authorityresearch.com
Institution for Authority Research
Article on
Diaprax
Diaprax
The dialectic process
put into praxis―theory put into practice, your
opinion put into action as 'truth,' replacing truth with opinions―is simply reasoning made subject to sensuousness
'negating' righteousness.
Coming
between the Father and that which is His.
subtitles
Taking that which is not yours
to take (usurping God's authority). Letting
sensuousness come between you and God.
Justifying sensuousness (your feelings, thoughts, and actions) as being equal with
or more important than righteousness (God and His Word),
thereby placing sensuousness (your will) over and against righteousness (the
will of God). Instead of God (who is righteous) defining good and
evil, you (being sensuous) define good and evil, making you as a god
(unrighteous, in sin).
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption."
1 Corinthians 15:50
by Dean Gotcher
August, 2010
(revised 01-17-2011)
[All bracketed information and quotations placed within
quotations are added by me and are not a part of the original quotation.
Apply this general rule to all quotations
which have bracketed information.
Forward
"There is none righteous, no, not
one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there
is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with
their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed
blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they
not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what
things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore
by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by
the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:10-20
"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. And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the
body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you
whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into
hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:2-5
Sensuousness must always be subject to righteousness―Your
will must always be subject to God's will.
Righteousness, that which is Spiritual, can not be equal with nor subject to
sensuousness, that which is of your flesh (God and His Word can not be
made equal with nor made subject to
your
reasoning) or
your reasoning will be used (by you) to
'justify' sensuousness. If reasoning is
not made subject to righteousness, it will be
used to 'justify' sensuousness. If reasoning is not
made subject to God's will, it will be used to 'justify' your carnal
nature. Then, if reasoning is made subject to sensuousness,
it will be used to negate (treat as irrelevant) righteousness.
If reasoning is made subject to your will, it will be used to negate
(treat as irrelevant) God's will.
If reasoning is not made subject to the Father's will (a system
of righteousness,
Hebrews 12:6-11), it will be used to
'justify' the child's will (a system of sensuousness,
Romans
7:22-25).
Then, if reasoning is used to 'justify' the child's will (sensuousness),
it will be
used to negate (treat as irrelevant) the Father's will (righteousness).
That which is above or greater than the child's will, above his flesh,
i.e. above or greater than his system of sensuousness, is dialectically perceived
(and correlated) as being 'spiritual,' i.e. the will of the Father, i.e.
the system of righteousness.
Genesis 3:1-6 was the first praxis of the dialectical process,
i.e. the use of human reasoning to
evaluate (judging the worth of) the system of righteousness (God and His Word
preached and taught) according to
the system of
sensuousness (human opinions dialogued), negating
evaluating (and thus restraining) sensuousness according to God
and His Word (according to His righteousness). Genesis 3:1-6
is the praxis of children evaluating (judging the worth of) their
parents commands (and thus evaluating the 'right' of parents to give commands which
inhibit or block the child's sensuous nature) via. their own sensuousness and understanding (a heresiarchal
paradigm), negating the evaluating (judging) of their own
sensuousness via. their parents commands (a
patriarchal paradigm). Genesis 3:1-6 was the first use of
the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and
manipulation upon mankind (by the first facilitator of 'change').
God's way (righteousness)
is not man's way (sensuousness).
Isaiah 55:8, 9.
God's way is a system of righteousness. Man's way is
a system of sensuousness, subject to the system of
sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation. I am not saying that God is a system (like a scientific
formula), only that those who lean upon the
dialectical process ("the scientific method") to "know" reality (basing "reality" upon their
nature, i.e. the system of sensuousness) do. Thus,
to those who praxis (practice) the dialectical process, that
which is above must take on the identity of that which is below (be sensuous
and 'rational') so that that which is below can take on
the identity (via. enlightenment) of that which is above (now described as
being sensuous and 'rational') to accomplish oneness (consensus
via. sensual-intellectual assent), negating
that which is above (righteousness via. faith in God) which does not correlate with
that which is below (sensuousness; "sensuous need," "sense
perception," and "sense experience").
What God initiated in the
garden in Eden was a system of righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, a
closed system of 'fixity,' (since man was flesh,
of a system of sensuousness, capable of following
after the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness,
and manipulation all reasoning would have to be subject to God's
standards―deductive reasoning was to be used where pre-established right and wrong,
i.e. premises, were to be used to determine what is right and what is wrong
in thought and in action―the if-then outcome therefore being certain,
i.e. unchanging). Satan introduced his system of
sensuousness, deceitfulness,
and manipulation so as to 'liberate' the system of
sensuousness in man from the system of righteousness
of God, i.e. doubt, questioning, disobedience, an open system of 'change,' which
both the woman and Adam 'shifted' to (doing a paradigm 'shift,'
where reasoning would be subject to human feelings and perceptions, i.e. sensuousness―changing
his reasoning from a patriarchal paradigm, a top-down
system, to a heresiarchal paradigm, a system of equality, where reasoning
is inductive, based upon "valid" experiential sensations of life, making
right and wrong sensual, situational, theoretical, speculative in
nature―the if-then outcome therefore being uncertain, i.e.
ever 'changing'). "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." " 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." "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 8:5, 9,
13 "But I say
unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath
committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew
5:28
Therefore, if reasoning is not made subject to the
system of righteousness
(the Fathers will, correlated secularly, dialectically, as the patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness,
i.e. the bourgeoisie), it will be used to 'justify' the
system of sensuousness
(the child's will, correlated secularly, dialectically, as the heresiarchal paradigm
of 'changingness,' i.e. the proletariat).
Then, if reasoning is made subject to the system of
sensuousness ('changingness'), it will be used to negate (treat
as irrelevant) the system of
righteousness (unchangingness). Sensuousness, liberated
from righteousness through human
reasoning, will be put into social action (praxis) annihilating the father figure, i.e.
annihilating the patriarchal paradigm, i.e.
annihilating the bourgeoisie). Diaprax is the
praxis of patricide via. incest 'justified' (consensus). "But
as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born
after the Spirit, even so it is now." ''This I say then, Walk in
the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Galatians 4:29, 5:16
Since those who live by the
dialectical process looks at everything through systems (systems
analysis), i.e. the way man feels, thinks and acts. A man's feelings,
thoughts, and actions (his way of thinking and acting) is graded along a
spectrum of 'changeability,' according to his 'changingness,' his
adaptability to 'change,' while under pressure, i.e. his 'changingness' of
system or
paradigm, i.e. progressing (progressivism) from a system of
stability (absolutes) to a system of 'change' (relativism), i.e. along a spectrum
or continuum, from a patriarchal paradigm
(obedience to
higher authority which restrains sensuousness, i.e. inhibiting or
blocking 'change)' through a matriarchal paradigm (which is sensuous in nature,
i.e. initiating and sustaining individual 'change') to a
heresiarchal paradigm (which initiates and sustains social 'change' via. "the
ether of the brain,"
i.e. the deceitful and manipulative use of
sensuousness). A persons history is manifested by where
along this spectrum he is at any given 'moment.' This is reflected in the development of
curriculum for the classroom, according to "Bloom's
Taxonomies," from "lower order thinking" to "higher order
thinking," in a progression from translation (literal),
interpretation (opinion), to extrapolation (relative,
conditional, situational), progressing from facts which
restrain 'change,' through feelings which cry out for
'change,' to "rational- sensual justification" of
'changingness.' Man (human nature,
the basis of "human rights") is the system of
sensuousness (carnal, of the flesh, worldly, of below) which
requires 'change' since "peace" (the feeling of
satisfaction or contentment, i.e. "all is well") is always momentary
(temporary, i.e. temporal, only found in the 'moment' since the body,
i.e. the flesh, and the mind set upon it, can only experience pleasure―Dopamine
emancipation―which fades with time, i.e. becomes satiated and then
dissolves, which needs new environmental or mental stimulation at an
ever increasing level to renew its sensation of pleasure again, resulting in
a spiraling process of 'changingness'―thus the natural
'drive' to control (and augment) the environment which stimulates pleasure, and the
'drive' to negate anything or anyone who inhibits or blocks the
pursuit of sensual pleasure, i.e. the sensation of "peace," as
the world understands peace), hope
being founded upon happiness, happiness being founded upon pleasure,
pleasure being founded upon the mind (awareness upon what in the natural
environment is stimulating a sensation of pleasure), and the mind being founded upon
the body stimulated from environmental conditions which engender the
sensuousness of pleasure. "Peace" is therefore the
liberation of lust via. the negation of the condition (righteousness)
which exposes and condemns human nature, "lust," as being evil.
God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are all the system of righteousness (Holy, Spiritual,
heavenly, from above, the basis of "inalienable rights"),
which is not sensual (carnal) in nature, thus never changing―God's peace
not needing 'change,' not dependent upon
sensuousness.
While man may use the system of righteousness he can never be
righteous in and of himself, only using the office of top-down
authority, the system of righteousness (having a form of
Godliness), using the office for his own gain (for his
own sensuousness, i.e. for his own pleasure; "Furthermore we
have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them
reverence: ... For they verily for a few days chastened us after their
own pleasure;" Hebrews 12:9a, 10b), therefore only
having temporal power (the power of the sword, i.e. the "rod of
correction," having power over only the flesh) but having no spiritual power (no power over the soul), no
righteousness in and of himself (righteousness only being found in God). In Diaprax, man is
deceived and manipulated into accepting
righteousness as being equal with, subject to, or irrelevant to the
system of sensuousness, thereby handing his soul over to the
system of sensuousness (to attain or retain the sensuous
pleasures of this world). While Abel loved God, who is
righteous, Cane loved the praises (or blessings) of God, which is sensuous. It is a subtle difference but with major consequences.
Diaprax is man, the system of sensuousness,
claiming equality with and therefore usurping the system of
righteousness (as was first done in
Genesis 3:1-6)
via. praxis of the system of sensuousness,
deceitfulness, and manipulation.
Diaprax is man usurping the authority of God, taking that which is not
his to take,
gaining the world (momentarily) but losing his soul (permanently). "For
he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he
that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
Galatians 6:8 Diaprax is the system of sensuousness,
deceitfulness, and manipulation
(man's kingdom, the children ruling, the lawless ruling, i.e. the laws
of the flesh ruling, a system of 'change,' an open system of relativity
with 'grace' and 'mercy' according to man's will) attempting to
negate the system of righteousness (God's
kingdom, the Father ruling, the lawful, i.e. the Law, the Word, and the
Spirit from above ruling, a system of 'fixity,' a closed system of
absolutes with grace and mercy according to the Father's will) by making God's kingdom (the kingdom of righteousness,
"It is written," 'categorical imperatives' preached and
taught)
subject to the kingdom of man (the kingdom of sensuousness, "I
think," "I feel" 'opinions' dialogued).
Dialectical thought has an absolute, i.e. "the mind"
freeing (liberating) itself from any absolute which is not in harmony
with nature (liberating man from anything alienating him from
self-nature-social consciousness, annihilating the system
of righteousness from preventing his self-actualization with the
world experience of one-ness becoming; 3,
4, 5, 6,
7, 8).
In Diaprax, the system of sensuousness,
deceitfulness, and manipulation can not
successfully 'liberate' itself from the system of righteousness
without the assistance of the system of
sensuousness, that is, without people become subject to the
influence and control of 'change agents,'
facilitators, etc., (Satan) who are properly train in the art craft of
initiating and sustaining an environment which engenders and sustains
the 'change' process (liberating the mind from the fear of God so that
it can be free to 'question everything'―"critical theory"―and become at-one with human nature), i.e. the dialectical process put into social
practice (praxis). I will retain the system of
sensuousness, deceitfulness, and
manipulation within the system of sensuousness throughout
this article so as keep the article from being to burdensome in terms.
Just understand that the system of righteousness (God and His
Word) restrains the system of sensuousness (human nature) while
the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation (human reasoning,
i.e. human relationship 'justification' by consensus) must liberate the
system of sensuousness (human nature) from the system of
righteousness (fear of God, i.e. threat of punishment) if it is to
be utilize for the 'purpose' of social change (praxis), which is
the annihilation of the system of righteousness, the
negation of Love of God and His Word (which are not sensuous
based), or secularly the negation of
non-sensual restraints upon children, workers, government―non-sensual
restraints made possible by the
freedom of the conscience
of the citizens.
Government
(the group) must fear the citizen (the individual) who has a conscience, not the citizens
(the individual) fear the government (the group) which can not have a conscience, if the
citizen (the individual) is to have liberty, i.e. freedom of the conscience.
If the citizen or individual fears the group (goes along with the group
for social approval, i.e. fears group rejection) within the consensus
(socialist, democratic, common-ist) process, when the group
annihilates (negates) a citizen or an individual in the
consensus group setting and they are silent for fear of it happening
to them, they will fear the consensus (socialist, democratic,
common-ist) government when it annihilates a citizen or
individual in the public setting and stand by in silence as well.
Silence and "cooperation" in the group setting guarantees silence and
"cooperation" in the social setting. Its called conditioning
(common-ist conditioning). That's why the "learning" environment
is called a laboratory, where the fear of receiving pain
(chastening) is replaced with the fear of losing out on pleasure (social
rejection), where people are "reprogrammed" in a controlled environment.
For
example: preaching or teaching a message of righteousness (presenting good and evil
as proclaimed from above when moved by God to do so) in an environment or
system of sensuousness,
yet 'willingly' putting aside your position (doctrine or belief) when
asked to do so for the 'moment,' for the 'betterment' of all (doing so for the cause of
the 'good' of all, for the 'betterment' and approval of mankind),
you do so for the fear of rejection by the group and the fear of losing
what the group promises to offer you,
the system of deception and manipulation is successful in teaching
everyone present "the truth in
unrighteousness." Romans 1:18 By trusting
in 'leadership' which promises 'a better life for all' if they
'trustingly' followed them (without weighing their thoughts and actions
from the Word of God, taking their every thought "captive to the
obedience of Christ"), people are deceived into participating
in the system of sensuousness, and manipulated into
putting aside absolutes, suspend the conscience, 'changing' the
conscience into a
super-ego. The
sensation of 'change,' for the sake of initiating and sustaining human
relationships (fear of loosing out, fear of becoming an outcast, fear of
alienation) therefore becomes the 'driving' force and 'purpose' for
'change.' After this type of conditioning, having made truth subject to the
system of sensuousness
(human relationships and prosperity), some may 'momentarily' hear
the truth you share with them (if you can get them past the 'glassed
over look') but
will not continue to grow in it, or, like the rocky and thorn infested
soils of Mark 4:1-20, will abandon the truth for the things of
this world when difficult times come upon them or old temptations
reappear (they become fearful of losing the sensuousness which
they are still holding onto or sensuousness entices them and they
follow it).
This is where we find the 'church' today with its leadership trained in
the system of deception and manipulation, i.e. church 'leaders' skilled
in the use of the dialectical process to "grow" the church,
i.e. 'growing' it upon the system of sensuousness.
The
two, sensuousness and righteousness (the system of
sensuousness and the system of righteousness) can never
become one since they are anathema toward one another. "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 5:17 Diaprax is
the system of sensuousness 'driven' with the 'purpose' of
negating the system of righteousness by taking its place
as 'righteousness,' (the dialectical error―Hegel's error―is to start
with the premise that man is either basically good or neither good nor
evil, i.e. that his environmental upbringing or influences, i.e. how he
thinks and acts, helps determine a good or evil outcome, that law and
purpose are not found in any particular object, i.e. God or parent, but
are
a quality, i.e. a "-ness," a sensation relevant to the
'moment'), having a form
of 'righteousness' (perceiving himself or his way of thinking or
acting as being 'good'), but denying its power (rejecting absolute dependence upon God
above, who is the only source of good or righteousness) by depending upon
sensuousness below to 'know' the truth (good from evil), therefore ever learning but never understanding, ever
experiencing but unable to comprehend the truth since the person in
Diaprax is looking for
truth in the wrong places (in the creation, in the stars, in man, in
angels, etc., in that which is
sensuous), through the wrong thing (through man, i.e. by his reasoning
through or yielding to that which is deceitful and wicked, i.e. reasoning through his
unrepentant, unregenerate, sensuous 'driven' heart―reasoning for
that which he falsely perceives as being good, thus categorizing the
"heartless world" system, the system of righteousness, which
"oppresses" it or has to "clean" it, as being evil or
corrupt―as was espoused
by Karl Marx. "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, Critique),
2 Timothy 3.
Introduction:
Diaprax is being applied to make you
a "world class citizen." How it is being applied in your
particular life is up to you to figure out. Knowing the
dialectical process (from pre-Hegel
to post-Hegel―from Genesis 3:1-6 to
Armageddon), how it works,
and how it is being used to make
you at-one-with the world (Diaprax), does not
solve the problem, it only makes it more clear what the problem is.
The problem is you, your love for the things of this world and your fear
of losing them. That is what Diaprax depends upon. Putting
Proverbs 3:5, 6 into practice in your life is the only solution to the
problem. "Trust in the Lord
with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all
thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb.
3: 5-6
Our heart (subject to the system of sensuousness,
our fleshy mind) is both wicked and deceitful. "The heart is
deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Jeremiah 17:9 It is impossible for us to clean our own heart (make
it righteous).
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"
Proverbs 20:9 It is only God himself who can clean our
heart and bring us into right relationship with him (cover us with his
righteousness, bringing us into the system of righteousness,
in righteousness). "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit
within me." Psalms 51:10
I will get heavy in the next few pages, so trudge
through. The rest of the article, regarding the apostate church and the world
system, will be more clearly understood
if you do.
Those of Diaprax (the "new" world order) foolishly turn
to the heart of man (that which is wicked and deceitful) for the solution to this worlds
problems (determining what is right and what is wrong according to man's
hearts desires, through the use of "human
eyes and human ears" and "human reasoning").
"He that trusteth in his own heart
is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." Proverbs 28:26
When the hearts of the foolish children (a heart of sensuousness;
a system of ambiguity and tolerance, not established upon, nor
understanding of absolute right and wrong; "postmodernism" simply means
"the children ruling" with no 'fixed' reference point, i.e. no Father
authority, except their own feelings, thoughts, and actions of the
'moment') are united
in the 'purpose' of annihilating the Father (the system of righteousness,
i.e.
a system or right and wrong not establish upon, nor dependent upon
sensuousness, i.e. not guided and controlled by the children's feelings,
thoughts, and actions of the 'moment')
and his wisdom (with human reasoning used to 'justify' the system of
sensuousness thus negating, making irrelevant, the
system of righteousness and the wisdom which comes from it, i.e.
negating that which is above the sensuous 'moment'), unrighteousness rules the world
(the beast system, the Antichrist system rules the world, where man's
'righteousness'―based upon his sensuousness―is loved, and God's
righteousness―based upon His Holiness―is hated; the
children―sensuousness loved, the fathers―righteousness
hated; the sensitized person, perceiving his sensuousness
as being 'righteousness', is not conscious of his hate of
righteousness). It is not
that the system of righteousness produces righteousness,
that can only come from God, but that the system itself prepares man to
understand the way of God (trust and obey, i.e. faith, belief,
obedience, and chastening―which produces a "peaceful fruit of
righteousness") that he might repent of his use of the system
of sensuousness in determining right from wrong and come into
God's system of righteousness, in His righteousness, when
he hears the Word of God and repents of his use of the system of
sensuousness to know the 'truth.' Knowing begins with the fear
of God, not from the loving of the flesh.
What is meant by the system of righteousness is that
parents rule as a higher authority with children obeying their commands
(children making their will, naturally subject to their own
sensuousness, subject to the parents will which is more than likely
subject to their own sensuousness or pleasure―see
Hebrews 12:6-11).
Even when done in a traditional home which does not know God, it will still produce a
generation that accepts that they are accountable to a higher authority,
thereby knowing that they are (or will be in the future) accountability to a higher authority
(God being the highest authority) for
their thoughts and actions. Whether they accept
God or not, the system is a system of righteousness since
the system itself produces a 'guilty' conscience when a person is thinking about doing
wrong or is doing wrong or has
done wrong (having the parent's 'brain' in their brain;
"The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected
with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the
Hebrews are decisive)." "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by
the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself."
Brown). The person will weigh decisions from what they
have learned in the past, lessons learned from parents, God, teachers,
etc. who chastened them when they were wrong, thus not spontaneously
following after their feelings or the feelings of others in the moment
(sensuousness therefore is not in control, or total control, of
thought and action)
knowing that acting without weighing all the consequences is what has gotten them into trouble in the past.
But do spontaneity of sensuousness in a group setting and the
effects of the group, the desire of respect from others―called
group dynamics if the group approves of and participates in the
sensuousness―will diminish, if not void, the weighing of the
consequences of ones actions in the light of higher authority, i.e. the
fear of higher authority is abated as higher authority loses their preeminence in
the thoughts and actions of the one under authority, in the 'light' of
the sensuous 'moment' of 'actualizing' their oneness with
the group (achieving consensus).
While we see righteousness for what it is, being right
before God, we do not realize it is also a system (a way of
thinking and acting), a top-down way of thinking and acting where we
make decisions
according to our Heavenly Father's will (known as a patriarchal
paradigm, respect of the office of higher authority and obedience to
higher authority, i.e. caring out their commands without questioning the
office), being able to do so through the
Son's willing obedience to His Father's will, even to death (covering our sins
by His blood, saving us from His Fathers wrath toward us for not doing
the Fathers will), being able to fulfill the Father and Son's will, both in
agreement, through the power of His Holy
Spirit, all requiring faith, belief, obedience, and chastening (the
attributes of a system of righteousness).
Sensuousness is also a system (a way of
thinking and acting, called a paradigm, in this case either a
matriarchal paradigm or a heresiarchal paradigm depending upon whether
it is just sensuousness in spontaneous play or
'rationally' justified as the way of life itself) where our "sensuous needs" (the lust or
desire of our flesh for the things of this world―our body), our "sense
perception" (the lust of our eyes for the things of this
world―our heart), and "sense experiences" (the pride of our life―our
mind, our
'rational' ability to attain and control the things of this world for our own
carnal pleasures, all come together in satisfying our "sensuous needs" and "sense
perceptions," all of which bind us to the world―bringing us under
the system of the "new" world order, an anti-patriarchal order―which is
not new, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6). The attributes of the system
of sensuousness are freedom to have feelings of doubt, to openly
share opinions through dialogue, to question all things, to be
permissive (called 'openness'), i.e. freedom to think and act "outside
the box," i.e. to be "yourself," all requiring 'tolerance of ambiguity,'
i.e. anti-judgmental-ism (anti-righteousness suppressing
sensuousness).
The Antichrist is a sensuous
Christ, freeing man from the Heavenly Father's will, liberating man from
obedience to the Heavenly Father in all things, trusting in man (his
feelings, his thoughts, and his actions) instead
of God (his promises, commands, and leading), or trusting in man along with God
(making both sense based) for all things 'good,' emancipating man's flesh nature so he can perceive himself as
working 'with' God (or mankind) in making this a 'better' world
(through collective speculation, consensus, and praxis) for all of
mankind, doing it in the name of Jesus, if or when 'necessary,' so as to
deceive the innocent (it is a subtle change but the results are deadly). For Diaprax
to work, man had to be
'detoxified' of the patriarchal paradigm, the system of the Father, the
system of righteousness
(removing the "negative" aspects of God, i.e. his prejudiced,
discriminatory, and judgmental attitude toward disobedience―sin,
restraining man from being natural in his thoughts and his actions, to
make him a "positive" God, 'loving' and 'caring' of man "as he is"), before the 'new' world order
'Christ' could take his seat. (See the article
The Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Domains and the dialectical
process for the 'detoxification' method―be forewarned the article is
about 109 pages long.)
The Word of God destroys Satan, the
Antichrist―what Jesus did to Satan in the wilderness temptations,
saying
"It is written" judged him―so, for the Antichrist to rule,
Satan had to change the church from "The Word of God
says" ("What dad says goes") to where the opinions of men―"What 'I
feel' or 'I think' God means in the light of what is acceptable or
rational to me and beneficial to the world")―men's books,
their seminars, their ministries defining the meaning and 'purpose' of God and His
Word and the meaning and 'purpose' of life of mankind to bring the Word of God and the Church into harmony with the
system of sensuousness
(marketing the church),
i.e. for the 'purpose' of pleasure and money for all in the system, i.e.
prosperity becoming the message of the gospel (thus merchandising, i.e.
buying and selling souls "in the name of Jesus"―you can only market, buy,
and sell, i.e. "make customers" with that which is sensual, even if it is done in the name of the
spiritual―doing works for 'righteousness' sake). In this way the
Antichrist, Satan incarnate, can rule―without hearing judgmental statements ("the
wrath of God upon the children of disobedient" quoted from
the
Word of God itself, Colossians 3:1-11 and Romans 1:18) coming from the Christian and the Church,
i.e. he is
not condemned for his carnal actions since man's opinion of God's word has no
conviction or condemning power. There is no accountability for
failing to obey, no mandatory faith required, no categorical
imperative in an opinion―unless it is an opinion of opinions arrived
at through consensus. Making truth equal with opinions
negates the truth, thus making all who participate in Diaprax
(making reasoning subject to sensuousness in the process of
discovering the 'righteousness' of the 'moment,' i.e. Zeitgeist,
and then putting the collective opinion, i.e. consensus, into
social action―praxis) blind and deaf to the truth;
Isaiah 6.
I won't explain in detail the method of
the soviet
system in this article, I have covered that in prior articles, other
than to say that this is the same 'purpose' for the soviet councils (consensus
groups), that being
the eradication of spiritual (top-down, righteous, categorical
imperative) judgment upon man's carnal (sensual) thoughts and
actions through the use of a system which attains and maintains consensus through
dialogue over social issues in a facilitated meeting by a
diverse group
of people to a predetermined outcome, that being all participants would
follow the same soviet system (which I just described) in the praxis
of negating the system
of righteousness while setting policy for the 'moment,' whether it be in the home, in
the workplace, in the government, in all social activates, and even in
the state recognized church. The "geniusness" of the system, it you
want to call it that, is that instead of attacking righteousness
or the system of righteousness outright, i.e. declaring it as
being "wrong," giving it significance or importance and thus relevance,
it―and therefore the person promoting it―is treated as being irrelevant,
as being "inappropriate" information for the 'moment,' i.e. as being
"information" not 'helpful' to the policy making environment. That
any "information" being introduced in the meeting must not be a
'personal' attack upon another person or their way of thinking or
"lifestyle," that any 'information' introduced must not be
preached or taught as absolute truth, to be accepted "as is," and
therefore judgmental, "negative," or righteous, i.e. being
dualistic or divisive in nature, but rather it must be presented as an
opinion, and therefore "tolerant," "positive," social, or sensual
in nature, that is, if "we" are to arrive at a consensus―so
that all can participate within the policy making environment.
From then on, for the righteous to participate within the policy
setting environment, they must corrupt themselves, they must
'willingly' negate the system of righteousness so that
they to can participate within the system of sensuousness, .
From then on, human relationship, participation within the 'group,'
the reason they detaching themselves from the system of righteousness,
is 'driving' the 'purpose' of their life. Having detached themselves
from God and His righteousness for the 'purpose' of the
'institution,' i.e. social 'change,' they have become at one with the
process of 'change.' By their willful participation
within the soviet system, i.e. the dialectical process put into social
practice, they, from then on, must treat the Word of God (or
anything presented as an absolute) as irrelevant ('glassing' over
when they hear "it is written," or "this is the way it has
always been done in the past" being preached and taught 'at' them, as if it
were the only right way). From then on, for
the sake of social (Christian, Church) unity, they treat the truth as
just another opinion (no longer fearing God and
loving His Word).
This is the same system being used to silence
the believer from preaching and teaching the word of God in the
workplace, marketplace, family reunions, church, etc. today, (silencing
the ears of others who now treat truth as just being another opinion, who then
rend those who persist in proclaiming the truth, i.e. who are now
perceived as being enemies, i.e. obstacles and barriers to necessary
'change' for the sake of the survivability of the institution in a
'rapidly changing world'). To inhibit or block the 'change' process (the
dialectical process) is to do so at the
peril of loosing job,
respect with the relatives, neighbors, or any accepted or recognized
position within the church, etc. or someday
even your own life. This is the 'purpose' of the soviet system. "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
The networking of all institutional leaders (and potential
leaders), those willingly facilitating and participating in the soviet
structured (consensus) meetings in their own institution, upon a
larger grid compiled of all other social institutions using the same
soviet system, for the sake of assisting local, state, nationally and
international (UN) officials in setting policy, results in the Politburo
system, where duly elected officials are 'assisted' in making decisions
by the same departments which 'assist' the people ("the grass roots") in
applying their policies in their own lives and the lives of others for
the sake of the 'institution' and its members (for the sake of the
earth). All people therefore come under the influence of the
soviet system, negating the system of righteousness
(dialectically perceived as 'divisiveness') for the sake of or 'purpose' of 'growing' the institution
(keeping it 'contemporary'). From then on every policy setting
environment (setting policies for others to abide by) become sensuous
in nature, including the Church, thus affecting every Christian who
seeks to continue relationships (significance) within it.
The harlot, the system of sensuousness, had to join
the church (Satan had to join the Church), 'helping' it (thought administration or organizational
management) reach the world "for Christ," so that the
beast could rule it (uniting it, the world, and us, if we join in, in
the consensus of sensuousness, blinding all from Godly
righteousness, keeping all in the darkness of sensuousness),
ruling the world according to his will, that being the negation
of the system of righteousness in making decisions on how
to live. When righteousness becomes
at-one-with sensuousness (an act of deception via. "sensuous
need," and "sense perception," i.e. when what the flesh feels
and what the eye sees 'seems to be good'), then the system of sensuousness
"seems to be" righteousness in the eyes of men, being deceived
themselves and taking pleasure in deceiving others―all united
with the system of self-social-'righteousness,' all united,
through their own vain
glory, in 'Christian love.' The
Antichrist was thus able to initiate and sustain the 'new' church, the
contemporary church, 'driven' with the 'purpose of persecuting
the righteous (perceiving and treating the religious
fundamentalist as being irrelevant and worthless) in the name of Christ through its use of the system
of sensuousness, i.e. focusing upon human needs (approval,
meaning, and purpose) and not the need
of repentance before God―repenting of our sins to him, daily dying to our flesh nature
and the world, i.e. dying to our use of the system
of
sensuousness internally and externally, our dependence upon
sensuousness and not God's Word to determine what is good and what
is evil, and following after Christ,
willingly suffering with him
as He was willing to suffer for us in obedience to His Heavenly
Fathers will, (now our Heavenly Father through Him). "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. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in
us."
Romans 8:16-18 "Yea, and all
that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
2 Titus 3:12 While persecution does not make you
righteous, the
righteous in Christ will suffer persecution at the hands
of the unrighteous, not only from the world but also from the apostate
church. The
Bible is a book of suffering. Try to market that and see how far you
will get in a world and a church built upon the foundation of
sensuousness.
True believers in Christ refuse to justify the
use of human nature with the 'purpose' of build human relationships, with
man receiving the glory for 'his' works, worshiping the works of his own
hands, serving the gods of his fleshy mind thus persecuting the
righteous,
persecuting those
who are
doing the will of the Heavenly Father, though Christ, by the power of
His Holy Spirit, persecuting those who are willing to receive social
rejection, persecuting those who do not seek the approval of men nor fear man but fear God
and Love Him and His Word, persecuting those who do not accept
consensus with men and reject the works of the flesh (reject
conformity with sensuousness) that God would receiving all the glory
(any time we take praise for our creations, for the works of our
mind and hands, whether singularly or in a group, we take the place of
God, taking his praise and glory which is not ours to take).
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is
Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14 "For the
LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God."
Deuteronomy 4:24 "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory
and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
Jude 1:25 "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them
which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of
whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are
the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God
is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly
things.)" Philippians 3:17-19
Marx
wrote:
“No class of civil society can play this role ['emancipators
of society' from the Father's authority and His righteousness] unless it arouses in
itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm [a consensus,
a 'moment' of collaborative sensuousness ready to be put into
social action],
a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with
society in general [aware of the sensuousness that is common
to all men, focusing upon and then acting upon that which men have in
common, a system of sensuousness which destroys a top-down
system
of righteousness―the moment
we focus upon and act upon what we have in common with one another and
the world we negate (treat as irrelevant) righteousness], and is felt and recognized to be society's general
representative [felt by the flesh and recognized by the eyes as the liberators
working for the system of
sensuousness, emancipating man from the system of righteousness], a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those
of society itself, of which it is the social head and heart.” (Karl Marx,
Critique) (Marx described, unfortunately, the leadership of the
contemporary church.) Freud believed:
"... the hatred against patriarchal suppression [the Father's
system of authority demanding righteousness]—a ‘barrier to incest'
[a barrier to the children's nature of spontaneity and sensuousness]...
the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [the
permissive mother who is tolerant of sensuousness,
the mothers whose heart is not toward her husband but toward
herself and her children]—culminates in the
rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of
the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [fraternity―bipartisanship
and consensus uniting upon the system of sensuousness―all
united upon the sensuousness of human nature]." "The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so
is his restoration [the restoration of government by representation
(not mediation, i.e. uniting upon common ground), i.e. a system of
right and wrong, as a result of the
'guilty' conscience].... The crime against the reality principle
[against the Father―the system of righteousness] is
redeemed [undone] by the crime against the pleasure principle [against the
children―the system of sensuousness]: redemption
thus cancels itself [the system of sensuousness is thwarted because of the 'guilty' conscience,
the remnants of the system of righteousness]."
“... according to Freud, the
drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic
nature of Eros
[of sensuousness] itself.”
(Marcuse)
Marx set out to negate the external Father figure through society
(sociology) put into action, Freud set out to negate the internal
Father figure through psychology. Both, united in
social-psychology, are facilitated in meetings today to put into
praxis the annihilation of the Father system, i.e. the
traditional home, and its residue, i.e. the conscience.
Marx (sociology) and Freud (psychology) both had the same
agenda, the negation of the system of righteousness (God
and His Word) through the use of the system of sensuousness
(human nature and men's opinions; the use of innovation and the focus
upon human relationship as the 'purpose' of life). Total Quality Management, Total
Quality Leadership, School To Work, Outcome based education, Church
Growth, Emergent Church, etc. are all built upon the use of the
dialectical process with the agenda of negating the patriarchal
paradigm (with the 'purpose' of "disrupting" the way traditional
business and society operate), annihilating the system of righteousness
(negating 'authoritative,' top-down commands) by
solving 'crisis' (conflicts in which the way it was done in the past
doesn't 'seem to' have a satisfactory solution) through the use of a system of sensuousness
(questioning "Is," as in "This is the way I want it done" or "This is the
way it has always been done" with a "Why?"; negating "Because I say
so" by demanding an "understanding 'Why?' first"―the
basis of the "Education
Nation" (understanding "Why" first, learning by doing) system―for all participants, forcing the answers
away from a system of righteousness, a top-down, spiritual
system, to a system of sensuous, a common-istic,
humanistic system. The agenda is to replace situational
relationship with sustainable relationship, that is produce relationships
which are based upon values which are common to man's nature―discoverable
by "walking in each others shoes"―thus building and
sustaining uniting with mankind based upon behavior which is common to all mankind―bypassing
faith, religion, nationalism, etc., bypassing anything which divides
humanity not by directly attacking it as wrong but "going beyond it,"
treating is as being irrelevant, inappropriate, detrimental to the
solution of the crisis, if we are all to come to an agreement upon the
solution. Truth is thus based upon human nature and not anything
which is anathematic
toward human nature. Trust is found between those who recognize human nature and
who seek
to sustain relationships based upon it. Transparency or openness
is in
regards to understanding ones own nature and the nature of others and
revealing to all your failure to sustain commonly shared values (if you
believe this is carried out you are truly gullible). And honesty between all parties regarding
human desires and hopes for a 'better' world, seeking to produce a world
of harmony, built upon human nature.
In this way, though the system of sensuousness, all participants
lose their system of righteousness, i.e. lose their property, their sovereignty, their conscience, and their hope
of eternal life even though they thought they could use the system
sensuousness for 'good,'
use it to produce 'good' in the workplace, in business, in the military,
in education, in government, even for the kingdom of God.
By turning the meeting into a system of sensuousness
(collaborative dialoguing opinions into a collective consensus,
with that "collective creativity" then being put into social
praxis), the system of righteousness (preaching and
teaching truth, i.e. revelation) is thwarted, without anyone becoming aware that the meeting
was a direct attack upon the system of righteousness, an attack upon religion
itself. Marx wrote: "The abolition of religion
[righteousness from above], as the illusory happiness of men,
is a demand for their real happiness [sensuousness from
below]. The call to abandon their illusions about their
condition [as wicked, unrighteous sinners; a 'guilty' conscience]
is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions [the need
for a holy, righteous God; a higher authority].” (Marx MEGA I/1/1)
Carl Rogers wrote: “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.” “I have little sympathy with the rather
prevalent concept that man is basically irrational [wicked], and that his
impulses [sensuousness], if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and
self.” (Rogers) Thus the
cry for the sensuousness in righteousness to prevail over
non-sensuous righteousness demanded a system whereby a
'rational,' speculative, enlightened, dialectical process could prevail
over an 'irrational,' unspeculative, unenlightened, didactic system (an
environment of preaching and teaching had to be replaced
with and environment of dialogue, specific truth from above had
to be replaced with general 'truth' from below, black and white had to
be replaced with gray).
“…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 [the Word of God] nor that authority of the church
[the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]
in
order to know good and evil.” (Bronner)
Abraham Maslow wrote: "The more enlightened
[sensual] the
religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal
[dialectical] they get,
the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an
enlightened way.” "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.”
(Maslow, Maslow)
Theodor Adorno wrote: “The Christian religion has been deeply affected by the
process of Enlightenment and the conquest of the scientific spirit.” (Adorno)
Diaprax is a direct attack upon religion (religion is that
which is sacred and sacred is that which you will not question). Diaprax is
a direct attack upon religion which is built upon a system of
righteousness (the patriarchal paradigm) by a 'religion' which is hostile toward the
system of
righteousness (the heresiarchal paradigm) and righteousness
itself (which can only come from God, i.e. imputed through Christ). While the religions of the
world may 'use' the patriarchal paradigm, a top-down system, without God's Word they can only
speak men's opinions to the flesh of man. It is only the Moslem,
Jewish, and Christian religion which have a patriarchal base, due to
their common connection with the law and prophets, but only the gospel
itself which remains patriarchal, the Moslem, Jewish, and apostate
Christian religions going dialectical in structure, bound to
speculations and human reasoning. It is only God and His
Word, who (which) speaks to the soul of man. Diaprax is a
'religion' which is built upon the
system of sensuousness, a humanistic 'religion' using the
'scientific' method, the dialectical process (treating it as sacred and
not to be questions) to define truth (Remember:
Whoever defines terms for you controls your life). Abraham Maslow
wrote: “Science can be the religion of the nonreligious.”
(Maslow, Maslow)
Karl Marx wrote:
“The critique of religion [the system of sensuousness
evaluating the system of righteousness (the children evaluating
the parents in the light of the children's sensuous desires); an "ought" evaluating
"can not" negates the "not" in "can not," producing
a common "can," thus
negating sin, lust, wickedness, etc as defined by God, and wrong as
defined by the parent, liberating man from God, the children from the parents,
the proletariat from the bourgeoisie for the cause
of global harmony in worldliness] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow
all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible
being.” “Philosophy
as theory . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis [the system
of sensuousness religiously put into social practice (praxis);
the process is not to be questioned―the
group will first treat you as irrelevant and then attack you when you
question, inhibit, or block the consensus process]; it serves to
distinguish it from religion [the system of righteousness], the wisdom of the other world.”
(Marx, Critique) J. L. Moreno
wrote: "As I tried the sociometric
system first on the universe and on the concept of God, its first
manifesto was a revolutionary religion [a religion of human
sensuousness], a change of the idea of the
universe and the idea of God. The god of Jesus was further
extended, the son 'withered away' until nothing was left except the
universal creativity of the Godhead and only one commandment: To
each according to what he is (an all-inclusive acceptance of the
individual 'as he is')." (Moreno)
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 [as long as the Father no longer rule as
the Father]."
(Marcuse quoting Freud) "Freud noted that
patricide [the resistance against and hatred toward and the
annihilation of the Father
because of his demands upon the home for righteousness] and incest [the
spontaneity of sensuousness, the lust of the flesh
and eyes and the pride of life of the children for the
sensuous things,
gratifying things, i.e. the mother, of the home and world] are part of man's deepest nature." (Yalom)
Marx wrote:
"Thus, for
instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the
holy family
[once both are recognized as being the system of righteousness suppressing
the system of sensuousness, suppressing the children's lusts for
the mother, i.e. 'mother earth'],
the former
[the system of righteousness]
must itself be annihilated
[vernichtet]
theoretically and practically [by everybody sharing their opinions,
finding a common opinion that all can agree upon and acting upon it,
thereby negating the system of righteousness]." (Marx, Feuerbach Theses #4)
Diaprax (social-psychology, Marx and Freud synthesized)
is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6
in setting policy in the home, in government, in the workplace, in
education, and in the church which is not top-down based (righteous in
system).
"If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man
[by top-down authority, such as God or parents, demanding righteousness]
can
ever be redeemed by freedom [spontaneity of sensuousness], then the ‘original sin' must be committed
again: ‘We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall
back into the state of innocence [chose the system of
sensuousness―"questioning authority," over and against the
system of
righteousness―obeying authority]." (Marcuse) "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the
forbidden fruit." (Brown) All counseling is the
praxis of Genesis 3:1-6. Fromm wrote: "In the process of history man gives birth to
himself [through human reasoning progressively being freed from
the system of righteousness (freed from the lessons of the past,
i.e. lessons not relevant to the sensuousness of the moment of
the child, which had to be remembered and carried out without question
in obedience to the parent), man is progressively becoming conscious of
his own humanity (class consciousness; with the help of psychology and
sociology he is rediscovering his human history, i.e. the
sensuousness of his youth, when he was seeking liberation of his
true impulses and nature but was unable to do so because of parental
restraints, i.e. the history of the parents being forced upon him)]. He becomes what he potentially is
[sensuous, fleshy, natural, worldly], and he attains
what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom
and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of
Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself
[evaluating good from evil not from God's Word, i.e. the past, but from his own
sensuous, carnal nature in the present, in the 'moment,' refusing to
(or unable to) go back to the past, i.e. admit his sin and seek after
righteousness, i.e. seek after God again, i.e. return home, as the
prodigal son, to the loving but 'authoritative' father (unable to do so
having annihilated him and the past, having written the past out
of history, i.e. inappropriate facts, truths, or information of the past
canceled by the willful acceptance of only the 'facts,' 'truths,' or
information which are appropriate to the present and potential
future conditions of life)]."
(Fromm, as gods)
The dialectical process is the only way for man to filter (liberate) the
history of the present (sensuousness, dialogue) out from under
the influences of the history of the past (righteousness, truths
of the past preached and taught), through social dialogue, focusing upon
sensuousness (human relationships), not righteousness
(rightness with God or parent), as the pathway to the future.
"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." "Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual
authorities [making him subject to the system of righteousness], but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him
with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness." "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 [via. the praxis of
collective sensuousness―consensus
put into social action]."
(Fromm, Escape)
Unless you are truly (not just giving lip service but truly) dead to yourself (dead
to your sensuousness 'driving' you in your every thought and
action, dead to the wanting of gratifying objects of this world, "What
can I get out of this person or thing for myself?" including God), alive in Christ (alive in Him and His righteousness,
alive in Him, the Lamb of God, who was
obedient to his Heavenly Father in all things, even dying to cover your sins,
i.e. your 'righteousness'―your
former lusting after sensuousness―with
his blood), and filled with the Holy Spirit (Christ in you via. the
Spirit of God, directing you
in all things), some
of this article will be to difficult to handle.
"Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin
[dead to sensuousness, it no longer controlling your thoughts and
actions], but
alive unto God [his righteousness imputed by Christ to you
through your faith in Him]
through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:11
Otherwise you might say, as a
Diaprax-ed ("Church Growth," "Emergent Church," contemporary Church)
'minister' once told me (every time I quoted the Word of God, treating
it "as is"), "Now you have just gone to far."
I apologize for my articles always becoming so lengthy
and heavy (requiring concentrated thought, i.e. I realize that many will
stop reading this article, if they have not already, because of its technicality and lengthiness―knowing
that if they managed to stay with it to the end it would help them,
especially if they are thinking about college, ministry, government,
business, family, etc.), but it is due to the nature of the subject of which I am
exposing, which is subtle and complex. While there is much
redundancy in this article, it is done to make clear the designed
confusion which comes with the process, which has even come into the church
with its 'use'
of scriptures, or rather the extrapolation of,
the
perversion of, and the lack of scriptures used in the
'contemporary' emergent church today―which affects everything
else in life.
(For anyone wanting to get a good handle on the subject
of this article I
would suggest printing it out or saving it to file and reading
it at least two if not three times, top to bottom, the first read being
a quick one, underlining or noting areas of question or interest to come back to on the next read.
I read social-psychology books two or more times, some portions a dozen times to
make sure I 'know' what they are meaning to say, so as not to let my
'bias' misinterpret the foolishness of their way. When I can have
a good bible study reading their material, God's word exposing
mans carnal 'justifications,' I know I have a handle on their
deceiving arguments.)
It is
the gospel and its simplicity which brings joy
to the soul. Joy comes from God and not from man. If you put
any man, ideology, institution, or thing, between God and you, making
them or it your access to God, you will lose your Joy (the Joy of the
Holy Spirit in you).
Yet we must not be ignorant of Satan's devices,
exposing them for what they are, evil.
"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 stuff (satan's devices and man's love of them) is grievous to the soul
(the grieving comes after warning those who you know and love, but who
continue to believe in man's way, which is death, and refuse to
know God's way, which is life, no matter what scriptures you share with
them or what you do for them in love, i.e. to warn them by turning them
to the word of God is to be labeled by the contemporary minded religious leadership as being
divisive, causing dissention within the fellowship; accusing you of
being 'hateful' when you persist in holding them accountable to the
whole word of God). Jesus was acquainted with grief,
seeing the multitudes reject him as the way, the truth, and the life, accepting
Diaprax (sensuousness) instead, as their way, their
truth, and their life. The Apostle Paul addressed Diaprax in this
way: "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.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not
preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received,
or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
Diaprax has entered the
church, being used to 'grow' it into the 'kingdom of God,' building it
upon the sensuousness of man rather than upon the
righteousness of God. The kingdom of God is simply
"doing the Fathers will," something which could not be done until the
messiah came to redeem man back to the Father and the work of the Holy
Spirit in the redeemed, producing the fruit of righteousness in
those of faith, belief, obedience. "Thy kingdom come, thy will
be done on earth, as it is in heaven" is not the will of man (the
system of sensuousness) doing "good works," in God's name,
on earth, it is God's will being done on earth by men of faith, by
those in the system of righteousness, by those who are in
righteousness, i.e. those in Christ, dead to their will, no longer
serving their vain desires (even doing so in the name of Jesus,
deceiving themselves as well as "the hearts of the simple"), and
alive in Christ, simply submitting, daily, to the will of
the Heavenly Father, obedient to the Father's will, through Christ, by
the power of the Holy Spirit, in all things (something man can not do in
and of himself). "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
Diaprax was first used in the garden in Eden, as recorded in
Genesis 3:1-6, and will continue to be used by the world
in all activities, the home, education, entertainment, business,
government, the church, etc. until Christ
returns to judge the world for using it as its way, its truth, and its
life. Only he who is dead to this world (dead to himself) and
alive in Christ, who has chosen Christ over this world, who has denied
himself (and continues to do so; "giving up early," as James Borchert
would say, to his will, knowing he can not do God's will, which God will
agree with, that only God can do His will thru those who "give up" to
him in all things, that God might receive all the glory), picked up his cross (and continues to
do so), and follows Christ (no longer living according to Diaprax and
the way of the world but living in Christ) is free from the judgment of
God upon the world, i.e. his former tie with it, with its use of Diaprax. "And if it seem
evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve;
whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side
of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but
as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15
Sigmund Freud had idols of the gods of the Amorites on his desk, which
should tell you something about
where psychology came from and what it is all about. There is
no such thing as a "Christian
psychiatrist," i.e. "what concord hath Christ with
Belial?" Did I just go to far?
Since
the system of sensuousness, via. psychological and sociological methods
(Diaprax), has entered the
church and is being used to market it, I have a word of warning.
When you think God can not do his work without you, your ministry, or
your institution you have just hired the devil as your administrator.
He will market you, your ministry, your institution any day of the week,
even doing it in the name of Jesus. Freud, like
Marx, was dialectical in thought and action, 'driven' with the 'purpose'
of emancipating or liberating the system of sensuousness (world
driven) over and against the system of righteousness (Father
directed). “The
basic structure of Freud’s thought is committed to dialectics.” “His finest
insights are incurably ‘dialectical.’” (Brown) "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange
world and a strange language—a world of sick men, ....It is a
shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western
traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast,
unflinching look at what Freud has to say." "Our
real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and
look around you—madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible
to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the
blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the
illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual
life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx."
(Mike Connor quoting Brown, from the March 23-30, 2005 issue of
Metro Santa Cruz) Therefore neither his methods, nor Marx's methods, must
be used by a Christian unless they "want" to negate a
patriarchal Father and a patriarchal obedient Son and turn God's
righteousness into human sensuousness as the way, the truth,
and the life, i.e. for the 'purpose' of
initiating and sustaining individual-social harmony, even calling it
"church growth." A filthy rag by any other name, i.e.
'righteousness,' smells just as rancid. "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
There are many who are being deceived within the Church,
thinking they can serve both Christ and the system of Diaprax (righteousness
and sensuousness at the same time, which is the system of
sensuousness, i.e. unrighteousness). Don't be
one of them. You can not be in Christ (righteousness) and
of the
world (unrighteousness). You can not believe in and use the
system of Diaprax and believe in and walk in
Christ at the same time (any attempt to even mingle them is to reject
Christ and his righteousness for the 'purpose' of your sensuousness). "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 Apostle Paul is clear about us living in the world, with
Diaprax being all around us, but we are not to be of the world,
participating in the
Diaprax (the dialectical process put into praxis, justifying our
sensuous thoughts and actions―using "theory
and practice" to make the world a 'better' place for all to live in).
Diaprax is the negation of the father system (a
top-down, closed system―the
patriarchal paradigm). The patriarchal paradigm is a a
way of thinking and acting which is built upon faith, obedience,
chastening, and love. Chastening and love go hand in hand with
faith and obedience (a condition which restrains Diaprax―Diaprax
hates restraint and therefore hates the condition which uses chastening
to produce righteousness, the idea being: to get rid of righteousness as
the 'purpose' of life and chastening as a practice of life, you must
negate the father system, i.e. destroy the patriarchal home―and then
with sensuousness and licentiousness liberated, the Lawless one―Satan, can rule
in the name of Christ, God and man both working for the brotherhood of
mankind―Antichrist). "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." Hebrew
12:5-11 It is chastening which "yieldeth the peaceable fruit of
righteousness." "My son, despise not the chastening of the
LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he
correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."
Proverbs 3:11, 12 Although the Apostle Paul is addressing
communion in particular in the next verse, his warning applies to all
things in our lives. "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not
be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord,
that we should not be condemned with the world." 1 Corinthians
11:31, 32 Christ obeyed His Father in all things. We are to
be as the Son of God, "bringing into captivity every thought to the
obedience of the" Son, the obedience of the Son to the Father. "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
Corinthians 10:5 Anyone hating the Father (the father system of
righteousness)
hates Christ and anyone hating Christ (who was obedient to his Heavenly
Father,
remaining in the father
system―the patriarchal paradigm, even when it lead to his death) hates the Father. "He that hateth me hateth my Father
also." John 15:23 Anyone who loves Diaprax hates both
the Father and the Son
even if they claim to be 'serving' God. You can not use Diaprax
(the system of the world and of the Antichrist) and
serve God. You can not love the world system and love God.
When Diaprax (the world system of "righteousness," which is
really unrighteousness) is used by
those in the Church "to grow the Church," the church always ends up
being used by the world system to persecute the righteous, its members convinced in themselves (therefore deceived
into believing) that what they are doing is for the advancement of the Kingdom of God
here on earth.
"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that
whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."
John 16:2 In fact once the Church identifies itself as having
a common connection with the world system, a system of 'self
preservation,' the use of physical force, which is used to 'preserve'
the world system's position of power, is used to 'preserve' the Church's
position of power in the world. As long as the Church and the
state are working towards a common end, 'self' preservation, that is,
working towards the preservation of the 'righteousness' of
sensuousness, they work together in persecuting the righteous, i.e.
persecuting those who expose both the church and the state for the
evilness of their way of thinking and acting, i.e. exposing them for
their praxis of the dialectical process, i.e. their self
justification of sensuousness, perceiving it, defending it, and
promoting it as though it were righteousness, 'driven' by
sensuousness for the 'purpose' of sensuousness. Social
harmony (teamwork and 'group think' for the common cause) is always
based upon sensuousness, and always comes from and supports a
self-environment 'righteousness,' a feeling of 'righteousness' which
is not righteous before God. This is what I call the tower of
Babel syndrome, i.e. man making a collective name for himself, working
on a group project so as not to be divided amongst himself, i.e.
individualized, alienated, and scattered, i.e. fighting amongst himself
because of a right and wrong system, or way or thinking, which prevents
him from forming an environment of "equality of opportunity" where all men
can discover a common sensuous identity and overcome a
righteousness which is greater than human
righteousness, i.e. overcoming
a system which prevented humanism from joining with the church, making
it less inhuman, making it less judgmental towards the wickedness of
man's heart by focusing upon the human heart and not God and His Word,
thus defining God's Word through human reasoning (sensuousness),
defining God's heart (and love) with human reasoning, making it more
human, i.e. making it sense based, thus defining God and man as working
together for the common 'good' of mankind, i.e. 'driven' with the
'purpose' of creating a world of brotherly love based upon human
sensuousness. By redefining Christ, defining him as in
common with human sensuousness, Satan himself can join forces
with 'Christ,' i.e. an antichrist made in his own image, uniting the
world upon a common cause, that of removing the righteous, removing
those not made in the image of man, removing those who are not in
harmony with and therefore expose the 'righteousness' of man as sin
(silencing those who exposing man's worship of his human nature for what
it is, wicked, i.e. an abomination before God).
"Equality of opportunity" is not a neutral condition.
It is a hostile condition. It is hatred in disguise.
(Because the heart of man it not changed by God, since His patriarchal
paradigm is the condition which must be negated, the unregenerate
heart of man sees its work of annihilation as 'good.') It
is a condition which must annihilate the condition (and the
people who initiate and sustaine the condition or system of
righteousness) which is perceived as the "oppressor" of the
system
of sensuousness in the past, and therefore 'justified' in
negating it in the present for the sake of the preventing its
reappearance in the future (manifesting a
'just dues' mentality and practice against any who oppressed it
in the past, with a sense of 'righteousness,' i.e. justice, in
doing so). Many people have suffered in the past, are suffering
today, and will suffer in the future, a horrible 'negation' at
the alter of "equality of opportunity." Its pathway has
always been strewn with death and destruction, poverty, slavery, and
oppression by, for, and against those who embraced its mantra.
Many have experienced, are experiencing, and will experience, their own
'negation' at the hands of those who helped them hoist its
banner. Despite the "rising expectations" (the 'driving' sense of
liberation), which gives its adherence 'purpose' (and hope) at the onset
of its praxis, it always results in their own or someone else's
slavery and death. The hands of those who praxis the
dialectical process, for the 'purpose' of "equality of opportunity"
(dopamine emancipation for "the 'All'"), are bloody hands.
Despite the deceitful cry that they are hands of compassion and caring,
they are hands of hate, using theft, destruction, and death to further
their vain cause. Those utilizing the system of deceit
and manipulation for the 'purpose' of "equality of
opportunity," are simply utilizing the system of
sensuousness for their own gain. The are the deceived gaining
pleasure in giving the deceived the appearance that what they are doing
it is for the 'good' of all. All who praxis the dialectical
process, turning good into evil and evil into good, 'justify' to
themselves and others that they are 'good,' when in truth they are evil.
(Have I gone to far?)
Yet the scriptures encourage us, that no matter what the
world says and does to us (even when it comes from the 'church'), we are to
endure to the end in Christ. "We are troubled on every
side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always
bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life
also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." 2
Corinthians 4:8-10 "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 13:13 "And they overcame him by the
blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved
not their lives unto the death." Revelation 12:11
Endure means to be patient, waiting upon the Lord in
all things, while the word tolerance means to participate (not to warn
others of God's judgment upon unrighteousness is to participate) in the
system of Diaprax, i.e. the system of sensuousness,
deceitfulness, and manipulation.
Patience and tolerance are not the same thing. One does not participate in
unrighteousness while the other one does. God is patient, waiting
for man to repent of his unrighteousness but God does not tolerate
unrighteousness. He does not accept it as a way of life, as a "life
style," as another option for thinking and acting. "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness:
neither shall evil dwell with thee." Psalms 5:4 "That they
all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness." 2Thesalonians 2:12 "But she that
liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." 1Timothy 5:6
"For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord
GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Ezekiel 18:32 "The
LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his
mercy." Psalms 147:11 If man's hope rests in
happiness, pleasure, and therefore in
sensuousness (as Kant taught in his book Critique of Pure Reason), then
man has no true
and lasting hope (as the Words of God explains). "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 Only having hope in what God gives us (his
mercy) affords us true and lasting hope. It is only in Christ that
tribulation works patience and patience experience (in enduring), and
experience working hope, a hope that is not found in us (for we would
not have endured the tribulation but would have compromised our faith to
escape the pain of rejection and afflictions or tribulation from the world) but rather
having a hope which everlasting, found in Him and His work in us.
It is in His mercy alone that we find true and lasting hope, i.e.
receiving what we do not deserve―eternal
life, having already received his grace, i.e. not receiving
what we do deserved―eternal death.
"In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ
Jesus concerning you." 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Therefore God is patient (unchanging from his position,
waiting for man to repent and come to His position as he warns him of
ensuing judgment) and not tolerant (God is not changeable from his position,
He is not approving or accepting of any who differs from his position). Those who serve
Satan would want to deceive you into believing that "traditional
Christianity" is tolerant of man's unrighteousness when in truth it is
not (transformational Christianity, i.e. the "contemporary
church," i.e. the church which tries not to be "religious," is tolerant
of man's unrighteousness but the true church is not, while it does not
condemn any man it exposes unrighteousness that man would repent and
escape, in Christ, from condemnation). "The
traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality are
more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious
group."
(Adorno) Adorno defined the 'tolerant' church upon
the worldly, philosophical principles of the French Revolution,
liberty or the tolerance of ambiguity, fraternity or the
brotherhood of mankind, and equality or equality of opportunity,
none of which are scriptural, i.e. not from God but only proceeding from
man.
God did not tolerate sin in the garden in Eden (he drove Adam
and Eve out of the garden when they praxis-ed the dialectical
process―did Diaprax). He does
not tolerate it today, all are condemned except those who are in Christ.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Romans 8:1 Nor will he tolerate it in the future (judging the
world for its use of Diaprax). By redefining
righteousness, removing its negative elements (by
justifying man's
sinful nature―by evaluating his actions as being good when they are in
fact evil, and by regarding God's judgment upon man's sinful thoughts
and actions as being irrelevant), and focusing instead upon
what man has done 'right,'
man can liberate himself (his conscience) from judgment, alienation, and war through the
practice of dialectically synthesizing righteousness with
sensuousness (thereby deceiving himself in believing that
'driven' by his sensuous nature―human respect and approval, his 'good'
works he can 'save' himself and the world or at least make the world a
'better' place to live in). Hegel wrote: "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 one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)
Diaprax is a way of thinking where truth is not found
above the human experience but is found within the human
experience. Diaprax a way of thinking where truth (and life) is
found within sensuousness, i.e. found within the human praxis
of the negation of pain (including any condition which is a
barrier to the acquisition of pleasure, i.e. any condition which is a
barrier to the acquisition of the objects in space and time which
engender pleasure) by the actualization of pleasure
(where the value of life, or justification for death, is based upon the
degree of pleasure vs. pain the person experiences). Diaprax is
where truth (and life) is not found in righteousness (in Christ
who is our righteousness) but rather in
unrighteousness which 'seems to'
be righteousness. Diaprax begins with the idea that man is basically 'good' in nature
(since pleasure always appears to be good in the 'moment'),
that man can become truly good based upon his being raised within the 'right' environment or
'healthy' living
conditions which produce freedom of or the liberalization of pleasure
'for all' since it is our nature to experience pleasure as being a good thing,
as a
good 'moment' in our lives―since it, the
dopamine moment, is an ever passing moment in time and needs an
environment which promises to provide a continuous re-experiencing of
its emancipation, i.e. the pleasure 'moment' is experienced as being
practical, realistic, pragmatic, or reasonable and any unnatural barrier
or restraint to the experiencing of the pleasurable 'moment' is
experienced, i.e. perceived as being impractical, unrealistic,
idealistic, or unreasonable, unless such restraint is perceived as being
necessary only for the 'moment,' with the purpose of producing a future
condition which promises or 'guarantees' the liberation or emancipation
of pleasurable 'moments,' experienced not only for one's self and but
also for all others; i.e. as in the dialectical system, or dopamine
driven, "'felt' needs" moments, of Sodom and Gomorra, where the laws of
human nature were liberated from any restraining laws above human
nature―for a moment in history that is.
History, for Diaprax is the persons experiencing of life
along the spectrum of pleasure and pain, with the conditions causing
pain (the inhibition or blocking of pleasure―natural, mental, and
social) being the least desired and the conditions causing pleasure
(negation of pain―natural, mental, and social) the
most desired, i.e. situational ethics thus is based upon the
augmentation of pleasure in all situations, negating any issue of
righteousness which inhibits or blocks sensuousness. History, for Diaprax is not the lessons
learned from past generations, lessons which they pass on to the next
generation, lessons which cause a barrier to the experiencing of
pleasure for the present generation (as they apply the lessons of
history learned from the past generation to their lives and the lives of
their children, restraining social experiences which open up the
possibilities of future experiences of pleasure; large families cover three generation, maintaining
traditional history, thus they had to be perceived as abnormal and no
longer encouraged or supported as they restrain the possibilities of
social 'change,' i.e. 'change' meaning the augmentation of
pleasure―individually and socially). For Diaprax, the lessons
learned by the children of Israel, learned from their wilderness
experiences and their parents wilderness experiences (lessons taught
them by God) and passed down to their children (keeping them subject to
God) would not be considered proper history since they would reinforce
restraints against sensuousness. Such history (taking the
scriptures literally and not making them allegorical and subject to
sensual analysis and change) would inhibit finding sensual
harmony with the Canaanites (and the rest of the world), i.e. preventing
social harmony and global unity.
Diaprax justifies wars ('change'). Diaprax 'uses' war
(uses crime,
i.e. uses crisis to gain access to the "community") for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. on the basis that wars
destroy past history, they destroy items of the past, items which would
continue to remind people of the past as well as destroy the people who
hold the present and future conditions subject to past conditions (and thus
continue to maintain a strong support for resistance to 'change' in the
present generation, resistance which would be passed on to the next
generation). Diaprax 'uses' war, which was meant to keep things as
they are, to destroy things as they are (to destroy the patriarchal
paradigm). Diaprax then rewrites history for the next generation
to justify its perception of history marching man to a better world as
man washes from his brain the restraining lessons taught by the past
generations (taught by non-sensuous parents as well as a non-sensuous
God). "The current
generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to
learn from grandparents;"
(Yalom) "'Capital' … is, according to Marx, 'not a thing but a
social relation between persons mediated through things.' 'These
relations,' Marx states, 'are not those between one individual and
another, but between worker and capitalist, tenant and landlord, etc.
Eliminate these relations [top-down, patriarchal system] and you
abolish the whole of society; …… a scientifically acceptable solution
does exist [socialist, heresiarchal paradigm]… For to accept that
solution, even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from
a class standpoint [have's - have not's] other than that of
the bourgeoisie [right - wrong]. And no class can do
that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely. ' '... the
ideological history of the bourgeoisie was nothing but a desperate
resistance to every insight into the true nature of the society it had
created and thus to a real understanding of its class situation.'… the
Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie produces its
own grave-diggers [their own children, liberated (liberalized) by
social engineers (disguised as teachers, ministers, etc.), will be used
to destroy them].”
(Lukács, History)
"History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower
[righteousness-wickedness], but it is now
clear that they are on the same continuum [sensuous pleasure-sensuous
pain], in a hierarchical-integration of
prepotency & postpotency [augmentation of pleasure]."
(Maslow, Journals) "Without exception, patients enter
group therapy with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience
in their first and most important group―their primary family." ". . . 'to expose the patient, under
more favorable circumstances, to emotional situations which he could
not handle in the past. ... undergo a corrective emotional
experience suitable to repair the traumatic influence of pervious
experience.' "
(Franz Alexander in Yalom) "Through the therapist's continued
willingness to verbalize and to confront the calamity calmly,
patients gradually realize the irrationality of the feared
calamity [judgment by God or punishment by parents for
disobeying commands, now perceived as non-sensuous, 'irrational']." "The therapist assists the patient to
clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then ... to detoxify,
to disconfirm the reality of this danger." "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 changes the past by reconstituting
it." (Yalom) By
'shifting' the environment of communication from dichotomy
(duality―preaching and teaching righteousness) to spectrum
(diversity―dialoguing sensuousness) the traditional family,
capitalism, and religion could be "detoxified" of their
"negative" (ridged) aspects and united "positively" (sensuously)
within the process of change, resulting in "positive social change."
The idea being, don't openly fight against the family, the
capitalist, the fundamental religious extremist (keeping duality in
place), but rather, through the use of crisis and dialogue,
seduce them into finding common ground with themselves and others and
then help them to liberate themselves from that which divides
(alienates) themselves from others, i.e. their family, their capital,
and their religion. Attach them to their 'opposite' via.
sensuousness and they will negate righteousness themselves.
Diaprax is man, working along with a sensuous,
loving 'God' (a 'caring' facilitator), 'driven'
with the 'purpose' of creating a 'better world' for himself and others. Diaprax is a
'new' world order (based upon the system Satan used in Genesis 3:1-6), where the value or worth of life is measured not by
righteousness (where God sets the standards for life and death, good
and evil―where 'purpose' is found within righteousness which is
above human nature, restraining sensuousness, i.e. where Spirit
is above the 'spirits' of mankind), but rather the value or worth of
life is measured by human sensuousness (where man sets the
standards for life and death, good and evil―where 'purpose' is found
within the sensuousness of mankind himself, i.e. the practical, where the temporal nature of
man, driving man towards an every greater unity with himself and the
world, is perceived as 'righteousness,' i.e. where 'spirit' is of, by,
and for 'spirits,' whose 'justification' necessitates the negation or
replacing of any condition which limits or restrains its liberation
within man―a Gnostic construct or paradigm).
“Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human
experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God.”
(Wheat)
By merging righteousness, i.e. God and his word, i.e.
his Spirit
speaking to the soul of man, with sensuousness, i.e. the
environment stimulating the flesh of man,
righteousness, that which speaks to the soul of man, becomes subject to, and therefore negated
by the praxis of sensuousness, that which speaks to the
flesh of man. That which speaks
to the soul of man (the Word and Spirit of God proclaiming
righteousness) is made irrelevant by that which speaks to the
flesh of man (the words of men dialoguing sensuousness―where mans
thoughts and actions, uniting in consensus, cancel out
righteousness).
By bringing philosophy (human thought driven by sensual
dissatisfaction with what "is," i.e. dissatisfaction with "is"
dictating what "is" and "is not," human thought which is always vain, i.e.
subjective in nature) into the spiritual realm, psychology (human
nature) and sociology (collective justification of human nature) take
captive the thoughts and actions of men to the cause of augmenting the
sensuousness of pleasure, thereby redefining righteousness
as the praxis of social sensuousness. "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)
Psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must
affirm (the ‘magical’ body of occidental mysticism, and the
‘diamond’ body of oriental mysticisms, and, in psychoanalysis, the
polymorphously perverse body of childhood.) Psychoanalysis,
mysticism, poetry, the philosophy of organism [the many parts
become as one, i.e. becoming alive as one,
united into one 'spirit' while fighting against 'unrighteousness,' a
common cause bringing all together assisted by a nature common to all―Avatar,
the pathway to oneness is 'through' nature (the power of nature),
negating that which seeks to dominate nature, i.e. is not of or not
seeking to be at-one-with nature, i.e. is not mystical, demonic, etc.], Feuerbach, and Marx –
the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen. Whitehead constantly
draws attention to the dialectical patterns in mystical thought
[the 'quest' of oneness, wholism, unity, etc, i.e. peace.]."
(Brown) (Marx tried to demythologize Hegel who tried
to demythologize Gnosticism, but could not negate the system, remaining
captive to the Gnostic 'call' to one-ness or all-ness.) In this way mystical thought (sensual
'righteousness') replaces
righteousness (from God) as the driving ('divine') force for justification, justification
for ones thoughts and actions no longer being from above, by faith in God and
His Word, but now guided by that which is below, by human nature and
social relationships, via a 'rational' (dialectical, Gnostic) 'quest'
for one-ness.
If all men knew of their wickedness, none would be justified
in using the dialectical process in judging another man, but since man embraces his nature, his
sensuousness as though it were
righteous he is able to judge others
who do not measure up to, i.e. are not able to initiate and sustain his conditions of
righteousness ("If you produce pain in my life," i.e. perceived as being
an act of unrighteousness, "then I will produce pain in yours," i.e.
perceived as being an act of
righteousness―any person who brings in the
conditions which produce alienation―inhibits or blocks one-ness or
all-ness, perceived as an act of unrighteousness, must
either negate the conditions which produce unrighteousness or be treated
as unrighteous, alienated, i.e. excluded from the all, the one). By the
righteousness of God all men
are condemned, therefore only by faith in Christ Jesus, who is the
righteousness of God, is
righteousness imputed to man by God, redeeming
man from his condemnation by God. The dialectical process, with
the premise that man is, by his own nature, 'good' or 'righteous,' sets in
motion the praxis of man's
sensuousness as the means to
righteousness, thereby condemning all men to judgment by God. In
contrast to human reasoning being used to justify social praxis
as righteousness, that is if it produces pleasure or offers a hope in
producing pleasure, God does not justify either man or his social
praxis as having any attributes of
righteousness. God's
righteousness exposes man's
righteousness as evil. The use of
Diaprax (human reasoning justifying human nature) negates the
righteousness of God (in the mind of man), thus justifying man, in his
own eyes, as being righteous. In this way of thinking (the
heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the paradigm of heresy or 'change'), the
more a person does for society and society does for the justification of
the nature of man, the more 'righteous' the person and society become in
the eyes of man. "Persons are, therefore, to be taken as ends in the
sense that all the ways of a society, its institutions, its practices
and its faiths, are to be judged ultimately by their services to the
development of each member-person." (Benne) "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 2:11, 12
As the Apostle Paul warned Timothy of Diaprax,
we to must not yield to the temptation of mixing (justify our) faith with
"human reasoning" (the dialectical process, 'the scientific
method') which is really justifying sensuousness (justifying his
vanity). "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 Science
(human reasoning, "higher order thinking skills," etc.), which can only
be used on that which is sensual (temporal), when applied to man only
results in materializing him, thus justifying his vanity. "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." (Marx, MEGA I/3).
Science, when applied to man, is no longer true science since man,
unlike anything else God created, is a living soul―is
eternal and destined for eternal life through faith and belief in Christ
or eternal death through lack of faith and not believing in Christ.
Science questions, faith does not. It is impossible to
please God without faith (Hebrews 11:6).
Science, since it is sense (worldly)
based, when applied to man 'demythologizes' man, i.e. "spoils"
faith. The woman in the garden
in Eden, coming to "the knowledge of good and evil" via. sensuousness
(using "the scientific method" in questioning what "is"), rejected faith
in God, His Word, and his righteousness (with Adam following).
'Behavior science' is thus antithesis to faith.
"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 Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they
are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20
"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. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Romans 1:21, 22
Diaprax negates holiness by placing mans
hope in himself, in his carnal nature and his temporal works which can
not produce holiness (which are not of God who is holy) but instead is
man focusing upon himself (his carnal nature and his works―even
when done for God) as the foundation of reality.
"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. 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 1:13-21
Without holiness (which only comes from God) man can not escape God's
wrath upon the world, wrath against man because of his love of
sensuousness (the world) instead of righteousness (God).
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and
the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works
that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be
dissolved, what manner of persons out ye to be in all holy conversation and
godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein
the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat? Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for new heavens
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing
that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace,
without spot, and blameless." 2 Peter 3:10-14
Filtering righteousness through human
sensuousness (human reasoning―situational), negates righteousness (faith―absolute). Filtering
that which is of the spirit (eternal) through the flesh (temporal) negates that which
is of the spirit (eternal life). That is, making sensuousness
(approach pleasure-avoid pain) the evaluator of righteousness
negates righteousness, i.e. makes righteousness
unrighteousness ("negative," i.e. a pain and therefore
unattractive, i.e. undesirable, i.e. to be avoided) and
unrighteousness righteousness ("positive," i.e. a
pleasure and therefore attractive, i.e. desirable, i.e. to be
approached). In this way the 'church' can be 'grown' upon the
foundation of human relationship (sensuousness), while using the
name of God (having a form of Godliness, having a sense of 'love' for
one another, what 'seems to' be love―sensuousness), but without the power (not having God's love, which is only
knowable by His Spirit via the righteousness of Christ, His
righteousness imputed to us through our faith and
belief in Him, his love which is not vain nor philosophical, i.e. his
love is not bound to nor understandable by human reasoning). Simply by a person's consent or willful
participate in the approach pleasure-avoid pain continuum "seems to"
make life (in the person's eyes) a righteous-unrighteous duality, righteousness
is then based upon sensuousness, pleasure overcoming pain
displacing righteousness (righteousness, that which is not
subject to or influenced by the world, is displaced by sensuousness,
that which is subject to and influenced by the world), the flesh of man displacing the soul of
man (man made in the image of God now is made in his own image),
"concern about pleasing God" is replaced with "concern about pleasing man."
As a little leaven leavens the whole lump, a little flesh (which "seems
to" be good at the time) grows to envelop a persons every thought and
action, Good then no longer resides above man, being greater than his nature,
but is now resident within the nature of man and the world. Good
is therefore based upon the scale (spectrum or continuum) of
sensuousness, the amount
of pleasure (or lack of pain) the environment is making available or
promises to provide, the amount of pleasure (or liberation from pain) it
has the potential for producing in the future or the 'moment' of
pleasure (or lack of pain) it is now providing. Faith is then
accepted as long as it is attractive to man and does not lead to pain,
i.e. physical or mental pain and/or social rejection, i.e. alienation.
It is along this spectrum of sensuousness (which makes man measurable)
that the worth of a person, their thoughts and their actions (their
works), are from then on measured. It is here that the ideology of
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud unite, sensuousness becoming the
measuring tool for good and evil, life and death, righteousness
("religion") identified as an "opiate," the root cause of "neurosis,"
i.e. the initiator and sustainer of social disharmony. “Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis.”
(Brown) By finding
the area between the two (where they are willing to compromise your
belief with it
only slightly bothering their conscience for the sake of human
relationship), between a persons belief and
their actions, their submission to righteousness and lust for
sensuousness, the area of sensuousness, already enjoyed
within the persons righteousness (a "positive"
subconscious religion, i.e.
desire for human relationship and tolerances, i.e. justifying exceptions to the
rules for personal sensuous reasons, of the system of
sensuousness), can be taped into and used to farther 'deliver' the person from
the system of righteousness (from "negative" imposed religion, i.e.
producing personal and social alienation, "neurosis"),
bring him into greater harmony with his natural system of sensuousness, where he is now
'driven' by human relationship as the 'purpose' in life, now 'driven' by
that which is below, his own nature, rather than being lead by He who is
above, God (not even being fully aware of what has happened to him, i.e.
being deceived into believing that what he is doing is 'good' for
himself, others, and even the furtherance of the kingdom of God).
See the articles,
Diaprax: the spiraling process of 'changingness,'
The Dialectical Formula, and
The Dialectical process is sin for more on "systems
analysis."
"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.’"
"Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and
society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to
neurosis.” (Brown)
"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. The main
support of this theory has come mostly from psychotherapists like
Rogers and Fromm. Work is not about paying the rent anymore―it is
about self-fulfillment ['rent' correlated to the
system of righteousness, i.e. accountability to higher
authority, the love of parent, God, etc, 'self-fulfillment'
correlated to the system of sensuousness, i.e.
Dopamine emancipation, the love of pleasure]. The United States is changing into a
managerial society. The evidence upon which Theory X management is
based [patriarchal paradigm, top-down, private business, of
the 'closed' system of righteousness] is
practically nil [in other words according to Maslow's
humanistic, anti-patriarch bias he considered it not worthy of
knowing, his hatred toward higher authority already determining his
observations and desired outcome]. In our democratic society, any enterprise―any
individual―has its obligations to the whole. Any company that restricts its goals purely to its own
profits, its own production, and its own sales is getting a kind of
a free ride from me and other taxpayers. Tax credits would be given
to the company [and church] that helps to improve the
whole society, and helps to improve democracy by helping to create
democratic individuals. [The] goal is simply to build group
companies [and churches] where people can self-actualize.”
(Maslow, Maslow) emphasis added
With psychological profiling, all are being measured along
this spectrum, those at the lower end of the spectrum, the righteous,
the "intolerant of ambiguity" (not easily influenced and controlled by
sensuousness, who are willing to live and die in righteousness)
and therefore are not easily influenced by the tyranny of the masses and
controllable by the tyrant (those not 'driven' by the fear of the lose
of pleasure, the things of this world, since they have given them, along
with their lives, to the Lord), being the least worthy of all.
These are the ones who are to be most mistrusted and feared (labeled,
dialectically, as terrorists, potential fascists, trouble makers,
divisive, heartless, authoritarians, antisocial, negative, prejudice,
etc). Thus all must be identified and tracked along the spectrum
of sensuousness, used to identify the sheep from the goats (the
sheep in this case being those of this world, the goats being those who
are not subject to the things of this world), for the sake of initiating
and sustaining 'righteousness' (world, peace, social justice and
harmony) which is not righteousness. The Apostle Paul addressed
the deception of Diaprax this way.
"But what I do,
that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire
occasion [sensuousness]; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we
[in God's righteousness]. For
such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into
the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed
into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers
also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall
be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:12-15
In true righteousness, works are no longer the product of a
man's relationship with men but rather as a result of a man's
relationship with God, i.e. the result of God's work of righteousness
(covering our sins),
through Christ Jesus, imputed to man by faith, the works being
spiritual (by God's leading) and no longer temporal (for vain glory), as
King David acknowledge to God concerning his sin: "Against thee, thee
only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest
be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest."
Psalms 51:4 The focus of righteousness is not
upon the work or lack thereof but rather upon man's walk with the Lord,
the work no longer pain or pleasure 'driven' (social or sensual in
'purpose,' i.e. "What can I get out of this for me.") but rather righteousness based (no longer between the
human nature of man and man but between the soul of man and God, the
want in man being spiritual rather than temporal, above rather than
below, man desiring relationship with God,
seeking to being pleasing to God rather than man). Sensuousness comes between God and
man (the wantonness found in man's nature being the driving force
in life, the desire of relationship with gratifying objects found within the
environment being the 'purpose' in life, i.e. the 'drive' to be
at-one-with the world, i.e. seeking for the approved or respect of man
to gain from them whatever it is a person wants in the environment, be
it the pleasure of relationship itself), taking
God's place, making work a social spirit work (a 'quest' for
sensuousness, man's work, even for God, through sight, i.e. human
reasoning) and not a Holy Spirit work (an outcome of
righteousness, God's work in man through faith).
"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." (Piaget) When sensuousness rules, a man's work
is for human relationship, the common-unity, 'people group,' yet can be
perceived by man as man being at-one-with God, i.e. 'experiencing God,'
when he is actually experiencing the collective sensuous human
'moment' as being of God, thus ending up worshiping the sensuous
'moment,' defining it as the praxis of 'righteousness' (an
all is well with man and the world feeling, thus producing another "I
can't wait to come back and get more 'love'" customer for the 'Church').
Work is therefore sensuous driven (measurable and manipulatable),
social work becoming the 'purpose' of life (man 'born again' in the
spirit of the group, subject to the feelings and thoughts of men).
Work is thus no longer a byproduct of righteousness, a result of
walking in the Holy Spirit (a man born again of the Spirit of God, a man
directed by, i.e. lead by God, and no longer 'driven' by the
'influences' of man and the world around him). "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
John 3:8
When 'Christians' tolerate unrighteousness, they are in
Diaprax and are not living according to God's will (they tolerate the
unrighteousness of others so as to tolerate the unrighteousness which
resides within themselves). When the 'church' tolerates
unrighteousness, it is in Diaprax and is not of God. "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 2:18-22
In the tergiversation of Diaprax reigns tyranny (in the
secular realm) and apostasy (in the sacred realm), both the secular and
the sacred becoming one in
Diaprax (one becoming the beast while the other becomes the harlot―without the harlot the beast can not rule, i.e. without apostasy, tyranny
can not reign, i.e. the Antichrist, the lawless one, can not rule
without both the sacred and the secular―the
church and the state―uniting
in partnership, finding their common-unity in their use of Diaprax,
basing their collective 'purpose' upon the sensuousness of man).
Diaprax is Genesis 3:1-6, the way, the truth, and the life of
sinful man
justifying himself (united in consensus―united
"with sensuousness," "hand joined in hand"
upon common cause). "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 "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 Righteousness is of God, sensuousness is
of man. Righteousness is justified in the works of God (by
His Word and His Spirit), sensuousness is justified in the works
of man (by his understanding and his flesh). Without the
righteousness of God being revealed though His Word and His Spirit, the heart of
man remains hopelessly bound to the sensuousness of his own flesh
(his hope being bound to the temporary pleasures of the world and not in
the eternal God of glory). "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. 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. 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."
Galatians 5:16-24 "I speak after the manner of men because of
the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members
servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield
your members servants to righteousness unto holiness." Romans
6:19 Diaprax is man justifying his sensuousness as if
it were righteousness, putting it into praxis even for God
'work,' treating God's warnings from heaven as thought they are
irrelevant in the 'light' of his own 'wisdom' and self-justification,
yielding himself to his own sinful nature and the ways of the world and
not unto God. "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of
unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that
are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of
righteousness unto God." Romans 6:13
While Hegel may have popularized the dialectical process, making it
an academic form of Gnosticism (oneness or the quest for unity, i.e. the
negation of conditions which perpetuate alienation), Marx
may have secularized it (demythologized it, i.e. materialized it―via.
Feuerbach, and regenerated it―via.
social action, revolution, or praxis), John Dewey may have
applied it to the education system, the Frankfurt School, Kurt Lewin, J.
L. Moreno may have applied it to society, Benjamin Bloom may have
applied it to the development of curriculum, making it secularized Satanism,
intellectualized witchcraft, it is still the praxis of Genesis
3:1-6. “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) “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.” “God is thus the anthropological source of
alienation . . .” (Bronner) “The immediate task is to unmask human alienation in its
secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form.” (Karl Marx
in Bottomore)
You can not understand Hegel, Marx, Freud, the "new" world
order (the way of man since the garden in Eden "sense experience") without
understanding Genesis 3:1-6. Sensual human nature (living
for the
"here-and-now" 'moment' in the life of the flesh, finding
identity and seeking unity with the world which gratifies the flesh) is therefore the basis of reality to the dialectical
process. Anything outside of "here-and-now" sensuality, is
illusionary, i.e. "from religious and transcendentalist thought."
"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."
(Gramsci)
Without the sensual there would be not social relations and without
social relations there would be no dialectical process. And without the
dialectical process in social action there would be no escape from anti-social forces,
i.e. escape from religion ("abstract 'human nature'"), i.e. that which is spiritual, restraining that which is
sensual (and therefore real) in nature. Reality is
therefore "the totality of historically determined social relations."
The dialectical premise is: since your
environmental upbringing (your "sense experienced" 'history') shaped how you make decisions, how you think
and how you act, by changing the environment in which you make
decisions ('change' your "sense experiences" from learning in an
environment which initiates and sustains submission to higher authority
to an environment which liberates or emancipates you from higher
authority so you can justify to yourself the praxis of
annihilating the conditions which initiate and sustain higher
authority), how you think and how you act can be 'changed' as well,
i.e. the "providential" work of God in a man's life can be
replaced with the nature of man himself being the only means to justice,
harmony, and peace among men, if the learning environment is made
'practical' (subject to human nature and human reasoning, i.e. sense
based understanding depending upon "social relationships"―engendering
human rights) rather than 'idealistic' (greater than human
reasoning and human understanding, i.e. man depending upon "divine
providence"―engendering inalienable rights). "The
norms and standards by which a person thinks and judges are learned in
the processes by which he is acculturated. Human rights and duties
are grounded in the institutions and ideologies of a culture, not in a
nature independent of man’s social relationships. 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." "If the realization of this value is blocked by certain
social arrangements, as undoubtedly it often is today, the task is to
change these social arrangements. And such change today requires
collective planning and action, not reliance upon 'providential'
processes of natural or historical selection which have ceased to be
providential under conditions of advancing industrialization or upon
blind resistance to all collective action as inherently opposed to
individuality." "The methodological correlate of individualism
which democratic ideology leads us to oppose is the elevation of
unchecked private, individual judgment as an ultimate arbiter in the
control of human conduct." "But the determination of the proper
boundaries of these areas must, in an interdependent society, be based
on a collective judgment. 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)
Diaprax is the dialectical process (the process of 'change,'
the continues liberation of human sensuousness from 'arbitrary'
righteousness) being put into praxis.
Diaprax is the way of thinking which we have all used to 'justify' our
fleshly desires, i.e. our love of this world, justifying the lust of
our
flesh, the lust of our eyes, and the pride of our life. While the
first two can fairly easily be detected, it is the latter one (the pride
of our life, our ability to justify our feelings, thoughts, and actions,
i.e. our ability to evaluate our nature as being common to all
men and thereby justify the lust of our flesh and our eyes
as if they and we were righteous)
which comes in the back door and "gets us" without us being fully aware
of what is happening to us.
“There is first the theorem that ‘there
is nothing in the id [our sensuousness] which can be compared to negation,’ and
that the law of contradiction [righteousness vs.
wickedness, good and evil outside of our nature to approach pleasure and
avoid pain] does not hold in the id.”
“The true life of the body is also the
life of the id.”
"The key to the nature
of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in
Freud’s psychoanalysis of negation."
“Freud saw that in the
id there is no negation, only affirmation and eternity."
(Benne) Dia-prax is our use of the dialectical
process in justifying our human nature (our lusts). By our
ability to 'rationally' justifying the lust of our flesh and eyes, the
pride of our sensuous life is justified. In our able to
justify, in
social praxis (mankind united in initiating and
sustaining), the cause of "human rights," sensuousness, over and
against righteousness, negates our need for
righteousness, (negates in the minds and actions of men that
righteousness which can only come from God). "And whosoever shall exalt himself
shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."
Matthew 23:12 "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty
spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of an humble spirit with
the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud." Proverbs
16:18, 19
While Diaprax is supposedly used to prevent war (between
people and nations),
used to bring peace and harmony to the world (including the 'church'), it is the
way of war against God and His
righteousness.
James 4:1-10
While it promises peace, it cannot deliver. It can only bring
deceit, confusion, manipulation, and pain ("to steal, and to kill, and to destroy").
Only God can bring peace into your life. "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 Only God can save you from your use of Diaprax (your use
of it to justify your way―justifying
your feelings, your thoughts, and your actions) and His judgment
upon you for using it. "For the Son of man is not come to destroy
men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9:56 "I am
the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in
and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal,
and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and
that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:9, 10
Diaprax is the way of the world. It is now becoming the only acceptable
way of thinking and acting. All will be judged in the "new" world
order according to their participation (or non participation) in
Diaprax. But God will judge the world according to His righteousness, judging it for its use of Diaprax, for its praxis
of justifying its own 'righteousness,' that is, justifying its
sensuousness as being righteous. "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."
Romans 10:30
God's righteousness is imputed unto all who believe upon
Christ (since it is spiritual). It is only in Him, the obedient and
righteous Son of God,
with which we have love, joy, and peace in this life and hope of eternal life
after death. "In this was
manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 1
John 4:9
Though a man, through his participation in Diaprax, may gain
the pleasures of this world, including the respect of men, he will lose
all, including his own life, in the end. "He that loveth his
life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep
it unto life eternal." John 12:25 The question is then,
"Why is the leadership in the church using Diaprax to 'promote' and
'grow' the 'kingdom of God?'" It is one thing for the leaders of the
world to use it to unite the world, it is another for the leaders of the
church to use it to unite the church with the world system. The
reason being, the world cannot unite as one, without the church uniting
as one with it, both uniting upon their use of Diaprax, using the system of Genesis 3:1-6
(Satan's Genesis project of all mankind 'justifying' sensuousness), as their
way, their truth, and their life.
DIAPRAX
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the
field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God
said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 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. 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 3:1-6
"According to the philosopher
Hegel, truth is not found in the thesis, nor the antithesis, but in the emerging
synthesis which reconciles the two." (Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love)
The idea being: 'truth' is not found above man, in
God himself, but in the man, in his human 'moment' with himself, in
the praxis of interpersonal relationship, freed from Godly
restraints of good and evil, right and wrong, which cause social
disharmony amongst men. "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 While the aloneness can be helped in the
husband-wife relationship, on the temporal level, it can only be
resolved in Christ, on the spiritual level, with the husband
ruling, "doing those things that are pleasing the Heavenly Father," and the desire of
the heart of the wife being to her husband, "doing those things that
are pleasing the Heavenly Father," and the
children obey their parents, "doing those things that pleasing
to the
Heavenly Father" as well―as
the Heavenly Father rules, with the desire of the Son being to
please Him,
and Christ rules with the desire of the bride to please Him. Thus
as Christ is in the Father, we are in him, and he is in
us, all to the glory of God. "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I
and the Father that sent me." "And he that sent me is with me:
the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that
please him." John 8:16, 29 "At that day ye
shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."
John 14:20
While man seeks to resolve his aloneness
sensually, with
relationship to the world, it can only be resolved spiritually,
in his relationship with God (without God we are stuck with only the
sensual). Man's
'truth,' as you will see, is to destroy the husband-wife
relationship under God (a top-down hierarchy under God), i.e. the husband is to rule, in the Lord,
the desire of the wife is to her husband, in the Lord, and the
children are to obey their parents, in the Lord, i.e. a patriarchal
paradigm under God, by first removing "in the Lord," and
replacing it "in the earthy father's name," and then replacing the
family relationship, under the father's name with a top-down
hierarchy in the companies name, nation's name, etc., i.e. the
fathers interests being not to God but to his own invested
interests, sensuously based, then replacing "in the father and
nations name" with "in the name of society," with human relationship
(in the name of the community, the environment, the global
community, etc.) with men-women-children 'driven' by societies
interests, i.e. a
heresiarchal paradigm under Satan, cutting off man's relationship
with God (and God's relationship with man) and replacing it with
man's relationship with himself (individually and collectively, i.e.
a men-women-children-society-sensual-partnership) along with the creation (and
Satan, who for now rules over the kingdoms of the world), as was
done in Genesis 3:1-6 (which is Diaprax), the first
environment-human relationship experience outside of God's will. Was not the woman
having a pleasant relationship with the serpent and the 'forbidden
tree,' and an unpleasant relationship with God afterwards?
With Adam following. Notice that Satan went to the
woman first while God went to the man first. Therein lies the
difference in paradigms. One paradigm is from above (top-down,
spiritual, righteous), the other is from below (equality, temporal,
sensual).
The sin in the garden was not from the fruit of the
'forbidden tree' but was the changing of paradigms. The change
in paradigm being from patriarchal to heresiarchal, from trusting in
God, demanding faith, to trusting in one's own senses (with Satan's
help), demanding
sight. The change being from simply obeying God's will to a
complex and subtle process of self-justification, where 1) the lust
(or intense desire) of the flesh―the
subconscious senses which trigger a "sensuous need" to re-experience
the pleasure produced by a "gratifying object in the environment",
to have what it is in the environment which is gratifying to the
flesh, over and against any restraint which limits or prevents such
experiences, i.e. through punishment or the fear of punishment, i.e.
God's will being done via. the threat of punishment utilized in
restraining the will of the flesh, 2) the lust (or intense
desire) of the eyes―the
semi-conscious sense of sight, "sense perception," to look for
whatever it is in the environment which stimulated the pleasure in
the first place, in order to continue the "sense experience" of
pleasure, and 3) the pride of life (the intense desire of life in
the 'moment,' in the 'here-and-now'), the "sense experience" of
'rationally' evaluating the environment so as to manipulate, i.e.
control the environment in order to have power over the object in
the environment which stimulates pleasure―the
ability to identify the object of pleasure and liberate or
emancipate it from any limiting or restraining conditions in the
environment which prevents or controls access to the gratifying
object. To enjoy the gratifying object requires the justification of 'changing' the conditions of the environment
which limit or block access to the objects which are gratifying to
the flesh of man, i.e. the conditions of who or what it is that
defines what is good or what is evil must be 'changed,' or else the
liberation or emancipation of pleasure (access to the gratifying
object which attracts the person) will be prevented or limited by
the conditions of restraint. 'Change' (the practice of
continual change) must triumph over the conditions of Godly
restraint or else a higher authority than man's nature will 'rule'
the day and the will of man (and Satan) will not be realized.
As in the garden so it is in the world today, that is until the Lord
returns to judge the "'new' world order"―an
'order' which is not "new" but was begun in the garden in Eden. An 'order'
which is recorded in Genesis 3:1-6 so that we might not be ignorant
of Satan's devices.
Thus, according to the process and
praxis of Diaprax,
truth, regarding good and evil and reality, is not found in
any given position, i.e. is found neither in a thesis, nor in its
opposing position, the antithesis, but rather is found within the
process of "change" (neither person is negated, only their
negation, that which divides them, is negated, thus making them one in
nature, i.e. liberated from the patriarchal paradigm, the system of
righteousness). In Diaprax, truth is found in man's liberation
or emancipation from any given position, in life experienced only
of, by, and for man and his nature, 'driven' with the 'purpose' of
experiencing the sensuousness of becoming at-one-with self
and others, i.e. the world. Thus the objective of Diaprax is
'truth,'
or the knowledge of good and evil, via. consensus in
praxis.
Diaprax is the dialectical process
(Genesis 3:1-6)
being put into praxis.
Praxis is the Greek word for
practice, (to act in a particular way; Praxis Apostles
or the "actions of the Apostles," the way the Apostles acted). The
Apostles praxis is not man's praxis. There are
different ways of thinking and acting (paradigms) which can be put into praxis.
God makes it clear.
"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 God's
way of thinking (which he requires of man) is believing and acting
(acting according to his belief), having and maintaining a thesis
position in all things, a thesis position which can only
be founded upon and fulfilled in Him (a patriarchal paradigm of
unchangingness). "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
The dialectical process is man's way of thinking (a heresiarchal paradigm
of 'changingness' and sensuousness) which is
put into practice (praxis) to destroy the thesis
way of thinking and acting (a patriarchal paradigm of
'unchangingness' and righteousness―not
that a thesis position makes man righteous but that
righteousness, in Christ, is a thesis position). "Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever
came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall
go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to
steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life,
and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good
shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he
that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf
catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth,
because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the
good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the
Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for
the sheep." John 10:7-15
Man's ways of thinking (which is
common to all men) is 'driven' by his feelings of
self-preservation, even if it be in name only (hoping he is remembered
for his actions, i.e. for his 'works'). His way of thinking is as along a spectrum or
continuum (progressing 'upward' from feelings being suppress, to
feelings being liberated, to feelings and thoughts becoming united in
action against any system restraining sensuous feelings and thoughts)―from feeling and acting (acting according to his feelings
without thinking, impulsive), thinking and acting (having feelings but only putting thoughts into action,
academic),
having feelings and thought but putting neither into action (acting
according to some one else's feelings and thoughts, submissive,
antithesis), thinking with feelings,
putting opinions into action, with the latter being done either
for another person, for self, or for a group of people. What
the dialectical process does, when used in its 'true' form, is bring not
just one person into participation in the
process―in
the last of the prior ways of thinking, but encourages everyone
to participate in thinking with their feelings
and feeling with their thinking
(thinking and acting not only for themselves but with and for everyone else, i.e. to be in
synthesis with others regarding the restraining and
liberating systems)
and putting the condition which liberates sensuousness while
negating righteousness into social action (praxis).
With his use of the dialectical process,
a person progresses from submitting to
authority, resenting it because of its restraints against his impulsive
nature, i.e. suppressing his feelings (repression being suppressed
feeling which results in an internal antithesis condition,
not being able to do what you want to do), then
rebelling
against authority, manifesting antithesis condition
against authority, but just following their feelings without thinking it
through (and "getting into
trouble"),
then thinking it through, identifying where the antithesis condition is coming from (thereby justifying their actions
of rebellion against authority, willing to be 'kicked out' if necessary,
to be in harmony with their wants), but doing so just for themselves
(overcoming individual antithesis but not overcoming the social
antithesis condition which represses all others) and eventually, with assistance from
others who are trained in the craft of revolution, i.e. 'the techniques
of producing social, not just individual 'change' (facilitators, councilors, 'change agents,'
coaches, and guides), helping the rebellious to think in regards to everyone's feelings with the intent
of liberating all from the restraints of higher authority (overcoming
the thesis condition via. revolution or
synthesis or "liberty, fraternity, and
equality" for all).
Without getting rid of the parent of restraint, the children can not do
what they want to do. Parental authority brings barriers
into the lives of children who want to play. Negate
the condition which justifies the placing of restraints upon
children, then all the children can have liberty to play
together as one, without the fear of parental restraint (restraints,
when carried out in the lives of the children, pit child against child,
resulting in social disharmony―the Diaprax
idea is, rather than getting rid of the ideals which parents inculcate
to their children, get rid of the method, system, paradigm, etc. of
inculcating itself).
Diaprax is a subtle and complex process. When antithesis
(tension or conflict) is under a thesis environment, opposing thesis positions cause division or conflict
between one another, one position or thesis position
perceives themselves as being right,
the other position or thesis position therefore is treated
as being wrong, according to
each thesis position (tension or conflict is perceived as
being external to a persons feelings, i.e. seen as differences in belief), whereas
when antithesis (tension or conflict) is
under a synthesis environment (which perceives feelings
as being
separated from thought and action, thereby causing conflict between a
person and their own nature and the nature of the other person, the tension or
conflict is perceived as being internal as well as external), unlike
the thesis environment (with its right and wrong thinking
and acting, insisting upon one absolute thesis position as
being right),
according to the synthesis condition holding onto an
absolute, 'unchanging,' thesis position, holding onto a
right and wrong way of thinking and acting, is itself wrong. Thus
antithesis in a thesis environment is
conflict or tension caused by an opposing position or thesis,
while antithesis in a synthesis environment
is conflict caused by the thesis environment suppressing
human feelings. The thesis condition tries to limit
the effect of the antithesis condition through force or
threat of force, i.e. corporal punishment, while the synthesis
condition tries to initiate and sustain the antithesis
condition in an effort to use it negate the thesis
condition, thus liberating feelings, thoughts, and actions from any
restraining higher authority. "Higher order thinking skills"
(which incorporate personal feelings in solving problems, personal
evaluation being instrumental in making decisions) therefore negates
"lower order thinking skills" (which demands that feelings must always
be subject to the will of higher authority, parental or Godly evaluation
directing the person in his thoughts and actions).
In
the world of Diaprax when
we think someone else is wrong and we are right, we are thinking and
acting wrong and need to 'change' our way of
thinking and acting. Thus 'truth' is no longer found in an absolute,
in a thesis position outside of man's common human nature (external to his feelings or senses), but is found within the
"emerging" moment (in consensus) when right and wrong
thinking is negated by the praxis of "reconciliation,"
(the uniting of feelings in common action negating the division
caused by opposing positions)
but truth is found within the synthesis
of the opposing parties, founded upon the feelings which they both have in common, i.e.
their feelings of resentment or dissatisfaction toward the
thesis environment, i.e. resentment toward the thesis environment which
restrains their human
nature now being the 'driving' force for uniting both the
individual and social 'purpose,' making both the same in
'purpose.' Without gaining access to a person's
dissatisfaction toward the thesis environment or
condition, the synthesis process can not function
properly. Therefore it is imperative to gain access to every
person's feelings of resentment toward being told what to do when it
goes against their 'normal' human nature.
"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)
While facts and truths do not change, feelings do―thus
if you structure your life on feelings, wrapping your thinking and
actions around
them, the environment around you must
become an environment of feelings, i.e. the environment must be tolerant
of 'change,' (tolerant of ambiguity and adaptable to change) or become your enemy. "In the eyes of the dialectical
philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is
absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) Diaprax is the
combination of two words, dialectic and praxis.
It follows the same method used by the Marxists to come up with
diamat from dialectical materialism or
histomat for historical materialism,
the difference between the two being: in diamat the emphasis is
upon the material being of all things, tying man to the material world
(remove the restrainer―the thesis
condition, and man will be free to be himself naturally) while
histomat emphasizes the history or the upbringing of the person, the
environmental 'press' which shaped their way of thinking and acting
(that only through proper environmental conditions can "citizens" undue
the effects of the thesis condition upon themselves as well as others,
that they must experience for themselves the removal of the restrainer
within―converting the conscience into a
super-ego, and learn how to remove the restrainer outside―treat
the restrainer and his way of thinking and acting as irrelevant to the
changing times, thereby making it easier to remove the thesis
condition with little of any opposition―not only does the the
citizen become knowledgeable on how to remove the restrainer himself,
his is also able to help others in freeing themselves from the
thesis condition as well). Traditional Marxist line up
with diamat while Transformational Marxist line up with
histomat, focusing more on the "environmental" conditions in which a
person or a group of people reside, developing "social environmental
control" through the use of psycho-social techniques to help the culture
'change' its own social structure (that way you don't have to destroy
the infrastructure of society as you purge society of the restrainers of
change, as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) did in Russia (all the
bloodshed was necessary, according to his words, for "the common good"). Given the authority to educate the
next generation, with "willful" citizen participation, you can change
society from within, through educating the next generation to "think for
themselves"). "(1) They attempt to focus the resources of various
social sciences, including psychology, upon the problems of inducing and
controlling changes in social systems, including the face-to-face group.
The principles and concepts involved thus represent a fusion of
resources from several social sciences. (2) They involve the
collaboration of social scientists and social practitioners, including
educators, in their formulation and testing." "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. ... [that educators] basic
training be focused in a methodology of planned change which unites the
norms of democratic operation, relevant understandings of change
processes and social structures, and skills in stimulating, inducing and
stabilizing changes in persons and groups." " (Bennie)
"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must
himself be educated. The changing of circumstances and of self can only
be grasped and rationally understood as revolutionary practice."
(Marx,
Thesis on Feuerbach #3)
"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 Judaeo-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,
Krathwohl, Cognitive, Affective) Without sensuousness
becoming a part of education, social change by "consensus"
can not take place.
The objective of Diaprax is to replace an "unhealthy"
environmental condition, one dependent upon a thesis
position (indoctrination, righteousness), with a "healthy" environmental condition
('change,' sensuousness), one initiating and
sustaining a synthesis condition. In his
journals, Abraham Maslow wrote about these "good" (synthesis)
and "bad (thesis) social conditions" in this
way: "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 pre-potent
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, Journal) The
economic and religious environments find their common element in the
alienating of the person from his own personal desires (sensuousness)
through the
inculcating of (thesis) values higher than the sensual
desires of the person both in the person's personal way of thinking,
submitting to higher authority without question, and in its correlation
with money (accepting stored up
sensuousness, i.e. money in the bank, as
being under someone else's conditions and control). "Marx had
compared the money complex with the religious complex, as two forms of
human self-alienation."
(Brown)
Maslow structured his "hierarchy of 'felt' needs" along the
same dialectical continuum as did Benjamin Bloom in his "taxonomy" of
educational objectives. The lowest order of needs, "lower order thinking
skills," being the basic needs of water, food, exercise, and sleep,
which are essential for the continuation of life, with need for order
and rules to guide life following in suite. For the traditional home the
basics of life are dependent upon higher authority and following the
rules which proceed from them, i.e. knowing and comprehension.
Commands and the consequences for either obeying or disobeying them are
key to the sustentation of the thesis, patriarchal paradigm.
Application and analysis, (valuing in the affective domain) correlate to
the antithesis condition in that the feelings of doubt, by those under
authority, may cause them to question the commands of higher authority
as not being in their best interest. What Maslow would call love,
affection, belongingness, freedom from fear are essential elements to
the relationship between the one under authority and the one in
authority. If these conditions are called into question, i.e.
there is an increasing desire for sensuousness (pleasure) over
and against righteousness (obedience) or a fear of the lose of
pleasure in the act of obedience, then a tension arises within the one
under authority. Isolated, in an environment under the control of
higher authority the child or person simply suppresses his desires by
'projecting' their satisfaction in the act of obedience to higher
authority, finding what pleasure is available in doing their will.
Without the social element, the commonality of resentment toward higher
authority and its realization through 'uncoerced' dialogue, society
would remain in tension (in a state of antithesis, i.e. caught between
the structure of righteousness and
sensuousness) remaining subject to
higher authority. Without the help of agents of change, i.e.
facilitators of change, and their ability of initiating and sustaining
environments of experimentation of change, where self-esteem, self
respect and esteem from others in regards to their sensuous desires
could be experienced, society would remain under the influence of the
top-down system of righteousness. Through the sense
experience of application and analysis, trial and error, experimentation
with new ways of thinking and doing (as was done in the garden in Eden,
Genesis 3:1-6) man could recognizes his sensual connectedness with the
world around him. Aided in overcoming the fear of the unknown
(overcoming that which is sensually unreasonable), through finding
commonality, i.e. synthesis with the environment (using "higher order
thinking skills" in individual-social issues), and then actively
participating within it, in experiencing of common-unity, the
sensuousness of the person could be actualized in the
sensuousness of the world (according to Marx, society) which
initiated it. From then on, sustainability of human relationship, and
relationship with the world, depended upon the persons ability to
maintain the system of sensuousness, i.e. within his relationship
with himself as well his relationship with others (the fulfillment of
individual abilities), and for others to do the same with themselves and
with him. In this way alienation and reification, (and the system
of righteousness) would have about as much chance in surviving as
a fly in a room full of hungry frogs (from their point of view).
Since both Marx and Freud saw pleasure (freedom from
'alienation' and 'reification,' freedom from 'substitute gratification,'
i.e. freedom from patriarchal paradigm) as
the key agent for human happiness (freedom to socially-personally
pleasure), without
control over the environment, which defined it's use (God or parent's
definition redefined
by self, by society, i.e. social engineers), social-individual 'change'
(liberation of sensuousness) could not be possible. Traditional Marxist tried to change the
social (and thus the individual) by using outright force, thus maintaining the
patriarchal form or top-down system of righteousness, something the
Transformational Marxist understood would always lead to failure
(failure to their 'cause' that is). They knew both the individual
and society had to be liberated from the system of righteousness
concurrently and 'willingly' if they were to be successful in
creating a world of 'change.'
Thus a proper environmental condition was essential for success.
Social engineers, change agents, facilitators, human resource personnel,
councilors, etc. would be necessary (properly trained) to guide all
policy making institutions, from the home, businesses, education, to
leaders of the land, especially the church, into participation within
the system of sensuousness, i.e. into the heresiarchal paradigm of
'change' (the system of deceitfulness and manipulation), if there was to be a successful negation of the
system
of righteousness, i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal
paradigm and its top-down "way of doing business." The use of 'crisis,' would help move all people
(society) into participation within the "healthy" system of
sensuousness. The use of religion and money would thus change
from a top-down (capitalist) structure to a "we," equality of opportunity,
common-istic, common-unity (socialist) structure, 'driven' and 'purposed' in
the negation of 'alienation' and 'repression,' and the system of
righteousness, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm.
Like children asking their father for money, so they
can go do what they desire to do and the father saying yes or no based
upon his standards and not their desires (to go around or attempt to go
around the father's standards resulting in chastening), religion and money both alienate man from his own
sensual
desires, forcing him to submit his will to the will of a sacred higher
authority and a secular higher authority, both thereby alienating
himself from himself (both requiring him to control and discipline
himself, deny and humble himself in serving a higher authority's will,
restraining his human nature for a higher cause than human
nature itself―God and parents in the sacred realm and money and property in the
secular realm, all connected in structure to righteousness, i.e.
initiated by and supportive of the system of righteousness). "One of the primary value systems
underlying conservative ideology is concerned with practicality,
ambition, and upward class mobility. These values are reflected in
the raising and indoctrination of children, who ‘should learn early in
life the value of a dollar.'" (Adorno) The thesis
condition produces an alienation condition between men. “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) "Every form of objectification ...
results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending
objectification.;” (Bronner) “The life which he has
given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force.”
(Marx, MEGA I/3) “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)
While the Traditional Marxists held to a hard line of forced
removal of the thesis personality from society (violent revolution), Transformational
Marxists understood it was an environmental condition rather than just a
personality which was the barrier to 'change,' that without a changing
of the social environment (the human experience), the personality could
not be
changed ("velvet revolution"). Yet both recognized the source of
alienation which necessitated the use of revolution (overt and covert)
and the necessity of negating of the thesis way of thinking
if 'change' was to be attainable (the
theme being: "When parents rule the children are repressed,"
i.e. "When the bourgeois rule the proletariat are
repressed," i.e. "When God rules man and Satan are repressed," i.e.
"When righteousness rules sensuousness is repressed,"
"When the patriarch rules the heresiarch is repressed," "When absolutes
rule 'change' is repressed," etc.). "Revolutionary
violence reconciles the disunited parties by abolishing the alienation of class
antagonism that set in with the repression of initial morality. … the revolution
that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life, which will visit the
causality of fate upon the rulers. 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. " (Habermas, Knowledge)
"Alienation and reification destroy both the dialectical interrelation
of being and consciousness and, as a necessary consequence, the
dialectical interrelation of theory and practice [carnal thoughts
and carnal actions need to be united in social praxis for man to
be "healthy"]. Revolution would now seek to transform the
everyday life of the ‘establishment.’ … a new environmental
consciousness … a new dignity to a complex concept alien to American
pragmatism." (Jay)
Karl Marx
understood the power of the sensual nature of man and its importance in bringing
religion into participation within and therefore under the control of the secular domination,
which had to itself be purged of the thesis condition as
well (the influence of the traditional fundamentalist Christian church
upon the citizens and therefore government and society as well). “The immediate task is to unmask human alienation in its
secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form.” (Marx in Bottomore). By identifying
the sensual nature of religion and then uniting (synthesizing)
it with the sensual nature of the secular world, the "mystical" (thesis)
nature of religion is negated by making it "practical" [sensual
thought and sensual action synthesized in sensual
play/work]
"‘Religious sentiment' is
itself a social product, a particular form of society." "All social life is essentially practical.
All the mysteries which lead theory toward mysticism find their rational
solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice."
(Marx,
Thesis on Feuerbach #7, # 8) According to
dialectical reasoning, organized religion, with its thesis
condition, is the initiator and sustainer of prejudice (a biased
socialist "observation," which has been proven false but continues to be
preached by socialist as being truth, to keep the process alive). "Subjects who profess to
some religious affiliation express more prejudice than those who do
not.... people who reject organized religion are less prejudiced than
those who accept it." "Prejudiced subjects tend to report a
relatively harsh and more threatening type of home discipline which was
experienced as arbitrary by the child.... The status‑anxiety so often
found in families of prejudiced subjects is reflected in the adoption of
a rigid and externalized set of values:.... [The purpose of Adorno's
research, which is used by education (the NEA and other educational
organization like it) and the UN, was] to explain
prejudice in order to eradicate it. Eradication means
re-education." (Adorno) Re-education means washing
from the brain any way of thinking (the thesis way of
thinking) which inhibits or blocks the synthesis way of
thinking, i.e. the dialectical process from being put into practice (praxis)―Diaprax.
The thesis structure of 'prejudice' is
therefore perceived, dialectically, as the initiator and sustainer of
nationalism and therefore social (global) disharmony. This condition can only be
overcome by bringing religion into "convergence" with
synthesis based fields of thought (to "grow" the church upon a
synthesis foundation of sensuousness and human
reasoning). "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)
I realize there are those who would not
accept the three levels of the dialectic, noting that Hegel did not use
the words thesis, antithesis, synthesis, himself. Yet, to make the
process of deceit easier to understand, I will use
them since they correlate to the cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor
domains, steps which are used in education to move all participants from a
thesis position (thinking and acting for God or the family, under
God's or parents authority, accountable to God or parents for ones
thoughts and actions) through an antithesis condition
(thinking and acting for oneself, under personal authority, accountable
to no one) to arrive at a
synthesis
condition (thinking and acting for humanity, under socialist authority,
accountable to the social cause, to humanity),
i.e. from facts, to feelings which counter facts, to justification of
feelings which question the facts, i.e., from what I "can" and "can not"
do (because God and parent "said so"), to what I "ought" to be able to do, to what I 'can do' if I negate the
'can not' by finding
unity in thought (unity with others with the same 'ought')
resulting in a common 'we ought to be able to' and then putting that
collective ought-thought into social
praxis against any authority which initiates and sustains the
'can not,' thereby initiating and sustaining the 'can to' of humanity
(the "can to," "can do" attitude can negate the "can not" of God and parent only if
"We are working for Us"), i.e. from being under authority, to individuality, to
socialism, i.e. from being obedient, to being rebellious, to being
revolutionary, i.e. from being righteous minded, to being
sensuous
minded, to being 'rational' minded, i.e. from being "negative," to
being neutral, to being "positive," i.e. from faith, to feelings,
to sight, i.e. from conscience, to confusion, to consensus, etc., all of which will be explained later as well.
The main thing to remember about the dialectical process is its demand upon
the use of the sensuous nature of man, the use of 'here-and-now' experiences
of life to
guide man away from righteousness as being a way of thinking and acting,
guiding man away from any 'there-and-then' control
over that which is common to mankind, his 'here-and-now' sensual nature.
(The fear of lose of that which is sensual or lose of that which
produces
sensuousness thus 'drives' a person in their decision unless
they are lead by that which is greater than this world and
sensuousness, God and righteousness. If you gave
anything in this life that you are afraid of losing, then you fear man.
If you fear losing anything after this life, then you fear God.
One fear is towards the material world, sensuousness, the other
its toward the spiritual world, righteousness.)
"Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality,
as human sensuous activity." (Lukács) The children
of Israel were to inculcate to their children the "there-and-then"
history of God leading their parents out of Egypt into the wilderness,
their children making it through the wilderness to the promised Land
(only two of the original number leaving Egypt, because of their faith
in God, made it to the promised land , the rest dying in the wilderness
due to their unfaithfulness to God, i.e. only their children making it
to the promised land), to help them and their children, and their
children's children, etc. overcome the temptations of the "here-and-now"
promised land. We are to do the same today with our children and
the Word of God.
The scriptures tell us: "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."
(Colossians 3:2) while the dialectical process influences us to set our
affections on things below, "on the things of the earth," in the
'here-and-now' "sensuous world," for the betterment of
mankind. (More on thesis, antithesis,
synthesis, later.)
Without the sensual, sensitization, communitization, democratization, conscietization,
habitualization, socialization, socialist control of humanity could not
become a reality (the Antichrist could not rule the world).
"The dialectic will go on until we reach the
absolute whole, that which includes everything within itself, and so cannot possibly depend upon anything
outside itself." (Beiser)
"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." [With our knowledge of human
behavior, i.e. the manipulability of human feelings, we have the]
"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)
"Before effective plans for change can be made the present
state of affairs must be defined as accurately as
possible." With this information, the
person's resentment toward Godly or parental restraint upon his
sensuality, the proper environment can be prepared with which to
liberate the individual from his submission to authority, help him to
think for himself, and then help re-educate him (program him) into a
socialist (dialectical) mindset. All this being done with his inclination towards
sensual satisfaction. "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 or to avoid decreased need satisfaction, and 3.
'augmentation' in the possibilities of needs satisfaction." (McGregor
in Benne) "The more the group
members become converted to democracy [developed toward their common-ism
of sensual satisfaction and their questioning of authority] and learn to play the roles of democracy as
followers or leaders [facilitate the 'change process' in themselves
and others in the praxis of attaining collective sensual
satisfaction in questioning authority through role-playing democracy,
i.e. experiencing common-ism in common sensuous experience to
where the emotions become attached to (and liberated by) "group"
experience and no longer subject to (and suppressed by) "higher
authority"], the more can
the power of the democratic leader shift to other ends than converting
the group members [to helping the group members to put their common
quest for further development and improvement of (the augmentation
of) sensual satisfaction and the negation of any authority
condition which restrains human nature into social
action, i.e. putting their thoughts (now driven by their feelings) into social action, i.e. their
theories (opinions) into social practice, all three being the same, i.e.
acting out spontaneously their sensual nature only limited by their
desire not to limit farther experiences for themselves and
others, i.e. social praxis]."
"Groups and organizations should be helped to define and redefine those
areas of life in which common values and standards are necessary and
where efforts to build common out of contrasting beliefs and practices
are required." (Benne)
By
simply uniting sensuously motivated thought and spontaneous action, any
"anti-democratic," patriarchal way of thinking and acting is momentarily
negated. When a persons internal
sensuousness or wanting
is liberated to respond naturally to the external gratifying
object in the environment which stimulated the wanting, given freedom to
relate with the object which stirred the wanting in the first place, a
natural reaction to approach and relate with the gratifying object is
put into motion. Whatever the object of gratification―the object
which triggered the desire is, when present within the environment, it
automatically triggers a reaction to approach it so as to continue the
pleasure it liberates within the person. When this is done without
the person having to think about any judgment for his actions, the mind
naturally cuts off, by treating as irrelevant, any restraint upon the
stimulus-response cycle. The consequence of behavior being negated
in the sensual object-sensual pleasure relationship of the moment―the
authority condition not coming into the mind in the sensual moment,
being overshadowed by the unifying of theory and practice. “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 in Maslow, Maslow)
“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:
Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program, Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969)
As in the garden in Eden, not until after you have eaten the 'forbidden
fruit,' having enjoyed the dialectical 'moment,' do you realize that
something has 'changed.' Righteousness has been spoiled with
sensuousness,
sensuousness having become the standard with which to
evaluate good from evil from. But then there is the conscience.
What do you do about the conscience? In Diaprax that has to be
negated as well. Consensus, i.e. social praxis ("If
it makes sense―if it is senses based, and there is no perceived or
noticeable harm in doing it, and everybody is in agreement―willing and
wanting―to do it, then it must be OK.") will do the job quite well.
We are all made in the image of God with the ability to evaluate, we can
either evaluate with God' righteousness or evaluate with
our sensuousness, that is our choice. We can choose either
life or death, giving our life to Christ, accepting and walking in his
righteousness, dying daily to our sensuous nature and live,
or continuing to live in our sensuous nature, keeping it as our
standard of life, and die. "There is a way that
seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of
death."
Proverbs 16:25 Diaprax is the "ways of death ... that
seemeth right," it is our human nature put into social praxis.
When man perceives himself to be right in his own eyes he is dead in his
sins. “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)
Without
the commonality of sensuousness, from which to build upon, righteousness will continue to
divide man with an above-below, good-evil, right-wrong, spirit-flesh,
God-man, Creator-created, dualistic structure of thought and action and
the dialectical process will remain suppressed or even negated,
sensuousness isolated
to individual thought only, with no social action or praxis to
unite mankind upon in the cause of negating righteousness as the
only approved way of thinking and acting. For the process to be successful, its
use of human sensuousness must come
between the above-below way of thinking and acting, come between God and
man, come between the father and his family, come between the husband and his wife,
come between the parents
and their children, come between the citizens and their representative,
come between the
citizens and the constitution which limits the power of government, come
between the citizen and
the police, etc. turning the latter against the former (turning man, his
family, his wife, his children, his representative, the police, etc.
against the patriarchal
system).
I am not necessarily pro-constitution, knowing
the history of its making and the Masonic overtones dispersed within it.
For example "We the people" (a dialectic concept) which even
Patrick Henry saw as treasonous, should have been "We the States,"
and "a more perfect union" (dialectic concept which Karl Marx
advocated) was used by Abraham Lincoln to justify war against the
Southern States for their actions to restore States rights, rights which
were being usurped by the Federal government.
Lincoln stated in his inaugural address: "I hold that in
contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of
these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in
the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert
that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for
its own termination....
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition
that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the
history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the
Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association
in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of
Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all
the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it
should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And
finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and
establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.'
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion
can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and
ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of
violence within any State or States against the authority of the
United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to
circumstances." (Abraham
Lincoln , first Inaugural address. Monday, March 4, 1861). “...
according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the
biological-organic nature of Eros itself.”
(Marcuse)
In effect Lincoln negated the right of the colonies to declare
their independence from England (since any social contract in the past,
which binds people together, is binding for life, since it sustains the
cause of human relationships), thereby effectively removing any right of
the colonies to succeed
from England, based upon the freedom of the conscience. Since
governments do not have "a provision in its organic law for its own
termination," any such action would go against "the fundamental
law of all national governments" and therefore be considered
"insurrectionary or revolutionary."
Therefore, in harmony with
dialectical thinking, no union among men (be it covenant or contract
made through consensus, whether in the community, the church, the
county, the state, the nation, and eventually the global community) can
be terminated, not even if it is done to restore the citizens inalienable rights (the need for socialist
unity being greater than the right of the individual to have freedom of the
conscience), 'human rights' (sensual based unity) superseding all other
rights. (Remember, most original states had State Churches up
until 1833, Massachusetts being the last State to hold onto the original
colonial practice. Religious freedom and freedom of the conscience
were the driving force to the founding of this nation, not socialist
unity; the re-writing of history is now negating the original
intent of the framers of the Constitution, i.e. liberty (under God, i.e.
not by fraternity), i.e. freedom from governmental control over the
conscience).
All union with the world is mans effort to be god.
"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."
(Wheat) Even the
Transformational Marxist, Max Horkheimer noted that the true source for the
framing of the constituent (despite dialectical influences) was a
"religious source" (from God who is greater than human nature,
i.e. thus inalienable rights―righteousness) rather than a secular source
(from man as god, i.e. human rights―sensuousness). "For the men who made the Constitution there was no
principle that did not derive its authority from a religious
source." (Horkheimer, Eclipse)
But reality always exposes the dialectical process for what
it is, evil (unrighteousness). As Freud noted:
“‘... 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)
“Dionysus does not observe the limit, but overflows;
for him the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” “Dionysus affirms the dialectical unity of the great
instinctual opposites: reunifies male and female, Self and Others, life
and death.” "Eros is fundamentally a desire for
union with objects in the world."
(Brown) 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.”’ "...‘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’." (Drucker)
There is always a dark and sinister current flowing just below the
surface of the dialectical process. It is called "abomination."
It is
the bill of rights which rescues the
citizens from Governmental tyranny. It is those rights and the
limiting of the power of government by breaking it up into three
distinct and separate parts, giving the
family the greatest amount of freedom in which to raise the next
generation, which I defend. It is those rights which the
dialectical process must negate with the praxis of 'human
rights' if world unity is to become a reality, i.e. the system of
righteousness and chastening negated by the praxis of
sensuousness and permissiveness.
"To deny rights to 'democratic' leadership in
influencing the course of current change is, in effect, to sell out
control of required changes to non-democratic leadership."
(Benne) “The best way to destroy democratic society would be by
way of industrial authoritarianism, which is anti-democratic in the deepest
sense.” (Maslow, Maslow)
Private business, i.e. free market enterprise, negates socialism.
Washington warned of the dangers which consolidation of powers
would bring:
"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) Unity for the sake of sensual unity results in the
despotism of social-ism, common-ism, global-ism (consensus
replacing true representation, departments replacing true
representation, unaccountability replacing true representation,
sensuousness replacing true representation, which results in an
unrestrained government of sensuousness replacing a restrained
government limited by the conscience of the representative and those he
represents).
Abraham Maslow's works exude this common-ist ideology.
He believed the role of man was
"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, Maslow)
He wrote: "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) In his journals he
wrote: "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.'" "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.)" "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, 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 & conative history." "For Marx, man's being & consciousness are determined by the structure of
his society." "For Freud, society only influences his being by greater or lesser
repression of his innate biology." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it
out. And of course, vice versa." "How can we teach everyone to have the “scientific” or empirical attitude
about everything." "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)
After speaking at a Catholic School in Southern California in 1962,
Abraham Maslow wrote in his journal: "They shouldn't
applaud me. They should attack me. If they were fully aware of what I was doing,
they would attack." ibid.
Only with the collective sensuousness of the
'grass roots,' "the soul of the people" (the sensual
psyche of the people), can the 'closed' system or righteousness be overcome. "Every class lacks the breadth of
soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary
boldness which flings at its adversary
['flings' at God, the parent, i.e. any authority figure who demands
righteousness which
restrains
sensuousness] the
defiant phrase; ‘I am nothing and I should be everything.'" (Marx, Critique)
"Theory becomes a material force when
it grips the masses." "Marx clearly defined the conditions in which a relation
between theory and practice becomes possible." "It is not enough that
thought ['sensuousness'] should seek to realize itself; reality
[action] must also strive towards
thought ['sensuousness']." (Introduction to
Marx, Critique)
"The relation between
theory and practice becomes even closer the more the conception
is vitally and radically innovatory ['revolutionary']
and opposed to old ways of
thinking." (Gramsci) The more the persons feelings
toward restraint is liberated and given freedom of expression the more
he will work for the cause of all in the liberation of mankind from
parental and Godly restraint, liberating mankind from a life subject to
righteousness to a life of sensuousness, i.e. a life where
man can be himself.
"Marx reproached Hegel (and, in even stronger terms, Hegel's successors who had
reverted to Kant and Fichte) with his failure to overcome the duality of thought
and being, of theory and practice, of subject and object [keeping thought
and action divided by not acting upon thought and not thinking about why one acts
the way they do―a subtle and complex process]."
(Lukács) It is not enough to make human reasoning equal to
faith (as Kant did), human reasoning must be put into social action in
the annihilation of faith (sensuousness must negate
'non-sensuousness'). The sensuous person perceives faith as
"non-sensuousness," as
foolishness. Jesus Christ warned us of the last days and the effect
this process would have upon the souls of men. "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. And then shall
many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because
iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall
endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matthew 24:9-13: "... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall
he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b
"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
A lengthy but important explanation is needed here
concerning "collaboration ... across lines of 'theory and practice'"
(which is necessary if American is to be debase under the dialectical
curse), the
source being a training manual from the
National Training Laboratories. There are 10 Federally funded
Marxist training camps in America today (the first one was started in
1947). They are the result of Transformational Marxist's, men like Kurt Lewin
who's work on group dynamics, force
field analysis, unfreezing, moving, and refreezing, etc.
His work is key to the process of change. These "training" camps
are centered around Kurt Lewin's 'change' methods (along with
Moreno role-playing as well as other psycho-socialists) which he
developed during the 30's and the 40's after coming to America from
Germany in 1933, coming as a Marxist
social-engineer fleeing Fascism in Germany to continue his grand
Marxist-socialist project on American housewives and children―using human feelings
(sensitivity training) in producing and
sustaining 'change' (common-ism, social-ism, common-unity-ism), helping
make America what it is today, all being done for the
'purpose' of social harmony and world peace (equality and justice) based upon sensual
unity (unity of, by, and for sensuality―consensus).
Back in 1970, Jane Howard wrote about the effects these men
were already having on the institutional church:
"One could make a life work of visiting all the churches that have
been affected by sensitivity training." (Howard) Kenneth Benne wrote:
"... the need for collaboration across lines of divergent action
interests in a given situation requiring change, individuals and groups
must be helped to see that the task is to discover and construct a
common interest out of the conflicting interests which they bring to the
interpretation of the situation and to the direction of changes in it."
"... collaboration required is across lines of 'theory' and
'practice'." "Neither of these modes of collaboration, between
persons and groups with different interests in change and between
'theorists' and 'practitioners', comes 'naturally' to people." "Every
change operation must, in this sense, be conceived as an educational
enterprise. It is important that this educational requirement of
democratic engineering be interpreted dynamically instead of
statically [with feelings and not facts, sensuously not righteously]." "... all who collaborate must be trained toward an
experimental attitude and a 'research' approach toward social problems."
"... all educational practitioners, children and laymen participating in
educational change become experimental in their attitude toward
relationship problems faced and 'research-minded' in their search for
and evaluation of solutions ..." "... democratic change must be
anti-authoritarian." "Democratic persons must become skilled in
inhibiting their tendencies to defend and promote ideas which are in
need of objective [sensual-rational]
evaluation and reformulation. It is important that
persons achieve sensitivity in assessing the sources of influence upon
themselves and to differentiate between dependence upon status figures
and dependence upon fact-oriented and task-oriented influences."
(Benne)
The theme of common interest (sensual interests)
is the theme of the dialectical process. Henry
Nelson
Wieman believed that "... the
greatest good for all people could be achieved if the many individual interests
could be creatively organized so as to function as a single interest. This
creative interest is not to fulfill any end or desire that we already possess,
but to expand our consciousness and understanding."
"Religious experience teaches that this is not a nice world, and that God is not
a nice God. And God is too awful and too terrible and too destructive to our
foolish little plans to be nice."
(Wieman) Wieman believed that "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have
any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs
about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing
desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in
human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human
existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious
inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend." (Nugent)
Paul Tillich wrote: "A stranger, even if his name were God,
who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because
nobody can stand him." (Wheat)
Martin Luther King
Jr. who compared and contrasted Wieman and Tillich concluded that
neither men carried the dialectical process to it ultimate conclusion―synthesis.
"Wieman's ultimate pluralism fails to satisfy the rational demand for unity. Tillich's ultimate monism swallows up finite individuality in the unity of
being. A more adequate view is to hold a quantitative pluralism and a
qualitative monism [different facts, opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints but
same feelings of resentment toward restraints upon ones carnal nature―"giving
themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh"]. In this way both oneness and manyness are preserved."
(King, Abstract) "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."
Jude 7, 8
It is the
inclusion of sensuousness, the inclusion of affective domain
in the learning experience, where feelings ("sensuous needs," "sense
perception," and "sense experience") become the foundation from which to
determine the value or worth of life (where human deviance and depravity
coming into
conflict with righteousness makes the whole process "come to life").
"The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual ‘Pandora's Box'
[a box full of evils]." "It is in this ‘box' that the most
influential controls are to be found." "The affective domain contains
the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and
ultimately the life of an entire people" "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." "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." (Krathwohl, Bloom, Affective)
All certified educators are trained on how to use this book in the
classroom "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are
not shared by the parents and guardians" which produces
"conflict and tension between parents and children" when the
children are "separated from earlier environmental conditions"
where the "peer group has a greater effect on the students than
do ... parents." (Krathwohl, Bloom, Affective)
It is through the use of the affective domain, the sensuousness of human
nature (which is limited in the thesis environment), that
rapid social 'change' can be initiated and sustained. Only in the
synthesis environment can permanent 'change' (sustainable
development, continue improvement, etc.) become reality for
both the individual and society, where feelings, not facts rule the day,
where
sensuousness, not righteousness, directs the individual and
society in making life decisions (in thoughts and in action, in
theory and in practice). Only in the synthesis
environment can the thesis condition and its effects upon
the individual and society be negated (washed from the brain).
"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a
vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations
be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to
create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate
the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with
new ideas. If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some
future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach
them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the
past and know only what is irrelevant.
Through
everyone's participation within the synthesis environment,
socialism is liberated from the restraints of capitalism, as
sensuousness is liberated from the restraints of righteousness.
(Not that capitalism is of itself righteous. Capitulation, the
backbone of capitalism,
simply means, being subject to another's will. I am writing here of
systems, not how it is used. There is a difference in means and
outcomes. Man, when he uses God's system (capitulation) still uses it for his own gain since he is by
his sensuous nature vain. He can not help but but be this way since his nature is
dialectical. This is why the process works when man takes his affections off of
God. Man, being temporal and sensual, can therefore be tempted
while God, being spiritual and righteous, can not be tempted (we can
only attempt to tempt him by using his word for our own vain purpose,
expecting him to bless our actions because of his love for us). Only
by living in faith in Christ is man able to live by God's system, God's
Spirit, in agreement with His Word, directing man and God's righteousness being imputed to man by God so that no
man can boast―no man can systemize
God and then by reasoning become equal with him.) Without the
revolutionary condition in the classroom, without the experience of
sensual justification (the uniting of theory and
social action―praxis), the
thesis condition could not be overcome, i.e. without the
sensuousness, the thesis condition could not be
negated, and the 'purpose' of humanity could not be realized.
"The goal of revolutionary activity was understood as the unifying of
theory and praxis." (Jay) It was understood that once the
revolutionary condition is experienced by the next generation, the
process of 'change' would be difficult if not impossible to stop.
"The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make
themselves felt–but it would be difficult to reverse the process once
begun." (Bennis)
Diaprax is the dialectical process put into praxis,
where common, or natural feelings and thoughts against human
restraints, discovered through
dialogue (everyone participating in sharing their feelings and
thoughts, i.e. their opinions), are put into social action (when a
common opinion and practice is 'scientifically discovered' from the many
opinions and practices, as a theory and practice, and is
then put into social action: praxis)
against the condition (the "unnatural environment") which 'initiates'
and sustains the system of higher authority which restrains human feelings,
thoughts, and actions.
One way of thinking is 'closed' in that a higher authority makes
decisions on what is right and wrong, the rest of the ways of thinking
are 'open' in that feelings and thoughts are progressively used in
'liberating' (or attempting to 'liberate') a person from the 'closed'
system and its restraints against the 'open' system of opinions, i.e.
thoughts with feelings and feelings with thoughts (theories).
"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)
"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." "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."
"A feeling of complete freedom and a heightened group identification are
frequently more important at a particular stage of re-education than
learning not to break specific rules." (Kurt Lewin and Paul Grabbe
"Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of
New Values" The Journal of Social Issues, 1:3:56-65 August, 1945,
in Benne) This is reflected in the words used by dialectical minded
people such as community, human reasoning, consensus, etc. Thus
"the
groups provide the right gemeinschaft for the
angsts of our
zeitgeist." (Moreno in Howard)
Gemeinschaft
(community) differs from Gesellschaft (civic) as Verstand (understanding by command)
differs from
Vernunft (understanding by reasoning). "'Vernunft' must regain
the field from which it had been driven by the triumph of 'Verstand.' "
(Jay) In other words, man's ever changing spectrum of feelings (the
temporal) must triumph over the restraining commands (the spiritual) of
parents.
Thus, while there is no 'continuum' or spectrum
of 'changingness' in God's way of thinking (no gray zone;
"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), there is in
man's way of thinking and acting. Therefore, before the 'closed'
system of God, since all have participated in the 'open' system of
'change,' following after their own lusts, "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God;" (Romans 3:23). Period.
In man's way of thinking he finds what he has in common with
the environment around him, i.e.
looking for that which is similar with the world around him and his nature, so that
he can justify his nature, not
understanding that he can not justify himself, i.e. he can not justify
his nature (period!), thus he
perceives contrast (anything counter to his nature) as being antithesis to his nature, while with
God, contrast between right and wrong is what separates God from man
(man being created, becomes only sensually 'driven' when separated from God, spiritually dead, only of the earth) and
man from God (God being the creator, the provider of life,
not only in body, but in spirit and mind and soul and heart, i.e. making man a
living soul, dependent upon God for all good things, good and
righteousness coming from God and not from man). But man can
not fully understand the
contrast between spirit and flesh, righteousness and
wickedness, by his own reasoning
abilities (his justifying of the spiritual limited to his senses),
therefore he turns to that which he has in common with the world, he
turns to his
own nature, sensuousness to gain understanding of the spiritual
to 'serve it' or to annihilate it based upon what he can gain
from it, i.e. filtering everything through the sensual,
even his efforts to escape the sensual, adding human feelings to God to
make him sensual so that he can worship God with his carnal sensuality.
Man is trapped in the sensual,
i.e. his own vanity, without God's imputation (God's love is not
vain since God has nothing to gain from man), man's love which is
vain (man is always 'driven' by what he can gain from the
situation, his love, being sensually based, is not able to be anything
else but vain, even in his best moments or with his best motives;
for example J. L. Moreno, the "father" of role-playing―which you have
more than likely participated in sometime in your life―makes man's love,
when carried to its dialectical end, very clear: "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.'"
Moreno―just
make sure that if you are over 35 you are of social worth, i.e. a
socialist of importance as Moreno viewed himself when he preached and
taught this ideology while in his 60's). "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 In contrast, God's love is
revealed in his righteousness. "And be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness, which is of the law [which only exposes mans
vanity and wickedness, mans love being sensual, temporal, and therefore
vain, turning God's law into man's laws for personal gain], but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith:" Philippians 3:9. God's love is spiritual,
eternal, merciful, and gracious. Man's love takes that which is
God's and uses it for his own gain, breaking the first commandment by
breaking any or all of the rest by making himself god, directing his own
steps according to his own understanding, engraving an image of God
(sensual) which is not the image of God (whom no man has seen―spiritual)
and worshiping the works of his own mind and hands and not giving his
worship to God, taking that (praise and worship which is due to God for
himself) which is not his to take, using the Lords name for your own
purpose, which is not his to use as he pleases for his own gain, using
the rest which comes from God for his own gain, dishonoring the office
of his parents, which is given by God, for his own gain, taking a life
which is not his to take for his own gain, having sexual relationship
with another (even in the mind) for his own gain, which is not his to
take, taking from another that which is not his to take, for his own
gain, taking the reputation of another, by bearing false witness, for
his own gain, which is not his to take, etc. In all things, man's
love is based upon sensual pleasure, always taking that which is not his
to take, for his own gain (in himself, he can not understand any other
way). Man, in himself, is depraved and can not feel, think, or
behave any other way. Apart from God's
righteousness (imputed by
Christ upon all who believe upon Him) man can not escape his own
depravity, his
sensuousness, i.e. his love of pleasure and the things of
this world, even though he might try to disguise it in his 'service' to
God and the church. "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight
in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams." 1 Samuel 15:22 Apart from God's love, mercy
and grace, man has no hope in escaping his sensual nature and his love
for the things of this world and therefore God's judgment upon him.
It is here (within man's vanity, masquerading as love) that the dialectical
process becomes man's only tool for defining and justifying his
behavior―justifying his feelings, his thoughts, and his actions,
according to his "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and
"sense experience," (Karl Marx), even 'helping' him turn God's
words into a tool (interpreting it and extrapolating it) for his own
self justification (via. human reasoning and human works, i.e. "Look
what 'We' have done for you, even doing it in your name.").
God's contrast is between righteousness and wickedness (spiritual),
while man's contrast is between pain and pleasure (sensual), which
can not comprehend God's contrast, righteousness being perceived
as 'pain' to the sensual (perceived as being non-sensual
and therefore irrational, i.e. perceiving those who
intentionally live in righteousness as living counter to pleasure, not
being 'driven' by the sensual they are therefore perceived as living in a life of pain―a
life void of pleasure―perceived as
being masochistic, i.e. and therefore the God who they serve as being
sadistic;
"Both the sadistic and the masochistic trends are caused by the inability of
the isolated individual to stand alone and his need for a symbiotic
relationship to overcome this aloneness." [Man could] "not take the last logical step, to give up 'God' and
to establish a concept of man as a being who is alone in the world, but
who can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and
with nature [a union not based upon 'sin,' since according to
humanists, sin is a transcendental idea (beyond human experience and
knowledge and therefore 'negative' to nature), but unity based upon
human nature, and therefore 'positive' to nature―thus
Karl Marx's concept of creating at home or in the home a sinful world, i.e. bringing
the world system into the home and making it a 'normal' home, i.e. a socialist
home; "Not feeling
at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a
sinful world in its own home." Marx, The Holy Family;
before going any farther I must explain that Marx's "Critical
Criticism" is today's "Question everything," with the social
'purpose' of negating the traditional home environment and its
faith, obedience, chastening, and
righteousness, in "hand-to-hand
combat." "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; if it does not become social in praxis it can not be
successful; Marx wrote: "If the 1789 French Revolution was a failure
it was because the most numerous part of the mass, the part distinct
from the bourgeoisie, did not have its real interest in the principle of
the Revolution [the annihilation of the "bourgeoisie,"
the negation of traditional patriarchal family], did not have
a revolutionary principle of its own [had not become "stakeholders"
in the social praxis of replacing the patriarchal, 'ridged,'
'closed' system with the heresiarchal, 'change,' 'open' system], but
only an 'idea', and hence only an object of momentary enthusiasm and
only seeming uplift." Marx, The Holy Family)]."
Fromm, Escape―Our
dictionaries carry the influence of this Freudian ideology: Masochism
being defined as "a
sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or
humiliation especially by a love object;" Sadism "a sexual
perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical
or mental pain on ... a love object" Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(emphasis added) In other words, by a dialectical definition, a
masochist is anyone who willfully obeys the commands of their parent, God, etc.,
even when the commands interfere with their natural, carnal (sexual) desire
(according to Freud all desires, including children's desires, are sexual), and
a sadist is anyone, i.e. a parent, God, etc., who places a commands upon another
person, commands which block their satisfying of a natural, carnal (sexual)
desire). "This
then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you,
that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." John 1:5
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it
not." John 1:5 "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 "For
ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as
children of light:" Ephesians 5:8
"Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not
darkness." Luke 11:35 In other words make sure that it
is God who is directing your steps and not your own sensual
nature, your own carnal desires. Not until man has no hope, can he have hope. Not
until he can no longer justify himself, justify his feelings, his
thoughts, and his actions, can he find justification. Not until he
is dead to himself, can he find life. Not until he gives up all
that he has, can he receive all that is good. In God. But he
can not give up on hope, no longer justify himself, die to himself, give
up all that he has without first receiving his hope from God, receive
his justification from God, finding life in God, receiving all that is
good from God. Not until man has no hope (sensual), can he have
hope (spiritual). Not until he can no longer justify himself:
justify his feelings, his thoughts, and his actions (sensual), can he
find justification (spiritual). Not until he is dead to himself
(sensual), can he find life (spiritual). Not until he gives up all
that he has (sensual), can he receive all that is good (spiritual). "For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How
then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except
they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that
preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who
hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:13-17
In other words, not until man gives up evaluating what God
says, evaluating by his understanding according to sight (sensually), and accepts what
God says, by faith, can he
have hope, justification, and life that is eternal, evaluating
what man says and does (temporal) by God's Spirit and His Word (spiritually).
"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 8:5 "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 Ghost 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. For who hath known the mind of the
Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1
Corinthians 2: 12-16 But this all begins with childlike
faith. "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." Matthew 18: 3, 4 Like standing at an open door,
looking out from a well lit room into total darkness, fearful that the
next step will plummet you to your death, can you take that step, unless
you believe God who calls you to to take it, is a good God, and will not
harm you. Then you will know that the "well lit room" was the
darkness of the world, and the "total darkness" was the light of life
and the fear was the fear of loss of the pleasures of this life and the
"goodness" of God is the joy unspeakable and the peace that no man can
understand, which can only come from God. Not until you are converted, and as a humble child
obeying his loving father, can you know true life, God's peace and
joy. "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 I "For
since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by
the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath
prepared for him that waiteth for him." Isaiah 64:4
As a note of precaution, trusting in man is a major concern.
"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;
It is better to trust
in the Lord than to put confidence in man. Psalms 118:8 But
trusting in
God is not a concern, except for the carnal. "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body,
what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?" "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat?
or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For
after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father
knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first
the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be
added unto you." Matthew 6:25, 31-33
Without God, man is only accountable for his actions to himself, based
upon what he thinks is of value to himself. Therefore the value of
life is cheapened, being only sensually based and measured by personal
gain (increased or sustained pleasure or avoidance of pain). Pain
or the absence of pleasure, along the spectrum of worth and not of
worth, then justifies the taking of life, his own or someone else's,
when pain makes life unbearable (even though he may say it would be too
painful for the other person, i.e. life would not be of any worth to
themselves or the other person―the value of life becoming subjective,
they are really removing life for their own gain in pleasure, call it for social
cause all they want, that is just an act of denial, it is actually
just for themselves). This is where trust fails, when avoiding pain and
approaching pleasure becomes the end itself (whether individually or
socially). Dreams and violence are united on this spectrum of hope
and despair. A person's life having little or no value when preventing
pleasure or the imagined potential for pleasure (in other words
producing pain or potential pain―emotional pain) in others.
Therefore trusting in man is a dangerous proposition. Your life
could depend upon your vigilance for life itself, yours, and
everybody else's (including the unborn, the elderly, the weak, and the
thesis minded, the antithesis minded, and
the synthesis minded person as well). Someone has to
rescue man from his own demise. Its like trying to stop
rebellious children from destroying everything around them while they
try to destroy you so they can have their way, who can't understand,
because of the
sensuousness, their blindness to the truth, that what
they are really doing is destroying themselves. But being
intoxicated with the sensuousness of the dialectical 'moment'
they can not understand. "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 Any truth you tell those
who have sold their soul to the system of Diaprax will simply
be trampled under foot as they turn to rend you. "Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they
trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Matthew 7:6
Yet even with man's best effort to serve or not to serve 'God'
(or gods) above
him, he can not shake his praxis of making a god or god's out of his
own imagination, using the dialectical process to justify himself (as
being god) in doing so (philosophy only leads man to another god of his
own making, the god of his sensual desires fighting against
his dissatisfactions toward what is). Whether carved in stone or worshiped in the mind
(in the imagination) the first commandment is broken with the use of
the second. Any god, be it mankind himself (society), he 'makes,'
he makes. The very praxis of evaluating, putting into
praxis, and justification makes him god. Therefore, no matter
what he does or how he does it, in the end, he is god, deciding for
himself what is good and what is evil. By creating and worshiping
god's out of his own imagination, whether of his own nature or not, he
can only worship his own
sensual, carnal nature, deceived into believing he serves another god or no god
at all. Without God revealing himself to man there is not true
knowledge of God, only a desire to know "Who or what created this world
we live in and who or what created us?" While all men have
this desire, including the atheist, humanists, communist (though they
would deny it, their actions betray them, i.e. they worship something,
be it Marx, Freud, Darwin, society, evolution, 'change,' the dialectical
system, etc. all
leading to sensuousness in thought and in action,
in theory and in practice). Without God revealing
himself, all that man has going for him is his sensuousness and
imagination. (But if Diaprax turns people off when they hear
preaching and teaching, how can they hear the word of God, which comes
by preaching, when they have accepted Diaprax as their way, their truth,
and their life?) With the God of light revealed, condemning man's way
of thinking and acting as darkness, all that man has left is the act of
justifying
himself, his nature, his thoughts, and his actions as being the
light, i.e. defining whatever brings him pleasure as being good, thus justifying his use of the dialectical process ("enlightenment")
in justifying his fallen nature. "And no marvel; for Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians
11:14 Once you place your feelings and thoughts (and the feelings
and thoughts of man, i.e. trusting in the opinions of men) as being
equal with faith in God, you have lost your faith in God.
Immanuel Kant, in
Critique of Pure Reason,
did exactly this. His separate but 'equal' concept of faith and
human 'reasoning' justified to the socialist their thoughts and actions
in the negation of any faith which is not 'reasonable.'
When you place your feelings and thoughts or another man's feelings and
thoughts between you and God, God is no longer the light to your path,
directing your steps, although, being deceived by Satan, you might 'feel'
or 'think' he is.
"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself:
it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b
Left to his own nature, mankind always follows the pathway which leads
to Sodom and Gomorrah (where the "contemporary" church always
finds itself). "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom;
give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what
purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I
am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I
delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand,
to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an
abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of
assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a
trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth
your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many
prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood."
Isaiah 1:10- 15
Diaprax is simply the act of worship of the creation.
Diaprax is the praxis of man worshiping humanity, man and nature
united as one. Consensus
being the worship of the human sensuous experience of 'oneness,'
i.e. completeness of self in the world (self-actualization), i.e. man making a
name for himself (as at the tower of Babel), which is sin.
Even those who would say "It is not about
self, but about others, or all of us working together for God/mankind," deceive
themselves, and all who listen to and follow them in the praxis
of their deceit and lies. "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."
Jeremiah 9:5 "Lie not
one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his
deeds [the Greek word for "deeds" is praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge
after the image of him that created him."
Colossians 3:9, 10
"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." Ephesians 4:22-24.
Diaprax is the spirit of darkness 'helping' man to 'justify' himself as being
a god (which is Gnosticism), working the works of god (the giver of
pleasure, all that is good, thereby receiving pleasure from those who
are doing good, i.e. those giving pleasure to others), even 'in the name
of Jesus.' Unless you are dead to self (in all things, which you
can not do in yourself nor with the 'help' of others) and alive in
Christ (His work of redemption, His righteousness, His Word, and His
Holy Spirit in you), you are god (religion only making the deceit
greater).
Being dead to self
(as a minister friend, James Borchert, puts it, "dead
psychologically," dead to your "vanity") and alive in Christ (giving
your
life, all that you have and desire to have to God) is the only way you
can be saved from the worship of self (sensuousness) and judgment
by God (Spirit). There is no other way. "Neither
is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Until you daily, first thing, confess that you can not not sin (and
receive God's approval, i.e. that you can not not sin) and die to your
ideas, dreams, wishes and hopes and ask him for direction in all
feelings, thoughts, and actions, giving him your day, i.e. the day he
has made, giving him praise and thanksgiving, you can not not sin, doing
your own 'thing' even "in the name of Jesus." "This is the day
which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."
Psalm 118:24 (The carnal mind, under Satan's influence, winces at
that verse and can not speak it with certainty.)
Instead of sensuousness 'driving' us (us in the
individual not collective sense), even doing "amazing works" for
God, we are led by God in all things (setting our mind on things above,
walking by His Spirit, and not setting our mind on the things of the
world, walking by our flesh). We no longer live life with
sensuousness as a 'necessity' but now live through God's Spirit of
love, power, and sound mind, our love of sensuousness, lusting after the
pleasures of this life, having been put to death through
God's righteousness ("imputed by Christ to all who
believe), now living a life of peace and joy which only He can
provide. This is something the world can never understand or come
to know on its own ("Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of
the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7 because learning,
dialectically, is always found in the process of 'change'; "To study something
means to study it in the process of change; that is the dialectical
method's basic demand." Vygotsky), because it is 'driven' by the
sensuousness (pleasures) of the flesh, blinded by its temporal
perception (not able to see the truth external to sense experience, i.e.
not able to see the full picture, but thinking, i.e. feeling that it
does), and fooled by its own wisdom (dialectical wisdom, comparing
itself with itself, thereby justifying itself) which is the pride of
life (as the preacher said, "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity." Ecclesiastes).
Thinking dialectically, man's only avenue from evil to good
is via 'good' works (social action), where human action becomes the only
means of salvation. Where man's duty
is to serve himself or mankind, i.e. the god of his own making. The
following speech by the Transformational Marxist, Jürgen Habermas (with excerpts from other writings
and other sources added within brackets), exposes the twisted, sick,
depraved, etc. mind (the subtlety, complexity, deceitfulness, and
wickedness) of those in the process. (In his speech he is defining what
it means, dialectically, to be made "in the image of God." It
shocks me every time I read it, especially the outcome he arrives at,
although it shouldn't surprise me. The subtleness in arriving at
the outcome is breathtaking, in how wicked it is, i.e. the 'justified'
use of human embryos for the good of mankind, i.e. whatever action is
perceived as being 'good' for mankind is, through dialectical reasoning,
'justifiable.')
"Religious
communities are entitled to be called 'reasonable' only if they renounce
the use of violence as a means of propagating the truths of their faith.
[Violence, dialectically perceived, is any action which prevents another
person from natural inquiry. Therefore chastening a child for an
act of disobedience toward a parent's command, (questioning, as in,
challenging parental authority), when he was simply 'doing his thing,'
'discovering himself and the world,' i.e. "discovering his potential,"
would be considered an act of violence.] They must translate their religious convictions
["It is written" or belief] into a secular
language [human feelings and thoughts or opinions] before their arguments have the prospect of being accepted by a
majority ... to translate the 'in the image of God' character of the human
creature into the secular language of constitutional law [dialectical
moral duty of, by, and for mankind]." "In Kant
we find the authority of divine command reestablished in the unconditional
validity of moral duty. In this we hear an unmistakable resonance. With
his conception of autonomy, Kant certainly destroyed the traditional
conception of being 'a child of God.' Something was lost when sin became
guilt ... The lost hope of resurrection has left behind a palpable
emptiness." (Habermas, speech) continued below
[What I
call "boarder language," the using of ambiguous words (fuzzy words) which can
mean different things to different people, have the potential of
allowing communication between people from deferring jurisdictions of
control. "Fusion words" can be used to overcome differences of
positions (righteousness) by allowing relationships to develop (sensuousness)
which would otherwise be inhibited or blocked. In this way a
top-down system, based upon established rules (righteousness)
which limits or blocks communication, can be circumvented by a
system of equality, based upon personal feelings and thoughts (sensuousness),
i.e. confrontation and division (righteousness) circumvented by
focusing upon words which can be used to unite people upon equality of
personal desires (sensuousness). The dialectical
process can not gain a foothold without the utilization of ambiguity ("Thou shalt not
surely die", "die" had two different meanings, sensuous, i.e.
death from the the tree itself―scientifically
evaluated, or righteous, i.e. death from God
himself, i.e. removing you from having access to the tree of life―spiritually
evaluated, the former understanding, i.e. a half truth, negates,
cuts off, i.e. circumvents the latter understanding).
Words being forced to a clear definition frustrate, inhibit, and even
block the dialectical process, a process which needs the confusion which
is created by using words which can be used in both a sacred arena
(righteous paradigm, truths preached and taught) and a secular arena
(sensuous paradigm, opinions dialogued), where, when properly
facilitated, "seems to" (opinion, sight) can prevail over "is"
(belief, faith) in making decisions. (This is why meetings must be
pressure cooker environments, moving all to consensus with
feelings of expediency and urgency, when it comes to definitions, while
providing 'appropriate' time to develop feelings of relationship.) "The words ‘seem to’ are significant; it is
the perception which functions in guiding behavior.” (Rogers)
"To transform existing conditions into conditions
that are desired.... involves the fusion of fact and
desire, of present and future, of existing means and
projected ends... the fusion of the ideal and existent
in a program of action." (Benne) “'Fusion-words'
. . . to solve the 'is'
and 'ought' problem [righteousness and sensuousness
problem]." "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 [thus preventing the creating of another righteous
position, i.e. continuing a thesis-antithesis situation] so that they
[righteousness and sensuousness] come closer and closer to actuality and
therefore to attainability." (Maslow, Further)
By getting the "is" and the "ought" communicating
with fusion words,
both can become one in 'purpose,' uniting upon sensuousness (becoming
'sensible' in thought and action). "There is a way which
seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of
death." Proverbs 14:12]
[The dialectical meaning of salvation, which is the
foundation of the 'contemporary' 'emergent' churches, is found
in mans moral duty to mankind: "… 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, in this
way the categorical imperative receives a discourse-theoretical
interpretation in which its place is taken by the discourse principle (D),
according to which only those norms can claim validity that could meet with
the agreement of all those concerned in their capacity as participants in a
practical discourse. …[resulting in] the collapse of the persons religious foundation ... "
(Habermas, Communicative Ethics)
"With the
devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view, moral
commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation."
"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 [remember this is a Marxist writing this]
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. …
uncoupling morality from questions of the good life leads to a
motivational deficit. Because there is no profane substitute for
the hope of personal salvation, we lose the strongest motive for
obeying moral commands." "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 [resulting in a] shift in perspective from God to human beings..."
(Habermas, Communicative Ethics)
Humanity becomes man's concern, not pleasing God. "Tillichian
salvation is a symbol, a symbol for becoming ultimately
concerned about humanity―salvation
in an 'eternal' present. " (Wheat) "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." (Engels) "Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty."
"In self-actualizing people, the work they do might be better
be called 'mission,' 'calling,' 'duty,' 'vocation,' in the
priest's sense." "Meaningful work comes very close to the
religious quest in the humanistic sense." "Meaningful work comes very close to the religious quest in the
humanistic sense." (Maslow, Maslow)
"Seeking for personal salvation is anyway the wrong road
to salvation. The only path was the
Ikiru path―salvation via hard work &
total commitment to doing well the job fate or personal task
destiny called you to―an important job that 'called for '
doing." (Maslow, Journals)
"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."
(Habermas, Knowledge)
"Necessary labor"
under God (which is unbiblical since their is no works
salvation) is replaced with "necessary labor" for the
salvation of humanity, as a popular saying today goes: "We working for Us."
"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 person's
status in society." "former"
USSR constitution. The Holy Scriptures instruct us instead
to do whatever we do as unto the Lord and not to men. "And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not
unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward
of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he
that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done:
and there is no respect of persons." Colossians
3:23-25]
"Allow me to close by illustrating the concept of non-annihilating
secularization with an example. In the controversy over the use of human
embryos, many voices still allude to Genesis 1:27: 'So God created man in
His own image, in the image of God created He him.' It is not necessary to
believe that God, who is Love, created Adam and Eve as free beings like
Himself in order to understand what 'in His own image' means. Love cannot
exist without knowledge of another, nor can freedom exist without mutual
recognition." (Habermas, speech) continued
below
[The underlying assumption being that the unborn are not
a part of the formula of freedom, i.e. of "self-determination,"
since he or she does not have "mutual recognition" with the
mother, the father, the other siblings, or society, not even being conscious of himself or herself, in other words, not being
self-conscious it can not be "self-determining." His error begins in his making of man a "free
being" like God, having "self-determination,"
which is not the case. If Habermas was true to the word of God and
not thinking according to his dialectical agenda of freeing man from God
(who directs man's steps instead of letting him direct them himself) he
would not have made this deceptive statement. What man is free to
do, as created in the image of God, is to evaluate his life and the
world around him according to God's word (as Jesus explained in the
first temptation to the master facilitator of 'change') but which
neither the woman nor Adam did, thereby sinning against God by becoming
'like God,' using their God-given ability of
evaluation, i.e. to know the difference between good and evil, but this
time evaluating God's word itself, defining it as evil, according to
their own sensuous nature. From being wrong before God,
today, anyone who holds to the sacredness of life under God is
considered as being controversial to "the right of
self-determination." (As explained in other articles, since
the environment affects man's decisions, anyone controlling the
environment, controls man, therefore there is no true
"self-determination," only manipulation by those who preach a message of
"self-determination." It provides them a pay check and a 'good'
life. Psycho-socialists have no other 'purpose' than liberating
your daughter or son from Godly restraints, so that they can "be their
own person" and they can then be used in the future, if
not in the present, for the psycho-socialists and their followers
sensual pleasures. "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)
Therefore, according to those
using the dialectical process, man can believe in God (a "God of free
men" meaning a man creating God who is created in man's own image―a
man created super being, created in the image of man, a God of
"self-determination" and "mutual recognition" with man,
a sensual, common-unity god)
and obey his word as long as he and God do not hinder "man's
right of self-determination." "Right" meaning no
judgment or condemnation can be placed upon the "self determined"
praxis (the social-sensual praxis) of mankind. Thus God (spirit) can not prevent
man (temporal) from being "like god" since man has defined God as
having come from his imagination in the first place. It is the
"otherness" of God which becomes the focal point in dialectical
thinking (the "significant other"). By finding the common-reality of the one―man,
and the other―god (or society, both
man and god being "divine"; as expressed in
a dissertation by George Russell Seay, Jr., Seay writing: "King contends that human
salvation on a social level can only come with God and humanity working
together. God and humanity are not collapsed into a single unity, but they are
united in 'purpose.'" Seay; Seay stated that Martin Luther King
Jr. preached: "Evil in the world
will not be eradicated through human effort or divine intervention alone, but
through human effort and divine power." M. L. K. Jr. Strength
to Love), man (dialectically) comes to know his
universal 'purpose,' distinguishing good from evil, right from wrong
according to his sensual nature, putting his sensual nature into collective action
against that which is not "divine," against a non-sensual,
'legalistic,' self-righteous, social disharmony God.
The difference between traditional and transformational
Marxism being on this very point. The traditionalist rejecting
God, the transformationlists, going back to early Marx, redefining him
to be at-one-with man (united in 'purpose'), created from man's imagining another world as a
result of improper social structure. In the end, God must either
be "changeable" in the thoughts and actions of men, become at-one-with
man (sensual and tolerant of ambiguity) or else be negated in the
thoughts and actions of men. While traditional Marxist believe upon the
latter (the negation of God) both forms of Marxism end up making mankind
god. "The 'more divine', in other words, the more inhuman,
something is, the less we shall be able to admire it. The more 'godly'
they are, the more inhuman, the more bestial. We lay claim to the
meaning of history; but we see in history not the revelation of 'God'
but of man and only of man. Our Christian opponents are guilty of
immorality when they make the world and man dependent on the grace of a
God. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion.
We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and
superhuman. Our liberation from the present Christian state of the world
and the liberation of the world from it are ultimately our sole
occupation;" "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."
(Engels) "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."
"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." (Rogers) The transformational Marxist view of "divine"
meaning "man's right of self-determination" frees man from the
righteousness of God, making God, and those who believe upon him, subject
to "human rights," 'righteousness' being based upon human
sensuousness.
The freedom of the conscience (the voice of the
father, restraining human behavior and humanity with his demand for
righteousness, i.e. right behavior, and the consequence of
unrighteousness) replaced with the freedom of the super-ego (the voice
of humanity, i.e. the voice of the "village," the voice of the
"common-unity," with its demand for sensuousness, i.e. 'sensible'
behavior, the voice of humanity liberating human behavior from the voice
of the father, "social cause" liberating the soul from the "Because I
said so"; while
the
conscience and the super-ego both require external, environmental
input for their development, the conscience requires input from parents,
God, neighbors, teachers, etc. incorporating the use of punishment or
the fear of it, while the super-ego requires input from society, the
latter including "emotional impulses" and the "dictates of
free will" as a part of the conscience, i.e. making the conscience a
"healthy" super-ego when it is adaptable to change, changeable according
to the "influences of the present and the past," "influence"
meaning having a sensually "positive" experience with the environment,
which requires the exclusion of the "fear of punishment" from
something or someone of the past, a condition which is essential to the
development of the conscience, now perceived as an "unhealthy" or
damaged super-ego―this is what "health
care" is all about, every facilitated meeting you have attending has
been a therapy session to make you a "healthy" member of society).
The difference between the conscience and
the super-ego can determine whether a person has the right of property or not, the court being the
final determinate. It the jury votes according to their
conscience, that is according to what is right vs. what is wrong for the
individual juror, despite what society might think or feel (or without
social considerations), then a man is innocent or guilty of a crime,
based upon his own actions against another citizen (two or more
witnesses being require to find him guilty), the citizen therefore has
the right to his own property without social considerations (he has the
right of property for personal 'purpose' as long as he does not infringe
upon another citizen with those same rights), but if the jury votes
according to their super-ego, that is according to their opinions (how
they feel or what they think on how others feel or think), basing value
or worth upon their perception of current social "needs," considering,
in their decision, what is good or bad for society, then a man is
innocent or guilty of a crime based upon the social worth or value of
his actions (satisfying the "felt needs" of others therefore becomes a part of
the decision of innocence or guilt―Abraham
Maslow's attitude toward taxes serves as a good example of individual
worth in the eyes of super-ego development: "In our
democratic society, any enterprise―any
individual―has its obligations to
the whole." "Any company that restricts its goals purely to its own
profits, its own production, and its own sales is getting a kind of a
free ride from me and other taxpayers." "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] goal is simply to build group companies where people
can self-actualize." "[Businesses] and the not-for-profits have
a much greater role to play in shaping the good society than any
institution I can think of." "The best way to destroy democratic society
would be by way of industrial authoritarianism [private business],
which is anti-democratic in the deepest sense." Maslow,
Management), i.e. if found guilty, his crime would be against society
(human perception, i.e. imagination, opinion, and circumstantial evidence being enough to find him
guilty), the citizen therefore has no individual "inalienable right" to us
property for his own gain, having only the social "human right" to use property
for the good of society (for common-unity 'purpose'). "Man's right of
self-determination" depends upon his "mutual recognition"
of others with the same right, makes private right subject to public
right (anyone can take your goods if they have a "felt" need which needs
satisfying, in the name of society). Instead of the individual man being made in the image of
God (righteous), i.e. private ownership of land being a right (under God
the earth is made for man's pleasure, man being made for God's pleasure), mankind
itself becomes God (sensuous), therefore, according to the "logic" of
Diaprax, all private land (the use of property in a way which limits the
potential for others to attain "self-determination," i.e.
infringing upon their "right of self-determination," i.e. hindering their
right to satisfy their "sensuous needs") must become public land in
'purpose.' When "Mine, not yours" "hinders" "Ours" then
"Mine, not yours" must give way to "Ours," as in our feelings, thoughts,
and actions (theory and practice) This in essence,
is the 'justification' for common-ism. Government can use your property
for its 'purpose' and you have little or no say in the matter, i.e. if
you "hinder" its "right of self determination" you will
pay the price, you will be judged as one who is refusing to recognize
that man is made in the image of God as "a divine form of man"
with "self-determination"―a
Gnostic structure of thought. Parents
therefore must not "hinder" their child's "right of
self-determination." Everything has to be viewed through
the lens of "humanity." If it is perceivable it is of worth, if not, it
is of no worth. This is the twisted, evil way of thinking which is
being pushing upon citizens through "group theory," facilitated
meetings.]
"Consequently, the 'opposite stance' inherent in the nature of humanity
must remain free to repay this gift of God. Despite his nature as a
creature 'in the image of God,' this 'otherness' can itself be considered
a creation of God. The created nature of 'in His own image' expresses an
intuition that has something to say even to those who have no ear for
religion, among whom I count myself. God remains a 'God of free men' only
as long as we do not erase the absolute difference between the Creator and
the created [the difference between the 'imagined' god and the real
nature of man]. In other words, only as long as the gift of a divine form to
man is taken to mean that no hindrance be placed on man's right of
self-determination." (Habermas, speech)
[This
'logic' is the first step which must be taken in the praxis of
Gnosticism, from which sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. i.e.
countless socially structured organizations, secret and not so secret,
derive their structure of thought and action from. Unlike the
freedom of the conscience (individual man's accountability to a higher
authority, for his
thoughts and actions―incorporating the fear of God), which
blessed this nation, the freedom of "self-determination" is based upon a
collective notion of man (man's accountability to humanity, i.e.
including his
feelings, his thoughts, and his actions―incorporating the fear of man),
which now curses this nation. People can not think or act (buy or
sell) without socialist oversight and "suggestions," i.e. the
villages approval, i.e. "What will the village think?" now in their
brain.
All for the 'good' of humanity. "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]
God's way of
thinking is a "closed" system of everlasting truth, man's way of
thinking, being sense based (ever changing according to ever
changing "felt"
needs) is not. The dialectical process is man's way of thinking. The dialectic
process is
a procedure which is used to negate a 'closed' system (a
system which is run according to absolutes: where things are determined,
evaluated, and judged by categorical imperatives1
external to self,
making truth objective instead of subjective, feelings based).
The dialectical process is used to negate a 'closed' system
by the praxis of initiating and sustaining an
'open' system (a system which is run according to what is relative―relevant to the 'moment': where things
are determined, evaluated, and judged according to our 'perception' of the situation2,
making truth subjective instead of objective, secular and material
instead of sacred and spiritual).
Since the laws of nature are established by God there is no 'open'
system in nature, the 'open' system only resides in man's
impulses and imagination, which are 'driven' by his own sensuousness (see
dopamine for example), leading to thought and action which
loves 'openness,' i.e. any situation where he can be both sensuous
and spontaneous (producing consciousness, where feeling,
thought, and action―the
affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains are all three united
in the 'moment,' a 'moment' which can not happen without being void of
the 'closed' system, without its negation, thereby negating faith,
which is action not dependent upon, nor driven by sensuousness
and spontaneity, i.e. faith does not find its 'purpose' in human
praxis but in God―the two can
not be mingled or merged, to attempt to do so only negates faith
in God). "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 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mathew 6:24
Our nervous system is designed to
convey the external conditions of the world around us and the
internal conditions of our body to our brain. It is there that
we set our mind upon whatever it is that "disturbed" us for reasons
of pleasure or for pain (within or without or body). There are
gaps between the nerves which convey this information to and within
our brain. It is in these gaps that chemicals are released
(emancipated, liberated), traveling from one nerve ending to the
next nerve ending to continue the transmission of information to and
within the brain. Some chemicals (neurotransmitters) convey
conditions of pain, some of pleasure, others of other conditions both
internal and external to the body. It is these chemicals with
which our brain derives the sensation of pleasure, pain, etc.
It is therefore our nature to approach pleasure and avoid pain.
Therefore any object in the environment or any condition in the body
which produces pleasure we want to approach for the sake of
continuation, the key word being want (setting our mind upon,
imagining, responding to in favorable 'positive' thought) and our
action would be to approach it (without fear of pain). The
same would be true for any object which produced pain, only in this
case the key words would be not want (in thought) and our
action would be to avoid it. There are many other
stimulus-response conditions as well. Therefore, anything in
the environment which produces a liberation of neurotransmitters
which are associated to pleasures we would desire to have (want) and
anything in the environment which produces a liberation of
neurotransmitters which are associated to pain we would desire not
to have (we would avoid). We actually desire the pleasure
chemicals our body naturally produces and liberates into the gap
(synaptic gap) as a result to making contact with or becoming aware
of an object in the environment which stimulated their liberation
(this is why people who take drugs, bypassing the nervous system
being stimulated by the environment itself, often end up 'live' in such appalling
conditions without caring, only lusting for the next 'fix').
Thus the child is not in love with the toy. He is in
love with the pleasure neurotransmitters (the drug), contact with
the toy naturally liberates within his body. His natural
reaction is to continue relationship with the object to continue the
liberation of the pleasure neurotransmitters (to continue the
liberating of neurotransmitters such as dopamine which produces the
wanting of a gratifying object in the environment). If
the object loses its dopamine emancipating attraction to him, he
loses interest in it (he no longer desires―wants
to relation with it, since the want for it has been satiated
or something in the environment produces more pleasure, i.e. becomes
the gratifying object of want).
This is why new toys are necessary to keep the pleasure driven
(lustful) children happy (the environment must be a 'changeable'
environment for dopamine emancipation to be perpetuated, dopamine
craving being the driving force for 'change'). Once hooked,
the child will strike back at whatever inhibits or blocks his habit,
interferes with
his contact with the stimulant of pleasure (those on artificial
stimulants stealing and even killing to continue their habit of
pleasure). Stored up money is nothing other than drug money
(pleasure money, i.e. you take trips, fix up the house, buy certain
cars, etc. to attain pleasure in you life), that is, if it is not under God's
control. But to the socialist, with their perception of god as being
humanity, means that socialist, globalist, government control
of your life, your life―your work life,
becomes the same as money, your 'purpose' is for the pleasure of humanity, i.e. for
the pleasure of psycho-socialist's, and their 'comrades,' pay check and retirement
be a big part of the pleasure you provide them). The scriptures
warn us to "Flee also youthful lusts...." [Epithumia -
desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden) 2 Titus 2:22a
The dialectical process encourages us to initiate and sustain
the conditions which produce lust.
"Feelings, joy, and pleasure
[German
words used: Empfindung,
Lust und Genuss]
are sanctioned and justified so that nature and freedom,
sensuousness and reason, find their unity their right and
their gratification."
(Hegel,
Vorlesungen)
To be human then is to be pleasure 'driven' (dopamine
'driven'), environment driven (who ever controls the environment,
whoever controls the world, controls man). The liberation of the
sensuousness of pleasure
becoming the 'purpose' in life. Dialectically, liberation from
or the annihilation of the condition which inhibits or blocks
pleasures
liberation, becoming the 'purpose' in life, not for just a few but
for all―which the few want the many to
think, supporting the few in their world of pleasure. Why use
cash to build your castle, creating your "new" world order
by forcing people to work, not having
lust
in the workplace―when you can use people for effectively, 'driven' by their lust
instead. Put lust in the workplace and the laborers just can't wait to
come to
work.
“Men ... work in alienation
.... labor time is painful time, for alienated labor is absence of
gratification, negation of the pleasure principle.” (Marcuse)
“First, that the
work is external to the worker, that it is not a part of his nature,
that consequently he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies
himself.” (Karl Marx) “Marx defines the essence of man as labor and traces the
dialectic of labor in history till labor abolishes itself.” “Freud suggests that
beyond labor at the end of history is love.” “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.” (Brown) “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.” (Maslow, Maslow)
“The more gratifying one’s
sexual life is, the more fulfilling and pleasurable is one’s work.”
“It is necessary to establish not only the best external conditions
of work, but also to create the inner biologic preconditions to
allow the fullest unfolding of the biologic urge for activity.”
“Hence, the safeguarding of a completely satisfying sexual life for
the working masses is the most important precondition of pleasurable
work.” “Sex-economy sociology was born from the effort to harmonize
Freud’s depth psychology with Marx’s economic theory.” “Since work
and sexuality (in both the strict and broad senses of the word) are
intermately interwoven, man’s relationship to work is also a
question of the sex-economy of masses of people.”
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.” “The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the
meaning of the family, whose task it precisely the education of the
coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of
pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family.”
“The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter
of social feeling; . . the large family is preserved because
national morality and national culture find their strongest support
in it.” (Reich)
“... the modifications and
deflections of instinctual energy necessitated by the perpetuation of
the monogamic-patriarchal family, or by a hierarchical division of
labor, or by public control of the individuals private existence are
instances of surplus- repression ..." (Marcuse)
Therefore when a parent chastens or trainings up their child
(using pain or fear of pain or forcing them to sit still and not
squirm around, i.e. give up looking for an environment of pleasure
to chase after), they
are getting their child off a drug (getting their thoughts off of
the environment of pleasure around them, cutting off their carnal
actions, restraining their chasing after worldly pleasures and
thereby cutting of their susceptibility to the marketers of
enslavement to drugs, i.e. socialists). Once off the drug, they
can have pleasure while not being controlled by it, knowing how to control themselves by not letting
whatever it is in the environment which stimulates pleasure control them
(they are more able to weigh their actions and the actions of others
and make right decisions).
A self-governing (self-controlled) people are a free people (having
a conscience―having their father's will
in them, being civil―knowing
right from wrong, and willing to suffer pain to gain and
retain their freedom, fighting against those who would use the environment
to control people, i.e. those who would use the fear of loss of life's pleasures to
control them). Socialists (psycho-socialists), tyrants, and, despots know
this, hating the person or people who are self-controlled, who are
self-governing (who can think outside the social-sensual 'moment'), under God. It is the
socialists 'purpose' to annihilate
the condition, and if necessary, the people who initiate and sustain
a self-controlled, self-governing generation. (Today, the measuring stick for proper human action, regarding
hate and love, is anyone who is intolerant of worldly
pleasure. They are perceived as being hateful, man's carnal nature no
longer regarded as being evil. Anybody who is tolerant
of worldly pleasure is perceived as being loving since man's carnal
nature is now perceived as being good (''basically' good, only needing
a good social environment to facilitate its goodness for the 'good'
of all).
With the focus on sensuousness (this worldliness), on
how a person 'feels' and what he thinks (opinions and imaginations),
and not on righteousness (other worldliness), on what God
says (not of human opinions and imaginations), those who inhibit or
block pleasure are hated for their preaching and teaching of worldly
pleasures as being evil―the wicked hating their wickedness being
wickedly spoken of. Even the church is now hateful toward
those who bring up contrasting scriptures, i.e. what God
says―especially when they expose those who are tolerant of man'
sinful behavior in the church, exposing the programs and material
which
the church leadership is bringing into the church as being evil,
and the leaderships actions in doing so (or tolerating it) as being therefore wicked (as long as
contrast is limited to expounding the blessings of God and of human
fellowship and briefly, if at all mentioning, in passing, the
wickedness of man, so as not to disturb the wicked and destabilize
the church 'community' (gemeinschaft). The church now
treats those who place righteousness over sensuousness
as being irrelevant at the least, accusing some of being divisive,
i.e. those who persist in exposing the wickedness of the sensuous
(of human relationship) based programs being brought into the church to
"keep it up with the times," i.e. keeping it "contemporary," to keep
the youth coming back, accusing others of causing dissention
in the Church by their "gossiping" against the church programs and
the leadership who are bringing them in or at least tolerating
their introduction. Love is now being tolerant of man's
sinful nature, so that all can unite upon the 'purpose' of the
"contemporary" church, i.e. meeting human needs, the "work" being
done "in the name of Jesus." When the church tolerates
evil, the wickedness of the world is in the church. The church
then becomes the same as the world (at-one-with the world).
The righteousness of God is negated with the wickedness of man, and
thus the righteous must be hated (accused of being intolerant,
narrow minded, judgmental, irrational, and therefore hateful).
This is always the result when the dialectical process―human
justification, becomes the praxis of the church.
Those within the contemporary church, blinded by their hate of
wickedness being exposed, can not comprehend that they hate
righteousness (their sensual love for humanity becoming equal to
their sensual love of God blinding them to the truth that they do
not love God but rather love their opinion of him which is sensual). The dialectical church hates contrast―good
and evil based upon righteousness and loves contrast
based upon sensuousness, basing good and evil upon sensuousness (upon human nature) and not upon
righteousness
(God)―as was begun in the garden in Eden, Adam's children following.
"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked
one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his
own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Marvel not,
my brethren, if the world hate you." 1 John 3:11-13
The worlds love, which is sensuous, is wicked (any good is for the
here-and-now only, having no eternal value). God's love, which
is spiritual, is righteous (good for the here-and-now and the
there-and-then, having eternal value).
It is the 'closed'
system of the restraint of the sensual
which the 'open' system of the sensual seeks to overcome. Dopamine
emancipation for all, drugs of pleasure for all, be it internal or
external―environmental
conditions can be intoxication, the annihilation of the patriarchal
paradigm is liberating to the revolutionary―liberation
from Godly (and parental)
restraints being the banner of humanity, and carnal
hope its staff). (For more on this see the article
The Cognitive, Affective, and Psycho-motor domains and the
dialectical process, specifically its bookmarks:
Our body naturally produces chemicals and
Pleasure is a natural product of the body.
Man's
system is an 'open' system and God's system is a
'closed' system. Each system is a different way of thinking and
acting, called a paradigm. "I like to think of
paradigm as a total system of believing, perceiving, acting, and
interpreting that is used to define and justify how something is." (Spady) Man's
paradigm uses his own senses (sensation as a result of
touch, taste, sight, smell, and sound, being his connection with the world
around him) as the basis for
defining and justifying his thoughts and actions (associating good with the
sensation of pleasure and evil with the sensation of pain) while God's
paradigm is his own goodness (his goodness is eternal, measuring good with
his righteousness and that which is not in agreement with his
righteousness as evil, as wickedness) and is justified
in Himself ("I AM that I AM") which means man, God's creation,
must find his justification in God (spiritual-eternal-righteousness) by faith, and not in
himself (carnal-temporal-sensual) by sight, as the Apostle Paul explained in
Romans
4:1-25. By uniting paradigm with science and science with
paradigm (making them inter-related), science, which has to be observable
and repeatable (therefore the laws of nature are pre-established) is
merged with the dialectic process of 'change' (sensual and situational)
resulting in a materialistic-relativistic definition of the laws of
nature (including man, i.e. the "new" element on the periodic
chart being Hu for Human―as presented in a
commercial, i.e. almost all commercials reflect dialectical thinking
today),
producing a way of thinking which predominates today in 'science'
(falsely so called), now supporting the 'open' system theory.
Thomas
Kuhn is most noted for this definition (basing all science upon the
dialectical process, which, as already noted above, does not work, breaking
down under true scientific examination, i.e. two plus two will always
equal four and will never be another number, despite how much some math professors
might want to believe, i.e. feel or think, that it could or might 'change'
given enough time).
"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.'" [Where
facts, restraining feelings of 'change,' must be 'changeable' to 'changing
facts' (hyperlink is to a short audio of Shirley McCune) where facts
must be adaptable to 'change,' i.e. all facts must be continually subjected
to theoretical inquiry, i.e. must have meaning to the situation
or the 'moment' to be relevant and if not perceived as relevant can be
considered as irrelevant, other 'facts' ('changeable facts') taking
precedence in making decisions. This is the 'role' of
psycho-socialists: to help people imagine the
future, then evaluate the present in the "light" of the imagined future,
then initiate and sustain present thought and actions which support the
imagined future, negating thoughts and actions which inhibit or
block the imagined future, and thereby help everyone in creating the imagined future.] "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 states 'If a paradigm 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 [becomes 'irrelevant'
in the eyes of the world].'" "When paradigms change, the
world itself changes with them." "Successive transition from one
paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of
mature science." (Kuhn) Kuhn saw that scientists could
not be locked into a 'rigid' paradigm but that the process of
'change,' a paradigm 'shift' must be applied to all sciences
so that any 'change' in 'facts' can be more readily adapted to (the issue
is that when scientists discovered 'new' laws of nature―laws
which have always existed without our understanding or knowledge―many
scientists would not accept the 'new' laws of nature as fact) any
laws which are incomplete or erroneous are often adhered to by
scientists. The problem was how to 'bring them up to speed,' in a
dialogue environment (the issue was not so much the laws
themselves but how people perceived their relevance to any given
situation, i.e. were they able to dismiss them for the sake of
'progress'). While the use of education in the old
fashion way of thinking would work, the dialectical environment would
not allow someone to inculcate facts (treating people like a child under authority; "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will
not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6 correcting them for
their attitude) but must encourage everyone to treat opinions as though they are
facts and facts as though they are just another opinion, i.e. putting
theory into practice to discover, initiate, and sustain 'practicality.'
"… 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.…
reality with its ‘obedience to laws, is impenetrable, fatalistic and
immutable." (Lukács) Since the dialectical process is not from
nature itself, but finds its 'purpose' in human nature, when applied to
the scientific study of nature it breaks down, while bringing everyone
under its sway experientially, i.e. liberating man from restraints
against human nature which come from the past or from above, so that man
can live "openly and freely in relation to others, guiding his
behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an
integrated process of changingness." (Rogers)
Thus good and evil can only be knowable through human
experience, though human sensuousness, i.e. through
conscietization ("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." Paulo Freire cited in Schubeck) "When the dialectical method destroys the
fiction of the immortality of the categories [destroys God's authority over
man and destroys parent's authority over child (along with their laws of
restraint upon human nature), etc.] it also destroys their reified character [destroys
man's fear
of God
and destroys the child's fear of the parents (fear of judgment for
breaking laws, i.e. fear of judgment for being a normal human being), etc.] and clears the way to a knowledge of reality
[reality being only that which is rational (sensual or 'sensible') to man]."
(Lukács) "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." (Lukács) Therefore, according to
dialectical thinking, it is only in human experience (in human
sensuousness) that reality can be known. For Marx, it was not
enough to just think about reality, how the world 'ought to be'
(Hegel), but a person must be willing to create it through social action
(praxis). "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, &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests
indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral
life becomes dissolved." (Hegel's Lectures) "... the bourgeoisie [the parent
with his restraint upon the child] fighting on its own
ground will prove superior to the proletariat [superior to the child] ... it is
self-evident that the bourgeoisie [the parent with his force of power
over the child] fighting on its own ground
will be both more experienced and more expert… the superiority of the
proletariat [the child with his resentment toward being restrained
against his human nature] must lie exclusively in its ability to see
society from the centre as a coherent whole [the child understanding
that he is not alone in his hate toward restraint but a part of a
society with the same feelings―the purpose of teaching
children right and wrong through inductive reasoning, experientially, i.e.
using the affective domain in the classroom]. This means that it
[the common-unity of the children] is able to act in such a way [to
act revolutionary] as to change
reality [to change reality from being righteousness based to
being sensuousness based―the
'new' generation is now founded in the annihilation of obedience
toward authority and righteousness through the praxis of social equality
and sensuousness]; in the class consciousness
[realization of a common-collective contempt toward parental authority, i.e.
resentment toward the restraint of human nature] of the proletariat [the children
aware of their oneness in identity and 'purpose']
theory and practice coincide [the realization that their carnal thoughts
and canal desires, which, when in the past restrained by higher
authority, are one and the same, and now understood to be common to all
humanity, can with confidence be put united in social action]
... The proletariat [the child] cannot liberate itself as a class
[being subject to parental authority] without simultaneously abolishing class
society [eliminating the parent-child, teacher-student, owner-worker, etc.
top-down hierarchy in its own mind; "For
equality of opportunity to exist the family as a unit must be
weakened." (Coleman)]
as such. For that reason its consciousness [the sensual experience of a society,
a commonness with others in joint action, using inductively
(sensual, dialectical) reasoned to free itself from the deductive
(logical, formal, a priori, didactic) reasoning of God and
parents], the last class consciousness in the history of mankind, must
both lay bare the nature of society [the sensual nature of social man
and the social nature of sensual man is liberated from the limitations
of "religion" and
righteousness] and achieve an
increasingly inward fusion of theory and practice ["If it
feels good, just do it." (Marcuse)]. The bourgeoisie [the parent] automatically obtains the
upper hand when its opponents [the children] abandon their own
position [abandon their position of having equality with the parent by
succumbing to the fear of judgment (fear of chastening and have a
'guilty conscience') and respect for parental authority, obeying a
top-down system]....destroy this unity
[destroy the child's will to 'power,' i.e. his willingness to think
in accordance to his desired actions and his acting in accordance to his
desired thinking, sensuous desire being at the heart of it all] they cut the nerve that binds proletarian theory [that
nerve being the children's common experience of sensuousness and
reasoning, sensuousness justifying their reasoning and their
reasoning justifying their sensuousness, where both
sensuousness and reasoning become the basis of reality] to
proletarian action [the children's "group think"
sensuous (consensus)
experiences being put into social action―praxis]. 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
[the children might still resent parental restraint but no longer have
the internal courage and the external social support (the education
system and government programs) necessary to overthrow the patriarchal
paradigm, despite their momentary attempts to liberate themselves from
it]."
(Lukács) Jürgen Habermas wrote on how to determine the amount of
repression which is necessary for man to work together as apposed to how
much repression a patriarchal paradigm must use in "forcing" man to
work. Knowing the difference between the two provides the amount
of force (human relationship building through the liberation of
sensuousness) necessary to overthrow the patriarchal domination of
society and negate its effect upon the individual, both being
necessary at the same time, while still getting the work done
(preventing society from exploding, what Freud feared and what
Marx did, by supplying the right amount of Eros in the workplace to make
it work, i.e. making all workers "happy little workers," working for the
cause of humanity, that of setting in
motion the negation of constraints upon social norms which are
established by the patriarchal paradigm―as a little candy making the
medicine go down easier, a little Eros makes the work go down easier as
well). By using the pent up resentment toward carnal restraint
(institutional restrains of the home, workplace, church, or government)
while providing sensual pleasures in the classroom and the workplace,
the church and the government, the revolution can be sustained and
further developed (preventing Thermidor). "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." (Habermas, Knowledge)
Consider all this in light of the educational material all
teachers must incorporate in their classrooms, that is "Bloom's
Taxonomies." Bloom wrote: "It is to be hoped that the
taxonomy's analysis of problem solving methods will facilitate the
exploration of new methods of teaching for high-level problem solving
and assist in evaluating these methods." "The objectives to be finally
included should be related to the school's view of the ‘good life for
the individual in the good society.'" "What are the important values?"
"What is the proper relation between man and society?" "What are
the proper relations between man and man?" "It is recognized that
unless the individual can do his own problem solving he cannot maintain
his integrity as an independent personality." "Closely allied to this
concept of maturity and integrity is the concept of the individual as
member of a democracy." "Individuals in a democracy are responsible for
the conduct of a democratic political system as well as a democratic way
of life." "Knowledge is of little value if it cannot be utilized
in new situations or in a form very different from that in which it was
originally encountered." "To a large extent knowledge, as taught in
American schools, depends upon some external authority; some expert or
group of experts is the arbiter of knowledge." "...knowledge is always
partial and relative rather than inclusive and fixed." "But, as
has been pointed out before, we recognize the point of view that truth
and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast
truths which exist for all time and places." "... with the increase of
knowledge of information there is a development of one's acquaintance
with reality." "... the more useful way of organizing a field… in a
philosophical sense, correspond[ing] to ‘reality.'" "…to help him
develop intellectual abilities and skills which will enable him to adapt
knowledge to the new situation." "Philosophical . . . Emphasize
personal expression as against passive participation, and independence
of thought and action as against dependence." "Democratic societies
thrives best when its citizens are able to arrive at their own decisions
rather than when someone in authority does the thinking for them." "We
can not survive unless we develop and draw upon the creative
potentialities of the entire population." "the interrelation of outcomes
― multi-objective efficiency . . .
the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association." "not
rigorously predetermined . . . flows from the person . . . determines it
worth." "educational psychology – categorizing teacher-pupil
interaction during classroom discussions." "Freedom from excessive
tension and from pressures to adopt a particular viewpoint." "His
efforts need not conform to the views of authority." "Freedom to
determine his own purposes." "Too much control and too detailed
instructions, seem to stifle productivity." "Synthesis tasks require far
more time than an hour or two. . . . Days and weeks instead of hours . .
. . To represent the student's ability." "…require a high degree of
stimulation, mood, fluency …" "Such conditions tend to make performance
rather variable if not downright unstable." "Skills and abilities
may thus be rather unstable and unpredictable." "…reveals language
usage, attitudes toward issues, feelings about the self . . . ."
"Think of some time in your life when you were up against a difficulty,
something that stood in your way and had to be overcome. Make up a story
around this difficulty and tell it to the class." "…must be an
argument." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the
more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "…one
major purpose of education is to broaden the foundation on which
judgments are based." "…consideration of the ends to be served and the
appropriateness of specific means for achieving these ends." (Bloom)
It is not that parents do not want their children to think
for themselves, but that they have a basis from which to make there
decisions. "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..." (Edward Usher in Sarv) Bloom and those who think like him
choose sensuousness as their basis for reality, (Bloom refers to two
Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm, as his world view in Book II,
the Affective Domain, while declaring in Book I, the Cognitive
Domain that it was a tool to do psychological evaluation of
students, teachers, parents, and community using "contemporary
psychological" methods, those methods being the Transformational
Marxists social-psychology of the day, i.e. Adorno, Fromm, Allport,
Dressell, Maslow, Rogers, etc.) Those who believe in God, choose
righteousness as their basis for reality.
Anyone who believes in
God yet puts their children in the paradigm of sensuousness
have sacrificed their children upon the the fires of Moloch. Rogers wrote: "‘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." "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)
Social-psychology is built upon one belief: "Parental discipline, religious
denunciation of bodily pleasure, ... have all left man overly
docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore
neurotic." (Brown) "Some of the formal properties of
religion, such as the rigid antithesis of good and evil, ... still
exercise considerable power." "... unconscious trends such as
expressed in idea of the crucifix and the sacrifice of blood.
Although these latter ideas have been more or less successfully
replaced by 'Christian Humanism,' their deeper psychological roots
have still be to reckoned with." (Adorno) "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." (Marx,
MEGA I/1/1) "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.’" (Brown) "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) "The 'dialectical' consciousness ...
a manifestation of Eros." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for
union with objects in the world." "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) " ...
Eros belongs mainly to
democracy." (Adorno) The Apostle
Paul explains
the battle between man's nature and God's will, the battle between two
paradigms, the flesh and the spirit. "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 7:22-25
The idea of 'change'
is not in regards to hard facts themselves but rather in
the way
of thinking which reveals them (the way they are introduced determines
their relevance, i.e. truth is to be 'discovered' experientially, truth
is therefore subjective in nature and not to be 'revealed,'accepted "as
given," the person therefore becoming subject to objective truth,
external to nature). The issue was not the changing of facts or
the learning of more facts (quantity), but rather how facts were
dealt with in relation to other people's feelings and
thoughts (sensuousness), in the light of changing times (quality),
i.e. time of "reflection" on feelings being as important if not more important than the memorization
of facts (quantity), in that facts now have to be personal, experiential
(subjective) to be 'true' or of worth to the human 'moment.' “The
moment of reflection, however, is itself interwoven with experience.
‘The work of art,’ Marcuse can write, ‘is both a process and an
instant.’ Subjectivity experiences itself in that moment.”
(Bronner) Without sensuousness becoming a part of
deliberation and action, the facts of the 'past' will keep man subject
to objective truth, truths external (higher than) to his own human
experience.
Regarding the use of the classroom as an environment with
which to re-educate (re-experience) the next generation into a "new"
world order (change their paradigm): Ralph Tyler (who, regarding
education and the need for social change, 'advised' six of our
Presidents during the 50's and 60's, his influence lingering on) wrote:
"In the recent period of rapid social change, the educational roles of
the home, the community, the religious institutions, and employment have
been greatly changed. Generally, they have been reduced." "The school can encourage students to
reflect on the
problem situations they encounter, to analyze these situations, to try to
predict the consequences of several possible courses of action, to compare
their thinking with what they actually did, and to note the consequences
they experienced [all being done outside of the patriarchal paradigm]."
"The school can also continue its long-accepted role of providing within
its environment a democratic society closer to the ideal than the adult
community has yet been able to achieve. It can provide a setting in
which young people can experience concretely the meaning of our
democratic ideals. It is crucially important for children to see
firsthand a society that encourages and supports democratic values"
"Educational philosophies in a democratic society are
likely to emphasize strongly democratic values....
Faith in intelligence rather than authority." “Should the school develop young people to fit into the
present society as it is or does the school have a revolutionary mission to
develop young people who will seek to improve the society?” "Perhaps a
modern school would include in its statement [that] it believes
that the high ideals of a good society are not adequately realized in
our present society and that through the education of young people it
hopes to improve society." (Ralph Tyler in Brown emphasis
added) Bloom's Cognitive Taxonomy was dedicated to Ralph Tyler: ". . . 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." (Bloom, Retrospect;
Bloom also wrote, concerning his Taxonomy, which all certified teachers
are trained to use in developing curriculum in the classroom, curriculum
which determines the paradigm of the next generation, how they will
think and act as a result of their participation in or refusal to
participate in the curriculum: “Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was
developed and may well be ‘unprovable.’”) According to
Kurt Lewin, without the person personally experiencing for himself the
'freedom' of reflecting upon the futile squabbles for "their own
rights," while under the control of the "old" ("closed")
system of right
and wrong, and the freedom of evaluating their 'prior' experiences in
the light of their own feelings and thoughts, along with the freedom to
role-play, to experience for themselves through their own emotional,
mental, verbal and physical expressions of resentment toward the
restraints of patriarchal authority, without reprimand, the
object of social change can not be achieved, that "physical"
participation in "the new set of values" is essential if
the change process is to become a permanent part of the persons way of
thinking and acting. “Physical experiences cause a change in our theories and
concepts about the physical world.” (Lewin, Principles)
Experiencing the 'moment' of 'change' in a group experiencing the
'moment' of 'change' being the most effective means of producing lasting
change (change in system or paradigm) in the individual. "It is usually
easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any
one of them separately."
"The individual accepts the new system of values and
beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Lewin in Benne)
You can apply this method to the 'modern' church. Was the heart
really changed (where the person can stand alone, standing in the
righteousness of Christ, standing against the temptations of his own
sensuous nature, his flesh, and the temptation of the masses,
calling him to participate in their 'moment' of sensuousness) or
did the person simply respond to the sensuous 'moment' of group
'change,' following others in the 'moment' of 'change,' his heart
remaining unchanged, still subject to the sensuousness of the
world.
The "objective sought," through the use of Diaprax, is
that people willingly 'change' from answering the call
(from God) to righteousness over sensuousness, to
accepting their call (from man and the Devil) to total commitment to
sensuousness, making righteousness subjective to
sensuousness (making sensuousness synonymous with
righteousness). “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.” “Man-made experiences, so-called
experiments, which grew out of the systematic search for the truth were
necessary to bring about a change from less adequate to more adequate
concepts.” “Re-education aims to change the system of values and
beliefs of an individual or a group." “The basic task of
re-education is to change the individual’s social perception, thereby
changing the individual’s social action.” (Benne) “There is evidence in our data that once a change in
behavior has occurred, a change in beliefs is likely to follow.” (Leon
Festinger in Benne) Carl Rogers wrote: “Experience is, for me, the
highest authority.” “Neither the
Bible nor the prophets, neither
the revelations of God can take
precedence over my own direct
experience.” (Rogers) ...
the central problem of democracy is not the discovery of some optimal
solution or standard for ranking incommensurate values; ... The central
problem of democracy is instead the formation of a somewhat vaguely
defined ‘postconventional’ consensus through which everyone affected by
a decision must be able to participate in reaching it.” (Bronner) Without the
social-ist, common-ist practice (praxis) of consensus in
the classroom, the workplace, the church, the government, the city,
county, state and nation, etc., social change remains only emotional or
a thought and therefore remains unattainable except by the use of
outright physical force, which still keep the top-down system in place
(as was evidenced in the social-ist, common-ist takeover of Russia,
China, Cuba, and other nations and cultures around the world―it
always ends up being top-down, eventually with Antichrist and Satan at
the top, for a 'moment').
The environment itself (and a persons submissive
presence within―tolerance of―acceptance
of, and 'willful' participation within) changes the person. This
was the method Satan, the first "therapist," used in the garden
in Eden, only this time with social-sensual support. "What better way to help the patient recapture the past
than to allow him to re-experience 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) “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.” “Strengthening the family to
draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some
questions about its desirability.” “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.” “In order to
[improve those institutions], one must know how adolescent societies
function, and beyond that, how their directions may be changed.”
“The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his
place in the community.” (Coleman) "The current
generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to
learn from grandparents;"
(Yalom).
Coleman earned his Dr. in education at Columbia University,
earning it under the tutelage of the famous Transformational Marxist,
Paul Lazersfeld. Eventually Coleman on to became a key advisor to
the highest court of our land, the United States Supreme Court, advising
them on issues concerning education. In
Public School-Private School, Coleman wrote: “Public
schools represent an orientation that sees the school as an instrument
of the society to free the child from constraints imposed by accident of
birth.” Coleman saw the need to use the public school system
“as society’s [social-ist] instrument for releasing a child
from the blinders imposed by accident of birth into this family or that
family.” The "blinders" being the child's belief in
parental authority. While most parents saw the school as a means
to prepare their children to succeed in life they did not grasp the evil
intent of those gaining control of the education system as a means to
destroy the traditional (patriarchal) home, turning the next generation
(the parents own children) against their traditional way of thinking and
acting.
Skilled in double-speak, saying one thing meaning another,
Coleman re-defined (and restructured) the education system and its
'purpose' along a socialist agenda, using it to produce "a common[ist]
American identity," changing the identity of America to no longer
be under parental control (no longer being "in loco parentis" but "freeing children from the poverty of their parents,"
i.e. "freeing" them not just economically and socially but also
"freeing" them from the "poverty" of their patriarchal
upbringing). “Schools transcend the limitations of the parents’
disparate cultural backgrounds.” “They have been a major element
in social mobility, freeing children from the poverty of their parents
and the low status of their social origins. They have been means
of stripping away identities of ethnicity and social origin and
implanting a common American identity.” “The young are seriously
at risk because of the decline in strength of the family and those
institutions that spring from it. It is important that government
policy by made in full recognition of this risk and of potential ways of
reducing it.” (Coleman, Public) In
Public School-Private School Coleman explained how the private
school (including Christian schools) are brought into line with (made
subject to) the public school socialist paradigm, showing how, through
the qualifications of physical, mental, and social
capital the individual, the family, and the private and the public
schools are all subject to a socialist way of thinking, a heresiarchal
paradigm of 'change' (change not being just in a persons income or
knowledge of a subject or trade but also including 'change' in their way
of thinking and acting―the 'change'
being fatal to their traditional way of life).
The memorizing of facts presents a problem to the dialectical
process, in that it produces an attitude of introducing "inappropriate"
information, not that the information
itself is
necessarily wrong, but that the way it is introduced is wrong, introducing information to
be accepted "as given" is wrong―therefore any information not sensitive to
the present wishes, desires, and opinions of others (or the sensual
situation) is perceived as being irrelevant,
inhibiting, or blocking information, perceived by others as information from the 'past'
which is
being carried into
the present environment, inhibiting or blocking those who want 'change'
from the past to the present
through developing a common experience of feelings and thoughts―creating a common
'imagined' future based upon the human nature of
sensuousness, i.e. what "can be" if only we can negate the "can
not's" of the past, the
"democratic" ideal being: if its not
sensual, experiential, material, relevant, tangible to all, it is
not real (in Diaprax: reality does not lie in the past or above man,
restraining his nature, but lies within him, within his common nature,
reality is his sensuousness put into collective human action
negating any condition which might restrain it).
The issue was the changing of systems
(system change of quality and quantity from being fixed to
"there-and-then" space and time, i.e. the
product and the producer, i.e. their longevity―objective
truth which is not affected by changing time and space, changing
feelings and situations, to where quality and quantity are unified
in space and in time in the "here-and-now," i.e. the consumer or
customer and the current environment, i.e. his sensuous experience
within the sensual environment―subjective
truth which only has meaning in the present time, in the "contemporary
moment").
The issue was how people think about facts and truth (are they rigid or
changeable) and how people related to on another in practice (the
'rigid,' facts-based person would be intolerant of ambiguity,
certain, clear, demanding, while the
'changeable,' sensual based person would be tolerant of ambiguity,
uncertain, vague, self-possessed). Thus the need to break down the 'rigid' way of
thinking to 'help' them in 'understanding' the 'changes' which have
taken place (or need to take place) in science (some of it extremely
flawed, errors which have
been exposed by true scientists, which/who are dismissed as being irrelevant,
both the errors created by the use of the process in science, which they are exposing and the true scientists
themselves, who expose
the errors, because they do not 'fit' with the
'program' of 'progress'―they are not
willing to work within the framework of the imagined future. This
is a case where those who do not have all the facts, those who use
inductive reasoning to
'discover' the truth from the present situation, i.e. in the sensual
'moment' negating those who have the facts or information from the past,
i.e. above the sensual 'moment,' yet are perceived as being 'inappropriate'
to the present situation, the sensual 'moment,' and are negating
the future with their use
of
deductive reasoning― to know how to respond
to the present based upon facts and truths learned in the past, i.e.
restraining, inhibiting, or blocking the sensual humanistic 'moment'). Thus
the move from Newtonian mechanics (what is, is, and everything is
disintegrating―while mass can never be increased nor decreased
in the universe, it can become less accessible and usable), to Einstein's
relativity (where the speed of light reveals a relativistic relationship
between space and time, i.e. a space-time continuum where mass,
'rigid,' also has energy, 'change'―which
is actually stable, unchanging, in that everything does what it is supposed to do,
as God created it to behave. There I "just went to far" again.) An
atomic bomb is stable, every electron, proton, neutron, quark, jiffy, etc.
doing exactly what it was designed by God to do, while the paradigm is
'rigid,' everything doing what it is designed to do, being predictable,
all 'change' taking place as God established it, all behaving according
to the laws of nature, with man being the only thing created by God who
can think―analyze and evaluate―and thereby produce 'change' outside of
the stimulus-response cycle of the creation, his heart being the
changing factor, man being the
only thing in the creation able to 'change' the creation, that is change
the environment, i.e. how it is to be perceived, experienced, and
re-designed (the choice being his heart set upon doing things according
to his will or God's will). By changing himself and his environment from being
objective
(righteous) to being subjective (sensual), in thought and in action, i.e. in theory
and in practice, he changes from faith to sight, he changes his
system of thought and action from He who is above, to that which is
below. Which is exactly what happened in the garden in Eden.
While the process of questioning, evaluating, and experimenting is
essential to the discovering of the laws of rocks, plants and animals,
when it is applied to man himself (other than his physical body) it
materializes him (making him subject only to the sensuous, only
to this world, only to nature), and then,
when re-applied back to science (having incorporated
sensuousness, i.e.
relativity and 'changingness' to science), it makes the field of science
subject to the opinions of men, thus 'scientists' (so called scientists)
end up treating facts as though they are theories and treating theories
as thought they are facts, controlling the thoughts and actions of the
world based upon their humanistic opinions (any true scientist who interferes with the hopes of the
psycho-scientists
is regarded as irrelevant and treated with contempt). This is the avenue
on which the
dialectical process takes everyone down, at least all who participate in
the process. Once dialectical minded laws are
established, all must travel down the same avenue it they are to be
'relevant' in a 'rapidly changing world.'
When God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of
man, man became a living soul, he became "negative" to (no
longer just of) the dust
of the earth he was formed from. Therefore in the "negation of
negation" of the dialectical process, the negation of that which is made
in the image of God, in human thought and action, the soul of man is negated, making him subject only
to the dust of the ground from which he was formed, making him material
and no longer spiritual, sensual and no longer subject to righteous, temporal and
no longer eternal, no longer accountable, other than to the social
moment, for his thoughts and actions, his soul now buyable and sellable as the
dust of the ground, as a material of
the earth, i.e. as a commodity, as a resource, being 'driven' by his sensual nature, bound only to the
creation and eternal death, and no longer directed by the Spirit of God
but freed to be himself, no longer bound to the God of love and eternal life.)
Anathema to the 'open'
system is a 'closed' system. And
anathema to the 'closed' system is an 'open' system. Therefore, to
an 'open' system (feelings and thoughts), a 'closed' system (facts and
truth) is a paradigm which engenders opposing positions
because it insists upon absolute right and absolute wrong, restraining a
"sensuous" world, restraining a world of discovery and
'change,' restraining a world based upon human nature, from praxis
(making man's feelings and thoughts the basis for action, individual and
social action). The 'closed' system or paradigm is
referred to as a patriarchal paradigm, a paradigm
of 'rigidity' ('unchangingness'). It is not that change can not
take place, but that change is limited by established, unchanging laws
(animals can change within their kind, but are limited to the laws which
pre-determine their kind and the laws which pre-determine change within
their kind.)
The patriarchal paradigm
blesses the righteous and condemns the wicked, rewarding those who do
right and punishing those who do wrong, i.e. punishing those who deviate
from that which is right (Deuteronomy 31:15-20). Therefore the purpose of life is doing what
is right and not doing wrong. When right and wrong (or good and
evil) are pre-determined, they are
established by an authority which is greater than the situation―greater
than, higher than, and not 'driven' by the human 'moment' (the sensuousness of the situation). Therefore right and wrong (being
pre-determined and therefore not re-determined or 'changed' by the situation) are not to be
evaluated "in the light of,'' nor to be judged according to the
situation, by those under authority (exactly what the woman did in the
garden in Eden, with Adam following; Genesis 3:1-6). The situation can not
determine whether right or wrong, good and evil (established by higher
authority) are of worth or not of worth, can not evaluate
and judge whether they are relevant or irrelevant according to the
situation (the sensuous 'moment' can not determine, evaluate, or
judge the worth or relevance of right and wrong, or good and evil; I am
writing here of God and the laws he has placed in nature and the laws
which he has established for man, laws which no man can 'change'
according to his feelings and thoughts and actions, i.e. using his
sensual nature to determine whether God's good and evil is right or
wrong, i.e. if, according to man's perception, according to his
opinion, God's evil (spiritually determined as evil) is wrong or not relevant, then to punish a person for
doing evil (temporally determined as good) is wrong, this is the 'justification' for humanism,
where
man's sensuousness becomes the measurement for all things, i.e.
turning good into evil and evil into good, good being that which is
sensually defined as good and evil (pleasure being good and pain being
evil), and evil being that which
spiritually defined as good and
evil (righteousness being good and wickedness being evil), sensually determined good and evil
negating
spiritually determined good and evil, good and evil being defined according to whether they repress or liberate
the sensual nature of man, and therefore liberating all mankind
from that which is spiritual, i.e. negating the parents of the traditional home,
patterned after God's system, and eventually God himself, from the
thoughts and actions of men).
“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)
As written about
in other articles, we are not aware (cognizant) of the paradigm change which is
taking place in the environment of 'change.' Since our nature is so easily captivated by the
situation we are participating in, the changing of
our way of thinking and acting is not apparent (perceived) until it is to late (we find ourselves
having participated, being 'driven' by our
sensuousness uniting with the
sensuousness
of the moment, to only afterwards have our conscience bother us―our eyes
toward
sensuousness, drawing us into participation with the 'moment,'
are stronger than our ears toward the conscience, warning us of the
consequence of our participation with the 'moment'). We have to 'repent' of our
praxis in
the 'open' system, but more then likely we will not because of the
pleasures which came through participation in the 'moment' with the 'open'
system and
the fear of judgment and condemnation for our wickedness, expected from the 'closed'
system,
keeping our participation with the 'moment' and therefore the 'moment'
secret, thus keeping the "open" system from being exposed as evil. In some way,
shape, or form, like Adam and Eve in the garden in Eden, we justify our
actions (and the 'open' system, the process of 'change') and the action
of others, to ourselves, thereby weakening our
stance upon the 'closed' system while insuring the 'open' system goes on
unchecked.
Only the one in authority, the one who establishes right and
wrong (good and evil), can have mercy and grace upon the one with wrong behavior (at his discretion,
according to His will and according to His established conditions; for
example: God already had a way for man to be redeemed from His wrath
against man's sin (his wrath upon the children of disobedience), before he created man, therefore God did not negate the law and the
prophets by creating a new law in response to a changing situation, but
in Christ's fulfillment of the law and prophets, he redeemed man from
the curse which came with his breaking of the law and abuse of the
prophets―through the law of righteousness, found in Christ, and by our faith and belief in the Son of
the living God, we receive grace and mercy, already determined, by God the Father,
all established before the creation of man).
The situation can not determine the mercy or grace, it must be imputed by higher authority. The guilty can not declare mercy
upon themselves, superseding the judge's decision. A car,
for example, can not change itself according to its will because of a
changing situation, i.e. a changing condition. Only the designer or the
mechanic (the one in authority over the 'closed' system) can change the
car to compensate for the changing situation. Therefore the system
is 'closed' in all situations, the object (the car, or man's life) being subject to
the will of higher authority (the car mechanic or auto engineer, the giver of life)
and not subject to the situation (for example: Jesus in the temptations
and before the cross did His Father's will despite the situation, i.e. he
did not let the situation determine whether he would listen to or obey
the Father's will or question it, i.e. 'change' it). The object
(car, man) is subject to the
right and wrong established by higher authority (the laws of nature, the giver of the
laws for life and death). Therefore mercy and grace are subject to
the established conditions (if-then) of higher authority, with the laws
of right and wrong never
changing ('rigid'). The law of Christ, did not negate the laws of
the Father, he fulfilled the Father's laws, which we could never do (despite
God saying "be ye perfect as I am perfect" it is an impossibility
for man to be perfect in himself),
Christ paid our debt for breaking the law (breaking one law you broke
them all, it was not a particular law which was broken that brought
judgment, i.e. grading on the curve being therefore possible, it was the
paradigm change which brought judgment), thereby, Christ imputing his righteousness unto us, establishing his law of
righteousness upon
all who believe upon him, God's paradigm of righteousness giving
us life, a life directed by a spiritual paradigm of faith
negating the sensual
paradigm of sight, Gods grace and mercy toward us resulting from our faith in Christ Jesus
and not of our works (which can only be sensual in 'purpose'), i.e. by
grace are you saved and not of yourself. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Ephesians 2:8, 9
Therefore those who hold to an 'open'
system
(the system Satan brought into the garden in Eden with him and used on
the woman, Genesis 3:1-6, with Adam following) perceive those of the
'closed' system as being wrong in their way of thinking,
thus engendering opposing paradigms or opposing ways of thinking
(producing "controversy," i.e. bringing truth into the
ambiguity, thereby preventing manipulation from taking place, i.e.
bringing thesis into the antithesis, thereby
preventing synthesis from taking place), the
'closed' system being a barrier to the sensuousness of man (perceived
as being 'rigid,'
limiting, and judgmental of the human
situation), the 'open' system being subject to (driven by) the sensuousness of man
('changeability,' 'influenceable" by the human situation).
The 'closed' system is based upon God's system of righteousness (where
righteousness is
imputed to man
by God, through
faith in the one who is greater than the human situation, one who is not
of the situation,
i.e. not of the world, i.e. not of the 'open' system, but, while in the
situation, while in the world, while in the 'open' system was subject to the will of
God the Father in all things (not participating in the 'open' system,
i.e. don't you do it either). I am writing here of Jesus the
Christ, the obedient Son who shows us the patriarchal paradigm,
not once stepping outside of it, obedient even to death, abiding in a
'closed' system where, when the Father commanded, the Son obeyed―while
in the flesh, while in the 'open' system he was always subject to the will of the Father, lead by
the Spirit and "It is written,,," and not once submitting to the will
of the flesh,
as in lust of the flesh, i.e. sensuousness, the 'justification'
for those in the 'open' system). "Then answered
Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things
soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "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." John
5:19, 12:49; "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)
The 'open'
system is wicked. No matter how 'righteous'
or 'good' those
in the 'open' system might think they are, or seek to be, they can never
be righteous before God―they can only believe in works
salvation, where man determines, evaluates, and judges 'righteous'
in his own eyes, i.e. determining, evaluating, and judging worth or
'righteousness' based upon his own efforts (according to his own life
experiences), driven by his "sense perception"―thereby
rejecting that righteousness
which can only be imputed by God, the one and only Living, Holy,
Pure, and, Righteous God of a "closed"
system of right and wrong, mercy
and grace, a system of Law, Word, and Spirit, all three manifesting
God's Love, the Father revealing the Law (exposing man's sins that he
might repent of his works), the Son revealing the Word (revealing God's
redemption from the curse of the law, through faith), and the Spirit
revealing the love of the Father and the Son in our hearts and minds, all three being one, i.e. "closed." Don't tempt God by
making him choose between His law, a 'closed' system, and his love for
you (his love, a 'closed' system, in agreement with his law, and you wanting
his love to be an 'open' system, subject to your carnal desires, the law of
sin; "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may
consume it upon your lusts." James 4:3), when you treat His Law as irrelevant, when you treat His Word as
irrelevant, when you treat His Spirit as irrelevant in any
situation, making
his 'closed' system subject to your 'open' system, subject to your
'feelings' driven behavior, subject to your opinions, you will be judged as
being evil (the Law, the Word,
and the Spirit of
God are not subject to your reasoning, your legalism, nor you licentiousness. God will always
side with His Law, His Word, and His Spirit). His Law reveals his Love,
and
His Love for you is revealed in His Law, not in its absence (the law
is spiritual), without it you would never know
your wickedness. God chastens those he loves. The very act
of chastening needs law or else it is sadistic for the one doing
the chastening and masochistic for the one receiving it.
Some examples of dialectical thought upon obedience to authority and
chastening for disobedience are: "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, Escape). God's law reveals your need for
His righteousness, otherwise your "open" system would determine,
evaluate, and judge you as being righteous (or good, or "OK," or
whatever) in your own eyes and therefore you would not be aware that you
needed salvation and a savior (Jesus Christ The Word who came, not to negate the law, as man in the 'open'
system would have it, but to
fulfill it, being righteous, being obedient to His Heavenly Father's
will in all things, obeying His Heavenly Father in dying for our sins, taking upon himself God's judgment
against us, judgment due us because of the sins we committed in the
'open' system against Him, i.e. His Law directed us to the Word, to He who redeemed
us from God's wrath upon us, His Holy Spirit now directing us in the
'closed' system of righteousness, instead of our sensuousness
directing us in the 'open' system of wickedness).
The Word of God declares that
all have sinned, that there are none righteous, and that the heart of
man is
desperately wicked. Those who use the dialectical process reject
all three declarations (if not in word, at least in practice, using the
dialectical process, in some cases cloaking it with selected scripture, cut and pasted―extrapolated, to deceive
the naive, for gain). The dialectical person, wanting his brain
washed of system of righteousness, uses human reasoning and
self-social justification to free himself from his guilty conscience and
the fear of God (defining the Word of God according to his discretion, but not loving God and His Word
with all his heart, soul, mind, and might).
Deceived into measuring himself by his own heart, therefore believing
that he is basically 'good' he refuses to have his heart
washed of its wickedness,
washed by the blood of the Lamb, redeeming him from the guilt of his
sins and God's wrath upon him. "Professing themselves to be wise,"
mingling the word of God with their reasoning abilities and human sensuousness
(even to promote "the kingdom of God," a kingdom which can
only be inherited, by faith, the scriptures, Christ, and grace
alone), "they have become fools." Romans 1:22 (For greater detail on the "shift" from
faith in God to the human perspective of man see the Diaprax Article,
Jürgen Habermas.)
An 'open' system is a
paradigm which engenders common position.
It is a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' focusing upon the building
of human relationships as the 'purpose' of
life. It is a system
which builds
human relationship upon sensuousness (instead of established truths or facts), uniting one
another upon that nature which is common with all men (a method used in the
business world to 'create' customers, called "general systems theory").
"Partnership is the same as synergy
[general systems theory].
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, Maslow)
For
example: Peter Drucker helped Rick Warren build his church upon the
'open' system of "general systems theory."
Another Peter
Drucker, of Europe, wrote the following paper in
defense of homosexuality (human means homo-man; "homo sum: humani nil
a me alienum puto" which means "I am a human being: I
regard nothing of human concern as foreign to my interests." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary).
Drucker wrote: "In
the socialist future monogamy would ‘completely disappear' "...‘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'." (Drucker of Europe)
Homosexuality is part of the tapestry of the "contemporary
church movement" because it, the "contemporary church" is built upon the dialectical process
of human emancipation from the law and judgment (and therefore grace and
mercy) of God.
(For those in the process, I just went "to far.")
The
situation of sensuousness and the sensuousness of the
situation 'drives' us into worrying about how people 'feel' about us or
what they 'think' about us. We, by nature, are concerned about what we might gain if
they feel or think well of us, even the feeling of approval is a gain, or
what we might lose if they feel or think the worse of us, even the
feeling of disapproval is a loss to us. Jesus despised the shame of the
cross (shaming is a people thing, the cross being human disapproval at the extreme end of
disapproval) but it did not stop him from doing what was right.
In other words, the
person of the patriarchal paradigm uses the pre-established
definitions of right and wrong of the 'closed' system to determine who to relate with
and what to do and who not to relate with and what not to do.
Basing relationships upon right or wrong behavior
engenders social disharmony, especially when relationships are
broken off with those who refuse to think and act the right way (when
you speak evil of their way, John 8:31-59, and they speak evil of your way, Acts 17:8, 9).
The heresiarchal paradigm uses the sensuousness of the situation,
the desire for human approval (for whatever reason), to seduce all
people into participation in the "open" system of 'change.' It
is in this system that all
are encouraged to think and act 'openly,' behaving (expressing themselves) according to their own feelings and thoughts
(and accepting of other people's feelings and thoughts as well).
Anyone behaving according to the 'dictates' of the 'closed' system is
viewed with suspicion and contempt.
The traditional way of thinking (the
patriarchal paradigm) initiates and sustains 'rigidity,' i.e. a
top-down, hierarchical, 'closed' system of right and wrong which is intolerant
of ambiguity (intolerant of ambiguity means demanding certainty,
correctness, confidence, stability, etc. which produces clarity and
specificity, for the purpose of order). The transformational way of thinking and
acting (those who use the heresiarchal paradigm) initiates and sustains 'change,'
i.e. a sensual, democratic, 'open' system of deviancy and
permissiveness which is tolerant of ambiguity (tolerant of
ambiguity means permissive of uncertainty, vagueness, insecurity,
confusion, et., which gives opening for the facilitators of 'change' to use
"double-speak" and generalization for the purpose of deception and
manipulation of people; "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."
(Wheat)
Karl Marx, in his work
The Holy Family details the method of turning specifics into
general and then back to specifics again, but this time the specific is
viewed, through "the ether of the brain," as "oneness as
allness, as
'totality,'" as he used the example of fruit: pears,
apples, almonds, strawberries, raisins becoming "the Fruit,"
and then, speculatively, back into "the real natural fruit"
again, "creating those fruits out of his own abstract
reason" seeing the individual fruit in its "unity"
with all fruit, its "mystical interconnection"
with all
fruit now perceived in each fruit (since all men are basically 'good,'
by creating the 'right' conditions the 'goodness' of man can be
recognized, liberated,
and then used to create a 'good' world). Thus the 'open' system does
not hate man, it hates the 'closed' system which man puts his trust in,
that system which makes him accountable to a higher authority than his
own human nature, judging his human nature (and the nature of the world)
as evil, thus keeping man from finding unity within himself and with
the world. Jesus stated it this way:
"The world cannot hate you; but me
it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."
John 7:7 The world does not hate you, it hates Christ being in
you, in your "every" thought and action (not leaving room for 'self'
justification, i.e. human justification), it hates you taking "into
captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."
(2 Corinthians 10:5), thereby, judging them as evil, if not in word at
least in your actions, refusing to participate in their praxis
(if you are not with us, you are against us, at least suspect and need
to be watched and your 'motives' exposed to see if they are evil, i.e.
if they are anti-social, a-social, .fill in the blank: ____ social,
causing or having the potential of creating social disharmony, as in "We
can't having any loose bricks around for people to trip and fall on or
feel uncomfortable about" since the whole, i.e. the
feeling of pleasure which comes from the harmony of bricks in the
sidewalk or wall, is greater than the sum of the bricks in
a pile).
Karl Marx clearly defined the Christian so as to explain
how to destroy him. "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)
By recognizing the sensuousness which lies within the
Christian and then creating an environment wherein the Christian can
feel free to speculate upon his own sensuousness (his own
desires) and the sensuousness of others (their own desires made
know through dialogue), finding a common element (awareness of desires
which are common, i.e. a common 'ought') between himself and others, he
can move the Christian from rigidity in thought and action (righteousness)
to fluidity, i.e. 'change,' based upon him finding within himself that
which he has in common with the world around him (sensuousness),
thereby 'helping' (liberating) the 'Christian' to weigh his thoughts and
actions and the thoughts and actions of others upon this 'newly
discovered' "mystical interconnectedness." From then on the
'Christian' evaluates thoughts and action (his own and others), no
longer on righteousness (from God and his Words), but rather upon
sensuousness (from man and his 'felt' needs), even basing
'righteousness' upon sensuousness. That is why you get the
'deer in the headlight' look from people today when you try to warn them
of what is happening to them and the world around them. It your
warning is not couched in sensuousness then they have no ability
(or desire) to receive any warning which calls them to repent of their
sins and receive that righteousness which can only come from God
above, since their 'righteousness' is now grounded upon only that which
is from below, i.e. their own sensuous nature and the
sensuous nature of
others, blinding them, blocking them from hearing the truth, i.e. they
are no longer able to fear God and love of His Word since both require
the denial of human sensuousness as the 'driving' force of
righteousness). "But this thing commanded I them,
saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that
it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their
ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil
heart, and went backward, and not forward. Since the day that your
fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have
even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up
early and sending them: Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined
their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their
fathers. Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but
they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but
they will not answer thee. But thou shalt say unto them, This is a
nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor
receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their
mouth." Jeremiah 7:23-28
The heresiarchal paradigm uses
the dialectical process to initiate and sustain sensual union or
harmony with nature (union
with that which is temporal, carnal),
where the desire for sensual union 'drives' the 'purpose' of
life, where the sensation of oneness, the want of being at-one-with the gratifying objects of nature, without
and within, i.e.
Narcissus and
Orpheus
(key structures of thought for Freud and therefore for psychology), worldly love cherished and
worldly love expressed, brings meaning, determination, and resolution to
life. The dialectical
process is used to 'help' everyone 'rationally' find what they have in common with
one another (how everyone feels, thinks, and acts when they are uninhibited by the
pre-set standards and the threat of punishment of the 'closed' system).
"Then
both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each
other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life
context."
(Habermas, Social Theory)
By everyone using the dialectical process to 'discover'
their common ground (only possible through the dialoguing of opinions in
a "non-hostile," non-judgmental, non-patriarch environment, i.e. free to share how they
feel or think; "I feel..." "I think ...."), they 'discover' that
their common feelings, thoughts, and actions are not in
harmony with the pre-set standards which they were taught and chastened into
obeying, i.e. they can not 'rationally' define their position to
everyone's understanding, since it did not come from "them," it did not
come from their human nature. The group then becomes the reference
point of right and wrong
rather than the 'past' authority figure.
"The group to which an individual belongs is
the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions"
(Lewin, Resolving) In the dialectical way of thinking,
right behavior is 'willful' participation in the dialectical
process, where everyone is 'discovering' their human identity through
the building of human relationships, uniting with others upon that which they all have
in common, the sensuousness of being at one with nature, theirs
and others (self-esteem comes from group-esteem, which comes from finding
what you have in common with others as far as feelings and thoughts are
concerned), thereby engendering social harmony (common-ism with
sensual equality, i.e. no above-below system depriving the person of sensuousness, producing inequity-inequality). While
parents 'deprive' their children of sensuous experiences, which they
are having, the same is not true of God since God is a Spirit and not
temporal (sensual) in nature. This is where the earthly father and
the Heavenly Father part ways (one is born into sin because of his flesh
and 'open' minded ways which he learned to limit as he matured, the
other is not able to sin, be 'open' minded, since He is Spirit and can not be tempted),
despite them both maintaining a patriarchal paradigm (one having learned
it, the other being it). As you will see,
Karl Marx understood the 'need' to destroy (annihilate) the patriarchal paradigm
(destroy the way of thinking which preached and taught obedience to authority and
used chastening to reinforce it).
Man needs the patriarchal paradigm in his life for him to understand
God's way of thinking. Destroy the patriarchal paradigm in man and
you destroy his faith in God. In other words by 'liberating' man from the patriarchal
paradigm, helping him dialectically to replace it with the heresiarchal
paradigm of 'change,' you can help him put his "trust" in man and the
institutions of men. "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 "Trust in the LORD with
all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
Proverbs 3:5
The dialectical agenda is not social harmony.
The agenda is that everyone embraces the dialectical process as their
way of thinking and acting, accepting it as the only
right way of thinking and acting. Social harmony is the byproduct of the process, the result of everyone's 'willful' participation in the process
itself (experiencing the process of 'change' for themselves, eating of
the "forbidden" fruit for themselves―reading
about it is not enough, feeling like doing it is not enough, thinking
about doing it is not enough, everyone must "just do it." Marcuse).
Sensuousness is the
'drive,' and everyone's 'willful' participation in the dialectical process is the
'purpose.' Thereafter right and wrong (what is real and not real or of
worth and not of worth) must only be determined, evaluated, and judged
through "sense experiences" (experiencing for oneself), self
consciousness (conscietization) being the only truth (right or
good) which is real (or of worth), the only truth which can be known (Gnosis-where
the truth is liberated through the proper experience; where that
knowledge, γνωσις, gnosis, which comes through
"sense
experience" is the only way, truth, and life). Wrong behavior
is willful refusal to participate in the dialectical process, insisting upon staying with pre-established standards
of right-wrong, good-evil (with "self-denial," self-control,
self-government ruling over sensuousness, 'repressing' it,
according to the 'open' system and
thereby 'repressing' the 'truth' by believing that it, the
truth resides in a person who claims to be the way and life, i.e. that
believing in a higher authority than your own life experience can set
you free; "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free." "If the Son therefore shall make you free,
ye shall be free indeed." " And because I tell you the
truth, ye believe me not." John 8:32, 36, 45 emphasis added;
read John 8:31-45). Thus wrong or evil behavior is behavior which
inhibits or blocks 'discovering' common ground, refusing to 'discover'
"the truth" through your own common experiences with others (thus
judging your behavior and their behavior according to pre-established standards,
commands, or laws of right and wrong), thereby
engendering social disharmony. It is the rejection of the
dialectical process as the right way of thinking and acting, the refusal
to participate in it yourself and the inhibit or block of others from
participating in it, which produces the by-product of social
disharmony. You are now perceived as the barrier to everybody
else's wants. While they might want everyone
to 'like each other' while building a bridge you don't need
it to build the bridge. It will cost you more time and money and
the loss of your independence to build the bridge with their wants
than with your need.
According to some people who use the process, the denial of
dialectical participation is an "act of violence." When
"men
prevent others from" participating in the process of questioning
higher authority and their established truths they prevent them from
'discovering' 'truth' through "inquiry," and thereby
prevent them from coming to the knowledge of what is good and what is
evil for themselves, through their own experiences ("human rights"
meaning that
all men must be free to eat the "forbidden" fruit, experience
it, sensually, for themselves, without judgment or
restraint, "As long as no one is 'hurt,'" whatever that might mean).
"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 oppressive violence. Any school
which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry is
guilty of violent oppression."
(Freire) The 'purpose' of school today is the negation of
parental authority (and its 'acts of violence') in the life of the next
generation. The agenda is fatal to parental authority.
"Can the student accept the fact that the
traditional family might be changed and might possibly disappear?" (Dressell)
The 'shift' in education, for example, was from an authoritarian
condition, with teachers teaching, to a totalitarian condition with
teachers and students in partnership attacking "traditional
parental authority." The concern was how the traditional
parent would respond and how best to neutralize that response before it
happened, i.e. the parents took control of the educational system again,
closing it down if necessary, i.e. taking their children home.
"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)
The solution was found in
education, media, and political actions which would be in favor of
'change,' putting pressure upon the parents to conform to the 'changing
times,' directly affecting their relationship toward their own children.
"Using social environment forces to
change the
parents behavior toward the child."
(Adorno)
"Once the parent can in any way
imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in
the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless
of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Bennis)
The heresiarchal paradigm of "critical
consciousness," i.e. consciously seeking 'change' from the truth which
says "Is" (as in "I
AM" or "It is written..."), seeks only that 'truth' which is from below
(seeking sensual truth, experiential truth, non-judgmental 'truth'―being judgmental only of judgmental
truth) and seeking to remove that truth which is
from above (removing that truth which judges as evil those who seek to
discover for themselves the 'truth' which is from
below, removing that truth which judging as evil those who do not
believe in the truth from above, removing that truth which judging as
evil those who question, counter, and curse that truth which is from above), uses the dialectical process to
"help" people "discover" the 'driving force'
which all men have in common (the common-ism
of sensuousness). Therefore the truth is only knowable
through the senses (touch, taste, sight, smell, sound), truth being itself
sensuous, only proceeding
from nature. Doctrine and the teaching of facts are not truth,
only the sensuous 'moment' (time) discovering itself in the
moment of sensuousness (space) is truth (truth being time and
space united in sensation, "something" being 'discovered' in
sensation). "Any time we teach a
child something, we keep him from discovering it himself." (Jean Piaget)
The use of the dialectical process also 'helps' men put their common-ism
of sensuousness
into praxis, 'purposed' in the negation of the patriarchal paradigm
of 'rigidity' (dialectically classify as non-sensuous, as nonsense,
an environment where
sensuousness is suspended in the learning and
teaching of facts, conversely dialectically, facts are suspended in the
'discovering' of sensuousness).
In a dialectical world belief is first treated as
being just another opinion, until you refuse to bite, and then truth is
responded to by indifference (that glassed over look), for the good of all, and then if
necessary, because you still refused to bite, it is treated with
contempt and you are confronted with hostility or removed, having no
right to preach and teach the truth, belief being a system, a way of
thinking and acting, which is damaging others, including your own
children (the supreme court called it "dangerous" in the Jaffrey
case, i.e. the prayer in school case). You preach and teach truth (which is from above).
You dialogue opinions (which are from below). With man, all
truth, which he can know (discover) on his own, through his perspective, is from
below (including his beliefs). With God, all truth is from above.
Thus The Word of Truth must be revealed by God to man (by His Spirit),
preached and taught by man to man (made understandable by His Spirit),
if man is to become aware of the truth (that truth which is from above exposing
and condemning that 'truth' which is from below). True science only discovers those truths in nature which God created.
Man was not created to be subject only to those truths but the truths
which come from God. Dialectical men seek to use the methods which
are used in discovering truth in nature on man, deceiving himself and
others into believing that man is 'only' of nature, thereby destroying
his faith in God. "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
"Oppositions" is antithesis in the Greek.
"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 1:21 The wisdom of God
is made known to man only by the spirit of God (the Word being "God
breathed"), therefore having to be believed when heard (the truth being
made known only through the "foolishness of preaching," "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God." Romans 10:17), while the wisdom of the world is
knowable only by the flesh of men (the wisdom of the world being sensuous or carnal consciousness and 'reasoning' justifying
sensual pleasure). Thus
'truth,' being knowable only through man's own "sense experiences,"
i.e. through his "sensuous needs" and his "sense perception,"
it
has to be at-one with the senses to be 'true.' Human 'reasoning'
can only know the 'truth' (what is right and wrong, good and
evil) through human sensuousness and therefore gravitates
all things into one sensual common-ism (one method for arriving
at truth based upon sensuousness; made manifest in graven images
and the imagination). Therefore the truth can
only be made known through the 'reasonable' dialoguing of opinions until a
common sensuous experience emerges. Therein resides
the "emergent church." "It can't be wrong when it seems (feels or
is perceived as being) so right." Polls, surveys, and
feasibility studies first reveal, then esteem and set free, and then build upon man's human
nature (mans wanting of objects which produce "positive"
sensuous experiences), that which is common to all mankind, from which the apostate
Church is "grown." (Making customers is all about
the sensuous 'moment' for which the customer will come back for
more, i.e. different products but same sensation, i.e. pleasure. The 'quality' of the product no longer means durability
but rather the degree of pleasure (personal sensuousness) it
produces; 'ergonomics' i.e. incorporating "the human factor"). The
word of God warns: "There is a way
that seems to be right unto man
but the ends thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12.
Psychological counseling is created and sustained through the
use of the dialectical process. Psychology's 'purpose' is the negation
of the patriarchal paradigm of 'rigidity,' i.e. replacing
righteousness with sensuousness, replacing 'fixity'
with 'changingness,' by making sensuousness the 'driving
force' in the individuals life and 'changingness' the 'purpose'
of life, making the process of change (the dialectical process itself)
the determining, evaluating, and judging factor in the social order of
life (where 'purpose' is not established above human nature but is found
within human nature; 'discovered' and liberated by man's participation in
the dialectical process, and put into praxis through the use of the
dialectical process upon others, the way, truth, and life residing
within its liberating power, liberating nature (sensuousness) from
that which is not of
nature, i.e. liberating man from God, the God who created nature, so man could
worship nature, the creation, instead of God, the creator; worshiping it
in his sensuous 'moment,' in "his immediate experiencing"
with it if not in his imagination). Carl
Rogers, in his book on becoming a person, wrote:
"In this process the individual becomes
more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness
or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate
ambiguity." The person "lives openly and freely in
relation to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate
experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness."
"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." "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) In
other words, right, good, and truth are not eternally established
outside of human nature but is human nature being liberated by, in, and
for the process (sensation) of 'change.'
For those who are possessed by the dialectical process, the
'changing' of paradigms is the 'purpose' of life. "But my God shall supply all your need according to his
riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:19
is 'changed' to "We shall supply all our needs (wants) according to our wealth and
abilities, by our common collective power (our compassion
for peace through unity, "We working for us"), 'in the name of
Jesus.'" Common collective power is knowable
only by polls, surveys, and feasibility studies and is put into praxis through common-unity (community) participation. The idea being:
outside of the group, community, or society, life has no meaning or
'purpose,' it is the fellowship which gives Christ meaning or 'purpose'
(sensual-temporal) and no longer Christ alone who gives the fellowship meaning or 'purpose'
(spiritual-eternal).
Many would deny this separation of the two, believing the two are
inter-dependent (dependent upon each other; "Without man God can do
nothing on the earth." Just say that in God's face and see what
happens, i.e. "God you could not have done it without us." Talk about a
bug zapper. I want to be in another place when it goes off. There
is no "we" and "us" in heaven. There is just Him. You and I
are there just because of Him.). By embracing the first power (the
collective power of man, a generalized sensation of oneness) they
have negated the power of our Heavenly
Father, He who created us by His Spirit, He who sent his Son, Jesus
Christ to redeem us by his own blood, His righteousness bringing us into right―read
righteous―relationship with
the Father. All is
based upon His righteousness, His righteousness having to be
imputed. With man's use of the dialectical process, he has replaced God and His Love with the
community and the sensation of common-unity, which 'seems' to makes all things right (righteous). Many are
deceived into believing that man's common collective power, when used for
good, has eternal
value, especially if it is done in the name of Jesus. "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. Many will
say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23 Notice the emphasis Jesus places upon
"the will of my Father"
and the singular person and the emphasis the workers of "iniquity" place upon the
"we,"
the plural,
having done "many wonderful works" in Jesus
name. On the day of judgment there is no "we," just you and "He."
Just like no one can be born for you, breathe for you, eat for you, drink
for you, sleep for you, die for you, no one can be judged for you and
spend eternity in heaven or hell for you. It's just you and God,
with a lot of other people going through the same horror or joy as you.
There is also no 'group' grade. Your opinion might be "There is no
hell so there is no judgment." Not believing in hell or in
judgment is like not believing in gravity, as long as you are falling
you are all right. It's when you meet an object that you come to
know how unimportant your opinions are, if you have time to think
about it, and in hell you will. "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. 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. But he that doeth truth cometh to the
light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in
God." John 3:17-21 "There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1
"Change in organization [change in paradigm] can be derived from the
overlapping between play [sensuousness] and barrier [righteousness]
behavior. To be governed by two strong goals [being
righteous
in Christ, right before God and being esteemed by men, 'right'
before man] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting
controlling heads within the organism. The forces under the control of
one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are
effective [the fear of God or man must be greater than the internal
drive of sensuousness or conversely the internal drive of sensuousness must be greater than fear of man or God for one or the
other to be 'effective']." (Kurt Lewin as quoted in Benne) The
love and fear of men has to "counteract" the love and fear of God.
The love of men being sensuous, the love of God being spiritual.
The fear of men is expressed by 'How do they
(whoever they are) feel about me?' or 'What do they think of me?'
'How can I get anything out of this situation for myself, including the
esteem of men, if I act in a way that will cause them to reject
me.' However, the fear of God is 'What will God say or do?' ('to me' is
understood.) ''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
very praxis of the heresiarchal paradigm negates the
patriarchal paradigm. To participate in the paradigm of 'change'
is to justify the paradigm of 'change.' For example: during the
temptations in the wilderness, Jesus refused to
participate in the paradigm of 'change,' refusing to change from the spiritual,
being lead by that which is from above, to the temporal-sensual,
'driven' that which is below, while Adam and Eve, in
the garden in Eden, participated in the paradigm of 'change,' refusing
to obey God, they followed after their sensuous nature, justifying to
themselves their praxis of sin, i.e. It was not my fault, i.e.
something in the environment got me to do it. All
men have participated in the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' including the religious.
All men are religious, even though some men do not want to recognize it
or admit it―even humanism is a religion, evolution is a religion, those
who follow after and advance the 'process' follow it as a religion no
matter how hard they try to overcome it (for example: "negative
dialectics" and "chaos theory" are religions which seek to deliver man
from religion). Anything which gives man stability, consistence,
order, and identity is a religion (unstable men find stability in their
instability, we all need walls and can go insane without them).
The only true and everlasting religion is found in those whose sins are covered by the blood of
the Lamb (call it an opinion all you want, but one of these days you are
going to meet the truth, for better or for worse).
The same two paradigms are present today. The one has
been within you from birth, the other waiting for you to receive it, if
you have not already. Choose today which one you will use to know right and
wrong, good and evil with. The one is by faith-spiritual, eternal,
revealed. The other is by sight-sensual, temporal, experiential. With
the one, truth is
everlasting, established for all times, while with the other, truth is
temporal, knowable only in the human 'moment' of 'change,' (the sensation which comes from experiencing 'change'). When you
gave your life to the Lord, if you have, you also experienced the
sensation of change (changing from sight to faith). I hope that
your are not following after sensation, as many are in the church today.
By following after sensation (sensuousness) they have "falling
away" from faith (spiritual, God's approval). By merging faith
with sight (sensual, human approval) they have "put Christ to an
open shame" having joined with the "masses" (joined with the
common-unity) in crucifying Him who walks by faith alone, having placed
their hope in man's approval rather than in God). "For it is
impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If
they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame." Hebrews 6:4-6
The 'driving purpose' of the heresiarchal paradigm
is to negate the patriarchal paradigm. There is no other
'purpose.' Social harmony is not the 'purpose.' The very practice of finding what we all
have in common only (being "positive," as in
"Don't be so negative, let's be positive") and making what
we have in common the basis for
determining right behavior only (making what we have in common the basis for initiating and
sustaining relationship with others) negates that way of thinking
and acting which
insists that there are pre-established laws of right and wrong, good and evil
behavior, negates the making
of pre-established right and wrong, good and evil behavior the basis for initiating and sustaining
or inhibiting and blocking relationships with others. Living by
pre-established laws is dialectically perceived as being "negative,"
hateful, and even criminal since pre-established laws engender
social disharmony in a world of 'diversity.'
The idea, by those using the dialectical process,
is to use the social disharmony (the antithesis
condition) created by the patriarchal
paradigm, i.e. its 'rigidity,' to negate the patriarchal paradigm (negate the
thesis condition) through the creation of a synthesis
condition (the quest for harmony via. the consensus process, the
dialectical process). Although
Hegel is noted for the words thesis, antithesis,
and synthesis, they are really Fichte's words. The Marxist historian, John
Lewis explained the use of these words and their founder this way: "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." (Lewis) Anyone familiar with
Gnosticism should notice a similarity (God comes to know himself as man
comes to know himself―"As above, so
below"―by "bringing into existence a world over against"
his nature and then by "overcoming the limitations with which
[his nature] is confronted" he becomes cognizant of who he really
is, i.e. he becomes cognizant of reality (reality being found within the
process of 'change,' the overcoming of the resistance to change, the senses
gaining liberation from 'rigidity').
Social disharmony is an
antithesis condition, a
conflict condition involving 'feelings' of uncomforted, dislike,
resentment or hate toward restraint, produced by a thesis way of thinking
(a way of thinking which inhibits human impulse, i.e. spontaneity
of sensuousness in thought and in action).
"Universal Reconciliation
relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or ‘impulse.'" (Habermas)
"Impulse, the primary fact, back of which, psychically we cannot go." (Dewey) "Marcuse
thus could write that ‘the realm of freedom lies beyond mimesis.'"
(Bronner) The 'reason'
behind sensuousness and spontaneity (mimesis or impulse),
according to dialectical thought, is our original sensual
experience with nature as a child (being at-one with nature until higher
authority came along and broke up the union, placing "unnatural
restrictions" upon us, "repressing" our innate friendship
with the world around us). "What the child knows consciously
and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body."
"Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in
childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Infants have a richer
sexual life than adults." "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of
pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the
human body." "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the
world." "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;" "The repression of normal adult
sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal
domination." "Capitulation enforced by parental authority
under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be
accomplished only by repression." "Therefore
the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in
traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition
of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter
the kingdom of heaven." "Eros is
fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world."
"Eros is the
foundation of morality." (Brown) (The
scriptures warn us of the consequence of having friendship with the
world: James 4:4, quoted below)
Social disharmony correlates to bodily disharmony.
Therefore any condition which inhibits social harmony, inhibits bodily
harmony and visa versa. Righteousness over bodily-social pleasure being
the greatest inhibitor. "While adult sexuality serves the
socially useful purpose of breeding children, it is for the individual
in some sense an end in itself as a source of pleasure – according to
Freud, the highest pleasure." (Brown)
"Every effort must be made and all means employed to guard future
generations against the influence of the biologic rigidity of the old
generation." "The principle weapon on the arsenal of freedom is each new
generation's tremendous urge to be free." "The child's and adolescent's
natural love of life must be protected by clearly defined laws." "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."
(Reich) "Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth,
and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness."
Proverbs 30:20
Any antithesis
condition is the result of one person holding to a thesis
position which conflicts with another person's thesis
position (both insisting that their thesis position is right
or good and the other's thesis position is wrong or evil). Despite
both persons initiating and sustaining "formal
logical laws of contradiction" (a system which makes feelings
or impulses subordinate to established facts or truths, a system which makes
feelings, which are ever-changing, subject to facts, which are everlasting, a
system
or a way of thinking which they both have in common) they still produce
social disharmony because the "absolute" facts and truths they hold
to (the right and wrong, the good and evil which differs between them), produces an "I'm
right and you're wrong" way of thinking within both parties, thus
producing the antithesis
condition (if they didn't have "feelings" for approval from one another or others it
would not be an issue, i.e. "You go your way and I'll go mine."). Since both parties have the desire for
approval from some one, an internal tension results from the
confrontation. The dialectical thinking is, the reason they originally adhered to the
thesis condition in the first place was due to their desire for
approval from higher authority, along with the desire to avoid chastening.
Yet when both parties are forced to represent their thesis
position against each other in an environment which heightens their
desire to initiate or sustain relationship with the other party, the
situation is
changed into one where the desire for approval is the same for both
parties i.e. what they have in common, called the Matriarchal paradigm (the mother's
heart seeking for peace and harmony between the siblings in the home,
now carried over into the community―common-unity; by finding
the line which the patriarch draws in the sand, in regards to his wife,
children, home, etc, and the line, more than likely a blurred line,
which the matriarch draws in the sand, then focusing in on that area of
dissatisfaction and compromise between the father and mother―the
father's being "negative" toward 'change,' the mother's and/or children
being "positive" toward 'change,' making it the area of evaluation
through dialogue, especially within a group of mothers and/or children,
the community of women and/or children can be used to change the home
system, i.e. "a new community is in control over families" significantly
disrupting "the old way of doing things"). When
pre-established right and wrong, good and evil,
truths and facts supersede sensuousness (restrain feelings or "felt" needs which both
parties have in common) the only way to
'change' the other person's position or thesis is by means of
persuasion, i.e.
physically by chastening, mentally by preaching and teaching or
inculcating (formal, logical), socially through the act of rejection―by
physical
force (through the use of corporal punishment), mental force (through the
utilization of indoctrination and the development of the conscience), and
social force (through the use of excommunication).
To overcome
these features of the patriarchal paradigm (obedience to higher
authority and chastening for disobedience), specific methods used to
produce 'change,' have been developed by social-psychologists, i.e. "change
agents." Thus the use of "force field analysis" in the
dialectical process (explained below). The one system being
labeled "negative," the other "positive," i.e. in reference to the
amount of freedom allotted sensuousness and spontaneity.
"Before effective plans for change can be made the
present state of affairs must be defined as accurately as possible . . .
. [in other words] what are the forces which are keeping our
methods in the present ‘groove'?" "Driving forces
are those forces or factors affecting a situation which are "pushing" in
a particular direction; they tend to initiate a change and keep it
going. Restraining forces may be likened to walls or barriers.
They only prevent or retard movement toward them [note here that the
"prevented or retarded movement" is not toward the object of desire but
toward the higher authority who is restraining the person from the
object of desire, a very important distinction, critical to understanding the dialectical process, whose objective is not
to acquire the object of desire itself but to destroy any
'unreasonable,' non-sensible system which prevents its acquisition]."
"When we have
determined the nature of forces which are affecting the present state of
affairs we can think more clearly in selecting the forces or factors
which should be modified if the conditions are to change in the
direction we desire . . . our task then becomes either to increase the
total strength of the driving forces for change [increase the
conditions for social approval,
sensuousness and tolerance] or to decrease the total
strength of forces opposing change [decrease the conditions for
authority approval, law and obedience] or both." "The component
forces can be modified in the following way: (1) reducing or removing
the forces [diminish the means by which the patriarch supports his
position or prevent them from being used in the meeting―negate preaching
and teaching, i.e. "put downs," judgmentalism, Roberts Rules
of Order as they were intended, etc.]; (2)
strengthening or adding forces [augment the means by which the
heresiarch support their position or add them to the meeting―advance
dialogue and the sharing of opinions, i.e. "I think ...," "I feel
..." striving for agreement upon a consensus of opinions and not
just a majority of one point of view]; (3)
changing the direction of the forces [seduce the patriarch into dialogue, getting him to suspend his preaching and teaching attitude
for a 'moment,' for the sake of social unity]." "We might
select, as a first step, for instance, getting parents interested in
having more pupil participation in planning in the classroom ["pupil
participation in planning in the classroom" may "sound good" at
first but to do so in the classroom is to negate the top-down
patriarchal paradigm in the classroom and when done with the parents'
support, it is also the negation of the patriarchal paradigm in
the home, i.e. the parents have not only succumb to the seduction of
the 'siren song' of the dialectical process, weakening their stance on a
patriarchal way of thinking and acting (while giving the "change agents"
power to program their children in socialism in the classroom) the
process will now
come back into the home with the children who will attempt to fulfill the
negation
of the patriarchal home by their 'independent' thinking and their
questioning and challenging of parental authority (with social programs
in support of the children if the parents "go to far" by chasten their
children, especially while in the public eye); "Meyers in his study emphasizing group think, Higher
Horizons 1961, stated that 'to develop attitudes and values toward
learning which are not shared 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." Krathwohl, Book 2:
Affective Domain, i.e. challenging not
only the parents but the very system of parental authority itself,
not only in the home but also in the neighborhood]. With increased skill
[in the student's
ability to
negate of the effects of the patriarchal paradigm in his own
life through the tools learned in the classroom, tools on how to negate
parental authority in the home and the neighborhood] and
increased parent interest [parents who naively support the use of the
process in the classroom, marching under the banner of "quality
education," thinking it will help their child getting a "better"
job] two important forces in the situation have
been modified and the level of equilibrium of forces should move upward
toward more teacher-pupil planning [moving the classroom into a socialist programming
laboratory where not only the students but also the teachers join in
partnership in the
negation of the traditional, top-down method of education,
replacing facts with "facts with, through, and by feelings," replacing
righteousness with relationships]." "Whenever change is planned one
must make sure that the new condition will be stable." [Thus the need for consensus on
group projects and the groups 'willing' participation in initiating and
sustaining it in social action (the use of the dialectical process in identifying and
resolving the problems of social disharmony, social labor being the
implementation of the process via. praxis within the community,
via. volunteerism, task forces, community projects, etc.).
The project itself is not the objective, the 'changing' of
group behavior or the way a group thinks and acts while working on a
project is. The agenda is to change the group from an autocratic, top-down,
"belief in a superbeing" way of thinking and acting into a
"group think," common-istic, common-unity, common-sensuous way of
thinking and acting. "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." (Freud
quoted in Yalom)] "The method which we have discussed here is a general
method which can be applied to any problem of changing human behavior
[G. F. Hegel wrote: "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." (Friedrich)
The
dialectical process is referred to as "the scientific method."]
It supplies a framework for problem solving . . . the method can be
applied to problems of changing the curriculum, changing pupil behavior
school-community relations, administrative problems, etc." (David
H Jenkins' application of Kurt Lewin Force
Field Analysis in Benne; note: several statements/quotations
were embedded [contained within brackets] in the previous quotations of
Benne) If the parents, those in the school system or in the
neighborhood refuse to participate in the dialectical process, refuse to
move from their God given patriarchal way of doing things (often labeled
by those under the influence of the dialectical process as being against
education, community, and their own children's potential for success,
i.e. not only damaging their own children's future but the future of all
the children of the community and the community's future as well), then the dialectical process can not be advance effectively.
By retaining the autonomy (and sanctity) of the traditional home and the
freedom of the conscience (which the traditional home initiates and
sustains) in education and in the workplace, the dialectical process is
limited in its ability to gain a foothold in the neighborhood, the city,
the county, the state, and the nation. "The
dialectical method was overthrown―the parts
were prevented from finding their definition within the whole."
(Lukács, History)
"The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so
is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle is
redeemed by the crime against the pleasure principle: redemption
thus cancels itself." (Marcuse) In
other words, the patriarchal paradigm was beheaded ("the crime
against the reality principle" was accomplished), but due to the
guilty conscience (the "freedom of the conscience" against sensuousness, the guilty conscience making the beheading "a
crime") redemption from the patriarchal paradigm was negated by the
re-suppression of
sensuousness by the conscience ("the crime against
the pleasure principle" was accomplished) and "redemption"
from the patriarchal paradigm was canceled out. You can force a
'change' upon the people, freeing them from the higher authority, but
without the negation of the conscience, in particular, without
the negation of the "freedom of the conscience," the "parts" can
not "find their definition within the whole" the 'citizens' can
not find their identity (realize their citizenship) within the praxis
of common-unity (where citizen and common-ism become one and the some).
The patriarchal paradigm places liberty in
laws which
are greater than the sensuous desires of the moment.
Liberty in law is manifest where self-government guides man's behavior,
where behavior is developed by training in doing what is right,
according to law, and reinforced by the conscience.
The word "human" is not found in scripture and is used in
this article to
convey the carnal nature of man (not nature itself and its laws which
were established by God at the creation: See
Romans 1:16- regarding man's rejection of the laws of nature, and the
God of nature, and the consequence of turning to his own carnal human
nature to find law, making human nature the law to be obeyed instead,
where man's fallen nature becomes a law unto itself, i.e. man becomes a
law unto himself; "another law in my members ... bringing me into the
law of sin which is my members" ), as the Apostle Paul wrote:
"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
The "justification" for the use of the dialectical process, by
those who use it, is the element of sensuousness (the law of sin, i.e. the lust of the flesh as well as
the lust of the eyes and the pride of life―"Look at what 'I,' 'you,' or
'We' have done, am doing, or can do for, with, or to you or us because,
if, or when 'I,' 'You,' or 'We' ....", i.e. "'You,' 'We,' or even
God could not have done it, can not do it, or will not be able to do it
without 'me,' 'you,' or 'us.'" i.e. "'I,' 'You,' or 'We' can do whatever
'I,' 'You,' or 'we' imagine 'I,' 'You,' or 'we' can do, because, if, or
when ....") which both parties have in common (the objective being to
move the "God or parent will," to "I want," to "We can").
It is the only foundation upon which the "new world order"
can be build. The "old world order" being built upon position,
thesis, overt top-down authority, righteousness, as in
"'I'm right and you are wrong' because I am the one in authority and I
say so" is an order of absolutes and 'arbitrary' laws to man's
sensuous nature (if it's not experiential in nature it is not
understandable), producing commands which 'repress' carnal human nature,
which results in conflict, antithesis―opposing positions,
and tension―wars, etc. So by focusing upon what men have in
common, i.e. their sensuousness, in the midst of the chaos,
crisis 'created' by man's quest for righteousness, a "new world
order" can be synthesized, created. By 'shifting'
mans quest to the sensuousness of his carnality nature, through
focusing upon human relationship building, mankind can reject God above
man, judging sensuous man by His righteousness, and become
god himself, justifying his sensuous human nature as being
righteous; the quest for position leads to chaos which leads
to the quest for relationship, or put another way, righteousness
over sensuousness results in chaos or conflict between
righteousness, i.e. belief in God, and sensuousness, i.e. the
'normal' behavior of man, which, through the use of Diaprax, becomes the
'righteousness' of human sensuousness; human relationship
(the sensuousness of man) not Godliness (righteousness in
Christ) becomes the only acceptable way of thinking and acting, the only
way, truth, and life for a man living in a world built upon his own
nature.
"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 This
process is not only in you, it is in every living soul on the face of
the earth. That being the case, the world would say, 'then lets
not fight it, lets call it normal or 'good' and just do it, 'If it feels
good, just do it.' (Marcuse) "Our real choice is
between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you―madness
is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest,
but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is
not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I
wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was
missing in Marx." (Brown, writing
about Freud and Marx and the 'purpose' of psychology and sociology, all
promoting the law of sin; To which Brown added: "The
entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a
strange language―a world of sick
men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to
the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast,
unflinching look at what Freud has to say. To experience Freud is to
partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book cannot
without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." Brown)
The
heresiarchal paradigm places liberty in sensual license (sensuousness
and spontaneity within "reason," that is, according to
"human
reasoning," i.e. "As long as no one is 'hurt,'" whatever that
means), where men seek and receive
approval from one another for their sensual thoughts and actions.
"Sensible" or sensual," rational," practical, reasonable, etc.
thought and action is behavior all parties can come to consensus upon;,
consensus meaning "with sensuousness,"
when all participants agree upon "sensuousness," at least
in tolerating it in others (as being perceived as being 'good' in the
other person's eyes). Thus human
perception, "sense perception," and human needs,
"sensuous needs," become the judge of what is good
and what is evil in the world. The heresiarchal paradigm liberates
a man from the ways of God above to the ways
of the world below (sensuality emancipated by doubting, questioning, and
license or permissiveness which initiates and sustains disobedience to
unnatural restraints upon the temporal―"changingness,"
where liberty is found in the praxis of human nature, man freeing
himself
from Godly restraint through the praxis of becoming
himself, thus the reason for Carl Rogers to name his book, on
becoming a person).
By means of creating an environmental condition
which engenders liberation of the sensual (and spontaneous) nature of man
below from the restraining righteous (and spiritual) nature of God above, the
heresiarchal paradigm is able to 'help' a person 'change' his paradigm,
'change' his way of thinking and acting from living according to that
which is above (and therefore live counter to) his carnal nature to
living in accordance with that which is below (and therefore live in
harmony) with his carnal nature. While God gives man (for a period
of time) the 'right' to choose between the two natures (sensuousness,
i.e. man "doing his own thing" or righteousness which is
imputed to man through faith in Christ), the carnal nature of man
can not, it must negate righteousness, God's nature, since it
produces a guilty conscience and the fear of judgment upon man's carnal
behavior and thoughts (unless he can create in his mind a sensuous
God who is working in partnership with man for the cause of humanity he
can not escape the God of the Holy Scriptures, the Living God of
Righteousness, Mercy, and Grace―the last two man can handle as long as
the first attribute of God is not 'overly' emphasized).
By encouraging participants to
role-play their "true" nature
(the spontaneous expression of their sensual nature
in response toward the patriarch), by creating an environment where they
are liberated from patriarchal restraint
(liberated from the the fear of chastening, i.e. "negative feelings,"
what Kurt Lewin called the "negative valence," a foreboding
feeling
regarding relationship with or contact with a desired but "forbidden
object"; "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." Lewin, Dynamic), the person
is able to openly express his own feelings and thoughts, since he has no
sense of fear (the internal environment is liberated, i.e. "positive
feelings," are produced as a result of a non-judgmental, non-hostile environment; "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." Lewin, Dynamic). If the
parent or God is the "negative field of force," i.e. the source
of pain, then by simply removing of the source of pain (at least in the
mind of the one under authority, the authority is out of sight and out
of mind or the one under authority as the one under authority is given
the opportunity to perceive that he is now equal with if not greater
than the one in authority―which effectively negates or
neutralizes the power of the authority figure in the mind of the one
under authority), the fear of pain "disappears," that is, the feeling of
judgment, i.e. the conscience (intolerance of ambiguity―holiness and
purity), is negated as the "positive field of force," i.e.
human-relationship (the field of sensuousness) becomes equal to
or greater than the parent or God (the field of righteousness)
and the super-ego (tolerance of ambiguity―abomination) is "liberated."
With the negation of the patriarchal, 'ridged' condition the
heresiarchal, 'change' nature of man is "liberated."
Without the external environment being changed, in a controlled
situation (such as a classroom or workforce meeting), the internal
environment of the person could not be liberated and then the person
'used' to negate the "negative force fields" in the home, the
workplace, government, the church, etc, for the 'purpose' of liberating
society (sensuousness) from the effects of the patriarchal
paradigm (righteousness). Preaching and teaching (the
restraining of the sensual via. the righteousness of faith and
obedience) had to be replaced with dialogue (the liberation of
sensuality and spontaneity―within 'reason') before the
person could feel free enough to abandon (or at least step out of total
dependence upon) religion and God and become "human" again. Role-playing
produces that environment, the environment where "negative" feelings
(doing what is right before parent and God) can be changed into
"positive" feelings ("doing your own carnal thing" without
fear of reprimand). J. L. Moreno wrote, concerning role-playing: "Religion and science
[the righteous nature of God and the sensual nature of man―the
spiritual
and the temporal, i.e. God's way of thinking and acting
and mans way of thinking and acting, i.e. the 'autocracy' spirit of the parents
and the democratic spirit of the child, i.e. the restraining of the
flesh and the liberating of the flesh] 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.'"
(Moreno) "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."
(Reich)
(For a detailed critiquing of the 'roles' in role-playing, which accentuate the
nature of man (placing them in a "positive" connotation) vs. those which
accentuate the nature of God (placing them in a "negative" connotation) see
the articles
A Cookbook for Humans and
Deductive-Inductive Reasoning Part III.)
The patriarchal paradigm liberates a
man from the ways of the world below to the ways of God
above (spiritual: taught by that which is above and learned by faith and
trust in that which is above, where belief in and chastening by higher authority produces or leads to
obedience, producing a "peaceful fruit of righteousness,"
Hebrews 12:11―"unchangingness," where liberty is found in God's laws of restraint upon the depravity and
despotism of human nature). I am making a broad statement here for most
people, but for those "in the know," the socialist agenda is to
negate the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home (which is
not righteous in and of itself, but uses the tools which promote the
idea of righteousness, as in "Do what I tell you or else." or "Do things
right or else," i.e. "... or else get punished.") and thereby negate the
fear of God and the love of His Word from having any
control over social action (praxis). It is what many
in our government have understood, supported, and used for decades.
It is about time the general public knew. The "contemporary" churches use the same
system, if you haven't figured
that out yet.
The
following is a lengthy quotation (explained in greater detail in other
articles) that is inserted here because of its importance. It
explains why the uniting of
the world is dependent upon the destruction of the traditional home, and
the destruction of traditional business which proceeds from it (the
structure of the home environment and the economic environment go hand
in hand; read Vladimir
Ilyich Ulyanov's (Lenin's) speech below if you don't believe me). It
also explains the effect
government has had upon both the home and business when it intervenes, even for
what appears to be 'good.' Warren Bennis, in his award winning book
on business, wrote: "In order to effect rapid change, . . .
[one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of
present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words,
artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and
children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be
indoctrinated with new ideas. If one wishes to mold children in order to
achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One
must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied
to the past and know only what is irrelevant.
... any intervention between parent and child tend to
produce familial democracy regardless of its intent. The
consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves
felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once
the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible
liability to the child in the world approaching … 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. The state, by
its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily
undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore.
Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between
parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child
relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship.
For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience
and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence
in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian
submission, an overweening interest in the future development of the
child-- in other words, a child centered orientation." (Bennis) emphasis
added
Have you noticed how many political 'conservatives' use the
platform of "better" education and governmental help for the home and
private business. Remember the old saying "Liar, liar, pants ...."
In that line of thought, the old poem "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall ....
and all the king's horses and all the kings men could not put Humpty
Dumpty back together again' was about the beheading of the King of
France, and anyone else who thought patriarchal in paradigm. Once
the head of the home is "beheaded," i.e. dethroned or the father
abandons his office of authority, giving it over to the common-unity,
the traditional home is "moribund." Freedom of patriarchal
religion is negated in the heresiarchal religion of social-ism,
in the "new" world order of things.
"In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us
depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher
possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." (Maslow,
Maslow) "Human consciousness can be liberated
from the parental complex only be being liberated from its cultural
derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Brown)
Kenneth Benne wrote about the importance of
keeping religion
separated from science in the classroom (why role-playing, and
"sensitivity training" which proceeds from it, is so
important to the socialists―it is not that religion is negated it is
just redefined through secular eyes, i.e. scientifically making it
sensual and therefore 'human', i.e. the religion of human-ism). If the school
system is to be used
as a socialist laboratory and gain control over the electorate,
the curriculum has to be under the control of the social engineers, they
have to be in control of the school system (Bloom's Taxonomies
are being used in the school systems today instead of the traditional teacher's "facts based" type
of curriculum because of that very reason, i.e. socialists are in
control of education, not the "electorate"―the electorate are so
socialist today it does not matter, i.e. get out, i.e. home school, i.e.
yet Diaprax has that covered also, i.e. read the article on
Home Schooling).
"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." (Benne, Society)
The type of curriculum used in the classroom determines the type of
paradigm the children will learn, the paradigm learned will be used by
the next generation to set policy, how they will police themselves and
others (their use of "sight based management" brings police state to
mind), how they will identify and solve
problems (how the next generation of citizens will think and
act―determining worth or value of life, either by righteousness/spiritual
or by pleasure/temporal, Bloom's Taxonomies have creating the latter,
being used in classrooms all around the world).
The 'quest' for those who
praxis the
dialectical process is to produced the synthesis
condition whereby both parties can be "persuaded" to 'change'
from
an "I'm right, your wrong" way of thinking, i.e. where both
continue to embrace the
patriarchal paradigm of 'rigidity' (with its
deductive way of thinking,
making decisions upon a priori commands and laws―principle based). The 'purpose' of the dialectical
process is 'help encourage' opposing, antitheist parties
to 'change' to a "What
do we all have in common" way of thinking, i.e. where both parties embrace the
heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' (with its
inductive way of thinking,
extrapolating from the environment only that information which is
relevant to the 'moment' and in line with the hopes of the imagined
future―interest based). The rejection of the "closed"
systems type of persuasion, which is intolerant of ambiguity, i.e. which
uses physical force, inculcation, and/or
withdrawal of "love" or fellowship when a person is openly disobedient,
in an effort to produce right
behavior (as in righteousness), must be "consciously" 'changed,'
to the "open" system, by both parties 'willful' participation in the type of
"persuasion"
which uses tolerance of ambiguity, i.e. permissiveness of deviancy, the
unrestrained and undirected dialoguing of opinions and theories (which means
being socially directed and restrained), and
"love," (as in an Eros-Agape, secular-sacred, private-public partnership
which negates the individuals "freedom of the conscience" and his inalienable
rights, dialectically replaced with the "super-ego" and "human rights").
Otherwise a social-ist,
common-ist, common-unity behavior can not be produced. Socialism, communism,
communitarianism, are all three somewhat different in application and
manifestation but are all the same in their use of the dialectical process
and in their outcome (totalitarianism).
The
very praxis or act of participation within the dialectical
environment changes the person's paradigm or way of thinking and acting.
"By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious, struggling to
circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of
contradiction." (Brown)
The objective is not to take the patriarchal paradigm head on, that
would keep the "I'm right, Your wrong" structure in place (a win-loose outcome, besides it might be stronger than you
and might therefore defeat you, resulting in the parent chasing
the rebellious child down and whopping him, thereby maintaining his
office of authority and a system of "formal-logical laws of
contradiction") but rather to seduce it into
participation (in dialogue) within the dialectical environment through the use of
crisis, facilitated meetings, and the consensus process (a win-win,
socialist
outcome where all lose their soul to the process, the individual soul,
created by God, for God―righteousness, is sacrificed to the god
of this world, the collective soul of humanity―sensuousness). Then, once the patriarch has become weakened by his
participation, those once in support of the patriarch now turning against and those who were
once under the patriarch, now liberated from the fear of, the heresiarchal can behead the patriarchal, with
public approval or at least silence (fear of "What might happen to me if
I speak up"), to keep from being next (that is
why most people won't support you in meetings, they see what's coming
your way and they don't want to be next―the "freedom of the conscience"
being negated by their fear of social rejection). As Ervin
Laszlo, the "kingpin" for the environmentalist movement (the
"greens," who in
actuality are the "reds" in
disguise; they are more 'user friendly,' non offensive, readily adaptable to
'change,' i.e. more deceptive than traditional Marxist but of the same
family, i.e. dialectic) and the globalist
tax on the environment, i.e. ozone, carbon footprint,
overpopulation (for example: he believes that for the world to be healthy it should
only have five hundred million people, seriously, consider that the next
time you
hear of national and world health care programs), which, in
some way shape or form, you are now paying taxes to support (like being
forced to buy your own rope to be hung with and being forced to dig your
own grave to be buried in, that is if they bother to bury all of you,
some body parts might still be usable, if they do it to the unborn, why
not you, expedite, expedite, expedite), wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our
objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective
instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by
their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world
interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the
emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a
personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future
steps..." (Laszlo) This is a spiritual battle fought
against "principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual
wickedness in high places" who use your flesh to war against your soul
(they don't move you off your thesis position, you move
yourself off by not taking and keeping on the whole armour of God
(Ephesians 6:10-18). The battle is not yours to win, it is the
Lords, you are simply to stand, and having done all to keep standing. Instead of preaching and teaching God's word,
you got caught up in sharing your own opinions about it, you got caught
up in dialogue (like Satan go Eve to do in the garden in Eden, Genesis
3:1-6), dialogue about your feelings of resentment toward being told
what to do, being told what to say and how to feel as a child, now as an adult
your resentment toward authority and restraint being put into practice
as you are liberated by being "positive" toward your "fellow man" (that
is all that consensus is all about). "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from
fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" 1 Peter 2:11
"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."
Ephesians 6:12
But when both parties continue to use their
thesis
position to define and
therefore determine what is of value or worth,
refusing to change their values or position
within "joint deliberation,"
when their" non-influencability of
private convictions"
(non-influencability meaning not 'driven' by
sensuousness, i.e. human feelings)
inhibit or block social harmony (forcing
majority vote, or top-down decisions, and the limiting of government, i.e. providing there is
"liberty of conscience" or a conscience to have liberty with), they must
be perceived as a "vice" (perceived as being the enemy
of 'change') and either be 'converted' with
their
'willful' participation in the process of 'change' or be "extruded" from the
meeting (the fellowship being 'right sized'). It is therefore up to those who
think dialectically, those who are "struggling to circumvent the
limitations imposed" by those using the patriarchal paradigm
(circumventing those who are calling for righteousness)―those
who are "struggling" are working for social harmony,
"struggling" to
overcome the "limitations imposed" by those who use the
thesis condition to determine right from wrong, by using the
antithesis condition,
using the crisis and the tension of the conflict or "controversy"
caused by the "irrational" thesis minded person, to
initiate and sustain a dialectical environment, whereby the opposing parties
(the frozen) can be manipulated into focusing upon their feelings, and
others feelings (be unfrozen; "This
term [unfreezing], also adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the
process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system."
Yalom; "In
brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs and
traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that
he is ready to accept new alternatives." Schein), and thereby be
more easily moved (changing)
into a consensus
(synthesis)
outcome (be refrozen, but this time with the "shifting sands" of
feelings to guide him in making future decisions, now adaptable to
'change,' able to be blown by the winds of 'change,' subject to the "prince of the
power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2);
"A successful change
includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving
to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level." Kurt Lewin).
"We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private
convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Benne)
The scriptures warn: "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 3, 4 "Fables,"
i.e. men's opinions or feelings (polls, surveys, feasibility studies,
etc.) 'driving' them in their thoughts and in their actions.
The
thesis person, "the individual who uses fundamentalist
religious views in the service of denial," in denial of his carnal nature
("refusing to be who he really is," according to dialectical
reasoning) and thereby feels free in condemning
the carnal nature of others, in a synthesis environment,
is perceived as being a "deviant,"
(personally I am in "denial" every day. That is: denying myself,
picking up my cross, and following Jesus daily―Luke
9:3, and if deviant means peculiar then I am that also―Titus
2:4). Irvin Yalom wrote,
concerning counseling the "deviant" who is in "denial"
(refusing to know himself for who he really is, i.e. a 'good' person
if given the 'right' opportunity, placed in the 'right' environment):
"It is important that the therapist attempt to screen out
patients [students, committee members, employees, parents, legislatures,
judges, etc. with absolutes, i.e. who demonstrate
"non-influencability of private convictions"] who will become marked deviants, deviants because of their
interpersonal behavior [rigidity in principle] in the group sessions [those who put principles
before pleasure, God's law above man's nature,
righteousness above human
relationships, Christ above men] and not because of a deviant
life style or past history [homosexual can help the group develop in a
'healthy' way, as he later explained in his book]." "There is no type of past behavior too deviant
for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established
[once man has become the measure of all things, accepting of his
feelings in guiding him]." "the
deviant [the religious]… correlates very highly with negative outcome: a member deemed by
the others … to be ‘out' of the group has virtually no chance of benefiting
from the group and a strong chance of suffering harm." "The successful
leader … reinforces each member's activity … escort the deviant back into
the group, and he discourages the development of scapegoating and
judgmentalism." "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." "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)
The scriptures warn us: "For we dare not make ourselves of the number,
or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they
measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among
themselves, are not wise." II Corinthians 10:12
and encourage us:
"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
In dialectical thinking, the way of thinking (or
environmental condition or paradigm or system) which initiates and sustains opposing positions―antithesis
("I'm right, your wrong")―is
negated by creating an environment (usually utilizing
a crisis) whereby opposing parties, attempting to hold onto their thesis position (their belief) can be facilitated into
consensus, where
both parties, insisting that their position is right
and therefore that their opponent's position is wrong, i.e. where both
parties, basing their thoughts,
feelings, and actions upon pre-established principles, i.e.
rules, standards, and laws which were established
by a higher authority than their nature
(carnal behavior),
where both parties, obeying laws which go against or limit their human
nature (that nature which is common to mankind), "create" an
authority figure higher than human nature (remember this is dialectical
thinking), "create" an authority figure which is
not sensually based, "create" an authority figure not carnal in nature,
"create" an authority
figure and a way of thinking which is not in harmony with man's sensual
needs, "create" an authority figure who is hostile to a person's feelings
of the moment, indifferent to his sensual perceptions, and limiting of
his sensual experiences (an authority figure who is antagonistic toward attributes
which are common to all of mankind). (The idea is, if you "created" a
particular way of thinking by your participation in the repression of
your nature, then by your refusal to participate in the repression of
your nature you can "un-create" it.) "The
more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." (Karl Marx in Bottomore) "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."
(Engels,)
"The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which
holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Marx, Critique)
Leonard Wheat wrote of Paul Tillich's―man is god―dialectical form of
Christianity (Gnostic christianity―where all men are perceived as being
gods, "'divine sparks' of god" waiting to be reunited,
"teamed up" as one, and thus god is all men becoming as
one, i.e. god is becoming as one as men are becoming as one;
"As above, so below" in theory and in practice,
becoming one not only in thought but also in action,
both initiated and sustained by their sensuous bond to nature,―'driven'
by that which is positive, the pleasures which nature arouses, which is common to all men, he
finds his 'purpose' in the praxis of unity, uniting the
individual and society upon the pleasures of man's sensuous
nature, creating a "new world order" of "equality," built upon
the liberation of the pleasures of this world by the negation of
the "old world order" with its negative, inequality, judgmental, "top-down"
system, the negation of the restrainers and their restraints upon
human nature, not just for a few but for all; "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater
with the weakening of family power." Coleman
"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." Brookover
"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): "Tillich is actually directing an apologetic humanistic
message to a Christian audience. He is telling those Christians who can hear
that they can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will
accept man as the true meaning of God." (Wheat) The human desire
(sensuousness) for unity and
harmony "amongst men" (so you can get whatever it is you want from the
environment, after all is said and done, its as the preacher said, vanity) is dialectically perceived as being similar to
God's desire for unity and harmony with man, the desire
for unity being the 'driving' force and unity being the
'purpose,' the unity is initiated and sustained in
the desire (the sensuousness) and the 'purpose' is initiated and sustained in the 'drive,' the
desire,
that desire which is from the heart of man is guiding the
mind in discovering the 'purpose' (the dialectical justification) of man, i.e. "the imagination of
the heart of man" (which is deceitful and wicked) put into praxis;
"... the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of
pleasure ... is the center of the mind .... linking the ‘lower'
faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two
poles of human existence." "In the aesthetic imagination, sensuousness
generates universally valid principles for an objective order. 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 possible serve, and also not in view of it ‘internal' finality
and completeness." (Marcuse) The 'purpose' is not found in God, i.e.
or in any
object, but is found in the 'drive' itself (in the "beauty"
of sensuousness and the "freedom" of spontaneity), in the 'lust'
itself, 'discovering' itself in its 'quest' for union with the
world (all the sensuousness and spontaneity of human
nature becoming one in praxis―like
Sodom and Gomorrha,
even God's Holy angels have to participate in the praxis of
abomination if the feeling of oneness, the feeling of peace and harmony,
is to be attained or retained). Instead of "demons" fighting against the kingdom of God they now
inhibiting or blocking the kingdom of mankind (renamed the kingdom of
God to deceive those ignorant of Satan's devices), those who serve in
righteousness now being perceived as being "demons"]."
"Demonism concerns man's attitude toward
others. Estrangement describes the condition of man which results from the
Demonism of his fellow man. Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must
be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing
God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God." "Tillich's
message is that God is man, mankind, humanity." "Sin is the
estrangement of man from man." (Wheat)
"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 . . ." (Bronner)
Dialectically, any authority which is not carnal in nature (therefore
is not measurable by polls, surveys, and feasibility studies and therefore
is not able to be manipulated or influenced by
nature―not synergistically viable), any thought or action which is not determining
or creating value or worth based upon the sensual nature of
man―that of man approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (the
liberation of that which is natural to man is found in pleasure or license, which
is positive and the restraining
of that which is natural to man is found in pain or tension, which is negative, "angst")―must be considered
spiritual in nature (anything restraining the nature must be perceived as
being non-sensual,
non-natural, "other worldly" in character; "Philosophy
as theory . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis [the human
sensual experience of oneness]; it serves to distinguish it from
religion, the wisdom of the other world." Marx, Critique) and therefore is not rationally understandable (not
experiential) and not applicable (not practical) to all parties who are
concerned about and involved in solving (through praxis) the personal-social issue or crisis
of life (all of which
is perceived, dialectically, as proceeding only from nature,
being sensual). Spiritual
authority initiates and sustains a top-down
system or way of thinking which inhibits or blocks human nature, and therefore, in dialectical
thinking, must be negated in both the thoughts and the actions of all mankind,
negated
through the application of the dialectical process in all issues of
personal and social life.
The dialectical logic is: social experience
gives human life meaning, thus life is social, i.e. sensual, in nature. If all
issues of life are social in nature then any thoughts or actions which
inhibit or block social life, sensual life, must be recognized and responded to as an
enemy to life. Therefore all anti-social thoughts and actions must
be negated by everyone's participation in the praxis of
the dialectical process. When all are working together, as one, in the
annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, which is perceived as the initiator
and sustainer of social disharmony, then peace and affirmation has come
to all men. It is in the praxis of destroying the old that
the new is created, that that which was new at conception, i.e. peace,
affirmation, and growth, is liberated in the destruction of the old,
liberated from that which is of the past (for and explanation see
Diaprax Article explaining Freud's
"primal horde and the deformation of civilization"). Jesus preached and taught of
a way of thinking and acting which is higher than social harmony. "Whosoever therefore
shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father
which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him
will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not
that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword. 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 10:32-38
While the home is important in scripture, honoring father and mother
having the first promise given by God, it is not equal with or greater
than God, i.e. children are to obey their parents, in the Lord
(all are under God: the father, the mother, and the children). It
is the patriarchal structure of the home, under God, which is of issue
today. The new world order can not function with it still in
place, "spewing out" patriarchal children (future parents, businessmen,
legislators, educators, and voters) placing their trust in and obeying God
rather than trusting in and serving a society of men (even doing "wonderful things" for God).
By "encouraging" both parties
to focus upon that which they have in common, in regards to personal interest
(those interests
which all parties concerned have in common),
their common interest ("their common ground of existence")
being "discovered" through the praxis of
dialogue (and the dialogue of praxis―dialoguing
dialogue, dialoguing our "sense experiences" which are moving us
to dialogue within ourselves, "Why are we asking why?" as in "Why can't I ...?"
to someone else while murmuring to ourselves "I ought to be able to
....", with the desire of negating the "not" in the "can not" so that
we "can" have what
it is that we naturally desire to have or do what we naturally want to do), all parties
can "openly" and in an "uncoerced"
fashion (in a non-judgmental, non right-wrong, non "can not, must not,
'thou shalt not,'" non-patriarchal environment), i.e. can "rationally"
(sensually and spontaneously) discuss their
personal thoughts, feelings, and natural actions (impulses) concerning the issue of life, i.e.
exposing their personal thoughts, feelings, and life experiences
concerning resentment toward authoritarian restraints, which others can
identify and relate to―"In the dialogic relation of recognizing
oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their
existence." (Habermas, Knowledge)
"Only by
bringing out the [persons] own ideas in dialogical and
dialectical settings can the [person] begin to reconstruct and
progressively transcend concepts ["transcend" a top-down,
right-wrong, "negative," patriarchal way of thinking]."
(Paul)
In the collective voice of "can to," the voice of "can not" is
more easily negated. "It is usually
easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any
one of them separately." (Kurt Lewin in Bennie) The common identity
(that which is identifiable by all
in the group), is the individual's resentment toward higher authority
when higher authority restrains his natural or normal human desires (the
common human 'ought' being identified by all in the group) is the key to controlling the
individual and society for the purpose of 'change,' i.e. the
'change' being the change of paradigms. It is
therefore imperative that those who praxis the dialectical
process are free to initiate and sustain an environment where all
participants can "feel" free (have a "safe zone") to expose their
dissatisfactions toward the patriarchal paradigm.
"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. 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
here may lie the individual's potential." (Adorno)
By getting all parties to participate in "joint deliberation,"
incorporating, through dialogue, their personal feelings and thoughts,
not only on the social issue at hand but also regarding their feelings
and thoughts toward one another (up to the point of severance), it is
possible
to unite opposing parties upon the personal feelings and thoughts which
they have in
common (common-ism), resulting in a condition
known as "synthesis." "The
desired condition is synthesis, the elimination of contradiction and
conflict between thesis and antithesis. Conflict between thesis
and antithesis bring about a restructuring that reduces or
eliminates (negates) the conflict [that is eliminates the source of
the conflict, the patriarchal paradigm]."
(Richardson, George P.,
Feedback Thought in Social Science and
Systems Theory as quoted in Judy McLemore, The Architects of
Total Quality Management General Systems Theory and Marxist Theory-Praxis;
www.stopcp.com/TQMJudyMcLemore.pdf)
Thus truth is no longer found in some
pre-established dictum or person which or who is not in harmony with the
common human experience (truth is no longer found in the " I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
person,
since no one is interested in "coming to the Father," i.e. no one
is concerned about doing his will on earth as it is done in Heaven, obeying him without
question, even when it goes against their nature, especially when it
results in the loss of human relationships and the pleasures of this
life, i.e. involving the lost esteem from others and the pleasures of the world), but truth is instead dialectically
discovered as lying within each person, waiting to be liberated,
"knowable" only within the peace and harmony ("peace and affirmation") of the collaborative "moment."
As the famous Italian Transformational Marxist, Antonio Gramsci put it:
"Truth is a moment in correct praxis." (Gramsci)
Truth
and facts, therefore, can only become manifest through the praxis of the dialectical process (not "as given" by God, making them
"absolute or sacred," but as discovered through "dialectical
examination" and knowable by human experience, making them "relative" to human experience which is dialectically liberated from
Godly restraint), the same process Satan used on the woman in the garden
in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6), the same process she 'willingly' participated
in, with Adam following. "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." (Lukács', History) Bloom, paraphrasing Karl Marx, wrote:
"But, as has been pointed out before, we recognize the point of view
that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard
and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Bloom, Book 1: Cognitive Domain)
Karl Marx wrote: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established
for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." Diaprax is the
praxis of dialectically building a world
which is united upon
the common thoughts and actions of, by, and for the
human "moment," where truth is no longer found in pre-established
conditions but within the collective moment of consensus, where human thoughts and actions
recreate man in his own image (imagination), where man, becoming himself as he unites
within the consensus 'moment,' discovers that it is in the 'sensuous moment'
of oneness with himself and mankind (with nature
and the world) where truth
resides, to which the scriptures respond:
".... let God be true, but every man a liar; ..." Romans 3:4
"The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is
but for a moment." Proverbs 12:19).
The philosopher Hegel wrote, concerning man's "quest" for
"peace and
affirmation": "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 one of the casual notes preserved at Widener
in Friedrich)
This is the ideology of the social sciences, i.e. psychology, sociology,
anthropology, etc., i.e. "the contemporary, "church growth," "emergent
church," etc., which is based upon human
"sense experience." i.e. "sensuous feelings,"
and "sense perception." This the humanistic
process of cutting off the head of righteousness (preaching and
teaching) and replacing it with the head of sensuousness
(dialogue), then calling it the head of 'righteousness,' blinding
the person from that righteousness which can only come from God
above. According to Hegel, the antithesis condition is
simply two 'rights' waiting to be discover through speculation and
dialogue (the negation of the system of righteousness,
faith in "things as given") as being one 'right,' both becoming one
('righteous,' i.e. "positive") in the speculative, dialogical 'moment'
of discovering their oneness. While Kant attempted to separated
reasoning from righteousness, i.e. 'purify' reasoning, and Hegel
attempted to make righteousness subject to reasoning, i.e.
reasoning subject to the spirit of rational 'righteousness' liberating
reasoning from 'irrational' (non-sensual, non-speculative)
righteousness, i.e. judgmental
righteousness, Marx set out to negate
righteousness once and for all by putting reasoning (the system
of sensuousness 'justified') into praxis against
righteousness, making all things, i.e. 'reality,' subject to
sensuousness, i.e. subject to the 'scientific' process, the
dialectical process (putting speculation, i.e. thought into action). Karl Marx wrote:
"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." (Marx, MEGA I/3)
Science, when applied to the "felt needs" of the flesh, the
perception of the eyes, and the pride of man's 'reasoning' abilities i.e.
human 'reasoning' can only justify carnal human behavior, justify
its lusts, justify that behavior which is "only" of nature, that
nature which can be scientifically analyzed and manipulated, i.e. that
nature which is "observable and describable," and
therefore manipulatable, that nature which
is common to all men―that which is sensuous and
spontaneous, when it is uninhibited by unsympathetic, non-sensual,
judgmental, threatening, "negating," etc. restrainers from above, i.e. God
over man, parents over children, business owners over employees,
teachers over the students, etc. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud are
united upon the "science" of human behavior, in the field of individual
and social behavior (both seen as one) and man's ability to 'justify'
behavior based upon human sensuousness. "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation
[no God or parent above restraining it], 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.'" (Brown)
"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) "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of
bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly
in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "The
bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic
construction." "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) "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."
". . . Definition of religious experience as experience of absolute
dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general."
(Fromm) "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)
"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.'" (Bronner)
Horkheimer headed up the Institute for Social Research while it
was here in the States. Adorno and Fromm were members of that
institution. Adorno and Fromm both were the
Weltanschauung
or paradigm of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies," which every
certified teacher is trained to apply in the classroom and every
school must use to be accredited.
It is the
affirmation of the sensual nature
of man (his "Id," the "child within") which moves all of philosophy
("human reasoning," "higher order thinking skills"
in morals and
ethics), keeping alive man's effort, as begun in the garden in Eden, to
free himself from Godly restraint (attempting to free himself from God's
wrath upon the children of disobedience―dialectically
minded children attempting to justify their sinful nature by
'scientifically' redefining it as normal).
"There is, in this tradition, a strong
affirmation of a common morality, one rooted in the Enlightenment ["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." "All concepts that are irreducible to
facts [concepts which are imperceptible, i.e. non-sensual to and
judgmental of human nature] are meaningless." "Everything that is not
reducible to number becomes illusion for the Enlightenment." (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)
In other words, have courage to question (critique) authority and counter its
demands when they inhibit or block your human ability, and therefore
your human 'right,' to
reason for yourself in regards to what is good and what is evil; to
critique higher authority is to negate higher authority (is to
negate faith in higher authority); to critique is to evaluate
another person's thesis (or God's thesis, as
was done in the garden in Eden), to see whether it is 'true' or not (to
see whether it is rational or not) from your own perspective, i.e.
basing 'truth' upon your own "sensuous needs," your own
"sense
perception," i.e. your own "sense experiences," and then acting upon
only that which is in agreement with your nature, only that which is
perceived as being 'rational,' disregarding the rest as being irrelevant
to the situation at hand, being perceived as being 'irrational'―situation
ethics, "A tradition, ... rooted in the Enlightenment"]
and then applied in the United States through our commitments to liberal
democracy." (Alan Wolfe, Religious Diversity and the Common Cause)
Wolfe writes, regarding those who think dialectically, "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.)"
ibid. Benjamin Bloom wrote in his "Taxonomy," which is
used to certify teachers and accredit schools: "It has been pointed
out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be
observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of
such fields as the physical and biological sciences." "It was the view of the group that
educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their
counterparts in the behavior of individuals, observable and
describable therefore classifiable." "Only those educational
programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors
can be classified." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of
students-- the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as
the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational
procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the
more customary types of behavior."
(Bloom, Book I:
Cognitive Domain) In other words, basing outcome upon the
classroom environment (how it was developed by the curriculum used), did
the traditional classroom environment (using "lower order thinking
skills" in morals and ethics, teaching facts and respect for
authority) produce the intended
student behavior of respect toward higher authority and obedience (the
patriarchal paradigm it was aiming to develop) and did the
transformational, dialectical classroom environment (using "higher order
thinking skills" in morals and ethics, dialoguing opinions) produce the
intended student behavior of questioning authority and 'change' (the
heresiarchal paradigm it was aiming to develop). If not, then the
curriculum, the application of it, or some other element (the school
staff, the students' associations, or the parent/parents) inhibited
or blocked the paradigm desired. Many traditional minded teachers
unwittingly use the "Taxonomy" not knowing that by their use of it in
their classrooms they destroy the traditional-minded student's way of
thinking, freeing him from the "customary type of behavior,"
enlightening him to "think for himself," manipulating him, like elements
in a laboratory, into becoming a citizen of a "new world order."
Fulfilling what both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud desired, the negation
of the patriarchal paradigm in the hope of a "better world," a
human/humane world.
Rather than focusing upon that which divides
(a right-wrong, above-below, "negative" way of looking at things,
i.e. where a thesis position produces an antithesis
condition within a diverse society, i.e. dialectically, the issue is not
whether the person's thesis is right or wrong, it is that the thesis
system itself is wrong)
people are instead to be "encouraged" (pressured by the social
environmental forces of the meeting, where all parties are "encouraged"
to work together in solving the crisis through the praxis of consensus and not by majority vote, i.e. where all are being "driven" by their human nature
and not by some pre-established principle, i.e. "driven" by
the desire or "felt" need for approval by others and not by
the desire to be pleasing to God or parent, i.e. "driven" by the fear of losing
respect in the eyes of others and not the fear of God, driven by the fear of losing what you
"need" or "want" as the result of losing the respect
they need or want
from others who can satisfy those needs or wants, trusting upon man
rather than trusting upon God) to be "positive" (applying their energy in
attacking the crisis as "one" people, where all are 'driven' by one common
interest,
united upon a common 'purpose,' so that all parties are perceived as
being "right" or affirmative in their
collaborative actions, i.e.
engendering a
synthesis condition and outcome) and not "negative" (applying their
energy in attacking one another's position to maintain their position as
being a categorically imperative―unquestionable
and universally right―and therefore maintaining for themselves―and
submitting others―under "their" higher authority, a higher
authority than human nature, an authority forever
established as the source for solving crisis, i.e. "This is the way we have
always done it." whether it be God or a parent, i.e.
maintaining a thesis condition which limits or blocks the human experience).
As Carl Rogers put it, concerning the process's affect upon people:
"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?'"
"Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can
take precedence over my own direct experience." "Experience is, for me, the highest authority."
"The individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he is. He has
experienced himself. He has become what he is." "Existential living is to say that the self
and personality emerge from experience. It means that one becomes a
participant in and an observer of the ongoing process of organismic
experience." (Rogers)
To which can be added Abraham Maslow statement:
"The person at the peak experience is godlike . .
. complete, loving, uncondemning, compassionate and accept[ing]
of the world and of the person." (Maslow, Being)
As all parties "willingly" put into practice (praxis)
that which they have in common (united upon their feelings of acceptance
toward and affirmation from one another) against the crisis, they initiate and
sustain a "positive" outcome, creating "positive social
change" as they neutralize, marginalize, and convert,
silence, or remove a "negative" outcome, i.e. as they negate
or destroy the
"negative"
right-wrong, above-below, thesis way of thinking
and acting by getting the party with the thesis
position to participate in the synthesis way of thinking
and acting. To create is to destroy. The act of
philosophy, the act of creating a "new" world order, is an act of
destruction, the act of destroying the "old" world order. Philosophy is
being dissatisfied with the way things are and thinking about how the
world 'ought' to be. Abraham Maslow wrote on the necessity of
'ought' in the act of philosophy: "We
have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness
is itself a fact to be perceived." "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."
(Maslow, Human Nature)
Philosophy is the person seeking to negate the restraints, i.e. the can
not's of life (the "thou shalt not's" of the Father, which
expose man's sinful nature and therefore condemn him), i.e. restraints to
the natural way of doing things, limiting life, forbidding things in his
life which he perceives as being 'good.' Not produces ought which leads to
thought. A not from
the parent or God which limits "life," preventing us from pursuing and
fulfilling our natural human desires, produces an ought within
us, as in how the parent or God ought to be in harmony with our
worldly desires, which is the action of thought within us (the
parent or God must change with man's "felt" needs if the world is to be
the way it "ought" to be, i.e. human). This is the necessary
condition for initiation and sustentation of philosophy. As Hegel
explained it: "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." "It may be said that
Philosophy first commences when a race for the most part has left
its concrete life, when separation and change of class have begun,
and the people approach toward their fall; when a gulf has arisen
between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of
Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests
indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein,
and moral life becomes dissolved."
"Then it is that Mind takes refuge in the clear space of thought to
create for itself a kingdom of thought in opposition to the world of
actuality, and Philosophy is the reconciliation following upon the
destruction of that real world which thought has begun."
(Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B.
Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge) The
person must be freed from the restraints of the condition he seeks to be
freed from, he must be at least free to question (destroy) it not only
in his imagination and thoughts but also in his actions, if he is to "reorganize his personal beliefs and attitudes."
"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 many
ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was
developed."
(Krathwohl, Book 2:
Affective Domain) Instead of belief controlling
(inhibiting or blocking the satisfaction of) the person's "sensuous
needs" and "sense perception," "sensuous needs"
and "sense perception" ("sense experience" or a person's
carnal nature and the world) influences his belief. The objective is to negate
the thesis condition, a condition which initiates and sustains an
antithesis condition, a condition where people perceive things
differently (because of their limited "sense experiences," due to
the controlling factor of belief upon their lives, they quickly judge
others according to their belief and attempt to continue the limitation
of their own "sense experiences," by controlling, inhibiting or
blocking, the "sense experiences" of the other person), not by attacking the
thesis position
directly (attacking the belief) but rather by attacking the antithesis condition
instead (attacking the "negative attitude" of the person, which
is producing tension and "controversy," i.e. social disharmony). To suspend belief for the
"moment," to be tolerant of
ambiguity, i.e. tolerant of confusion,
affectively negates the thesis condition,
especially when all
participants focus upon what they have in common and come into synthesis―consensus.
Diaprax creates a condition called
"the negation of
negation," the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm,
or patricide (all three being the same). "Working through the resistances to change is
the key to the production of change" (Yalom) Only by
bringing the thesis minded person into participation in
the synthesis process can he be helped in overcoming (helped
in "negating") his "resistance to change."
If he did
not 'willingly' participate, it's not done.
It is important to note that the word "moment" can be used
both as a time in space and a space in time. Thus when you think that
you are suspending your belief for a moment of time, thinking that you
are simply being courteous for a period of time, you are also suspending
your belief for a moment in space, suspending your belief for the
experiencing of a moment of pleasure (the absence of
tension), a tangible "moment," a "quality moment," where you are
enjoying, or hope to enjoy, the affirmation of others and peace. Why did you suspend your belief? For the approval
of others? Thinking that then they then might listen to your belief?
The truth is, the approval of others, for whatever reason, was more
important to you than your belief. You can not suspend your belief
and be a witness of it at the same time. You can not suspend your
thesis position for the sake of removing the antithesis condition, even for a moment
in time, and keep your thesis position. By
suspending your thesis position for the "moment,"
you are producing a synthesis "moment,"
a space in time where you are experiencing social harmony at the
expense of your belief (your are no longer denying yourself, nor picking
up your cross and following Jesus, even though you think that what you
are doing is being done for him. You think? The truth being you
are denying him "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)
Once a person contemplates setting aside his belief for the 'purpose' of
social harmony he goes into a condition known as cognitive
dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a situation (a
space in time) where belief (desire to do what is
right, right according to a higher authority than carnal nature,
i.e. restraining impulses, natural desires, or lusts) and behavior (impulses,
natural desire or lust for
things of this world, i.e. human approval) come into conflict;
cognitive dissonance is "the lack of harmony between what one does
and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one's behavior or
one's belief." (Hilgard)
Cognitive dissonance is where the there-and-then belief (cognition of
established truth―belief, which gives a person stability in a "rapidly
'changing,' unstable world") is destabilized by his here-and-now desires
(desires which are brought into motion, being sensitized through the situation). To resolve this dilemma he
must either return to his belief (deny himself and follow Jesus) and accept social
rejection (pick up his cross and follow Jesus, despising the shame of
the cross, not the gospel) or go in the direction of social approval
and compromise his belief system (esteeming himself, consenting to
social approval and not follow Jesus, putting down the cross to save his
life―of sensuousness, despising the gospel), making belief less
important than human relationship (making faith less important than
human reasoning). He is not compromising just his
belief, which he is aware of (emotionally if not cognitively), he is also compromising the very
system of
belief itself, i.e. faith, which he may not be aware of until it is too late. Group pressure appears to be more effective in
producing cognitive dissonance than individual events.
"… few individuals, as Asch has shown,
can maintain their objectivity [their belief] 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." (Yalom)
After encounters with group pressure and
cognitive dissonance, (where people have moved against their belief,
their identity, their morals and their constituents, i.e. those of like
mind in principles who put their trust in them to represent those
principles and therefore betrayed them at the facilitated consensus meeting), some have contemplated or even committed suicide, like Judas
Iscariot who betrayed Jesus and then "Repented" (repenting
only to himself and not before God), after these meetings
when they did not receive 'proper' counseling―deprogramming―during and after
the meetings,
i.e. were not properly affixed to the group, i.e. not accepting of the group
concept and its project (while not choosing Rome,
the community,
over Jesus, they did not return to Jesus, repenting, "Godly sorrow,"
before Him)―not having developed hope in the group and its 'purpose' and
projects, while losing faith in God and His Word, i.e. not just losing faith in their
belief but also losing faith in the system of belief itself (the
system
of self now in place, they are like a stalled plane, spiraling out of
control, being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine while on their
way to destruction, still hoping that all is OK, or at least that the
problems of life will work themselves out, without life in Christ, it is
the only hope you have, i.e. hope in yourself or hope in the community,
i.e. both of the world, it just depends on whether you want company or
not on the way to destruction).
"Hope for a better world depends upon how successfully people find
common grounds when they are needed." "These three phases are: (1) the
formulation of purpose—forming a desired end, a desired state of
affairs, a preferred and chosen goal; (2) the description of existing
conditions—getting the facts, defining relationships, noting
possibilities; and (3) the formation of a plan of action—steps which
promise best to transform existing conditions into conditions that are
desired." (Benne) All this being done to undermine
the patriarchal way of making decisions and solving problems.
Imagine it, design it, and then apply it,
this is the praxis of the "imagination of the heart"
of man creating a "better world" for himself. The truth is there
is no "better world" of man's own making. "More perfect union"
is the banner over the broad path which leads to destruction. The
process is possible because of the belief-action dichotomy which resides within all of us, what the
Apostle Paul explained in Romans 7, where our desires (affective
wanting) of the flesh war against our desire (cognitive wanting) to do
God's will. The difference being, belief-action dichotomy (where
we don't always act according to our belief, our action driven by the
temptations of the world around us and our participation in it), is not
done with the intention of destroying our belief system (we keep our
affective domain subject to the cognitive domain, keeping them
separated, thereby keeping the psychomotor domain predominately subject
to the cognitive domain while following after the affective domain
when we 'feel' like or think we won't get caught―the conscience staying
intact, making us feel guilty afterward) while the other (cognitive-dissonance)
is orchestrated by facilitators with the evil intent of destroying our
belief system (destroying the system of faith―righteousness)
through the use of social pressure, the desire for social approval
(group dynamics; approach social approval―pleasure
and avoid social disapproval―pain),
to get us to 'willingly' participate in the social action system, the praxis
system (the system of sight―sensuousness),
i.e. to choose humanity over God, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm of
'change' (sensuousness and spontaneity) not just over and
against the patriarchal paradigm (faith, belief, obedience, and
chastening) but in the praxis of annihilating the
patriarchal paradigm through the praxis of dialectically,
'rationally,' uniting our affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains
in social action, wiping the patriarchal paradigm off the earth, once
and for all, i.e. putting God and his 'closed' system to death (treating
it as "irrelevant" in feelings, thought, and action) by bringing
the 'open' system into social life ("out of the closet") through the
consensus process ('discovering' and doing, theory and practice, only by
consensus). The one system
(faith, scripture, Christ, and grace―righteousness)
is anathema to the other (sight, wisdom, humanity, and self-social
justification―sensuousness).
By the church's use of polls and surveys (sight), consensus (human
wisdom), community (humanity), and social projects (self-social
justification) it becomes anathema to the gospel (sight replaces faith,
human opinions replaces scripture, human needs and community replaces
Christ, and social works replaces God's grace―sensuousness
replaces righteousness in knowing purpose. In the one Christ is
purpose, while in the other man initiates and sustains 'purpose,' making
it in his image, thereby his nature 'driving' 'purpose,' even doing it
"in the name of Jesus" to deceive all into participation in the
dialectical process).
"Self-perfection of the
human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." (Brown)
The "self-perfection of the human individual" (his "self
actualization" Abraham Maslow) can not be "fulfilled" without the
removal or negation of the thesis condition, the negation
of the "negative," judgmental system of restraint (the
negation of the patriarchal
paradigm, i.e. the negation of a a top-down hierarchy or "peck
order," "the negation of negation"). Kenneth Benne explained
the steps which were necessary if negation (the "Negative"
environment of righteousness, according to the flesh, i.e.
sensuousness) was to be effectively
negated.
1. "In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt
to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy."
2. "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."
3. "The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness among the members of
the group, accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness."
[In other words, a room full of amalgamated Machiavellian
anarchist.]
4. "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." [Life a room
full of bank robbers after the "job," despite the euphoria and
camaraderie, the 'purpose' of life becomes cohesiveness or else.] (Benne)
The
idea being, if the group is not freed from the fear of judgment for its
thoughts and actions, i.e. liberated from the fear of getting caught,
i.e. jointly perceives higher authority as being irrelevant and an
obstacle to the 'good life,' it can not be effectively tied to a "collaborative"
work project (it will not be able to put collective feelings into collective action), it
will not be able to experience the "warmth" of human relationships in
joint deliberation and action ("the
matriarchal ethic of warmth, acceptance, and love") and will not
learn how to put its newly discovered freedom from an "authoritarian atmosphere" (freedom
from "the prevailing
order") into 'practical' social action (praxis),
i.e. into the praxis of negating the "Old" World Order.
"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) The
'purpose' of 'Purpose' for the individual and the group is not just
thinking and acting for the cause of socialism but becoming a thinking
and acting socialist ("Don't just study Marx, be Marx." "Don't
just study Freud, be Freud." "Don't just study God, be God." etc.).
Sigmund Freud, according to Herbart Marcuse, saw the
fulfillment of individual in the "collective killing and devouring of
the father" (in the social action or praxis of patricide,
i.e. the group project put into social action―it's not about fixing the bridge,
it's about "fixing" the people who are fixing the bridge,
about them become one in the praxis of "incest,"
i.e. "Coming out of the 'closet,'" while fixing the bridge,
i.e. negating those who 'put them into the closet') along with the
"establishment of the brother clan" (in the social action or
praxis of incest or the social collective 'moment' of Eros called
consensus; "Freud noted that
patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Yalom)
"... 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, ...." (Marcuse)
Until these conditions, the negating of the patriarchal paradigm (the
removing of the bourgeoisie, the removing of the top-down system
with its "pecking order," upper-lower class system, the
beheading of the King or the butchering of the Tsar and his family) are
put into collective action (praxis), mankind will remain anti-socialist
(socially un-connected), anti-democratic in thought and action, mankind
will not become proletariat, "brother clan" in
mind and
body.
The problem was two fold. The first obstacle which had
to be overcome was the removal of the father figure himself―"the
field of force of an adult," i.e. the removal of the "negative" attitude of right vs. wrong,
"mine not yours," with the power to use force to "have things his way
or else," from the environment,
dialectically perceived as a "hate" attitude. The second
obstacle was to
overcome the father figure's lasting effect upon the individual and
society―"the negative valance," the conscience, i.e.
the fear of "getting caught," the need to
'shift' the "guilty" conscience, i.e. the
inflexible conscience, steadfastly subject to the father's will (righteousness), into the "super-ego," i.e. the conscience
no longer feeling "guilty" in the act of "incest"
(sensuousness and spontaneity),
since it is now
subject to the person's "free will" (his Ego), his
will now subject
to his own Id, where his want of a gratifying object in
the environment is no longer inhibited by the the father figure
(external force producing accountability to higher authority) and the conscience
(internal force producing accountability to higher authorities
standards), neither his will nor his 'conscience' are subject to the Father's will
when his 'conscience' is working in
'harmony' with his Ego and his impulses (spontaneity), his Ego now
'freed' to carry
out (free to be in bondage to, i.e. be 'driven' by) the impulses of his Id (sensuousness),
(restrained only by the natural, sensual, "rational," environment around him), making his 'conscience' now adaptable to 'change,'
now a "healthy" super-ego (conscietization).
The "super-ego" is actually a
seared conscience, seared by the 'liberation' ("justification") of
sensuousness: conscientização,
i.e. consciousness that higher authority, i.e. God, parent, etc. is the
'oppressor' of humanity (sensuousness)―that the consciousness of
a God or parent who judges (has the final say so for) man, regarding his
natural thoughts and actions, is the source of physical, mental, and
social oppression and must be negated in thought and action if
man to be healthy, physically, mentally, and socially―thus liberated in the
perception that human nature itself (sensuousness), united in
'purpose,' is
'righteousness' and higher authority (the restrainer of sensuousness)
is 'unrighteousness.'
"What we call ‘conscience' perpetuates
inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the
super-ego ‘unites in itself the influences of the present and of the
past.'"
(Brown)
"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).
"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." (Kurt
Lewin in Benne). Thus education, through curriculum development in
the classroom, was key to the negation of the conscience through
"goal setting appropriate to superego development." (Bloom)
When psychology entered the classroom, via progressive
education and Bloom's Taxonomies, sensuousness supplanted
righteousness as an outcome, i.e. the Ten Commandments, prayer, the
Holy Bible, and chastening were removed from the classroom for the
sake of a humanistic outcome (sensuousness). "The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as
functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience" [Both the conscience and the super-ego are developed by
environmental conditions, the conscience is developed in a traditional
environment, i.e. preaching and teaching by God, parents, etc.―explained
by Dr. Trojanowicz: "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."
Trojanowicz―while
the super-ego is developed in a social environment, i.e. facilitation,
dialogue, consensus manipulated by facilitators, "change agents,"
counselors, etc.] 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."
Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain
emphasis added) The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected
with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the
Hebrews are decisive)." "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) In other
words, when children felt guilty for their "polymorphously perverse
behavior," they exonerated (honored) the parents' position in the
family and thereby "created the family organization" and,
according to Freud, produced the "neurosis of society."
"Family
organization is the nucleus of all social
organization."
(Brown)
It is the traditional family's role in the development of the conscience
which, since the 50's, the public school system has worked to overcome,
both in weakening the traditional family and its influences upon
the next generation and therefore "social organization." As James Coleman, a source
for our
Supreme Court in making decisions concerning education, wrote:
"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." "Strengthening the family to
draw the adolescent back into it faces
serious problems, as well as some questions
about its desirability." "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."
"In order to [improve those institutions], one must know how
adolescent societies function [driven by sensual impulse,
self-will, and desire for approval in carnal human behavior], and
beyond that, how their directions may be changed." "The family has
little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the
community." (Coleman)
According to dialectical thinking,
if a man is to be forever freed from God, the traditional family,
capitalism, nationalism, etc. and be freed to be himself,
i.e. to dialectically know
his 'purpose' in life―united in a one world system of peace and social
harmony―both conditions have to be met (the negation of the father
without, by silencing or 'killing' the father―"‘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―and the negation of the
effects of the father
within, by 'devouring' him or removing him from social consciousness,
removing any residue of his existence which might bother the mind, which
might reactivate the
conscience within; locked). By incorporating human desires (the affective
domain) as part of 'purpose,' that is, the 'purpose' for developing
the super-ego,
guilty feelings for disobeying higher authority is negated, being
replaced with the super-ego, where good and evil are no longer measured
by good and evil established by some "foreign body," i.e. God or the
parent, but is now measured by the
pleasures of "positive" feelings which comes from being at one
with one's own human nature and the human nature of others, i.e. the building of
personally identity upon interpersonal relationships; "A meeting of two: eye to eye, face to face. And when you are
near I will tear your eyes out and place them inside of mine, and you will tear
my eyes out and will place them inside of yours, then I will look at you with
your eyes and you will look at me with mine." (Moreno). The idea
being,
children can freely play together, without parental values separating
them, when parents no longer have the right to preach and teach and hold
children accountable to values
which discriminate between good and evil behavior, based the children
values upon values set by a higher
authority who is not in harmony with the children's human nature―thereby
negating the right to say "Evil company
corrupts good morals" unless by "evil company" they mean believers.
Dialectically, the children are defined in history as the proletariat
struggling to transcend not only the parents, the bourgeoisie,
but also struggling to transcend the effects which the bourgeoisie, the parents,
have upon their own mind. Dialectically, getting the children out
of the traditional home (negating the traditional home) is only
half the problem, you must also get the traditional home out of the
children's mind (negating the conscience).
This is the reason for the rewriting
of history, making it
relevant only to the changing times, removing any elements of the past
which might support those of the past in their effort to retain the
past, pull those in the present back into their past. Wars help
melt down the 'relics' of the past, recycling them into the 'moments' of
the present. "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." (Adorno, Introduction)
Therapy, like war, does the same thing, melting down the 'relics' of the
past, recycling them into the 'moments' of the present, only this time
the war is not fought for national pride, sustaining the traditional
family for the purpose of national unity, but is fought for humanity, annihilating the traditional family for the purpose of social
'change.' "What better way to help the patient re-capture the past
than to allow him to re-experience and re-enact 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."
"The proletariat only perfects itself by annihilating and
transcending itself, by creating the classless society through the successful
conclusion of its own class struggle [by the negation of the top-down,
"upper-lower class" system (I AM from above and you are from below,
Spirit vs. world, parent vs. child) first by creating class
consciousness, the children's awareness of parents and their way of
thinking as being the oppressors/oppression of life and secondly the
'human right' to remove them and their effect upon their lives and the
lives of others, thereby creating a classless society]. The struggle for this society, in
which the dictatorship of the proletariat is merely a phase, is not just a
battle waged against an external enemy, the bourgeoisie. It is equally the
struggle of the proletariat against itself, against the devastating and
degrading effects of the capitalist system upon its class consciousness
[everybody must be "washed" of the effects of the Patriarchal Paradigm
upon their brains (instead of their sins being washed away by faith in
God the Father and belief in the lamb of God, i.e. the son of God, who
was slain for the sins of the world),
righteousness (and therefore sin)
must be washed away (washed from the mind) by the justification and praxis of human nature,
"I'm OK, your OK"]. The
proletariat will only have won the real victory when it has overcome these
effects within itself ." (Lukács, History)
"We may call this new order by the name of democratic
socialism but the name does not matter; all that matters is that we
establish a rational economic system serving the purposes of the people.
Only in a planned economy in which the whole nation has rationally
mastered the economic and social forces can the individual share
responsibility and use creative intelligence in his work. 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)
Carl Friedrich, back in 1953, wrote about Hegel's influence upon
America: "Contemporary social science,
especially in America, bears the impact of Hegelian thinking to an
extraordinary degree. Cultural anthropology and social psychology,
especially of the psychoanalytic and Gestalt variety, and much of
present day sociology… are more Hegelian than they would like to admit,
or do acknowledge."
(Friedrich) Karl Marx's
name could be substituted for Hegel today, where we, as a nation, now
look at things through a neo-Marxist lens, having replaced
righteousness
with relationship (Godly righteousness with human relationships―sensuousness).
We are now more concerned about feelings, i.e. how other people feel
about us (if we hurt their feelings they will turn and hurt our feelings
occupies our thoughts and our actions) more than or rather than
righteousness (not that those who preach and teach
righteousness are
"out" to 'hurt' people's feelings, they are preaching the word of God
that men might become aware of their sins before God, become aware of
God's wrath upon them because of their sins, and become aware of God's
love for them, having sent his only begotten Son to redeem them from his
wrath if only they would believe upon him―contrition and repentance
being the proper words). Concern about doing God's will, concern about doing
things right before God, our parents, the boss, our neighbors, etc. no
longer occupies our thoughts and actions, being replaced with "What
can I get out of this situation or this person for me." We have now replaced doctrine with dialogue,
certainty with uncertainty, facts and truth with feelings and opinions, not only in our thoughts but
also in our actions. The fear of man (driven by our love for this world and
its pleasures and the fear of losing the things of this world and its
pleasures, and the fear of reprisal from man against our "judgmental" thoughts and actions
against their love of this world, thus blocking their love toward us) now rules over our thoughts and actions instead of the fear of God (driven
by God and his love, our Heavenly Father, His Word, and the Holy Spirit and the
consequences of our unrighteous thoughts and actions, i.e. our love of this
world, inhibiting or blocking His love from being in us, making us an
enemy of his; "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." 1 John 2:15; "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).
"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 The power is not for us to rule over others,
manipulating them into meeting our "felt" needs through our position or
ability to meet their "felt" needs. The power is given to
us by God for us, in "the obedience of Christ," to rule over ourselves as we humble ourselves before
God and let Him direct our steps. The love is not for us to
manipulate (seduce) others into loving us through our love for them. The love is for us to be able to love others as God loves them
(in spirit not flesh). And the
mind is not our confused, dialectical, "theory" and
opinions, tossed to and fro, self-seeking mind (a mind seeking power to
manipulate others into loving us as we satisfy their love, along with
our love, for the things of this world) but a clear and confident mind grounded in God,
His Word (the truth), and His love, knowing His love and will for us. "For ye have not
received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Romans
18:15
What the world perceives as "negative" is God's
righteousness. What the world perceives as "positive" is its love
for the things of this world. By the world's use of God's love,
attempting to make man and God one in purpose (perceived as being
"positive"), without including God's demand for
righteousness, i.e.
righteousness which can only be imputed through the shed blood and
resurrection of Christ (perceived by the world as being
"negative," judgmental, Christ being the "only
way," not holding hands with the world, his bride refusing to do the
same as well), the world is blinded to the truth of the gospel. By
its rejection of sin and God's judgment upon it, (perceived as being
"negative," i.e. anti-social in nature), while using the "gospel" of
God's love for man (perceived as being "positive") for its social
'purpose,' it is able to create in its mind a user friendly,
non-offensive, readily adaptable to change Jesus, i.e. another Christ,
i.e. an Anti-Christ (a Fatherless Christ; Jesus did not come to
destroy the law but rather to fulfill it, He did not come to overthrow
His Heavenly Father's will but to obey it; thus we are to do as he did "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
Corinthians 10:5 which in dialectical thinking and acting would be a
very "negative" thing to do, negating the dialectical process
itself and man's hope of achieving carnal peace on earth and carnal good
will to men).
The "positive"
outcome can only be created by the negation of, or annihilation of
the "negative" outcome (the negation of the thesis condition,
i.e. identifying and negating the restraining conditions which inhibit
or block the creation of a "better world," negating the Father's
authority to rule, through the praxis of create a "better
world," a world made in the image of man, i.e. a world created
in the image of disobedient children for the children of disobedience). Dependent upon
the structure of the environment utilized in solving the crisis
(the one system, a "closed" system, i.e. the
thesis
system, being the preaching and teaching
of absolute truth as given by God, i.e. a
higher authority than human nature teaching truth as being unchanging, i.e. established from above and
therefore not changeable by that which is below―"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; "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." "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." 1
Corinthians 2:21, 3:18-20, all being condemned
except those who believe; "He that believeth on him is
not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already." John
3:18, promoting a "win-lose," i.e. an
antithesis, above-below, good-evil, heaven-heal,
there-and-then, "in-group, out-group," etc. situation―dialectically
perceived as being "negative," is always at odds
with the other system,
the "open" system of dialoguing opinions
to a consensus, i.e. a synthesis, tolerant of
ambiguity, i.e. tolerant of permissiveness situation, dialectically perceived as being
"positive," since there can be no condemnation, contrition, "guilty conscience,"
demand for repentance, etc. from an "open-ended," "non-directed"
dialogue situation), one
outcome displaces ('shifts') the other (the person must be willing to
abdicate their former system or way of thinking and acting, i.e. their
thesis position, by finding
something of interest in the latter system, i.e. in the synthesis
system, if 'change' is to
take place).
"No man can serve two masters: for
either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will
hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and
mammon." Matthew 6:24
A person can not have
(or keep) faith in God while participating within the dialectical
process. Nor can they uphold any pre-established contract.
To do so would be
equivalent to the praxis of tyranny against the dialectical
process. Thesis and synthesis can not
comprehend one another, they can not occupy the same space at the
same time (see 2 Corinthians 5:14-18 above), they can only oppose one another
in 'purpose.' Therefore a person can not keep a thesis position with God,
or even with their spouse, in the act (praxis) of synthesis,
unless God, or the spouse, is willing to 'change' (are willing to become
depraved, i.e. adulteress or abominable) to maintain relationships.
"…a patient might, with further change, outgrow
his spouse unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse."
(Yalom).
(The Church in the dialectical process simply "outgrows" being
just the bride of Christ, learning how to hold hands with the world.
When Christ rejects it, it no longer being spotless and without wrinkle,
it will perceive him as being unfaithful and hateful.) Collective 'change,' (synthesis or consensus) in
the dialectical process, always follows with a momentary experience of
stability (oneness or thesis), which then passes on
into another antithesis, synthesis cycle ... ad nauseam.
Without all participants 'willingly' 'changing' from a
rigid, right-wrong, above-below, "judgmental" ("preachy") attitude to a
tolerance of ambiguity (dialoguing of opinions, i.e. the kingdom of
uncertainties), for the sake of unity (synthesis), the
process becomes inhibited or blocked and man's carnal nature becomes
suppressed, i.e. repressed (hope in man and his carnal pleasures
becoming spoiled in the act of faith in God). Faith in God
and hope (or trust) in human nature can never come into harmony.
Human nature (that which is of this world) can never comprehend the
Spirit of God (that which is from above), therefore faith in God makes
it impossible for a person to please the world, since his faith in God,
who never changes, makes him an adversary to those who are in love with
the things of this world, i.e. in love with human nature which is ever
changing (never satisfied with what is) while never changing (forever
seeking to justify its sinful nature as being normal human behavior,
resisting and willing to destroy unhealthy, i.e. religious, environmental conditions―herein
lies the 'purpose' of the government's 'health' program).
Both conditions (dissatisfaction with God and His Word and
self-justification―as found in the Garden
in Eden, as recorded in Genesis 3, i.e. Adam's dialectical attitude of
self justification―'It was not my fault, it was the woman's fault, who
you, by the way, created for me,' and Eve's dialectical attitude of self
justification―'It was not my fault, it was the serpent's fault, who,
by the way, you
created) simply exposes man's carnal nature, i.e. his lack of faith
in God, i.e. his sinful nature. "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
"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:5 "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed
from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
faith." Romans 1:17 "Therefore speak I to
them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear
not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the
prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 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
13:13-15 If you do not come to the Lord in faith, i.e. you do not received him
as one who is proclaiming the truth, you can not hear his words.
"... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall
he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b Man instead
goes his own ways because he chooses the same pathway which Karl Marx
recognized as man's nature and advocated, i.e. that man can only be free when he "has eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears."
(Karl Marx) For Marx, and the world system, human freedom is founded upon
man's freedom to sin
(his 'right' to be human), whereas God's freedom is founded upon freedom
from
sin and condemnation (by being dead to ones self-nature and alive in Christ,
Christ's righteousness being imputed to 'whosoever' believe upon him).
"If the Son therefore shall make
you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:36
In this way of thinking (dialectical thinking), faith, which
is a noun (a person, place or thing which we put faith in) follows hope
(which is a desire we seek to fulfill from relationship with the person,
place, or thing we put our faith in). Hope,
which is a verb, (to cherish a desire), when placed before faith makes faith subject to hope
(making our faith driven by our human desires),
i.e. making man subject to his desires, putting his faith in the person
or persons, the thing or things, or the event or events which promise to
fulfill his earthly desires. Instead
of following God in faith he is driven' by his earthly desires, making
his faith subject to his hopes (making God subject to human desires).
Immanuel Kant (in Critique of Pure Reason) elevated human reasoning
(which comes from hope and not faith),
purging it of faith, by placing it upon the logic of hope, that man
hopes for the things of this world, things which his senses recognize
(thus making hope 'reasonable,' rational, within human reasoning,
and therefore able to be actualized only within the realm of the
tangible). He
wrote that hope (the cherishing of a desire) is found in happiness (our
desire is to be happy), that happiness is found in pleasure (we
naturally approach pleasure), and that pleasure is found
in the mind, and we now know that the mind is influenced ("positively")
toward the chemical pleasures (pressures toward gratification) which our body naturally produces,
such as dopamine, which is emancipated within the nervous system (the
synaptic gap) whenever it is excited from having made contact with gratifying objects
found within the environment, i.e. come into contact with those things
which our body naturally responds to in a wanting or craving after. Thus hope
(the verb or motion, e-motion, of desire) when it is placed in front of faith (evidence of
things, persons, places, or things not seen or experienced as, for
example proclaimed by God, parent, or a traditional teacher) makes man's
faith subject to human hopes (faith guided by the influences of the
world toward world peace, i.e. safety, pleasure, and justice, and social
harmony, i.e. approval or love from others) rather than faith in God,
i.e. placing hope in those things which are not of
this world (which have to be revealed by God and accepted by faith
first), i.e. things not of the temporal (the substance of things
desired being subject to the evidence of things not
of this world, things not perceivable, i.e. things preached and taught).
You can only dialogue hope (an opinion, subject to human
reasoning which is tied to human desires, when not proceeding from faith
in God and His Word). You can only preach and teach faith
(belief in God and His Word), which gives us eternal hope.
The dialectic mind always makes faith subject
to hope (making faith subject to or "positive" toward the world
system which is craving for "oneness" or unity), negating the hope which is based upon faith
in God, hope based upon the things God reveals to us by His word and promises
to fulfill to those who put faith in Him, pleasing him by our faith.
Therefore, faith preceding hope is perceived, dialectically, as being "negative" (rigid) since diversity of faiths (belief in that
which is not of this world offers no potential―potential being only that
which can proceed from nature, sensual―in unifying man upon that which is common
with the world, even when applied in the secular realm, i.e. faith in
one's own ideas inhibits or blocks the necessity of change which is
required to overcome the rigidity of belief or faith, belief in one's
position, as being the only right position, causes diversity of
"opinions" and therefore results in discrimination, prejudice, and
religious divisions, if belief can not be 'changed' into an opinion amongst
opinions; "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
different ways, the objective however, is to change it."
(Marx, Feuerbach #11) In other words, dissatisfied people,
dissatisfied with the way things are, often perceive how the world
'ought' to be and then make their opinion the only right opinion,
continuing social divisions based upon their rigid ideas, i.e. their
'belief' which blocks or inhibits the hope of
a world of oneness, i.e. a one world system based upon that which man
has in common with the world, his carnal, temporal nature which wants
or craves unity with the object or objects of gratification which are
only found within the world of sense experience (in the
"here-and-now") which is ever "changing" ("evolving," i.e. moving to a
higher state of being, at least that is what the hope is, i.e. the augmentation of worldly pleasure as man works together to remove
anti-social, "anti-pleasure" barriers, working to create a world of
leisure and guaranteed sustenance for all, those in the process getting
more, those not in the process getting less or none despite what those
in the process preach―equality, fraternity, liberty―wanting to
create a world as was once found
within the Garden in Eden before man sinned, the idea being, by negating
the condition of sin itself, i.e. negate faith in, belief upon, and obedience
toward higher authority, man can liberate that which is natural and
common to all of mankind, his carnal nature, thereby becoming free to
use his Eros as the 'driving' force for, and the 'purpose' of, social
harmony; "What the great world needs, of course, is a
little more Eros and less strife." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for
union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." (Brown)
"The irreconcilable conflict is not
between work and Eros, but between alienated labor [man begrudgingly
having to work for someone else's pleasures without being free to
satisfy his own at the same time, i.e. capitalism] and Eros."
[Like having to suppress the flesh to please God, or the boss, or the
parent, etc.] "... the liberation of
Eros could create new and durable work relations." (Marcuse) [Putting women in the workplace
was not just about the liberation of the woman from the traditional home
environment, i.e. empowering them (making them bitter toward the
patriarchal paradigm), but was also the initiation and
sustentation of Eros in the workplace, i.e. carnal men could hardly wait
to get there to build relationships with the women and righteous men were tempted into
do so as well (remember sex does not have to be just physical, mental
sex serves Diaprax quite well, the physical being by con-sensuousness
through touch, taste, sight, smell, and sound, the last three filling
the sensuous mind of the "happy little workers" as well, even
'volunteering' to do more common-unity work after work; soccer moms not
going to the game just to watch the kids and volunteering fathers not
doing community work just to "get the job done," both knowing they had
better keep their "righteousness" to themselves if sensuousness,
i.e. social harmony, is going to be given a chance to grow].
Opinions (even about God) tie us to this world of
sense
experiences (Eros), belief in God ties us to that kingdom which is
above our 'here-and-now,' sense experience based world. You
can not preach and teach an opinion and you can not dialogue a belief,
unless you 'purpose' to confuse others, create doubt, and praxis
lies (evolutionists preach and teach theory as if it were truth, thus
they must use confusion, bringing those with the truth into dialogue,
treating truth as an opinion, to cover their lies, remove the confusion
and the theory of evolution dies, revealing "the old man" covered
in lies; evolution is only about the negating of
sin as the real issue of life and death). "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
[desires], 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. 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 [praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in
knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians
3:1-11 These verses are negated in the lives of all who
praxis the dialectical process even though they might dialogue
them―"How did you feel when ...?" or "What
did you think when ...?"―in the sense experience of
"growing" or "creating" social unity, i.e. Church Growth, emergent
church, etc. "It is written ..." and "I feel ..." or "I think
...." are two opposing paradigms, when the church uses the latter, i.e.
human opinions which are sense experience based, it rejects the
former, i.e. revelation from God. "If the 'restoring of life'
of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation,
then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Habermas,
Theory) In the former one is willing to
live in the world but not of the world and gain his soul, in the latter
he is willing to lose his soul and gain the world. "For the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness;" Rom 1:18
According to diaprax, by focusing upon and putting into practice that which
divides, that which inhibits or blocks human relationships (determining
relationship based upon belief and focusing upon, i.e. preaching and
teaching, uncommon principles, principles which are not "sensible," perceivable, and
understandable by all parties concerned, i.e. principles which do not
come by means of human nature and therefore are not in harmony with
human nature and thus offer no potential in initiating and sustaining human
relationships, i.e. initiating and sustaining the condition which
inhibits or blocks the engendering of social unity), a higher authority retains control over man, directing
his steps (directing him not according to the world system, thus
inhibiting or block world "peace" and social harmony and, as would be
expected, the world will turn against him once given the 'right'
opportune moment, i.e. persecuting him to "bring him around" to the
worlds way of thinking concerning peace and harmony, or persecuting him
to put the fear of man in others who might be going his way; but God says:
"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). But by focusing upon and putting into practice that
which man has in common (mankind identifying and then uniting and acting upon his common human
interests,
even for the "purpose" of "growing" the church), that
person or condition which
inhibits or blocks human nature and/or human relationships is negated or annihilated
(it is not that the spiritual condition, i.e. faith in the above human
nature or above human condition
is openly opposed―thus retaining a
"We are right and you are wrong,"
antithesis condition―it is simply that the person or
persons who continually
insists upon thinking and acting outside of, or counter to, the human sensuous "moment," refuses to go into
dialogue,
is perceived as being irrational and therefore is treated
as being irrelevant in the deciding outcome―in
the consensus moment, a moment where faith in God and His Word is
trumped by common human hopes or desires pursued through the use of
human abilities―like the ten spies and the
children of Israel who came to consensus based upon their perception of God's irrationality, desiring to reach the promised
land, but without faith in God coming first, trumped God's command to
take it by first murmuring against God's command to take it, and then
trying to take it in the arm of their own flesh, according to their own
strength and reasoning abilities, rebelling against God as they had done
in the past; "But they and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened
their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments, And refused to obey,
neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but
hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to
return to their bondage:" Nehemiah 9:16-17―none of that generation, except Joshua
and Caleb, the two men who put faith in God first, made it into the promised
land).
As man
dialectically ("scientifically," "rationally") perceives higher authority
as being irrational (higher authority, dialectically, regarded as being the same as a
spiritual authority, since both inhibit or block, restrain or divert the temporal human moment of
desires, i.e. hopes, which cry out for fulfillment, i.e. the desire or hope for oneness
being "diverted" from being found within man's nature, the sense experience―the 'good' feeling―of
social unity, created in the moment of discovering and working for
common cause, to being found in that
which is above or counter to nature, requiring faith first, i.e. the desire or hope for
recognition and acceptance
from human nature to that which is above or counter to human nature―that
of human nature being the wanting to
be wanted by others or being recognized by others with respect―to wanting to be
wanted by that which is above, greater, and/or counter to human nature,
which can only precede from faith, and
therefore inhibits or blocks the natural wanting of a gratifying object
which proceeds from nature itself which
counters, i.e. negates the desire which is toward that which is above
nature―an object perceived by the one
under authority as being natural and 'good' for him in the moment and,
and with the
help of a facilitator, i.e. the dialectical process being put into praxis, an object perceived as being natural and 'good' for all
mankind
in the moment as well,
i.e. 'good' or right being perceived and defined of, by, and for mankind
in the moment; the scriptures warn us "There is a way which
seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of
death." Proverbs 14:12), and therefore he "feels"
free (with the help of others) to perceive and treat higher authority as irrelevant
(he can not even understand him, like the deer in the headlights look), he, along with all others
who are participating in the process, is dialectically being freed to
direct his own steps (he is taking the same steps as were taken in
the Garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6 and taking the same steps the children
of Israel took when they attempted to 'take' the promised land in their
own strength, under their own direction, because, like lawless children,
it made "sense" to them at the moment.)
While bread is good for all of mankind, being necessary for
his physical, mental, and even social health, Jesus, quoting scriptures,
pointed out that man must also live by every word which comes from God,
even when it inhibits or blocks that which is perceived, in the moment,
to be 'good' for man (bread is for the flesh, which is temporal, while
the word of God is for the soul, which is eternal). The dialectical process counters the word of
God by making it subordinate to man and his perceived "needs." It places the emphasis upon human needs over God and His Word (or
emphasizes human or temporal needs as being equal with God and His Word).
It emphasizes that the
'purpose' for the individual and society can only be found within the praxis of everyone working together for a common cause (we working for
us),
that man must collectively address human needs (temporal needs or "felt"
needs as in Maslow's Hierarchy of "felt" needs) if he is to know and
fulfill his 'purpose' in this life. By using the dialectical
process in making decisions about life, defining the 'purpose' for life
based upon man's commonly "felt" needs it cuts God's head off and places
man's head on in its place, i.e. the king's, the
parent's, the bourgeoisie', i.e. the middle class's―"characterized
by a high material standard of living, sexual morality, and respect for
property" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary) head is cut off and the "people's," the adolescent's, the proletariat's, i.e.
the "grass root's," the rabble's,
the mass's, the mob's, the canaille's (Merriam-Webster's
Thesaurus) head is put on in its place, the spiritual (that which
is eternally established by God) is replaced with the temporal (the contemporary, which is momentary established in, by, and for the
world), the promised blessings of the future, in the there-and-then, is
replaced with the pleasures of this life in the moment, in the
here-and-now, He who is above is replaced with that which is below,
God's will, revealed by His Word and the Holy Spirit is replaced with
man's will, known only through his sensual experience of the moment,
manifested in the praxis of consensus, the collective
voice of "the people," i.e. Nietzsche's "will to power"
being put
into practice (even in the name of Jesus), i.e. "God is dead" humanistic
mentality―which may not be so boldly stated
or realized by contemporary Christians but certainly practiced in
their taking of polls and surveys, and their reliance upon feasibility
studies and feedback loops to "detect" and keep up with "the winds of
'change'"―'change' being 'driven' by "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―the
sermon from the pulpit may not be the problem, it is the administration
of the church which is, for they may preach truth from the pulpit but
refuse to practice it in making decisions, relaying instead upon the "will" of men).
As the Transformational Marxists, Erick Fromm put it: "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." "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." "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, Escape)
"O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou
hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed
them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made
their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.
Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish: for they
know not the way of the LORD, nor the judgment of their God. I will
get me unto the great men, and will speak unto them; for they have
known the way of the LORD, and the judgment of their God: but these
have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds. Wherefore a
lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings
shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one
that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their
transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased. 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. They were as fed horses in the morning: every
one neighed after his neighbour's
wife. Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: and shall
not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?" Jeremiah 5:3-9
By the praxis of consensus man replaces the
history of the past, that history which restrains the present, with the
history of his own life experiences, that history which seeks to
liberate the present from the restraints of the past. By
liberating the present from the restraints of the past, hope or
potential for 'change' in the present and the future is given birth
(history is no longer written, to be studied so as not to repeat it,
i.e. repeating the errors of the past, but history is to be discovered,
man discovering himself, creating a new world united upon and working
within the process of 'change,' initiating and sustaining a world freed
from unnatural restraints of the past, i.e. Godly restraints upon the
carnal nature of man as written in the past to be carried into the
present and thus "limit" the future potential of man becoming himself). In the dialectical praxis of consensus man
"gives birth to himself." Erick Fromm put it this
way, regarding the dialectical process, its effects, its purpose, and
its founder: "In the process of history man gives birth to
himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains
what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom
and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of
Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself."
(Fromm, as gods) This is
the theme (rebellion against God) which runs throughout the fields
of psychology and sociology (it is the only foundation upon which
counselors
can build, even though some may claim to be Christians―they are actually
Gnostic Christians, dialectical Christians role-playing Lucifer as he helped
man to become "at-one" with God, i.e. equal with God, like a god; "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).
"If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can
ever be redeemed by freedom, then the ‘original sin' must be committed
again: ‘We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall
back into the state of innocence." (Marcuse) "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the
forbidden fruit; and this book cannot without sinning communicate that
experience to the reader." (Brown) The praxis of consensus "frees"
man from the guilt of sin, revealing his contempt for God and His Word,
revealing the absence in his life of the fear of God.
But, according to dialectical thinking, without filling the
void created, when man is detached from the relationship he had with that
which is above his nature (relationship with that which restrained his
nature), without reattaching the individual to
society (relationship with that which is common with his nature), i.e. attaching him to the "sense experiences" he has
(or has the potential of having) in common
with the world (for the 'purpose' of giving him a 'human' identity and 'purpose'), he will
become either "maladjusted," (he will remain
self-focused and self-seeking and become socially unstable, his
'ought's' controlling himself and others) or embrace "a philosophy of life
developed by others," (he submits his 'ought's' to a higher
authority who is socialist in 'purpose,' but only for personal gain, considered by dialectical thinkers, i.e.
Transformational Marxists'/social-psychologists, to be synonymous with
Nationalism, i.e. Fascism―dialectically
perceived as potential becoming global socialism but along the way
became stillborn at a nationalist level of development, i.e. Traditional Marxism, where the
individual and therefore society becomes
dependent upon a higher authority for identity and 'purpose,' i.e.
people become dependent upon an authority, perceived dialectically, as being "ruthless" toward human
nature, i.e. socially hostile, i.e. anti-democratic, whether it be a man,
a group of men, or God himself, for example any minster and his
followers who do not work with and for the community,
i.e. partnership with "the village" for the "betterment" of society,
but who isolate themselves from the ways of the community, yet
work to bring the community into their
way of thinking, i.e. perceived as "under their control," would be
considered
potentially fascist, and be labeled as such by a democratic government). The words, quoted in
italics, above are by David R. Krathwohl and Benjamin Bloom
in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain,
who acknowledge the ideologies, i.e. the world view or the paradigm of the Transformational Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm as
being their "Weltanschauung"―which would be of no particular interest except for the fact that Bloom's
books are the basis for teacher certification and school accreditation
not only in the states but around the world; see my
articles on "Bloom's Taxonomies.")
When man can not find identity with that which is at-one with his human nature, that which
is "changeable" to his "felt" needs of
the moment, he becomes subject to that which is not of
his nature, he remains subject to that which is eternally (externally) established,
despite his internal changing needs. He therefore remains controlled and limited
by that which goes counter to his "felt" needs of the moment (his
will remaining subject to another's will, his laws of the flesh
remaining subject to, i.e. repressed by laws which are not in harmony
with or subject to the laws of his flesh).
Karl Marx
believed that "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it;
they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change."
(Marx, Critique)
He believed that by the act of obedience, the child "gives life" to the parent,
"gives life" to that system and
its laws which work
counter to and are "hostile" toward his human nature―by his obedience to
higher authority's laws and his submitting to their use of chastening to
keep him subject to their will, both of which
inhibit or block human will and desire, he gives higher authority
life. "The life which he
has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and
hostile force." (Marx, MEGA I/3)
By his obedience toward and acceptance of (or love for) the authority
figure who chastens him (uses force to inhibit or block his
sensuousness and spontaneity) when he is disobedient to their
will, man, according to Marx,
sustains a scripturally based, patriarchal, top-down system where God is
above man and man is below God, where a father is above the children and
the children are below or subject to the father's will, etc. as described in Hebrews.
"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 12:6-11).
God's system (as exhibit in the traditional family system) must be
based upon the chastening of human nature or else human nature will rule
the day (the children will rule the home and lawlessness, confusion, and
depravity will prevail). Therefore, according to
the dialectical system, to reject the system which uses chastening, the
rejection of chastening for
doing that which is wrong is the first step which must be taken if man is to be
freed from the control of higher authority, i.e. freed from the
controlling effect of God upon his will. "Thinking through the process it is dialectically faulty to start
with the negative, with anxiety. The problem is to name the dynamic
factor provoking anxiety to emerge [chastening or judgment]." (Moreno) By
creating an environment whereby carnal man (and his worldly nature) can
"feel" freed from chastening (freed from the traditional way of setting the standard for determine right from wrong, good from
evil, through the use of chastening and judgment), by initiating and sustaining an environment which replaces preaching
and teaching (inculcating doctrine through "negative" force, chastening
or threat of it) with a dialogue
(freely and openly sharing opinions, how he feels and what he
thinks without fear of chastening or judgment) in setting standards of right and wrong, good and evil, man is liberated to think and act
in accordance with his human nature. After all, wasn't that what the forbidden tree in the
garden
in Eden was all about, choosing which system to put into praxis
to "know" what is
good and what is evil ("God said it is evil" is replaced with "It does
not make sense to me that it is evil, it seems alright to me." One
knowing is from above, "It is written," that which is accepted by
faith, spiritual,
eternal―from God, while the other "knowing" is from below, "I think ...
I feel," that which is experiential, sensual,
temporal―of
the flesh).
Socrates was executed because he destroyed respect for
authority, i.e. faith in God, or in Athens' case, faith in the gods, and
he corrupted the morals of the youth. Liberals (in the true
meaning of the word) will do all they can to cover this up (deceiving
themselves and others) because their objective is to initiate and
sustain the dialectical process (Socratic Critical Thinking) into the
lives of every person they meet, to sear their conscience and justify
the wickedness of their hearts. "Therapy for normals" continues
the same program of 'change' (disrespect for authority and the promotion
of immorality), liberating humanity from the fear of God and love for
His Word (I originally had the word "theology" here but that is a method
which now evaluates God and His Word, to show ourselves approved before
men, whereas we must evaluate ourselves from God and His Word, studying
His Word to show ourselves approved before God, whether men approve or
not is not the issue). The dialectical idea (the same idea
Socrates had) was: don't fight against "theology," support it with
philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, i.e. human reasoning,
and liberate it from God and His absolutes, freeing man from the fear of
God and love for his word, through the use of open-ended, non-directed―unrestrained,
non-judgmental―discourse, freeing
him from the "repression" of "patriarchal domination,"
(from the parental authority condition) so
that he could be himself again, i.e. be normal. "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." "The
abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate
external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain
repression." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family
and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to
neurosis." (Brown) "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." "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." (Adorno)
When men choose "sense experience" as their
basis for determining what is good and what is evil they reject not only
revelation from God but God himself, making themselves gods
instead. When mankind consciously and "rationally" unites upon
his common "sense experience," he is within the realm of the
dialectical process, a process whereby many gods are in the process of
becoming one universal god. This is a Gnostic concept which
Satan knew, for evil intent, would happen if and when man rejected God's
Word as absolute, unquestionable and universal. "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." Genesis 3:5
" 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
Adam and Eve did not die from something which was bad in the fruit of
the 'forbidden' tree, they died because they changed their paradigm from
accepting God's definition of good and evil "as given," i.e. changed
from being at-one with God, under his authority and direction (and therefore live,
i.e. having access to the tree of life), to determining for themselves,
dialectically―sensually, what is good and what is evil, God then driving them from
the garden in Eden, so that they could continue to be at-one with
nature, under its direction, 'driven' by their carnal nature (and therefore die, i.e. not having
access to the tree of life). Unless a man repents of his sins
before God, he will not only die physically, but know eternal death as
well. Man's paradigm is heresiarchal by nature. Despite his
efforts to be patriarchal he is still bound by the flesh. It is
only in Christ he can know and live in a patriarchal paradigm, as God
intended in the garden in Eden.
According to those who use the dialectical
process, the 'purpose' of life is to use the dialectical process in the
liberation of man from God, so that he can become a god himself, and
then using the same process in the uniting of all gods into one god, uniting them upon that which is 'good,' in their eyes,
i.e. that which is physically, mentally, and socially pleasurable and
beneficial to all gods (pleasurable and beneficial to all of mankind). The
idols men make, whether it be in stone, wood, or people (singular or
plural), are not the gods they worship. They are the creators of
the idols, they are the gods they worship. Consensus is a worship
service. It is a group of men worshiping themselves as gods.
By using the Genesis 3:1-6 process, one society
(in harmony) and one world (in peace)
can be created (divide and conquer: dividing man from God above by
making him a god among gods and then reuniting him with all gods,
uniting him upon that which all gods have in common, knowing good and
evil from their own perspective, good being that which is sensually
pleasurable, thereby "conquering" God above by creating god below,
creating "God," which is society made only in the image of man,
and man made only in the image of society; "Every form of objectification
[perceiving an object external to our human nature, external to and
restraining our common
sense experiences, as being real]... results in alienation.
Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification.;"
(Bronner) "In direct contrast to German philosophy, which
descends from heaven to earth [Hegel perceived an "absolute spirit"
creating a new world order out of the "masses"], here we ascend from earth to heaven
[Marx perceived the praxis of man, i.e. the "masses" creating a
new world order out of themselves, out of praxis of mankind
negating any and all god's above man himself, man must not create images
of god in his own image (and let it rule over him), he must create his
own image of himself (and thereby free himself from "other
worldliness" and "domination")]." (Marx, MEGA I/5)
"The great polemic against Hegel in The Holy Family
[written by Karl Marx] 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-d-vis the real events of history becomes, in the hands
of Hegel's disciples, an arrogant-and reactionary confrontation of ‘spirit'
and ‘mass'." (Lukács', History) According to Transformational Marxists
(social-psychologists) the Traditional Marxists are still taken captive
by Hegel's "'spirit' and 'mass'," above-below duality.
Man, by creating an environment whereby all men can
collectively participating in the Genesis 3:1-6 project (the dialectical process), "consenting
to be in concord in opinion or sentiment" (Merriam-Webster―"consensus"),
knowing and uniting upon that which is good (according to his natural
perception), can create a new world order where he, becoming as
one, i.e. becoming as one god, can live and work together in
a world utilizing "good sense," accepting "the
process of becoming" as the "good life." Thus, "the
good life" is not something in the there-and-then, but is in the
here-and-now, in "the process," the process of
'change.' It is only up to man himself to create the
environmental conditions which will allow "the process" to give
him life, i.e. where the sensation of "becoming," is for him, the
"good life." "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."
"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." "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)
Diaprax follows (is exemplified by) Karl Marx's way of thinking.
"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." (Karl Marx; Source:
Phil Worts
presentation on COPS ) "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent
in each particular individual." "The real nature of man is the
totality of social relations." (Marx, Thesis # 6)
"Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his
own potential as a rational being." (Marx, Critique) This is also reflected in psychology,
i.e. Sigmund Freud and those who follow his line of thinking. "The
individual is emancipated in the social group." (Brown) "The
individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting
belongingness to the group." (Lewin
in Benne) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group
therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group."
(Yalom) "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx,
compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by
force in order to explain repression.... Therefore the question
confronting mankind is the abolition of repression – in traditional
Christian language, the resurrection of the body. The
resurrection of the body is a social project." (Brown) emphasis added Erick Fromm, at one time a member of the
Transformational Marxist's organization "The Institute of Social
Research," AKA "The Frankfurt School," believed that man could
not overcome God's influence in his life without transcending the pain
of isolation by uniting himself with society, both in theory and in practice,
i.e. that social unity is inhibited when man does "not take the last logical step, to give up 'God' and
to establish a concept of man as a being who is alone in the world, but
who can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and
with nature." (Fromm, Escape) This is
the dialectical process as it is being put into practice (praxis)
in
America today, as well as around the world, for the 'purpose' of social harmony and
world peace.
This is Diaprax―Genesis 3:1-6, man
becoming as gods, man directing his own steps according to his ways. "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself:
it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."
Jeremiah 10:23b Whether done as an individual or collectively
through consensus, the praxis is the same, it is sin.
"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
Regarding the socializing
(Common-izing) of America and the world, it was the "priesthood of all believers"
teaching, as practiced by those within the protestant reformation, which
was the greatest obstacle to be overcome (that man, by accepting the
Heavenly Father only, "And call no man your father upon the earth:
for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9,
could stand alone (yet under God's direction), without socialist identity, i.e. the group, the
community, etc, by being liberated from the earthly father, i.e. the
Pope, the king, the facilitator, etc., he could stand alone, not only
being freed from the world system, he would be willing to fight for
liberty for all, despite what the team, the neighbors, the village, the
county, the state, the nation, and the world―the "'New' World
Order"―and even the apostate church might say to him, about him, or do to him). The Transformational
Marxist, Max Horkheimer wrote:
"Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of
cold rational individualism." (Horkheimer, Vernunft) (Erick Fromm wrote that
Luther's "priesthood of all believers" helped free man
from the Pope, but that it was up to men, like himself, to help man free
man from belief in God and loyalty to the King. )
The strength of the traditional
family (the "breeding ground" of private business), with its restrains upon
the individual (his immoral nature; his "polymorphous perverse behavior")
and therefore its restraints upon society (tyranny, mob rule, democracy,
etc.), was therefore the greatest
barrier to socialism, i.e. globalism, common-ism, etc. and thus had to be annihilated.
The same message
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov gave back in 1920 is still being put into
practice today. At this time without guns, the process being used
today is seducing its victims with promises of world peace and social
justice; "if we can only work together as a team." He stated:
We must overcome 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." (Vladimir
Ilyich Ulyanov)
Just months prior to
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin's) speech, Georg Lukács wrote: "The workers' council
[which the consciousness of the proletariat has striven to create
ever since its inception] spells the political and economic defeat of reification
[the following of an established way of doing business]. In the
period following the dictatorship it will eliminate the bourgeois
separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary."
(Lukács) emphasis added
The significance of such
thinking takes on meaning when you consider what George Washington
stated in his Farewell Address concerning the "separation of the
legislature, administration, and judiciary." "It is important,
likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire
caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine
themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in
the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. 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. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution
or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular
wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the
Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for,
though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must
always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient
benefit which the use can at any time yield." (Washington) emphasis added
The effect the
protestant reformation has had upon this nation is reflected in the laws and
the political systems which have come down to us through the ages.
These laws and political systems have changed as those who practice the
dialectical process facilitate change upon those who have little or no
understanding regarding the importance of standing alone with
established truth (a 'closed system' of unchangingness), truth which comes from above, above the carnal
"despotic" nature of man which wants to consolidate power unto
its own carnal desires (an 'open system' of 'change'). The separation of the offices of
government had only one purpose, to preserve the freedom and liberty of
the individual, and most importantly, the freedom and liberty of the family
with the father at the head, the
only place where all branches are united in one office, i.e. the father
being the head of the home.
The secular system (the state) honored (did not impede or usurp) the
office and authority of the earthly father (barring inhuman treatment,
unwarranted and excessive punishment, etc.; " Children, obey your
parents in the Lord: for this is right." "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians
6:4) and the sacred system (religion) honored (did not impede or usurp)
the office and authority of the heavenly father (as well as the office
and authority of the earthly father). In both systems
the individual is "created" (in the image of the higher authority),
being set free from the tyranny of the carnal masses below (the carnal
nature within and
the carnal nature of society without). It is therefore the 'purpose' of those possessed with or
influenced by the dialectical process, to destroy the traditional family
through the praxis of "positive social change"
via the
consensus process. The soviet system was designed around that
very 'purpose': a diverse group (which engenders conflict between faith
and belief―in that
which is above, and behavior and
opinion―that
which is below), dialoguing to consensus (which negates that which is
above, i.e. belief must be preached and taught and can only be perceived as an opinion in dialogue; to
consensus meaning becoming as one "with
sensuousness," i.e. the
"felt" needs of human nature, that nature which counters or negates the restraints of
the conscience, i.e. negates right vs. wrong since it knows no wrong in
itself), over social issues (human
feelings make everything social), in a facilitated meeting (the
leadership skilled in manipulating the participants with the dialectical
process, focusing the group upon only the "appropriate
information" and upon the "appropriate behavior"), to a pre-determined outcome
(that outcome being everybody's participation in the process―by doing so they
collectively negate the top-down, patriarchal paradigm or
traditional way of thinking and acting). In this way human nature
annihilates anything which inhibits or blocks the "advancement"
of human nature (open systems annihilate closed systems, i.e. closed systems
inhibit or block open systems, i.e. the flesh being an open
system, being lawless, lawless except to its own self, temporal,
'changing,' while the spirit
is a closed system, in agreement with the law of God, eternal,
unchanging). For man to 'change' from being under God to being god
himself, the open system of 'change' had to be put into praxis to
negate the closed system of absolutes. It is either one
system or the other, one system based upon chaos, the other based upon
order. For man to create order (his new world order) out of chaos,
he had to first initiate and then sustain chaos against the order which
is from above, i.e. the order created by a patriarchal paradigm, whether
it be God or an earthly father initiating and sustaining a 'closed'
system of "It is written" and "Because I said so."
"Thus, for
instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the
holy family, the former must itself be annihilated
[vernichtet]
theoretically and practically." (Marx Theses #4)
Both Karl Marx (sociology)
and Sigmund Freud (psychology) saw it that way. Marx saw religion, i.e.
that which is sacred, sacred being that which you will not question
(when man is not willing to question his faith even when it does not
make sense to him in a specific situation, or does not make sense to
others he wishes to build relationship with, for whatever reason, i.e.
the desire to build relationship with those of like nature being blocked
by the fear of judgment from God, the parent, the church, etc.), as
being the root cause (and the manifesting) of all social ill (social
unrest and divisions).
Without freedom to question religion (freedom to question the closed
system of right-wrong, above-below, without having freedom from the "opiate,"
i.e.
freedom from the fear of questioning God and his authority or the parent and their
authority, freedom from the fear of future judgment), man, according to Marx, could not free himself from
religion's
control, and thus could not become himself (finding himself in an open
system, i.e.
that system which is found only in
nature―which is really a closed system, but
even if you explained that to them that they wouldn't understand, as the
Apostle Paul explained in
Romans 1). Karl Marx wrote: "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." "The critique of
religion is the prerequisite of every critique." "The critique of
religion ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all
conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible
being." "The critique of religion ends in the doctrine that man is the
supreme being for man." (Marx, Critique) Marx believed, practiced, and
promoted the condition which man had to participate in if he was to free
himself from God, the condition of questioning God from the human
perspective, from nature only (human questions, tied to human feelings,
produce human answers, i.e. the answers are in the questions, how the
question is asked will determine what the answer will be, whoever
controls the questions controls the outcome). Marx clearly states the
condition which had to be negated if man was to be freed from God. "The
more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." (Karl Marx in T. B. Bottomore)
He believed that the King's horses were actually the people's horses, i.e.
that the earth which is the Lords and the fulness thereof is really man's
world, i.e. that the father's possessions, i.e. his house, his wife, his
children, etc.
are really the children's (collective) property. Without the annihilation of
the former (the father, the patriarch, the traditional family, the bourgeoisie), the latter
(the children, the heresiarch, the social family, i.e. "the village," the proletariat) could never be free. It was the structure
of religion (fear of God and of his judgment upon sin), its top-down system, which prevented "change," change which
was necessary if man was to become himself. The traditional family
with its closed system which prevents change therefore had to be
destroyed through its participation within an open system of change,
"an open system ... which is responsive to its environment and
readily adapts itself to disturbances in an acceptable and creative
manner... that changes are more acceptable than the rules which prevent
them." (Grinder & Bandler)
When Grinder and Bandler's counseling practices (to "change" the
family from a closed system of top-down to an open system of community,
from an there-and-then to a here-and-now system) failed they considered "the
breaking up of a family system [to] be the most beneficial
outcome for the family members in terms of their ability to change and
grow... [this being their solution to helping the family members who are]
struggling to free themselves from the patterns of family interactions
in which they are trapped." ibid This
is the 'purpose' for all of counseling, where counselors, as Satan, come
between the father and his family, come between God and man, taking that
which is not his to take, playing the role of god to make man a god
amongst god's. Irvin Yalom
writes: "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) Carl Rogers wrote:
"It seemed to me it would be a horrible thing to have to profess a set
of beliefs, in order to remain in one's profession." "The inner core of
man's personality is the organism itself, which is essentially both
self-preserving and social." "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." "We try to create a relationship with him in
which he is safe and free. . . To accept him as he is, to create
an atmosphere of freedom in which he can move in his thinking
and feeling and being, in any direction he desires." "The
individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he
is. He has experienced himself." "The
individual increasingly comes to feel that this locus of evaluation lies
within himself." (Rogers)
Freud recognized the same correlation between the earthly
father figure and the heavenly father figure, as Marx did, that not
questioning higher authority and its affect upon the person
suppressed/repressed nature, a person's (and societies) 'true' nature can
not becoming actualized. Without the annihilation of the
patriarch condition, man could not know liberty, sensual liberty.
"‘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." (Freud in Marcuse)
Freud created psychology as a
means to free man's nature, his "Id," his
"organismic nature," his sensual impulse, from the restraints of the
father's "Ego," the father's will, where instead of finding gratification
within nature (in that which is natural) man is forced to find
gratification in that which is above nature (in that which is not
natural but spiritual, inhibiting or blocking of man's sensual
'moment' with nature). "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) It was the Transformational Marxists who understood the
doctrine both Marx and Freud built their thoughts and actions upon, the
dialectical imagination. Marx placing the individual's identity in a
society of revolution (social praxis) and Freud identifying in
the individual a society of revolution, a society of impulses and
pleasures. "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to
'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud'"
(Jay) "Freud speaks of
religion as a ‘substitute-gratification'– the Freudian analogue to the
Marxian formula, ‘opiate of the people.'" (Brown) The Transformational Marxist, Theodor
Adorno wrote (take into account as you read his statements that our education
system is built off of
this man's
ideology): "God is conceived more directly after a parental
image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes
punishing authority." "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."
"An
attitude of complete submissiveness toward ‘supernatural forces'
and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of ‘many
important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of
infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian
submission in a very pure form." "Authoritarian submission was
conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation
to a variety of authority figures―parents, older people, leaders,
supernatural power, and so forth." "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."
"Using social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior
toward the child." "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) Wilhelm Reich was a "God father
figure" of social-psychology and his works greatly influenced the works
of social engineers. He wrote especially concerning the role of
the traditional family, regarding its inhibiting or blocking of social
change. "The authoritarian family becomes the factory in which
the state's structure and ideology are molded." (Reich) To him the large family had to be
eradicated if nationalism was to be abated.
In the end, the 'purpose' of the
dialectical process (social-psychology) all comes down to liberating man
from "the patriarchal God." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the
parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural
derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God."
(Brown) Both Marx and Freud echo the same theme, death to
the traditional family and its patriarchal father figure. Without
its death the God of righteousness can not be put to death and the
sensuousness of man can not come to life. Only Satan could come up
with such a plan. He only has one plan and one way on how to do
it, i.e. as recorded in Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the dialectical process,
i.e. using the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of
life, i.e. that which is of the world, to draw man away from faith in
God and His Word, to get him to focus upon those things which are common
to his
nature and to this world. The problem is not our living in the
world of Diaprax, it is the world of Diaprax living in me. Since Satan
could not get rid of the church by directly attack he decided to promote
it from within, getting it to depend upon the things of the world to
grow itself, thereby making it apostate. He attempts to do the
same with you by the same method, Diaprax. "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, and more abundantly to
you-ward." 2 Corinthians 1:12 "Behold, what
manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it
knew him not." 1 John 3:1
QUOTATIONS
NOT YET INCORPORATED INTO THE ARTICLE: with
some having comments.
"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."
"The theme
underlying much of the research is that once you
can identify a community, you have discovered
the primary unit of society above the level of
the individual and the family that can be
mobilized to take concerted action to bring
about positive social change."
(Trojanowicz)
"Identifying
common ground, where all factions of a
community can work together for the common
good of the community in a broader
problem-solving approach. Forming a
partnership between police and the rest of
the community where each is accountable to each
other and the community as whole."
"Shift in
philosophy about police duties vs. community
responsibilities to a team concept of
Total Quality Management of the community.
Reidentifying the police role as a Facilitator
in the community."
(COPS)
"Unfortunately,
because of the reduction of influence exerted by
neighbors, the extended family and even the
family, social control is now often more
dependent on external control, than on internal
self-control."
(Trojanowicz)
"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)
For example the Korean War, the "Bay of Pigs,"
the Vietnam war, etc. were not about stopping Communism, but rather using
the crisis to gain access to the American public for the
purpose of bringing America under the control of
Transformational Marxism with its
emphasis upon Communitarianism,
Common-ism, Democratization,
Conscietization, Globalism, etc. The
dialectical agenda is not about stopping crime
but rather on how to use it to gain access to
the American family and thereby gain control
over the individual, changing him into an agent
of social change, within the family and the
community, making them, the individual, the
family, and the community, one and the same in
thought and action (in theory and in practice).
The traditional family produces the conscience,
which restrains change, while the social family
("the village") produces the "super-ego," which
initiates and sustains 'change.' For change
to take place the conscience must be converted
into an adaptable to change, tolerant
of ambiguity, super-ego. To
get from the conscience to the super-ego the person must be
helped through the stage of confusion (the
attempt to fuse opposites where A + -A can
become what appears to be an A again. The
trickery is to convince people the first A and
the second A are the same, when they are not.
The first A is a living soul, the second A has
lost his soul. " 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).
In the first A, life is in the blood, thus bread
is essential to life since it provides
nourishment via the blood to the cells of the
body (as God designed it). But according
to Jesus, the first A must also include, living
according to "every word which proceedeth
from the mouth of God." The -A, while
including life in the blood, where bread is
essential to life, it would also includes the
sensuousness of touch, taste, sight, smell,
and sound, all of which are not essential
to life, as long as nourishment via some means
is available to the body, being transported by
the blood to the cells. While man, without
sensual awareness of pleasure or pain―being in a
comatose condition―would still be alive, he
would not be functioning according to how God
designed him. God is not against pleasure.
He created us with the ability to know it and
enjoy it. He is against the love of
pleasure, when it supersedes his will.
Therefore, while sensuousness is found in
A (but being limited and restrained by "every
word which proceedeth from the mouth of God")
as it is found in -A, it is not under the same
paradigm (as those who use the dialectical
process would like you to think, to be explained
later). By merging A and -A, 1) where
bread as a source of nourishment for the body
remains, 2) and bread as a source of pleasure to
the senses remains, living according to
"every word which proceedeth from mouth of God"
is set aside, i.e. negated. Thus
the paradigm of A and -A are united into a new
paradigm of 'change.' What
Hegel, and those of the dialectical philosophy,
would want you to think, is both A and -A are
simply two opposing positions which love bread
and have differing gods not of this world
(illusionary gods), which limit their pleasures
of this life. By both A and -A focusing
upon what they have in common, the need for
bread and the love of the pleasure it gives, they
can find common ground, negating the restraint
which their gods have upon them. By
liberating the sensuousness of pleasure
in both A and -A, "every word which
proceedeth from the mouth of God" is
negated. Thus A can become an A
again, only this time, having found what it has
in common with -A, void God, -A (-A thinking
that it was the A all along, the original A
being its opposition, i.e. being -A) and A can
become an A again, both having completed the
same process (negating the patriarchal
paradigm, at least for the 'moment'), i.e. two
opposites, by putting aside (for the moment)
that which divides them, and finding what they
have in common, are in the process of
becoming one in the praxis of
negating God.
Satan, knowing there is only one God, would like man to believe
that there are many (many opinions). Thus
to clearly expose diaprax for what it is A,
unlike Hegel's A, is someone who serves the true
and living God and -A is someone who serves a
god of man's own making (in his own effort to
know God, not knowing of God's revealed Word, he
attempts to make a god of his own but one bound
to the sensuousness of this world,
therefore he ends up worshiping rocks, trees,
stars, i.e. items of the creation including man
and angels). Therefore, if A = bread and
God's word, which restrains the sensuousness
of man (restrains the lust of the flesh), and -A
= bread and the sensuousness of life
(which is not lust since "every word which
proceedeth from the mouth of God" is not
present to produce a guilty conscience according
to God's Word), then by finding what A and -A
have in common you negate God's Word,
having uniting A and - A into a new A, this time
without "every word which proceedeth from the
mouth of God." This is the
consensus, dialectical, synthesis process.
The problem here, as resolved above, is that A
and -A both have a need for bread and a need for
God, yet both have a lust for the things of this
world as well (including bread). By making
God equal with all gods, being simply differing
opinions of men (differing opinions, according
to dialectical thinking, produced as a result of
living in a limited and repressed traditional
environment) the one and true God is dismissed
as being just another opinion. Then by
finding what we all have in common, needing
bread and desiring the pleasures of this life,
and putting aside our differing rigid
'opinions' of god and his demands regarding our
lives (dividing us), the god system (the
above-below patriarchal paradigm) can be
negated, not by force but by 'willful'
participation as both A and -A come to a
consensus for the cause of social harmony
and world peace. They end up producing a
new dialectically 'positive' A, where men is now
many gods becoming as one, in theory and
in practice . In the end, since A
is a wicked person who knows and is able to obey
the only true, living, and righteous God (God's
righteousness imputed and his Spirit given to
the person of faith so that he can obey, i.e.
grace and power, love, and a sound mind) and -A
is a wicked person with a god or gods of his own
making or someone else's making (his wickedness
remaining despite his best efforts to be
righteous, i.e. works salvation), when both men
come together in consensus, A putting aside God
of righteousness, for the sake of human unity
(basing 'purpose' of life upon his own 'driving'
"sensuous needs" and "sense
perception") and -A putting aside his god or
gods of man's own making, for the sake of human
unity (basing 'purpose' of life upon his own
'driving' "sensuous needs" and "sense
perception"), both are uniting upon that
which they have in common, that which is of the
world―their own wicked nature―and, to sustain
their unity, they must from then on devour any
and all who seek after
righteousness, since,
according to dialectical thinking man's
wickedness is perceived as being good when all
come to consensus upon it as being good,
righteousness inhibits or blocks human
relationships. The dialectical praxis
is to create producers of wickedness who consume
the
righteousness as their daily bread.
Therefore, Consensus is a pack of wicked
people driven in the purpose of devouring the
righteous.
"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) Not feeling comfortable in a world which goes against
man's carnal nature (his sin nature), a world influenced by the traditional family
(with its rules and restraints against sin), the children must learn how to
practice their carnal human nature (their sin nature) within the home to disrupt and
change it (with the help of "change agents" within education,
government, the community, and the church coming along side them in
their quest for family tolerance of 'change'), changing the family
into a tolerant and harmonious social institution, supportive of
man's carnal human nature, that nature which binds all mankind as
one in his quest for love and unity (the love of unity, i.e. the
love of pleasure and peace―approval of
men―which comes by attaining freedom from repression―discrimination―against
man's carnal human nature, alienating him from himself and from what
he has in common with all of mankind―changing
"thesis," or belief, into "sin-thesis," theory or
opinion). The freedom to
"question all authority" frees man from the authority which he
questions (as was done in Genesis 3:1-6), replacing truth with
opinions, belief with theory, rules with
sensuousness and spontaneity, conscience with
situation ethics (consensus in licentiousness), Godly restraint with social
restraint (fear of God with fear of man),
righteousness with pleasure, right and wrong with mediation, faith
with doubt ("honest" doubt), obedience to higher authority with questioning higher
authority, preaching and teaching with dialogue, etc. Only God
will not put up with it forever, being patient for a time, knowing
that some will repent. Without the confusion (the attempt to
fuse opposites, i.e. putting belief and behavior on the consensus
table at the same time which causes what is called "cognitive
dissonance," resulting in a destabilizing condition which makes the
person more subject to the conditions which pressure him into 'change,'
changing him from a person who supports his belief to one who is
supportive of human behavior, freeing him, and those around him, from
the voice of higher authority and therefore the restraints of higher
authority). A lawless world is a sinless world. That is how the
lawless one can rule the world.
"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)
TQM:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Kurt Lewin
Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers
on group dynamics.
1948
Adorno, Theodor, The Authoritarian Personality
Introduction to
Sociology
Allport, Gordon, The Person in
Psychology, Selected Essays by Gordon Allport
Beiser, Frederick, Hegel,
168, 169
Benne,
Kenneth,
Human
Relations in Curriculum Change
Society as Educator in an Age of Transition,
Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of
Education,
Bennis, Warren,
The Temporary Society (an award winning book on business)
BSTEP,
Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program, Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969
Bloom,
Benjamin, Forty Year
Retrospect
Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1: Cognitive Domain
Bottomore,
T. B., Selected Reading in Sociology and
Social Philosophy
Bronner,
Stephen Eric, Of
Critical Theory and Its Theorists
Brookover, Wilbur , Socialization in the School
Brown, Frank, Education for Responsible Citizenship, Ralph
W. Tyler, “Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction,” Trends
in Student Personnel Work, 1949
Brown,
Norman O., Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of
History
Coleman, James,
The Adolescent
Society
Public School-Private School
COPS, Community Oriented
Policing Services, US Department of Justice
Dewey, John, "Social
Psychology," Psychological Review, I (July, 1894), p. 404
Dressell, Paul, et al.
General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, American Council on Education
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
Engels, Frederick,
The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas
Carlyle
Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Friedrich, Carl, The Philosophy of Hegel
Fromm,
Erich,
Escape from Freedom
You
shall be as gods
Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks
Grinder, John & Richard Bandler,
The Structure of
Magic II
Habermas, Jürgen, Communicative Ethics The inclusion of the Other.
Studies in Political Theory
Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of
Knowledge as Social Theory
Theory and Practice
Speech accepting the Peace Prize of the German
Publishers and Booksellers Association Paulskirche, Frankfurt, 14 October 2001
Hegel,
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich,
Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik
Volume 1
Hilgard,
Ernest R., Introduction to Psychology
Horkheimer, Max,
Eclipse of Reason 1947
Vernunft and
Selbsterhaltung
Howard, Jane, Please
Touch: A Guide Tour of the Human Potential Movement
Jay, Martin,
The Dialectical Imagination: The History of
the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950
King,
Martin Luther, Jr.,
Abstract of "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul
Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman"
Strength to Love
Krathwohl, David, Bloom, Benjamin, et al.
Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain
Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions
Laszlo, Ervin,
A Strategy for the Future: The Systems
Approach to World Order
Lenin, Vladimir (Vladimir
Ilyich Ulyanov),
Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential
Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success, May 12, 1920
Lewin, Kurt,
A
Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers
Principles of Re-education, “Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values”
The Journal of Social Issues, 1:3:56-65 August, 1945
Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on
group dynamics. 1948
Lewis, John, The life and Teaching of
Karl Marx; International Pub.; NY, 1965
Lukács, György
, History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness What
is Orthodox Marxism?
Marcuse, Herbert,
Eros and Civilization
Maslow, Abraham, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature
Maslow on Management
Toward a
Psychology of Being
Marx, Karl,
Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'
The Holy Family,
Chapter VII Critical Criticism's Correspondence 1; The Critical
Mass
MEGA I/3
MEGA I/5
Thesis #4 on Feuerbach
Thesis #6 on Feuerbach
Thesis #11 on Feuerbach
Moreno,
J. L., Who Shall Survive?
Nugent, Jim, Henry Nelson Wieman
Paul,
Richard, Critical Thinking
Handbook
Piaget, Jean, Science of Education
and the Psychology of the Child: Development of Teaching Methods
Reich, Wilhelm, The Mass Psychology of Fascism
Rogers, Carl, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy
Sarv, Ele - Silvia,
Teacher education in a postmodern society: an Estonian perspective
Schein, Edger, and
Warren Bennis Personal and Organizational Change Through Group
Methods: The Laboratory Approach
Schubeck S. J., 1993
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.
Spady, Bill, Outcomes, "Shifting the Grading Paradigm
that Pervades Education"
Trojanowicz, Robert, The meaning of "Community" in Community
Policing
Ulyanov,
Vladimir
Ilyich (see Lenin above)
Vygotsky,
L. S., Mind in Society
Washington,
George, Farewell Address
Wieman, Henry Nelson,
Religious experience and scientific method.
Wheat, Leonard, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God
above God.
Yalom, Irvin, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy
Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B.
Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge
FOOTNOTES
1. Categorical
imperative: where things are judged by unquestionable principles
rather than by their context or environmental situation. "A
moral obligation or command that is unconditionally
[unquestionable] and universally binding [applies to everyone
and/or everything]." Merriam-Webster's bracketed information
added
2. Situation: where
things are judged by their context or environmental situation
instead of by unquestionable and "universally binding"
principles. As in "situation ethics."
3.
"Sense-perception (see Feuerbach) must be the basis
of all science. Only when it proceeds from sense-perception in the
two-fold form of sensuous consciousness and sensuous
need – is it true science. All history is the history
of preparing and developing “man” to become the object of
sensuous consciousness, and turning the requirements of “man as
man” into his needs. History itself is a real part of
natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural
science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man,
just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural
science: there will be one science."
(Karl Marx; Private Property and Communism; 1844)
4.
"But since for the socialist man the entire so-called
history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through
human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has
the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through
himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence
of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense
experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being
of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question
about an alien being, about a being above nature and man –
a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature
and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as
the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism
is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of
man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer
stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the
theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and
of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive
self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of
religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no
longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through
communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the
negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the
next stage of historical development in the process of human
emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary
form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but
communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of
human society.|"
(Karl Marx; Private Property and Communism; 1844)
5.
"To say that man is a corporeal, living, real,
sensuous, objective being full of natural
vigor is to say that he
has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of
his life, or that he can only express his life in real,
sensuous objects. To be objective, natural and
sensuous,
and at the same time to have object, nature and sense outside
oneself, or oneself to be object, nature and sense for a third
party, is one and the same thing"
(Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General; 1844)
6.
"If I know religion as alienated human
self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my
self-consciousness, but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in
it. I therefore know my self-consciousness that belongs to itself,
to its very nature, confirmed not in religion but rather in
annihilated and superseded religion."
"A peculiar role, therefore, is played by the act of
superseding in which denial and preservation, i.e.,
affirmation, are bound together." (Karl
Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General; 1844)
7.
"First as a merely formal, because abstract, act,
because the human being itself is taken to be only an abstract,
thinking being, conceived merely as self-consciousness. And,
Secondly, because the exposition is formal
and abstract, the supersession of the alienation
becomes a confirmation of the alienation; or for Hegel this
movement of self-genesis and self-objectification
in the form of self-alienation and self-estrangement is
the absolute, and hence final, expression of human
life – of life with itself as its aim, of life at peace
with itself, and in unity with its essence.
This movement, in its abstract ||XXXI|
form as dialectic, is therefore regarded as truly human
life, and because it is nevertheless an abstraction – an
estrangement of human life – it is regarded as a divine
process, but as the divine process of man, a process
traversed by man’s abstract, pure, absolute essence that is
distinct from himself.
Thirdly, this process must have a
bearer, a subject. But the subject only comes into being as a
result. This result – the subject knowing itself as absolute
self-consciousness – is therefore God, absolute Spirit, the
self-knowing and self-manifesting idea. Real man and real
nature become mere predicates – symbols of this hidden, unreal
man and of this unreal nature. Subject and predicate are
therefore related to each other in absolute reversal – a
mystical subject-object or a subjectivity reaching
beyond the object – the absolute subject as a
process, as subject alienating itself and
returning from alienation into itself, but at the same time
retracting this alienation into itself, and the subject as this
process; a pure, incessant revolving within itself."
(Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General;
1844)
8. "“For
us, mind has nature for its premise, being
nature’s truth and for that reason its absolute prius.
In this truth nature has vanished, and mind has
resulted as the idea arrived at being-for-itself, the object
of which, as well as the subject, is the concept.
This identity is absolute negativity, for
whereas in nature the concept has its perfect external objectivity,
this its alienation has been superseded, and in this alienation the
concept has become identical with itself. But it is this identity
therefore, only in being a return out of nature.” [§ 381].
“As the abstract idea, revelation
is unmediated transition to, the coming-to-be of,
nature; as the revelation of the mind, which is free, it is the
positing of nature as the mind’s world – a
positing which, being reflection, is at the same time, a
presupposing of the world as independently existing nature.
Revelation in conception is the creation of nature as the mind’s
being, in which the mind procures the affirmation and
the truth of its freedom.” “The absolute is mind.
This is the highest definition of the absolute.”
" 384.]
|XXXIV
© Institution for Authority Research,
Dean Gotcher 2010