For world peace to become a reality, God's head must be cut off and man's head must be put in its place. When you base your "purpose" in life on human relationships, even in Jesus name, you have rejected your salvation. Replacing God's will with human proposition, i.e. single-mindedness of purpose to kick off and celebrate, initiate and sustain, build and retain human relationship. When human relationships become the "cement" which holds the church together it is no longer the true church, but an apostate church.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  Romans 12:2

Before the "fundamental religious extremist" can become a "responsible citizen" a political condition must be initiated and sustained which will consider the health (worth) of the citizen to determine his citizenship, therefore all 'citizens' (Christians) must go back through the triage of the new Ellis Island project, i.e. many small islands, at school, at work, at church, in government, etc., i.e. group meetings where a diverse group of people are dialogued to consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a predetermined outcome, i.e. all doing the dialectical process, with the "purpose" of negating the Patriarchal Paradigm. "The rights of private judgment can be defensibly defined and enforced on a democratic basis only by processes of collaborative planning. They cannot be guaranteed by dogmas concerning the nature of man." (Benne)  So much for inalienable rights.

    "In a letter from Alan Wolfe entitled Religious Diversity and the Common Cause he writes:   'The first week will be dedicated to philosophical issues. One school of political philosophy, originating in Kant and developed by John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas, argues that citizens, even when they strongly disagree, can at least agree to deliberate rationally over their differences. Two contemporary political philosophers, Amy Gutmann and Stephen Macedo, in particular have extended this position to some of our contemporary controversies; both insist, for example, that because good citizens ought to be thoughtful and deliberative ones, public schools can legitimately turn down requests by fundamentalist parents not to have their children exposed to literature they consider irreligious or immoral. (Macedo goes further and suggests that liberal democracies ought to prevent fundamentalist parents from enrolling their children in private schools that teach from a fundamentalist perspective.) There is, in this tradition, a strong affirmation of a common morality, one rooted in the Enlightenment and then applied in the United States through our commitments to liberal democracy.
    But critics have pointed out that the Enlightenment is itself partisan and partial, defending one particular understanding of morality against others, a position articulated by Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. If MacIntyre is right, then so is Stanley Fish, who argues in The Trouble With Principle that deliberative democracy is not neutral between various religions or between religion and non-religion but represents an effort by liberals and secularists to impose their values on others who do not share them. Theologian Stanley Hauerwas goes one step further and calls on religious believers to consider themselves "resident aliens" in a liberal democratic society on the assumption that their faith commitments will never be welcome so long as a common morality is based on liberal assumptions.'" (Allen Wolfe as quoted in http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/rapl/seminar2005/ )

An example of the Ellis Island experience as used in the apostate church:  

"There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer.  Find out what needs your customers want fulfilled right now. Are your products meeting these needs?"  (Peter F. Drucker  The Daily Drucker) emphasis added [Since Drucker's paradigm is the basis of the contemporary church, his business methods being applied there, it is important to see how he defines the church's "business,"  i.e. "purpose."]

Dopamine is the body's natural "want of a gratifying object," and not necessarily the liking of the object (you are drawn to the object not because of its worth as an object in itself, a rational process, but only because it stimulates please, i.e. dopamine, a sensual process).  Without Godly restraint it is just plain "lust," the love of pleasure. "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."  1 Timothy 3:2-5  "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."  Revelation 4:11  To replace the "will" of God, as in "Thy will be done" with "purpose" ("My will be done." or "Our will be done," even for "social good," or "in Jesus name"), is to change paradigms from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm.  It is the praxis of synthesizing God with man and man with God which uses the connecting element of dopamine.  As if God has wants of gratifying objects and can be secularized (synthesized with the flesh of man and the world). 

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."  James 4:1-4 

"Purpose" carries with it transformational business goals (making customers, i.e. people depending upon your services). The first objective is to identify the customers "sensuous need" (the desire which comes from the flesh, the "want of a gratifying object").  By identifying a persons perception of an object in the environment which stimulates the emancipation of dopamine, the temporal desire, the want, you can customize the environment in the future to initiate and sustain dopamine emancipation and thereby, by replicating the desire, control the person via their "purpose" of sustaining the environment which initiates dopamine emancipation.  They will volunteer, i.e. work for free from then on for the "purpose" of experiencing the pleasure which the environment provides, working not only for themselves but for others as well, i.e. providing dopamine emancipation for all who participate.  Any judgmental attitude, a "thus saith the Lord," would have a negative tendency, stifling such a "purpose."  "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:16, 17  "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."  Ephesians 2:3 "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error." 2 Peter 2:18 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."  Romans 8:5-8

Traditional business practice (i.e. relying upon tradition and personal values) is when the owner marketed what he knew or believed the customer needed to make whatever he was working on work, i.e. in an effort to be self sustaining and productive, the focus being upon the quality of the product, its dependability (product driven) and the quantity of production (profit driven).  Thus he established what he put up on the shelves, and therefore what he sold, based upon his own standards (he was principle driven, based upon "right and wrong," not customer driven, based upon identifying the customers "sensuous needs" and then marketing to them). Thereby the traditional business affected the community with a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. his will in control of his business, i.e. controlling what the customer bought.  He could lose his business and his income by doing so, his products falling out of favor with the customers, as their "felt" needs changed, but he was willing to hold to his principles since they came first as long as he owned his business.  Technology changed the type of items sold, making work more productive, but it was the application of the "social sciences" into the business world which changed the "purpose" of business into being "driven" by the customer's "sensuous needs."

Transformational business practice is to first identify the potential customer's sensuous needs.  "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  Genesis 3:2, 3  "Neither shall ye touch it" was a "sensuous need" which did not come from God but from her fleshly desire to relate with something in the environment, whether for good or for evil (the flesh in and of itself is neither good nor evil, it is the love of it, the mind set upon it, which makes man evil).  "Sensuous need" is identified through polls and surveys (getting peoples opinions, i.e. their feelings and thoughts, which are changeable over time) for the purpose of developing "feedback loops," used to keep up with their changing needs (desires, impulses), i.e. finding out what a person's desires are and then shaping the marketing environment around those desires, to entice the person into be your customer, making the business adaptable to changing times, therefore "change" driven, i.e. sniffing out the winds of change to initiate and sustain the pleasures of life. "thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways;  A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth [smells] up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her."  Jeremiah 2:22b, 23 [information added for clarity]

The next step in the process is to create an environment where the customers immediate needs can be marketed back to him "right now."  An environment where his perception and his sensuous needs are brought together.  The sensation that he can "have it right now" is more influential in drawing him into immediate purchase (ownership) of the "gratifying object" than an environment where he has to wait and think about whether he really needs it or not after all or go somewhere else to purchase it.  In this way he takes ownership not only of the product but of the environmental experience itself.  The idea is to keep the "sensuous need" and the "sense perception" together in the customer's experience in your business.  In this way the customer is more "desirous" of coming back for more "positive" experiences in your business.  You therefore take ownership over his "sense experience" as Satan did with the woman in the Garden in Eden.  "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6 emphasis added.  In this way the customer's "sense perception" triggers his "sensuous needs," enticing him into buying the product.  "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." James 1:14.  The body lusts, the one who controls the environment, who manipulates the situation, entices.

The business world today is about creating the conditions which stimulate the customers immediate desires, i.e. desires which "drive" him into buying the product.  With the item of his "right now" needs in front of him he is more inclined to do impulse buying, i.e. "I just have to have it right now." "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free.  They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do.  That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement [creating an environment developed around the customers "sensuous needs"]―there's no restrain and no revolt.  By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes." (Rogers) 

As an example of the dialectical process: Peter Drucker (not the American Drucker) spoke about marriage in relation to mankind's natural inclinations.  Using Friedrich Engels as his spokesperson (paradigm) to speak through, Drucker stated: "Only one thing is certain, he [Engels] wrote: ‘that an indissoluble marriage between one man and one woman for their entire life times is, of all forms of sexual relationship, the one that corresponds least to our “natural inclination.”’ He even credited exogamy with making humans ‘the most highly developed animal’. ‘Next to unlimited power and unlimited property, nothing is so calculated to threaten the happiness of the community as unrestricted sexual intercourse’, he wrote; but ‘real life teaches us that love, like comradeship, seeks to radiate in many different directions’. ‘Our diversity in character and inclination and in our circumstances is too great to make rules that would apply always to everyone.’ In the socialist future monogamy — particularly its ‘permanence imposed by law and public opinion, its dependence on economic and other unworthy considerations’ —would ‘completely disappear’. Instead there would be a ‘rich diversity, following from personal nature and inclination.’ Instead of marrying, people would ‘recognize that partnerships arise and grow, just as friendship, enmity and all other human feelings do’"  (Drucker) 
    Knowing that Church Growth is built upon Peter Drucker's (the American Drucker) marketing method (the heresiarchal paradigm of the same dialectical process of the European Drucker), I can see why the true believer is being called out of the mega-church movement today, while being accosted as an isolationist, negative, uncaring, misinformed, "self-righteous," divisive, etc., "fundamental religious extremist."

By displaying what the businessman knows is the person's "sensuous need" (learned through taking polls and surveys—which in themselves, by sensitizing the person of his "sensuous needs," i.e. drawing them out of him, i.e. making him aware of them, i.e. getting him to think about them stimulates the "sensuous need"), the business owner increases the chance for a positive "sense experience," both for the customer and for himself.  With "a great shopping experience," i.e. the transfer of the customer's cash to the business owner being the desired objective, keeps the cash coming in with the potential for more on down the dialectical pathway.  "It's all about 'change,' $$$. Right! Lots of it."  (Dr. Robert Klenck)  The customer is therefore satisfied, getting his hands on the gratifying object "right now," while the business owner asks "Do you want to put it on credit?"  And the business owner is satisfied in that he can sustain his business while meeting someone else's "needs," doing it in a way that he can keep the customer coming back for more positive experiences (customer driven, i.e. the customer's "sensuous needs" drives the "purpose" of the business).  The customer now has "control" over his "sense experience" (his "pride of life"), having the ability to be controlled by his own destiny, i.e. working for change.  Through the business owner's manipulation of the environment, with those things which satisfy (control) his customers "sensuous need", his "sensuous need" are satisfied for the day.  In this way the business world has become a science, a science of human behavior, knowing, that for success to "happen," the environment must be developed in such a way that the customer while keep coming back for more positive experiences, that is "only when it proceeds from Nature," i.e. from his human nature.  While the product may not last for very long, the "sense experience" will.

“Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature.” (Karl Marx MEGA I/3, p. 123)

In this way neither the customer nor the owner is limited by the owner's principles of right and wrong (good and evil).  Both can live in a world of immediate gratification, the owner might have to look the other way when he sells items which upset his conscience, but that is necessary for the customer's sake, of course, it is necessary for the business and community's sake as well, all doing their part on the Heresiarchal pathway, using the dialectical process of, compromise, tolerance, and "change".

"But my people would not hearken to my voice; .... So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels."  Psalms 81:11  The change in business practices began in earnest in the 50's as the result of social-engineers, social-psychologists, transformational Marxists (all one and the same) becoming interested in changing the business paradigm of the day, setting out to change it so as to remove the patriarchal paradigm from society. Instead of the business owner asking the father if he could give one of his children a piece of candy, keeping the father's will up front, as was done in the traditional, Patriarchal culture of business, the business owner is now counseled to put the candy down on the lower shelf, where the child can see it and grab it, forcing the father to either take it away, thereby upsetting the child, the customers, and the owner of the business (the father now seen as being heartless), or he can join the village in the "senses experience" of satisfying the child's "sensuous need" for the sake of the "sense perception," he is a "loving" father and at-one with the village's opinion on how to raise children. This is the formula for initiating and sustaining socialism in business and the community, “Using social environmental forces to change the parent’s behavior toward the child.” (Adorno)

    E = MC² is not just a formula for nuclear energy but can also stand for, dialectically speaking, a formula for the human factor, where E stands for Emancipation from the Patriarchal paradigm, M stands for the Mother (women's rights), and C stands for the Children (children's rights).  When the Mother, i.e. the Matriarchal paradigm (space—all that togetherness) unites with the Children (time) squared (all that energy and dopamine), i.e. the Heresiarchal paradigm synergized, then, and only then can change (revolution) be realized, i.e. the human potential Emancipated.  In other words, when the Mother, i.e. the object of gratification (Mother earth, i.e. the unifying object of gratification), comes into consensus (unrestrained contact) with the Children, i.e. the ones wanting the gratifying object (again that being the Mother), then the father figure, i.e. the restrainer of change (the old world order, i.e. your Mother is mine and not yours, i.e. private property, i.e. dominion over the earth, i.e. control over the elements), is negated (he no longer exists).  The Emancipation of Eros is actualized (incest), i.e. the world is Enlightened, as man is liberated from the restraining factor of the Patriarchal paradigm (patricide; you just have to have enough pressure and heat, i.e. crisis, to initiate the process of "change").  As the big bang of social change takes place, i.e. as the parts become 'united' in motion, i.e. being liberated from the restrainer, both patricide and incest are actualized in the moment. 
    A liberal can put this formula on his refrigerator and laugh at the traditional home every day of the week as he teaches their children how to think "scientifically," i.e. dialectically, as he frees them from the restraints of Godly and parental authority. This is the purpose for Bloom's Taxonomies being used in education today. Just try to restore order to your children after this class experiment, i.e. the use of the dialectical E=MC² experiment in their classroom experience.  Your children will be like Humpty Dumpty, i.e. all the kings men (the traditional parents) could not put him (them) back together again.

If traditional parents and grandparents are no longer listened to because they are considered 'out of touch' with the times, i.e. irrational and therefore irrelevant, then what social function do they serve?  They are only a reminder of what not to be like as you participate in the "changing," emancipated world.  "The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;"  (Yalom) “Can the student accept the fact that the traditional family might be changed and might possibly disappear?” (Paul Dressell et al. General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, American Council on Education, 1954)

Satan's Genesis 3:1-6 project to is to "cut the head off,"  i.e. negate the patriarch (the Father) so that man can make his own decisions, define his own "purpose" according to his own immediate "needs." By "making customers," building a network of human relationships, building portfolios of success (the marketplace of the beast is in the buying and selling of portfolios, i.e. the buying and selling of souls through the dialectical project of meeting "sensuous needs"—anyone who understands the 'soviet' system knows that it was all about the accumulation of portfolios, your power depended upon how well connected you were and the depth of them) the world can become a better place to live in, a more "positive" experience. Thus, by finding "out what needs your customers want fulfilled right now," and by your meeting their needs "in the here-and-now," neither they nor you have to wait upon the Lord (The Father, i.e. "Our Father which art in Heaven ..."), for his "will" to be done on earth, as it is in heaven (polls, surveys, and feedback loops will take care of that). We are to help people in need, in the "here and now," without the need of polls, surveys, and feedback loops, without the need to "cut off the head." "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?  If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,  And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."  James 2:14-18  As Tim Clem says, as he exposes the problem in the church: "We have a new bible.  It says, go ye therefore and take polls and surveys."   What the bible really says is to go and preach and teach.  "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."  Mark 16:15, 16   "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."  Matthew 28:19, 20

“Religion finds itself peculiarly tailored to the nationalistic, class, and ethnic cleavages and outlooks that sustain the prevailing social order. We can hope that this convergence of theological, sociological, and psychological analysis will lead to a further cooperation between behavior and religious disciplines. Here lies the pastor’s task, his opportunity, and his challenge.”  (The Person in Psychology, Selected Essays by Gordon Allport)

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5   A "purpose" driven church, replacing a "Thy will be done" church, bypassing (circumventing) God's will, while giving the perception that He is leading (mixing the flesh of man with the Spirit of God), is deceiving everyone, deceiving everyone who is looking to the church to meet their "sensuous needs,"  thinking that it is being led by the Spirit of God ("group hug" must be a sign it is).  A "purpose driven" church is an apostate church, cutting off the head of God and putting mans head in its place.  "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."  2 Timothy 3:5  The power of God does not come from the head or heart of men, i.e. the wisdom of men, i.e. through their opinions (which is vain philosophy), for it comes from God alone, with his word.  "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."  Hebrews 4:12  May the man of God, who has been caught up in this process, i.e. leaning upon the wisdom (opinions) of men, repent and return to God and His Word for direction "in all things." 

"... for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.  I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."  "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus."  Philippians 4:11b-13, 19 

Instead of believers being encouraged to turn to God to supply their everyday needs (a patriarchal paradigm), Christians are being manipulated into turning to the world system to satisfy their "sensuous needs," i.e. keeping the flesh in its place (a heresiarchal paradigm).   A 'satisfied' Christian (church) is a "happy" Christian (church), led by the "sensuous experience" of the brotherhood, a true believer (Church) is a righteous believer (Church), denying himself, picking up his cross, and following Jesus, led by the Spirit of God.  Instead of the fellowship being a byproduct of two or three coming together in Jesus name, the 'fellowship' today is itself  the "purpose" of the those coming together. “The eternal purpose ... is that of inexhaustible creativity, ... endless growth in individual powers, community, and love.”  (Journal of Bible and Religion, as sited by Seay)  "never to be totally realized in history.” (Ira Zepp, The Social Vision of Martin Luther King Jr.)  The true Church is not into making customers, to keep them coming back for more, it is into preaching and teaching the word of God, growing in Him, and His Word, daily, while He adds to it, daily.  The true Church is the called out ones, called out of the world system, being in the world but not of it.

''Enlightenment management and humanistic super-vision can be a brotherhood situation."  (Maslow, Management)  The apostate church sets goals for itself.  Goals are developed by visions of men, for men, i.e. “the feelings and hopes and vision of the grass roots,” by men, using “vision kits,” through the use of "Vision for Transformation Committees" (Dr Randy Barton of the Assemblies of God). These are the methods of men ("feasibility studies"), helping themselves in setting goals for the church and not of God giving the Church direction.  The true Church asks God for a vision, the believer and the Church asking for direction from God, and not from "the grass roots" (roots tie the plant to the earth), receiving it from God above and not from "the grass roots" below, confirming it by God's Spirit and not by the consensus of men, i.e. through dialogue where followers are molded by consensus while their leaders mold, i.e. manipulate them through "environment controls," to achieve that consensus. Why should the shepherd be asking the sheep for direction?  Only a cunning wolf would devise such a plan, sheep being then an easy prey. The Church is to follow God as he leads by His Spirit and is not to follow after men (facilitators), who claim to be of God, as they manipulate human "diversity" into church, seeking social "unity," through identifying and satisfying common sensuous, "felt" needs.

"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."  Romans 13:14 Visions which are given by God for His purpose (the spread of the gospel and for the encouragement of the saints) is not the same as visioning, i.e. fourth wave thinking, which is done by men guided by the spirit of antichrist. “A compelling new vision of the future of business" when "motivation is derived not from profit [quantity, more of the same way of having to do things, boss over worker, God over man, etc.] but from service [quality, a slave, i.e. the word, "service," derives its meaning from slave, a slave of the flesh, but with a new twist, satisfying their sensuous needs while satisfying other peoples sensuous needs, in this way there is no master, except Satan, but everybody is "happy," getting what they want, at least having a vision of it].” (Russell E. DiCarlo, ed Towards A New World View:  Conversations at the Leading-Edge, a book referenced by Alvin Toffler in his book “Future Shock”).  "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD."  Jeremiah 23:16;  Jeremiah 23:16-32  "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."  Romans 16:17, 18 emphasis added

"... it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel  4:35; "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."  Matthew 18:19; 7:21; 12:50;  "That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." 1 Peter 4:2

This new Ellis Island project is not just determining your physical health and mental health but is also determining your socio-psychological (spiritual) health, i.e. your adaptability to change (your plasticity, your ability to deform, i.e. to adapt with the changing social matrix, i.e. to distort to fit in with the current yet changing environment). Since your paradigm determines your worth, your mental and physical health must follow in harmony with your potential social-psychological health if you are to be recognized as a citizen becoming, serving and protecting the "fellowship," i.e. "New World Order."  You won't be able to participate, i.e. buy and sell in the new market system, without becoming human, i.e. human through your participation in the dialectical process, i.e. marked with the number of a man, i.e. the number of the human race uniting all people as one, i.e. a people united upon a common need, that of finding "purpose" in life and working together to fulfill it.

The breakdown of Freud's Id-Ego-Superego and the "is-ought-can" formula for the liberation of man from Godly restraint, i.e. liberation from the conscience and the negative "not."

“In short, philosophy as theory finds the ‘ought’ implied within the ‘is’, and as praxis seeks to make the two coincide.”  (Comment by Joseph O’Malley Ed. Marx, Critique) 

"An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry ...any attempt to prevent human freedom is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness is guilty of violent oppression." (Freire, P.1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. p.74)

The "is-ought" consensus negates God's or the parent's restraining "can not," i.e. "thou shalt not."  The "is-ought" agenda is the resentment man has towards God's or parental commands, i.e. law's of restraint upon the flesh.  It is not that believers are still under the law and therefore under its curse, our mind on the flesh is always incapable of satisfying its demands.  It is that we are in Christ, his righteousness imputed to us, that we are no longer under the law as a master, since the flesh is dead and we are alive in spirit, in Christ. In this way our "ought" is negated in Christ (our dissatisfaction with the restraint of the law overcome in Him). This is something the world can not experience or know, seeing the "not," God's law (as equal to parental restraint) as the source of contention and evil among men, i.e. inhibiting natural inquiry into the world. This is why the world uses philosophy ("rational" negation of the laws of "irrational" self-control) to resolve the contention over restraint.  Philosophy is "rational" man, blind to God's resolution to the "human problem."  That resolution to the "human problem," i.e. the "is-ought" conflict, is man believing in Christ Jesus and being lead by of the Holy Spirit in obedience to God (the Heavenly Father), available only through the work of Christ Jesus (available only through his death on the cross for our salvation from eternal death), in obedience to His Heavenly Father, and His resurrection from the grave (for our hope of eternal life), an act of His Heavenly Father. "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."  John 16:28 "But God raised him from the dead:"  Acts 13:30  "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."  Revelation 1:18  Without the resurrection, there would be no hope and therefore no purpose in life.  "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."  1 Corinthians 15:19

"When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?  But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay.  For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.  For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."  2 Corinthians 1:17-21  "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12 

Since dopamine emancipation (the sensation of pleasure; the want of a gratifying object) is a natural response to environmental conditions, internally by the imagination and externally by sensory stimulation, we are, under the law required to evaluate whether that condition is in agreement with the law.  Therefore, under the law we are to evaluate the environmental conditions and base our response to it with a yea, it is acceptable according to the law, or nay it is not acceptable according to the law and therefore to be rejected, thereby suppressing the "sensuous need," and by so producing the "ought."  Participation or nonparticipation therefore is based upon our evaluation of the situation according to our knowledge of and obedience to the law (subject also to our feelings and thoughts at the time, i.e. the "ought's" which come with the situation). When we walk in the spirit though, whether the environmental conditions stimulate dopamine emancipation or not, our participation or nonparticipation is not based upon our yea or nay, our evaluation of the situation according to externally imposed laws (producing the "ought"), but rather, with the yea of the Spirit of God.  Since the Spirit leads us in the way of the law (righteousness), not requiring our evaluation of whether our participation or nonparticipation is right or wrong, our response is always right, negating the voice of restrained flesh, i.e. the "ought," since the flesh is dead. 

Put another way.  In the spirit of the Lord, our participation is always yea.  When it comes to the Lord's leading, its not yea and nay, leaning upon your own understanding and thereby using your opinions in making decisions (situation ethics), but yea in that he directs us in what to say and do, i.e. those who are the Lords know his voice, and do not have to reason with their own "wisdom," in whether to obey or not to obey. We are to try the spirits though, i.e. weighing the man who claims to be speaking for God, according to the doctrine of Christ.  "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."  "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."  1 John 4:1-4; 2 John 1:9-11  "And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes [incorporating man's opinions in interpreting the scriptures]"  Mark 1:22  "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."  John 7:16  "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."  1 Timothy 6:3-5 

When it comes to you dealing with other men you must be yea when you mean yea, and nay when you mean nay.  Don't put it on someone else so if you fail they are blamed for your failure. It is your failure "lest we fall into condemnation."  We are not to be deceivers of ourselves and others, as well as a liar, placing others as cohorts in our failure, our lie.  The "is-ought" oath makes all who join in, cohorts of the lie, even when it's done in Jesus name.   We are all, both saved and lost, accountable before God for our actions and will be judged according to his will, the lost by his "Thou shalt not," i.e. the law which exposes our sin, and the saved, redeemed from the curse of the law, by his mercy and grace through Christ Jesus, by "Thy will be done."

"... changing human relations; for, inevitably, it must consider not only what 'is' and what 'can be' but also, what 'ought to be'."  (Benne)  [Thereby considering dissatisfactions toward God, i.e. the "ought," and his restraining "can not," so "can to" can be developed from the human relationship factor, i.e. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Genesis 2:18.]

"Is" correlates to the ego: "I am ("Is") the parent and you are ("Is") the child."  The parent "Is" the one in authority of his "will," i.e. "My will be done." The child "Is" the one under authority, his will under the parent's will. The child must therefore respond to the one in authority with "Thy will be done."  God defines himself as the one and only "Is" (pardon the language but I want to show the correlation). "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."  Exodus 3:14  "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58  It was when Jesus claimed to be at-one with the Father, i.e. God, that the religious-philosophical leaders, the "is-ought" people set out to kill him.

"He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."  Matthew 26:42  "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."  Matthew 6:9, 10  "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."  Hebrews 10:7-10 emphasis added

The "ought" is an internal cry, the "want of a gratifying object" denied (it is not just the object which is denied, it is also the sensation of "want," "the inner child," which is also denied), an Id (natural inclination to approach whatever it is in nature which produces, i.e. stimulates pleasure) which has been blocked by the restraining "not" of someone else's will (ego), i.e. the parent's ego.  The parent's ego thus controls the child's ego.  When the child's ego, wanting to serve in the direction of his desire (his Id wanting to be at one with the world) submits to the parent's ego, the child's "super-ego" is 'deformed' (subject to a will above the child's nature, i.e. the will of the parent above nature and not from the will of society, i.e. which proceeds "only from Nature").  When the super-ego (an internal, yet dynamic (changeable—perceptive driven) ego above the child's ego, influenced by the external forces outside of the child upon the child, either above his nature or the same as his nature) is no longer influenced by nature, i.e. his natural inquiry into nature, but by his obedience to the parent, i.e. controlled by their commands above the nature of things, his Ego becomes detached from his Id (producing a ridged, unadaptable to change, deformed super-ego, called the conscience). (This produces what I call a self-environmental rift which the dialectical process attempts to resolve.) His ego and therefore his super-ego, taking on the form of a conscience, is controlled by the parent's ego, by the parent's will controlling the child's will, i.e. blocking the child's desire to relate with his world, i.e. the world before him.  His behavior of obedience toward the parent's will, restrains his desires, preventing his "can" from being actualized.  His ego is not just restrained externally, by the force of the parent, but also internally by his own, now deformed super-ego, his super-ego now subject to the parent's ego (likewise the parent's ego was also in his early years subject to his parent's deformed super-ego which was deformed by their parent's deformed super-ego, etc., etc, i.e. thus the idea of the "neurosis of civilization").  When this happens, the child's ego can not actualize his Id and he becomes "neurotic" (his id, his true carnal identity with the world, with society, i.e. "sensuous need," is repressed by the parent's command, by the higher authority's restraining "not"). 

"We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic." "Discovering one’s real nature is simultaneously an ought quest and an is quest."  (Maslow,  Farther Reaches) 

"Sin is the estrangement of man from man." (Wheat)

"Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty." (Maslow, Management)  

When the child's Id-Ego (I desire-I will) quest for fruition (praxis) is suppressed by parental authority, an internalized dissatisfaction is created (the destructive nature of the Ego, hostility, comes alive).  This dissatisfaction is expressed internally to the self in language form, and possibly externally against the parent's restraint, i.e. a dangerous proposition, potentially resulting in opposition and reprimand.  "Ought" is the word created by patriarchal restraint over natural inquiry (Id-Ego striving for unity with nature; the "divine spark" seeking reunion with the cosmic spirit). Without the parent's "not" the child "could" do what he wanted, i.e. having the gratifying object, becoming at-one with nature (the Id-Ego united in praxis, "sensuous need" and "sense perception" united in "sense experience") but he would never come to know (become conscious of) his own nature.  Therefore in obedience to the parents will, the child's Id-Ego quest is stopped by a patriarchal "not," resulting in the "ought."  The role of philosophical inquiry is to draw out the "ought" (conscious awareness of self), apply it to "thought" (perception), and reattach it to the thing "sought" (social), not necessarily to a specific item in society but rather the general experience of satisfaction in overcoming anti-nature (the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the "negative field of force") through the social praxis (the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the "positive field of force").  Applying social force (collective unity) against the patriarchal paradigm leads to understanding, i.e. self-actualization, i.e. salvation, i.e. the realization of one's 'purpose' in life, i.e. social purpose).  The role of social-engineers is to put that "thought" (i.e. thinking about the world, how the world "ought to be") into social action (a "can do" mode; praxis) and thereby set out to remove, annihilate the patriarchal paradigm and its "not" from off the face of the earth (via socially justified "hostility"), while appearing to be concerned about "everybody's" needs, including the parent's.  "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature, material conditions are prepotent over spiritual ones, & SA [Self-Actualized] potentials, religious, laws philosophy, ideology, are in fact all by-products of basic social & economic conditions, while cutting out the dogmatic Marxian a priori crap. This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy.  And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now."  (Maslow Journals)  "Neurosis can be seen either as a sign of sin and evil or can be seen as growth and self-actualization. Hostility shows that [one] wants to grow."  (Maslow Management)

"In the process of self-actualization, the ego creates an objective, resistant world over against itself. This implies an obstacle whose resistance has to be overcome. We realize our liberty and independence through the successful overcoming of this resistance.  It is in this process of the ego bringing into existence a world over against itself and then overcoming the limitations with which it is confronted that Fichte finds the sequence of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. This is of course a Fichtean, not an Hegelian, formula."  (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx; International Pub.; NY, 1965)

"Internalization (incorporating as one’s own) is thus a critical element in superego development and in the development of  conscience."  (Bloom, Book 1 Cognitive Domain) 

The conscience internalizes, "incorporates as one's own" the parent's or God's commands as his commands, while the superego internalizes, "incorporates as one's own" those things in the social environment with which he can relate with experientially (the dopamine connection).  He can identify what interests (suppressed interests, i.e. dissatisfactions) he has which are in common with the community and then help the community to actualize them with him.  Like a charlatan, the person with a "healthy" superego can partnership with another person, help them "justify" immoral actions (polymorphously perverse behavior), and, since he has no conscience, take pleasure in the annihilation of another person's conscience, all the while calling it the development of interpersonal relationships, human relationship building,  situation ethics, value clarification, participatory democracy,  democratic ethics, synergy, teamwork, partnership, sensitivity training, etc., etc., etc....

The object of the dialectical process is to restore the child's Id (the want of a gratifying object, a "sensuous need") to be in harmony with his ego (his will to control the gratifying object), then "sense perception" can leading to "sense experience" again, i.e. liberate his 'ought' (the repressed ego which "could not" actualize the child's Id because of the patriarchal paradigms presence in the environment) so it (his Id-Ego, cognitive-affective world) can become a 'can do' world again, i.e. theory is put into practice, i.e. the cognitive-affective-psychomotor is united (a sensuousness-reasoning-praxis experience).  This is the World Health Organization's agenda, creating of a physically, mentally, and socially "healthy," i.e. common-ist world). "We will leave no child behind."  "All children are at risk." This can only be done by rescuing the child's will, his Ego, from the parent's Ego, his restraint, i.e. the parent's "not," as in "You can not," rescuing the child from the conscience, i.e. the deformed super-ego (the result of having lived in a patriarchal home). When the child's mind is then set free from repressive control, the super-ego is again freed to associate (is adaptable to change) with the world and its pleasures, the "is" and the "ought" "coinciding" in praxis (in practice), becoming a "can," as in "Can do" again.  When all "can do's" can be united, then nothing is impossible to man.

"Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the is, but from a scaling down of the ought, from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality and therefore to attainability."  (Maslow, Farther Reaches) 

Dialectically (it takes training to pull this off), it is the "ought's" of life (dissatisfaction of restraint, i.e. crisis) which moves society into the praxis of socialism.  It is necessary therefore to "scale down" each person's "ought," so that his "expectations," to be like the parent (i.e. controlling the world around them as the parents do) can come closer to everybody else's "ought," thus everybody's "ought" must become one common "ought," in agreement with the group's "ought," i.e. the child's "ought" not controlling society (a patriarchal paradigm) but instead his "ought" in harmony with societies "ought" (a heresiarchal paradigm).  In this way the future is developed and controlled, not by parental restraints, i.e. authority which is above human nature, i.e. anti-change, but by the collective "ought's" (thoughts) of the community (their dissatisfactions with having been told what to do in the past) achieving consensus, through dialogue.  The objective "sought," by the dialectical process, is the sense of satisfaction which comes from removing the restrainer (the villain) to one's desires. In this way you may not end up having the item desired but you have the satisfaction having working for it with others, perception providing everything which you will need (illusion as long as it is pleasurable will suffice for reality—you can therefore have pleasure in losing your conscience and your soul in a win-win situation). Through the use of the dialectical process, collective restraint (not parental restraint) directs each person's "ought" into the common "Is-ought" quest to find purpose for life.  Purpose not just for themselves alone, but also purpose for the community.  That purpose, in the end, being the perpetuation of the dialectical process, i.e. the means for "change," only possible with the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm.    

"The community needs, therefore, to be explored and, if necessary, purged from undesirable cultural conserves .... The community must be 'deconserved' from the pathological excesses of its own culture, or at least, they must be put under control." (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive)

"Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him."  "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."  "But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."  Matthew 27:17, 18, 20, 22-25; John 19:12, 15

The patriarchal "not" (patriarchal restraint within the person and the community) negates the Id-Ego unity (the lustful desires to relate with the world originating from within the individual) while the dialectical process negates the "not" (censoring the patriarchal paradigm in group meetings through the consensus process) to restore the Id-Ego unity (for the 'purpose" of producing person-community unity), therefore the synthesis of the Id-Ego is called "the negation of the negation," or for short, "negation of negation," i.e. "crucify him,"  "His blood be on us, and on our children."   It is not enough to say no to the "not,"  the "not" must be treated as irrelevant to be negated ("We have no king but Caesar").   In this way, through the use of the dialectical process in solving crisis, instead of being repressed by "authoritarian" rules (the effects of the traditional home), society can enjoy the present, i.e. enjoy its own uninhibited nature, as long as it is done for the sake of and with the approval of the collective, i.e. "the multitude." 

“To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual . . .” (Comments by Joseph O’Malley Ed. Marx, Critique) 

It is therefore the role of philosophy (thinking about the condition which created an "ought" and how to overcome it, so that one "can do" again) to rescue mankind from the restraints of religion (the restraining voice of the parent or God, the "negative force field"), at the least making religion human (bringing parents and God into dialogue, making them "positive," i.e. social), i.e. in line with "man's nature," and thereby help mankind actualize an Id-Ego (private-public) partnership on a global scale (producing a secular-sacred partnership). 

“The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society.” “The state arises out of the exigencies of man’s nature.”  (Comments by Joseph O’Malley Ed. Marx, Critique)

The patriarchal paradigm, practiced both in the secular realm, the state (temporal), and in the sacred realm, the church (spiritual), does not make the state subject to the church nor does it make the church subject to the state.  It simply makes them both subject to doing what is right and not doing what is wrong according to their realm under a higher authority, i.e. God or parent, above man's nature.  In a Constitutional Republic, with limited and representative form of government, the highest civic authority is in the patriarchal home with the husband ruling his home well, the desires of the wife being subject to her husband, and children obeying their parents, all in the Lord.  In a Democracy these checks and balances are negated, i.e. the limited and representative form of government is negated in the consensus process, and therefore the patriarchal home no longer has a hedge of protection around it, allowing it to raise up the next generation in the patriarchal paradigm.   In this way the children have not hedge of protection around them protecting them from the villages of Sodom and Gomorrha.

"I asked them to criticise religion by criticising political conditions rather than the other way about, because religion, quite empty in itself, lives from the earth and not from heaven and will disappear on its own once the inverted reality whose theory it represents is dissolved." (Marx to Ruge, November 1842) 

Negate the patriarchal paradigm in politics first, i.e. prevent the patriarchal paradigm from establishing public policy in the secular realm (in the home), and you negate both religion and individual sovereignty, i.e. both God's and man's private property at the same time, i.e. remember that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. the praxis of evaluating what is good and what is evil by one's own nature, i.e. reasoning from the Spirit, was God's private property, i.e. was not mans to take, i.e. because he would reason from his own nature, i.e. evaluating from the temporal, i.e. determining what is good and what is evil through his sensuous nature, with "only that which proceeds from Nature."

"For Hegel, the thought process (which he actually transforms into an independent subject, giving to it the name 'Idea'), is the demiurge of the  real, and for him the real is only the outward manifestation of the Idea. In my view, on the other hand, the ideal is nothing other than the material when it has been transposed and translated inside the human head [semblance, perception]. ... I criticized the mystifying aspect of the Hegelian dialectic."  (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx;  International Pub.; NY, 65)

Not until you put the 'idea' (theory, i.e. what "can be," i.e. only possible with overcoming what "can not be," i.e. an artisan, a demiurge, one who shapes things in a particular way and establishes them so they can not be in any other shape, establishing laws which prevent what "can be," i.e. inhibiting 'change') into 'outward manifestation,' i.e. action (practice), can you know the real.  The "can not" real is ideal above man's comprehension (the head remains God's), the "can to" real is ideal from "the human head."  Therefore, thoughts which can not be put into action, i.e. are not material, i.e. attainable by human action, are not real, only human praxis is real, i.e. man's thoughts put into practice, i.e. man creating his own world is real (revolution, i.e. change, i.e. annihilating the patriarchal, i.e. eradicating restraint against human nature, i.e. identifying the restrainer and removing him from the though process, i.e. by making God—belief in him—irrational, i.e. irrelevant, that is, if he is not a part of the change process, i.e. if he is not becoming, by his participation in dialogue with man, seeking common ground, he is not real). “The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself.”  (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore) “The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual.”  “The real nature of man is the totality of social relations.” (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6)  “Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being.” (Marx, Critique)  Marx taught that it is not God who "is" but rather man who "is becoming" as he replaces God, above, with himself, below, i.e. the very act itself is the ongoing process of the creation of life, i.e. the process of "becoming," i.e. the dialectical process of "change."  "It was thus the philosophy of Kant and Fichte that first influenced the young Marx before he turned to Hegel. It had undermined faith in religious authority and theology, and tended to reject all those aspects of the social order which embodied a merely traditional feudalism." (John Lewis  The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx)

George Wilhelm Hegel defined God as 'the absolute spirit becoming.'  He believed that god is without consciousness until becoming conscious in the reasoning and actions of mankind throughout history."  (Theissen, Systematic Theology-Nature and Necessity of Theology)

"Things and their developments were only the images of the idea existing somewhere or other already before the world existed, a system which laid  claim to being the very sum total of precisely the absolute truth — a system of natural and historical knowledge which is all-embracing and final." [Marx considered this way of thinking as] "a colossal miscarriage." (according to Engels, Anti-Duhring:  John Lewis The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx)

"The whole natural, historical and spiritual world was presented as a process, that is, as in constant motion, change, transformation and development." (according to Engels, Anti-Duhring:  John Lewis The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx) 

For the dialectic to exist, reification, i.e. the accepting by faith of "the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for," must be criticized and overcome through everyone's participation in the dialogue process, (the dialectical process, i.e. the acceptance of one's belief as just an opinion amongst many opinions, i.e. as one theory amongst many theories) and thereby reject the practice (praxis) of teaching and preaching absolutes by accepting the praxis of dialoguing feelings and thoughts to find consensus (common ground) over social issues, thus living in a state of constant transformation, i.e. "change."

While Traditional Marxists (old world communists who are equated to Fascism by Transformational Marxists) did not understand how Marx turned Hegel on his head, the Transformational Marxists (globalist—'new world order' communists) did. By turning him right side up, making mankind (society) the measure of all things and thereby negating that which is above (spirit), i.e. higher authority and their laws which are above contemporary human needs, above the sensual, i.e. any command or law which does not emanate from human nature (human nature common to all mankind and therefore usable for the purpose of uniting humanity).  Any condition which prevents the one from finding what he has in common with the all, i.e. the other, who blocks the drawing of the one to the all, and which prevents the one from displaying that which he has in common in the all, who blocks the drawing of the all to the one, only discoverable through the use of the dialectical process in the 'here and now' situation, via dialogue, must be negated.  "The great polemic against Hegel in The Holy Family concentrates mainly on this point. Hegel’s inadequacy is that he only seems to allow the absolute spirit to make history. The resulting otherworldliness of consciousness vis-à-vis the real events of history becomes, in the hands of Hegel’s disciples, an arrogant-and reactionary confrontation of ‘spirit’ and ‘mass’ [Hegel keeps an above-below condition in place]."  (Lukacs)  "You must turn it [Hegel's dialectical process] right way up again if you want to discover the rational kernel that is hidden away within the wrappings of mystification." (John Lewis, The Life and Teaching of Karl Marx)  Marx preached: don't start with God or absolutes or spirit, but rather start with mankind, i.e. start with society and its common 'felt' needs, i.e. societies "felt" needs ("felt" needs identified through polls and surveys, i.e. how man feels and what he things, making the outcome temporal).  The revolutionary cry is to find societies "felt" needs which are in common with the individual man, and the individual man's 'felt' needs which are in common with society. 

In a letter to his father, 1837 — Karl Marx wrote: "If previously the gods dwelt above the earth, now they were at the center of it." [i.e. in social action.   Marx, according to John Lewis] "approached the dialectical, [by] recovering 'the active side' of knowing as 'developed by idealism' and showing how in man knowing and acting go together." [It is not enough to think it, "I think therefore I am," one must do it, i.e. putting theory  into practice (Theory and Practice).  Don't just resent the parental authority, overthrow parental authority, i.e. "question authority."]  (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx)

Any 'felt' needs which do not originate from society (not from nature) or contradict society (go against natural) or can not be resolved through social action (experienced naturally), or which create anxiety (i.e. prevent spontaneity) are "mystical" and therefore "illusionary." "Thinking through the process it is dialectically faulty to start with the negative [the "negative force field" of the traditional, i.e. threatening parent and their judgmental frame of mind, i.e. restraining commands], with anxiety [the fear of judgment].  The problem is to name the dynamic factor provoking anxiety to emerge [non-permissive environment and parental commands, i.e. 'irrational' restraint].  Anxiety is a function of spontaneity.  Spontaneity can be defined as the adequate response to a new situation, or the novel response to an old situation.  With decrease of spontaneity anxiety increases.  With entire loss of spontaneity anxiety reaches its maximum, the point of panic."  (J. L. Moreno  Who Shall Survive)   The duty of the facilitator is to help people identify the "intrusive" commands of the father, commands which are blocking human nature, so that the person or group can identity and focus upon what it is in their nature and in nature itself which is being desired, i.e. hidden in the "ought's," waiting to be discovered.  By identifying the common 'felt' needs (which were being restrained by anxiety) in a free to share, i.e. "safe" environment, they, the repressed desires can be expressed, experimented with, and experienced without threat of judgment.  In this way the power of anxiety over the person, fear of judgment, can be negated, negating the authority position of the father as well (a limited and representative form of government is negated in the same way).  Only those "felt" needs which can be identified through dialogue and legitimized through consensus, those "felt" needs which are found to be common to all participants (Id-Ego-Eros united), are real needs, otherwise they are only 'mystical illusions,' i.e. the source of paranoia and depression if held to emphatically. God has not given to those who are his this spirit of anxiety.  It is given only to those who do not fear him and lean unto their own understanding. "And upon them that are left of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth."  Leviticus 26:36

"Be careful [Gr. Be anxious] for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:6, 7

Transformational Marxists have turned Hegel "on his side," making mankind, i.e. society become 'real' as it leaves that which is of the past (that which is above, that which is spiritual) behind.  By labeling that which is above as the 'past' (the one road, continuum theory), treating it as irrelevant when it does not fit within the change process, treating it as irrational when it attempts to block the change process, the change process can refuse to recognize it when it 'blindly' insists upon its way.  By detaching the person from restraining laws, laws which are countering his true nature, then allowing him to contemplate his true nature in common with all mankind, and then by helping him create the new man, the new world order from the nature of man himself, restraining laws would only proceed from nature itself and not from any source outside of nature (inhibiting man from being himself) man and society can become harmonized (synchronized), and man can become self-actualized.  Put another way the process requires the identifying of what is human and then treating everything in the environment which is not human as irrelevant, thereby changing "reality," i.e. changing (freeing) man's "sense perception" and therefore his experience, i.e. "sense experience," (the right and duty to question and challenge, and remove when necessary, any authority which inhibits human nature) to actualize his "sensuous needs," i.e. the lusts of the world, which are no longer lusts but have become the norm of society, since higher authority—above-below—is no longer comprehended to call them lusts).  In this way the environment of repressed or negated patriarchal domination gives the perception to all participants that permissiveness is the norm, creating in everybody's perception, a new reality.  In this way the brain (mind) is "retraining" in favor of the heresiarchal paradigm.  "The fundamental form of social laws is that after such and such and such and such have occurred in society, have unfolded in this direction and no other, then there is a high degree of probability, defined in Marx by the concept of the tendency, that such or such will occur .... 'after - then'; and constitutively implied in this 'after' is, of course, time and thus the whole of historical dimensions." (Theodor Adorno  Introduction to Sociology)  When the transcendent element (a product of the patriarchal paradigm) is willingly excluded in decision making (i.e. absolutes are excluded in the solving of a crisis, for the sake of the human relationship factor) then reality becomes materialistic (perceivable).  As the participants move in this direction, in the resolution to the crises, reality becomes historical materialism, i.e. "changeable" by human (social) will.  While dialectical materialism has a 'whenever - then,' inflexibility (positivism; natural phenomena "where history is stored up in phenomena," i.e. the "dynamic" nature of man and society is "arrested in the phenomena"), historical materialism does not, especially in its "negative dialectics" form (refusing to rest on formulas but rather evaluating and actualizing social life only in praxis, i.e. in action, an ongoing, never ending process).  This is why "feedback loops" are essential in initiating and sustaining the process of change, keeping the process up to date on the "changing times."  "Changing times" meaning changing lusts (dialectically called "felt" needs).

The 'past' can be included as part of the continuum of human experiences, but placed on the "out-of-date" side when it does not hinder or disturb the present social experience, the common, collective desires being put into practice. "Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience [sensuousness and thought or reasoning united in practice]; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God.... that God is man, mankind, humanity.... salvation is a symbol for becoming ultimately concerned about humanity―salvation in an 'eternal' present. The answer to man’s predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual. Christians can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will accept man as the true meaning of God." (Wheat)  By becoming more concerned about how others feel and what they think, letting their feelings and thoughts and your feelings and thoughts take control of the environment you live in, the fear of losing human relationship drives the questions asked and the answers given in dealing with life's problems.  In this way of thinking, truth is not found above man and his feelings and thoughts but instead comes from man's feelings and thoughts.  Therefore, apart from the common human experience, truth does not exist or at least is not relevant for the time.  For truth to be relevant it must be contemporary, i.e. realizing equilibrium within the ever changing, common contemporary experience, i.e. life (sensuousness) continually coming to consciousness, lived, and then passing away. This is the yen and yang of the dialectical process, i.e. by thinking on what can be, is disturbed, by acting on what can be, not is negated. 

"The consequences of family democratization [the moving of a family from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm] take a long time to make themselves felt–but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." "Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society)

"Liberals tend to view social problems as symptoms of the underlying social structure, while conservatives view them as results of individual incompetence or immorality. In short, political problems tend to be seen in moral rather than sociological terms.” “What characterized the left and distinguishes it from the right is the desire for a change, slight or great, in the balance of power.” (Adorno)

Liberals look at the paradigm being used while conservatives look at the behavior being demonstrated.  The left looks at the desire for change in a person while the right determines proper behavior from a pre-established right or wrong.

“Suspect every one who approaches that jewel [liberty under law (not man as law)].”  “Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it [public liberty and the patriarchal paradigm of the citizenry], but downright force.” “Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” “. . . When this constitution speaks of privileges [this speech amongst others forced the Continental Congress into incorporating the bill of rights (not privileges) into the constitution for ratification by the States], there is an ambiguity, a fatal ambiguity.” “I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers.” “. . . You will find the balance on the side of tyranny:” “Nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism.” “We should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people.” “Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had not power at all?” “You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.” “What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness.” “You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies:” “Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State;” “The States can do nothing, this power being exclusively given to ‘Congress’ [power also given to the Executive, supported by the Judicial, i.e. checks and balances negated by executive orders becoming law and the court making laws, all branches becoming one again, despotic; ]:”  “Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?” “A willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be capable of:”  “Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?” “This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility – and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.” “The Senate can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. [notice that he did not include the Supreme Court, a branch of government which was understood not to have the power to make law, only having power to interpret it, i.e. to "interpret" that life begins at birth instead of at conception is not an "interpretation" of the law, it is the making of law, through the use of the heresiarchal paradigm.]”  (P. Henry) emphasis added

"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.  A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.  The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern;  some of them in our country and under our own eyes.  To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."  (George Washington  Farewell Speech)

Every institution originates from a system of thought, i.e. a paradigm.  Over time, though the institution retains its name and physical structures, the system of thought can be changed by manipulation, fiat, and abdication, or by force.  When any institution, which recognizes and builds upon a system, a paradigm of absolutes, i.e. limited Government under a higher authority, whether it be under God or man (citizens) under God ("inalienable rights"), i.e. the rule of law, i.e. the soul of man tied to spirit (life), i.e. that which is above his nature, abdicates its system of thought, its paradigm, to relativism, i.e. government under control of men who control the impulses of men (whoever controls the environment which stimulates the impulse, controls the perception of man and therefore determines and controls the "citizen;" "human rights," privileges), i.e. the rule of men, i.e. the soul of man tied to the flesh (death), i.e. then that government has moved from a paradigm of life, i.e. liberty from the flesh, to a paradigm of death, i.e. liberation for the flesh, from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm, the words "of, by, and for the people" remains, but the meaning changes according to the paradigm being used to interpret them.   While the offices of Government must be held in honour at all times, a treasonous system, when being used, must be held in contempt.  A citizenry are not anti-government but rather anti-treason in their system of thought when they struggle to replace the heresiarchal paradigm with the patriarchal paradigm, a feat which can not be accomplished without force or threat of force (i.e. the chastening which comes with the patriarchal paradigm, be it by God or man). History has always been satin slippers descending stairs and hob nailed boots ascending.  The loss of freedom and liberty, through the praxis of manipulation takes "a long time to make itself  felt," while the restoring of freedom and liberty is a painful, costly, intense, a good against evil battle, life against death struggle. 

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage [to the flesh]:" "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."  "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."  Galatians 2:4, 11, 13-17 

While the patriarchal paradigm can be used by the flesh, disguised as love, its structure of right and wrong is essential if government is to be limited, its power restrained by the jealousy of the citizenry, jealous of their liberty.  When the citizenry are deceived into thinking that their liberty, in the flesh, can be guaranteed by the government, they reject the restraining of the flesh by the patriarchal paradigm and abdicate control over to tyranny, the heresiarchal paradigm, thinking they are on the side of "liberty."  "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."  John 8:34  If you are a servant of sin, serving the flesh, who is your master?  

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."  Romans 8:16-18

Rather than rejecting God outright, but instead incorporating him into human thought, i.e. into the social nature and cause of man, i.e. morphing him in mankind's common feelings of pain, when alienated and rejected, i.e. suffering while standing 'true' to a social cause, the rights of self and others, i.e. fighting for liberation from inhuman, i.e. unchanging laws, all mankind can willingly participate in his 'death.' i.e. in his defiance to the Fathers "inflexibility," i.e. in his willingness to die to deliver mankind from his Father's laws (a clear misreading of scripture, but what do you expect from those who think and act from the dark side of evil).  “On the other hand, Christianity as the religion of the ‘Son’ contains an implicit antagonism against the religion of the ‘Father’ and its surviving witnesses, the Jews.” (Adorno) By discovering and then keeping the human side of God, through discourse, a humane God is created.

“The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process. The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality [group think].”  "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Rogers) underline in original as italics.

The error in all of this kind of thinking is that social-psychology refuses to see life as a sin issue, defining life as a social issue, i.e. a culture, i.. a race issue, i.e. Jew against Gentile (the obstacle to overcome for them is cultural divisions—social disharmony, not the deceitfulness and wickedness of men's heart, i.e. man's carnal human nature).  That which is in one person (resentment for being told what to do when it goes against—limits or destroys—ones own nature, i.e. ones own dreams and desires), and that which is common to all ("ditto"), must be defended by all, not only for the sake of the one, but also for the sake of all (this is socialist rhetoric which many have followed and brought death and destruction not only on others but upon themselves as well).  In this way even the 'religious' can participate in the praxis of patricide (the "negation of negation," the negation of anti-common-ism, the negation of sin as being the real issue) while participating in the praxis of incest (finding and experiencing common ground, i.e. resentment toward "authoritarianism," and the "freedom" to liberally 'relate' with the world—Eros).  "To apply the principle of 'individualistic freedom' merely leads to chaos. Sometimes people must rather forcefully be made to see what democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole means." (Benne) The democratic leaders must "use his power for active re-education."  

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."  Romans 10:4 

The truth is: Jesus died in obedience to his Father's will, fulfilling his law, his will in all things—it was all about the Father's will and the Son's obedience to the Father's will, something the dialectical process can not process without destroying itself, therefore it must focus upon the Son as a liberator from the law, i.e. the law seen as legalism—"dictatorship" of the Father. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."  Mark 5:17-19  The issue is not the law, it is the flesh of man, either seeking to obey the law (legalism), which he can not accomplish, simply oppressing himself and others, or setting out to negate it, for the flesh's sake (licentiousness), resulting in anarchy and revolution.  Liberty from the flesh and therefore from the curse of the law, the law's sole purpose being to expose and condemn the law of the flesh (human nature) as sinful, is only found in belief in the Son of God and obedience to His Father through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Just as you can not fulfil the law without the work of God, the righteousness of Christ imputed to you, you cannot fulfill the will of the Father without the work of God, the power of the Holy Spirit working through you.  Liberty is only found in higher authority, in God, and can not be found within mankind, in the liberation of his flesh which leads to anarchy and death.

The patriarchal paradigm is correlated with Fascism by those with a heresiarchal mind.

 “. . . should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. . . ‘rugged individualism’”  " . . . a 'cure' of one manifestation is likely to be followed by a breaking out in some other way. . . . so great is the over-all fascist potential that any front might make it even more difficult . . ." (Adorno)  "The large family is preserved because national morality and national culture [Fascism] find their strongest support in it.”  (Reich)   "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: uncritical obedience to the father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhibition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values.” “Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account.” "It would then be more understandable why the German family, with its long history of authoritarian, threatening father figures, could become susceptible to a fascist ideology."  (Adorno) "The major implication . . . was the transformation of the family's role in the process of socialization."  (Jay). 

This ideology has only one uniting agenda, that of  negating the Father as a figure of authority by the use of an encounter known as 'patricide' (For example: The book, The Brothers Karamazov is all about the act of patricide and how the son's tried to deal with it, i.e. justify it). "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man’s deepest nature." (Yalom) 

Heresiarchal (dialectical) reasoning is based upon the teaching that all people must not only participate in thought but also in deed (putting theory into practice, i.e. negating the authority of the father—"authoritarianism"—by shifting the way one thinks and acts toward placing reasoning on the side of sensuousness and then acting upon it, i.e. putting imagination into action in the 'real' world—"open ended," "non-directive," dialogue making it possible) through the praxis of social 'incest,' i.e. achieving consensus as the main purpose for life's crisis ("using crisis" as the means of gaining access to a person's paradigm for the purpose of 'fixing' it, while working on, i.e. 'fixing' the crisis)—finding unity through finding common sensuousness, i.e. the basis for social cause.  Without this understanding put into practice the process is immobilized, i.e. powerless, still under the authority of the Father figure, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. a way of thinking which is equated to Fascism by those possessed with the heresiarchal paradigm.  The "collective interest" must be found and focused upon if the individual interests, interests subject to,  'suppressed' by "authoritative principles," principles above human interests, those principles which divide mankind, are to be overcome

"Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness." Leviticus 19:29

"Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:"  2 Peter 2:14

"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.  But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."  1 Timothy 2:22, 23

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."  Hebrews 4:12

The world wants to talk the 'bride of Christ,' i.e. the 'church' into putting on high heels.  Women know what I am talking about here, if you want to market to important people, i.e. "make customers" (Peter Drucker), slip the flats off, take the heels out of the desk drawer and put them on, i.e. they make her sensuous and help her self-esteem, as long as she does not slip and fall in them.  In this way the world can admire her, the church, and relate with her sensuously—dopamine: "wanting the gratifying object."  Then they can market her to the world (and market the world through her), that's how pimps and prostitutes do it, i.e. that's how the world of marketing thinks and acts.  Jesus is not returning for a bride who is out to impress man's sensuousness, but he is returning for a bride who is spotless, without wrinkle, who is in love only with him, the bridegroom (spiritually). Jesus is not returning to find his bride holding hands with the world, i.e. finding out what she has in common with the world around her through polls and surveys ("How do you feel? What do you think?") so she can find common ground with it for the sake of the 'gospel.'  Instead of changing the world, the gospel message is about changing hearts.  If there is any changing of the world, it is a byproduct of a changed heart, a repentant and pure heart, i.e. a new heart created by God. "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."  Psalms 51:10

"... consciousness must develop a dialectical contradiction between its immediate interests and its long-term objectives, …Only when the immediate interests are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process do they become revolutionary," "Marx sees … consciousness as ‘practical critical activity’ with the task of ‘changing the world’."  (Lukacs)

What you want now, i.e. a gratifying object, and what you want in the future, continuous control over or ability to have the gratifying object as desired in the future (requiring rigid principles to maintain the "long term objective"), must be separated dialectically, so that the future goal can be shared by all citizens with the same interests, with no control by one individual's "long-term objective" (principles), over and against others having equal access to the gratifying object. In this way revolution (the negation of principles which produce alienation) prevents the individual from attaining or sustaining control over the gratifying object for his "long-term objectives" (guided by and guiding by rigid principles, principles out of "touch" with the times; they might have been good for yesterday but they need to be checked out dialectically to see what parts are good for today), thus preventing the common interest, interest in the gratifying object, from becoming conscious in each individual, and collectively shared, i.e. the collective interest collectively practiced (the individuals "long-term objective," initiated  and sustained by restraining principles, negated and replaced with the collectives "long-term objective," initiated and sustained through democratic principles). 

"Partnership is the same as synergy. Synergy can be defined as the resolution of the dichotomy between selfishness and unselfishness." (Maslow,  Management) 

Thus "critical activity," i.e. openly questioning every person's objective (his "long-term objective" guided by rigid principles, seen and labeled as selfishness), must become practiced (praxis), keeping only those interests, public interests in gratifying objects, which are practical, i.e. attainable by and useful for all participants at the present time, thereby initiating and sustaining an ever changing world, not limited by or blocked by one person's principles, i.e. his long-term objective of "status-quo," i.e. "surplus capital," so that he can guarantee his interest are satisfied at the expense of the public interest (his individual principles, interests of the past, i.e. from above, interests subjected to rules of control, rules which suppress and thus prevent public interest from being discovered and thus, experienced collectively, dialectally this action is seen as obstructing the collective experience, i.e. obstructing justice). 

“Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change.” (Marx, Critique)

Thus private interests must be open to public evaluation, to make sure they might not be of public interest, and if it is of public interest, it must be open for all to identify with and made available for all to share in, and to make sure they are not blocking public interest. This is the purpose of the consensus process, i.e. the circumventing of individual principles to gain access to personal interests and thereby use interests to "detoxify" individuals of the effects of the patriarchal paradigm, both in their private lives and the general public's life.  Thus each person's "immediate interest," guided by his principles, must be critiqued by the public, to see if it is the public's "immediate interest," (the public must become conscious of the person's interest) and the public's "immediate interest" must likewise be critiqued by every person's "immediate interest" (the person must become conscious of his interests and the public's interest to do so—through dialogue) and all must work together to maintain the equilibrium of "change," (democratic principles) forever.  In this way every person's interests are evaluated in the "light" of public interest, his desires guided externally and internally, no longer by principles above his nature, i.e. standards of the past guiding him in the present, but by the current collective interests of society, guided by the principles of common-ism. A condition which is only attainable through the use of the dialectical process, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm by initiating and sustaining the heresiarchal paradigm.  If you have ever been in a town hall meeting where everybody can share, so the town council can appear to be fair, those who defend the patriarchal paradigm support their case on facts and truths, while those who push the heresiarchal paradigm support their process with feelings and thoughts.

 Whether the stage of the curriculum is referred to as tradition, transition, or transformation, or thesis, antithesis, or synthesis, or

1) known truth (as in absolutes), i.e. the cognitive domain, instead of aligning with sensuousness, watches over and restrains sensuousness,

2) feelings (as in uncertain about absolute truth and it's worth in the current setting, i.e. truth seems to be getting in "my way" of relating with myself and others, so lets not bring it up), i.e. the affective domain, i.e.  "The system of values which governs the ideology of a group is dynamically linked with other power aspects within the life of the group. . . . Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group." (Brookover)  “The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen.”  “An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs is simply the introduction of a new god who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil.”  (Benne), [The leader in the group must be relationship based in objectives first and then production based] or

3) theorizing (as in, all truth is relative to the current setting, i.e. all absolute truth is to be questioned, brought into opinion, theoretical format, to bring it into alignment with the current setting, i.e. to incorporate current feelings and thoughts, i.e. bring sensuous into perception of needs, i.e. only those things which proceed from nature, i.e. out of "a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts"; “Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts.” (Rogers)

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."  (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest, 1968, publ. Polity Press, 1987. Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

“Freedom becomes anchored in the subject. Nevertheless, what this means remains open to question. Freedom is now content to contest power and thus forgets that power is necessary to constrain its arbitrary exercise. The ethical and practical function of freedom is lost. Indeed, since subjective freedom is a social phenomenon, maintaining sanity depends upon the ability of the individual to fill a social role and affirm his or her fullest potential.” (Bronner)

All participants are judged by the same process, i.e. the dialectical process, i.e. the same process used by the woman in the Garden in Eden as recorded in Genesis 3:1-6².  You either drive the facilitator out of the room (as God did Adam and Eve and thereby the master facilitator, Satan) or you are driven out of the room by the facilitation process, i.e. you can not buy or sell because you refuse to be a part of the group and take the number of "the man."  To participate, even in an effort to stop the process, automatically puts you up on the dialectical continuum, i.e. on the heresiarchal pathway.  To dialogue with your children, in an effort to keep your office of authority as a parent, is to abdicate your office of authority as a parent to your children (I'm not saying you can not dialogue with your children, I am saying that when it comes to your position as a parent giving orders.  Trying, as a parent in authority, to dialogue categorical imperatives to your children, negates them all, categorical imperatives, your office as a parent in authority, and those children as being your children—it is an either-or thing, you either preach and teach facts and truth or you dialogue opinions).  Once you participate in the process, even for "good," i.e. to slow down or stop the process, you have placed yourself upon the dialectical continuum, the heresiarchal pathway.  From then on, it is only a matter of how far down the pathway you have journeyed.  It is, from then on, your current position on the continuum of "change," heresy (descent), which determines your 'purpose' in life, i.e. your social life, your potential and your social worth. 

"Having rejected the Bible as the infallible and inerrant Word of God and having accepted the view that everything is in flux, the liberal theologian holds that it is unsafe to formulate any fixed views about God and theological truth."  (Theissen, Systematic Theology-Nature and Necessity of Theology)

"There are many different ways of looking at things."  Those who make this statement in regards to God's Word do not realize how far down the dialectical road they have traveled, since they just paraphrased Karl Marx. "The philosophers have interpreted the world in many different ways, the objective however, is to change it."  (Karl Marx Feuerbach Thesis #11)  Don't just think "flux," i.e. don't just think about changing, do flux, do "change."

You can talk Hegel, Marx, Fichte, Freud, etc. all you want, but not until you understand Genesis 3:1-6 can you understand the dialectical process. Not being deceived as the woman, Adam simply abdicated his office of authority, under God, i.e. influenced by the woman, i.e. making him the first humanist, i.e. choosing the "wisdom" of the woman (vain philosophy, i.e. "What can I get out of this situation for myself?" i.e. the immediate interest, i.e. pleasure, and power to control it) over the command of God (He simply chose to accept the 'voice' of the woman over the command of God, he chose that which is below, in the present, in place of that which is above, in the "past"; Adam was not deceived, i.e. beguiled, but all mankind since Adam's fall have been deceived via the heart, i.e. being born into sin.  Our heart is deceitful and wicked, desperately—hastily, distractedly, worriedly—wicked). The woman, choosing the tree (seeing it rationally as dialectically common with all the other trees, which were all good—materialistically, thus saw God's command—spiritual—as dialectically irrational and thus dialectically irrelevant, fell into sin, i.e. disobedience toward God, rejecting his paradigm, from above, spiritual, for her paradigm, from below, only from nature), i.e. setting her mind on that which was from below (placing here material desires over and against, i.e. above God's command, spiritual), negating what was from above (contrasting between that which is God's and that which is mans, where man is to set his mind on God's commands, as the child is to set his mind on the parent's commands, both, God and parent, which are from above, over and against his, i.e. man's desires which are below, only from nature, i.e. his "immediate interest").

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."  "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."  1 Corinthians 2:14; 1:21; 3:19, 20

Thus the woman, using the praxis of the heresiarchal paradigm, became the first environmentalist, i.e. the first "tree hugger," the first "green." She became the first "enlightened," i.e. dialectically minded, 'scientifically' minded person, not needing revelation from God, above, to "know" the truth below, i.e. materialistic in mind.  She was the first person on earth to praxis dialectical materialism.  Her praxis of 'leaning to her own understanding' is summed up in Hegel's observation of human nature (fallen man's 'wisdom,' which is foolishness to God). “For it, namely reason, is itself the essential fact, the spirit, the Divine Spirit.” (G. W. Hegel in Friedrich)  In this way the "king's horses" became the "people's horses" (Karl Marx example), as "God's tree" became the "people's tree," i.e. they both used the same system of thought, i.e. the dialectical process. In this way, private, i.e. my tree (God), my horse (the King), my child (the parent), my land (the homeowner) , etc. is swallowed up in the public, i.e. social unity, in the "our tree," "our horse," "our child," "our land," etc. language,  i.e. in the language of the 'New' World Order.  As a consequence, the earth, which is the Lords, an above-below paradigm, can now be perceived as at one with man. “Universal Reconciliation - where reconciliation includes the interaction of human beings with nature, with animals, plants, and minerals.” (Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action. 1981)

“…The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation nor that authority of the church in order to know good and evil.”  (Bronner) 

"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.  Sapere Aude!  Dare to know! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'- that is the motto of enlightenment."   (Immanuel Kant,  Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784)

"We lay claim to the meaning of history; but we see in history not the revelation of 'God' [spiritual, not sensual, therefore immeasurable and unchangeable] but of man and only of man [temporal, sensual, therefore measurable and changeable; thus dialectically, if it is not measurable or changeable (not sensual and comprehendible to man), it is not real]."  (Frederick Engels The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844)

Thus history is not God directing man, but man discovering himself in his 'here-and-now' experience, dialectically negating the things of the past (the things above) as he identifies with the present, for the sake of the future, a future with nothing from the past (from above) inhibiting the present (antichrist).  Dialectically, history begins at your birth.  History is only the evaluation of your past experiences, the environment which inhibited or liberated your carnal nature, the environmental press which shaped you into the person you are today.  This is done to change your history, by dialectical participation, for the sake of perpetuating the process of change. This is why all history books are rewritten in socialist format (dialogue format), the old ones burned, recycled, or buried in museums (kept around for sentimental reasons only, until that generation departs).

“Neither the Bible nor the prophets neither the revelations of God – can take precedence over my own direct experience.” (Rogers)

"Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844)

The patriarchal paradigm is dialectically identified as the way of thinking, or system, i.e. a closed system of absolutes, (universal established order) a system of categorical imperatives, etc., i.e. a knowing, which requires faith and trust in a higher authority and obedience to his commands, i.e. faith ("limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction. Formal logic and the law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression [commands from parents or God which inhibit natural inquiry].” (Brown)  Thus, in a patriarchal paradigm, any discussion or dialogue, in regards to a command, is done only to know how to better carry out the command, i.e. not to question whether to obey or disobey the command or to question the office of the one giving the command, in good conscience, i.e. thereby man's steps must be directed from above, by commands or laws given by an authority above, i.e. greater than man's "self" nature, i.e. above human nature (the hu- in human is of the earth, man's earthiness, i.e. under the influence of the laws of the flesh, i.e. his fleshy nature, the man in human is subject to the spirit of God, the breath of God. While the hu- will return to the dust from which it came, i.e. man in love with his flesh and the world, i.e. the earthy world from which it was made, man, i.e. his soul, is subject to God, each soul personally accountability before God, "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12, i.e. in obedience to God, i.e. over the flesh, to be blessed, and in disobedience to God, i.e. living for the flesh, to be cursed).  Preaching and teaching is used to inculcate truth, and chastening is used to encourage the learning of that truth, i.e. for one's eternal soul sake. (Chastening, see Hebrews 13, is done not to remove someone from pain, so they can come to their right mind, but rather to remove them from their love of pleasure so they can come to their right mind.  A child or an adult being removed from a toy, big or small, it makes no difference, an object which they place their security, i.e. their identity in, i.e. in the pleasures of the things of this world, i.e. in the flesh, need to be separated from their pleasure to come to their senses, i.e. their right mind, just as the prodigal son had to run out of money, his source of security, i.e. pleasure, before he came to his right mind. Luke 15:11-32.) 

It is all about life and death, i.e. eternal life or eternal death.  "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness."  (Hebrews 12:19, 20)  Without chastening there is no right or wrong and without right and wrong there is no justice, i.e. justification, in chastening.  To chasten someone when there is no right or wrong is sadistic and for anyone to accept the chastening is masochistic.  When Karl Marx and Benjamin Bloom saw of the same mind that "nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred"  (Marx), that  "truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are not lasting truths for all times and places" (Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain), then anyone under their environmental conditions must not chasten those who reject absolutes (note: if you believe upon and you insist upon absolutes, then you can be chastened).  Therefore traditional education (a patriarchal paradigm) was sado-masochistic in structure since it rewarded and punished students based upon their learning or not having learned absolutes (facts).

“In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality.” (Jay) “. . . Definition of religious experience as experience of absolute dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general.” (Fromm)

“Freud ... stressed the role of religion in the historical deflection of energy from the real improvement of the human condition to an imaginary world of eternal salvation...."  (Marcuse) 

“Freud speaks of religion as a ‘substitute-gratification’ – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, ‘opiate of the people.’ ” (Brown)

" . . . the only authority necessary is the authority to establish certain qualities of interpersonal relationship."  ". . . in the direction of the 'open society,'. . . "  (Rogers)  

Dialectical thinkers, i.e. those who move in the "positive" field of the heresiarchal paradigm, identify "fundamental religious extremists" (as revealed in the life of Jesus who was obedient to his Heavenly Father even unto death, and as revealed in his followers, "taking captive every thought to the obedience of Christ," i.e. the obedience being to his Heavenly father in Christ, i.e. as all true believers must have an "authoritarian personality" and therefore must be seen as "unhealthy," i.e. non-dialectical, i.e. anti-democratic) as sado-masochists because they, the "open minded" (including the "enlightened Christian") have rejected absolute right and wrong, i.e. "fixity" as a way of life.   Therefore, those accepting chastening by any higher authority (other than those who are participating in the collective moment, in their acceptance of and quest for the 'open society') are identified as being negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, lower order thinking, prejudiced, maladjusted people.  In the 'open' society, chastening is also used but for "beneficial reasons," for the cause of social growth through the vehicle of  group rejection.  "One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial ["fundamentalist" labeled dialectically as a 'deviant']." "Communication toward a deviant is very great initially and then drops off sharply as the group rejects the deviant. Eventually, the group will extrude the deviant. They may smile at one another when he speaks or behaves irrelevantly; they will mascot him, they will ignore him rather than invest the necessary time to understand his interventions."  (Yalom). [emphasis added]   In this way, the dialectical way, chastening is "properly" used to neutralize, marginalize, and, if necessary, destroy people who refuse to find their identity outside of God's will, while assisting, i.e. 'driving' people by their nature (the natural desire for the respect, approval of men while you get what you want out of the situations of life), people who depend upon social approval for their identity, down the dialectical pathway to join in the journey toward cosmic oneness.

Dialectically, everyone is guilty, i.e. in need of the crisis of chastening (experiencing social rejection), until they are proven innocent, i.e. innocent meaning no longer restrained by laws from above, categorical imperative (negative forces) which restrain social cause, they are instead at one with the spirit of the lawless one (positive forces), i.e. thy are comfortable with 'questioning all authority,' trying to get non-dialectical authority into dialogue.  Therefore the questionnaires which say there are no right or wrong answers, have right and wrong answers.  It is all in which paradigm you use in answering, or refuse to answer the questions (nonparticipation alone will help determine your grade).  In a dialectical environment you are always being evaluated, evaluated to find which paradigm you use in solving crises. Your grade, i.e. your social worth, will be based upon how you think, which paradigm are you using, and act (praxis) in response to the questionnaire, i.e. the group setting and how you communicate within it.  The real answer to the questionnaire is: 'Are you still preaching and teaching your belief or have you resigned to be human, i.e. "humane" in dialoguing your opinion?  Are you still patriarchal, i.e. "inhumane," "heartless," or are you becoming heresiarchal, i.e. "humane," in your communication skills.  “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore)

“The real nature of man is the totality of social relations.” (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) 

In other words: it is not input from objects above, i.e. that which is not of man's nature (that which alienates man from his nature) which defines man, thereby making him rigid and 'neurotic,' (his mind in conflict with his natural impulses, natural impulses which are drawing him to be at one with the immediate environment—unrealizable because he is still seeking unity with that which is above), it is man and his social environment which defines him, making him changeable and 'healthy,' (his mind changing to become at one with his natural impulses and the world around him—his carnal nature liberated by seeking unity with that which is below, society).

“How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?”  “To bring about change, the old constellation of forces have to be upset.”  “Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions.”  (Benne) 

The heresiarchal paradigm is, on the other hand, a way of thinking, or system used to solve problems.  It is an open system of relativism, i.e. "general systems theory," where human reasoning is used to question all things which engender "negative" feelings (feelings of guilt are replaced, i.e. "changed" with feelings of resentment toward commands restraining human nature, i.e. any act which stops man's subconscious nature from being liberated, i.e. inhibits natural inquiry into nature), i.e. commands which block "positive" feelings, i.e. feelings of uninhibited acceptance by and spontaneous freedom to "lust" after the things of this world and the 'right' to hate, question, and attack negative commands which inhibit "healthy" human desires, i.e. desires drawing man to love and experientially, i.e. non-judgmentally, freely relate with the world.  "What are the factors that destroy the wisdom of free choice?"  (Maslow, Journals)  In the heresiarchal paradigm and its use of general systems theory man must always have the freedom to question authoritative commands (and the authority which gives them), he must always have the 'right' to question the conditions which block human, i.e. personal-social, desires which are common to all men.  Man, i.e. his feelings, his thoughts, and his perception (the "child within," i.e. the imagination 'pregnant with potential,' unrestrained by higher authority—"authoritarianism," i.e. God, i.e. that which is outside his experiential comprehension, i.e. that which is above the general system of humanity, negating interrelation with diversity, i.e. deviancy—that which is naturally found within and considered as good by the system but is labeled as "taboo" by the patriarchal paradigm, like the forbidden tree in the Garden there was nothing wrong with the tree therefore it was God who produced all the tension, i.e. the neurosis). “God is thus the anthropological source of alienation . . .” (Bronner)  In general systems theory, man must again be involved in determining the direction of his steps, i.e. his behavior (praxis) seeking harmony with the other, i.e. experientially restoring himself with the earth, i.e. with the world, i.e. with the cosmos, his sensuousness and his reasoning becoming united, transforming the world as he is being transformed, his mind no longer set on things above, but now liberated to be at 'peace' with things below, all of mankind working in the present to initiate and sustain the "good" life which lies ahead while living the "good" life in the "here-and-now," being in and becoming through the collective moment (consensus). 

“The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group.”  (Kurt Lewin as quoted in Benne)

"Partnership is the same as synergy. The problem for the accountants is to work out some way of putting on the balance sheet the amount of synergy in the organization, the amount of time and money and effort that has been invested in getting groups to work together."  (Maslow, Management)

"If work were accompanied by a reactivation of pregenital polymorphous eroticism, it would tend to become gratifying in itself without losing its work content." "pregenital  morality is an identification with the mother." [Its repression] "is bound up with the Father."  (Marcuse) 

Finding identity and purpose in the group experience, while working on a group project, through sensual and spontaneous freedom (equated to pregenital polymorphous eroticism or "incest"), i.e. freedom to think and share with no fear of judgment, no "put downs," i.e. an environment of "friendship and love" (Socialism and Eros—"pregenital polymorphous eroticism"), i.e. a workplace built upon interpersonal relationships turns work into play, something the Father would never permit—produce, produce, reproduce, reproduce, etc., etc.—"working by the sweat of your brow," and "giving birth," both in pain, both tied to the sin of man before God.  Remove the pain of labor and the pain of birth, i.e. make labor and sex one, i.e. life is for pleasure (Eros), and the issue of sin, along with God's judgment upon it, is negated.

Jesus said:  "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.  But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.  And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.  Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."  Luke 16:22-31 

If you are a capitalist and don't know Jesus, you are going to Hell.  If you are a socialist, you can not know Jesus, for what harmony has Christ with this "pregenital polymorphous eroticism," "pregenital  morality." The heart of a child is just as wicked as the heart of an adult unless he humbles himself, repents of his sins, and is converted.  Your age is not the issue (whether "pregenital" or "genital").  The issue is your heart.  Is it unrepentant before God and proud to be a carnal man (intellectual supported as well, i.e. social), or humble before your heavenly Father?

"And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,  And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 19:2-6 

The latter is a warning to all social minded "Christian," out to grow the church, "in the name of Jesus."

"... the concept of the world as the totality of facts is connected with a correspondence notion of truth and a semantic conception of justification. The social world, as the totality of legitimately ordered interpersonal relations, is accessible only from the participant’s perspective;  in the pragmatic presuppositions of rational discourse or deliberation the normative content of the implicit assumptions of communicative action is generalized, abstracted, and freed from all limits — the practice of deliberation is extended to an inclusive community that does not in principle exclude any subject capable of speech and action who can make relevant contributions. This idea points to a way out of the modern dilemma, since the participants have lost their metaphysical guarantees and must so to speak derive their normative orientations from themselves alone. As we have seen, the participants can only draw on those features of a common practice they already currently share…. The bottom line is that the participants have all already entered into the cooperative enterprise of rational discourse. The practice of argumentation sets in motion a cooperative competition for the better argument, where the orientation to the goal of a communicatively reached agreement unites the participants from the outset."  (Jürgen Habermas 1998 Communicative Ethics The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory)

In "general systems theory,"  perception, i.e. "sense perception" (cognition), along with desire, i.e. "felt" needs, i.e. "sensuous needs" (affection), must always be involved in the outcome, i.e. making "mountains out of mole hills," in that a molehill, in the mind of a person roleplaying, i.e. perceiving the feelings of a very small insect (experiencing, experientially, universal commonality with the environment), may appear as insurmountable as a human being looking at a mountain.  Thus, if the insect can overcome the molehill, man can overcome his obstacles, i.e. man can fulfill his dreams if he is willing to imagine possibilities, "positively," i.e. as long as he does not let the specific details of negativity, i.e. reality, i.e. established facts (that molehills and mountains are not really the same thing), get in his way, i.e. "It can not be done" is considered as irrelevant i.e. the fear of potential calamity is negated, i.e. God judging man for doing that which man perceives as rational in his own eyes, is negated in the hope of possibility, i.e. he thinks and practices the notion that "Nothing will be impossible to man once the fear of God is negated."  Dialogue is used, i.e. used to question the office of authority and its restraining commands of established facts and truths, used to negate the office of authority and any of its "categorical imperatives," i.e. commands (and their residual effects, i.e. fear of "calamity," i.e. chastening) which support the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. a paradigm seen as "blind" obedience to authority, under God, which inhibits the person from finding his "true" identity with the earth, i.e. mother earth, i.e. "incest" (according to Freud, that which is natural and good, i.e. beautiful).  In this way truth is not found above man "above the stars" (G. F. Hegel in Friedrich) but is found within mankind, i.e. in his common experience in the world below, i.e. in his seeking peace and harmony within himself and with the world.  After all, isn't this what kindergarten (pre-school) was all about, detaching children from that which is above, i.e. their parents and the traditional home, and reattaching them to that which is below, the 'open' society and the 'new' world system.  Instead of the person being transformed into the image of God above he is now able to praxis the continual transformation of himself along with the world below, i.e. code word 'change.'  General systems is thinking and acting upon that which we have in common, that which unites us, while negating that which we have in contrast, that which divides us. For this to materialize in the person's life the facilitator "must help the patient solidify the change" and "encourage generalization of the change, from the group setting into the patient’s larger life environment."  [The patient] "bears the responsibility for the creation of his world, and therefore, the responsibility for the transmutation of this world." (Yalom)

If you want to 'change' the world you must first 'change' the way the family communicates:  When you suspend the parents' rules (categorical imperatives) for the sake of social approval (through dialogue, with yourself and with others), i.e. "What can I get out of the situation for myself,"^* you negate the patriarchal paradigm (you lose your religious foundation) in favor of the heresiarchal paradigm. *Don't kid yourself into thinking it is about others, you do it even for your name sake, i.e. social approval is intoxicating and will get you to think things, approve things, and do things you never would have thought, approved, or done without it.  Just the statement "It is not about you." traps you in the heresiarchal continuum of "change."  It is about faith.  That is what it is all about.  Do you have faith in God or have you put your faith in yourself and in mankind, which is not faith but sight.  

"And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward [perverse] generation, children in whom is no faith."  Deuteronomy 32:20  "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."  Romans 4:13; 5:1, 2  "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham."  Galatians 3:7  "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  For consider him that endured such contradiction [false accusations and antagonism] of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds."  Hebrews 12:1-3

"For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.  Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."  Matthew 15:4-9 

"It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me," or "Corbin," as in Mark 7:11, i.e. a person saying they have set aside support, financial as well as time, to God or a religious institution, when they have not, so they don't have to use it in providing for their parents' needs, i.e. not honoring them (holding them, i.e. their office under God, in contempt), with the religious institution justifying the practice, i.e. 'freeing' their conscience from God's command, i.e. "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."  Ephesians 6:2, 3.  If you hold the Patriarchal Paradigm in contempt (curse father and mother) you can not worship a Patriarchal God, i.e. "But in vain they do worship me."

"What better way to help the patient recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images.  Group therapists refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the patient] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it."  (Yalom)

“A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism, and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum."  (Adorno)  

What Adorno desired was to label people from "extreme conservatism," i.e. those who always judge from contrast, above-below, good-evil, i.e. dualism, that is, judging human nature from God's point of view, i.e. from His word, "to extreme liberalism," i.e. those who always find the "common" in diversity, i.e. common-ism, i.e. "The whole is different than the sum of its parts," and judges from this humanistic perception (incorporating how things feel to him and his thoughts in regards to similarities and differences on how others feel and think). Thus, what all mankind has in common, i.e. "the whole" (society) is different than cultural division or diversity, i.e. its parts, i.e. the different environments (home environments) man is raised up in (all cultures and nationalities are developed in the environment of a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. patriarchal parents with their "negative force field" of "Not's").  It is his common-ism with mankind (freed from the "negative valence," of traditional restraints), i.e. his flesh nature and his worldly imagination, i.e. his cosmic communism (desire to relate with, i.e. commune with the universe), which unites, and his upbringing in right and wrong teaching, his "interpretations" (dialectics rejects fixed truths so it considers a person's belief simply a theory or opinion), i.e. absolute truth, of the world, i.e. where the person is inculcated into incorporating belief, i.e. ideals and truths, i.e. non-human, non-fleshy, non-'here-and-now' truths, i.e. truths outside the interconnecting (interpersonal) world system, unchanging truths which divide, i.e. which produces the many divided parts ("The dialectical method was overthrown ... the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole..." (Lukacs). (They must convince all who have truth that they only have opinions so that belief can be swallowed up in practicing of theories.) Thus, on one end of the continuum, diversity not unity, i.e. "This is mine, not yours" (I'm above, you are below) is found i.e. producing many different parts, i.e. that which is private and not someone else's, i.e. nationalism, while "diversity in unity," i.e. "Ours," i.e. the public (We are together), i.e. "the sum," i.e. globalism, is found on the other end.  To introduce the continuum into society, i.e. in education, government, business, the church, etc., is to stealthily declare war upon sovereignty, the Constitution, inalienable rights, i.e. limited government, absolute truth, the traditional patriarchal family, life, liberty, and the conscience, and most importantly of all, faith in God, which initiates and sustains them all.   

"However, Criticism falls into an inconsistency by thus having its opinion of itself represented as the opinion of the world and by its concept being converted into reality."  "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." (Karl Marx The Holy Family Chapter VII Critical Criticism’s Correspondence 1) The Critical Mass)

“Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principle task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis.” (Marx, Critique)

"'Postmodernity ... describes a world where people have to make their way without fixed referents and traditional anchoring points. It is a world of rapid change, of bewildering instability...' (Usher, Edwards, 1996, 10) — Estonia is postmodern."

“During this special formative time, this period of psycho-social moratoria, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer by young people as they reflect on the ‘facts’ they have learned in a search together for ‘meaning.’”  (Richard J. Spady, from speech presented November 18, 1994, The College and University Faculty Assembly, National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, Arizona, 1994)

"But what, after all, is democracy? Nothing but the absence of masters who could govern you, and the acceptance of this unavoidable absence, the attempt to manage without them." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844)

"To construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum" would immediately destabilize a patriarchal order (treating their belief, i.e. truth and facts, i.e. what is right and what is wrong, as just one among many differing opinions, thereby effectively negating the value of the office, the office of higher authority, i.e. God, parents, etc., which engender them) and bring that which is right, i.e. righteousness, into question, i.e. all 'opinions' are now open to criticism by the diverse group of people seeking consensus over social issues in a facilitated meeting (a soviet system of polity, i.e. deciding the right course of action to take in any given situation, for the betterment of social cause, called situation ethics, values clarification, conflict resolution, mediation, etc.).  In the mind of the Marxists, Adorno, Fromm, and other members of the Frankfurt School, along with the Marxist, Kurt Lewin (known for his work in 'group dynamics,' 'force field analysis,' and the change process of  'unfreezing, moving, and refreezing,' people's thought process;  "Unfreezing. This term, also adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system."

"The familiar must be made strange; many common props, social conventions, status symbols, and ordinary procedural rules are eliminated from the group, and the individual's values and beliefs about himself are challenged." … few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance.  To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance.  Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." "Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself.  Patients should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking."  "New models [of thought and behavior] are … acquired subtly, as a result of overt or covert suggestion, unconscious identification with the therapist, corrective emotional experiences [resulting from] operant conditioning via implicit or explicit expressions of his approval or disapproval." "If an individual wishes to maintain a position of arbitrary authority [i.e. obeys God or parents], then it behooves him to inhibit the development of any rules permitting reciprocal process observation and commentary [inhibit the questioning of authority]."  "Only he ["the therapist," i.e. "the group historian"] is permitted to maintain a temporal perspective, and he remains immune from the charge that he elevates himself above the others." (Yalom)

The Transformation Marxist of the Frankfurt School and the Marxists, J. L. Moreno (known for developing 'role-playing' as a major tool for initiating and sustaining social change), correlated Fascism (which they recognized as the same pattern of thought as Traditional Communism, i.e. Traditional Marxists, who Karl Marx call 'young Hegelians') with an above-below paradigm, a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. and transformational Communism (they would not call themselves communists but rather communitarians), i.e. social-psychology, was correlated with common-ism of the human desire, i.e. "felt" need, of belongingness and purpose, generated by social contact with others, i.e. the identity of man must originate from within man himself and proceed with nature, i.e. that which is natural, i.e. anti-supernatural. 

1. Obedience,  2. Fairness,  3. Mutual Trust,  4. Maintain Social System,  5. Autonomous Moral Action, 6. Cosmic Principles/Pantheistic (Kohlberg Legacy, p. 160-161)

For some, the idea of God can be included as long as he is identified as being at-one with man (“Man knows about God only in so far as God knows about himself in man;” G. W. F. Hegel in Friedrich), thus justifying the modern liberal translation of God's word to make it, the Bible, easier to understand for, i.e. relate with, the carnal minded man. In this way it can be incorporated with other humanist tools to remove alienation between men of different "faiths."  The religious who would not move into harmony with other "faiths," not willing to break down the walls of division caused by doctrine, would be considered "fundamental religious extremists."  In this way the Moslem, who kills "infidels" for his god, i.e. shed human blood for god, the Jew, who sacrifices for his God, i.e. shed animal blood for god (currently a dilemma), and the Christian, whose God, i.e. the Father sent his Son to died for him, shed his own blood for us, i.e. to take our place, i.e. to redeem us from wrath of God upon the children of disobedience, i.e. justifying us before God the Father by his blood ("Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."  Romans 5:9), can all be grouped into one category, "extreme conservatism," and be pressured, by violent force if necessary, into social conformity. For man, life is in the flesh (personal-social, i.e. man working—socially useful work—to "live" in man as god, or with god, kingdom), while for God, life is in the blood (spiritual, i.e. man's soul is redeemed by the work of God to live in His kingdom, i.e. the work is in Him).  Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Even the Marxist Theodor Adorno, knew of the "blood of the Lamb of God" with the intent of replacing it with "Christian Humanism."

"Although these latter ideas (unconscious trends such as expressed in idea of the crucifix and the sacrifice of blood) have been more or less successfully replaced by 'Christian Humanism,' their deeper psychological roots have still be to reckoned with." (Adorno) 

Adorno's intent was to move God's kingdom from above (i.e. God's foreknowledge) to man's kingdom below (i.e. human perception), therefore no need of blood atonement.  Every certified teacher, Christian included, is certified on this continuum (taxonomy—as expressed by Adorno) and have learned how to develop curriculum for the classroom which reflects the outcome of this taxonomy, a change in the students from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm (from absolutes to relativism).  Every accredited school, Christian included, is accredited on this same continuum (taxonomy).  The problem is that once the taxonomy (continuum) has been introduced into the educational institution,  it is like a virus which has entered the body, where the body's defense system must learn how to identify the virus and develop antibodies to fight it, likewise the teachers and administration must know why the taxonomy is dangerous and must be able to identify it and remove it from the educational institution. Because the process is built upon the fallen nature of man, it is not detected as a danger until to late. The death of the institution may be necessary (i.e. starting over unaccredited). Being unaccredited does not mean you are free of the effects of the taxonomy, as it comes in with the training of teachers.  In my experience of speaking across this nation on this subject, most teachers I meet resent having to use the process and try to circumvent it or try to fight it at the risk of loosing their "professional" reputation and their job.

Transforming the world, i.e. rescuing the person's super-ego (social changeability, relativism with the world), by detoxifying it of the conscience (individual rigidity, absolutes under God):

“This voice which really isn’t you but tells you the way the world works is a direct attack on creativity. We have to work to remove it.” “When we learn to silence the inner voice that judges yourself and others, there is no limit to what we can accomplish, individually and as part of a team. Absence of judgment makes you more receptive to innovative ideas.” (Michael Ray, as quoted in Maslow, Management)  "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:  the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" (Brown) “The ‘external restrictions’ which first the parents and then other societal agencies have imposed upon the individual ‘interjected’ into the ego and become its ‘conscience’; henceforth, the sense of guilt permeates the mental life.” “The id carries the memory traces of the dominion [the affective domain, i.e. sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. want of the gratifying object, i.e. "the lust of the flesh and eyes," the law of the flesh]  forward into every present future: it projects the past into the future.” (Marcuse)  “It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony.” “When this synthesis is not achieved, the superego [still retaining the effects of the conscience not subject to, i.e. repressing emotional impulses, i.e. the id] has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above [i.e. neurosis].” (Adorno) “The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience [they both require environmental input, one from above (God, parent; preach and teach, i.e. inculcate), the other from below (society; dialogue)].” “Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society.” “Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development.” (Bloom, Book I Cognitive Domain)

When you consider the fact that Bloom's "Taxonomies" (Book 1 Cognitive Domain and Book 2 Affective Domain, Marxist based material, synthesizing Marx and Freud, i.e. social-psychology) have been the staple for curriculum development in education since the mid 50's, it is no wonder our culture has experienced such a moral breakdown (morality detached from God's restraint, i.e. from above, and thus "liberated" to justify man's carnal nature below).  The objective was to "reattach" the affective domain (sensuousness) to the cognitive domain (reasoning) to liberate the next generations from the "neurotic" outcomes which, according to dialectical reasoning, emanate from the traditional home, where, at an early age the child's cognitive domain (reasoning) is 'forced' to attend to objective truth, i.e. the parents' commands (alienating him from their own "felt" needs, i.e. their "want of a gratifying object"), thus suppressing the child's subjective "truth," the child's feelings toward an object which attracted him in the first place, now a "forbidden" object, i.e. supposedly the root cause of discrimination and anti-social behavior (see my article on Civil Disobedience).  By sensitizing the child, through the classroom experience ("artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children."  Warren Bennis  The Temporary Society), his affective and cognitive domains were reestablished (reattached), thus "restoring" him (re-educating him, i.e. brainwashing him—washing from his brain the 'unhealthy' effects of the patriarchal home; Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group." Benne) to where he could again freely experience (praxis) his socialistic, i.e. humanistic (carnal, fleshy, sensual, animal) nature which was being developed in his early childhood before the parent intervened and prejudiced him through the use of the wrong paradigm, i.e. chastening, insisting that there is absolute truth, i.e. lasting right and wrong. 

“Tolerant children, it seems, are likely to come from homes with a permissive atmosphere.”  “Early training is an important agent in slanting a child toward tolerance.” “Character-conditioned tolerance is set in a positive [social] worldview.” "The tolerant person is very likely to be liberal in his political views.” “The fact that liberalism and radicalism both correlate positively with ethnic tolerance [a "fact" which has been proven false, that is that liberalism and radicalism are tolerant of ethnicity] places a strong weapon in the hands of bigots (who are likely to be political conservatives).”  (Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice)

Those, i.e. liberals and radicals, who use the dialectical process destroy ethnic identity, only using "ethnic tolerance" as a front so that they can advance their control over all cultures for the sake of global dominance.  Vendetta against another culture, i.e. one culture getting its "dues" from another culture being the outcome, i.e. a culture war.

“The innermost core of man’s nature, the base of his ‘animal nature,’ is positive in nature.” (Rogers) 

"Animal nature" is put in quotations by Carl Rogers since they are recognized as such without repression from the patriarchal paradigm.  He believed that through proper therapy, man who has been taught that he is not an animal but a living soul made in God's image, can be reprogrammed to be social ("positive in nature") again.

"The ability to promise involves the loss of the natural animal forgetfulness of the past, which is the precondition for healthy living in the present." "Through the ability to promise, the future is bound to the past."  "It is what makes man responsible; it is his conscience." (Brown) 

Brown is saying that the ability to promise, i.e. to keep our parents' commands, destroys our "natural animal forgetfulness of the past."  And if we are to live "healthy" in the present we must negate the condition which depends upon promises and restore our "natural animal forgetfulness."

" Must encourage the first step toward ultimate free-animality-humanness, i.e. nudism."  "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm."  "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness."  (Maslow, Journals)

Abraham Maslow's works, as are Carl Rogers' works, are the foundation for the socialist fabric of today. You can not learn a trade today and not be exposed to and "encouraged" to apply their ideology into your life.

"... once you can identify a community [lasting gratification outside the home], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change."  (Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing  The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing  emphasis added) 

This is the man who helped to develop and implement social programming for the police.  Once you can identify where the individual and the family are willing to compromise to maintain association with others (in an effort to maintain their individual and family identity, i.e. respect in the eyes of the community, protection from crime, etc.), you know where "positive social change" can take place.  When the individual and the family willingly participate in "positive social change," they participate in their own demise.  "The family is one of these social forms which ... cannot be changed without change in the total social framework."  (Max Horkheimer Kritische Theori)

“The qualities of the client’s expression at any one point might indicate this position on this continuum, might indicate where he stood in the process of change.” (Rogers) 

According to Carl Rogers the "quality" of the patriarchal person's "expression," (be it your child in the classroom or your senator in a subcommittee) i.e. his reaction to the negation, i.e. the circumvention of absolute right and wrong, i.e. right and wrong established outside of natural human "here and now" inclinations, i.e. rules which are seen as anti-humanistic, i.e. anti-democratic, i.e. "inhuman," i.e. unchanging in quality, must be barred from having control over the meeting and its outcome.  How he responds in a permissive, i.e. open-ended, non-directive, environment, i.e. an environment blocking the person or group of people blocking spontaneous and unrestrained behavior, i.e. an environment blocking (frustrating) the patriarchal paradigm minded person from blocking others from uninhibited natural inquiry into man's universal carnal nature, i.e. a "negation of negation" environment, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. negating a right or wrong, on line or not on line, i.e. "judgmental" system of absolutes, i.e. preventing it from taking form within the group setting, i.e. thwarting its effort in initiating and sustaining itself in setting policy, i.e. in making decisions over others, i.e. blocking others from developing  interpersonal relationship with the world, i.e. preventing the desired outcome, i.e. globalism, is indicated by his "position" on the "continuum," placing him on the lowest end of the continuum.  This is the person least of all to be trusted in a position of influence, i.e. worthless if he refuses to willingly participate in the process of unending change.  The "logical outgrowth" of this dialectical continuum is that, whether it is an unborn child or an elderly person (or anyone in between), when they inhibit potential change, i.e. lock a person or society into a right-wrong, unchanging, unchangeable position (except the unchanging change process itself), the individual or society can praxis the ultimate solution to the specific problem, calling it "choice" for the unborn, and "dying with dignity" for the elderly, the helpless, etc., and be "justified" in doing so, that is carrying out the 'ultimate solution.'  The continuum thus saves man from his conscience.  Thus an accused person's social worth, i.e. his usefulness and social likeability (super-ego values), replace the conscience in the jurist's mind (professional jurist mind), and show trials, like those which took place in Communist controlled Russia and Fascist controlled Germany, help assist the social cause, only this time they won't be for the cause of nationalism (remember Transformational Marxists classify Traditional Marxists and their rigid, authoritarian tendencies as nationalists), but instead for the sake of the environment and humanity (climate control, environment control, i.e. globalism).  A trial by 'your peers' may be impossible for a patriarchal-minded person in a heresiarchal-minded culture.  For example: for a jury to consider a case on abortion, where an act against abortion is on trial, they must witness an uncensored abortion if they are to make a decision with the conscience.  Other wise it is a show trial where the accused person's conscience, his reason for committing the crime of fighting against the system, is censored, making him automatically guilty, i.e. guilty for having a conscience and acting on it.

"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world."  2 Corinthians 1:12

Conscientisation: "The process in which men, not as recipients, but as knowing subjects, achieve a deepening awareness both of the socio-cultural reality which shapes their lives and their capacity to transform that reality." (Freire cited in Schubeck S J, 1993: 46 n 41)

To the dialectically minded person the conscience (an "unhealthy, "neurotic," out of balance super-ego) is seen as "surplus-repression." (“Formal logic and the law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression.” "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis.” "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Brown) 

The conscience is treated as toxic residue left over from the patriarchal experience and can only be overcome by  participation in the "great refusal," i.e. refusing to be moved away from one's own dreams, i.e. one's own imagination, as the basis of life, as the means for becoming aware (conscientious) of what "can be" (conscientization), freeing mankind from the traces of original sin, i.e. freeing him from his slavery to external commands which hold him back from knowing his true identity and purpose found within the world he is surrounded by. This is too hard for the individual person to accomplish on his own and therefore outside help is most likely needed, i.e. a facilitator who entices and encourages change and who initiates and sustains an environment where the individual is free to imagine what 'can be.' ("To reduce imagination to slavery — even if one's so-called happiness is at stake — means to violate all that one finds in one's inmost self of ultimate justice.  Imagination alone tells me what can be."  André Breton  Les Manifestes du Surréalisme") Those who base reality upon enlightened reasoning see not only the husband-wife-children hierarchy as the structure of repression, i.e. living under a top down system (sustaining a right-wrong system and thus repressing a continuum system) but also see the conscience as a continuation of that same system, a system kept alive within the next generation's way of thinking. Norman O. Brown wrote: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be the father of oneself." (Brown). Brown believed that when the child has guilty feelings when thinking of incest and he lets those feelings direct him in his actions, the traditional family is formed. 

 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."  1 Corinthians 13:11

"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.  Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,  To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.  And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.  Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.  But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?"  Galatians 4:1-9

What Brown saw as the key to social change was the changing of the child's reasoning pattern, where reasoning tied to the fear of judgment from above, beginning with an earthly father and potentially ending up with a Heavenly Father, i.e. both seen as religious in structure, i.e. spiritual in nature, must be changed to reasoning tied to the fear of social rejection in the "here-and-now" (below), i.e. seen as proceeding from the natural environment itself and therefore scientifically measurable (behavior science). In dialectical thought, when an individual or society accepts reward and punishment from above, then they can not be controlled by reward and punishment from below. The change in reasoning was to move away from a patriarchal paradigm, where reasoning is tied to restraining laws from above, i.e. against and therefore restraining (suppressing, inhibiting) man's 'healthy' reasoning, i.e. the child's reasoning at the moment of natural inquiry (reasoning, i.e. thought, originally moving in the direction of the object of gratification—subjective truth—instead, under duress, is moved in the direction of the object which inhibits sensuousness and spontaneity, resulting in behavior now directed to laws and the maker of laws—objective truth).  The setting of the mind on things above, when it inhibits living a harmonious life with things below (in the "here-and-now," i.e. sensuous), is seen dialectically as unreasoned thought (above the realm of dialogue, i.e. above the general, i.e. universal human experience, i.e. identifiable by human feelings and thoughts) and therefore unreasonable, resulting in "unlived" life. ". . . a tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Adorno)

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.   For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?   For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."  Matthew 16:24-27  

Dialectically, "unlived" life, i.e. denying natural desires (personal and social, i.e. internal and external, i.e. the one and the all) and following after the one requiring such a life of temporal restraint (for future reasons of ensuing judgment and hope of joy) is unhealthy reasoning and results in a condition Brown defines as "formal logical laws of contradictions," a condition seen as producing "asocial or anti-social," i.e. inhuman behavior.  The change in reasoning was to be toward a heresiarchal paradigm, where reasoning is to be restored to the "child within,"  reasoning "emancipated," resulting in changeability, i.e. freedom to again follow after natural impulses so life can again be lived.  "Emancipation lies in fantasy and the language of experience irreducible to linguistic rules: mimesis. . . . Marcuse thus could write that ‘the realm of freedom lies beyond mimesis.’” (Bronner)  “Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or ‘impulse.’” (Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action)  “Impulse, the primary fact, back of which, psychically we cannot go.” (John Dewey, “Social Psychology,” Psychological Review, I July, 1894).  Therefore "changing" laws must become a part of culture, i.e. laws which liberate mankind from  "surplus repression," i.e. anti-humanist restraint,  i.e. superimposed laws, i.e. laws based upon "domination and exploitation", aesthetic laws which unite pleasure and reason, liberating man from the "formal logical laws of contradiction", "just" laws which mediate between "theoretical reason" (understanding) and "practical reason" (will), laws which work in harmony with man and nature (approach pleasure and avoid pain), i.e. laws which are reasonable, i.e. in agreement with sensuousness and spontaneity—restraint being necessary but only for the sake of perpetuating, i.e. guaranteeing "equality of opportunity" for all people, i.e. freedom (morality) for all to participate in the dialectical synthesis of sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. receptivity of a gratifying objects.  In the end, pleasure, according to dialectical thought, is social (an "equality of opportunity" for all, i.e. all as one people to  know pleasure collectively).  Pleasure originates from the environment which propagates alienation.  It is mankind united in the cause of freedom, i.e. creating his freedom from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. freedom from the environment of familial restraint. "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power. " (Coleman)  

". . . a tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Adorno)

"Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The public-private status of cognitive vs. affective behaviors is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian religion and is a value highly cherished in the democratic traditions of the Western world.”  "Perhaps a reopening of the entire question would help us to see more clearly the boundaries between education and indoctrination, and the simple dichotomy expressed above between cognitive and affective behavior would no longer seem as real as the rather glib separation of the two suggests.”   “Education opens up possibilities for free choice and individual decisions."
"Indoctrination, on the other hand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of free choice and decision.”  (Bloom's Taxonomies, Cognitive and Affective)

If all must be given freedom to participate, in order to "develop ... a clear-cut personal identity," i.e. "participatory democracy," then even the laws themselves must be subject to change, i.e. yesterday's laws changed to be in harmony with today's "felt" needs, something the traditional (patriarchal) home by its very own way of thinking (paradigm), that of inculcating "conventional rules and customs," i.e. inadaptability to change, can not engender in the next generation. “Another aspect of traditionalism is the tendency to oppose innovations or alterations of existing politic‑economic forms.” (Adorno) Thus, without some outside assistance (from education or some other socialist organization), the next generation is not likely to liberate itself from the effects of the patriarchal experience. "Often this is too challenging a goal for the individual to achieve on his own, and the net effect is either maladjustment or the embracing of a philosophy of life developed by others." (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2 Affective Domain p. 166)  The setting of the mind on things below (what man has in common with ____, i.e. whatever.), seen dialectically as being reasonable, i.e. life liberating and loving, is therefore to be encouraged in all situations.  A condition of informal emotive laws of concord aiming to reconcile man to himself (a "positive" environment) was essential if the change was to be done successfully, i.e. for the 'good' of all ("good sense"). To do so, i.e. accomplish this outcome or objective, requires the experiencing of life, even momentarily, apart from the 'pressure' of the patriarchal environment.  This is accomplished through the process of "role-playing." "Religion [above, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm] and science [below, i.e. a heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. it would not be heresiarchal if man did not have a "living soul," and was only made of the "dust of the ground,"  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."  Genesis 2:7,  thus the reason for pushing the theory (religion) of evolution.] ["Religion and science"] can be kept apart, indeed, one is able to do conscientious screening and not let one activity impede the other―in short, it is an exercise in 'role playing.' [where one's sensuousness and spontaneity can be freed from "religious," i.e. Godly, parental, constitutional, etc. restraints (where all opinions are treated with respect as facts).  Role-playing separates the below from the above (removes religion from the experience) and thus makes the above subject to the below experience (makes religion subject to science, i.e. materializing it to make it subject to a sensuous human experience, i.e. if religion does not make sense in the moment, i.e. bringing mankind together, it is non-sense and treated as irrelevant (inapplicable to the situation).] ...we have described roleplaying as a diagnostic method but it can also  be used as 'role therapy' to improve the relations between the members of a group." (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive?)

The Identification of Paradigms. Part II

The Identification of Paradigms. Part I
The Identification of Paradigms. Part III

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."  Matthew 19:3-6

"…a patient might, with further change, outgrow … his spouse … unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." (Yalom) 

"The full force of civilized morality [the patriarchal society] was mobilized against the use of the body as a mere object, means, instrument of pleasure [the body as a mere object of pleasure]; such reification was tabooed, and remained the ill-reputed privilege of whores, degenerates, and perverts."  With the emergence of a non-repressive reality principle [through dialectical thinking] this process would be reversed ["whores, degenerates, and perverts" would become socially acceptable and even promoted, i.e. deviancy would become the norm]."  "... the taboo on the reification of the body would be lessened ... the body would be resexualized [physical behavior "tabooed," i.e. immorality would be approved, i.e. "the erotization of the entire organism," i.e. behavior outside of or beyond the purpose of procreation, (the reason the male and female bodies were created the way they were; Romans 1) would be liberated] ... a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality [incest resurrection of the body; "the fulfillment of childhood wishes," psychology is built upon Freud's premise that all children are sexually active, no person in the profession of psychoanalytical counseling can get around this premise] and a decline of genital supremacy [the praxis of patricide would be initiated and the patriarchal family annulled] ... the body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis [purified of the emotions of patriarchal tension, allowing the free expression of emotional consciousness in praxis] ... an instrument of pleasure.  [leading] to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family."  (Marcuse)    

If the one spouse changes their paradigm to that of sensuousness and spontaneity (i.e. following after their 'natural inclinations') and the other spouse retains their paradigm of absolute morals and law (i.e. following after their beliefs) the breakdown in communication (i.e. conflict in paradigms) will cause a rift in the relationship, the one morally freed ("liberated") from established contracts (i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm) conflicting with the one morally obligated ("constrained") to established contracts (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm).  With the patriarchal order of the home disintegrating, spousal abuse (which is wrong) would increase as one spouse, out of frustration (no support from society to retain patriarchal order in the home), would attempt to restore order through the use of force, or use force to silence any opposition to extrinsic sexual relationships (the law would increasingly be on the side of the disintegration of the patriarchal order since civilization would increasingly be built upon "community," i.e. a continuing and growing culture of "partnerships," i.e. sexual partners).   "An indissoluble marriage between one man and one woman for their entire life times is, of all forms of sexual relationship, the one that corresponds least to our 'natural inclination.'”  (Friedrich Engels quoted in Drucker)  It should be noted, as a sidebar, that the Peter Drucker, who was defending the practice of homosexuality in the above paper, is not the same Peter Drucker that Rick Warren turned to for the structuring of his Church Growth agenda, yet both build their thoughts and actions upon the same dialectical method of patricide and incest. Incest would increase as well, both within the home and without, i.e. in education, in the workplace, in community activities, in government departments, etc. Drucker wrote, quoting Engels: "...‘the elimination of the need to hide sexual relations of an unusual character is one of the first preconditions for a healthy sex life and a healthy sexual morality’."

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Thomas Kuhn quoting Max Planck’s famous dictum.

"Privacy must no longer be maintained apart from and against the public existence." (Marcuse)

This ideology is that once the "general will" ("the acquired knowledge of the real Good") of the public takes over it direct the public "toward the individual needs."  A 'one for all, and all for one,' Karl Marx mentality which is the negation of the private.  If private exists, it exists in name only.  "The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories," (George Washington Farewell Address), is no longer needed if this system is applied.  "The workers’ council ... will eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary."  (Lukacs).

"The problem was to reform and reconstruct society until it did in fact defend and protect the person of each member. (Seeking to) establish a society in which the interests of the individual and the community coincide."  (John Lewis commenting upon the "general interest" of Rousseau and Aristotle's "Universal Core values."  John Lewis  The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx) 

The questions are:  "Who is determining what it is that the individual and community are coinciding on (i.e. what really is 'community' interest?)"  "Who is defining the person and the community?" and "How did they come to that conclusion (i.e. develop their definition)?"  Whoever defines terms for you controls your life (i.e. controls the outcome).  One thing I learned in debate, which I do not participate in any more, is that whoever speaks first, if they define the terms of their opponents words, i.e. use their opponent words as their words, i.e. with their own definitions (half-truths), i.e. embedding (twisting) them within their own illustrations, if done subtly and effectively, their opponent will spend most of his time trying to rescue his words from the first speaker's definitions.  This is the art craft of facilitation.  In the end, are your own "interests" that of being in harmony with the community or that of Eternal Life?  Considering that Hell is permanent also, community harmony is not the right answer, unless the 'community' is a fellowship of believers and the harmony is all in one accord in Christ. "And what concord [harmony] hath Christ with Belial [those who do the dialectical process, i.e. diversity in unity]? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Corinthians 6:15

Mandela, in South Africa, was put into prison because he was a Marxist.  He was released not because he stopped being a Marxist.  He was released because the South African court had over time become sympathetic to Marxism.  In this way, over time, with those in the court, as well as those in the public realm, participating in the process of 'change,' both the 'public and private' were changed into a public-private partnership (Global communism) without a split or divorce (i.e. without a violent revolution, but instead a "non-violent" revolution called a "velvet revolution," or civil disobedience, in which case those in authority, intimidated by the potential of social upheaval, i.e. outright revolutionary activity, gave into a more "peaceful" solution, abdication.  I am not justifying their policies and actions while in office, I am simply saying that despite their abuse in office, there was nothing wrong with the office).

"There should be no secrets in the public schools kept from the parents." (Sixteenth Report, Senate Investigation Committee on Education:  Curriculum Changes,  Senate of the State of California,  California Legislature 1958)

“Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic.”  “Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower.” (Brown)

What is public is not secret (the very definition of public is 'not secret,' i.e. open for all to see, not just for the 'party leadership,' i.e. facilitators of 'change' to see).  What is private is secret (closed or hidden from public sight, seen only by God).  For the private to go into a public-private partnership, the private must reject (divulge) their privacy, their secrecy, for the sake of the public cause, cursing their right of privacy.  That which is only seen by God above is now seen by god, i.e. socio-psychologists below. To befriend a dialectic thinker is to reveal that which is private to Babylon. What you had before your involvement in the process is divested of your values, of your history, of your control over it. In this way "the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower" (a patriarchal paradigm) is overcome by the emancipation of your carnal nature with its "fixations on perversions and obscenities," (a heresiarchal paradigm) formerly restrained by "parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure."  So if you should decide to return, providing you can be rescued (redeemed) from the grips of the process (the process is not considered successful until no one can escape, i.e. everybody must participate in the process), there will be little if anything left to start over with.  The nature of the dialectic process is to negate patriarchal history, annihilating any vestiges which exonerates it, assimilating what is left, into the matrix of the heresiarchal paradigm, for its "purpose," the total destruction of the patriarchal paradigm for the sake of "perversions and obscenities," i.e. openness.  It is through your carnal nature, which the process wants access to,  that it can gain control over all that God has given you, including your soul.

"Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon. And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them. And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD.  Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD."  2 Kings 20:14-17

"The individual may have ‘secret’ thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual’s potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations.” (Adorno)  "Sometimes patients … make a statement which may at some future time provide the therapist with great leverage."  "The thrifty therapist underscores these comments in the group and stores them for future use. … at times when the patient is closed and defensive." (Yalom)  Remember that these meetings are supposed to be based upon openness and freedom from threat, evidently that is until the 'therapist' wants to be a god, in this case a god who carries a little black book and likes to blackmail when necessary for the cause of "change."   For the "public" (openness, unconcealed) to develop a public-private partnership with the private (closed, concealed), those facilitating the "public" meeting (i.e. the democratic-socialist-communist party pushing the public-private agenda) must have secrets, i.e. a secret agenda (they are the experts of a very subtle and complex process), which makes them subversive, i.e. enemies of both the private and the public realm (a secret society, or rather a society with secrets, out to gain information on the private so they can use it against them, to "change," i.e. control not only the public but also the private). "Conspiracy theory" will be pushed as a paranoia by those involved in the praxis of conspiracy. No one involved with the dialectical process can be loyal to any contract they claim to be defending (against all enemies foreign and domestic), unless that contract is accepted as open-ended and non-directing, a "living will" providing for "logical outgrowth," otherwise it is just a piece of paper.    As the spider said to the fly, trust me.

“The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets.” (Norman Lavine in George Lukacs Process of Democratization)  When this happens, when a public-private partnership is created, anyone in the private with a secret (insisting upon his private rights) must be treated as a person of concern, suspect of being an enemy of the public good, i.e. fighting against the public will.  In this way the private is swallowed up by the 'public,' with those pushing the "public" agenda working to keep a position of control, i.e. seeking to be treated with respect, as having the 'rights' of the private, i.e. secrecy. "It is true that people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic methods. But it is equally true that to be able to change a group atmosphere toward democracy the democratic leader has to be in power and has to use his power for active re-education. (Benne)  "Tillich’s elusiveness reflects a calculated effort to remain esoteric. He keeps his deepest meanings hidden from all but a few who are prepared to receive it." "By redefining terms, Tillich cultivates a 'double-speak' designed to convey opposing messages to different groups. He refuses to define terms to which he obviously attaches definite meanings." "One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy." (Wheat).  Therefore deceit (secrecy) is necessary, for the 'good' of the public.  When the word 'transparency' ("sight based management" over the private) is brought up and used in the public realm a secret society is in motion, advancing its public-private agenda, i.e. seeking to gain control over the souls of men. "Can't we all just get along?"  When a Democratic leader states "I will be thinking of the traditional family and the small private businessman every day that I am in office"  he is not thinking of ways to promote it, but about ways to annihilate it for the sake of social "change."

“Any non-family-based collectivity [any social-based institution] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing [liberating, i.e. revolutionary] impact on that relationship.” (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society)

Brown knew that when a momentary liberation of sensuousness and spontaneity (in a non-threatening environment), where nature (in this case the group) is drawing the child (the patient or client) to unite with it, i.e. to play with it (play incorporates the wanting of a gratifying object and having the freedom to control it for purpose of continued personal pleasure, i.e. aggressive side of beauty and freedom, i.e. the creator, i.e. the stimulator), and the child's nature is drawing him to be at one with nature, i.e. the group, to display for it, perform for it (the child being the object of gratification for others, willingly letting them have pleasure in controlling him, i.e. passive side of beauty and freedom, i.e. the object itself, in this case the child himself, being used by others for creation, i.e. the stimulated, stimulating the child for more stimulation), reasoning is liberated in the direction of the environment stimulating the pleasure of all (we think the person is being drawn to the group or object when in truth he is being drawn to the "liberating" experience, i.e. the heresiarchal environment which liberates pleasure—or at least the promise of pleasure, i.e. "rising expectations"), thus negating the patriarchal environment which restrains pleasure.  The child or adult chooses the one environment over the other as his base to reason from, gaining respect for one while become "justifiable" openly disrespectful of the other (if you have ever attended a facilitated meeting, a meeting where everybody is being 'driven' towards consensus you know the experience).  This is why it is so hard to restore the child, politician, minister, etc. once exposed to this process (like God taking Israel out of Egypt, few made it to the promised land, in their case, rejecting the patriarchal paradigm of law and restraint, i.e. rejecting God's promises—the promised land, which required walking by faith, i.e. trusting in him, instead seeking after the pleasures of the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the carnal things of past experience, i.e. Egypt, i.e. the leeks and melons; "We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes."  Numbers 11:5, 6), having their reasoning tied to the walking by sight, i.e. trusting in themselves and their own reasoning and thus free to "justify" the experience.  In this way their direction of reasoning is changed (i.e. their paradigm is changed from looking above, i.e. to parent or God) to looking below (i.e. to their human nature for the answers to life's problems, i.e. life's problems being mostly those things which interfere with the approaching of pleasure, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm). 

"... memory of gratification is at the origin of all thinking, and the impulse to recapture past gratification is the hidden driven power behind the process of thought.” (Marcuse).

This process can be successful in replacing the patriarchal paradigm with the heresiarchal paradigm in the child (or the adult) providing the experience does not go too far or too fast and awaken the conscience of the child (the "father within").  In that case the child may reject the new experience, blocking it from his mind (i.e. his reasoning process) due to the fear of doing what is wrong (i.e. wrong according to the father's commands, i.e. the father's definition of what is right and what is wrong—what is good and what is evil) and thus from his experience (unless he willingly participates in the experience of the process, he will not "own it"). This is why "feedback loops" are necessary for the process to continue, periodically evaluating the changes which have taken place in the person for the sake of 'refreezing' the person (via consensus) on the new level before proceeding any further down the pathway of the process of change (this is why you must attend meeting after meeting after meeting, ad infinitum, ad nauseam). 

“In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy.” “Next comes a period of frustration and conflict brought about by the leader’s steadfast rejection of the concept of peck order and the authoritarian atmosphere in which the concept of peck order is rooted [a decrying, i.e. critical, i.e. unfeeling definition of the Patriarchal Paradigm]."  “The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness among the members of the group, accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness.” [an unstable stage] “In the fourth phase the members retain the group-centeredness and sensitivities which characterized the third phase, but they develop also a sense of purpose and urgency which makes the group potentially an effective social instrument.”  (Benne)

Any peripheral sensing of patriarchal presence, in person or in mind, can be detrimental to the liberating experience (same affect as the parent catching you doing something you were not supposed to do) if not properly dealt with in the beginning (negation of "peck order and the authoritarian atmosphere in which the peck order is rooted,"), i.e. freedom to share, no 'put downs,' no personal information which was shared in the meeting is to be shared outside the meeting—must keep our "dirty little secret," secret (i.e. circumventing parental restraint and therefore disobeying parental authority, i.e. practicing "incest", keeping "forbidden," "tabooed" behavior and thoughts now divulged to, accepted by, and displayed before the group, secret from the parents, etc.).  Incest is equated to social harmony (social harmony 'liberated' consensually by all participants and not 'forced' from above, i.e. retaining a "peck order" which would only be done for the preservation of the patriarchal family and patriarchal society).  The experience must void the restraining commands of a patriarch minded person seeking to preserve and propagate his paradigm, the traditional top-down family structure. 

This was Freud's desired outcome for his patients, he just did not know how to accomplish it socially without "exploding" civilization.  In other words, the traditional family is formed when the child abdicates his true nature (sensuousness and spontaneity) and accepts the restraints of the Father via the conscience (seen as spiritual, i.e. from above, restraining that which is below).  In the traditional family the child's reasoning becomes tied up with the authority of the Father, subject to that which is above his nature, rather than continuing to seek and justify harmony with his own nature and thus human nature itself.  His nature common to all mankind is thereby 'repressed,' i.e. the desire for sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. flesh and mind uniting with the environment of nature divided, i.e. his reasoning united with the one above against his fleshy nature, i.e. united with unnatural, restraining authority.  Under these conditions, where faith is being put into practice (i.e. the child is using a patriarchal paradigm to determine the values of life) theory and practice, both key to humanism and the world system, is being put to death.  "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Brown) “The most effective method for weakening the child’s will is to arouse his sense of guilt [remind the child of the Father's command regarding the situation].” “The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience [restoring the Father and his commands into the child's mind while he is participating in or being encouraged to participate in sin].”  (Fromm)

You can see why what happened in the Garden in Eden is so relevant today. Even though the woman, later named Eve, recalled the command of God, not to eat of the fruit of the tree or she would die (a paraphrase of what God said, not being what God said, key to the change process), the half-truth, i.e. the lie from Satan, that she would not die, removed her mind from the fear of judgment, i.e. making her equal with God, freed her to be her 'own person,' and thus freeing her to think (reason) for herself, now subject to the worldly environment, her reasoning now guided by the flesh (sensuousness and spontaneity) which loves the world. The dialectical structure practiced in the Garden in Eden is the same dialectical structure being practiced today.  They became disobedient children back then, and God still calls you a child today, hopefully no longer disobedient.  The question is whose child are you, God's, through belief in Christ (obedient in all things), or Satan's, through belief in yourself and the world system, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm of "change?"  The patriarchal paradigm can not save you but, without it, faith in God is not possible and without faith, i.e. belief, you can not be saved. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."  John 3:15

"Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 6:15

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw."  Ezekiel 16:50

Comedy plays an important role as a tool for social change.  When the goal is the liberation of sensuousness and spontaneity, which are repressed by patriarchal restraints (i.e. the Father figure), laughter can be utilized in bringing the process of change into the patriarchal environment without being openly detected and therefore resisted and  rejected.  Through the art craft of creating perceivable conditions, via media or entertainment, where the Father figure is not present and dialogue is the means of communication, the patriarchal culture can participate via the liberation and display of the imagination.  The two elements necessary for sensuousness and spontaneity to become 'reality' is found in a condition void of the threat of the Father figure, where for example, dialogue (and argument) between husband and wife and their associates can freely flow during changing situations.  When put into comedy format (entertainment), the Father and his family (the patriarchal home) can willingly participate in laughter, via the mediums of TV, radio, etc., unaware of the effect it is having upon the thought processes of the traditional home.  The experience itself changes them (desensitizing them, making them tolerant of ambiguity, i.e. the acceptance of "gray," or of differing "lifestyles").  We all laughed while watching Jackie Gleason in the show "The Honeymooners" participating vicariously in a situation of comedy where sensuousness and spontaneity (key elements of laughter) were liberated at the expense (i.e. absence in this case) of the Father figure, i.e. he was not present (which made the experience 'non-threatening' and therefore participatory, i.e. one can take part in the event without "hurting anybody").  Only the husband-wife, friends and associates structure was presented for the mental and emotional participation of the audience.  In this way the traditional home was temporarily, if only briefly negated, momentarily being replaced by the heresiarchal home (yet we wanted more of the same experience the next day or the next week at the same time).  In this way the American family let a dialectical home into our homes, calling it comedy.  Soap operas and other forms of entertainment (late night shows) continued the deluge of perceivable material for the changing of the American culture (exposing it to adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, etc in a non-judgmental environment, i.e. non dared express disapproval for fear of derision).  A culture war was put into practice (praxis) on the American public and the American public willingly participated, enjoying the experience. 

Comedy and jokes used from the pulpit accomplish the same effect in the church, keeping the parishioners awake in the pews, wanting to come back for more of the same next week, that is more moments of sensuousness and spontaneity (theory and practice), just like the secular audience.  The only difference being, it was done 'in the name of Jesus.'  Don't get me wrong, when most people quote Proverbs 17:22  "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." they equate the word laughter to a merry heart.  They are wrong. "A merry heart" is a heart of joy, i.e. the joy of the lord (spiritual), laughter being a byproduct of knowing God is faithful to his word (a patriarchal loving God).  It is not something you try to create to keep people's attention on God's word, or to keep them awake.  If someone falls asleep during the sermon, it becomes not a matter of missing the word of God but the joke that counts, i.e. "What did I miss?"  When people remember the joke and not the message or have to remember the joke to remember the message, the messenger was not sent from God.  While laughter is good (having a good time, when not mocking of and disrespectful toward the patriarchal paradigm, even in the home, i.e. if dad loses his balance and sits in a puddle you look into his eyes to see if he is laughing to determine your response, response based upon his position, i.e. the respect of office), it is not to be done at the expense of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. being disrespectful of the office of the patriarchal home or to humanize God, i.e. humanize his word, which is to take his word lightly and mock him (in which case God will laugh at those who decided to walk down the pathway of fools and he will mock those who do not fear him).  "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." James 4:7-10  "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as  desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof."  Proverbs 1:26-30

"Surplus with prestige and privilege connects with the domain of the sacred. We no longer give the surplus to God; surplus is in itself now our God."  (Brown)

Jürgen Habermas explained the method (the dialectical method and its continuum, i.e. taxonomy system) used to detect and overcome "the repression of needs and wishes," i.e. repression of the "compulsion of internal nature," a nature common to all mankind which must be liberated from what he calls "objectively superfluous domination," i.e. the conscience, i.e. "surplus repression," (The defiant child might think, "It is bad enough to have dad chasten me, but to chasten myself, to have to practice self-control, to be bothered by the conscience, is unbearable when my friends want me to join them in having some 'fun'"). "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will."  (Wheat)  If the dream of social harmony, i.e. world peace is to become a part of human consciousness, i.e. reality, the repression of the individual's social, i.e. humanist, identity (an identity seen as being blocked from the conscious mind by the repressive constraints of "authoritarians," i.e. repressive constraints used in an effort to maintain the institution of the patriarchal family, business, neighborhood, church, etc. i.e. institutional environments where the "moral relation" of above-below is absolute), "institutionally demanded repression" must be annihilated (all patriarchal institutions must be annihilated). By incorporating a continuum, i.e. a spectrum of opinions, which includes the patriarchal institution, they will naively participate, not knowing that their participation, i.e. the participation of the patriarchal minded person (within the village of dialogue, i.e. the participation of the conscience within the continuum, i.e. diversity, for the sake of unity, i.e. for the preservation of the institution) negates the patriarchal institution and revolutionizes the person, freeing him from the "repression" of his "needs and wishes," freeing him from "authoritarianism" over his "internal nature," liberating him to discover his identity within the "social norms" of the time, i.e. "social norms" no longer constrained by the "moral relations" of the patriarchal paradigm but now attached to the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' freeing him to join in the social project of annihilating the patriarchal paradigm.

"Through the repression of needs and wishes, it translates this constraint into a compulsion of internal nature, in other words into the constraint of social norms. That is why the relative destruction of the moral relation can be measured only by the difference between the actual degree of institutionally demanded repression and the degree of repression that is necessary at a given level of the forces of production. This difference is a measure of objectively superfluous domination. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes, suppress justified interests, call forth the reactions of suppressed life, and finally experience their just fate in revolution." (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest, 1968, publ. Polity Press, 1987. Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social) 

By measuring the level of restraint inherent within the institution (i.e. its moral relations), and the degree of change the person or people are (i.e. family is) willing to take to attain progress for the institution (or to preserve it), social norms can be changed (i.e. liberated from the restraints of the institution).  Social relations outside the home (i.e. the institutions the family participates in) carry this tension.  By finding the tension between belief and behavior inherent in any social relationship (institutional life), and using it, i.e. creating 'cognitive dissonance,' the family structure can be destabilized in its attempt to maintain social relations, i.e. the institution.  Its "objectively superfluous domination" can thus be negated as the people are, i.e. the family is moved (liberated) in the direction and to the level of change which they are willing to take for the sake of preserving or advancing the institution.  The old Marxist Waltz: take two steps forward until they squeal, then take one step back and they will all be on board, thinking the idea of change was theirs (taking ownership of change) if noticing the change at all since they already had that much change going in their behavior, i.e. already ignoring (tolerating) differences for the sake of unity.

To introduce the continuum into the classroom is to change the world.  To change the classroom from obedience toward authority or seeking to know and serve God above, living by faith, to questioning authority or being god and serving god (mankind) below and living by sight is diabolical.  This is a continuum of evil, calling itself good.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  Hebrews 11:1, 6

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

It is not simply the items or things a person has faith in, items or things not yet evident, but is also the source of that evidence which is key to having faith.  For the patriarchal paradigm, the source of the evidence, or the one to have faith in, is the person in the office of higher authority, God or the parent, who reveals by command or truth (to be accepted by faith) what is not yet seen or understood intellectually, i.e. experientially, i.e. reasonable (not by private interpretation).  Therefore what you know is not based simply upon human experience but is based upon how you think, i.e. setting your mind on things above.  All men are under God's authority (the soul of man that is), but since we all have fleshly bodies we are materially the same in our sin nature while being materially different in our makeup, i.e. the man's body is different than the woman's body, and the children's body is different than the adult's body, then, because of our temporal makeup, the man is to rule over the woman, under God, the desire of the woman's heart is to be toward her husband, under God, both her husband and God her source of security—spiritually God, temporally the husband—and the children are to honour their parents, i.e. obeying them, in the lord. (If your skin crawls at the thought of this you are under the influence of the heresiarchal paradigm.) The earthly father, temporal, is under the authority of the Heavenly Father, Spiritual, in the patriarchal paradigm, a top-down system (as is the wife and children spiritually, but in that order temporally). 

In the heresiarchal paradigm, since the temporal, i.e. diversity, is synthesized to the spiritual, i.e. redefined the zeitgeist, i.e. the spirit of the time, both the spiritual and the temporal continually synthesize into one, i.e. moving diversity into unity. All, dialectically, are becoming one (God, man, and nature), as man moves away from setting his minds on things above, that is contrasting things below not thinking about things above, i.e. not living in faith, and learns to set his mind on things below, that is comparing things above with things below (negating that which is above), i.e. living and weighing life through the moment (increasingly reasoning sensuously and spontaneously), within the human experience, both in theory, i.e. in his thoughts, and in his practice, i.e. in his daily actions.  Therefore, to have validity, knowledge (or evidence of purpose) must be acquired through experience (through that which is temporal, common to all men below, i.e. social, i.e. thus man's spirit is dialectically bound to space and time, i.e. measurable and therefore, ironically, nothing is impossible to mankind since, thinking dialectically, nothing outside his temporal imagination can inhibit his potential, i.e. "If we work together, we can make it happen."), and is not to be tied to "blind faith," a 'condition' where temporal life is 'limited,' i.e. judged by things above (that which is heavenly, not of this world, i.e. God, i.e. Spirit not limited by space and time, i.e. immeasurable, without "shadow of turning." James 1:17).

To put this in patriarchal perspective, our earthly father is not perfect, i.e. their content, i.e. commands and promises may be in in error, but their office is.   If your father tells you not to bring up the gospel in his home, then you honour his command, despite him being wrong (continuing to pray the Lord would change his heart or provide a way).  (A commercial,  propagandizing socialism, goes like this: "You don't have to be perfect to be a perfect dad."  This statement intentionally deceives the public into thinking the office is not perfect since it is humanistically based, i.e. imperfect dads are perfect dads.  The father is to be perfect as God is perfect.  A truth the commercial seeks to negate by visualizing the office with humanistic eyes.) To focus upon common content or issues, which may be good in themselves, and making them the common ground of our being, i.e. our purpose in life, i.e. setting our mind on things below, is to negate the purpose of the office of authority, to set our minds on things above, be it parent or God.  It is easy to 'shift' from above to below since it is our nature, i.e. since our senses are directly tied to the things below and our human nature gravitates in that direction.  Thus a paradigm 'shift' only needs a facilitator, a heresiarch, i.e. whose purpose is "to make change easy," to make a world which God created to be under his authority (Spiritual, i.e. depending upon faith) into a world of continuous 'change,' i.e. heresy (temporal, i.e. depending upon sight), under man, i.e. Satan's control (Antichrist). 

"For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its ‘obedience to laws.'" (Lukacs)

In the heresiarchal paradigm, it is not "what" you know that is of greatest issue, it is "how" you came to know whatever it is you know (how do you determine reality, i.e. what is real, i.e. worth knowing), i.e. which paradigm did you use to acquire knowledge, i.e. learned how to reason (what kind of environment were you raised up in), i.e. to direct you in your actions (praxis), thereby creating reality. Crisis forces you to make a decision.  How you make that decision determines your paradigm. Therefore only when you are under the pressure of a crisis, will you reveal your paradigm, thus revealing where along the continuum you are at any given moment. In this way your reality (your history), whether it is "irrational" (from above) or rational (from below) will become manifest.  Then by the reshaping of the environment, by the exclusion (removal) of "irrational" information ("inappropriate" information, i.e. information which supports the patriarchal paradigm) and "irrational" behavior ("inappropriate" behavior, behavior which demands the use of the patriarchal paradigm) in resolving the crisis, a person's perception of reality can be changed.  If what is rational (temporal) is real, then what is real (temporal) is rational.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."  John 14:6; 6:44

Without the word of God man can not know God.  Man can not know God without having faith in Him and his word.  Without faith in God man can not please God. Man can not please God and love this world. Therefore the dialectical objective is to change perception (reality) from that which is above, via faith in the word of God, to that which is below, via human understanding (perception) of God's word.  In this way Jesus' statement, "I am the way," is changed from the patriarchal paradigm into the heresiarchal paradigm by the human praxis of dialogue ("How did you feel when ...?" and What did you think when ...?"), his way is changed into the 'people's' way (the 'people's paradigm) by people seeking consensus (it is the process of finding social harmony and not finding any one final, fixed position which is the desired outcome) "in Jesus name."  "I am the truth," is changed when the paradigm is change in defining truth, i.e. how it is being defined.  Since human perception (sight) determines human reality, and human reality determines what is truth, then when man's perception, i.e. his opinions of Jesus' words, determines the truth of his words, the relevance of his words in any given moment is determined by the situation at the moment. Therefore, when man's perception of Jesus' words determines reality, reality is now based upon human experience and human understanding.  "I am life," is therefore changed into sensual life, the life which correlates with life in the perceived reality of social harmony, i.e. love (Eros can now be called agape with everyone's approval).

"In our society it appears that the irrationality of the arrangement of this society is manifesting itself in countless moments... in certain forms of production ... especially in small and medium-sized farms.  It can be said that a permanent agrarian crisis has existed for perhaps 150 years, and has merely been interrupted by the 'blessing' of periodic wars and famines."  (Theodor Adorno  Introduction to Sociology)  emphasis added  [This shows you the heartlessness of those who push this process, using crisis as a vehicle for change.]

Thus all mankind must be put under pressure, i.e. put into crisis (micro-terrorism) and then evaluated as to how he responds in the crisis, i.e. which paradigm he turns to for solution or escape, if change agents are to find out whether man either holds to set knowledge and truth, i.e. remains unchanging, i.e. "fundamentalist" (identifying him as having been educated in a patriarchal environment), or whether he is changeable, i.e. adaptable in his knowledge, i.e. the "purpose" of life being based upon experiential discovering, i.e. reasoning must be relative to the situation he finds himself in (identifying him as having been re-educated, i.e. the brain washed of a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. rigidity), in a heresiarchal environment ("enlightened," revolutionary, i.e. a "changeable" minded person, i.e. "always in the process of becoming," i.e. always demanding leisure and guaranteed sustenance, i.e. the Garden in Eden experience only this time without a demanding, inhibiting, unreasonable, patriarchal God around), not only for himself but for all others, in theory and in practice (the Genesis 3:1-6 praxis, i.e. what I call Satan's anti-Genesis project), i.e. don't just dream of a world freed of parental restraints (Godly restraints), get rid of the system itself which initiates and sustains parental restraints (Godly restraints), i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, by the praxis of patricide. The overall agenda is the "disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family." (Marcuse)

“One is always in the process of becoming.” (Ann Robinson quoting in Maslow, Management)

"At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist  and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness.”  (Rogers) 

At the one end of the continuum the unprocessed person sees things as right and wrong, good and evil, black and white, as laid out by a higher authority, and avoids evil and those who promote and praxis it, while at the other end of the continuum the processed person will be a revolutionary, a facilitator, a deceiver for the "good" of mankind.

“Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose.”  (POW Major David F. MacGhee responding to brainwashing attempts, i.e. therapy, by the North Korean army, January 19th, 1953)

“Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself  ‘What would my parents want me to do?’ During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?’” (Rogers)

The matriarchal paradigm. You can not go from God's patriarchal paradigm (the purpose in life is to obey the father; faith, i.e. the father rules, i.e. the obedience of Christ; again, while dad and mom may not be perfect, the office they serve in is, i.e. it is the office of authority given by our Heavenly father to our earthly father, as imperfect as our earthly father might have been, that we might comprehend his paradigm) to the beast's heresiarchal paradigm (the purpose in life is to question everything; "critical theory," i.e. the "child within" rules, i.e. obedience to the brotherhood of mankind in touch with human behavior; because dad and mom are not perfect, the thinking is, their office of authority is the root cause of public-private "neurosis," and "neurosis" can only be overcome by detaching individuals from the one above (who expects perfection when we can not do it), i.e. negate the office and its effect, and reconnecting them to the social below, i.e. building society upon human relationship skills while "fixing" things, i.e. the facilitated meeting is not just about fixing a bridge, it is really about "fixing," i.e. neutering the fear of God in you) without first going through the adulterous-whorish, matriarchal paradigm (getting in touch with your feelings, feelings triggered by something within the environment drawing you, with the enticer beckoning you, i.e. being driven by "feelings," i.e. "sensuous needs" of pleasure, and security and peace (secretly in a "safe zone"),  i.e. the seducing woman; see Revelation 17). "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

“A new world is not built by changing the ‘old’ to the ‘old’ ..., but ... by freeing the child to build his generation from his new blueprint.”  (Wilbur Brookover, Socialization in the School)

“Every effort must be made and all means employed to guard future generations against the influence of the rigidity of the old generation.” “The principle weapon on the arsenal of freedom is each new generation’s tremendous urge to be free. The possibility of social freedom rests essentially upon this weapon and not upon anything else.” (Reich)

Abraham Maslow, who thought highly of Wilhelm Reich (a man who practiced incest, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. from an early age on), wrote in his journal: "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate free-animality-humanness.  It's the easiest to take.  Must encourage it. Only trouble is, I feel uneasy allying myself with nuts, fringe people, borderline characters, e.g. as in this number of ANKH; the tipoff―there are only young, shapely, & beautiful bodies." "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings."  "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa."  ". . . I’ve decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like."  "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the humanistic. (Better add to definition of “humanistic” that it also means one species, One World.)" "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first—it certainly doesn’t amount to much now & won’t until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'"  (Maslow,  Journals)

“Confronted with the rigidity of the adult ... one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individual's life, and since the earlier the influence the more profound it will be, attention becomes focused upon child training.” (Adorno)

"The recent transformations in parental roles in the Western nuclear family have made children more independent. Their socialization thus comes more and more from school, youth groups, and from the workplace, once they enter it. This freedom is a two-edged sword. Being open to many influences can make children more well rounded [no longer bound to parental restraints], but the lack of clear guideposts can lead to a kind of relativism that stunts their moral development [the socialist kind of relativism is underdeveloped]." www.thebrain.mcgill.ca  THE BRAIN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM ANATOMY AND FUNCTION ANATOMY BY LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION SOCIAL, INTERMEDIATE

"Mass media, and an ever-increasing range of personal experiences, gives an adolescent social sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family."  "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers."  "The old ‘levers’ by which children are motivated—approval or disapproval of parents and teachers—are less efficient." "Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." “The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community.” “In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The ‘natural processes’ by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them.” (Coleman) 

Your public school does not openly display the Ten Commandments on its walls, allow the reading of God's Holy Word, or prayer in Jesus name because of this man's "research" which helped our highest courts "justify" their decisions.  He has more impact in your life than you know, or maybe care to know.

"Due to authoritarian system and ideologically narrow prescriptions of our society [Ene - Silvia Sarv writing about Estonia just "freed" from communism], people have not gone through, not experienced for example the era of psychoanalysis [Traditional, hard line Marxism, lacked the synthesis of Marx and Freud, i.e. social-psychology, i.e. Transformational Marxism], missing is the experience of plurality [plurality is beyond right and wrong, i.e. along a continuum or survey of  agree, most agree, disagree, most disagree, etc, effectively negating right and wrong thinking, i.e. negating a patriarchal paradigm], but there is the experience, that someone is out there who can decide and knows that is right, what is wrong, what is forbidden (religion, genetics, some books and films...). What follows is under-developed  reflective capacity [inability to question authority, i.e. the lack of social consciousness i.e. they have not, as yet, been 'detoxified' of the fear of judgment from above] and weak capacity for long-term projective view [they lack a vision of globalism, i.e. a world freed from a judgmental, inhibiting, prohibiting, patriarchal paradigm]."  Thus, according to Ene - Silvia Sarv, there needs to be an "(an ongoing process) a change of paradigms."  [The same ideology of Transformational Marxist, concerning American Education, is reflected in Estonia's Education system today, as every nation must participate if the process of change is to be successful in all corners of the globe.]

The empowered woman, freed from the patriarchal paradigm, empowers the beast, the heresiarchal paradigm. If the woman can not be empowered, but remains subject to the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. accepting of her husband's authority, she is classified as "the nuclear essence of transcendental evil power ... the bad or evil mother. . . against which the infants cry had proved of no avail.”  (UNESCO Tensions that cause war) When women are still under the "control" of the patriarchal paradigm, they are, according to the heresiarchal paradigm's definition, damaging their children, i.e. not allowing their children the freedom necessary to experience their own humanistic nature, because they, as mothers, do not feel free enough to experience their own humanistic nature. "In fact, children learned to obey the prevailing order at their mother's knee, despite the potential for an alternative social system implicit in the traditional matriarchal ethic of warmth, acceptance, and love [i.e. the mother still carries the law of the patriarchal father, i.e. "the prevailing order," into the lives of the children, thus defeating her humanistic "purpose" of delivering her children, via. her "warmth, acceptance, and love," as well as herself from the patriarchal paradigm]."  (Jay)  Since the mother, i.e. the woman, is the socializing object, i.e. the object of gratification wanted by both husband and child, she has the potential of joining both the husband-father, i.e. the patriarch and the children, i.e. the heresiarch, into one unite, i.e. by means of the negation of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide) through the actualization, i.e. the praxis of the heresiarchal paradigm (incest).  She is key to the agenda of "change," moving the environment from fixity (prejudice), the husband rules, to flux (tolerance), the children are free to be "themselves," both sensuously and spontaneously.  She is the pathway to social harmony, i.e. the negation of the top-down subordination system (the rampart of prejudice). The relationship between the way women are identified and social harmony, "the masses," i.e. the children, are correlates the dialectical process must recognize and build upon if it is to overcome prejudice, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the barrier to the democratic, socialist, communist, globalist, etc. (commonist, i.e. "communitarianist") agenda for "world unity," i.e. global dominance, i.e. domination. “The phenomena of ‘contempt for the masses’ and the subordination of women were considered examples of ethnocentrism . . .” “Can the attitude that ‘women's place is in the home’ be considered a prejudice? It would appear that it is so”  (Adorno)

“When the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming.” “The major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person, or the other group.” “the whole emphasis is upon process, not upon end states of being … to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming, that we can find a pathway toward the open society.”  (Rogers)

You can not go directly from the patriarchal paradigm to the heresiarchal paradigm:  free the children from the authority above, i.e. the father figure, by having the authority figure abdicate his office of authority to become as a child, i.e. to be like a child (one void of laws and rules which inhibit nature stimulated inquiry into the environment), i.e. to be at one with the children (negating his office of authority), i.e. discover his "child within," i.e. expose and act out (praxis) his resentment toward authority, i.e. initiate and sustain change.  You must first begin the process of change by empowering the matriarchal paradigm (who mediates compromise between the father and the children, based upon feelings).  A woman's nature is to tend and befriend—because of a chemical her body naturally produces called oxytocin which blocks her from fight and flight, therefore, she does not produce man's nature and when empowered tends toward bitterness and ruthlessness (i.e. find common ground for the children's sake, i.e. turning the heart of the woman away from the husband and toward the children and herself).  This is why those who praxis (practice) the heresiarchal paradigm always begin with initiating and sustaining the matriarchal paradigm (feelings, i.e. the "tend and befriend" nature of the woman) focusing upon women's rights and the "rights" of children.  The subtle "shift" of emphasis from obedience to the father, to the feelings of the children (in the end the children rule, they are the heresiarchal paradigm), i.e. their wants moves any discussion from a patriarchal paradigm to a patriarchal-matriarchal paradigm. The continuum continues on from there to a matriarchal-patriarchal, matriarchal, matriarchal-heresiarchal, heresiarchal-matriarchal, to an eventual heresiarchal paradigm. Notice that in the garden, Satan (a heresiarchal paradigm) went to the woman first, empowering her (Genesis 3:1-6²), while God (a patriarchal paradigm) went to Adam first, questioning him for his actions (praxis) (i.e. "Who told you ....?" (Genesis 3:9-12)).  Satan in fact had no power in the garden until the woman empowered him, through her participation with him and his heresiarchal system, through dialogue, i.e. "discovering" her humanity, her potential, her cosmic identity, i.e. who with his help, i.e. his facilitation, i.e. which means to make "change" easy, became empowered as well, i.e. to be "her own person." The first consensus meeting took place in the Garden in Eden, with the assistance of the first facilitator (the first "I will") helping the woman and Adam come to their "I will" to negate "Thy will be done."  Your willful participation in finding consensus in a facilitated meeting empowers the facilitator, the taker of your liberty under law, under God. 

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife [Matriarchal Paradigm, i.e. dialogue], and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee [Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. preach and teach], saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."  Genesis 3:17-19

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." "Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself until the materialist spell that is cast upon the reproduction of social life, the Biblical curse of necessary labor, is broken technologically [God's curse upon man because of his sin can be overcome by the use of the heresiarchal paradigm, which the woman used in Genesis 3:1-6, only now available to everyone through the use of facilitation, dialogue, and consensus, i.e. the "New World Order"]."  "... the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life, which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers."   (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest, 1968, publ. Polity Press, 1987. Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)  emphasis added

Redding's Change-Acceptance Scale is used to show when to bring a facilitator or a change agent into a teacher training environment.  A facilitator is utilized when it is necessary to use deception and seduction in an effort to avoid being detected and closed down.  A change agent is utilized when it is necessary to use greater pressure to move participants deeper into the process.  The Redding Scale is an example of how the process is used, in this case, in teacher training.  It is used during in-service training to move people from a patriarchal paradigm through a matriarchal paradigm into a heresiarchal paradigm.  As shown, those labeled as 0- are seen as saboteurs.  They are teachers or administrators who work to derail the dialectical process and its intended outcome.  That intended outcome is the negation of the patriarchal paradigm. Behaviors labeled as 1-slowdown, and 2-protest, are people who can not be easily moved into participation with the process and are recognized as resistors to change.  At these stages on the scale (i.e. continuum) "participants" are actually seen as fighting against themselves, rejecting their own nature.  In fighting against the process of change they are dialectically perceived as denying their democratic (socialist, communist) identity. They must therefore be neutralized, marginalized, or removed, before others can be moved toward acceptance and willful participation in the heresiarchal paradigm. At these stages on the scale (i.e. continuum), "participants" are actually seen as fighting against themselves, rejecting their own nature.  In fighting against the process of change they are dialectically perceived as denying their democratic (socialist, communist) identity. They must therefore be either converted or else neutralized, marginalized, or removed, before others can be moved toward acceptance and willful participation in the heresiarchal paradigm. At levels 3-apathy and 4-indifference, conversion is just around the corner so more pressure is needed to keep those ensnare by the process from abandoning ship and causing the process to stalemating.  By levels 5-acceptance, 6-support, and 7-cooporation, the facilitator is brought back into the meeting (the facilitator and change agent can be the same person, it is only the procedure being used which changes) to assist those already converted into learning how to convert others into the process of change as well, i.e. helping those less fortunate than them, i.e. those lacking an understanding of their socialist nature to understand their "unhealthy" condition and "change." (See the article on brainwashing.) By level 8-committed participants have become 'preachers and teachers' of the dialectical system of change, committed to the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide) through the praxis of facilitation, dialogue, and consensus (social incest), i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm.

The truth is liberating.  It will liberate you from your job, promotion, good grades, next term in office, respect from the community, etc. "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:14 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"  Ephesians 4:14, 15  "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:10

For the dialectical process to be promoted in education, in governmental departments, in the workplace, and even in the mega-church (i.e. Church Growth, Emergent Church, dialectical church, i.e. apostate church) it is important that accomplices understand the system of change (i.e. know how and when to initiate it and how to sustain it).  To move up the system, skill in the utilization of dissatisfaction is essential.  The trick is to focus upon internal dissatisfactions and external dissatisfaction and use them in such a way as to produce "change" in paradigm.

"Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known."  Deuteronomy 11:26-28

Internal dissatisfaction is recovered from the person's subconscious mind in the form of the word "ought."  "Ought" is the internal word expressed to oneself when they have to submit to a higher authority against their will, i.e. being "forced" against one's carnal will to use the patriarchal paradigm to keep things the way they are for the higher authorities sake, i.e. the status quo.  Preventing the one under submission from doing what they want to do naturally produces internal dissatisfaction against the condition of restraint. When the action of acquiring an object of gratification within the environment is suppressed, the only thing available is found within the imagination and the phrase "I ought to be able to ...."   Traditionally, the only resolution, for the one under submission, is to either do the externally desired thing, i.e. suppress the internal desire, i.e. obey the higher authority (and be "blessed," i.e. not to be chastened), or do the internally desired thing, i.e. disobey the higher authority (and be "cursed," i.e. be chastened).  But in either case the patriarchal paradigm is kept in place.  The dialectical process offers another choice, that of treating the higher authority as irrational (internally) and therefore as irrelevant (externally).  Those who participate in the dialectical process do things differently, they praxis "change." This is the same paradigm "shift," i.e. change, which took place in the Garden in Eden, where the God above was replaced with the god (gods, i.e. human nature and the creation) below.  See Genesis 3:1-6. 

Helping people to make sense out of life, thereby bringing them to consensus: The catalyst for change, other than the internal dissatisfaction against conditions of restraint, is found in the nature of things, i.e. the crisis of life (the 'decision' moments in life).  Therefore, instead of simply focusing upon internal dissatisfaction, and keeping things as they are, i.e. keeping the patriarchal paradigm in place, if the focus includes external dissatisfactions, i.e. the current conditions interfering with the status quo, i.e. the patriarchal desire to return to the way things were, then both the internal dissatisfaction and the external dissatisfaction could be overcome at the same time.  By getting those with external dissatisfactions (the bridge is washed out) to focus upon internal dissatisfactions (your hurting other peoples feelings) and those with internal dissatisfactions (I don't like being told what to do) to focus upon external dissatisfaction ("We" need to fix the bridge) both dissatisfaction can be overcome by becoming united in overcoming dissatisfactions. The crisis can be overcome for one of two reasons, i.e. for one purpose 1), to restore things back to the way they were, or 2, to change things from the way they were to make them "better."  These two purposes can be interpreted from a patriarchal perspective, i.e. external conditions restored to the way they were or better with higher authority still in control.  But this condition, seen from the perspective of the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the fixing of the external dissatisfaction (fixing the bridge) while keeping the internal dissatisfaction of others in place, must be negated if social control over man is to be feasible. From a heresiarchal perspective, everything must be changed for the "better," i.e. both external and internal conditions must be changed.  By fixing the internal dissatisfaction, incorporating the paradigm of internal dissatisfaction in solving crisis (the main objective of the consensus process), the external dissatisfaction, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, is negated.  The crisis when mediated by a facilitator is only used to bait the patriarchal paradigm into the trap of global dominance.  In this way the patriarch came into the meeting to fix the bridge when in reality the meeting was all about "fixing" him. 

“[A]ccording to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself.”   (Marcuse)

“‘The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons.... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.’” (Freud Civilization and Its Discontents)

Fixing the "health care system" is not dealing with a person's physical, mental, and social health, or abortion and euthanasia would be outlawed.  It is all about fixing the person's internal dissatisfaction against the patriarchal paradigm (the restrainer of sensuousness and spontaneity), i.e. the conscience.  It is a system set up for the "purpose" of social life, using Socratic critical thinking (the dialectical process) as its means of achieving a heresiarchal paradigm. “Only by bringing out the child’s own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts [i.e. go beyond his current perception of the world, i.e. redefining reality though the praxis of synthesizing reasoning and sensuousness, i.e. initiating and sustaining change].” (Richard Paul Critical Thinking Handbook a workbook being used in the classroom, utilizing Socratic critical thinking for the purpose of "problem" solving)  This is the paradigm which the Supreme court turned to in "legalizing" the killing of the unborn.  Socratic thinking defines life as beginning at birth and not at conception.  The latter is a Hebrew-Christian, patriarchal paradigm.  According to Piaget, Socrates was executed for two reasons: 1) the moral corruption of the youth and 2) the destruction of faith in God, i.e. the gods above. 

“Child development experts ["mental hygienists"] have discovered that the most important step in producing a mentally healthy child is to select for him parents.”  (Remmers and N. L. Gage  Educational Measurement and Evaluation   Bloom uses Remmers book as part of the foundation for his Taxonomies, i.e. Cognitive and Affective domains)  bracketed information added

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." 1 Peter 5:5

Under the influence of those pushing the dialectical process, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm with is internal dissatisfaction toward patriarchal authority, social health, i.e. incestuous freedom, requires the redefining of the values and purpose of life.  It's drive for "change" (from the patriarchal paradigm to the heresiarchal paradigm) can only be achieved by finding the internal dissatisfaction of a person under subordination to higher authority, i.e. making them conscious (conscientization; "class consciousness") of their "suppressed life" under a patriarchal paradigm, be it God, the husband, the parents, the constituents, the boss, the traditional teacher, the traditionally minded neighbors, etc. while using the external dissatisfaction of the current crisis to bring all into participation within the subtle and complex process of change, i.e. through the use of the combination of facilitation, diversity, dialogue, consensus, and social issues, to solve the crisis, i.e. how to fix the people, i.e. change their paradigm (while they are simply trying to fix the crisis), i.e. change their personal use of the patriarchal paradigm to the use of a heresiarchal paradigm, while fixing the crisis, i.e. changing the public's perceived acceptance of the patriarchal paradigm to now accepting the use of the heresiarchal paradigm in solving crisis thereby effectively negating the acceptance of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the crisis from then on includes the fixing of anyone using the patriarchal paradigm in their effort to solve the crisis, i.e. the neutering of the patriarchal paradigm for the sake of world pleasure and peace, i.e. the liberation of homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, i.e. abomination.  Therefore the crisis of a young girl tossing her new born baby into a dumpster because she had better things to do with her life, like going to a party with her friends, can dialectically be resolved in the "wiser choice" of having an abortion.  In this way the conscience is not involved since social perception (i.e. the voice of the dialectical village, the super-ego) would accept the abortion as being humane.  In his way the god of dopamine (of pleasure, love of the flesh, i.e. the world), i.e. sensual health, i.e. physical, mental and social health, negates the God above.  From then on any opposition to the "health care system" is seen as ignorance and therefore, if resisted, treated as "heartless," i.e. hateful. 

“[T]he hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,’ ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality.”  (Marcuse)

“What is particularly important here is that recognition of one's own individuality is the basis for recognition of the individuality of everyone, and for the democratic concept of the dignity of man.” (Adorno)

Without identifying and utilizing the matriarchal paradigm's internal dissatisfaction to higher authority and his rules, dissatisfaction due to patriarchal commands coming into conflict with her natural desire to relate with the things around her.  Her nature to "tend and befriend" the things she loves, i.e. the desire of her heart, for herself, her children, and her friends, when "forcibly" turned toward her husband results in "the modifications and deflections of instinctual energy necessitated by the perpetuation of the monogamic-patriarchal family."  (Marcuse)  These feelings of dissatisfaction toward the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. resentment towards subordination, i.e. "lose of dignity," i.e. self-esteem, can be used by the heresiarchal paradigm to not only gain control over the matriarchal paradigm but can also be used to get her to fight against laws and people who accept and sustain the patriarchal paradigm.  By not focusing upon obedience to higher authority but rather focusing upon personal feelings, i.e. focusing upon human relationships, and then using these internal feelings of resentment toward laws which restrain her earthly cosmic desires—we all have dopamine, the want of gratifying objects—she can be changed into an agent for social change.  Collectively strengthened through consensus with others of like feelings, via media, community projects, volunteering, etc. the object of gratification, which is present within the environment (sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. the want not necessarily the gratifying object itself) can be used not just to silence any opposition, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, but can be used to be successful in gaining their participation, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm.  By bringing those with a patriarchal paradigm into participation (via. therapy, meetings, etc.), by their participation in dialogue within the meeting, the process of change takes place.  If not, the patriarchal paradigm is annihilated by force (by divorce), so that anti-social behavior, labeled as hate (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm) can be removed from the world via heresiarchal law's such as the "Hate Crime Bill."  In this way mankind can aim for social harmony and world peace.  Before this can be actualized however, all men, along with the women and children, must be under the control of (i.e. possessed by) the heresiarchal paradigm (i.e. the spirit of antichrist, i.e. the beast, i.e. the social animal) seducing all through force (when you can not buy or sell without the mark of the beast no one is forcing you or killing you, you just chose your own destiny, just don't expect anyone else to follow in suit since they have learned that to buy and sell they must be willing) to listen to and praxis the vain "imaginations of men's hearts," i.e. being in one accord.  That is the human nature of the beast.

"These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.   For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.   But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."  2 Peter 2:17-22  

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Romans 1:21-32

The "polymorphously perverse" thinking of those embracing the dialectical process goes like this:  Since animals do it, and man is simply a reasoning animal, i.e. social animal, then it is natural that man should do it.  Just because animals may behave in a way which is perverse, does not mean it is natural or right for a man to do it. "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."  Proverbs 26:11 Those who promote a life of abomination, because they see it in the animal world and have the urge within themselves to do so, must encourage the "eating of vomit" or the consumption of their own young if they are not to become hypocrites of their foolish ways, i.e. of their "wantonness," i.e. unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence, hardheartedness, rudeness, absurdity, recklessness, hedonism, uninhibited carnality, etc., etc. “During this special formative time, this period of psycho-social moratoria, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer by young people as they reflect on the ‘facts’ they have learned in a search together for ‘meaning.’”  (Richard J. Spady, November 18, 1994, The College and University Faculty Assembly, National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, Arizona) It is therefore imperative that the order which God created (i.e. the husband is to rule, the desire of the heart of the wife is to be toward her husband, and children are to obey their parents, in the Lord) be confused with "equality" so that perversity can become liberated, i.e. "come out of the closet," freed from Godly restraint, i.e. Pandora's box being opened. "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual ‘Pandora’s Box.'" "We are not entirely sure that opening our ‘box’ is necessarily a good thing; we are certain that it is not likely to be a source of peace and harmony among the members of a school staff [and between parents and children]." "To keep the ‘box’ closed is to deny the existence of the powerful motivational forces that shape the life of each of us... "'To develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shaped by the parents and guardians or by the peer group in the neighborhood'" produces "'conflict and tension between parents and children, between students, and peer groups who are not participating in the special opportunities.'" (Krathwohl, Bloom  Book 2  Affective Domain  p. 91)  “In a democratic process deviation is welcomed as a possible source of improvement in common ways of thinking and acting.”  (Benne)

"Seen in this way ( from patriarchal society’s depreciation of femininity), the cause of the homosexual is the cause of woman."  (Daniel Guérin ‘La répression de l’homosexualité en France’, p.1.) This praxis is an abomination before God

"Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing."  Deuteronomy 7:26

Women behind the pulpit open the door for homosexuals to "preach" their heresiarchal gospel from the pulpit.  No matter how hard those who support her praxis might believe, feel, or say, a woman taking the office of pastor (which is to "change" a patriarchal office, i.e. above-below, into a matriarchal-heresiarchal office, i.e. equal), no matter how much she might claim to be "preaching" the word of God, no matter how much she "loves" the congregation and is loved by the congregation, justifies and empowers a homosexual paradigm (a heresiarchal-matriarchal paradigm).  She is not a minister of the Word of God for the very Word of God does not support her praxis, i.e. the negation of the patriarchal paradigm.  Women, with their oxytocin, turn ministry into a "tend and befriend," matriarchal paradigm. Once empowered (which makes women bitter towards men, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm), in her stance of usurped authority (even though condoned by man, i.e. neutered men and not God), no one dare question her "profession" because of the loyalty of those who have fallen under her spell of "caring" and compassion, i.e. her cleaving nature, i.e. her embrace. They will support her praxis over the word of God, changing it, i.e. cutting and pasting it (Satan knows the scriptures and knows how to use them for his own outcome) to fit her apostasy, i.e. taking that which is not hers to take, i.e. to support her harlotry, "in the name of Jesus."  It is from this passion of loyalty to the matriarchal paradigm, that the heresiarchal paradigm derives its power.  Thus, anyone who questions the usurpation of the patriarchal paradigm by the matriarchal paradigm (sensuousness, i.e. the "life instinct" or pleasure) is labeled as being prejudiced and hateful. Those who praxis a heresiarchal paradigm are actually the ones full of hate (an "egoistic demand of a minority" ibid.) toward the patriarchal paradigm and will eventually destroy the matriarchal paradigm, after having used her for their own "purpose," i.e. the usurpation and the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm.  Those intoxicated with the heresiarchal paradigm hate and seek out, to destroy, anyone or anything which might expose them for what they think and do.  Only in the deception, i.e. the imagination, of a dialectical thinking person can two objects stand in the same place at the same time.  The truth is, life is an either-or situation.  It will always be an either-or situation.  Either you believe in the truth or you believe a lie.  Turning belief into an opinion, in an effort to circumvent truth (either-or), is simply the praxis of believing in and living a lie. When you do the dialectical process as a "Christian," basing God's work upon how you feel, what you think, and how you act towards others and how they act toward you, will not turn a lie into the truth, nor turn the truth into a lie, you will simply make yourself a liar.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21

“The Christian religion has been deeply affected by the process of Enlightenment and the conquest of the scientific spirit.”  (Adorno)

The liar believes: If a child, following his nature (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), strikes back at a parent who is inhibiting the child's natural desires (to have candy for example), it is up to the parent to explain (dialogue) to the child the necessity of restraint, i.e. for the cause of initiating and sustaining relationship with others, or provide another option to satisfy his "lust" for pleasure, appropriate to personal-social development (redirecting).  Thus, development for both the parent and the child, become social in nature (matriarchal), i.e. advantageous to the building of human relationships, without bringing harm to or destroying their personal earthly nature.  But if the parent enforces, i.e. by force or threat of force (patriarchal; preaching and teaching; inculcating), his rules of proper behavior upon the child, i.e. the child who is striking back at the parent, not making his rules changeable to the child's nature, then the parent is being hateful and destructive, not only to the child's personal and social development but to his own personal and social development as well.  Thus, according to dialectical thinking (the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the liar), the patriarchal paradigm is caused by the parent's own "unhealthy" upbringing, and must be negated either through therapy or through the use of "social environmental forces" (community pressure).  If their dream of a future "healthy" society is to become reality, it is imperative that their way of thinking become the platform for the advancement of Marxism (communitarianism) around the world.  In the end it has nothing to do with a "healthy" society, it has always been about the destruction of soul's of men, i.e. the removal of faith in God by the praxis of having faith in human reasoning, i.e. "leaning upon one's own understanding."  The use of scientific methods, which are properly used on rocks, plants, and animals, upon man is the use of "oppositions of science falsely so called," i.e. the use of the dialectical process, turning illusion into reality and reality into illusion, i.e. making man equal to God, i.e. making man the creator of all things good. 

"Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" 2 Peter 2:11

A charlatan has no power until he can empower (a charlatan has no power until he is empowered by those who listen to him and take his advice).  He becomes empowered when he is able to deceive those who are under a higher authority (God or parent shielding those under his care from the ways of the world, i.e. his rules being a hedge of protection from the world) into questioning the commands of that authority in the light of their own personal feelings (desires).  By getting them to think about themselves, and their possibility of, i.e. hope in, fulfilling their personal desires, i.e. by getting them to look (imagine) beyond their current conditions of restraint to a place and time where sensuousness and spontaneity freely exist, i.e. to put faith in the imagination and then to pursue the dream, the charlatan, i.e. the "coach," the facilitator, the guru, the pimp, the deceiver, the "wolf in sheep skin," the psychotherapist, the analyst, the counselor, the harlot carrying beast, etc. is able to get them to supply his "needs," i.e. his pleasures, he is able to get them to join him on the pathway of earthly pleasure, devouring their souls along the way. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."  "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21)  While the holy angels look upon the things done by God above (1 Peter 1:12), Satan (Revelation 12:9), the master facilitator (Genesis 3:1-6), "savors" the things of man below (Matthew 16:23).  Those who "savor" the things of men, follow him down his dialectical pathway.

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2, 3

 

"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."  1 Peter 1: 13-16

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  (1 John 2:15-18 emphasis added) 

Lust is human desire, i.e. intense desire (wanting a gratifying object), and sin is behavior, i.e. doing whatever is "necessary" to satisfy the intense desire against God's will or directing.  Lust is man looking upon that which stimulates desire, his being "drawn away" by temporal sensation  Sin is thinking and acting upon the actualization of that temporal desire, all of which is outside of God's directing, His will.  Any behavior within God's will, within his commands, within his directing, is not sin, i.e. is not lust or pride of life.  Behavior outside of God's directing, outside of His will is sin—behavior which is guided by the lust of the flesh, the drawing away of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, the internal entertainment of or play, i.e. imagination (image-nation), of the carnal heart's desires, i.e. the minds eye set upon the things of this world.  The pride of life, also done with the mind, using human reasoning to attain earthly desires, is knowing one's ability, i.e. potential, to comprehend and apprehend (become conscious off and praxis) the sensation of pleasure, i.e. directing one's own life, outside of or against God's directing, i.e. His will.

"... I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Romans 7:7)

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic [heresiarchal paradigm] or Christian [patriarchal paradigm]. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity.  It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled."  (Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd  727, 728, 1941)  [Roe v. Wade rejected COMMON LAW, i.e.

The heresiarchal paradigm's "logic" goes like this: if the love of the Father can be "synthesized" with the love of this world,  if bringing up the law, i.e. being judgmental, i.e. prejudiced, i.e. condemning, i.e. negative, i.e. tying man to standards of the past (laws above his 'here and now' situation and nature) which is detrimental to humanity, i.e. human relationship building, then man can love both God and the world when the negative attributes of God are negated in favor of God's love, where God's "nature" of caring for man and the world can be defined within ambiguous terms, then the guilty feeling for lusting can be negated.  By "rationally" rejecting Godly commands, defining them as archaic, man is set free from having to do God's will and can now follow after his own lust.  God's laws and rules, which restrain and inhibit human nature, were only a passing moment of neurosis, a passing moment of the past overcome through the emancipation of  human reasoning, liberated through enlightened mind.

It is just an issue of semantics, i.e. how you define love that is.  "Lust," and thus sin, is seen, dialectically, not as a "lust" or sin, but as a feeling of normal human behavior. What is natural to man is thus defined as rational.  Those things which are not natural to man, those things which restrains his human nature are non-human, irrational, and therefore irrelevant.  Thus objective truth outside of human comprehension, blocks man from loving God through his own natural way, with his own human nature, subjectively.  Those who go this dialectical route, men who still hold onto the idea of their being a God, are man who are trying to love God from an unregenerate heart.  Those who propagate this method within the church, i.e. the dialectical process, the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the use of  dialogue, consensus, diversity, etc. to find and fulfill "purpose" in life, have always sought to bring the Church into apostasy, i.e. to prostitute the bride of Christ.  Detaching "the obedience of Christ" from the obedience to His Father will to the love of this world, turns the issue of love from being possible only from God above, to human nature below (love no longer found in obedience toward, repentance toward, forgiveness from above, to love being tolerance of human nature).  In this praxis, in this subtle and complex way, the Heavenly Father is annihilated, His will is irrelevant, unless of course it fits within the human "purpose" of world peace and love, i.e. sin being the major issue between man and God (above-below) replaced with love being the major issue between man and man (below).

“... we cling to the position that Adam never really fell.”  (Brown)

"‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one’s father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same.” (Herbert Marcuse quoting Sigmund Freud) [There is no longer an author of restraining laws upon human nature or an authority to carry them out if the father is killed or if he abstains from his deed, i.e. chastening.  In this way we can keep God or the father around since he is no longer demanding things be done his way (the fear of God is negated).  Dialectically, i.e. by converting God into a heresiarchal paradigm, he is now user friendly, non offensive, readily adaptable to change.  The world has no animosity toward the gospel message as long as you keep the law out of it, i.e. keeping the Father around while negating his power, i.e. chastening, i.e. Hebrews 13.  In this way thieves and robbers think they can get into the sheepfold (circumventing the law of God which kills all flesh), "in the Lord's name," not having to got through Christ (who redeemed us from the curse of the law, not the law itself, which is now in our hearts), not having to take "every thought captive to the obedience of Christ."]

“The proletariat thus has the same right as has the German king when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse.” (Marx, Critique)

In dialectical thought, the children, i.e. the "proletariat," has the same right as the parent.  The parent, i.e. the "bourgeoisie," (the patriarchal home) is negated when those of the heresiarchal paradigm can call the parents' children their children ("our children") and when they can call the parents' belongings their belongings ("our community").  When the children call all that which the parents "horde," as theirs, the parents have no right to alienate their children from the world's children ("our world").  When the traditional parent and their children of obedience, anti-dialectical children who refuse to "question authority," hold possessions for themselves, dialectically, those things belong to the world, i.e. socialism-capitalism, communism, globalism, they must be annihilated.  Karl Marx added:  “Every class lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything.”  (ibid. ) This is the flesh speaking: Every child "lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with" children of the world, "that revolutionary," i.e. "question everything,"  "boldness which flings at its advisories," strikes back at the patriarchal parents, "the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything."  This is a sulking child having a temper tantrum.  “The only emancipation of German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy [discontentment towards authority], its heart is the proletariat [the rebellious nature of the children against parental restraint being put into social practice]."  (ibid.)  "The only emancipation of" the world "is the emancipation of" human nature, i.e. the liberation of the "child within."  "The head of this emancipation is" agencies like "The Child Protective Institutions" initiating and sustaining the children's dissatisfactions toward parental restraints, "its heart is" the children's desires, i.e. their "heart of hearts," to be loved according to their conditions, to be spontaneous and free to be their own selves.  These are the dialectical children and the agencies which serve and protect them, in their hate towards the restrainers of natural inclinations. 

For the patriarchal parent to base his conduct upon the child's "heart of heart," the child must be pure, i.e. holy. “Human perfection consists in an expansion of the self until it enjoys the world as it enjoys itself.”  (Brown)  Only God is pure and holy.  Perfection, i.e. righteousness is only found in Him.  For the dialectical mind though, the purity, i.e. the innocence of the child is found within his carnal human nature seeking relationship, i.e. unity, with the environment, i.e. with nature and the world.  According to Norman O. Brown, psychology sees the child in this way. “Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves.”  “Infants know no guide except the pleasure-principle.”  “Infants have a richer sexual life than adults.” “Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body.” “In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown; repression, (and consequently neurosis) distinguishes man from the other animals.” “Childhood remains man’s indestructible goal.” “The aim of Eros is union with objects outside the self.... Eros is fundamentally a desire for union (being one) with objects in the world.”  “The life instinct also demands a union with others and with the world around us based not on anxiety and aggression [which are associated with the patriarchal paradigm] but on narcissism and erotic exuberance.” “Dionysus affirms the dialectical unity of the great instinctual opposites: reunifies male and female, Self and Others, life and death.” (Brown)   Herbart Marcuse put it this way: “... the Orphic (flesh freely expressed in nature, i.e. homosexuality) and Narcissistic (flesh freely admired in nature; mankind "trying to grasp his own beauty" in nature, in society) images ... the erotic reconciliation (union) of man and nature in the aesthetic attitude ... order is beauty and work is play.”  (Herbart Marcus  Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud )

Here the idea of "theory and practice," so much a part of the dialectical process, comes into play.  Kant tied the theory to the mind and the practice to the senses and synthesized them in the "aesthetic attitude" via the sensation of beauty.  He did not tie them to practice, i.e. action, i.e. revolution though (Hegel tied them together in theory and then Marx put them into praxis).  It was the mind, tied to laws of restraint toward sensuousness, dialectically an un-natural environmental condition, which made the mind subject to what is called a belief-action dichotomy.  The belief-action dichotomy was the result of a person being "forced" to set their mind on things above, i.e. above their nature, against their nature, which alienated their mind (theory) from freely participating with their nature (practice).  Under these conditions, "theory" void of "practice," theory could only find freedom in the mind, via the imagination, not be externally it remained unpracticed.  The theory or thought of doing what was in one's nature remained locked up in the mind because it was suppressed by chastening or the fear of it. The only way theory could be liberated was through the negation of chastening or the fear of it. 

The patriarchal environment of obedience and chastening was called, by Kurt Lewin, the "field of force of an adult," i.e. a "negative force field" (Kurt Lewin) since it was counter to human nature and inhibited human nature.  This patriarchal environment was internalized by the development of the conscience which supported the patriarchal paradigm's position of authority (dominance, i.e. take dominion, rule, etc.).  Both conditions, the patriarchal authority, i.e. external, and the conscience, i.e. internal, limited or blocked the desired action (practice) due to physical punishment or the fear of it.  It was only in the mind, via the "aesthetic attitude," the imagination, that a person could find freedom of the mind (theory or opinion) and sustain any semblance of hope for unity with objects in the environment which originally stimulated the senses, i.e. "You can look (imagine) but can not touch (practice relationship with) the object of gratification within nature." But because of the external restraint of the physical force of the higher authority, and the internal restraint of the conscience, the fear of physical force of the higher authority, the mind united with the senses (sense perception, i.e. awareness of the object of gratification within the environment which stimulated the internal desire, i.e. the want) could not be realized in practice, i.e. openly experienced in public, nor could the person find freedom internally of thinking upon it, his own imagination was tormented with feelings of guilt.  Due to the external pressure of moral laws (beliefs and rules) which still resided in the public arena (i.e. parental authority and common law), the only refuge for the desire was found within the freedom of the imagination which itself was "damaged."

How do you overcome the belief-action dichotomy, i.e. the structure of the patriarchal paradigm, and its effect upon the individual and society, i.e. culture?  By creating an environment, an "experiential chasm" (a laboratory project, i.e. a "pilot project," as done by Satan, recorded for us in Genesis 3:1-6), whereby sensuousness and spontaneity could be rationally liberated again (only now done in a social environment to tie them to the "village") "change" away from the patriarchal paradigm could be initiated and sustained.  First an environment must be initiated and sustained which would allow freedom of the mind to be encouraged, where reasoning would be liberated freed from unnatural (patriarchal, spiritual) restraint.  An "open-ended" environment must be created so that all people can openly share their theories, share their opinions, share their sensuousness, share their heart's desires, and therefore look upon the forbidden object without the fear of reprisal from the patriarchal paradigm.  The very practice (praxis) alone negates the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the "preaching and teaching" of truth.  The very practice (praxis) alone negates belief.  The very act of participation (praxis) alone accomplishes the deed.  And secondly a "non-directed" environment must be initiated and sustained where freedom of the senses is encouraged, where spontaneity is liberated, where the senses are freed from the laws of restraint, so that the person can now openly participate with nature, can openly liberate "the child within" without being told "what to do," and "how to do it."  Only when these conditions of theory and practice are willingly put into practice (praxis), can a person of a group of people experience their true nature, can they be freed from the control of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. free from parental control and Godly restraint.  In this way identity is no longer found with the patriarchal paradigm but is instead found outside the patriarchal paradigm.  

By applying theory and practice to social work projects, i.e. volunteerism, public projects, etc. not only is the individual freed from the effects of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the belief-action dichotomy, the whole village is as well (praxis). Therefore, since all children have been damaged by exposure to the patriarchal environment, i.e. their human nature (below, i.e. earthy in nature) restrained by "inhuman," i.e.  otherworldly, i.e. anti pro-nature laws (above, i.e. spiritual in nature), their history must be exposed and they must be detoxified of the  "neurosis" of the patriarchal paradigm found within them, i.e. they must be re-educated, i.e. their brains washed of their prior loyalty to that which is above and reattached to that which is below, i.e. re-humanized, dialectically sensitized (sensitivity training).  Thus everyone is assumed guilty, patriarchally damaged, until proven innocent, i.e. their brain is washed of the effects of their loyalty to the anti-nature laws of the patriarchal environment.  A child is innocent of his actions because he "did not know any better"—which does not justly his actions and thus brings chastening in some form, i.e. verbal instruction, verbal warning, i.e. chastening or physical instruction, physical warning, i.e. chastening.  To apply this reasoning of innocents, by promoting the idea of "the child within," to adults, i.e. negating right and wrong thinking for the sake of sensuously "justified" reasoning, is debauchery.  But this is what is being processed dialectically into physical, mental, and social "health" today. 

Anyone resisting the process, i.e. refusing to participate in the process of change, or trying to derail the dialectical, heresiarchal train (new world order) must be identified as working against progress, against the betterment of life for mankind.  Whether they are working with others or not, i.e. others outside the system, they are seen as potentially if not actively working against those helping "the less fortunate."  Thus, according to national law and therefore global law, those with a patriarchal paradigm are perceived as perpetrating a "notorious crime against all of society." (Marx, Critique)  Therefore, according to dialectical reasoning, those with a patriarchal paradigm must be "ruthlessly" eradicated when "necessary."  (See Karl Marx's Feuerbach Thesis #4.)  "Once environmental-economic defects [i.e. having been raised in a patriarchal home, where a person learns to save money to better his life] had done their work during a person's upbringing-his defects of personality resulting from these social causes stuck with him, making him a member of a 'criminal' group of people."  (Kazimieri Grybowki-an essay-American Bar Association, Freedom of Expression and Dissent in the Soviet Union 1972, p. 33)  This logic, which was used to produce a "healthy" Soviet Union, is the same logic being used today for "public health."  Stalin, a Traditional Marxist, believed the "defect," of having been raised in a traditional home "stuck" with the person for the rest of his life, making him a permanent member of "a criminal group of people."  Those promoting the "health society package," i.e. social-psychologists, i.e. Transformation Marxists, believe that the person can be environmentally processed to health (what Carl Roger's call it therapy for "normals"), that is unless the person refuses to participate in therapy, at which time he will be treated as one belonging to "a criminal group of people."  Both Traditional and Transformation Marxist  arrive at the same outcome in the end, they achieve earthly power for a few, i.e. the facilitators for change, in the name of the many, i.e. "the grass roots."  The difference is that one takes longer to get to the outcome, having hope that "adaptability" to change can be more successful in the re-education, i.e. brain washing experience of the person rather than the outright use of brute force in the traditional Marxists theater.  While the Transformational Marxists use force in the first act, i.e. social pressure, in the last act they must uses brute force to remove all which is left of the patriarchal paradigm.  In this way the social infrastructure is less disrupted and there are more "happy" workers, i.e. volunteers to support the system, i.e. less workers are excluded, imprisoned, or shot, providing for more citizens laboring in the "positive force fields" of "social change and progress," i.e. putting their theory into practice into praxis upon "the less fortunate," i.e. those exposed to a patriarchal paradigm of faith in God and His Word.

“The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears.” (Kurt Lewin  A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935) [For more on this comprehensive statement by Kurt Lewin's, i.e. how to identify and then destroy the traditional home see the following: Rearranging the field to destabilize and "shift" a person's paradigm.  Internalized terrorism.  “The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." Karl Marx,  "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20,  Thus, according to dialectical reasoning.]

Thus, to the dialectical minded, i.e. enlightened "Christians" (Transformational Marxist "Christians, i.e. "humanistic Christians"), God's commands are not "wrong," they are simply irrelevant (illusionary), i.e. immaterial under "certain" conditions, i.e. since God is a God of Love first, and his law is "passed away."  For God to be relevant in contemporary times his law must be seen as a relic, viewed as an archaic artifact.  If the law is kept around at all it is to be something safely protected behind glass in a museum—only to be observed and discussed, as in a field trip experience, in a carefully controlled situation so as not to disturb the soul.  The law must be dialogued, i.e. "How do or did you feel when ....?"  "What do or did you think when .... ?" and not preached and taught as to expose man's nature as sinful, i.e. "Do you know the Law of God?"  The Apostle Paul spent a considerable amount of time explaining the purpose of God's law in Romans.  God can not separate his love from his law or his law from his love, as has always been misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally, i.e. out of ignorance) by "Christians" who want to keep in "contact" with the world, i.e. the flesh, on their own terms.  Their idea being "If we can cut, past, and rearrange God's word so that God we can be respected by one another, i.e. we can be respected by God, then we can keep our respect, i.e. our dignity as well.  As covered in other places in this article, the law is a tutor and can not save us.  It only reveals our sin.  It turns us to the need of a savior, to Jesus Christ.  Jesus did not negate the law.  He redeemed us from the wrath of it. Walking in the Spirit we, by the nature of the Holy Spirit, have the law living within us, not of our nature which it condemns, but now in his nature having the fruit of the Spirit which no law condemns (that is except Satan's dialectical laws of the flesh, i.e. the laws, fruit of the flesh which hate the laws, fruit of the spirit).  All those who are not in Christ Jesus will be judged according to the law.

The moment you say you deserve, your flesh is speaking.  Therefore you deserve alright.  You deserve Hell.  "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."  1 Corinthians 15:50

The breaking of God's law can be summed up as "taking that which is not yours."  This is a result of having a deceitful and wicked heart regarding every earthly situation (a dialectical heart), i.e. "What can I get out of this situation from myself?" i.e. what pleasure can I get out of the person or situation in front of me, for my flesh, even while doing something "good" for them, i.e. even doing it "in Jesus name." This is what makes non-profit organizations work, i.e. getting something for yourself out of the situation while doing something for someone else. The law silences this question, i.e. "What can I get out of this situation for myself?" with the realization that all is the Lords, including, not only the earth, but our very own life (our very next breath is a gift from him), and thus brings us to repentance concerning the first statement "taking that which is not ours,"  thus silencing us before God by exposing our humanistic, unrepentant, natural (deceitful and wicked) heart. While the law can not save us, we would not have known we were sinners without it, i.e. that we were outside of God's will. God, a God of Love, desires that all be saved, i.e. doing his will, i.e. having faith in him and being in obedience to him. God does not love sin, he loves you, but he does not love your sin, your dialectical praxis of love of the world.  Christ died for you while you were yet in sin, in love with this world and its pleasures, to redeem you from your sin and God's wrath upon it.  You hold onto sin, i.e. refuse to repent of your sin, i.e. refuse to repent for "taking that which is not yours," i.e. because you can not stop yourself from the praxis of "What can I get out of this situation for myself," (all you can ever do, even for God, is vanity, unless he directs your steps, i.e. you humble yourself before God, repent of your sins, receive Christ Jesus into your heart, and let him guide and direct your steps).  If you refuse to accept Christ Jesus into your heart and continue in your sin, his love for you can not save you from his Father's wrath upon you for refusing to repent of your sin.  Like a bomb dropped from a plane, if you keep holding onto it and refuse to repent before God of your flesh nature (your unregenerate heart and the love of this world), you go with it.  God's law is never irrelevant and out of date.  Paul loved it with his mind, i.e. Romans 7:25 even though it could not deliver him "from this body of death."  God's law is as much a part of the gospel as is His mercy and grace.  It brings us to a Patriarchal God.  Having said that, it is also important to know that we can never fulfil it, even after being saved.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:" Psalm 19:7

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."  John 10:1

To consider the law as irrelevant (or even adaptable to change) is to remove the very means of conversion.  It is the law, which is perfect, which converts the soul.  It is the law which bringing us to repentance for our wickedness before God. Without it there would be no condemnation, no offence to the flesh.  Without the law the flesh would be justified, and therefore there would be no need for mercy and grace. The wall separating man from eternal life is the law, i.e. the law which proceeds from the Father, the law which condemns the love of the flesh, i.e. the love of the flesh which proceeds not from the Father but is of the world.  Without the law there would be no awareness of man's sinful nature, i.e. his love of the flesh, i.e. his love of the world.  Without the law there would be no awareness of God's judgment upon sin, the love of the flesh and the love of the world (1 John 2:15).  No man can truly love the father, the giver of life and the world.  Our love, which is temporal (below), can only be towards the things of this world.  God's love, which is spiritual (above), can only be towards the soul of man, lost in his love of the world.  Due to God's law exposing and condemning man's love of his flesh, i.e. his love for the things of this world (a dialectical connection), loving those things which gives him pleasure in this life, man can not love both this world and God.  One love is death, since there is not life in it to begin with, the other love is life, since it proceeds from the giver of life Himself, God.  The only way, i.e. the only doorway, to eternal life, is through Jesus Christ.  Any effort on man's part to go around the wall (the law) which declares man dead in his sins, exposes him as a thief, trying to attain (take) that which is not his, life.  To consider the law of God as irrelevant, is to exclude the recognition of one's sin before God and the judgment of death.  To consider the law of God as irrelevant is to exclude the need for repentance for one's depravity before a Holy, Pure, Righteous, and Loving God. This is presumptuous, i.e. believing that man himself is capable of holiness, purity, righteousness, and love on his own effort “Religion, especially the Protestant Christian tradition, has permeated our culture with the concept that man is basically sinful, and only by something approaching a miracle can his sinful nature be negated.”  (Rogers)  Or "better" yet, thinking dialectically, that holiness, purity, and righteousness are not honourable or even desirable traits after all.  That even a "rational" attempt to attain them is counter to the proper development of human nature.  “I have little sympathy with the rather prevalent concept that man is basically irrational, and that his impulses, if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and self.” (ibid.)  In other words, this is the dialectical process of self-justification, the idea that man is not depraved, just uneducated. In this way, through the used of the dialectical process, man's flesh and the world can become united, and are therefore the standard for the "good" life.  By focusing upon the law of the flesh, considering it "rational," instead of the law becoming a barrier to human progress,  the law becomes "irrational," and therefore irrelevant (not worth bringing up). This is no different then what transpired in the Garden in Eden with Satan, the woman, and the tree, with Adam joining in to make it a consensus.  Those who bypass the law, even in sharing the gospel, go this dialectical route.   

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;   (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)  In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."  Romans 2:12, 16  

How can a judge have mercy on anybody when there was no law.  Without law, there would be no crime, and therefore no opportunity for mercy.  When people call you "judgmental," make sure they are upset with God's law, which condemns them, and not your use of it to condemn them.  It is God's mercy and grace which counts. Your mercy and grace is based upon vanity, what you can get out of the situation for yourself, outside of the curse of the law.  After all Jesus Christ himself was obedient to the law, obedient to His Father's will.  The law is not the problem, the heart of man is the problem, i.e. the "imagination of the thoughts of man's heart." "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."  "... for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; ..."  Genesis 6:5; 8:20-excerpt  "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:20  "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."  "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;"  Romans 1:21; 2:5

" Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."  "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."  John 14:10, 16, 20, 23

"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father‘s name written in their foreheads."  Revelation 14:1

Neither God's mercy or grace negates the paradigm of his law.  Law, mercy, and grace are all fulfilled in a patriarchal paradigm, the law bringing us to repentance before God (from our Heavenly Father above), mercy and grace coming from the same authority (through the work of His Son who was sent by the Father from above to be a sacrifice for our sins here below and is now seated at the right hand of the Father above).  The "sheepfold" of mercy and grace can only be arrived at through the wall of the law which kills, declares all dead in your sins.  It is through Christ alone (i.e. the door) that we can get through the law of judgment (i.e. the wall of separation) into the sheepfold of mercy and grace. The wall (i.e. the law from the father) is not removed as a hedge of protection but continues to separate those who are without from those who are within.  Our obedience in the Father's commands (doing his commands written on stone, which means we are still walking in the flesh, judged as evil) are fulfilled in our obedience in his Son's commands (believing in him, doing his commands written upon our regenerated heart, which means we are walking in the spirit, i.e. redeemed).  Our justification is not found in the law (which only describes what we must be like to be like God, i.e. Godly, and thus exposes us as frauds, as wicked, thereby condemning us), which only brings to light, i.e. exposes our lusts and pride, i.e. reveals our sin, i.e. reveals our trying to be like God (an evaluator of good and evil on our own terms, i.e. temporal, carnal, earthly, sensuous) but can only be found in Christ Jesus, who by faith in and obedience to his Heavenly Father (i.e. fulfilling his law, his will) has called us to follow him in the same paradigm, living no longer under the curse of the law but redeemed by His work on the cross, living in His Word and by the power of His Holy Spirit. 

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"  "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."  Romans 6:1, 2, 14, 15

Without God's mercy and grace provided through Christ, following after God's law would be legalistic, ritualistic, cultic, nationalistic, works salvation. Without God's law fulfilled in Christ, following after mercy and grace would only be licentiousness.  Legalism is overcome in the Blood of Christ.  The wrath of God upon those who do not fulfill the law is removed by Christ's payment for their debt.  Christ Jesus fulfilling the law, having obeyed the Father in all things.  And licentiousness is overcome in his resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit.  His law now in us.  Legalistic Christians do not accept God's mercy and grace.  If grace or mercy is brought up it is only done in lip service to deceive themselves and others.  They go back to the law as a cultural ritual. They just keep hanging around the wall, keeping the flesh alive in pride while rationalism, ritual, or tradition, i.e. the pride of life, remains the basis for the "justification" of their praxis.  Humanistic Christians, not accepting God's law, exclude it from their lives.  They depend upon worldliness to justifying their flesh.  Through dialogue, they justify the use of sensuousness in their walk in the "spirit," and in the promotion of the gospel.  Rationalism, sensuousness and spontaneity, which is the pride of life, remains the basis for the "justification" of their praxis. Neither legalism nor licentiousness restrain the flesh.  Whether through laws and religious rituals or accentuating the flesh through tolerance, God's work in Christ is not recognized as being fulfilled.  There are only two things God has called us to do. We are to deny ourselves, i.e. die to our self-life, pick up our cross, i.e. die to the village-life, and follow Jesus, i.e. the rest is in His hands.  God's will for us is only fulfilled in our walk in his Spirit. Apart from God's work of mercy and grace, i.e. his work alone, i.e. Christ in us, i.e. God's law in us, we can not love and do our Heavenly Father's will.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."  Romans 7:12-14

 Because His law is hated by our flesh, we can not love the Father apart from His Holy Spirit.   Unless the flesh, i.e. the mind set upon the flesh, behavior controlled by it (psychology, i.e. the land of "oughtiness") is dead, we can not be in Christ and have the Father's love in us.  Only through the work of His Son and the work of His Holy Spirit can we truly love our Heavenly Father. It is in Christ Jesus alone that God's law, which is external, which condemns us (all men outside of Christ should be "terrified by the law"), becomes internal, which blesses us (all men in Christ should love the law with their minds). Only through his Holy Spirit expressing God's mercy and grace, can we love our Heavenly Father.  The story of the prodigal son was not about the son's love for the father but the father's love for the son.  The son did not return to the father because he loved the father.  He returned home because he knew his father would feed and take care of him (what can I get out of this situation for myself), even if he was a slave.  It was the father who showed the love, i.e. not unconditional love in that if the son had come home with a whore in hand, i.e. disrespectful or contemptuous towards the father's commands, the father would not have let him in the house.  But he came home humble, willing to be a slave, subject to his father's commands. All throughout the scriptures it is about the Father's love for us, revealed by his Law, revealed by His Son's love for the Father, revealed by His obedience to the Father will, and revealed by His Holy Spirit guiding us in both the Son's love for the Father and the Father's love for us, none of which is of this world.

"Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." (Karl Marx The Holy Family)

What the dialectical process has done is made the wall of restraint, the law of restraint, the patriarchal paradigm, the obstacle to be overcome (as Satan did in the Garden in Eden). In this way, but making the Son's love for us supersede his love for the Father, the message of the Son's obedience to the Father in all things, the patriarchal paradigm is negated (the Son dialectically rescued us from the law of the Father negates the fact that he rescued us from the 'curse' of the law, i.e. the law of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all are in agreement to the law). Through the continual use of the dialectical process, instead of the wall being a judgment upon the flesh, condemning the flesh, it becomes an object of oppression, the restrainer of the flesh, preventing man from knowing his true self.  It is therefore a new Christ, a dialectical savior, i.e. a user-friendly, readily adaptable to change, non-offensive, tolerant of ambiguity Christ, a "feeling" Christ, a facilitator of change Christ, who becomes the doorway into the sheepfold, helping man in negating the law. In this way "the sinful world," which is condemned in the patriarchal paradigm, becomes, through the use of the dialectical process, "a sinful world in its own home," i.e. man at home with himself. The sheepfold in this paradigm is not under the authority of the Father but is a sheepfold of a facilitated environment of social harmony and peace, the world and the flesh united in consensus. Those outside the sheepfold are those who remain under the control of the patriarchal paradigm, refusing to discover their "purpose" in life, refusing to experience their "freedom" from the oppressor, refusing to walk through the door of the new Christ, i.e. the way of the antichrist (the lawless one, the Fatherless one, the wall-less one), and thereby experience how to overcome the necessity of laws from above man, i.e. outside of man's nature (non-human laws), preventing him from knowing himself, i.e. preventing his self-actualization with the world, i.e. barring man from creating a new world order.  The savior in the dialectical sheepfold is the facilitator of "change," the high priest of the heresiarchal paradigm, the initiator and sustainer of the dialectical experience, i.e. Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-15), the Devil, Satan, "the old serpent," the dragon (Revelation 20:2).  Following down the pathway of the dialectical process is, as they say in the drug world, "chasing the dragon" (i.e. addiction to the praxis of dopamine, i.e. the want of gratifying objects put into praxis).  You need more and more and are never satisfied until you are dead, i.e. having lived of, by, and for the flesh till death do you part.  Your service in this life being only as a slave to the system which provides you the drug inducing environment of sensuous experience.  Welcome to the world of praxis, the world of death which calls itself life.

"For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."  Titus 3:3-7

On judgment day it is an either-or, Heaven-Hell event.  Either your sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb (Christ's work), or else your will be judged according to the law (according to your works).  If the law is not in you (i.e. you are not in Christ, i.e. he does not know you), it will be a catastrophic day for you (i.e. every day from thereon will be a catastrophic day for you). Hell is permanent (even though hell, and death, are cast into the "lake of fire,"  Revelation 20:15, there is a permanence to the situation). 

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;  And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:  But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities."  2 Peter 2:4-10

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.  Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences."  2 Corinthians 5:10, 11

"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."  John 9:39

"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage."  Jude 1:15, 16

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.  For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."  Matthew 12:36, 37

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."  Mark 9:42-48

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."  "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."  Revelation 20:10, 12-15

When fear and dread and awe and wonder are no longer a part of our life we need to humble ourselves before God, evaluate our lives from His Word and seek his face, repenting of our sin.  Fear and dread, because of our works, the works of our flesh, i.e. because we let our thoughts and our deeds, i.e. our love for our flesh and the things of this world (what we can get out of life for ourselves, i.e. the respect of men), come between us and God. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."  "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire."  Hebrews 10:31, 12:28, 29  When we become aware that we are not trusting in the Lord but instead leaning upon our own understanding, when we realize that we are reasoning according to our senses and our abilities, that we are walking in our flesh and not in His Spirit, fear and dread should awaken us to repent before Him, awakening us to His love, His mercy and His grace. Awe and wonder, because of His works, i.e. that all things around us which are good and beautiful were created by Him for His good pleasure, that despite our loving of these things, instead of loving Him, he still loved us, knowing by His Word, that when we repent before him, we can know His love.  Realizing that no matter what we know or see or experience in this life, He is greater, His word is more awesome. "Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word." "Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me."  Psalms 119:161, 133

**When we are no longer evaluating our life from God's word, i.e. seeking his will daily, when we are instead walking in the flesh, in our own wisdom, as the world does, we should experience fear and dread, not as the world but as the redeemed, realizing the consequence of our lack of faith and its effect upon ourselves and others.  And when we are walking in the spirit, evaluating our lives from His word, seeing his work in our lives and in the lives of others we should experience awe and wonder. "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed."  1 Samuel 2:2, 3 

We should therefore not be surprised to know that men like Harry Stack Sullivan, men who worked to develop the UN, aimed to remove those four words from our vocabulary. We no longer have fear of God in our nation, nor do we dread the consequences of our actions.  Therefore we can not know true awe and wonder which comes from knowing Him.  We are thus left only with the awe and wonder of men's works, the pride and arrogance of men's hearts which the beast will use for his own "purpose,"  Rev 13:11-.  Therefore, as children of God, and as joint-heirs with Christ, we should walk continually in awe and wonder of his works and not in fear and dread of men's works while we suffer with him on this earth. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint–heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."  Romans 8:16, 17  "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  1 Corinthians 2:9

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.  Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."  Galatians 4:6, 7

You can not say Abba (daddy) Father without a clean heart and a clear mind. When you are disobeying or have disobeyed your father's commands (having fear and dread of being caught) you can not truly love him without reservation. Asking for forgiveness, with a repentant heart, must come first. Accepting Christ's redemption for us, so that He can shed His love for His Father in us is the only way we truly love our Heavenly Father. Jesus is the only way to the Father.  It is not the father's law which separates us from his love, it is our rebellious nature, i.e. our walking in the flesh (our pride of life) which prevents us from loving him, i.e. prevents us from calling him Abba Father with sincerity (having awe and wonder of Him).  We can never know him as our Heavenly Father without first believing in His Son, knowing His Son's obedience to His Father and walking in obedience in His Spirit, i.e. walking in his power over the flesh and the world. Our mind on the flesh and the things of this world which please the flesh, will not allow us to love Him as he loves us.  Without first being "terrified by the law," it's revealing the lust of the flesh in us, i.e. our love for it, and our dreading of the judgment which will follow, we would never have come to know his mercy, his grace, and his love.  We might have heard about it. We might have wanted it. But we never would be able to know it. The world wants God's love, just not on his terms.  The flesh nature of man no man can overcome.  It has only been overcome through God's Son. The dialectical process is dead without the flesh nature of man, without "sensuous needs," "sense perception," "sense experience," "all proceeding from Nature," (Karl Marx) Therefore no man who is in Christ can praxis the dialectical process and say he is of God. No man who praxis' the dialectical process can call God, Abba Father. "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"  John 11:25, 26

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Romans 8:13

Life is from the Spirit and not from the flesh. Only in the Spirit is there life. The flesh has always been dead, i.e. there is no life in the flesh, i.e. there never has been any life in the flesh. There is only life in the blood, but only temporal, sensual life, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood;"  Leviticus 17:11. Flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 15:50  Before God breathed "the breath of life" into man, man being formed from the dust of the ground, the flesh was dead (Adam was just like a corpse in a coffin, all the parts were there, but there was not life).  The soul is either subject of the flesh, i.e. and its death, i.e. lifelessness, or the soul is subject to the Spirit, i.e. and its life. Even Adam and Eve, before they sinned, had to eat of the tree of life to have bodily life (having only a semblance of life, i.e. illusionary life, in their flesh), their soul alive because of the work of God; "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."  Genesis 2:7.  After man sinned the only means for eternal sensual life was a continuation of contact with the tree of life, "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Revelation 2:7 When God drove the man and the woman out of the Garden in Eden he did so to remove them from having access to the tree of life and thereby be able to have eternal sensual life in dialectical rebellion against Him.  "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."  Genesis 3:22-24   For man to gain access to the tree of life he must first put on Christ (Galatians 2:20, drinking his blood and eating his flesh, for unlike man's blood and flesh which are temporal, sensual, his blood and flesh are eternal, spiritual, his blood redeeming us, his flesh sustaining us for eternal life). "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." John 6:  53-58

The angels are spirits, spirits created to serve God only, ministering to men as God directs (Hebrews 1:13, 14), not having dominion over anything.  Even though they were created with more power than man, they were not made in the image of God.  Man was created in the image of God, he therefore was created to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26 and Proverbs 8:3-8; Hebrews 2:5-9), even eventually to judge the angels themselves (1 Corinthians 6:3). When a man is under God's authority, he is to have dominion (a patriarchal paradigm), but when men are under the fallen angels authority (the dialectical process), they take on the system of the fallen angels (a heresiarchal paradigm) and become servant, not to the creator, but rather to the creation, i.e. environmentalists, socialists, etc.  worshiping and serving the creation, i.e. man's nature, the world, and the fallen angels, i.e. all becoming his focus of service and "purpose." 

"Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."  John 15:15

Looking at this from above, where we know life having come from the "breath" of life, from God, and not from below, where we identify life with the flesh, i.e. resting, shopping, working, dressing, eating, etc, i.e. the sensual cares of this world, we realize life is found in a noun, a name, the name of the creator and not in a verb, the motions or emotions of man, tying him, his identity to the flesh.  Thus when Adam and Eve chose to use their flesh nature and their human reasoning as their means of evaluating good and evil, they rejected life (spirit) and chose death (flesh), then and there (choosing the creation, i.e. the earth, the environment, the matriarchal paradigm, i.e. "mother earth," reasoning from sensual experience, over and against the creator, i.e. the father, the patriarchal paradigm, reasoning guided by and building upon faith in His word). Thus only having the flesh to "live" by, the soul of man became subject to death, i.e. angst.  All men have since been dead, even though in their mind they believe they are alive, i.e. in God's mind, he is the creator after all, all men are dead (spiritually dead, dead in their sins; "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;"  Ephesians 2:1, i.e. thinking they are alive in the flesh, i.e. thinking they are justified in evaluating life by their carnal minds, directing their lives according to their carnal nature, because they can relate with the world sensuously.

Therefore, in the spirit, there is no fear of death, since death has no place in the spirit, i.e. the spirit can not comprehend death.  Death and not life, is in the flesh.  Since we eat that which is from the dust of the ground, our flesh is only of the earth, material, with no life, the soul set upon it is subject to death; "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"  Romans 7:24.  Thus the mind set upon the flesh, which can not comprehend God's love, is the source of fear (death overtaking life). The soul anticipating eternal death, i.e. the end of the flesh "life," where there is no hope of knowing life. For example: Freud thought that memory was of the flesh since the flesh nature, sensuousness, keeps resisting the commands of God, when in truth memory is of the soul of man, man sensing his original station of life in God (lusting for life but not able to attain it).  Since the soul is the result of God's "breath of life" upon the flesh and not the result of the flesh itself, the flesh has no effect upon the Spirit of God since it can not know it and therefore identify life with it.  The spirit is life, peace, joy, and love.  It is therefore because of the flesh, i.e. "the body of this death," that we as believers have fear and dread, fear that, in our mind, we might turn to the flesh as the means of evaluating what is life and what is death, what is good and what is evil, and by doing so return to a semblance of "life" (seems to be life) which has always been death.  It is only when we die to ourselves, i.e. die to our flesh nature (die to our psychically self-life, die to our love of sensuousness), die in Christ and follow him, and receive His Holy Spirit, that we can know life, His life which is eternal, i.e. bringing peace to our soul which the world can not know.  Only then can we have a life of awe and wonder, knowing His glory.  To correlate life with the flesh, and the flesh with life is the work of Satan, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, blinding man of true life, a life he desires but cannot have unless he dies to himself and the world.  It is Satan's Genesis 3:1-6 paradigm which is being put into practice by those possessed by the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. using the dialectical process, i.e. using the way of the flesh (sensuousness and spontaneity), to find and "create" what they think is the "good" life leading to the "new" world order.

“It is Satan, the god of all dissension, who stirs up daily new sects, and last of all, which of all others I should not have foreseen or once suspected, he has raised up a sect such as teaches that man should not be terrified by the law but be gently exalted by the grace of Christ.” Martin Luther

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [gr. praxis]; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."  Colossians 3:8-11

 We, who believe in Jesus Christ, we, the redeemed criminal, we, the redeemed by the righteousness of Christ, his righteousness being imputed unto us, are now no longer fearful and despiteful of the law, which reveals our lusts and pride, but, now walk in circumspect, "not as fools, but as wise,"  (Ephesians 5:16).  We are in love with the law, which reveals his mercy and grace, we continue to preach and teach his law along with his mercy and grace.  For in law, mercy, and grace, the flesh is not justified (it is dead), but the faith of Jesus Christ and the will of our Heavenly Father is (in them we have life).  In him, our heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. our self justification, i.e. our "old man with his praxis" (that which is from below), is put to death.  In his patriarchal paradigm, i.e. in his Father's justification, i.e. in Christ's faith and obedience to his Heavenly Father's will, in His death (our atonement) and His resurrection (our hope of eternal life), we are made alive, "here-and-now."  To have faith in and obedience to his Heavenly Father's will, even in our death (in the flesh that is), there is life.  In his justification from above (spiritual, i.e. by his mercy and grace we are justified) and the death of our self-justification below (temporal, sensual), for by his law no flesh is justified, we are justified before God (Spirit, above) being redeemed from eternal death to be received into eternal life, by his will and his will alone:  Romans 6:1-23 and Romans 7:1-25.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  Hebrews 11:6

Without faith in God and his word, without believing upon Jesus Christ, it is impossible to please God.  It is impossible to have faith (abiding faith) in God and His Word and praxis the heresiarchal paradigm at the same time, i.e. the dialectical process which is abiding doubt (“Doubt is the starting point of modern philosophy. Rational doubts have been solved by rational answers. The irrational doubt [questioning which road is right but not questioning faith in God] has not disappeared and cannot disappear as long as man has not progressed from negative freedom to positive freedom [rejected that which is above (two roads dividing), i.e. "negative freedom," and embraced that which is below (one road progressing), i.e. "positive freedom"].  Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual authorities, but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness. We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." (Fromm).  It is impossible to praxis the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. to praxis dialogue and consensus, and have faith in God and His Word, i.e. which must be revealed and accepted within a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. truth which must be preached and taught and accepted as "Is" ("I Am that I Am"), accepted by faith and put into practice.

"Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"  (Luke 18:8)

Faith does not negate our senses (our flesh) but rather makes them (it) subject to God's will, i.e. their nature triumphed over (humbled, denied) by our faith in God and His Word only, i.e. not "leaning to our own understanding," i.e. not walking in the flesh, but "trusting in the Lord with all our heart," i.e. walking in His Holy Spirit.  The ability to have faith in God, as a child has faith, testifies to a God above human nature. For to base life upon the senses is to destroy faith.  Touch, taste, sight, smell, sound, i.e. sensuousness, i.e. feelings, i.e. the flesh, that from which human reasoning can only avail itself is exposed as evil, i.e. the pathway of death, by the Word of God.  God's Word, i.e. His law, exposes our human nature as evil.  God's Word which is Spiritual, i.e. which is revealed to man by men lead by His Holy Spirit, is not discovered through human reasoning.  His Word requires our faith in Him, a paradigm which condemns our love of the flesh, a love which leads to death, and provides a way for us to love Him in His spirit, a love which is life.

When faith is changed to sight before its time, i.e. placing its vision in "sensuous needs," in "sense perception," in "sense experience," all which "proceeds from nature," i.e. that which proceeds from the world, it is no longer faith but sight.  Therefore those who preach and teach grace and mercy, without the law, negate that which speaks to the souls of men, (faith and law), and instead speak to that which is of the flesh (sight and feelings, beauty and justice, i.e. Hegel).  Through dialogue, human reasoning attempts an intellectual assent to God, i.e. vain philosophy.  Few ministers today preach and teach to build faith in God.  Most ministers today dialogue to that which builds relationship with man and his nature, i.e. that which is pleasing to man, i.e. based their ministry upon sight, those things which can be measured with the reasoning of man, i.e. where man is able to use polls and surveys, and "feasibility studies," i.e. tools of the fleshy mind, i.e. "group dynamics," "synergy," etc.  “All concepts that are irreducible to facts are meaningless.” ["Sort of" negates faith doesn't it? There is no "sort of" about it, dialogue does destroy faith!] "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest)] “Everything that is not reducible to number becomes illusion for the Enlightenment.” “…philosophy as struggle with error and superstition is also and always enlightenment.”  (Bronner)  "Enlightened economics must assume as a prerequisite synergic institutions set up in such a way that what benefits one benefits all.” “Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation.” “The more enlightened the religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal they get, the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an enlightened way.” “Partnership is the same as synergy.” "Synergy can be defined as the resolution of the dichotomy between selfishness and unselfishness." “The problem for the accountants is to work out some way of putting on the balance sheet the amount of synergy in the organization, the amount of time and money and effort that has been invested in getting groups to work together [measuring the effort taken to negate the patriarchal paradigm and its affect upon institutional policy making].”  (Maslow, Management)  A "synergetic revolution," i.e. the "breaking of hierarchies." (Ene - Silvia Sarv)  "We are discovering the allness and the wholeness, a truly mego-diagnostic view of allness, a synergy of fantasy and the rational. Perception leads the way and creates the reality. What you see is what you get. I create the playground or the battle. There is a choice. And I make it [he chose to go along with the process, i.e. join in the one world system, thus condemning those who resist the process, those who refuse to bend their knee to the one world system]."  (Jack R. Gibb THE MAGIC OF SELF-REGULATION: Omicron in the Organization)  "New level of leadership [a critical mass of transformational leaders] characterized by an unshakeable faith to transform the lives of others by creating a synergy of energy within their circle of influence."  (Erik Rees  Seven Principles of Transformational Leadership — Creating A Synergy of Energy™  Source: Pastors.com,  Saddleback & Rick Warren's Web site.)  In the use of this diabolical process the  "contemporary church," replaces faith, trusting in the Lord, with works following, with sight, trusting in polls and surveys and feasibility studies, through works, all being done "in the name of Jesus."

“The old fixed values of right and wrong must give way to a new maturity that implied qualities of adaptability and compromise.” (Harry S. Sullivan The Fusion of Psychology and Social Science)

"… in all metaphysics the object remains untouched and unaltered so that thought remains contemplative and fails to become practical; while for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality."  “Dialectics thereby reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion [e-motion, internal in the individual and external in society] — both in the external world and in the thought of man — two sets of laws which are identical in substance [resentment towards carnal restraint].” (Lukacs) [Those laws, found in the social world around us and found in our own nature, are the laws of the flesh, i.e. "lust," the "want of gratifying objects."]

Faith and law (patriarchal in nature) is replaced with faithfulness and lawfulness ("-ness" is a quality, a feeling, i.e. heresiarchal in nature).  Human feelings and reasoning, i.e. the affective domain and the cognitive domain united in human experience (praxis), i.e. "qualities of adaptability and compromise,” become the judge of faith and law, and thus a "quality" of life, attempting to transcend the bondage man has to his carnal nature, can never be realized (since it is works salvation).  Lawlessness swallows up (replaces) law, calling itself law and faithlessness swallows up (replaces) faith and calls itself faith, resulting in a perceived world of "law and faith," based upon "lawlessness and faithlessness," a world where the soul of man is replaced with the only hope man has, in himself and in human relationship, i.e. that which is above is replaced with that which is below, and thus sin, before a Holy, Pure, and Righteous God, is replaced with the morality, i.e. man's fallen human nature perceived as "beautiful" and "justified."  As Hegel stated it in his comment: 'Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmässigkeit ohne Gesetz', i.e. "Lawfulness without law; Faithfulness without faith," i.e. that which is above is overcome, i.e. swallowed up, with that which is below, fulfilling Nietzsche's "God is dead" syndrome, that is "the Patriarchal God" is dead, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm is consumed through social praxis, where incest (lawlessness) can only be actualized in the praxis of patricide (the negation of the law giver and his law).

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

For the dialectic process to work, "lust" (wanting a gratifying object) must be "sanctioned and justified."
Herbart Marcuse summed it up this way: “... the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind  ....  link[ing] the ‘lower’ faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence" (Herbert Marcuse)   By "aesthetic dimension" Marcuse is referring to Kant who believed that Hope is in happiness, and happiness is in pleasure, and pleasure is in the mind, and now that we know that the brain produces chemicals, i.e. neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, which naturally respond, via the nervous system to the environment around them, and from which our mind looks back into the environment to acquire more of, i.e. pleasure, i.e. dopamine emancipation. All habitual drugs including tobacco and caffeine are tied to dopamine emancipation, that is, from an encounter with nature (for example: the smell of freshly baked bread, beautiful sunsets, and compliments from people and even from painful experiences).  Therefore, dialectically, any hope which requires faith (non-sensual reasoning), i.e. which is placed in Christ, i.e. that which is above nature, i.e. that which is super-natural, i.e. that which is not of nature or not in harmony with natural inclinations, i.e. that hope which denies the senses their gratification, brings death to that hope which requires human perception (sensual reasoning), i.e. pleasure, the hope which comes from man's experience with the worldly environment.  "Irrational" hope impedes man in the use of his mind for attaining world peace and harmony.  His hope in things above his nature, his belief and hope in transcendence, prevent him from having an opportunity to experience "rational" reasoning. Thus his reasoning is used to restrain sensuousness.  His cognitive domain is used to suppress his affective domain.  Thereby his is subject to conditions beyond his nature.  This condition is seen, dialectically, as illusionary.  As the Marxist, Theodor Adorno, stated it: “The immediate effect of spiritual factors on the realm of the corporal is an illusion.” (Adorno)  Or as Karl Marx put it: “The abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."  (Karl Marx MEGA I/1/1) 

"And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?  And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.  And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.  But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?  So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.  And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on."  "And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.  For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.  But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you."  "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."  Luke 12:16-22, 29-31, 34

Marx was calling for the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm experience (hope placed in that which is above man's control) and the liberation of the flesh (hope placed in that which is below, which man can control).  The trick was to subtly cover the simplicity of his agenda (the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm) with the "complex" issues of such things as "surplus capital," social crisis, etc.  Stored up money is like drug money, stored up dopamine (cash in the bank) so it can be used on a rainy day when you need some dopamine (such as a vacation).  Without it you are subject to only what the immediate environment (or higher authority) will grant you (i.e. the parent, God, etc).  Capitalism wants control over money for personal gain, while socialism wants control over money so that all (except for capitalist, i.e. those with a patriarchal paradigm) can participate "equally" in the dopamine moment.  The latter requires patricide for it to become actualized.  That is why so many landowners died in Communist revolutions around the world.  While natural man is dopamine "driven," those who are in Christ are not.  While dopamine is needed (without it you are depressing), it is not to be loved.  We are not to love the environment, i.e. the world, i.e. the gratifying objects which stimulate its emancipation. To set your mind upon it or upon the world which stimulates it, is "lust."  Both capitalism and socialism are guilty of this "crime" before God.  While the patriarchal capitalists sees his future hope of pleasure as only being under his control when it is stored up as capital in the bank or in property, the heresiarchal socialist sees his future hope of pleasure as only being under his control when he has control over the "masses," treating them as social capital.  For the capitalist you are of no threat if you do not assist them in their acquiring of private capital, i.e. help them acquire or maintain property.  For the socialist you are a threat if do not assist them in their acquiring of social capital, i.e. participate in their control of the masses, i.e. participate in their control of you.  In the end both want control over capital, traditional capitalism is just more honest about it and does not concern itself directly with the "purpose" of buying and selling the souls of men (although that may happen), while for the transformational socialism the process is more subtle and complex and does concern itself directly with the "purpose" of buying and selling souls. 

When socialist and capitalist are joined in "purpose" (as they are today), they have only one "purpose," that is the buying and selling of souls.  It has never been about money, it has always been about the soul of man or I should say the souls of men (collective). That is why socialists are so money, i.e. masses, oriented (you are money in their eyes).  They can not do it (whatever it is) without you.  Like a pedophile, it's not the lost dog they are after (any crisis will work), it is you.  They take their pleasure in the victimizing of the innocent, i.e. the trusting. Whether done externally, by physical contact, or internally, vicariously, this process is evil.  Those who, like drug pushers, facilitate the praxis of it, could only have come from the dark side of evil.  Socialists, like pedophiles, can only think of the next moment, i.e. the "special opportunity," when they can make the next trusting soul their victim.  Since whoever defines terms for you controls your life, when they state "If nobody is hurt then it must be ok," imply, if the child (trusting soul, i.e. victim) enjoyed it must be alright (if it proceeded "only from Nature to Nature"—situational ethics—and all parties enjoyed the consensus moment, i.e. the victim was benefited in the "special opportunity" then ....).  This is no different a process than that which is found in Genesis 3:1-6. It is how those who sold their soul to the dialectical process want to perceive "their" world, a world of patricide and incest,  i.e. get rid of the Father—the creator, the restrainer, so they can enjoy the children (and the mother)—the created (society and the natural environment).  The control of money, for the "purpose" of worldly pleasure (world peace and harmony; sensuousness and spontaneity;  for the hegemonization of souls upon Nature,) is the alpha and the omega (the beginning and the end) of the dialectical process.  There is no knowledge of, nor fear of God—the creator (the patriarch), before their eyes, i.e. in their perception of the creation.

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."  Matthew 11:18, 19  "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Corinthians 1:27-29

By simply finding out where any institution is willing to compromise, in an effort to "save" or preserve the institution, one can find out at what level, i.e. how far, people of are willing to change. By focusing upon that level, and not going beyond for the moment, the institution can participate in the process of change.  In this way, the patriarchal institution, by its own willful participation, is annihilated from within.  

When Jesus spoke of the inflexible and unchanging wall thieves wanted to go around (John 10:1), rather than going through the door, i.e. through Him (the only way to the Father's sheepfold, i.e. eternal life, i.e. love and peace), he was speaking of the law of God, i.e. the hedge of protection of the sheep fold, stopping all (condemning all because of their "flesh with the affections and lusts") from entering in, all that is, except those who are of the Fathers sheepfold (those "who have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts," through the work of Christ, i.e. the blood of the Lamb of God). 

"And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."  Galatians 5:24

Thus, for 'true' hope, i.e. dialectical hope (perceived hope) to be realized or actualized, mankind must not look to any condition of "completeness" (inflexible and unchanging) above and beyond his nature (conditions and laws which inhibit or condemn his reasoning to his flesh).  He must instead, with the aid of facilitators trained in the dialectical process, seek to participate in the process of change, reuniting his nature and nature itself.  For him to be changeable with that which is changeable, that which is below he must learn to discover his own nature from within himself, scientifically, dialectically discovering man and nature, subject and object, synthesizing to join in erotic "play," to procreate a world of pleasure, i.e. a world of happiness, i.e. a world of hope, i.e. a world where nothing is impossible, i.e. a world where patriarchal restraints (internal and external) no longer inhibit human progress.  Kurt Lewin recognized that when the object above man's nature, i.e. God, parent, etc. was placed on equal footing with the subject's desire for pleasure, i.e. his desire for happiness ("affections and lusts"), his desire for respect from men, that the objective of life (the "purpose" of life) was transformed within the person, that a paradigm 'shift' began to take place in the person.  Instead of the person focusing upon God or the parent for meaning and direction, i.e. to find "purpose" in life (setting the mind upon things above to be directed by God or parent), he instead began to focus upon the conditions or environment which promised to gave the greatest meaning and direction, i.e. to find "purpose" for life (setting his mind upon the things below which augmented pleasure, letting the social, natural, worldly setting direct his life). The "purpose" of life was now dependent upon all of mankind (not only oneself but all others as well) focusing upon a world of pleasure in the "here-and-now," for all mankind.

"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play behavior and barrier behavior. To be governed by two strong goals [to relate with the present and to maintain the past, i.e. go out with your friends and keep the rules of your parents] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism [cognitive dissonance where ones behavior and beliefs (above-below) come into conflict]. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [a play behavior environment, permissive environment, using cognitive dissonance to weaken the persons affection towards, if not produces an outright hostility towards the patriarchal paradigm, drawing the person into a patricidal experience, putting aside the voice of the parent for the voice of the group]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [confusion, destabilization, lose of identity with the patriarchal paradigm result in a lose of one's own identity, lose of moral foundation, meaning in life, etc. which was founded upon them].  It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective [either the nature of the parent (barrier behavior) or the nature of the child (play behavior) come out on top from the encounter, with the one former controlling, inhibiting and blocking, the latter (status quo, static, the parent remaining in control of the child) or the latter influencing the former (change, dynamic, social relations giving direction, "purpose," to life)]." (Kurt Lewin in Barker, Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression) 

Thus the objective for the dialectically-minded facilitator is to create an environment where one's belief (affection towards that which is above, i.e. faith) comes into conflict with their behavior (affection towards that which is below, human nature, their own nature in particular, i.e. sensuousness seeking actualization with the world) producing a period of destabilization.  In this condition, i.e. detachment from the influence of the patriarchal paradigm, the person can be conditioned to focus upon and evaluate life from the "here and now," from the sense-based moment (from one's own feelings and thoughts), and learn to make "rational" (sensual, i.e. sensible) decisions through the process of consensus (group-social approval; unanimity).  By using cognitive decisions to "drive" the person into harmony with the sensuous, the person is socially conditioned to reunite his cognitive domain with his affective domain, his thoughts with his feelings thereby becoming incorporated, he is able to integrate his reasoning ability with his own sensuousness.  By this act (praxis) the person is able to overcome the segregation of his own feelings and his own thoughts (his internal behavior of rebellion against authority, i.e. his resentment against authority denied external expression) from his actions (his external behavior patterned after the one in authority), and "return" to his 'true' hu—of the earth—man nature (his internal behavior of rebellion against authority—theory, united with his external behavior of revolution against authority—practice).  History is thus rewritten.  History is no longer the passing of past information on into the present, unquestioned ("authoritative," "there-and-then" information, above a persons "here-and-now" feelings and thought, directing and controlling his actions in the "here-and-now"), but rather history, dialectically incorporating perception, the "in the moment" experience, becomes the reevaluation of past experiences (information being handed out from someone with an authoritative mind-set), through the "light" of one's own contemporary feelings and thoughts (opinion).  In this way man's affections and lusts become as important a part of his life as the world he lives in.  His communication is no longer filled with words of restraint, i.e. words from the "past" (how those with the one road theory, continuum theory want everyone to see it) or from above (the two roads, above-below, patriarchal paradigm which those with the continuum theory want to remove from everyone's perception), but rather his communication, with himself and with others, is filled with words of potential, of imagination, of unlimited possibilities.  Thus hope no longer resides in an authority above man, an authority limiting his common human experience (his carnal nature), but now resides within his own common human experience, waiting to be discovered and actualized (liberated, emancipated), dialectically, with those around him, i.e. with all the world united upon the same carnal human "call" of the wild.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1:13-17

"Change," i.e. the banner cry of the heresiarch, is necessary.  Change is required since whatever it is in the natural environment which stimulates the sensation of pleasure (the want of a gratifying object), i.e. the events in time and space which aroused the sensation, i.e. stimulated the "sensuous" need in the first place (the internal desire of man to realize, through sensuousness, his validity or purpose in life),  the "sensuous" need for pleasure is satiated in the experience and withdraws itself, thus the sensuousness of pleasure (hope) needs the newness of experience within the environment to continue to exist, to develop, and to improve (sustainable development, continuous improvement, etc.).  If pleasure is for one person alone, change in the environment becomes an enemy since it interferes with his control over pleasure.  Thus it is necessary that he store it up for future enjoyment.  By the accumulation of wealth (exchange surplus) he can guarantee its realization in the future. Therefore he works to prevent change. (This is not the gospel message but simply how the world works, i.e. greed, vanity, etc.  See how Jesus responds to this attitude: Luke 12:16-21)  Change in environment, once initiated, must be sustained if pleasure for others becomes the "purpose" of life. Change thus becomes the only means to life, i.e. social life.  In this way hope from above (spiritual-eternal, i.e. "no variableness," no "shadow of turning", i.e. "fixed referents and traditional anchoring points") is swallowed up in the hope from below (fleshy-temporal, i.e. "a world of rapid change, of bewildering instability"). The harmonizing of "sensuous" needs with the ideas of the reason (the imagination)  "deprives 'the laws of reason of their moral compulsion' and 'reconciles them with the interest of the senses.'"  (Herbert Marcuse)   In this way "the laws of reason," once bound to that which is above (bound to laws of "moral compulsion" which alienate the person from "the interest of the senses"), are reconciled to that which is below, i.e. "the laws of reason" are reconciled with "the interest of the senses." Thus when a person's feelings and affections toward whatever it was in the environment which initiated sensation in the first place, becomes the focus of his mind (i.e. the person sets his mind upon those things which are upon the earth) his reasoning turns toward how to attain or retain (justify) relationship (unity) with the object or objects which stimulated that pleasure in the first place.  In this way of thinking (dialectical reasoning), first cause is no longer found above nature but is instead found within nature.  Therefore, any condition which blocks this self-environmental relationship (inter-personal relationship), i.e. any condition which produces a self-environmental rift, must be annihilated. In this way reality is no longer found in the father and his conditions of repressing, i.e. alienation, but instead is found within the lust for spontaneity and the lust for freedom, i.e. found in the experience of childhood with its "interest of the senses," i.e. "Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves." (Brown)

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."  Romans 8:5-11

"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.  Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.   When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.  Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them."  Colossians 3:1-7

Thus, when a person thinks with dialectical reasoning, things in the universe no longer have usefulness, or purpose, in glorifying God above (since the mind set upon things above divides, i.e. alienates man from his 'true' nature below), or in themselves below, but are useful as means to an end below, i.e. the means toward universal pleasure, i.e. world peace, global harmony, the dialectical process being the end (Note: the end is not world peace, the end is the use of the dialectical process to achieve it, i.e. to achieve the negation of the patriarchal paradigm). “In the aesthetic imagination, sensuousness generates universally valid principles for an objective order [the object and the order is no longer found in God above, who sets things in order below according to order nature above, i.e. Spiritual, but instead the object and the order is nature, i.e. man and his perception of nature which must put the world in order below, i.e. turning it right side up: "estrangement (man and his natural desires, i.e. his social-environmental nature, are not realized due to his mind being set upon things above producing a self-environmental rift) is a phase of the dialectical process, and that by experiencing and overcoming it man creates his own self and then fulfills himself as a man." (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx;  International Pub.; NY, 65)].  Hegel knew that in the dialectical process "Feelings, joy, and pleasure [Hegel uses the German words Empfindung, Lust und Genuss translated into English as "sensation, pleasure and enjoyment" as in 'What can I get out of this situation for me?'] are sanctioned and justified so that nature and freedom, sensuousness and reason ['beauty and freedom'], find their unity their right and their gratification." (Hegel Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik Volume 1) Thus the patriarchal paradigm fulfills its purpose in the dialectical process by repressing nature so that nature can find the pleasure of realizing itself in its praxis of overcoming (patricide) its opposite, i.e. that which is not of nature, i.e. that which is from above, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm.  In this way sin against God (and therefore God himself) becomes moot, setting man free to be himself.  Dialectically, it is sin not to participate in the act (praxis) of freeing oneself from God's control over life.  Replacing "Thy will be done." with "purpose" will do the job, i.e. "God's will is that I would ...." vs. "God's purpose is that I would ...", i.e. God moves from directing you to assisting you.

"My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee." Proverbs 6:21, 22

Although some of this material will be brought up later it is important that I include it here. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man’s deepest nature." (Yalom)  Dialectically, pleasure can only be found in the act of incest, "pregenital polymorphous eroticism," i.e. the "justification" for homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, etc., i.e. abominations, abhorred actions (Romans 1:16-32). Norman Brown defines incest as the bodies natural quest for pleasure. "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body [touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc.].  "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;"  "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." Therefore, according to Brown, Freud believed "infants have a richer sexual life than adults."  (Brown)  Incest is dialectically synonymous with patricide (the absence of the patriarchal paradigm engenders the natural inclination of the heresiarchal paradigm, with the assistance of facilitators more than likely needed). Without the removal of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide—removal of Godly restraint), the heresiarchal paradigm (incest—social harmony and world peace) can not be realized. 

Freud wrote: "‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one’s father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same.” (Marcuse quoting Sigmund Freud)  In other words, it is not important whether there is a father in the house or not, what is important is, if he is present he no longer represses the child's natural inclination to relate, i.e. unite, with the world around him, i.e. the mother, i.e. the social side of human nature seeking union with the social other, i.e. society, i.e. "self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure"  "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world."  "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality.” (Brown). “... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,’ ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality.”  (Marcuse) "In fact, children learned to obey the prevailing order at their mother's knee, despite the potential for an alternative social system implicit in the traditional matriarchal ethic of warmth, acceptance, and love."  (Jay)

Without the removal of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the traditional home, world unity, i.e. social harmony will not be possible.  Sodom and Gomorrah was all about incest and patricide, i.e. "village unity," that is until God judged it. Therefore, dialectically thinking, sin is the rejection of incest and patricide, i.e. the praxis of obedience to the patriarch, i.e. "the familial organization" against one's human nature.  “The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself.”  "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Brown)  Diaprax is the use of the dialectical process, i.e. the praxis of patricide and incest.  Although the hope of some who have pushed the process is that society would not degenerate into a "Dionysian, orgiastic" state of depravity, but attain an intellectual level of regulation, human nature has not cooperated. "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness."  (Maslow,  Journals)  “In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man’s basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes.” “The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner [liberate them and use them for "change," i.e. patricide, without destroying society], rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic.” (Rogers)

The dialectic system therefore requires not only thinking about change (theory, philosophy) but also requires acting it out (practice, praxis), i.e. roleplay, i.e. acting out one's rebellion against restraint, i.e. authority, i.e. overcoming inter-personal barriers (the symbol of the French Revolution, the painting of the half clad woman, i.e. the whore, leading the youth over the barricades, i.e. the rubble, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, carrying the banner of victory). It was this reason that education changed from expelling the "trouble maker" in the classroom and school, to changing the classroom and school environment to "tolerate" him.  While it was presented as an effort to help keep him in school so that he could graduate, the real intent was the propagation of his "lifestyle," his dialectical way of thinking, into the school culture and curriculum. Not only did this change the school environment for the students but it also changed the required ideology of teachers, staff and administrators.  Together they put pressure upon the parents, the home, and the community, to "change." This ideology was administrated into the education system by "education researchers" such as Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba.  In their book Adolescent Character and Personality they wrote: "The school must itself be changed if it is to serve more effectively in the formation of good character. It must make room for the deviant student." ["There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established. (Yalom)]  "This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo of the community, when such deviation is necessary to the realization of higher moral principles. How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba  Adolescent Character and Personality)  "Tolerance of ambiguity" is the platform from which education bases itself today in America.  That phrase is used instead of the word homosexual in other nations around the world. All citizens in America today are mandated by decree to be "tolerant of ambiguity," or face prosecution, i.e. the Hate Crime Bill.  Therefore the scriptures are today, in America, a Hate Crime especially when the are taken literally, as is in the case of "fundamental religious extremists," i.e. those who just "go to far."  Especially those who believe in a God who gave man Leviticus chapters18 and 20.  "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."  Deuteronomy 23:18  "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life."  Revelation 21:27

 In the end it is all about hate under the cover of "tolerance."  The patriarchal paradigm initiates and sustains itself by overt force when necessary (used only against those who make their intentions known), while the heresiarchal paradigm initiates and sustains itself by the subtle and complex process of deceit and manipulation, through the use of covert force, i.e. social pressure at first and eventually using overt force (the laws of tyranny) when finally in governance.  Therefore all citizens must participate in its folly. The patriarchal paradigm hates insubordination, the sin of questioning and disobeying authority.  With man this is a problem, i.e. "Cursed is the man who trust in man," but with God it is not a problem, i.e. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart." Therefore in a free society there is the need for freedom of the conscience—man's ego is subject to God's will, i.e. confirmation in spirit.  The heresiarchal paradigm, conversely, hates subordination, the "sin" of not questioning and "blindly" obeying authority.  Therefore in a socialist society there is the need for the development of the superego—man's ego is subject to "the" social will, i.e. consensus in flesh, i.e. man justifying himself before men.  Thus anyone with a patriarchal paradigm is identified, i.e. labeled, as being "intolerant," i.e. hateful.  This is the basis of "human rights," "the right of the child," i.e. the "Hate Crime Bill," negating the patriarchal bill of inalienable rights, those rights which can only come from a patriarchal paradigm. “For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source.” “Government and its trust is ‘found on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker and . . . [is] therefore sacred. It is an offence against Heaven to violate that trust.’” (Max Horkheimer Eclipse of Reason  1947; second quotation, a quotation of Dickinson).  Max Horkheimer was the director of The Institute for Social Research, i.e. the Frankfurt School, of which all its members were Marxists.  The question then is, who is defining what and where Heaven is, i.e. which paradigm is being used?

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."  John 6:27-29

"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Ephesians 4:28

"Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."  2 Thessalonians 3:8-12

In the dialectical way of thinking the workplace, for example, must provide room for the woman, so that reason, once bound to laws of restraint against Eros, i.e. rigid laws restraining sensuousness in the workplace (get the produce made, in this way and at this time, i.e. space and time without Eros), can be turned into reason now in harmony with Eros, i.e. changeable laws in agreement with sensuousness (laws of lawlessness, i.e. "lawfulness without law," i.e. space and time with Eros, see below). “Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being.” “Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology.”  (Reich)  With "sexually awakened women" in the workplace labor no longer remains demanding but pleasurable. Men just can't wait to go to work. The problem of patriarchal dominance was still present, in that most women who originally came into the workplace, to help in overcoming family financial crisis, did not quickly change their paradigm.  “Women in most cases had adapted to the system and become a conservative force through their total dependence on their husbands.”  (Jay)  But, with their participation in the workplace already producing change, only over time would that change become fixed in them.  But their participation in the workplace had an immediate effect upon the men.

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."  Isaiah 3:12

Since the workplace structure is carried back into the home environment, influencing it, procreation and the traditional home with its top-down structure are swallowed up in pleasure and human relationships (where pleasure negates procreation and human relationship negates the traditional home). Thus, dialectically, the order from above is replaced with the order from below, i.e. creating a 'new' world order where, for example, the patriarchal workplace is supplanted by the heresiarchal workplace for the "betterment" of all, and not for just a few, i.e. the business owner, i.e. the family business. Lenin's speech of 1920 carried the same message as far as the system being used in production went. A "more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [the middle class-traditional family system], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... gigantic problems of re-educating ..." "... eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions...." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, … in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Lenin)  emphasis added. Millions, who believed in private business, died because of this speech, i.e. because of this dialectical way of thinking.  The idea now is to tax and regulate the private business into participation through the use of government agencies, thereby forcing all businesses to participate in the dialectical process of "change," the negation of the patriarchal paradigm in the workplace, in the home, and in the community.

"For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent." Proverbs 6:23-29

As Marcuse wrote about the women in the patriarchal workplace.  The patriarchal workplace he related to Prometheus, i.e. "Prometheus is the archetype-hero of the performance principle.... the culture-hero of toil, productivity, and progress through repression," ("repression" being the suppression of Eros in the workplace).  The woman he relates to Pandora, "the female principle, sexuality and pleasure."  He wrote: "In the world of Prometheus, Pandora appears as curse, disruptive, destructive."  Therefore, according to him, reality needs to shift, dialectically, from Prometheus (the patriarchal paradigm) to Pandora (the matriarchal paradigm) if civilization is to free itself from "neurosis."  Pandora simply opens the door for the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the synthesis of Orpheus and Narcissus who are "(like Dionysus to whom they are akin, the antagonist [opposite pole] of the god who sanctions the logic of domination, the realm of reason.)"  In this way, Marcuse wrote: "The beauty of the woman, and the happiness she promises are fatal in the work-world of civilization."  (Marcuse)  Wilhelm Reich noted the same effect women, liberated from the patriarchal paradigm ,would have upon the patriarchal paradigm.  The idea being, if you can get to the workplace, i.e. bring women into it, you can get to the home (the husband tends to bring the structure or paradigm of the workplace back into the home).  With the weakening of the patriarchal structure of the workplace, the idea is, the weakening of the role of the husband to rule in the home will take place and thus the rest of society will follow, i.e. change the way parents behave toward one another and their children and you can change the whole world. “Work and sexuality derive from the same biologic energy.” “Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality.” “It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved.” “Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being.” “Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology.” “the right of the woman to her own body.”  (Reich) 

“Meaningful work comes very close to the religious quest in the humanistic sense.” [The] "goal is simply to build group companies where people can self-actualize.” (George McCown as quoted in Maslow, Management)

“The best way to destroy democratic society would be by way of industrial authoritarianism, which is anti-democratic in the deepest sense.” (Maslow, Management)

Orpheus and Narcissus thus must become the culture-heroes of the Western world if it is to progress out of culture of repression, i.e. mankind dominated by the patriarchal paradigm, living in a culture of "neurosis," i.e. “Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic.” "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis.” “Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower.”  "Dreams and neurotic symptoms show that the frustration of reality cannot destroy the desires which are the essence of our being.  If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis." “The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction.” "The pattern of history exhibits a dialectic of neurosis. The core of the neurosis of individuals lay in the ‘memory-traces of the experiences of former generations.’" [Memory of the past is good for you if it is tied to the 'good times,' but bad for you if it tied to history, that which is passed on to you from former generations, restraining you from changing in "changing times."] “If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion.” "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis."  (Brown)  "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'"  “A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein ‘the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.’” (Erich Fromm, Marx’s Concept of Man, quoted in Bronner)  “Every neurosis is ... essentially an adaptation to such external conditions ..., unfavorable to the growth of the child.” (Fromm)  "My work on motivations come from the clinic, from a study of neurotic people." “This carry-over from the study of neurosis to the study of labor in factories is legitimate.” “Work is not about paying the rent anymore—it is about self-fulfillment.” “Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation.” “Partnership is the same as synergy.” “The United States is changing into a managerial society.” “In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole.” “Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals.” “The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health.” (Maslow, Management)

In this way law (and reasoning tied to it) no longer proceed from above man (man under restraint to spiritual laws, preached and taught and thus separating him, dividing him, alienating him, between those who can hear and see, spiritually, and those who can not), but now proceed from below, from within man and nature (man under fleshy laws, uniting mankind with what he has in common, through dialogue), where temporal feelings reside, waiting to be liberated from patriarchal restraint. Thus labor is no longer an act of repression, i.e. an activity restraining Eros, i.e. an activity of production which is 'owed' to God, parent, or boss, who is above (Spiritual), but labor is now an activity of liberation, i.e. an activity restoring Eros, i.e. the activity of production owed to mankind below (temporal; the one world government), i.e. "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of existence.  Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself." (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest).  In this way law, which is to restrain evil, is now changed to justify it, i.e. it's no longer sinful or evil behavior it's just a different life-style.  Obeying authority under God is now replaced with the obeying authority which encourages you to question authority under God.  As a result of dialectical thinking, fallen and deceived man perceives the tree of 'life' (life in the here-and-now freed from the restraints placed upon it for the sake of attaining a future life) is being attainable through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. where human reasoning is guided by human feelings, i.e. sensuousness (intellectual, i.e. sensible, i.e. sensual assent to God).  They believe that death is as much a part of life as life, i.e.  "Death can be a learning experience." (Brown), and thus do not fear God. They see death as anything which inhibits life, i.e. alienates man from his own nature, and therefore refuse to accept the truth that death is due to man's sin against God, i.e. his love of the things of this world, which separates God from man and man from God, who is the giver and sustainer of life.  "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."  Proverbs 14:12  Apart from God, there is no life, just space and time used temporarily by dead men walking.

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.  But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."  1 Timothy 1:5-11

Dialectically the purpose of life is to unite with "beauty," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. social issues, and the laws of life are to be united with freedom (spontaneity), i.e. reason, i.e. dialogue. "The two main categories defining this order are 'purposiveness without purpose' — i.e. beauty,  'lawfulness without law' — i.e. freedom.  'Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmässigkeit ohne Gesetz'” “Whatever the object may be (thing or flower, animal or man), it is represented and judged not in terms of its usefulness, not according to any purpose it may possibly serve, and also not in view of its ‘internal’ finality and completeness." (Marcuse).  It is therefore the pleasures of this life, those things which fallen man seeks after, i.e. "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life," i.e. the "aesthetic imagination," i.e. the "imagination of the heart," which draws man away from faith in God above, i.e. that which is Spiritual, to place his hope in experiencing the things which are below, i.e. the things of the flesh and of the world (as first practiced in the Garden in Eden, see Geneses 3:1-6).  God's grace and mercy and Christian fellowship have no meaning without the law being preached and taught, i.e. the law which addresses the condition of man's soul without Christ, i.e. man condemned, man's mind remains bound to the things of the flesh, justifying it, i.e. his desire for the pleasures of this world ruling his life. Dialogue has no effect but to keep man in a state of "fixity" to the bondage of the flesh, even when done "in Jesus name."  The 'contemporary church' was built upon and is bound to this dialectical pattern of thinking.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."  Romans 8:3-5

A believer is not going to be offended by the law of God, for the law is spiritual.  The offence of the Gospel is not because of God's mercy and grace, but because of the law of God which condemns the works of the flesh.  Without the law, the gospel message being preached or taught is not from God, but an apostate gospel of man's own making, i.e. a social gospel, of little or no offence to the flesh, i.e. leaving man still in love with the world and the lusts thereof.  The lost are offended by the preaching and teaching of the law, which goes directly to the soul of man, exposing their love of this world, their love of the flesh.  The saved are offended by the one preaching and teaching the law when he is not preaching God's mercy and grace as well. The secular realm, under God, would say, correctly, that 'liberty in law' is the result of a person, obeying the law, finding liberty of mind in a clear conscience at the end of the day, his conscience not bothering him.  Thus a man has either 1) a clear conscience, having obeyed the secular law, under God's law, 2) a guilty conscience, having disobeyed the secular law, under God's law, and 3) no conscience, having no respect for secular law, under God's law, i.e. law condemning the love of the world and the love of the flesh (he will respect secular law only if it is lawless, i.e. not under God's law.  Without God's law the world will be at "peace," i.e. the lawless one will be ruling, ruthlessly, with no sense of condemnation. "For the proletariat [the adolescent, heresiarchal paradigm, wanting justice and peace, i.e. mankind freedom from laws restraining normal human behavior] the truth [their belief that the patriarchal paradigm suppresses individual natural spontaneity and freedom, i.e. initiate and sustain "inhumanity," and therefore block social justice and peace, i.e. resist change for a "better" world order for everyone, keeping the world the same, by prior (bourgeoisie) established laws, for their personal gain] is a weapon that brings victory; and the more ruthless [the more lawless, i.e. more freedom from "inhuman" laws], the greater the victory."  [In this way the conscience is pushed aside with] "consciousness as ‘practical critical activity'"  (Lukacs)  When the church stops preaching and teaching the law, up front, the antichrist gets out of bed and goes to work, uninhibited, i.e. unrestrained.  He can even attend Church.  He can even lead in the "worship experience" and "preach and teach" a user-friendly, non-offensive, readily adaptable to change, Christ, i.e. justifying the flesh, i.e. social equality.

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16

The heresiarchal camarilla think that anyone with an un-enlightened "opinion" of God's "love," i.e. those who continues to preach and teach his law, his commands, are simply "in denial" of their own true nature, escaping their true human identity, failing to recognize the dignity of man, not only within themselves but also within the community, i.e. the "Christian" community included, i.e. the object of God's love ("whosoever"—the wicked, i.e. the individual is exchanged for "the group"—the good society, i.e. the fellowship.  God's goodness, for only God is good, is not founded upon the fellowship, it is found in the individual believers, who God has turned from evil to good, coming together to have fellowship; "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20  Therefore it is not the fellowship which makes a man good.  The fellowship is the result of men who have been made good, i.e. men in Christ, coming together in his name, if they have not been made good, i.e. men in Christ, then the fellowship is apostate even if held "in his name,"  Thus those who refuse to fellowship in the apostate group, which meet "in Jesus name," are justified before God for the justification is not based upon the fellowship but upon Christ.  Marxism sees the fellowship, the good society, as the basis for individual worth.  God does not. Grace and mercy do not negate the law, they simply are God's answer to our breaking of it (Jesus did not hold the law in contempt but rather fulfilled it, paying the price for us breaking it). Just because a judge has mercy on someone convicted of a crime, does not mean that he has negated the law.  Yet, for the heresiarchal, anyone with the patriarchal paradigm, who persist in preaching and teaching God's commands, after reproof, are simply identified and labeled as being divisive and hateful.  "The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. human nature, "the spirit of all spirits," (G. F. W. Hegel in Friedrich) i.e. what all men have in common, is thus the foundation and "purpose" of humanism, i.e. of Globalism, i.e. a new world order not built upon an order of reason (cognition restraining affection) but upon the order of sensuousness (cognition in covenant with affection).  Again: God's law, i.e. commands, can not save us, but only serve to inform and remind us that we are nothing but wicked before God, without our sins being covered by the blood of the lamb, and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives we are only subject to the works of the flesh and the things of this world, no matter how hard we try. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."  (Isaiah 64:6)  

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:24-26) 

Though justified by faith, Christ's religiousness imputed to us, we are to still love the law, no longer under its curse, but having it in our heart and on our mind.  "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."  (Romans 7:24, 25)  "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."  (Hebrews 10:15-18) While the law of God says, "thou shalt not," God's mercy and grace, says "you could not" but "I have" and through God's Holy Spirit "you will."  Thus the law is not negated in mercy and grace, only fulfilled in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. The patriarchal paradigm remains unchanged.  Thus the heresiarchal paradigm seeks to negate the law, i.e. which comes from above, i.e. from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the "negative field of force," which condemns human nature.  By simply focusing upon mercy and grace, i.e. identified as God's unconditional love for 'humanity,' simply nullifies mercy and grace, which are meaningless without the law.  Hegel rejected this truth, putting it this way: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel in Friedrich)    God is not against pleasure, it is the love (lust) of it which is the problem. The same goes for money. If you can not walk away from it (anything in this world you have or desire to have, including the respect of men), in obedience to Christ, it is idolatry.  Hold onto those things God has blessed you with, loosely, i.e. don't worship the things God has blessings you with, i.e. including the experience of worship itself, worship him.  Jesus did not come for the kingdoms of the world, Satan offered him those, he came for you, i.e. whosoever.  So live in his kingdom, that kingdom which is not of this world, and don't expect him to live in your kingdom, he has already turned that down.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  2 Thessalonians 2:3-12

Why the Ten Commandments were displayed in the Public classroom but are now removed:
We are all condemned in our love of this life, i.e. our love of the flesh, i.e. our love of this world, and without God's love, i.e. his mercy and grace, through Christ Jesus, who fulfilled the Father's commands, by his own blood (what we could not do), and who demands obedience to his commands which are not in conflict with his Father's commands, (what he did but we can not do), but are actualized only through the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e. Christ in us (what only he can do in us), we have nothing but death to  hold onto, i.e. the world and the lust thereof, passing away. "But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do."  (John 14:31) Thus, in a heresiarchal world, anybody preaching and teaching the Love of the Father and his commands, over and against the love of God and the love of this world must be restrained, ignored, or silenced (being accused of offending and chasing people out of the church).  Anybody, who wants out from under the influence of those who say that you can "love God" and still love the world (those seeking to be seen as 'successful' in their own eyes and in the eyes of man, in friendship with this world, 'in the name of Jesus' i.e. avoiding being an offense to the world), will look for a place where they can Love the Father and his commands without restraint by law haters. (I am not justifying legalism on the one hand and licentiousness on the other, as both are based upon misinterpretation and disobedience to God's word.) The dialectical process, which justifies man and his nature to the love of the creation, is being used to seduced those in love with both God and his law, into compliance with the love of this world, i.e. consensus, i.e. using the force of human relationship building, i.e. through a method called cognitive dissonance, to pressure people into compliance with "the group," i.e. the fellowship (what I call an "altered state of koinania"—koinwnia:  fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse) building a "Christian" world upon human feelings, not built upon sound doctrine (read Titus).  For the dialectic process to live, the law of God must die.  For the heresiarchal paradigm to live, the patriarchal paradigm must die.  In dialectical thinking, if they can not love both the world and God, both united within the "Christian" community via dialogue and consensus, then they must be forced into conformity, i.e. silenced, or be negated, i.e. treated as irrelevant. This is simply following the way of the world system, where all citizens “must effectively forge human and natural resources to serve his fellow man and help create uniqueness.” (Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program 1969 [B-STEP])  B-STEP is the benchmark federal document for determining the distribution of federal grants to educational institutions.  It involves the use of socio-psychological profiling and tracking, two thirds of the document dealing specifically with the methods used to profile and track students, as well as a feasibility study, i.e. a futurist projection of where this process will have taken America by 1984, 2000, and 2100, all for the 'purpose' of using education to change cultural diverse into global unity, i.e. mine-yours, i.e. above-below, into "Ours," i.e. into "We.")  In this way "uniqueness" replaces being a "peculiar people." "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."  (1 peter 2:9, 10)

"For a state to become a state it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating [Hegel is saying that dialectically a person can not think about finding escape outside of humanity, outside the current world he lives in, i.e. he must accept the belief that truth and life does not lie outside of the "here and now" world, but within it, in the world system itself, i.e. within society.  He wrote: “Spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits.”  (G. F. W. Hegel in Friedrich), therefore every person must participate, i.e. the process is not successful until no one can escape, i.e. try to find their hope outside this world, i.e. place their hope in God], but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty become very large and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in Friedrich) 

Hegel, as well as Karl Marx, did not consider America civilized until its citizens could no longer find, or better yet, no longer desired to find a way of escape from the human community, i.e. to escape communitarianism by "going west," i.e. could no longer escape the ways of carnal natural man and find freedom from the socialist world, i.e. where man could not escape a world becoming by the justification of isolationism or empiricism. Since the dialectical process can not be successful until no one can escape, i.e. "emigrate," in dialectical fashion, the border issue is not about keeping foreigners out, it is all about keep Americans from leaving, i.e. escaping, i.e. "emigrating," so they can escape the process and promote the patriarchal paradigm elsewhere.  As those who believe in and push the heresiarchal paradigm see it, if the slaves and plantation owners (the rich and the poor, the "haves" and the "have nots," the parents and the children, the above and the below) both "feel" it safer or necessary to stay on the plantation, they won't leave (or if they do leave to escape the process, they can not do so with being tracked down so they can be forcedly returned).  They will just learn to cope with the situation, now, both rich and poor, slaves to the system, i.e. equality³.  Thus the need to create a world hostile to Americans.  It just keeps them home, safely protected, under control of the process, i.e. using homeland security, to secure the homeland for the process, tracking all citizens' movements, for their own good. Until you understand the dialectical process, i.e. how it works, it just does not make much sense, i.e. "Who would do such a thing, and why?"  The question is not "'Who' are they?", or "'Why' are they doing it?" It is  "How is it done?"  Knowing the "how," (knowing Satan's "device," i.e. he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in the temptations.) answers the "who" and "why".  Anybody up for a cosmic group hug?  Have you had your group (village, community, communist) hug today? You had better get out into the village and get it or else you are not of this world, in it but not of it, i.e. like a resident alien, you will have few if any "rights," having exchange the "old," i.e. "inalienable rights," self evident rights, rights above the tyranny of the village, protecting you from the "tyranny of the masses," for the "new" human rights. Long live the flesh.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."  2 Timothy 1:7

 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.  Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another."  (Galatians 5:22-25) [If we live in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit, i.e. live and walk in God's patriarchal paradigm, we will not live and walk in the flesh, i.e. live and walk in the worlds heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. Satan's paradigm, i.e. his Genesis 3:1-6 project.]

Hegel is historically identified with the dialectical process. I will use a child as an example, although Hegel wrote about adults.  He believed that when feelings, i.e. fleshy desires stimulated by the natural environment, i.e. dopamine⁴, are blocked by fixed laws, i.e. laws which have no temporal, i.e. earthly meaning or value to the child at the time, i.e. in the child's "here and now" perception, if the child can not remove the situation, i.e. the restraining law and the condition which justifies them, to satisfy his feelings, i.e. to fulfill his natural human desires, i.e. through fighting against or fleeing from the parent or the situation, i.e. the situation demanding obedience to a higher authority greater than his nature (and the environment in agreement with it), he would simply succumb, i.e. capitulate, to the situation, i.e. give in to the system of submitting his human feelings, i.e. his nature to the practice of obedience to a fixed "non-human" way of life, with its fixed, repressive laws, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm (socially seen as capitalism).  By being forced to "give up," his will to a higher will, i.e. a higher authority, because they are stronger, and serve and protect him, i.e. providing clothing, food, and shelter, and love (seen as conditional from the child's perspective) the child is forced into accepting the office of authority of the parent, i.e. God, i.e. objective truth, as the way of thinking, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm. Thus when the child surrenders his feelings, i.e. his internal natural desire seeking to relate with the temporal, worldly environment which originally stimulated him into interpersonal relationship with it, because he is forced to redirect his life toward his parent (to accept the one above over the many below), i.e. to humble his self-life to be at one with them, out of the fear of the loss of their love, i.e. correlating with the love of God, he surrenders his worldly, natural identity to that which is above his worldly nature, i.e. to a non-worldly, non-natural, i.e. non-human authority, i.e. spiritual authority.  Rather than allowing his earthy feelings their intended desire, to fulfill harmony with the world, i.e. the love of this world, he is forced to satisfy his feelings by projecting them toward an authority greater than the world, greater than his human nature.  In this way he learns a way of thinking which fights against his human nature, alienating himself from his own nature and thus alienating himself from those in the world who love that nature as well.  Thus for the humanist, it is in the lust of the flesh that man finds his commonality with the world.  For those with a heresiarchal paradigm, the lust of the flesh is the only foundation available to all mankind to fulfil his "purpose" of establishing an earthly kingdom, i.e. "world peace," in the "here and now."  This is the basis of dialectical thinking.  Without the ability and the "right" to justify "lust," i.e. the justification of human nature, i.e. "boys will be boys," i.e. human rights, i.e. the right of the child, the system would simply be subject to an authority greater than man and his nature and thus "collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas Theory and Practice)

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. [Remember that the law is spiritual, it is perfect, converting the soul.  But it can not save us, it can only expose our wickedness, our human nature, bringing us to contrition.  Redeemed by Christ, and led by the Spirit, we are no longer under the curse of the law upon our soul, because of our lust of the flesh for the things of this world.]  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."  (Galatians 5:16-21)  Bracketed information added

When the heresiarchal paradigm gains control, freedom of the flesh replaces freedom of the conscience: (freedom from the flesh is replaced by bondage to the flesh).
 If given an opportunity to think about his dissatisfaction with the situation, i.e. his desire for love, i.e. his desire for relationship with the world, being forced, i.e. redirected toward that which is against his nature and against the world, i.e. by his parents, i.e. higher authority, i.e. God, his feelings of dissatisfaction, i.e. his "ought," i.e. his feelings and desires suppressed, would provoke him into thinking, i.e. theorizing, i.e. philosophizing of ways of changing the current situation to bring it into harmony with his feelings toward the environment which originally triggered them, i.e. feelings of pleasure.  He would first vicariously, by daydreaming (imagination), attempt to escape the situation by psychologically, philosophically creating a world which would satisfy his heart's desire, a world of "ought to be." In this way of thinking, his energy would not be used to fight against, flee from, or serve in submission to the condition, but instead it would be used in finding ways to escape the condition, i.e. escape the patriarchal paradigm, if only temporarily. 

"By liberating the world from the unphilosophical condition [liberating the world from obedience to higher authority, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. God above], men at the same time liberate themselves from philosophy [having to think about how to liberate self from higher authority (to practice "incest") is no longer necessary as higher authority is treated as irrelevant, i.e. patriarch is negated, annihilated (patricide is practiced as incest is practiced—praxis)], which in the form of a definite system  [paradigm] has held them in fetters." (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx;  International Pub.; NY, 65) 

The object is not to submit to or fight against, nor to transcend, avoid, or ignore, but rather to comprehend what it is in the world which blocks progress ("class consciousness"), i.e. comprehend what it is that blocks self-environment actualization, i.e. individual-social unity, and then to neutralize, marginalize, and subsequently remove its effect upon the world, by bringing it into the process of "change."  That which can not be comprehended in thought and in action (in theory and in practice) is not real, i.e. is not sensual, is not rational.  Reality can only be known by testing all things through the dialectical process, dividing between spiritual and carnal, to negate spiritual and liberate carnal.  Since all people have carnal in common, focus on common.  Since it is the spiritual which divides, then criticize that which divides, i.e. as the woman in the garden did.  By focusing upon that which was common she discovered, scientifically, that all the trees, including the forbidden tree were all common.  They were all good for food and pleasing to the eyes, which made the forbidden tree the desired tree since it could make you wise, i.e. making it possible for you to praxis the dialectical process so as to overcome crisis (overcome the condition which alienated her from a gratifying object).  Finding what is common in life, to build life upon common, negates that which divides, negates the idea, i.e. the paradigm, that the forbidden tree was only the patriarch's tree, when, dialectically, it was everyone's tree.  In this way imagination, i.e. philosophy, i.e. what "can be," put into practice, circumvents repression and creates a new reality.  By changing the pattern of social relationships, i.e. the way mankind communicates with himself, the evils of human life can be removed, i.e. that which divides, i.e. spiritual, can be overcome by that which unites, the carnal nature of man.  Evil, in dialectical thinking, is the alienation of man from his own nature and the nature of the changing world around him. “Alienation is the experience of ‘estrangement’ (Verfremdung) from others, . . .” “Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden.” “Alienation, according to Feuerbach, derives from the externalization (Entausserung) of human powers and possibilities upon a non-existent entity: God. . .” “God is thus the anthropological source of alienation . . .” “Alienation will continue so long as the subject engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity.”  (Bronner)  “‘Sin’ is the estrangement of man from man.” (Wheat)  Instead of man projecting his identity upon things above his nature, the dialectical process assists man in finding his identity within nature itself.  "Religion is precisely the self-awareness and self-consciousness of man who has not achieved himself, or has lost himself." Karl Marx,  John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx

(While two plus two equaling four, and can not be any other number, is a desired outcome of the dialectical process, since it is a law of nature, the teaching of it in a didactic format, i.e. in patriarchal paradigm, is seen as the problem, as that method also leads to acceptance, as absolute, those thing which are not of the natural world.  The child's learning ability, based upon the quantity of information learned (a patriarchal paradigm), the amount of facts he can memorize and recite within a given time, separating his cognitive and affective domains, i.e. making his affective domain subject to his cognitive domain, i.e. the truths given to him from above his nature become more important than his feeling regarding them, is seen, dialectically, as making him inadaptable to changing situations, i.e. preventing him from developing normally.  The child's learning ability, based upon the quality of information learned, i.e. its relevance to him at the time, retaining a cogni-tive and affective domain connection, is seen, dialectically, as making him adaptable to changing situations, and thereby normal in develop-ment.  The agenda is therefore to create life experiences in the classroom and elsewhere whereby he can again synthesize both cognitive and affective domains, and thereby become adaptable to changing situations, and thereby keeping up with a rapidly changing world.)

For Hegel the tolerance of an alienating condition (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm) was not reasonable.  It left the original system, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the father figure, i.e. the foundation of personal-social alienation, i.e. the voice above the child's nature, still in place thereby separating the person from his true purpose, uniting with the world for the cause of peace, i.e. no more wars, i.e. divisions.  It was essential that a "change" of the condition itself (the system which provoked the dissatisfaction in the first place) be given freedom of consideration in the mind of the child.  That the child be given hope in a "change" condition, in a condition which required a "rational" system of analysis, liberating the child to analyze the "non-rational" system which blocked the original intent of the child's feelings in the first place, i.e. blocking his carnal nature from seeking after and building relationship with the world around him, as well as freedom to initiate and sustain a method of transforming the original unchanging condition into a condition of change, liberating him from future "negative" experiences.

"According to Marx, historical changes in society and material life produce changes in 'human nature' (consciousness and behavior)." (Michael Cole and Sylvia Scribner, introduction to L. S. Vygotsky  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes)

“To study something historically means to study it in the process of change; that is the dialectical method’s basic demand.” "The child, in wishing, carries out his wishes.  In thinking, he acts.  Internal and external action are inseparable"  (L. S. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes)  [In this way, by a person's willful participation in a permissive environment (a sensuous and spontaneous environment, i.e. an environment of imagination) an environment where he can freely share his thoughts and actions toward things in life which originally attracted him, things which were "forbidden" by the parents, i.e. a "negative" environment where parental commands determined what has meaning or value in life, now manifested in his action of obedience toward the parents' commands (a patriarchal paradigm), his past history is replaced (transformed, i.e. distorted, malformed, misshaped, changed) by his identifying and participating with those things which give meaning or value to his life ( personally, sensually), so that he can freely act upon them again (role-play), thereby negating parental restraint.  Reality is no longer found above the child, as objective truth, but is instead found within the imagination of child, i.e. within human nature, i.e. the wanting of a gratifying object in the world, i.e. subjective truth, now put into action, i.e. humanism (a heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. "theory and practice"). The outcome is not to get a person to behave a particular way, but rather to get him to think a particular way.  The behavior will follow.  In this way the behavior will always be universal, no matter the situation, the person forever guided by the dialectical process of "change."  This is the 'purpose' of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, removing the obstacles which prevent human nature from finding unity with itself, the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm.]

A child's paradigm is formed "under the influence of verbal interaction with adults and consequently [is] not 'natural.'"  (A. N. Leontiev, A. R. Luria, and B. M. Teplov preface to L. S. Vygotsky  Development of Higher Psychological Functions)

Dialectically, the agenda is to change the human language from absolutes to relativism, i.e. from "Is" and "Not," as in having to memorize two plus two "Is" four and can "Not" be any other number, to the language of socio-psychology, i.e. "How do you feel about ....," and "What do you think when ...." with not absolute right or wrong answer, i.e. no "can not, must not, will not" commands suppressing feelings, i.e. denying sensuous needs thereby blocking sense experience.  In this change of language, an environment of earthy freedom, to imagine and create a new world in harmony with his nature and in harmony with all of humanity can be used to negate an environment of restraint upon human nature. 

While two plus two equaling four, and can not be any other number, is a desired outcome of the dialectical process, since it is a law of nature, the teaching of it in a didactic format, i.e. in patriarchal paradigm, is seen as the problem, as that method, when being used, also leads to acceptance, as absolute, those thing which are not of the natural world.  The child's learning ability, based upon the quantity of information learned, the amount of facts he can memorize and recite within a given time, separating his cognitive and affective domains, i.e. making his affective domain subject to his cognitive domain, i.e. the truths given to him from above his nature become more important than his feeling regarding them, is seen, dialectically, as making him inadaptable to changing situations, i.e. preventing him from developing normally.  The child's learning ability, based upon the quality of information learned, i.e. its relevance to him at the time, retaining a cognitive and affective domain connection, is seen, dialectically, as making him adaptable to changing situations, and thereby normal in his development.  The agenda is therefore to create life experiences in the classroom and elsewhere whereby the child can again synthesizing both his cognitive and his affective domains, and thereby become adaptable to changing situations, and thereby keep up with a rapidly changing world, i.e. not imposing God's or parent's restraining rules upon himself and it.

In this way Hegel's famous formula "A" plus "negative A" equals "A" is achievable, i.e. when you add feelings of "here and now" as the common linkage between the thesis and the antithesis, i.e. A being man, negative A being man under God or child under parent, through the use of the dialectical process, both equaling A again, only now man no longer is under God but has become god (restraint is no longer from God above, over human nature, but is from man himself, for the sake of all mankind below, i.e. the god below), the "there and then" synthesized into the "here and now," and vise versa. Put another way, two plus two can equal four, five, six, or any other number as long as you do not bring the "not," the negative, into the formula.  We can all get along as long as no one is negative, hurting other people's feelings (eventually it is hoped by those in the process that two plus two does end up being four, i.e. for the sake of those depending upon the product being made, it is just that that is not what is first on the list of objectives). The patriarchal paradigm can only see that there is either an A or a B, i.e. there is "either-or."  If a little of B is in A, it is no longer an A, or if a little A is in B, it is no longer B, therefore it can not be an "either-or" paradigm but must be a corrupting paradigm, negating that which separated right from wrong, making all things wrong even when they "seem to be" right.  As Phil Ring, puts it, "You can not be half pregnant, you either are or are not."  The trickery is to get you into the "more right than wrong" language, as in "The demolition expert's tombstone reads, 'He was more right than wrong.'" Or the family doctor telling the family that their child unfortunately died during the operation, despite him doing "more things right than wrong."  The Heresiarchal paradigm needs the deception, i.e. your participation in the illusion, or it is dead. To mix the two, right and wrong, as along a continuum, is to go to the side of the Heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. spiritual death, and is to praxis the mandatory persecute, attempted annihilation of the Patriarchal Paradigm, while happily traveling down the heresiarchal pathway to eternal death. 

 "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."  (Luke 12:2, 3)

What you say in secret, in the "here and now," will be revealed, in the "there and then:"  When memorizing something in the "here and now," i.e. to be used in the future, i.e. in the "there and then" (say a test next week, etc.), the "here and now" can become boring, you become dissatisfied—a feeling of impatience—with the way things are in the "here and now," i.e. you have to do your homework (which you don't want to do, i.e. your "want," i.e. dopamine, is missing in the "here and now," because you are having to learn, unwillingly—your will under the control of another—about the "there and then").  When your "here and now" is subjected to learning a "there and then" past, i.e. facts, preparing you for a "there and then" future i.e. which does not agree with your "here and now" feelings, then the "intense" desire for something you would rather be doing in the "here and now," i.e. playing, drives your mind, i.e. drives your thoughts into dreaming, i.e. imagining, about how the world should be in the "here and now," i.e. freed from the "there and then" past and the "there and then" future established by others, i.e. freed from a world established by an authority above, not in agreement with your "here and now" feelings, below (the affective domain, i.e. your personal feelings about the subject, i.e. your "sensuous need," is separated, i.e. alienated from the cognitive domain, i.e. the facts being learned, which at the time, i.e. according to your "sense perception," seem irrelevant, because they do not proceed from your nature, i.e. satisfy you desires).  This is something we have all experienced while doing our mandated, non-voluntary, mundane homework.  That was until the teacher came along and brought us back to the "here and now," learning the "there and then" past,  preparing us for the "there and then" future, teaching us, not only about the "there and then," but how to think in the "here and now," controlled by the "there and then,"  i.e. self-control, self-discipline. By simply changing the lessons to be learned, i.e. the commands to be memorized, i.e. the subject matter, i.e. the content would only perpetuate the feelings of dissatisfaction in the next experience in learning, i.e. the flesh is always frustrated with restraint.  The learning of facts, which become established truths for all times and all places, remains the way of thinking, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, thus blocking the person from freely experiencing "changing facts," i.e. the changing of feelings in changing times i.e. identifying with the contemporary, i.e. the praxis of a heresiarchal paradigm. 

“‘Have you merely released the beast, the id, in man?’ There is no beast in man. There is only man in man, and this we have been able to release.” “Do we dare to generalize from this type of experience that if we cut through deeply enough to our organismic nature, that we find that man is a positive and social animal? This is the suggestion from our clinical experience.” “Maslow puts up a vigorous case for man's animal nature . . . "  (Rogers)

“There is first the theorem that ‘there is nothing in the id which can be compared to negation,’ and that the law of contradiction [right vs. wrong, above vs. below] does not hold in the id.”  “The true life of the body is also the life of the id.” ["when the id wants something nothing else is important" (source: www.allpsych.com )]“Freud saw that in the id there is no negation, only affirmation and eternity. The instinctual reality is Dionysian drunkenness ‘We can come nearer to the id with images, and call it a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement.’” "In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time. A healthy human being, in whom ego and id were unified, would not live in time." "Only the abolition of guilt can abolish time."  “The goal of the pleasure principle is happiness.” “The replacement of the pleasure principle by the reality principle [obeying parents or God] is the great traumatic event in the development of man ... it occurs during the period of early childhood, and submission to the reality principle is enforced by the parents and other educators.” [The Id] “... does not aim at self-preservation; all it strives for is satisfaction of its instinctual needs, in accordance with the pleasure principle.” “... the basic instincts strive for the prevalence of pleasure and for the absence of pain, the pleasure principle is incompatible with reality [above nature commands from God or parent], and the instincts have to undergo a repressive regimentation.” “In terms of the pleasure principles ... reproduction is merely a ‘by-product.' [Sex is for pleasure, any way you can get it, and no longer for procreation, i.e. to sustain the family and the nation.]”  (Brown)  bracketed information added

“... the ‘external restrictions’ which first the parents and then other societal agencies have imposed upon the individual ‘interjected’ into the ego and become its ‘conscience’; henceforth, the sense of guilt permeates the mental life.” “The id carries the memory traces of the dominion ... forward into every present future: it projects the past into the future.” (Herbert Marcuse)

The heresiarchal paradigm regards feelings as facts, tying us to the "here and now" environment, i.e. to the world of sensuousness, i.e. the world around us, and our desire to relate with it freely, is, to them, the basis of reality.  Feelings, i.e. man's id, i.e. "man's basic and unconscious nature," is thus the necessary catalyst for change in dialectical thinking.  The liberation of feelings from the effects of a "un-natural" restraining experience is essential for the transformation of society from a patriarchal paradigm with its above-below rigidity, into a heresiarchal paradigm with its method of unifying the world, i.e. building it upon "changingness," i.e. justifying and liberating "the lust of flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. without God there is no longer lust and pride, there is only human instinct, "untamed forces," seeking unity with the world, needing a "wholesome and constructive" environment i.e. environment control, i.e. climate control, so that mankind can actualize themselves "salubriously."  Behavior, rather than being judged by right and wrong, i.e. "higher-lower," established by authorities above human nature, must be judged scientifically according to a continuum of development, i.e. according to the environmental conditions of the pursuit of happiness (sensuousness) and free will (spontaneity), i.e. liberation immerging from restraint, i.e. the old world order being transformed into the new world order i.e. along a continuum of "prepotency & postpotency."  

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."  Romans 8:12, 13

For the dialectical (humanistic) mind, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, since man is born with his flesh nature "in tact," his first and lasting purpose being survival and keeping pleasure in contact, i.e. harmony, with the world around him, i.e. approach pleasure and avoid pain, anything which comes into his life environment, i.e. experience, which forces him out of his natural human development, his self and world synchronization, is an unnatural event in the cosmic experience, i.e. an abortion, which must be identified and then removed (rationally identified and its removal put into practice) for the sake of individual-social harmony. This is the heart and soul of historical materialism, i.e. the idea that history is man creating his earthly kingdom through the progressive awareness and removal of unnatural environmental conditions of restraint, i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. seen as the source of "the neurosis of culture."

History:  It's all in how you define it.
The difference between a traditional interpretation of history and a transformational interpretation of history is that the former bases its evaluation upon set standards, i.e. determining proper and improper behavior from an established value of right and wrong, thus no matter the age or era, man's conduct is measured from a pre-established paradigm, while in the latter case, i.e. in transformational interpretation of history, history is the evaluation of a person's particular upbringing in reference to the current changing times, i.e. the process, i.e. paradigm, they use in solving personal and social problems (seen as along a continuum of paradigms).  In other words does the person in a crisis behave in a way which inhibits change, i.e. putting up barriers, i.e. "moralizing,"  which prevent themselves and others from keeping up with the times.  Because of their previous upbringing, i.e. they have a history of being raised in a patriarchal paradigm (traditional home) environment, do they reflect "autocratic ethics." Or do they simply go along to get along, i.e. a transitional environment of upbringing, i.e. they have a history of being raised in a matriarchal paradigm (transitional coterie-home) environment, i.e. reflecting permissive, "laissez-faire ethics." Or do they adjust to any setting (tolerant of all except the intolerant, i.e. the patriarchal), not demanding of themselves or of others in an adherence to established rules, but is able to enjoy and facilitate others in enjoying living in the moment, in an environment of ambiguity, i.e. they have a history of being raised in a heresiarchal (transformational community-home, permissive home) environment, i.e. reflecting "democratic ethics."

 “The eclipse of a way thinking [a paradigm change] cannot take place without a crisis.” (Gramsci) “What The Authoritarian Personality was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian society ─ fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional parental authority was under fire.” (Adorno)  “A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of ‘communitarian socialism.’” (Bronner)  “The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entree into the geographic community.”  (Trojanowicz, The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing)  emphasis added

Only in a crisis do these paradigms come to the surface for evaluation and only in a crisis are people more adaptable to change, more "willing" to change their paradigm, i.e. the actual and/ or perceived "necessity" of survival in the moment (in the current Zeitgeist), for the individual and their social identity, pressuring them into a "willingness" to change the paradigm they use, in the dialectical setting, to identify and attach the crisis at hand.  Without 1.) getting a persons feelings, i.e. fear, i.e. "what is going to happen to me or my family, or .... if ...," in front of their traditional way of doing things, along with 2.) getting their "id" out from under their traditional way of doing things, they will most likely not permanently change their paradigm, i.e. change their history in favor of a globalist, communist, democracy, (diaprax, i.e. anti-Christ) weltanschauung, and "redeem" themselves, and the world around them, from "the neurosis" of the traditional culture with its divisive absolutes, and thereby be able to redefine themselves as a world citizen.  You have to map the room first, identify the victim's personal history by the use of the pressure of the group meeting, those already in the process refusing to allow the patriarchal paradigm any control.  And by thus creating the right environmental conditions, and by bringing them into participation within it, their history is changed, their mind washed of the patriarchal paradigm "of the past."

“In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man’s basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes.” “The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic.” (Rogers)

"So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness.  It's the easiest to take.  Must encourage it. Only trouble is, I feel uneasy allying myself with nuts, fringe people, borderline characters, e.g. as in this number of ANKH; the tipoff―there are only young, shapely, & beautiful bodies." "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Maslow, Journals)

"The new Zeitgeist is value-full (value-directed, value-vectorial), human-need & meta-need centered (or based), moving toward basic-need gratification & meta-need meta-gratification—that is, toward full-humanness, SA [Self Actualization], psychological health, full-functioning human fulfillment, i.e., toward human perfection as the limit & as the direction." "It revolves around a new image of man, a new conception or definition, containing both the Freudian-style depts & a higher nature, higher possibilities, which can be actualized under the proper life-history and social milieu & cognitive history." "History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency." (Maslow, Journals)  bracketed info added.

Listen to audios by Shirley McCune, speaking at a Governors' conference, on the subject of teaching "changing facts," i.e. sharing feelings, instead of facts, i.e. memorization of truth, in the classroom and "the transformation of society,"  part 1, part 2:

But by questioning and challenging the method being used in learning facts, i.e. the method used to learn commands which squelch feelings, by learning with a method which harmonizes with feelings, i.e. laws of human nature (psychology and sociology), dissatisfaction can be utilized instead of punished.  Dissatisfaction is present in both paradigms.  The patriarchal paradigm is dissatisfied with the way of the world, i.e. a world of rebellion below, because it is in love with a world of obedience, i.e. that which is above, and the heresiarchal paradigm is dissatisfied with the way of the world above, i.e. the love of things above, i.e. dissatisfied with the patriarchal paradigm blocking rebellion, i.e. the liberation of feelings below. Whoever controls the meeting, to resolve dissatisfactions, determines the outcome.  The paradigm used to solve conflicts, i.e. to deal with crisis, determines the outcome of the meeting. Thus the method, i.e. the paradigm, used in learning the content can be changed from the memorization of the old (above), to the method of theorizing, i.e. of questioning  "the old way of doing things," to keep up with the new (below).  In this way of thinking, with the heresiarchal paradigm, a person can more readily, remove his dissatisfactions with the "established" way of doing things, by no longer memorizing the "this is the way it is," rigid laws, i.e. the "old" paradigm and instead invest his time in dialoguing "what might work better," i.e. flexible laws in harmony with feelings, i.e. the "new," as in "new age," paradigm, i.e. a paradigm of questioning everything, i.e. everything which inhibits or prevents a person from experiencing his naturally inquiry into nature in the "here and now," i.e. with its feelings of dissatisfactions, i.e. dissatisfactions triggered by having to learn and obey "there and then" rigid laws of the past, tying him to the rigid "there and then" future. Thus, feelings, triggered by current events, i.e. the crisis of the moment (heard of any crisis lately), would help him move away from faith in the "this is how things were done in the past," and help him think in a "new" way (it is a new as Genesis 3:1-6²), a "new" way which would help him escape a world of status quo, of absolutes, i.e. an unnatural world hostile to his changing feelings, and experience a new world of "change," i.e. changingness, i.e. a feelings-friendly world, where feelings would become as important, if not more important, than facts. In this way "the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower," would be negated, and neurosis, i.e. man's mind and thought set upon things above in conflict with his feelings below, i.e. the spiritual, the higher, inhibiting his carnal human nature, overcome.  In the heresiarchal paradigm there is no higher and lower only the "neurotic" and the holistic, i.e. those who need help (the patriarchal) and those who can help them out of their "neurosis" and bring them back into touch with their flesh and the world, into holism (the heresiarchal).

“The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered.” (Brown) 

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."  1 Corinthians 3:11

"So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered morter, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the LORD."  Ezekiel 13:14

Since feelings are ever changing, influenced by the environment, which is ever changing (we are not talking about God's Holy Spirit here, which is eternally in agreement with God), then life is always in flux (you have to sell the world on the concept of a "rapidly changing world," i.e. make it the focal point for human survival, to make this process work, i.e. tying changing technology to individual-social needs, i.e. therefore the world, and truth, is ever changing, i.e. life is subject to the changing situations of the world, i.e. lust is no longer seen as sin, as evil, but it is only mankind being true to his own nature, discovering his identity with the world for the sake of survival). By focusing upon environmental change, i.e. focusing upon that which is below, i.e. on earth in the "here and now," i.e. focusing upon the flesh, rather than "the accustomed way" of doing things, i.e. focusing upon that which is above, i.e. obedience to higher authority with their "there and then," i.e. the spirit, i.e. non-human, non-flesh, anti-flesh rules to learn and obey, discontentment, i.e. feelings of rebellion against restraint, became the justifier for change. Therefore, there are no established truths for all times and all places in the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. in the humanistic world view, i.e. in the transformational weltanschauung. In the dialectical process, the only established truth is the process of change itself, i.e. change for the sake of change alone. Every condition in which man finds himself must be open to change or be recognized and treated as his enemy, i.e. as an abomination to his human nature.  Thus truth is not found above man, i.e. established, but is found within man, i.e. in the process of his own human nature, i.e. in the desire for change, i.e. to have that which he is not to have, i.e. in his quest to find freedom from the memorizing of and obedience to unchanging, absolute, objective truth where the "here and now" is subject to the "there and then," i.e. heaven above i.e. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10),  patriarchal paradigm.  Thus dialectically, truth is not to be found in the "back there and back then" commands of the past (remember they are not back in the past but from above, now), to be learned and obeyed in the "here and now," restraining the "here and now" feelings, i.e. to achieve the "there and then" future, but rather truth is found in the "here and now," feelings, freed from the "back there and back then" commands, which frees man to experience the "there and then" future, in the "here and now" present, on his way of becoming.

The Identification of Paradigms. Part III

The Identification of Paradigms. Part I
The Identification of Paradigms. Part II

“What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself.” (G. F. W. Hegel, in Friedrich)  [This is the ideology that all is becoming.]

 "In the eyes of the dialectical process, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Karl Marx

"And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.  And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.  And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?  And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.  Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright." Genesis 25:29-34

In the eyes of the dialectical process: What is established for all times? Nothing. What is absolute or sacred? Nothing.  Therefore, according to Marx, you are nothing without the process of change, i.e. nothing.  Only when you have nothing (have a world without God, without absolutes, a world without walls or restraint), having sold your soul to the beast will you be "everything."  Having, like Eau, sold your birthright for "bread and pottage of lentils," i.e. selling your soul, abdicating your conscience for the super-ego, your individuality for the village, your "made in the image of God," for the image of the creation, what you have from above for that which is below, your inalienable rights given by God above for the "soul of the people," i.e. "human rights," here below, you will end up having "nothing" while maintaining the perception ("the imagination of your heart") that you have "everything," i.e. with "revolutionary boldness" not just rejecting, but seeking to destroy the pathway which leads to life.  “Every class lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything.” (Marx, Critique)  

"The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul." "Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud."  Proverbs 16:17, 19

Like the void between the planets, i.e. you will be in space and time (living only in the space-time continuum), but going nowhere in particular, ever changing with no arrival point, i.e. no reference points but the void of the process of change.  Just make sure you don't run into reality, i.e. hit any planets, i.e. run into any objective truth, or the dialectical process will come to an end for you. Cur-splat!  Like jumping out of a plane at 20,000 feet, with no parachute, you can have all the opinions, theories, etc., about gravity you want, even finding consensus with others who have jumped with you , i.e. convince yourself that group hug makes opinions objective truth, that "change" is the pathway of life, that is, until you meet objective truth.  In the end it does not matter how you feel, or what you think, or how many of you are feeling and thinking the same thing (i.e. how much "changing" is going on), it's what you know, or better who knows you, that counts. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."  Proverbs 16:18

"Truth and knowledge are only relative and there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places."  (Bloom, Book I Cognitive Domain p. 32)

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"  Romans 1:20 emphasis added

God's paradigm is not man's paradigm (Isaiah 55:8, 9). The patriarchal paradigm is based upon belief in "absolute truth," i.e. the world restrained by tradition (in the good usage of that word, i.e. not as in the tradition of men which is in unrighteousness but in the tradition of Godliness which is righteousness, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."  2 Thessalonians 3:6).  The patriarchal paradigm is dialectically seen as a negative "field of force," i.e. having a negative alignment with human nature and the universe because of a patriarchal God.  The heresiarchal paradigm, is based upon the ideology of "change," i.e. the world in a state of continual transformation (as in "change for change sake," i.e. never arriving at truth, not in the good usage of that word, as in being transformed from one position, evil, to another position, good, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  Romans 12:2). The heresiarchal paradigm is dialectically seen as a positive "field of force," i.e. in positive alignment with human nature and the universe (see force field analysis⁵). 

As covered in Part II of this article, Kurt Lewin saw the "negative valence," i.e. the conscience, i.e. the restrainer in the child, i.e. the commands of the parent in the child's mind, as a product of the child having been raised, "in an induced field of force of an adult," and that the only way to deliver the child from this "negative valence" was to psychically remove "the field of force of the adult," i.e. the authority role of the parent, from the perception of the child in his learning experience. "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child [then] the negative valence also disappears."  From then on, what is important in his world is not to be found above his nature, defined from above (i.e. God stating "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17) but is instead found within his nature and the nature of others ("And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."  Genesis 3:4-6).  Only with the aid of the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the dialectical process and the help of the "facilitator of change," i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, can the child be helped to re-define reality, i.e. "shift" his paradigm from that which is above his nature to that which "only proceeds from Nature." (Marx)

But it was realized that a transitional phased had to take place. Therefore, the only way to move from, i.e. "shift," one's mind from the patriarchal paradigm (established, a rock—it' a solid paradigm, objective truth) to the heresiarchal paradigm (changing, shifting sand—it's a "shifty" paradigm, subjective truth) is through the use of the matriarchal paradigm, i.e. transition, i.e. "feelings."  While the patriarchal paradigm does not reject "feelings," i.e. the affective domain, as a part of daily life, it demands the control of them, i.e. promoting an environment which chastens them, when necessary, to achieve self control, self discipline.  The heresiarchal paradigm, on the other hand, depends upon the liberation of "feelings, i.e. "sensuousness (where "the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.” Karl Marx as quoted in Erich Fromm, Marx’s Concept of Man), promoting an environment which encourages self esteem, i.e. the love of self and the world (“The more of himself man attributes to God [a "negative field of force" restraining Nature], the less he has left in himself.” (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore).  "For that which is highly esteemed among men [a "positive field of force" preceding from and uniting man with nature] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5b

"Walden Two: 'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn't' ... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design.  We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free.  They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do.  That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt.  By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished.  The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises."  (Rogers)  emphasis in original 

It is easier to seduce people into following you when you allow them to do what they want to do, than it is to force them to do what you want them to do, against their will, i.e. the flesh does not readily follow an environment which restrains it (negative force field means restraint of the flesh, i.e. freedom from the flesh, i.e. spiritual), but the flesh gleefully follows the environment which encourages it (positive force field means freedom from restraint of the flesh, i.e. freedom of the flesh, i.e. temporal).  The pathway to Hell is replete with those things which attract, i.e. the siren song, Orpheus, the harlot, etc.

"The nature of free will is another issue that can be tackled by the new biology of mind. Free will is the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination. According to Freud's discovery of psychic determinism - the fact that much of our cognitive and affective life is unconscious - there is not much left for freedom of action. Experiment on the correlation between electrical activity of the brain and movement (lifting a finger for example), reveals that the electrical activity precedes the movement by 200 milliseconds. It is proposed that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain, but that just before the action is taken, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not. Thus, our conscious mind may not have free will, but it can freely modify inappropriate behavior. This is the reason for the laws in our society to hold all of us accountable for our own action. It is suggested that we should update our idea of free will to mean self-control over our behaviour." (source:  universe-review.ca/R10-16ANS;  ) 

In other words we are all accountable for our actions.  Interestingly this article has a picture of Adam taking a fruit from Eve's hand displayed as an example. Be advised that this is an evolution theory based website and I only use it here as true science is true science even if people use it in their effort to promote foolishness, i.e. Godlessness.  "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."  1 Corinthians 3:14, 19, 21;  Romans 1: 18-32.  True science, discovering established laws set by God, witnesses to God as being the creator of the heavens and the earth. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Genesis 1:1  "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"  Colossians 1:16  "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Peter 3:7, 13

It is only through the manipulation of "feelings" (through the identification and control of the environmental conditions which stimulate and thus entice our feelings, i.e. the environmentally positive forces which attract i.e. "drive" our senses in a particular direction, appeal to and gratify our sensuousness, i.e. aesthetic pleasure) that the heresiarchal paradigm can initiate and then sustain control over people, i.e. the "masses," for it's own end—world domination—or as those who use the heresiarchal paradigm would rather say, "world peace," i.e. a world without an all knowing, all powerful God and his patriarchal paradigm of authority interfering with human feelings and slowing down human "progress."  The heresiarchal, i.e. "change" agenda is not to get rid of the idea of god, i.e. it loves a god who can be synchronized with human nature (a sociological god, a psychological god, a god with human feelings (only human feelings), struggling along with man for cosmic oneness, i.e. a loving but lawless god, i.e. a 'tolerant of ambiguity' god, i.e. Belial). The dialectical agenda is to get rid of a particular way of thinking, i.e. a paradigm, which, according to their reasoning, "initiates" and "sustains" obedience to a patriarchal God, a jealous God who must have it his way or else, i.e. objective truth. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14 Their thinking is: God did not create man, man created god and therefore a man who believes in and diligently obeys a God, i.e. a God who created man, is "neurotic," having feelings of guilt when he fails him, worrying about things which really don't exist or matter at all, i.e. reality is not above man, reality is man, i.e. reality is man's feelings and thoughts united and then put into action (sensory experience is the medium whereby truth is acquired, truth is not found through spiritual revelation), man being "imaginative," "changeable," "adaptable," "innovative," "creative,"  i.e. creating "his," world in "his" sensual image. 

In the heresiarchal paradigm, human subjectivity (that which is perceivable and experiential) becomes the basis of reality, replacing objective truth (that which is independent of human perception, independent of human thought) as the basis of reality.  In this way objective 'truth' is restored only in the social praxis, i.e. objective truth always society in a state of flux, always seeking unity, truth (reality) manifesting itself in "a moment in correct praxis" (Gramsci), i.e. truth seeking itself through human praxis (the consensus moment being the contemporary moment of truth). Whoever controls the environment of perception, whether in education, the workplace, social activates, government, church, etc., controls the senses of those present.  By developing experiential perception (what has meaning to your feelings and your thoughts, i.e. your interests) as the doorway to active participation in approving or rejection leadership, people can be conditioned to reject patriarchal leadership and follow after heresiarchal leadership, i.e. praxis anarchy and revolution, even in the church.  If you leave the worship service saying "wasn't that a wonderful worship service," instead of praising God and glorifying his name, you just participated in experiential perception, i.e. worshiped the experience of worshiping through human praxis.  Reality was therefore in the experience below and not in the Lord above.  Are you dead yet?  If you just thought "Now you have just gone to far!" you are still alive, in the flesh that is.  You are still living by your subjective truth below (living psychologically, living sociologically), refusing God's objective truth from above (refusing to walk in His Spirit).

"Every form of objectification ... results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification.;” (Bronner)  The best way to overcome objectivity (God) is through social action (praxis) since, “Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; ...” (Yalom)  [Faith in God is harder to maintain when all your "Christian" friend are trying to pressure you into joining them in the process, "in the name of Jesus."]

Jesus maintained his "objectivity," i.e. obedience to his Heavenly Father "in the face of ... group unanimity," i.e. social action, and has called you to do the same.  "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."  Ephesians 6:13  "And ye shall be hated of all men [social praxis] for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."  Mark 13:13, i.e. read all of Mark 13:1-37 for context.

" For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;  And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."  2 Corinthians 10:3-6  "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."  John 15:19  "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.  They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.  We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."  1 John 4:4-6

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  Genesis 1:26

“The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual.” (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6)  [Marx is saying we can not be called by God from the womb but that we are only a product of our environmental press, i.e. the environment we were raised up in.  It is the environment, i.e. the social matrix, we are subjected to, which determines our characteristics.  In this way of thinking, the youth group has as much, if not more, to do with your child's qualities as does God's call on their life, i.e. God's call on their life must not interfere with the quality of life which the youth group provides.  This is not biblical but has become the ideology of the church.]

In other words man is not made in the image of God, i.e. not having the right to have dominion over anything under God, i.e. not having an eternal soul, and therefore not answerable to God.  By this humanistic "reasoning," potatoes in a sack, individual men (souls) living before God in a fallen world, are replaced with a sack of potatoes, individual man finding their identity within mankind as a whole (social, i.e. in the sack, i.e. in the youth group), i.e. all of mankind living as one upon the earth.  Therefore identity outside of the all, negates your existence, repudiates you as living, having a life, i.e. "get a life."  In the former, you stand before God as in individual, in the latter you stand before mankind and if you don't match up as at one with mankind, i.e. if you come as an "abstract" individual, i.e. if you are not a social potato (you don't identify yourself as of the sack of potatoes—collective, but rather as an individual potato in a sack of potatoes), then you are not an individual of worth, maybe not a potato at all.

“The real nature of man is the totality of social relations.” Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6  “It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities… only in a socialist society.” Karl Marx  “Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being.” (Marx, Critique) “Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society.”  “Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society.” (Articles 66 and 14, "Former" USSR Constitution, and the future United States of the Americas Constitution)

"How to convert the perception of favored principles by those who hold them from dogmas to 'hypotheses' remains a central problem for democratic social engineers." (Benne) 

Dialectically, if you can talk a person into consenting that their belief ("dogma") is only an opinion ('hypothesis'), you have just made your day, i.e. saved a soul for hell, basing reality upon human perception, upon personal experience below (by sight, sensuousness) rather than upon God and His Word from above (by faith, spirit).

The contrast between the two different ways of thinking is as antithetical as heaven is in height to the earth.  Any effort on man's part to bridge the gap between the two paradigms, i.e. to bring the two together, to make the one the same as the other, or to negate the one with the other, is futile.  Man's feelings for himself is not the same "feeling" that God has for man.  Man's love is temporal, i.e. earthy, i.e. subjective. God's love is Spiritual, i.e. heavenly, i.e. objective.  God's love can not be detached from his laws against the fleshy nature of man.  Man's love cannot detach itself from the laws of his fleshy nature. Man can not overcome the dualities of life, the below vs. above conflict: below being the desire to live in and of the flesh, i.e. in the 'here and now', and the fear of the death of the flesh, i.e. in the 'there and then,'  i.e. his natural law of the flesh to approach pleasure and to avoid pain, vs. above, being able to live spiritually while in the flesh, i.e. in the flesh but not off it, and thus having no fear of death, i.e. spiritually alive, though the flesh dies, he is able to stand and endure all things (the conscience alive and subject to God's kingdom). For mankind to struggle to save himself from judgment and death, through the use of his paradigm(s) (the matriarchal-heresiarchal progression, i.e. making life decisions based upon feelings, i.e. "thinking" and "acting" through "feelings," i.e. basing life  upon one's own feelings—matriarchal—and thinking about how to control others feelings—heresiarchal—is impossible.  Following after your feelings can only get you into hell.  They can not keep you out, or get you out (Luke 16:19-31).  Only believing upon and following after God's "only begotten Son," knowing and accepting his love for you, can keep you from going there.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."  (John 3:16-18)  "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24).  

Only God's paradigm, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. belief and obedience, made available from God, can redeem you and me from eternal death, death due us because of our love of the flesh, our love of this world.  Only God provides a paradigm of repentance.  It can only be his work i.e. your flesh can not take part in nor be a part of repentance.  If you repent, and you are still thinking about your feelings or thinking about how to control other's feelings, including God's, then you are not repenting to God, you are simply sorry for your actions toward yourself or other men. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." 2 Corinthians 7:10  Repentances implies accepted guilt for one's sins, knowing you warrant eternal hell, which means no dialogue, no justification for one's own thoughts, feelings, and actions (If you are guilty on one part of the law, you are guilty for all of it since it was not a particular law but your contempt for God's law itself, i.e. the system of disobedience you leaned upon, i.e. self-justification, which brought condemnation, i.e. its the system, the heresiarchal paradigm you use, which condemns you). If you believe (have faith), you won't dialogue to justify your praxis, i.e. justify your feelings and thoughts in action.  If you don't believe or doubt God and his Word, you will dialogue to justify your feelings and thoughts.  There is no dialogue, i.e. questioning authority, in belief.  There is no dialogue between man and God, i.e. "Lord, what do you want me to do in this situation?" is not dialogue, it is asking for direction. 

"It is not in man to direct his steps."  (Jeremiah 10:23). emphasis added

Apostate, i.e. Church Growth, emergent church, etc, i.e. dialectically-minded ministers can not accept the patriarchal paradigm and therefore can not accept and therefore practice and preach true repentance from a repentant heart.  Every one of them that I have met just loves to defend dialogue (feelings).  None are in love with God's word, they are only in love with their opinions of God's word, i.e. their wisdom before men.  Some might preach a "hard" sermon but they support or tolerate the flesh, i.e. men's opinions, in all other activities in the church to keep the institution "going and growing" and their bellies full, refusing to be zealous of the Word, and repent. "To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress."  Proverbs 28:21  "For there is no respect of persons with God." Romans 2:11  "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.  I can do all things through Christ which strengthened me." "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus."  Philippians 4:11-13, 19)  "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."   "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."  2 Timothy 4:2, 16 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."  Revelation 3:19

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."  John 16:15

"The self-esteem—public esteem system is thus closely related to the concept of group cohesiveness. We have said that the degree of group’s influence on self-esteem is a function of its cohesiveness."  (Yalom)

The two curses of mankind are 1) the respect of men, i.e. self-esteem which comes from group-esteem ("that which is highly esteemed among men"), and 2) giving man, i.e. his flesh, the benefit of the doubt, i.e. the tolerance of ambiguity, which "is abomination in the sight of God."  God is not a respecter of men, nor has he called us to trust in man, turning our heads the other way when we know he is doing wrong, especially if he claims to be a believer (if he is in sin against you go to him privately first (Matthew 18:15-17), if he openly sins and refuses to repent cast him out ("And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."  Ephesians 5:11  "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."  1 Timothy 5:19, 20 also see 1 Corinthians 5), and if he is preaching and teaching heresy expose him publicly,   "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."  Titus 3:10, 11).  Let the Lord lead and let his word do the work of conviction of the soul. 

Like a child reaching for something he wants but he is not sure it is going to be approved (deep down knowing it is wrong), we look around for approval and therein, if we get it, we respect the person giving it.  We then turn the other way, giving him the benefit of the doubt (when our spirit tells us better) because of the benefits of the flesh he allows us. Dialectical ministers have benefited by those who follow them by means of these "attributes," "justifying" the use of the process.  "They make the king glad with their wickedness, and the princes with their lies."  Hosea 7:3  "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14  This is the heart of the dialectical process, the darkness of its nature (human nature in thought and in action, building upon and sustaining the flesh nature of man, through the process of consensus).  This is why those who praxis the dialectical process can not comprehend the light (John 1:5), even those who claim to be ministers of the word of God, changing the word of God into a socialist project, even doing it "in the name of Jesus."

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."  John 3:19, 20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Romans 1:,18, 21, 32

Civil disobedience is anathema to God's paradigm, despite what those who use if for social cause might feel or think.  Civil disobedience is based upon a matriarchal-heresiarchal progressive paradigm, i.e. based upon human feelings and thoughts, i.e. the dialectical process in action (praxis).  Using the dialectical, heresiarchal paradigm for "good," even in Jesus' name (which is confusion: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33), only leads to death, because it leaves man just as he was to begin with, condemned.  Civil disobedience was a changing of the guards for this nation, a changing of paradigms, as to who would be serving in, and how they would be using the office of authority (exousia), given by God.

By what authority do you do these things? "Let every soul be subject unto the higher exousia,"

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenge to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."  (Romans 13:1-6)

Romans 13:1, "πασα ψυχη εξουσιαις υπερεχουσαις υποτασσεσθω" (Greek from the  Textus Receptus¹) reads, from a proper translation of the Greek: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher authority" and does not read, as the authors of King James Bible incorrectly translated from the Textus Receptus: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher power."   The Apostle Paul used the Greek word exousia, exousia, i.e. the Greek word for authority, instead of dunamiv, dunamis, i.e. the Greek word for power, in Romans 13:1-6. There is a world of difference (i.e. a paradigm of difference) between the use of these words in the translation of Romans 13:1-6.  If the word for power, which is in the strength of the arm of man (the power of the sword over the bodies of men, but not their souls), is used instead of the word for authority, which is from God (all authority is of God, God has authority, not only over the bodies of men, but he also has authority over the souls of all men; "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers [exousiai]: all things were created by him, and for him:"  Colossians 1:16) then the tyrant is "justified," i.e. Hitler was "justified" in using his power, not only over the bodies of men, but also over their soul (which is a praxis of usurpation, since only God has authority over the souls of man).  It was the use of the word power instead of the word authority, in Romans 13:1-6, which "justified" the German church's participation with, i.e. empowerment of, the beast. Fearing the wrath of man (power of the sword over the body of man) because they loved the respect of man and the things of this world, rather than feared the wrath of God (authority over both the body and the soul of man).  Hell was no longer preached and taught.  Hell, after all, is why Jesus came, died, and ascended again. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." (Revelation 1:18)   Without Hell there would have been no "purpose" in his coming, his death, and his resurrection, other than a socialist message of cosmic brotherhood overthrowing the oppressive 'capitalist.'

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

The secular realm (temporal, flesh) and the sacred realm (eternal, soul): Which paradigm are they subject to?
If the use of the word authority is to be rejected in Romans 13:1-6, then the individual man has no freedom of conscience, before man or God, i.e. his conscience and his soul are both tied to, i.e. are both subject to higher authority, the power of the ruler, i.e. the sword, over the body and the power of God, i.e. the Spirit, over the soul.  In that case if the ruler is a tyrant, i.e. not recognizing God's authority over himself, you are (illegally) subject to him in all things.  If he claims he is under God's power, he is doing it in name only. "Man does not live by bread alone [temporal realm], but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God [sacred realm]." (Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 bracketed information added)  God, who is Spirit, i.e. concerned about man's soul, i.e. since it is eternal, and not material, i.e. and therefore would be concerned about man's flesh, i.e.  which is temporal, will not share his power (spiritual) with anything created, in heaven and on earth (temporal), i.e. not under his authority in the sacred realm.  His power (his Holy Spirit) is given (distributed amongst) only to those who are under his authority in the sacred realm (the Church, i.e. spiritual), although members of the sacred realm (the believer, i.e. spiritual) may be serving in the secular realm (the State, i.e. temporal), i.e. having the power of the sword over the flesh in the secular realm, i.e. over the bodies of men, executing "wrath upon him that doeth evil," i.e. "evil," as defined by civil laws, established by citizens in the secular realm, still under God, i.e. God still being the highest authority.  While the sacred realm (the Church, i.e. ekklhsia ekklesia, i.e. the called out ones, i.e. called out of the world system, i.e. in the world, but not of it, i.e. under a patriarchal system) can not punish for murder, J-walking, etc. the secular authorities (the State) can, since their jurisdiction is over civic behavior, i.e. matters of the civic body, i.e. the temporal, i.e. temporary, i.e. the flesh.  And while the Church authorities can excommunicate (not execute) an unrepentant member or accept a repentant murderer into its fellowship, the secular authorities can not stop them from doing so, since the secular authorities (even though they might be members of the Church) are serving in a realm outside the sacred realm's jurisdiction, i.e. regarding matters of the soul, i.e. religious, i.e. eternal, i.e. spiritual.  But both realms, the sacred realm, which develops the conscience, and the secular realm which is restrained by the conscience, are united, under God in this one thing, the freedom of the conscience of man.  Without it, man is simply seen as a 'social animal,' subject to the fleshy world he lives within with no since of accountability for his thoughts and actions in some future time. Transformational Marxists understands this, i.e. the office of authority under God, which can only come from the patriarchal paradigm in both the secular and the sacred realm and its effect, i.e. the development of the conscience, and religiously work to overthrow it, while the "conservatives" are ignorant of it, not being grounded in, nor in love with the Word of God, but being instead grounded in the things of this life, in love with the world, and thus willingly allowing its, i.e. the conscience overthrow in both realms.

 "For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world."  (2 Corinthians 1:12)

When the word authority is used in Romans 13:1-6, the secular realm (the State) is outside the sacred realms (the Church's) jurisdiction regarding matters of the soul, i.e. under God, and the sacred realm (the Church) is outside the secular realm (the State) jurisdiction regarding matters of the body (as in civil behavior between others and self), i.e. under God.  Thus the sacred realm can only affect the secular realm by means of its members being citizens with a free conscience, in the secular realm.  The secular realm can not infringe upon the sacred realm, telling it's members what they can or can not do in the sacred realm unless the sacred realm is perverted and attempts to takes up the sword, i.e. the power of the sword, granted by God to the secular realm, for his purpose, i.e. restraining the secular realm in matters of the soul, through the development of the conscience, under God, in the sacred realm.  (This will be clear when you understand the "purpose" of the heresiarchal paradigm, which has a clear understanding in regards to how God's patriarchal paradigm works and has a dialectical, i.e. diabolical, plan on how to subvert and annihilate it, i.e. Satan worked under God's patriarchal paradigm for a while, at the topmost level, and he knows how it works and he has a plan, a "device" on how to subvert and annihilate it.) When the citizen ceases voting his conscience in the secular realm, the secular realm breaks down and uses it's power over the souls of men, suppressing or bypassing the conscience for the sake of the promotion of the flesh.   Any individual can protect himself, his family, etc. i.e. the body, with the sword, in good conscience but the sacred realm can only protection itself with the word of God, i.e. the shield of faith.  The church, which is not of the flesh but of the spirit, can not (is not called by God to) protect itself with the power of the sword, which is used to protect the flesh, i.e. under God's realm the flesh can not rule. "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."  1 Corinthians 15:50   For the church to take control of the sword it must become the state, the state becoming a theocracy.  It must use the sword to remove the flesh, or rather, since it is in league with the flesh, call the flesh spirit, and use the sword on anyone who might seek to purify the church of the flesh to return it to the spirit. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world [temporal]: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight [use the power of the sword],"  first part of John 18:36. Without obedience to God (higher authority) learned in the sacred realm (including the home), the conscience is seared in its participation with the secular realm and joins with the secular-sacred realm partnership, with the state-church in persecuting the true believer for the preservation of the "church," i.e. the state-church. 

Did the States have State churches in the years following the ratification of the Constitution of the united States of America?  Yes.  Around the year 1830 Massachusetts became the last State with a State Church.  They rejected the idea when they realized the Unitarians were going to get the vote and the citizens were going to be taxed to support the Unitarian's instead of their church.  Were the States right in having a State Church to begin with?  No.  It brought the same abuses done in Europe, i.e. the suppression of the conscience, to America.  Does this mean that the State can not recognize religion, i.e. the Sacred realm as being key to its realm. No.  It was the establishment of one denomination over the Nation which the Constitution rejected.  This is something which did not apply to the States.  Today, because of re-education (deliberately done) and ignorance both in the sacred and secular realm, this is no longer known and now the state-church, secular-sacred partnership, i.e. "humanistic Christianity" prevails.

The secular realm, under God's authority, has nothing to fear from the sacred realm, under God's authority, unless it seeks power over the soul's of men, i.e. it seeks freedom from being under God's authority, i.e. freedom from the conscience, i.e. freedom for the liberation of the flesh of men, i.e. the approval of human nature.  It is the development of the conscience in the individual citizens, i.e. issuing from the sacred realm, i.e. right and wrong above and over the flesh below, with which the secular realm is subjected to, under the authority of God.  A tyrant hates, i.e. can not function, with a citizenry who has freedom of conscience (he can not control him with the fear of the sword), but he loves, i.e. functions freely with a citizenry who has freedom from the conscience with what is called the superego, i.e. the humanized 'conscience,' following anyone who make him feel good, i.e. safe and secure in the "here and now," and fearful of social rejection.  Why use the sword when the use of cognitive dissonance can work just as well.

Freedom of conscience is the most sacred right of the citizen in the secular realm, under God:  Listen to Phil Worts' teaching  part 1, part 2, part 3 on the subject.
The sacred realm can not take a man's life and the secular realm can not take a man's soul, i.e. associated with the development of the conscience, under the authority of God.  By the development of what is called the super-ego, i.e. the 'organ' of the temporal domain, i.e. subject to the flesh, that which is below can replace the spiritual, that which is above, as the 'organ' for determining right and wrong.  If you read my article on Bloom's Taxonomy you will see how and why the conscience is being deliberately 'replaced' with the superego, through the education system,  i.e. secularized, by the development of the "super-ego", i.e. for the liberation of the flesh, i.e. for the social cause of "world peace." "Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development.” (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain, p. 39)  (Read that sentence one word at a time backwards and then forwards several times and it becomes chilling.)  Then, knowing the conscience comes from an authority higher than man's body, reading "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society." ibid. identifies Blooms educational intent, i.e. replacing the conscience, which comes from the sacred realm, with the superego, which is from the secular realm. Communication change from the conscience (belief, as in "x is right and y is not") to the superego (opinion, as in "I think x is right, but y might be right also."  "What do you think?" "How do you feel about it.") in education, between teachers, staff, and students, and eventually the whole village, was the purpose of Blooms Taxonomies. The idea being, if you change the way the next generation communicates, the past generation and their patriarchal paradigm will be left behind, i.e. their knowledge of the truth incomprehensible by the next generation.

“Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it.”  “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”  “If a paradigm [change] is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied (which eventuates in) an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances (where upon ) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist.” (Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)  It should be added that "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology." (ibid.)

“The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience."  (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain) 

The conscience "represses" the flesh for the sake of the parent above, i.e. is rigid since it restrains the affective domain, making it subject to the parent's will, while the superego "represses" the flesh for the sake of the community below, i.e. is adaptable to change since it liberates and then guides the affective domain, making it subject to the people's will.

Both the conscience and the superego, theoretically, are developed by environmental conditions, i.e. the paradigm which predominates the environment determines the outcome. Thus whichever paradigm is able to initiate and sustain, i.e. have control over, a particular environment, determines whether the conscience or the superego is developed to its end.  The conscience is developed as a result of living within a limiting environment, i.e. a closed, directive environment, initiated and sustained by a patriarchal paradigm (there is liberty but it is in law). “Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior.” (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz  Community Policing  The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing)  Those in the heresiarchal paradigm correlates this to the sacred realm, i.e. the spiritual, i.e. above human nature, i.e. where objective truth is preached and taught, i.e. to be obeyed or else, i.e. "blind" obedience to the "reality principle" or "actual conditions."   The superego is developed as a result of living in an permissive environment, i.e. an open-ended, non-directive environment, initiated and sustained by the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the temporal, i.e. human nature, i.e. the flesh, where subjective truths, i.e. opinions, are dialogued to find a common consensus, i.e. following after the "pleasure principle" or "desired conditions."  "Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, [Notice that God is excluded.] social control is now often more dependent on external control [super-ego development, fear of social rejection, i.e. public shaming], than on internal self-control [conscience development, fear of parental chastening, i.e. parental or Godly judgment].”  "... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to compromise for the sake of human relationship, where temporal interests are in common, i.e. for the sake of preserving the relationship with others, i.e. for the sake of dopamine emancipation, i.e. to play cards or games or watch football with others, everyone must accept, knowingly or unknowingly, the rule "not to bring up absolutes which cause a breakup of the game," therefore personal rules are 'slightly' bent or 'temporarily' set aside], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change [super-ego development]."  (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz  Community Policing  The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing) 

“Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated.” (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)

Just because every certified teacher and every accredited school in your state, Christian included, is trained in Bloom's Taxonomy does not mean that all agree with its use and willingly use it on children, their parents, the township, and themselves.  With the incorporation of the secular into the sacred, i.e. through dialogue and the consensus process (synthesis), the conscience is compromise and the superego is developed, i.e. the secular is freed from spiritual restraint, i.e. freed from the office of authority, under God, i.e. freed to use the power of the sword, the power of the secular office, against the sacred, to promote the use of the flesh, unrestrained, with the compromised—apostate— enlightened, "sacred realms" approving.  Therefore the true sacred realm, labeled as being an anti-governmental institution, can be persecuted and imprisoned by the secular realm in synthesis with the "sacred" realm, i.e. "in the name of Jesus," both no longer under the authority of God.  The secular-sacred realm partnership comes about when the sacred realm seeks to promote itself as an institution recognized and approved by the secular realm. When compromise is necessary to preserve or promote an institution, originally formed to present and stand up for a cause, i.e. an ideal, it changes from its original "purpose." As the institution changes to defend the cause, the cause changes; the cause is no longer the ideal which gives purpose to the institution, the cause is to promote the institution which gives it purpose in society (its focus has moved from seeking direction from above to seeking approval in the eyes of men below, i.e. a shift from the conscience to the superego ensues). Strictly holding to its original ideal may isolate the institution from society, not by its will for isolation but because of society's rejection of the ideal. To gain acceptance of the institution (with the purpose of presenting its ideal to society) within the community, some, wanting approval from society (superego based individuals), believe it must redefine (compromise) its ideals to build and maintain relationships essential to preserving and growing the institution in society.  In this way the institution, built upon a patriarchal paradigm, built upon absolute rights and wrongs, "shifts" its paradigm in the direction of the heresiarchal paradigm.

“The dialectic of Hegel and Marx’s variation on the theme, contain discrepancies between actual and desired conditions. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis set up pressures that eventually force a new state of affairs, the synthesis. The desired condition is synthesis, the elimination of contradiction and conflict between thesis and antithesis [conflict between what God says and how man feels and what he thinks God said]. Conflict between thesis and antithesis bring about a restructuring that reduces or eliminates (negates) the conflict.” (Source unknown. emphasis added)  

"Only when the immediate interests are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process do they become revolutionary," (Lukacs)   

You can not have revolution until you get people's feelings united upon an issue thy are willing to tackle which is in conflict with the patriarchal paradigm.  United "ought" negate God's "not."

“No class of civil society can play this role [emancipators of society] unless it arouses in itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm, a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with society in general, and is felt and recognized to be society's general representative, a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those of society itself, of which it is the social head and heart.” (Marx, Critique)

Man's natural feelings are tied to the flesh, therefore his natural inclination is to find someone who will love him (human relationship), based upon the satisfaction of his fleshy desires. Unrestrained by his conscience, i.e. the result of the sacred in his life (this is structurally correlated with parental commands restraining the fleshly desires of the child by the use of categorical imperatives not of the child's making), he will use his power to get what he wants for his flesh.  God does not love the fleshy nature of man, it will not enter his kingdom. But he does love man's soul.  When secular man looks for love from the sacred, he naturally wants to find love for the flesh, but instead he finds love for his soul, i.e. restraint over his flesh (the law kills the flesh, you can not get into the sheepfold because of the fence around it, i.e. the law, i.e. the law does not save, it converts a person).  If the sacred realm accepts the love of man, love of the flesh (negating the law), while thinking it still has the love of God, i.e. in truth it has rejected God's love, i.e. love for the soul (since his love always includes the law, which condemns the law of the flesh), then the sacred has no 'purpose' except to satisfy the realm of the secular, i.e. the love of the flesh, now without the restraint of a conscience (law from above, which can not save a man from the flesh but only exposes the flesh so that man would not turn to it for solution, i.e. the law shows, i.e. the conscience shows up when the flesh shows up).  It has traded in the 'old' lamp, i.e. the conscience, i.e. with its restraint upon "emotional impulses," the "pleasure instinct," "life instinct," and "self" will, for a 'new' lamp, i.e. the superego, i.e. with its consensus with "emotional impulses," the "pleasure instinct," "life instinct," and "self" will.  Look at the 'church' today and see if this is not true.

“It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony. When this synthesis is not achieved, the superego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above.” (Adorno)

Adorno is defining the purpose of the dialectical process: if the "conscience," i.e. that which is developed in the sacred realm (above and controlling mans temporal nature, i.e. the spiritual), can not partnership (come to synthesis) with "emotional impulses, and self" i.e. the secular realm (mans temporal nature, i.e. the fleshy) then the "superego," i.e. the voice of the village, i.e. the "youth group," i.e. humanism, can not be developed and thus replace, i.e. destroy, the conscience, i.e. annihilate the sacred realm's restraining voice within the village, and "a foreign body" i.e. the voice of God and the parent, i.e. individualism, will persist in controlling, i.e. restraining the flesh in the village, then the individual citizen and the village will remain "neurotic," i.e. forever divided between above and below, i.e. unchangeable in "changing times," i.e. some setting the minds on things above while others are setting their minds on things below prevent harmonious, peaceful change, i.e. world peace.

“If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion.” (Brown)

“If we follow this train of thought beyond Freud, and connect it with the twofold origin of the sense of guilt, the life and death of Christ would appear as a struggle against the father—and as a triumph over the father.”  (Marcuse)

In this way psychoanalysis can use religion to triumph over religions (diversity), making the cross a social issue, i.e. overthrowing the Father, seen as an oppressor, i.e. to the flesh, rather than a sin issue, obeying the Father, seen as the liberator, i.e. from the flesh, even to death of the flesh.  Thus salvation, according to the heresiarchal paradigm, is not to be found above man but within man, in his social praxis, in his flesh nature.

If the sacred realm (the Church) incorporates the secular (through the practice of dialogue and consensus, i.e. the dialectical process, i.e. the development of the superego), the flesh becomes a part of its realm, i.e. perverting it, and the sacred becomes adulterous, i.e. a friend of the world.  Then the secular realm, not God, justifies the sacred in its "purpose," now subject to the flesh and the use of the power of the sword. When the Church turned it's focus to "youth groups," i.e. feelings, instead of retaining its study of the Bible ("study to show yourself approved unto God"), i.e. truth, human relationship, the fleshy nature of man, took precedence over the souls of men, and the power of man, i.e. respect of men, took precedence over the authority of God and his word. The superego swallowed up the conscience.  It is up to the sacred to prevent this from happening, i.e. that of synchronizing fleshly love, worldly pleasure, i.e. "what can I get out of this relationship for me?" with God's love, by uniting the flesh and the spirit, i.e. uniting Eros, man's temporal love, and agape, God's spiritual love, and then calling it agape "love," i.e. ambiguous love (ambiguous is just another word for homosexual or bisexual when applied to sex). "The notion that Eros and Agape may after all be one and the same—not that Eros is Agape but that Agape is Eros—may sound strange after almost two thousand years of theology." "Eros is striving to 'form substance into ever greater unities.'" "The biological drive becomes a cultural drive." [this is the purpose in purpose "driven" church.] (ibid. second quotation by Freud, Collected Papers, V, 135)  Finding the beauty or the good in all people for the sake of peace and harmony, i.e. interpersonal relationships, is Eros, not Agape. The sacred realm can not participate in a sacred-secular partnership and remain sacred just as agape can not partnership with Eros and remain agape. 

“‘Every renunciation ... becomes a ... conscience; every fresh abandonment of gratification increases its severity and intolerance ... every impulse of aggression which we omit to gratify is taken over by the super-ego and goes to heighten its aggressiveness.’”  Freud Civilization and Its Discontents, 1949 

Void of the understanding of God and His paradigm, those with the heresiarchal paradigm view the conscience, when under increased patriarchal control, remaining subject to the patriarchal paradigm, while the super-ego, under increasing patriarchal control, becomes more aggressive toward the patriarchal paradigm.  They do not understand the change which takes place when a person repents of their sins, accepts Christ into their heart, and is filled with His Holy Spirit. There is no super-ego, only a compromised or seared conscience and a hardened heart toward righteousness.

According to Herbart Marcuse, Eros is the combination of the Id, i.e. pleasure, i.e. the "life instinct," and Ego, i.e. the will, i.e. the "death instinct."  The Id associates pleasure with the mother.  When the Ego and Id are in harmony, i.e. free of restraint, i.e. free to be spontaneous, the child's natural inclination is to have an incestuous relationship with the mother (Freud's "pleasure principle,"  this is what Freud was all about).  While the Id is timeless, "Isn't it interesting how fast time flies when you are having fun?" the Ego is not (while the Id is in instant unity with whatever stimulates pleasure, the Ego sees the experience, in time and space, and wants to control the environment for more pleasure knowing his time is limited, i.e. possibly coming to and end).  Thus the relationship is always in jeopardy of ending, i.e. death.  It is the Father, the patriarch, who calls the child's behavior "polymorphously perverse" and restrains both mother and child with moral rules of conduct, demanding "renunciation and restraint" of the life instinct, bringing pre-mature death into the child's life, with the child succumbing to accept the condition of death over life, restraint over pleasure, spiritual over temporal, that which is above over that which is below. 

“The replacement of the pleasure principle by the reality principle is the great traumatic event in the development of man ... it occurs during the period of early childhood, and submission to the reality principle is enforced by the parents and other educators.” (Marcuse) 

According to Herbart Marcuse, true morality lies with the Id (pleasure) and not with the Father's restraint upon it (pain or threat of it). In this way, for the sake of survival ("Dad will kill me."), the child turns his Ego toward the Father's commands, splitting his Id and Ego with what Freud called the super-ego, thus producing the subconscious mind and the "reality principle," sensuousness suppressed and spontaneity inhibited by non-sensuous commands and rules, thus reasoning becomes alienated from human nature (dialectically seen as a practice of immorality).  In this situation the super-ego is in a 'neurotic,' irrational condition, i.e. called the con-science.  For the super-ego to be restored to is "healthy" condition, i.e. the "reality principle" must be restored to the child-mother condition, while the Father and his rules, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, must be negated—the Id-Ego relationship restored.  It is only in this condition that Eros can have preeminence in the world again. 

The "evolution of culture," i.e. the product of oxymoron's, i.e. wise fools:

“[Freud] states his intention ‘to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the evolution of culture, and to convey that
the price of progress in civilization is paid in forfeiting happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt.’”  (Marcuse)

To show where this 'logic' can take society, if the purpose of life is to find and restore harmony between the Id and the Ego (pleasure and free will), any condition which blocks such an effort, i.e. locks the Id under the control of restraint, i.e. places the person under the 'pain' and 'want' of restraint and judgment, must be removed, both from the person's thoughts and actions and from the social praxis. If the Id is timeless, and the Id is pleasure, then pleasure is timeless.  Then when the Ego is in harmony with the Id, it is free from the constraints of time, i.e. no guilty conscience, i.e. no promises to keep, i.e. man can not comprehend a future time of accountability to the past, i.e. the past is now outside of his own biological nature which is now freely seeking life, i.e. pleasure.  The word of God says the opposite, "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." 1 Timothy 5:6 

Thus, looking through a dialectical lens, if life's conditions become hopelessly painful, not only physically (physical pain and bodily failure makes life no longer capable of pleasure, i.e. the need and want is to great to be overcome), but also emotionally (guilty feelings and condemning thoughts continually distress the person), and mentally (the mind is incapacitated, i.e. awareness of pleasure is unattainable, or incapable of thinking upon pleasure, i.e. petrified by fear), i.e. the "life instinct" (Eros, i.e. "pleasure impulses," i.e. maintaining the life of the flesh, i.e. organic life) is incapable of being actualized, then the "death instinct" must come into play, i.e. have its way.  The "death instinct" comes from the Ego, i.e. the "destructive impulses," i.e. attacking the condition of "tension" of want and pain bringing the life of the flesh—pleasure—to an end, postponing where the flesh is naturally digressing towards—returning to the inorganic world, i.e. nirvana, i.e. death.

"If it is true that life is governed by Fechner's principle of constant equilibrium, it consists of a continuous descent toward death." (Feschner The Ego and the Id)  

When harmony between life and death, i.e. the sustaining of organic life and the end of organic life, i.e. organic life return to its original inorganic state, being again at one with the earth, is disrupted by anti-organic or non-organic forces (the spiritual, the supernatural, equated with the patriarchal paradigm), the "death instinct" must come into play, not in submission to the "negative forces" of the patriarchal paradigm but in opposition to them.  The destructive part of Ego becomes manifest, in an "unhealthy" form, when the "life instinct" is repressed by submitting to non-organic or anti-inorganic forces (spirit), i.e. when the person, trying to slow down or stop the premature "decent toward death," wanting liberation from subjection to inorganic life, yet wanting life for the Ego, surrenders its will to an authority which is unsympathetic to the "pleasure instinct," i.e. turns his Ego, i.e. his will, and therefore his pleasure, over to the control of an anti-organic-inorganic authority, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm.  The "healthy" Ego, with its "healthy" destructive nature becomes manifest when the "life instinct" is liberated in the praxis of death to the patriarchal paradigm (the negation of the patriarchal paradigm—emotionally, mentally, and physically; sensually, rationally, and socially), within oneself and within the one repressing the "life instinct."

"We propose, therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the social parent.  They may come together in one individual or they may not.  But the problem is how to produce a procedure which is able to substitute and improve this ancient order."  (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive )

"In addition, mindful of the global shift away from concepts of parental power towards parental responsibilities.... attention will have to be given to surrogate motherhood, issues around alternative modes of conception, adoptions by same sex couples, and other models of alternative family life." (bold emphasis in original) Source: South African Law Commission; Issue Paper 13; Project 110  The review of  THE CHILD ACT  First Issue Paper  [18 April 1998] Closing date for comment: 31 July 1998 ISBN: 0-621-28026-7  PDF file [This is the "right of the Child" bill in South Africa]

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."  2 Timothy 4:3, 4

What is missing in all this "fable of men" is the soul of man.  Those who are intoxicated with the deceit of this process must reject the truth that the soul is eternal (eternal in life, a living soul, when subject to the Spirit of God, eternal in death when following after the flesh of man, i.e. when following after the world). Therefore "enlightened" men make the study of the soul, i.e. psychology, actually the study of life finding harmony with death (rejecting the soul as living, as an act of God, instead embracing in secular form a dualistic - Gnostic ideology of flesh-spirit in that man is simply divine spark—an essence, a passion, i.e. love, captured by Demiurge—an anti-cosmic god—and then put into earthly bodies, i.e. life therefore not emanating from God, Demiurge, but borrowed from god, the Gnostic god, thus love, the desire to unite with all divine sparks in the universe and return to god, is forced to obey God's will.  The objective of the "enlightened" is, through cosmic consciousness, i.e. consciousness of everyone's oneness with the universe, to show man how to return the divine sparks, by "enlightening" mankind on how to deliver himself from God, i.e. liberation of love (Eros calling itself Agape), to bring love back to the cosmic Gnostic god, so that in mankind becoming as one, the cosmic god, i.e. society in Marx's secular rendition, can become one again, know itself through the experience of overcoming its opposite, i.e. the patriarch God, through overcoming the restrainer of the flesh nature (Eros), through mans love of the creation, i.e. the Eros of man seeking universal unity). 

"And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of them that remain of this evil family, which remain in all the places whither I have driven them, saith the LORD of hosts."  Jeremiah 8:3

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19

In the final analysis, the process negates the conscience, dialectically seen as a deformation of the superego.  The conscience seen as the result of exposure to a non or anti organic-inorganic power forcing its way, i.e. its will upon man.  In the "light" of this humanistic ideology, when the parent gives a child a command, a command which inhibits or blocks the organic nature of the child's life, i.e. the pleasure of building social-environmental relationship, i.e. interpersonal relationships, he is introducing a spiritual, anti-organic experience into the child's life.  Supposedly, aggression, a natural part of the Ego, manifests itself in an unhealthy form when the child submits to parental authority when their will goes against his "natural inquiry" into the environment ("natural inquiry" done for the purpose of creation, i.e. the creative act of experiencing oneness, i.e. identity with the creation, in this way of thinking, i.e. in his identity with his own nature and nature itself both are becoming actualized, he is in it, and it is in him, i.e. outside of this "scientific" formula there is nothing else).  The parent, the patriarchal paradigm, gains control over the "death instinct," when the child's Ego (his will), seeking freedom for the "life instinct" (Eros, i.e. the divine spark seeking oneness with mankind and the universe, i.e. the cosmic god), seeking freedom for the "pleasure instinct" (the Id), tries to find freedom from the Patriarchal Paradigm, by striking out at the parent, i.e. the anti-organic-inorganic force, but instead surrenders his fight for the liberation and freedom, justice and beauty, sensuousness and spontaneity of the Eros-Ego unity, for fear of "premature" death at the hands of the parent (chastening or the fear of it), the child's will is surrendered to the patriarchal paradigm, forced to apply its aggressive nature on the side of the Patriarchal Paradigm, for the sake of the survival of the Ego (to stay alive), resulting in the repression of the "life instinct," resulting in a premature, i.e. non or anti-inorganic death.  Therefore, in the patriarchal paradigm, the future is bound to the past (that which is above man's nature) and  the "evolution of civilization" is prevented, i.e. the present "changing" and transforming itself into the future is repressed by the restraints of the past (that which is above man, i.e. parents over "children's rights" and God over "human rights"). According to humanistic logic, the Patriarchal Paradigm can now use the deformed "death instinct," i.e. aggression (the repressed, frustrated Ego), for its own purpose, that of sustaining the patriarchal paradigm, maintaining that which is spiritual, that which is above the material world, above biological nature, immeasurable, the God of "arbitrary" law.  Thus mankind, uncontrollable by humanistic scientists, will not, and can not, naturally move in the direction of universal oneness, because their Ego, like the law of gasses does not contain within themselves the ability to form gravitational mass. 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  Genesis 1:26 

Don't take dominion over the earth, take dominion over the souls of men by making them your customers.  By giving them what they want they will give you what they have, and dominion over the earth will follow, with them being your happy slaves working the earth for you.  Nothing like Government sponsored, Government guaranteed job security.

"Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core."  Jude 1:11  Jude 1:1-25

Behavior "scientists" ("social engineers") must use, i.e. liberate the flesh to arrive at their outcome, i.e. the control of men, i.e. gaining control over other people's money and how they use it, i.e. negating "surpluses capital" and "surplus repression," while making sure they get a piece of the pie.  In their quest for the respect of men, in their pursuit of initiating and sustaining pleasure for themselves (and of course pleasure for others, you have to market the latter, i.e. "caring" for others, to sustain the former, i.e. "What can I get out of this situation for me?" after all isn't that what the "life instinct" is all about, putting the "pleasure principle" into action), in their dream of universal harmony, i.e. harmony with the world, i.e. nirvana, they must present a sermon, i.e. a message, a "dream" promising life which is in truth leading all participants down the pathway of cosmic death.  These are the men insisting that you submit to their counsel, their wisdom and embrace their "health care" package.

Man can not love God the Father because he can not love the Father's Law, which kills the flesh, so God does not use the works of the flesh, the Eros-Ego unity, in his kingdom, as fallen man does in his kingdom.  Not until a man is dead to his flesh (accepts God's law, recognizes his condemnation, and repents of his sins), and is alive in Christ (accepts Christ's work of redemption from the curse of the law), and is walking in the Holy Spirit (the law and Christ now in him, united), can he love God the Father.

Dialectically, for life to regain harmony again (restore Eros-Ego unity in their quest for "change," i.e. organic life leading to inorganic death), the "death instinct," i.e. destructiveness, along with the "life instinct," the want of gratifying objects—both within Eros—must be brought back under the control of the Ego, i.e. the self preservation instinct, again (not the parents Ego, but the child's Ego, seeking harmony with the social Ego built upon social Eros).  This can only be done by the liberation of the "life instinct," i.e. the Id which is tied to the Matriarchal Paradigm ("tend and befriend"), i.e. that part of the child or man not usable by the Patriarchal Paradigm for the purpose of gaining or maintaining control (he must use fear, i.e. force or threat of force, and can not use the liberation of pleasure, i.e. the flesh, i.e. licentiousness, as his chosen tool for control, to maintain a patriarchal paradigm). The patriarchal paradigm gains control over the child with the surrender of the child's Ego, i.e. the "death instinct," to the control of the parent.  This makes the Id (the life of pleasure) subject not to the child's will, but to the parent's will, for the purpose of the reproduction of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. procreation, i.e. resulting in the repression of the "pleasure instinct" (life comes from above, i.e. from God, or parent's procreation, and can not from Eros below). 

"Authentic communion implies communication between men, mediated by the world.  Only praxis in the context of communion makes 'conscientization' a viable project.  Conscientization is a joint project in that it takes place in a man among other men, men united by their action by their reflection upon that action and upon the world."  (Paulo Freire The Politics of Education:  Culture Power and Liberation)

“It is not men’s consciousness that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Lukacs)

But if the "death instinct" (destructiveness) is brought back into the child's consciousness (conscientization), with the understanding that its true purpose is to find equilibrium, i.e. common ground, with the "life instinct," "class consciousness" would manifest itself and "patricide," i.e. revolution against and annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm (negation of the paradigm which divides man against himself), i.e. against belief in God above, would commence (philosophy, dissatisfaction with non-human restraints over human nature, would then come into play, i.e. action, i.e. praxis).  Either violent revolution, done outwardly via the shedding of patriarchal blood (in the Communist/Socialist/Democratic Revolutions over the French, Russian, and Chinese people and Communist/Socialist/Democratic revolutions which have followed, it was the patriarch who were killed, along with women and children who supported them), or "velvet revolution" i.e. revolution done inwardly, via therapy (street protest being public therapy), i.e. the "change process," i.e. the washing of the mind of the patriarchal paradigm, for example: through mass therapy put into practice, i.e. the use of "civil disobedience," would become the praxis of social life (petitioning government for redress of grievances is negated by contempt for governmental authority).  Dialectically this is done for the purpose of overcoming the condition which restrains and thus represses the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, not seen as "lust" but rather as the "life instinct" finding unity with all life forms in the creation through the liberation of the "pleasure instinct."  This is actually a formula for the hate of life, i.e. the hate of life under God (spiritual), disguising itself as the love of life, the love of life for mankind (love of the flesh, love of the world) which is actually death.  It is not  liberation of the flesh which brings love and life (for from the beginning to the end it is death, i.e. there is no life in the flesh), but rather the work of Christ Jesus.  It is only He who liberates us from the works of the flesh and death, by His obedience to His Heavenly Father, by His dying on the cross for our sins, i.e. his shed blood, by his resurrection and by the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by His Heavenly Father.  "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Colossians 2:13 This is God's love.  The type of love darkness, i.e. death, i.e. flesh, can not comprehend.

"I could well imagine a world of a reversed order, opposite to ours, in which ethical suicide of people after 30 or 35 as a religious technique or countering overpopulation is just as natural as birth control has become in our culture.  In that society the love of life would be carried to its extreme. 'Make space for the unborn, make space for the newborn, for everyone born, Every time a new baby is born make space for him by taking the life of an old man or an old woman." (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive?) [Moreno lived past his 60's.  Hypocrite!]

"The ethical issue is: How much can society spend, if it has is limited resources, on keeping some person of age 65 alive for ten years at a cost that would cover the health services to children for perhaps 20 or 30 times that many children?"  (Ralph Tyler  An Interview with Ralph Tyler Conducted by: Jeri Ridings Nowakowski, Ed.D. November 1981)

Dialectically, the "death instinct" which is equated to love (Eros), is actually hate (hate toward the patriarchal paradigm). But, since those who think dialectically want to justify death as a part of life (to talk others into the praxis of not only living in Eros but also dying in Eros, i.e. not just for Eros), to remove the fear of death and judgment before a Holy God (since they have no hope in Christ, at least in a Christ obedient to his Heavenly Father, even to the point of death, they therefore can not know that the fear of death, i.e. eternal death, is removed in Him and therefore they can only hope to repress the fear of death, i.e. suppress the thought of eternal death through the praxis of social Eros, i.e. socially justified destruction), and want those who are freed from the conscience to take the life, at least the life support, of anyone who "inflects" such thinking upon humanity.  They therefore refuse to see their actions of calumniation and bowdlerization toward the patriarchal paradigm as an act of hate (except when it is used against them by a patriarchal minded person, i.e. calling the heresiarchal to repentance, speaking of judgment and hell, restraining the flesh, refusing to condone acts of abomination, preaching the Word of God in public places, etc). 

Dialectically, i.e. in a heresiarchal culture, when a person has become a burden, i.e. an expense, not only financially but also physically, emotionally, and mentally on others (resulting in debasement and a hopeless humiliation to himself as well as to others), then the person can be "encouraged" to give up on life and take his life or let others help him take it and "die with dignity," doing it in the "pleasure" that peace will thereby come to himself and others at last (Nirvana). This mindset is not of God but of the Devil, i.e. men thinking like Job's wife, i.e. "Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."  Job 2:9, 10 [Of note: the evil was from Satan and not from the hand of God, but because God had removed his hand of protection for a period of time, up to the point of death, Satan exercised his evil way].

Dialectically, the 'death instinct' becomes destructive to the person and others, when the Ego (the will to power) surrenders Eros (the flesh) to complete control under the Father, the patriarch, for the sake of self preservation (fear of judgment from him for being disobedient). It then, according to them, is used to counter any social movement in the direction of dialectical, socialist, communist, globalist thinking and acting (theory and practice, rebellion and revolution, "ought" and "is," flesh and power, Eros and Ego, thinking hate of the patriarch and doing hate toward the patriarch, i.e. treating him as irrelevant in mind and killing him in body). World peace, i.e. the order of the 'new world,' is when all men can enjoy, i.e. take pleasure in, not only life but also death (death to the patriarch which becomes pleasure) without having physical pain, emotional fear of God and judgment, and mental grief of being a burden upon loved ones and society because of promises unkept or hope unrealized.  This wicked way of thinking, a callousness towards life, which "justifies" abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, social rightsizing (population control), i.e. physical, mental, and social triage, etc. is the paradigm our nation's "leaders" have chosen for its citizens, bon voyage, cheerio. 

Dialectically, 'healthy' memory is tied to the Id, i.e. the pleasures of life, and not to the restraint of life, i.e. the pain of "unlivable life" and the fear of judgment which follows death, they believe and teach that you can be comforted (negate God and judgment in your mind, i.e. your life has purpose only in the 'here-and-now") in the idea that your absence will be replaced by the memory others have of you, "remembering the good times," thus initiating and sustaining physical, mental and social health for all you leave behind. Hate, disguised as love and caring, lies behind this package. Put your trust in this dialectical package and you will personally learn that more citizens have died a violent death from their own leaders than any foreign nation has inflicted upon their own citizens, i.e. you are nothing more than an element on the periodical chart (Hu as in Human), expendable, just a moment in the great social experiment.  How does the "health care package" sound to you now?  It will directly effect you and your loved ones lives as it unfolds itself for the purpose of the new world "order," i.e. the heresiarchal order taking its place in the temple.

“In the words of Thoreau: ‘We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.’”  (Brown) 

Dialectically, history, i.e. things to be remembered, must not be tied to the Father, i.e. to his rules and commands of the past, i.e. from above (which gives direction to the present and future, i.e. seen as restraining the present, inhibiting impulse and innovation, i.e. change, and rejects putting dreams into practice without all the facts, i.e. the facts which impede the "possible," i.e. the theory from happening, from being put into practice, but rather history must be active in restoring the desire of the Id (the "pleasure instinct" of Eros) to unite with the mother (memories of the gratifications, i.e. the "lusts" of the past, i.e. the repressed "want of a gratifying object," waiting to be reminisced over and brought back into play, i.e. experienced in the present and therefore more likely to be carried on into the future), i.e. making a way for mankind to give birth to life through a pleasurable, i.e. sensual, i.e. carnal, i.e. earthy praxis.  Thus, according to socio-psychology, history is not found above human nature, restraining it, directing it, but must be re-discovered within human nature (biologically, psychologically, sociologically, anthropologically) and practiced with the aid of all the tools of psychoanalysis. "Psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must affirm." "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." (Brown)  

Religion in this sense being absolutes from above human nature, restraining human nature, both in thought and in practice.  Any effort on man's part to discover these absolutes through human reasoning, i.e. through experience, i.e. through sensual praxis, would have to be considered futile or else deceptive.  Thus absolutes do not provide a medium ("life style") from which the dialectical process can function, i.e. not giving the Devil a foothold, i.e. a place, to begin with.  If membership is based upon acceptance of absolutes, i.e. doctrine, then the only way the dialectical process can infiltrate is through the focus upon maintaining fellowship at the expense of absolutes or doctrine.  When this happens then the "neurosis" of religion makes itself apparent, with absolutes now becoming an obstacle to personal desires and to the maintaining of the fellowship, i.e. "sensuous life."  The desire for fellowship, at the expense of absolutes (setting them aside for the sake of the "special opportunity") moves you from a patriarchal paradigm into a heresiarchal paradigm. I mean absolutes in regard to the infallibility and inerrancy of God's word and His will and not the "absolutes" of men's doctrines, see Colossians 2:18-3:2-17. "Thy will be done" must be at the forefront in responding to such heresy, for you must respond, "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), for to become entrenched in anger and to strike out in rage against such heresy is to give "place to the devil,"  "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."  2 Corinthians 2:11 In the illustration of the tares and the wheat, Jesus' message is to be faithful in preaching and teaching the word of God (to bring all to repentance, to reprove, correct, and rebuke, as well as edify the saved, and convince the lost of God's judgment, in case that they might come under conviction, repent and be saved), not in judging according to institution law, to "purify" the institution, i.e. the "church," of the unrighteous, i.e. the misfits. (Matthew 13:27-30)  In some way the institution becomes the focus and not the soul of man, i.e. liberty in Christ, when legalism (doctrines for church purity) or when licentiousness, i.e. "lasciviousness," i.e. tolerance of ambiguity becomes the praxis of the church.

    "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:  Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
    But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
    Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil."  Ephesians 4:17-27

"The ideal of democratic deliberation is an intelligent and uncoerced consensus concerning what should be done. This consensus will attempt to incorporate the valid insights and values of all parties in the conflict. The validity of these various insights and values is to be tested by the common study, deliberation, and discussion of the group and ultimately by the consequences of the common plan as it works out in action and as these consequences are evaluated by the common judgment of the group. It cannot be stressed too emphatically that the ideal goal of democratic co-operation is a consensus in the group concerning what should be done—a consensus based on and sustained by the deliberation of the group in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the common action of the group. No other method of social control depends so crucially on the deliberation of the whole group concerned in resolving the conflicts which for the time impede and prevent community of action. And, as a corollary, no other method of social control depends so centrally for its effective working-out upon the habituation and responsible discipline of all of its members in conscious methods of deliberation and discussion."  (Benne)  emphasis added

"Uncoerced" means an environment of socially controlled permissiveness, desired by a group of people who are rejecting a person who wants to keep restraints, i.e. restraint as in an act of coercion. "Coercion" means an ark, like Noah's Ark, a place of refuge and protection, a place with walls which divides that which is outside from that which is inside, associated with force. Therefore coercion is force from above human nature and uncoerced is human nature in force, i.e. in praxis.

"Democratic methods will not work in making many policies under present conditions. It is the faith of the democrat that no conflict can best be resolved unless all relevant and available human experience and insight is brought to bear on its resolution. No conflict is fully resolved until all have come, through deliberation, to accept the resolution as their own. The best common action on this view must involve the minds and purposes of those engaged in it as well as their bodily efforts. The methods of democratic co-operation are thus oriented, as we have stressed before, to the utilization of all available human resources—resources of purpose, experience, and insight in the planning, the execution, and the evaluation of common action. It is this full utilization of human resources in the guidance of common action that justifies the democrat’s faith that democratic co-operation leads to policies and programs which are more relevant to existing conditions, more sensitive to all human values, more generally satisfying to the men concerned, and more enduring than policies and programs based on any other made of social co-operation."  (Benne)

“If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum [the paradigm used to shape the next generation] and surrenders it to the will of the electorate.” Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago Press. Ill. 1987, p. 259 

"Surrender its will to the electorate," i.e. those who pay for the school and the salary of the staff and therefore foolishly send their children there to be brainwashed, i.e. the brain washed of religion, i.e. things above, i.e. respect for parental authority. Thus the electorate, who tie science and religion together, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, should not be able to stop social engineers from separating science and religion, i.e. a heresiarchal paradigm.  In fact the electorate must be forced, via taxes, to pay them to use the same paradigm Satan used on the woman in the Garden in Eden, separating science from religion, i.e. the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil turned from a religious issue to a scientific issue, i.e. scientifically there was nothing wrong with the tree, it was religion which caused the problem.  Thus the parents have no control over how their children will behave toward them when they come home, i.e. the parents still set in their ways, and eventually when the parents become elderly, the children no longer having to, for conscience sake, care for and financially support obstacles to social health.

When the school systems moved from an in loco parentis structure (a patriarchal paradigm where the schools served the parents, i.e. Christians, spiritual, religious, traditional interests, its environment never move the child away from the perception of parental authority) to a "community" structure (a heresiarchal paradigm where the schools served socio-psychologists, and thus humanistic, i.e. temporal,  transformational interests, its environment is designed to create the perception of society, with no perception of parental authority, i.e. patricide, i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm in the child's mind and classroom experience, i.e. the authority structure never comes up unless it is in a contemptuous, intolerant, or irrelevant tone of voice), social engineers could grow the next generation into a national "shift" in paradigm, where man's nature, with dialogue, i.e. 'drawing it out,' would negate the voice of authority of the parents and traditional teachers, along with their teaching of facts and truth which prevented 'rapid change,' socialist controlled instability (continuous improvement, sustainable development, etc.  Hand in hand with the secular incorporating the heresiarchal paradigm (through social-psychology and dialogue), the sacred became a part and parcel of the secular and rejected the patriarchal paradigm of the true Church (the preaching and teaching of the Scriptures alone, in love), redefining, i.e. rejecting revelation, replaced it with human feelings and thoughts in group settings, i.e. through the dialogue of opinions.

    "No school worthy of the name can exist unless the principle of respect for authority is observed.  No school can exist without discipline, without subordination of pupils to reasonable rules and regulations. Anarchy in school means anarchy in the nation later on. . . ."
    "Has authority been banished in these later days?  Is there still such a thing as discipline?  Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?"  (Will C. Wood,  Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, California Blue Bulletin, 1920) [Note the year of these concerned statements, as well as the State from which they came.]

“Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process.” (Benne)

If there is to be freedom of the conscience in both realms, i.e. right and wrong established from above and not compromised by the fleshy feelings of the secular realm below, then the church must keep itself pure from secular partnership, i.e. secular control.  It must keep itself under Godly restraint, under his authority, i.e. in love with him and his word, and not submit to licentiousness,  under the power, i.e. under the control, of the secular, i.e. the flesh, i.e. making human relationship the "purpose."  Without the freedom of the conscience, the sacred realm is under restraint to the secular realm, not being under God's authority but man's, and therefore the conscience, developed in the sacred realm is negated, and the secular, i.e. the unrestrained beast, rules over the souls of men, empowered by the harlot church, i.e. the "sacred" whore, i.e. the "uncircumcised in heart and ears." "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears [the "sacred" in consensus with the flesh of the world, i.e. the flesh still attached], ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye."  (Acts 7:51)  Notice that when the adulterous "sacred" realm serves under the secular realm, i.e. the fleshy realm, i.e. the flesh of human nature is not exposed and cut off.  Thus, resisting the Holy Spirit, it uses the power of the secular realm, i.e. the flesh, i.e. the power of the sword, to persecute and crucify the sacred realm, i.e. Jesus and all who follow him, i.e. those obedient to God and his authority unto death. 

"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:2-4)

When the word power is used in Romans 13:1-6, both the secular and sacred realms are under the jurisdiction of the secular realm, i.e. the temporal. When the structure of the secular, i.e. power, is used to justify the praxis of the sacred, the sacred becomes legalistic to occupy space, i.e. establishing laws to justify the use of power to compete against the secular or even conquer the secular realm, i.e. focusing upon God's law to justify the use of power to redeem a culture without understanding God's righteousness, i.e. his work to redeem the souls of men. "... whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Galatians 5:4  On the other hand the sacred realm uses the structure of the secular realm, for licentiousness, i.e. the liberating of feelings to keep up with the times, i.e. focusing upon human relationship, to grow in numbers from association with and approval and respect from the secular realm. There is no liberty in law, i.e. mercy and grace under the law, found in the secular realm which ties everything to space and time, i.e. temporal, apart from the sacred realm (liberating man from the power of the flesh, i.e. "What can I get out of my office for myself," replaced with the conscience, i.e. "What is the right thing to do in this office, under God?").  For law, mercy, and grace are united only through the work of God in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, in space and time but not of it, i.e. for the souls of men in the sacred realm, i.e. men walking in spirit and in truth in the secular realm.  The secular can only experience liberty in law, mercy, and grace when it recognizes that its right of power is under God's authority, and thus "willingly" (by the right of citizens to bear arms to protect their conscience, i.e. to defend right against wrong in the secular realm) limits its power, i.e. shares it power, not with the sacred realm, but with the citizens who recognize the author and finisher of both the secular and the sacred realms, i.e. the office of authority, under God (a patriarchal paradigm). 

(Lawlessness is the result of thinking and practicing grace and mercy without "law," an oxymoron, i.e. as the lawless one, i.e. the antichrist, rules under these conditions).  What was unique to America, amongst all the other nations of the world, was the idea of checks and balances in government, i.e. delegated, limited responsibilities in all branches, in all departments, in the Federation, in the States, in the Counties, in the Townships, in the Villages, so that the family and the Church, both patriarch in structure, i.e. where the conscience is developed, could have the greatest power, and thus could train up the next generation of citizens to be understanding of liberty, i.e. liberty in law, willing to promote and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That has long since passed away (few understand the system of though behind the development of our Constitutional Republic and the bill of rights, i.e. our "inalienable rights," i.e. patriarchal in nature, which kept the Constitution from being a document of tyranny, until elected and appointed officials ignored them and/or redefined them).  Only a remnant is left to give testimony of what once was. Those who think dialectically long to be rid of that remnant, so that the world of wickedness and unrighteousness (of abomination) can be freed from the restraint of Godly authority, the patriarchal paradigm of the believing Church and the traditional home, under God.

Only by the power of God (God is Spirit) upon the souls of men, is law, mercy, and grace united, his righteousness imputed through the works of His Son, Jesus Christ, i.e. the spiritual over the temporal, i.e. God's authority, not being justified by the feelings, thoughts and actions of men, i.e. the temporal, i.e. subject to the power of the sword, but by his authority alone.  This may be why the word power was used, instead of the word authority, in the King James Version, considering King James wanted to keep his power over both the secular and the sacred realms, i.e. over the State and the Church.  To use the word authority in Romans 13:1-6 would make you politically incorrect in his day.  It will make you politically incorrect today, i.e. identifying you as a "fundamental religious extremist," with "ministers of righteousness" agreeing (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). It is just a matter of how they think, i.e. their paradigm, which will determine who they agree with, i.e. the believer or the world.  Ironically the three combined words all mean the same thing.  They are simply descriptive of different attributes of an authoritarian person, one who weighs all actions, their own and others, under the authority of God, taking "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ"  (2 Corinthians 10:5), i.e. the praxis of a patriarchal paradigm. (Getting ahead of myself: All religions of the world tie themselves to space and time in some way, shape, or form.  By tying God and his word to space and time, grouping Christianity with the religions of the world, the antichrist will think he can rule over the body of Christ but he can not, for although it is in space and time, the true Church it is not of space and time. I'll cover this up ahead.)

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers [authorities; exousia], against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Ephesians 6:11)

Getting ahead of myself again: using the word power, instead of the word authority, theoretically, allows both man and God to share in power (in this way man can still keep God in the picture, i.e. for the purpose of deception, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm wants all under its power, even the religious—Satan's spiritual authority of wickedness works with and through the power of the flesh of man, that is why he has pleasure in the things of carnal man even in the "sacred realm").  If God's power (spiritual) is limited in space and time (temporal), i.e. God can not rule on earth without the help of man, i.e. enmeshment, then God himself is locked into space and time with man, being subject to man's feelings and thoughts in the "here and now," assisting man in man's praxis of creating man's "there and then," i.e. dreams, i.e. his interpretation of world peace. One dialectically minded minister puts it his way: "God and His angels need our permission to work on earth. Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally. God has done nothing on earth without a human co-operating with Him.  Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference. God could do nothing on earth, nothing has God ever done on earth without a human giving Him access."  Myles Munroe. All the proceeding statements by Myles Munroe, are anathema to the power and authority of God and are abomination before God and blasphemous of the work of the Holy Spirit.  If a Babylonian King, quoted below, would recognize the power and authority of God, then why won't men who call themselves men of God.  It is because they are desirous of power over the earth and believe that God needs their permission to work on earth.  They refuse to recognize and submit to his authority. God did not send them.

"And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:  And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?  At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.  Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase."  (Daniel 4:34-37)

 A space-time continuum⁶ (spatio-temporal framework, i.e. matriarchal-heresiarchal paradigm) materializes and temporaries all which comes under its sphere of influence (like a black hole of relativism, i.e. if you enter into its dialectical vortex, i.e. enter into dialogue, you will never come out, i.e. the "old" you, i.e. as a believer, the "new" you, will never be seen again, i.e. only bits and pieces of what you once were will come flying out, the only evidence that you once were).  What is meant by this is that right (righteousness) and wrong (wickedness) are no longer eternally established but become subject to the environmental conditions they are subjected to, i.e. subject to the will, i.e. the wisdom of man in this age, i.e. philosophy.  Relativity⁷ (moral relativism) therefore defines and establishes life (Eros swallows up agape and takes its place in appearance, i.e. mans "love" swallows up God's love and no one can tell the difference, that is except the discerning, under God), i.e. abolishing life under God's authority.  When the word power is used, instead of the proper word authority, both, God—who is eternal, and man's soul—which is eternal, become temporal in perception, i.e. secular, worldly, (influenced by, i.e. subject to the environment they find themselves in, i.e. in space and in time, i.e. in the "here" and in the "now") and take on meaning only within the context of the contemporary, i.e. taking on importance only as they mesh with the moment.  As a famous Transformational Marxist wrote: "Truth is a moment in correct praxis." (Gramsci). In this way the soul of man is lost in the quest for the liberation of human nature, human nature liberated from "non-human," unnatural forces, i.e. therefore mankind, both secular and sacred, can be uniting in the experience of the moment, i.e. in space and in time, i.e. in the "here and now."

“Sense experience must be the basis of all science.  Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature.”  (Karl Marx  emphasis added)

Humanism can not exist unless objective truth is tied to (perverted with) sensuous needs (changing sensuous need from true science, i.e. the desire to know, i.e. to know truth, i.e. spiritual, as in greater than feelings, i.e. the desire to know the laws which govern things, to the sensuous need of "so called science," i.e. the desire to relate with, i.e. to know experientially, i.e. temporally, i.e. dialectically called spiritually but tied to the universe, i.e. zeitgeist) and sense perception, i.e. from sense experience, which must all proceed from nature.  True science requires the same, minus the desire to know all things experientially, i.e. be at one with, i.e. mystical fusion.  But by using the scientific method on man, properly used on rocks, plants, and animals, all things become subject to sense perception, including "faith," all things are based upon human experience, now classified as a point in space and time needing realignment to progress up the continuum of human worth. 

"Thus when ‘science’ maintains that the manner in which data immediately present themselves is an adequate foundation of scientific conceptualisation and that the actual form of these data is the appropriate starting-point for the formation of scientific concepts, it thereby takes its stand simply and dogmatically on the basis of capitalist society. It uncritically accepts the nature of the object as it is given and the laws of that society as the unalterable foundation of ‘science’." "The dialectical method was overthrown and with it the methodological supremacy of the totality over the individual aspects; the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole and, instead, the whole was dismissed as unscientific or else it degenerated into the mere ‘idea’ or ‘sum’ of the parts. With the totality out of the way, the fetishistic relations of the isolated parts appeared as a timeless law valid for every human society." (Lukacs)

What appears to be science may not be science.  The dialectical "scientific process" is built upon the law of human nature, i.e. "the science of social experience," which is ever changing (not necessarily evolving to a higher state, since the process only detects the potential for change and the actual praxis depends upon individual-social participation in the experiment).  When this condition is denied because of the "rule of science," i.e. true science which is applied to rocks, plants, and animals and is rigid (2 + 2 = 4 and ≠ any other number), social change is denied.  "Bookish" science inhibits the scientific experience of the human laboratory. In dialectical thought, it is the fetishization of science which restricts the experience of changingness, science becoming an end in itself, treated as being above human "purpose," i.e. for the "purpose" of individual-social "change."  Since science is based upon the question of what is and what is not, when applied to man it must liberate man from absolutes (the "irrational" restraints upon human nature, the restraints of "is" and "not" which come from above human nature, i.e. spiritual).  It destroys absolutes (what is and what is not) the moment it pursues what might be and what might not be (theory).  By the testing of the theory (what might be) in the "light" of the life experience (praxis), "absolutes" are momentarily if not permanently annihilated, i.e. depending upon whether the "scientific method" identifies them as relevant or not to the human situation. By participation in the "scientific process" (the dialectical process), the method itself is accepted as the only way to resolve the crisis, making the "right," i.e. 'rational,' decision based upon human thoughts and feelings, i.e. self-reflection, i.e. "thought experiments."  This is the method which Einstein turned to, to "justify" his theory of relativity, i.e. the "space-time continuum".

Don't be tricked into the lie that the continuum is value free and not prejudice. It is prejudiced to its own taxonomy, the flesh of man, and the way of the world. The spider and fly having lunch (two separate things having lunch) is not the same thing as the spider having the fly over for lunch⁸ (so the one can swallow up the other). Only the deceived, i.e. the stupid fly in this case (or parent), who entertained the foolishness of thinking it could have a peaceful lunch with a spider (put themselves or their children in the process under a facilitator), participated in the deceiver's lie, he became the deceiver's lunch (that is why the deceived take pleasure in deceiving others, i.e. its their happy hour, their lunch time, i.e. their "power lunch"). To dialogue with the deceiver, brings you into his deceit.  World peace is a world deceived (perceived), a world freed from truth, i.e. freed from God's authority.  To dialogue truth is to be deceived into a lie. You can not dialogue truth, the very act turns you into a liar.  You can only dialogue opinions.  If you are talked into dialoguing truth, the spider just had you over for lunch. Yum, yum, you are now a part of the spider, i.e. in the world system and of the world system.

“The scientific study of ideology can only be made on the basis of theory.” (Adorno) 

“...to grasp philosophies and other ideological systems in theory as realities and to treat them as such in praxis.” (Bronner) 

The Dialectical agenda is: don't tell a person who believes in a patriarchal God that he is illusional, just help him discover himself, i.e. discover that his feelings are the basis of life, i.e. that man is God, and the illusion will go away. When values are subject to human classification they are based upon human feelings and human thoughts actualized in human praxis.  Even though placed within the continuum of a taxonomy, i.e. universal moral absolutes ("categorical imperatives") may be recognized by the taxonomy, but they are only recognized as an opinion, having relevancy only upon their transformation, i.e. their changeability, i.e. the experience of showing others how to incorporate, i.e. annihilate them by bringing them into the taxonomy of relativism, i.e. show others how to neutralize, marginalize, and/or remove them  in a particular environment, at a specific moment, i.e. in space and time.  Marx believed that every ideal or truth must be treated as an opinion, this is classic dialectical thought in praxis.

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men." (1 Corinthians 3:18-21)

The contemporary church, i.e. the church of the flesh, "in Jesus name":
The moment the church, the sacred, goes "contemporary," it shifted its focus from the souls of men, that which is spiritual and eternal (there and then), to human relationship, i.e. the secular, the flesh of man, that which is temporary (here and now). Thus all mankind is thus tied to the world and the temporal, in space and in time.  All who claim authority above the spatio-temporal moment, restraining that moment, along with its "potential," are identified and treated with contempt.  The use of power is therefore justified in the annihilation, i.e. the negation of any authority above human nature (the persecution, i.e. re-education, of the believer is justified in Communist countries with this logic).   Man, separated from the office of authority, under God, can only find hope in a humanistic dream (perception), i.e. the pursuit of world peace—the dialectical imagination in domination, always before his eyes and in his ears.  His hope in God, living under his authority, is therefore replaced with a hope in man, subject to his tyrannical use of power, even "in God's name." To live such a life, and call it life, is to live a lie. Hope in life can only come through God, for only God is life. "The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him."  Lamentations 3:24  "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"  Titus 1:2 "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."  Galatians 5:5

"Do you know the difference between right and wrong?"  Dialectically, there is no right or wrong answer to any question, unless right or wrong is absolute and not tied to proper behavior in a given situation. The question of what is right or what is wrong is irrelevant unless it is tied to the immediate situation in space and time, i.e. situational ethics.

While in the office of authority, under God, the ruler has power over the bodies of men. He does not have authority over the souls of men.  Therefore he can not use his power over the souls of men.  Thus the citizen has the right of 'freedom of conscience' under the ruler's authority, under God.  Rulers, serving in the office of authority, are to serve and protect those under their authority (the office of authority granted to them by God—given by God for the benefit of all men i.e. for the restraint of wrong and the support and protection of right), to serve and protect those who are doing what is right (those citizens being civil, i.e. not usurping the office of authority of another citizen, under God), and to punish those who are doing what is wrong (those citizens not being civil, i.e. usurping the office of authority of another citizen, under God), all guided by the conscience.  But if he uses the office of authority for his own personal gain, using his power of office, which he has control of, to the detriment of those he is in office to serve and protect (using his power against the conscience of the citizens), he is a tyrant (a usurper). This is why the power of government was limited in America, so that citizens could have the right of conscience, under God (only possible in a patriarchal paradigm), and why today, through the growing power of government under man (humanism, environmentalism, globalism, i.e. those who initiate and sustain the use of the heresiarchal paradigm), the right of conscience is being negated, is being replaced with the practice (praxis) of consensus through dialogue in the power of office, by both elected and non-elected people.  There is no true representation (re-presentation) in the praxis of a diverse group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in facilitated meetings, to a pre-determined dialectical outcome (better known as a soviet i.e. directorate, i.e. politburo system of government, i.e. a government system using the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. built upon the dialectical process—used with the intent of circumventing the conscience of the people, i.e. bypassing a representative form of government).  When this process is used in government (to set policies and solve problems), what is really being represented, is not the conscience of the citizens (even if they voted their conscience), but the dialectical process itself.  "Grass roots," as in "the grassroots movement," does not mean the conscience of the citizens, nor the souls of men, but that which was formed from the dust of the ground, the Eros of man, i.e. human nature in touch with the cosmos, without the breath of God, i.e. void of Godly restraint.  Globalism, i.e. the antichrist, can not function without the assistance of the "grass roots." 

Being subject to higher authority:
It should also be noted that the Greek word for subject (upotassesyw), as used in the King James translation, means to be subordinate.  This takes on greater significance when you consider disobedience as being insubordinate to authority, i.e. assuming a position of being equal with or greater than the one in authority, or, worst of all, considering the office of authority itself as irrelevant (which is heresiarchal).  Also, it is understood that the word higher (uperecousaiv) in "higher authority" means that all authorities must accept God as the highest authority; therefore, everything is subject to His will and commands, and will be judged accordingly.  I am not saying the secular must base law upon the sacred, but that the secular must allow the sacred freedom, i.e. its citizens the right of conscience.  The secular can not therefore use any system which negates the freedom of the conscience of its citizens.  To do so would be an act of tyranny. For example, the dialectically based statement, “We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue.” (Benne) would be an act of tyranny. Only those with a seared conscience can comfortably serve under, i.e. be in agreement with, a tyrant, using his power to suppress citizens with a conscience and any realm which develops it.

Again: The church or the sacred is not to be subject to the civil or secular authorities when it comes to matters of the soul, nor is the secular, the state, to be subject to the church's authority when it comes to matters of the sword, i.e. the church over the use of the sword for its own purpose (the difference between the spiritual authority of the church, i.e. the "bride of Christ," which is not a civic institution of man's own making, and the conscience of the individual citizen who is a member of the secular state), as one is temporal, dealing with the body or civic realm and the other is spiritual, dealing with the soul or spiritual realm. But both are under God's authority in their specific realms. Of course the carnal man resents this and would want the secular realm freed from being under the authority of God (it's mind, i.e. brain, washed of Godly restraint), and would set out to neutralize, marginalize, remove, or corrupt the spiritual realm—attempting to prostitute the bride of Christ through the use of the diabolical, dialectical process. Also, those who claim to be spiritual, but are not guided by the spirit of God, i.e. being guided by the dialectical process and the spirit of rebellion behind it (see Genesis 3:1-6²), would want the church to have control over or be in partnership with the state for their "religious" advantage, i.e. to use the power of the state (the sword) to remove those who do not serve their own carnal purposes, of course all done "in the name of Jesus."

(1) "In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy [i.e. revert to a top down order, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm]." 
(2)  "Next comes a period of frustration and conflict [initiated and sustained division] brought about by the leader's [democratic leader or 'facilitator of change'] steadfast rejection of the concept of peck order [top down order] and the authoritarian atmosphere [patriarchal, i.e. traditional environment of above-below] in which the concept of peck order [respect for the office of authority] is rooted."
(3)  "The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness [abdication of or washing from the brain the effects of the patriarchal paradigm] among the members of the group, accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness [revitalization, i.e. liberation, i.e. emancipation, of the suppressed rebellious nature, i.e. the subconscious, up until now inhibited by the patriarchal environment making itself known]."
(4)  "In the fourth phase the members retain the group-centeredness [abdicate right and wrong thinking, i.e. the conscience, to the tolerance of ambiguity, i.e. the superego, i.e. socialism] and sensitivities [basing reality, i.e. truth, no longer upon commands and truths declared as true from above, i.e. to be unquestionably obeyed, but now based upon humanistic reasoning  i.e. sense experience, i.e. sensuous needs, i.e. feelings and i.e. sense perception, i.e. inductive, i.e. dialectical reasoning] which characterized the third phase, but they develop also a sense of purpose [what is good for the group is good for me and what is good for me is good for the group, i.e. if we don't work together to overcome evil, i.e. those who resist change, i.e. refuse to join with "us" in overcome evil in the world, social disharmony, evil will prevail, the patriarchal paradigm will prevail] and  urgency [if we don't work together we will fail] which makes the group potentially an effective social instrument [i.e. committed to the overthrow of a patriarchal paradigm for the sake of saving the world from catastrophe, i.e. catastrophe seen, i.e. perceived, and felt as guaranteed if society continues to follow down the pathway of the patriarchal paradigm]."  (Human Relations in Curriculum Change, ed. by Kenneth Benne, "The Growth of a Group," From Herbert Thejen and Watson Dickerman "Stereotypes and the Growth of Groups", Educational Leadership, February 1949)

There is no such thing as a Christian nation.  There can be a nation with Christians.  In a predominately moral and religious country, where the sacred realm preached and taught the word of God and served under his authority, the secular state, through the use of majority vote of the citizens (by secret ballot, with the citizen voting his conscience, i.e. "What is right, What would God say."), would reflect a conservative restraint, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, and would accept and encourage the displaying of the Ten Commandments in the public realm, having prayer (in Jesus name only) in the public realm, reading scripture (translated from the Textus Receptus) in the public realm, and chastening as a means of discipline in the home (as was the heritage and praxis of this nation for over two centuries). In a country that is predominately immoral, atheistic, agnostic, Christian humanist, pluralistic (humanistic, socialist—social-psychology, democratic), i.e. heresiarchal paradigm, the secular state, through the use of the consensus process influencing the majority vote, (a vote coerced through the use of the consensus process, i.e. the dialectical process, i.e. "What would the group think," developed by the method listed above), would reflect a liberal licentiousness, i.e. would inhibit or prohibit the displaying of the Ten Commandments in public places (seen as a barrier, i.e. inhibitor, to human relationship building, i.e. the development of interpersonal relationships with the "diversity" of beliefs and opinions of the world), praying in Jesus name in public places, reading scriptures in public places (especially scriptures translated from the Textus Receptus¹), and chastening as a means of correction, especially in the home.  It would even seek to outlaw the same from being practiced in the sacred realm (as has been the praxis of over the last half century by many people in positions of influence in this nation).  Once these things are lost to a nation, history shows they are not easily if ever restored.  These conditions have to developed from the heart of the people (people who love and fear God) at the very onset of policy building, because, as you have seen, once the process takes over, restoration can only be by an act of God, i.e. through judgment upon the people.

“Our cultural workers must serve the people with great enthusiasm and devotion, and they must link themselves with the masses, not divorce themselves from the masses. In order to do so, they must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. . . . There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.” (From the Selected Works of Mao-Tse-Tung, Vol III “The United Front in Cultural Work” (October 30, 1944) (Peking, 1967), pp. 186-187)

Today, the sacred realm must incorporate other religious views and philosophical thoughts to be publicly approved by the secular realm, i.e. to prevent "extremism," i.e. intolerance, prejudice, etc., i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. passive or isolationism (private) or hateful or aggressive (capitalism, i.e. imperialism), in the sacred realm.  In this way the humanist has not only gained control over the individual, and thus (according to his perception) the secular realm, but he also has gained control over the individual in the sacred realm.  Not until the tyrant (the lawless one) is able to either remove the sacred realm, through the use of physical force (Traditional Marxism), or gain access into the sacred realm, through the use of consensus and dialogue, and thereby corrupt it (Transformational Marxism), can it "feel" and "think," i.e. praxis,  a life unrestrained by God's authority, i.e. therefore a feeling that nothing is impossible to man, i.e. man is "free at last," i.e. no longer subordinate to God's "arbitrary" laws and his unquestionable authority which inhibits human nature. Thus the citizen is only a citizen if he is freed from having a guilty conscience, i.e. a product of the sacred realm, under God.

Anyone using an office of authority for himself is a tyrant.

 Kurt "Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Brookover)

When you teach a child to control himself, you are teaching him he has an office of authority over himself, i.e. his-"self" life (There is I, me, and myself.  I can talk to myself, I can agree with myself, I can disagree with myself, I can humble myself, I can deny myself, I can drag my self out of bed, I can love myself, I can exalt myself, and I can hate myself.  Self will never be held accountable for what it does—serving "the flesh the law of sin" Romans 7:25—but I will be held accountable for listening to and doing what it wants me to do—the lust of the flesh—and not taking control over it or disciplining it, temporally, and not humbling it or denying it, spiritually, making it subject to my authority over it, under God—"under God" is equated to a top-down paradigm or way of thinking whether secular or sacred, civic or religious, all being under God's authority since he not only judges individuals but judges nations as well).  If the child does not take control over himself (his "self" life), then you (the parent), having the right of authority over him (under God), must use your power, in the office of authority in which you serve, to take control over him (to chasten him) until he learns to take control over his "self," and learn to function properly in his own God given office of authority.  Other-wise, if he simply uses his God given office of authority for himself (his "self" life), he becomes a tyrant (have you seen any little tyrants running around lately, grown up one's as well?  I don't know who Elizabeth Powers is, but she put it right when she wrote: "Discipline is foreign to the liberal mind, liberals hate contours and self-definition that comes from limits." "Liberals tend to colonize all spaces they are in." "Public space becomes for liberals an extension of their private living room." "... their kids amused themselves by running up and down ...."  Elizabeth Powers). The praxis of tyranny (diaprax—the lack of self-control in the office of authority under God), can be true for the husband, the wife, the mayor, the governor, the president, the minister, etc. as well as the children.

Of course, a tyrant, by his very nature, would not agree.  He would see the father, who trains up his children with a conscience (through inculcation, indoctrination, and chastening) as a threat, and blame personal and social discord upon him (I am not justifying a father who provokes his children to wrath, because of his taunting, "You are stupid," and belittling, "You will never amount to anything," ways. The Bible warns fathers not to do that.).  But it is here, with the pent up hate for the father figure, where Fascism and Communism meet.  In error, the Marxist/communist/socialist (socio-psychologists) would say the father, who trained his children to obey orders without question, was/is the root cause of Fascism (nationalism)—as is advanced by two Transformational Marxists, Erich Fromm, in his book Escape from Freedom, and Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality (American politics has been influenced by these two men and their ideology more than most Americans realize or are willing to admit).  The truth is, the tyranny of fascism gained control, like communism (socialism, democracy), by the use of trickery (seduction and deceit), threat, and brute force (along with the citizens putting their blind trust in men i.e. in unlimited power of government).  These are not the attributes learned from a Godly father, in the office of authority, under God.  He would train his children up on how to control themselves, under God, not trusting man or government, but being vigilant at all times, applying the spiritual to the temporal. ("Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." 1 Peter 5:8, 9).  He would teach them in understanding the nature of fallen man, especially when given unlimited power in the office of authority.  Over 220 years ago Patrick Henry⁹ warned us of such a praxis. “Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?” “A willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be capable of:” (P. Henry)  It was because of men like him that government, i.e. force, through the Bill of Rights was placed in the hands of the citizens. 

Through civil disobedience, and events like it, the force of government has been taken from the citizens and placed in the hands of a select company of "social-scientists" (Transformational Marxists), tyrants in governmental offices.  Assisted by dialectically organized think tanks (developing anti-American policy, in the traditional meaning of those words, through the combined use of facilitation, dialogue, diversity, social issues, consensus, knowing that through this praxis the mind is set free from God, at least a God above human nature i.e. above the "the flesh the law of sin"), elected and appointed governmental officials, and their departments (which serve the process), have succeeded in establishing governmental policies in harmony with the new world order (anti-Constitutional Republic, anti-limited government, anti-private business i.e. anti-commerce, anti-patriarchal home, anti-conscience, anti-liberty in law, and anti-Christ).

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

The Transformational Marxist plan (socializing the world through the use of the dialectical process) was to tie technology, i.e. progress, to the promotion of human nature (man's sin nature, i.e. compromise for the preservation and promotion of his fleshiness, as illustrated by Lawrence Kohlberg's dilemma questions), so that the only way to gain access to technology, the key to success in business, was to support (at least tolerate) human nature, i.e. sin.  Thus, anyone slowing down the "ship of progress," i.e. anyone slowing down the process of change, i.e. the change of paradigms, i.e. anyone restraining human nature, would be seen as fighting against everyone's opportunity for success, i.e. growth.  The leaders of the institutional church, following down this same pathway (with their emphasis upon success i.e. prosperity), brought the church under the same influence, that of promoting human nature.  Instead of the institutional church focusing upon "knowing" the Word of God (which causes division, i.e. "in the world but not of it"), it focused upon the "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. the opinions, of its members regarding the Word in light of social conditions, i.e. the immediate sensual environment. Their opinions therefore took on more weight, i.e. more meaning, i.e. more importance, than the Word of God itself (resulting in a much "safer," less offensive, i.e. less divisive gospel, i.e. a user friendly, non offensive Christ, synthesized with a user friendly, non offensive Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud (social-psychology), to make a user friendly, non offensive Marx-Christ, i.e. a humanized Christ, i.e. anti-Christ, Church).  Opinions, i.e. how you feel and what you think, are not "categorical imperatives" (absolutes, necessitating obedience), and therefore allow human nature (sensuousness) spontaneous, unrestrained freedom of expression.  In the fluidity of opinions, absolutes, i.e. truths are negated while, to the participants, they appear, i.e. "seem to be" retained.  Our perception that the Church was not changed when the Word of God was not brought up in dialogue, because we remembered the scripture in our mind when it was not brought up, is in error because the perception of those who are ignorant of God's word, do not have it in their hearts and in their minds, is that the Church does not need scriptures as its basis of "purpose," but only tolerance of ambiguity, now identified as love.  The Church was changed because we did not speak the word of God when it was left out so as not to offend the "pre-Christian."  

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."  1 Peter 2:4-10

"No thing is as hateful to the Devil as the Gospel, for that shows him up, so that he cannot conceal himself, and everyone sees him as black as he is."  Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, as quoted in (Brown)

    It should be noted that psychoanalysis uses Luther as an example of man seeking release from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the Papal authority, which is the only way the process can see anything.  He is seen historically—psychoanalytically—as isolating man from authority, via the "priesthood of all believers," so that he can become reattached to the collective soul, the quest, as they falsely see it, of the "modern" age.  The truth is, the modern age could not have happened without Luther and the understanding that righteousness can not come from man's efforts—individually or collectively—but instead must coming from God's work in Christ, that righteousness is imputed from above.  Therefore man "does his best to the glory of God" above, which puts capitalism, 'filthy lucre,' back under Godly restraint (there is nothing wrong with money, it is the love of it which is wrong). Luther was not detaching man from the Pope below, which would leave man still lost, he was attaching man to God above—the patriarchal paradigm, whereby he could be saved.  He was simply moving man from worshiping the man, and thus his flesh and the world, below, claiming to be from God above, to worshiping God above, hating this flesh and the world below. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:35-38  "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
    We are to put no man between us and God. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven."  Matthew 7:21 "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."  2 John 1:9-11  
    Those who praxis the dialectical process can not recognize, i.e. process, this truth, for this truth would expose the dialectical process as "black," i.e. as hating the authority of God above.  If anything this shows how perverse psychoanalysis is.  Those who use it, turn anything or anyone who exposes it as evil, with its use of the dialectical process—and the Devil from which it came—as evil (ignorant), i.e. as trouble makers, resistors to change, divisive, placing them at the "anal" (irrational) stage of the continuum, as taught by Freud. Psychoanalysis is a one-upsmanship over God, weighing the importance, i.e. relevance of God's word based upon its approval by man, i.e. it relevance to growing the fellowship, i.e. human relationship building skills.  It is this perversity which has crept into the church and is now being used for the "purpose" of the human factor, turning the truth of God's word, the gospel, into unrighteousness, i.e. justifying human nature so "men of God" can feed their bellies through the respect of men. 
    There is nothing a believer can say which will not be interpreted through the continuum of human perception when this process is being used, used by those blinded by this process, led by those who have the most to "gain" by the humanization of the Gospel, i.e. the "ministers" who must conceal  their dialectical agenda with their position of respect in the "church," preventing their being exposed by those who are not trained in the word as they are.  Any opposition or exposure of the process is seen as an act on your part to sublimate the "life instinct," i.e. your subconscious life seeking deliverance from the oppressor, i.e. parental authority, i.e. the Patriarchal God. 

“Love of money is a sublimation of anal eroticism.” “If there is a psychoanalysis of money it must start from the hypothesis that the money complex has the essential structure of religion.”  “Marx had compared the money complex with the religious complex, as two forms of human self-alienation.” “To take the path of psychological explanation means that the money complex is to be derived from the religious complex.”  “The money complex is inseparable from symbolism; and symbolism is the mark of the sacred.” “The real essence of money is disclosed by a theory of ownership – i.e., power. All power is essentially sacred power. Power is in essence a psychological category.”  “The science of use-value would have to be based on a science of human nature, able to distinguish real human needs from (neurotic) consumer demands . . . Money making as unnatural perversion.” “The psychology of economics is the psychology of guilt. Money is condensed wealth; condensed wealth is condensed guilt. Money is human guilt.”  (Brown)

 Everything is evaluated from man's here-and-now needs, for the "purpose" of change, i.e. "Christians" seeking deliverance from the past traditions of the church, freedom from its control of money to sustain the status quo, thus turning a spiritual issue, not walking in the Spirit or lack of spiritual discernment and growth, into a carnal issue, the lack of dopamine, i.e. no "fun," in the services (instead of the church being the "called out ones" it is now the drawn in ones, i.e. via the flesh, you can't tell the difference between the church and the world).  So in this case God is man's repressor (the authoritarian, equated to "money" used to control man's soul and the Gospel is man's consciousness seeking freedom from his restrainer.
    God has nothing bad to say about the Spirit while the Devil has nothing bad to say about the flesh of man, thus both conditions are seen as positive, depending upon which domain they are being view from, i.e. from above or from below. God has nothing good to say about the wickedness of man and the Devil has nothing good to say about the righteousness of God, thus both conditions are seen as negative, again depending upon which domain they are being view from, i.e. from above or from below. Psychoanalysis—the dialectical process in praxis—can only evaluate "life" from below, through human nature, i.e. seeking social harmony through dialogue (the free exchange of opinions through dialogue to find con-senses) and social action (praxis).  Positive is thus the flesh nature of man and therefore his wickedness being "tolerated," for the sake of human relationship building, below, and Negative is the Spiritual, i.e. the "fundamental religious extremists" and their focus upon the Word of God and their preaching and teaching of righteousness, that righteousness which can only come from God, via the gospel, from His word which can only come from above. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God." Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, i.e. rejecting the heresiarchal paradigm, the flesh below for the patriarchal paradigm, God above.
    You can say nothing, when in the room where the process is being used, without being psychoanalyzed by its predetermined outcome, i.e. the humanization of your soul for the cause of human relationship building, i.e. "You're just to negative."  Brown's chapter on "The Protestant Era" exposes his blindness to the truth.  Dialectically minded "ministers" follow down this same pathway. They do not preach and teach the Gospel, they only use it as a tool for the "purpose" of human relationship building, i.e. to "grow the church."  In this way Luther's statement above loses its purpose, the conversion of souls through the preaching of the Gospel.  Something which both the Devil and those who use the dialectical process love.  If you love the church via the human relationship factor, you have to hate the Gospel for it exposes the human relationship factor, exposing it as evil, i.e. as "black."  The church is either believers fellowshipping, which is of God, or the fellowship of pre- and post- "Christians," i.e. the continuum of the dialectical process ('righteousness' and unrighteousness seeking harmony through finding common ground, i.e. the social gospel), which is not of God.
    "Evil in the world will not be eradicated through human effort or divine intervention alone, but through human effort and divine power."  (paraphrase of King Jr. Strength to Love pp. 127-136 in Seay)  The truth is, a believer can be sociable, i.e. in the world, alive in the Spirit, but he can not be a socialist, i.e. of the world, since he is dead to the flesh, dead to the foundation from which socialism must build itself upon. In the end, during a dialogue to consensus, i.e. human relationship building session, i.e. youth group, team building, etc, the only ones upset with those who preach and teach the gospel, using the word of God as their foundation, are those who are in love with their flesh and this present world, i.e. "Can't we all just get along?"

The techniques of marketing rely heavily upon the understanding of human nature, i.e. the conditions which affect how one "feels" and what one "thinks." They also require learning how to initiate and sustain the conditions which manipulate, i.e. "drive," human nature into the outcome desired, i.e. fulfilling the desired "purpose" i.e. "growth."  Thus the church's "purpose" changed ("shifted") from being led by the word of God, by the spirit of God, to being "driven" by human nature, i.e. by the desire to be successful, i.e. to grow—to increase in members i.e. produce "customers" (Peter Drucker) in the name of Jesus. This is why the leaders of the institutional church, in their effort to be successful, so heavily relied upon marketing techniques in the praxis of manipulating their members.  Through the praxis of the manipulation of the environment, people who were exposed to the environment, if they were undiscerning, were by their nature (the desire to be successful, i.e. enjoy the "blessing" of this life, "in the name of Jesus"), drawn into participation with the dialectical process and thus supported and promoted it's outcome, i.e. socialism).  Thus Peter Drucker's favorite question was, "What is your business?" and favorite answer was "To make customers."  Therefore, the apostate church, using the dialectical process, the Transformational Marxists paradigm, could be successful in the eyes of the world, "in the name of Jesus."

"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."  Galatians 5:21

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."  Revelation 21:8

"For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."  Revelation 21:15

The lawless rule when the citizens refuse to be subject to the laws of God themselves, when they refuse to be subject to any authority which goes against (which restrains) their carnal human nature (which, as noted above, inhibits their perception of success in this life, i.e. the respect of man).  Thus they refuse to listen to any authority which holds them accountable for their praxis, a praxis of lies and deceit.  Their contempt for truth (that glazed over look when you try to share it, truth that is), and their hate toward the voice of restraint (the voice of authority, under God) is not just directed toward those who refuse to support and promote the power of the tyrant, but is also directed against God himself.  Put in proper perspective, when the lawless one rules it is because the secular and the sacred no longer wants to be subject to the laws of God, and therefore be subject to any authority above himself, i.e. his "self" nature, i.e. his "I will," nature, any authority holding him accountable for his praxis, a praxis of lies and deceit, a praxis of hate, disguised as caring and love, which is not only directed at those under his power (nations which come under the control of the dialectical process kill their own citizens, by the millions, in the name of the dialectical process, i.e. for the sake of social cause, i.e. equality and liberty) but is also directed against God himself (Dialegomai antallagma apokaluqiv; Dialogue in exchange for revelation, i.e. man and his nature in exchange for God and his word. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"  Matthew 16:26).

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (praxiv, praxis); And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Colossians 3:9)