authorityresearch.com
"A plus negative A equals A"
(A
+ -A = A)
("Hegel's" dialectical diabolical formula)
Introduction
by Dean Gotcher
March, 2011
(revised: 10-07-2011)
Introduction:
Understanding "Hegel's"
diabolical 'A plus
negative A
equals A' formula.
"...
it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."
Jeremiah 10:23b
"Professing
themselves to be wise [able to direct their steps―control their
lives], they became fools," Romans 1:22 bracketed
information added (Romans
1:16-32)
Hegel's" 'A + -A = A' formula follows along the same pathway as "system
analysis" or "general systems theory"
of Von Bertanlanffy "fame" (though many came before him and many come
after him) where the way a person thinks and acts―known as a
paradigm, i.e. a person's weltanschauung or his "world view,"
where he either 1) views
the world through God's eyes, i.e. His Word, which correlates with
viewing the world through his parent's eyes, i.e.
their commands, (a patriarch paradigm or a system of
righteousness, requiring faith, belief, obedience, and
chastening―taxonomized
as a state or condition of
consciousness, consciousness of God or parent, i.e. of higher
authority and their will first and foremost in importance), or 2) he views the world through his own eyes, i.e. his desires
or feelings and thoughts (a matriarch paradigm, or a system
of sensuousness, requiring doubting, questioning, tolerance,
and permissiveness―taxonomized
as a state or condition of
self-consciousness, i.e. of self will being first and foremost in
importance),
or 3) he views the world through society's eyes, i.e.
their approval (a heresiarch paradigm of 'changingness' or a system
of 'reasoning', i.e. self-social 'justification,' requiring seduction, deception,
and manipulation―taxonomized
as a state or condition of
cosmic-consciousness, i.e. of universal will {what is common to
mankind and nature} being first and foremost in importance)―is 'rationally,' i.e. 'scientifically,'
i.e. dialectically, taxonomized (classified) for the
'purpose' of "rationally" 'changing' (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating)
the way a person thinks and acts (called a "paradigm
'shift'"), i.e. for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining the 'change'
process itself, turning a world of specifics and division (where right and
wrong, i.e. right and "not right," is preached and taught,
where "right means right" and is to be obeyed "as given," and
"not right" means "not right" and is to be
punished, any mercy and grace being at the discretion of the parent or
God), i.e. "fixity" and
certainty (a way of thinking which keeps things the way they "are"), into a world of generalization and unity
(where the spectrum of "most agree," "agree," "disagree," to "most disagree" is dialogued, and opinions,
i.e. how one feels and what one thinks in the 'moment,' are freely shared and
acted upon, i.e. role-played), i.e. 'changingness' and
ambiguity (a way of thinking which tries to 'change' things into what
they "ought to be" or "can be" as man
'perceives' them sensuously, providing
the conditions or the environment is 'right,' i.e. has the potential for
the process of 'changingness' to take
place), where the "scientific," dialectical 'process'
is used to 'change' the environment (the individual-social condition) so as to engender
'harmonious' relationships and
pleasant feelings (subjectivity, i.e. where sensuousness and
'reasoning,' i.e. tolerance and ambiguity conjoin―resulting in what I
call "boarder language," a language of generalization, where two
different positions, people from two different "camps," can find common
ground through "double speak," saying one thing to please, i.e.
seduce, deceive, and manipulate traditional minds, while
meaning something totally different to initiate or sustain relationship
with that which would be disapproved of) between people of all diversities
(humanity), where quality (sensation) becomes relevant and objects
themselves (people of authority, i.e. parents, teacher, God) and their rigid
rules, i.e. established knowledge and truth
(objective truth) preached and taught
"as given,"
to be memorized and applied to all aspects of life, i.e.
engender
quantity (accumulation of facts to support a position) becomes 'irrelevant' (quantity becomes subject to
quality, facts and truth become subject to personal feelings and
thoughts, quantity, i.e. inculcated facts, determining what is
right and what is wrong according to a higher authorities commands, becomes subject to sensuousness, i.e. sensuousness,
personal feelings and thoughts,
determining what is "appropriate information" and what is
"inappropriate information" in the given
'moment' produce the desired
outcome―any information supporting the undesired outcome,
righteousness, any information initiating or sustaining "fear of
God" or parent, i.e. judgment, i.e. fear of chastening, and
any information initiating and sustaining love for their words alone,
i.e. faith, belief, and obedience is considered and
treated as
inappropriate information―over
the last century alone billions have suffered oppressively and hundreds
of millions have died violent deaths because of this 'logic'), in a world of 'rapid change'
(initiating and sustaining a worldly condition whereby man can rapidly respond to "sensuous
needs," and "sense perception," i.e. be easily
manipulated), i.e. in a
'rationally' (dialectically) ordered, i.e. facilitated world of 'changingness,'
relying upon no other
reference points (no "fixed" reference points) other than the human "sense experience" of the
'moment' or a sensuous-'rational' (practical),
"sense perceived," i.e.
imagined future (where illusion, i.e. "Man is 'good'" and
is therefore the measure of all things, whether they are good or evil, becomes
'reality,' and reality, i.e. "Man is 'wicked'" and therefore
is not to be trusted in and of himself alone is treated as an
illusion; in the one paradigm man needs therapy or praxis,
i.e. "re-education," i.e. if he is 'irrational,' if he is not
'good' {this is what "Education Nation" is all about}, in the other paradigm he needs a
savior because he is wicked―which is the only reason limiting the
power of government
is justifiable, i.e. when you reject righteousness, which
restrains the flesh of man, when you negate the "fear of God" {it
is the "fear of God" which keeps "Pandora's box" closed} you embrace
totalitarianism, you embrace the world where the flesh of man 'drives'
him in his every thought and his every action {where the imagination of
his heart is evil continuously}, you embrace a world 'purposed' in the
augmentation of pleasure, you embrace abomination, i.e. you embrace a
condition where sensuousness and human 'reasoning' are united as
one, i.e. you, by your very nature, therefore embrace the dialectical
process, i.e. theory and practice, i.e. praxis not only as
your system of thinking and acting but everybody else's system of
thinking and acting as well, "or else," i.e. or else you can not be at
'peace' with yourself and your fellow man)―see article
Diaprax: a spiraling process of changingness.
Whoever controls the environment
controls the outcome. It is ultimately all about control, i.e. either
you let God
rule over your life, "direct your steps" or "the lust of your flesh, the lust of your
eyes" and "the pride of your life" is in control of your
life, which is death.
Since righteousness is not a natural attribute of man,
any ideology which declares that man is a product of his community (a
product of society) must negate the preaching and
teaching of righteousness within the community, i.e. must
negate the teaching and preaching of righteousness in
society (in it schools, its public offices, in its public works, etc) in
order to negate the effects of righteousnesses which might
be found within man. (To set aside the preaching and teaching
of righteousness within the community, for the 'purpose' of
initiating and sustaining a 'healthy' community through dialogue,
is to succumb to dialectical thought and action.) The
use of the "scientific process" is to 'change' the individual and
society, to make them "one" in nature (make them 'good,' through the use of "Hegel's" dialectical process),
which Marx put into social praxis, i.e. in the form of "dialectical
materialism" used by the Traditional Marxists, i.e. hardliners, i.e. who use
"bullets and blood" to make social 'change,' i.e. to purge society
of the "undesirable" (those having jurisdiction over money, property,
etc. i.e. "This is my home, family, land, business, not yours, so do
what I say or get out." and "Because I said so." being the
key indicators of who to purge) or in the form of "historical materialism"
used by the Transformational Marxists who synthesized Marx and Freud, i.e.
the "Frankfurt School," Kurt Lewin, J. L. Moreno, etc, who
'created' and used
socio-psychology (contemporized-secularized Hermetism-Cabalism-Gnosticism) to make social 'change,' i.e. to purge the
"learning" or policy setting environment
and therefore purge society of the resistors of 'change,' i.e. to purge society
of those initiating and sustaining the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the
father figure of the traditional family,
i.e. those of the system of Righteousness, i.e. that which
Marx called of the "earthly family" (the key indicators
being the same, i.e. those who have jurisdiction over the money and the property,
etc. i.e. "This is my home, family, land, business, not yours, so do
what I say or get out." and "Because I said so.").
While Marx has the proletariat (the children) killing the
bourgeoisie, i.e. killing the father system, Freud had the children not
only killing the father but also eating him as well. "Hatred
against patriarchal suppression ... culminates in the rebellion of the
exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the
establishment of the brother clan," resulting in, according to
Freud, only producing a "neurosis of society," because of a
"guilty conscience" for having killed the father they exonerated.
(Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization:
A philosophical inquiry into Freud) The
dialectical 'logic' is: by negating the necessitate of the
father, other than for the biological act of procreation, i.e. by
negating the exoneration of the father figure, you negate the
"guilty conscience," and thus free man to 'discover' and become
himself within a 'healthy' social-ist matrix, through 'healthy'
social-ist action (praxis). While the father may be
recognized for his sensuous nature (biological and social) he can
not be exonerated as a figure of righteousness, establishing
"arbitrary" laws which restrain nature.
When the conscience of the individual (a byproduct of the
patriarchal family) is sacrificed to the common 'good,' those initiating
and sustaining the ideology of the common 'good' can rule without a
conscience, i.e. they can rule with
impunity―no longer be held
accountable for their actions against the individual because their
actions were 'justified' for the sake of the common 'good.' "We
the people" was recognized by some as a means to circumvent the
sovereignty of the states (see
Patrick Henry's statement on the subject). This initiated the adding of the "bill
of rights" to the constitution before its ratification. The word
"united" guaranteed the demise of the sovereignty of the state
(guaranteed the civil war―changing "the
united states are ..." of the sovereignty,
conscience, i.e. of the family, based mind, to "the united states
is ..." of the unity, consensus, i.e. of the
community based mind) thus circumvented the conscience of the
individual (a byproduct of the patriarchal family) for the sake of the
common 'good.' Because the sovereignty of the states and the
conscience of the individual (a byproduct of the patriarchal family) are
no longer sustained as being inalienable (guided and directed by a
higher power than the sensuous-'rational' nature of man
responding to the crisis of the 'moment,'
i.e. 'driven' by his "felt" needs
of the 'moment') the "bill of rights" is now negated.
Dialectically redefined (generally defined to serve socialist ends and
not specifically defined to limit governments encroachment upon the
family) they are now being used by all branches of government for
socialists ends―for the common
'good.' The limiting of government to protect the conscience
of the citizen (inalienable rights, rights guaranteed by laws greater
than man) was negated with the common voice of the collective
(human 'rights,' the consensus of common sensuous needs
united within the common sensuous 'moment') allowing the tyrant
(the god of unrighteousness―abomination)
to rule with immunity under the banner "for the common 'good'"―common-ism:
communitarianism, volunteerism, etc. This is why
homosexuality (a byproduct of dialectical thought and action) is so
grievous, the act being not only against the laws of nature (sexual
organs are designed for the purpose of pro-creation, pleasure being only
a catalyst to action or a byproduct of the action, not the purpose―to
make it the purpose 'justifies' adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia,
bestiality, necrophilia, etc., i.e. abomination, as well as 'justifies'
the augmentation of further action "as long as no one is hurt," whatever
that means, requiring the negation of righteousness which
condemns the praxis―there can be no tolerance between abomination
and righteousness only anathema) but also in direct defiance to
the law of God which declares the praxis of homosexuality an
abomination, i.e. an act of lawlessness. Once abomination
is in power, i.e. in a position to manipulate the environment for his
own pleasure (under the banner "pleasure for all"), he will use his
position of "authority" to augment the furtherance of his choice of
pleasure, and like a child in tantrum, insisting that all be in
servitude to, i.e. tolerant and supportive to his (man's) "felt" needs,
he will use his power to destroy all he perceives as taking his (man's)
'right' to pleasure, i.e. abomination, from him.
The seared conscience takes on the following responses when
confronted with righteousness being oppressed by sensuousness. As long as I get my
"felt" needs satisfied government can do whatever it wants to those who
inhibit or fight against my "felt" needs being satisfied.
It can go after those
who don't want to increase taxes, and in some cases don't pay their
taxes, which is necessary to support socialists and their socialist
programs. It can go after those who isolate their families from socialists and
their social-ist activates. It can go after those who 'continuously' petition
against socialists and their socialist activities, etc. by cutting or
limiting government support for programs which are used to support their
cause. Dialectical thinkers (and actors) are like children having a tantrum.
Because they can't have it their sensuous
way (the citizens with a conscience, supportive of a patriarchal
paradigm, refusing to
support their 'just' cause, i.e. refusing to increase taxation to support
their societies ideology and their socialists "felt" needs)
they making everybody miserable, using revolution, tearing down,
destroying, and killing anything which and anyone who gets in their way,
'justifying' their thoughts and their actions ('justifying' themselves
and their ideology), 'justifying' their socialist, dialectical based
actions for man and society, 'justifying' the praxis of
common-ism.
"As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to
'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud'"
(Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination)
“Freud speaks of religion as a ‘substitute-gratification’
[gratification being found in that which is not of nature rather than
from nature itself, therefore unnatural, i.e. super-natural]–
the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, ‘opiate of the people.’”
[The fear of judgment by God and parent for one's
thoughts and actions being the 'opiate,' therefore producing
action supportive of that which is not of nature, i.e. is unnatural,
i.e. is super-natural]
“If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to
suppose that its core is religion.... Psychoanalysis must treat religion
as a neurosis.”
(Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical
Meaning of History)
"The relation of theory to
therapy is just as constitutive for Freudian theory as the relation of theory to praxis is for Marxist theory."
(Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)
All
social "sciences'," i.e. psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. carry
one mandate, the negation of the father
figure, the negation of the patriarchal paradigm,
the negation of the system of Righteousness (all
three being the same according to dialectical thought and action), i.e. the
negation of the law of God (declaring God as good and man as evil
when he thinks and acts counter to God and His Will, i.e. counter to the
father figure and his will), thereby negating his restraint over
the thoughts and actions of the individual and society, thus
'liberating' the thoughts and actions of both the individual and
society, i.e. 'liberating' humanity (now 'free' to use money and
property as it wills, under the influence and 'guidance,' i.e. control
of social-psychologists, i.e. Transformational Marxists). After all it is
all about the love of pleasure and the love of money which sustains it.
While
capitalist want to have jurisdiction over the land or means of
production, leaving your feeling and thoughts to
yourself as long as they don't get in the way, i.e. equated to
"authoritarianism," socialists, both national and global,
want to have control over not only your money and your land or means of
production they also want to have control over your
feelings and thoughts as well, i.e. totalitarianism, i.e. whatever they
sense as being pleasurable or potentially pleasurable to them is theirs
to conquer and control, 'justifying' their action in the praxis of
augmenting pleasure or potential pleasure, i.e. hedonism and abomination
for all. With righteousness and its restraints, manifested in the
father figure, no longer being in sight, i.e. on the mind or in the
actions of the individual and society, the 'opiate' and the "substitute
gratification," which man must remove from his thoughts and his action
before he can be "himself," can only be one thing, the "fear of God" and
a "love for His Word" united as one in the father figure. No
matter how hard a person may try to deny it, opinions or theories, by
their very nature, negate both the "opiate" and the "substitute
gratification," i.e. the father figure, at once negating "fear of" and
"love for" him alone (while God loves the world He is not a respecter of
persons and demands obedience, sending His only begotten Son not only to
be an example of His love for the world but to redeem from condemnation
whosoever it is that believes upon Him, with "fear of" and "love for"
being at once the same in thought and action toward the father). It is upon this
foundation (the negation of the father figure as the arbiter of
law and order, as the arbiter of right and wrong) that Karl Marx and
Sigmund Freud both took their dialectical stand (displacing the
system of Righteousness
with the system of human sensuousness and human
'reasoning' synthesized―displacing the father figure ruling over
the family and the children, with the family and the children, and
therefore society, being under the influence and control of
socio-psychologists, i.e. therapists or facilitators of 'change,' all
becoming therefore subject to their polymorphously perverse ideology).
"Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So
is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must
move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "This movement can be dignified and
Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness.
I
must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, &
more & more in succeeding writings." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it
out. And of course, vice versa."
(Abraham Maslow, The
Journals of A.H. Maslow)
The contemporary consensus
meeting ('reasoning' with sensuousness) accomplishes that very
feat (circumventing the top-down, the system of Righteousness form of government,
initiated and sustained by the traditional family structure of the
Patriarchal Paradigm―with its
requirements of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening which carries
with it an "I, and those who are under my authority, will not
participate with you or support you, in thought or in action, in what
you are doing or are 'purposed' in doing, and will fight against you if
you continue because what you are doing is
not right―not done in respect and honor of righteousness.").
Whether done in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in
the home, or in the church, the consensus process displaces the
system of
Righteousness with the system of sensuousness and
human 'reasoning' (negating inalienable rights with the
implementation of "human 'rights'"). Limited government was
designed so that the traditional family could be the initiator and
sustainer of civil government, thereby protecting the system of
Righteousness
(the freedom of the conscience) from the tyranny of the system of
sensuousness and 'reasoning' (the tyranny of the masses, lead by
seducers, deceivers, and manipulators), which
when they gain control of government, they use the force of government
(including the power of taxation―"the power to tax is the power to
destroy") to neutralize, marginalize, and overthrow the
traditional patriarchal family (the system of
Righteousness). under the guise of 'serving the family by protecting the
children.'
The "Frankfurt School," or rather the Institute of Social
Research, is known for its introduction of "Critical Theory,"
i.e. Marxist Theory, to the American scene from the 30's on.
Their work was essential to the development of Bloom's Taxonomies. All
'certified' teachers, secular and Christian (and 'accredited' schools) are grounded upon Bloom's
Taxonomies as the "proper" method for classroom curriculum development,
and thus are grounded upon "Critical Theory" ideology and methodology.
By changing the curriculum in the classrooms of America from a facts
based, traditional curriculum (cognitive domain) to a feelings based, transformational
curriculum (introducing the affective domain, "Pandora's box,"
into the classroom curriculum), America was
'changed.' "A change in the curriculum is a change in the
people concerned." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human
Relations in Curriculum Change)
Kurt Lewin, who fled from
Berlin to America in the early 30's, along with the "Frankfurt School,"
having edited their paper while in Germany, is known for his work on 1)
"group dynamics," i.e. how the group setting can be utilized to
'change' the individual's (and the group's) paradigm, 2) "force field
analysis," i.e. how to taxonomize, map, or classify a person's life
history, i.e. their prior life experience, i.e. their paradigm
and its development, for the purpose of 'change' ("... mapping and
estimating the strength of 'all' forces supporting and 'all' forces
resisting a given change in the school program." ibid.), and
3)
"unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," i.e. how to develop a group
setting into a "force field" of its own and then utilize it as a force
for 'change' ('changing' the group atmosphere or group structure from
formal to informal, from preaching and teaching to
dialogue, from top-down to partnership, from inculcating doctrines and
beliefs to sharing opinions and theories. etc. changes the individuals
within the group, i.e. changes their "system of values
and beliefs."]
"Change in methods of
leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the
cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of
the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the
power constellation within the group."
"The individual accepts the new system of
values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group."
ibid. "Change in organization can be derived from the
overlapping between play [sensuousness] and barrier [righteousness]
behavior." "This should lead
to a decrease in degree of hierarchical [righteousness] organization.... a certain disorganization
['cognitive
dissonance,' where a person is caught between his belief, of the
system of
Righteousness, and his behavior, of the system
of sensuousness] should result .... the forces
under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other
before they are effective [either righteousness refuses to
participate, i.e.
"unfreeze, move, and refreeze," i.e. praxis 'change' or
sensuousness,
and the dialectical process,
rules the day]." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin,
“frustration and regression: an experiment with young children” in Child Behavior and Development)
J. L.
Moreno is known for his development and implementation of role-playing
and psychodrama upon America from the 30's on, where a person's
participation in the group setting forces him to set aside prior beliefs
(righteousness), thus liberating his 'true' sensuous
nature within the group setting, his loyalty no longer in the principles
he walked into the room with but in the interests of the group with
which he is building relationship.
As the child must be protection from his
spontaneous-sensuous nature, by parental restraints (righteousness
restraining spontaneous sensuousness), so man must be protected
from himself by Godly restraint, by men in
civil government restrained by righteousness. Government
has been 'changed' into 'government' protecting the child's
spontaneous-sensuousness nature from the restraints of parental
righteousness. In this dialectical way of thinking and acting
(theory and practice) society is being 'liberated' from the
restraints of righteousness. To
'liberate' society (mankind) from the restraints of
righteousness you must
'liberate' the child (the "child within") from the restraints of
righteousness. Through sensuous behavior being put into
sensuous thought―"observable and definable" ("Bloom's
Taxonomy")―sensuousness can be 'liberated' from the restraints of
righteousness. Then, through dialogue, righteousness
is turned into an opinion or theory―"How do you feel." or
"What do you think." Then, through 'human reasoning' (the
dialectical process applied to group-social thought and action),
sensuous thought and sensuous behavior can both be
'liberated' from the restraints of righteousness and both (sensuous
thought and sensuous behavior) being put into social action―praxis.
Through the praxis of theory and practice you can turn
righteousness into unrighteousness (good into evil) and
unrighteousness into 'righteousness' (evil into 'good')
and thus glorify man and nature (the created,
the children―sensuousness) over and against God (the
creator, the Father―righteousness).
"Thus, for
instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the
holy family, the former [the traditional family and its system of
obedience to higher authority] must itself be annihilated
[vernichtet]
theoretically and practically [the brain washed of the patriarchal
paradigm in the individuals thoughts as well as in his social
actions―social praxis―both essential at the same time if the
dialectical process is to be successful]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)
"‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one
has killed one's father or abstained from the deed [as long as the
father figure no longer has authority or has the right to use force
to "have things his way," force now being in the hands of the
socio-psychologist, i.e. through their facilitation of government
and its agencies, i.e. 'influencing' its laws and its actions―initiated
and sustained for the sake of 'the people,' i.e. to serve and
protect "society," i.e. to 'serve and protect' the impulses and
urges of the children against the restraints, i.e. the chastening of
the father],' if the function of the conflict and its
consequences are the same." (Sigmund Freud quoted in
Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization:
A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
"God is conceived more directly after a parental image and
thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing
authority.” (Theodor
Adorno The Authoritarian Personality) [The
correlation between God and the father figure carry over into
local, state, national and international law where the negation
of one, i.e. the negation of God as the Patriarch over man
and nature, necessitates the negation of the other, i.e. the
negation of the "earthly father" as the patriarch over the
next generation.]
"Freud noted that
patricide [the negation of the father figure, the
negation of the Patriarchal paradigm] and incest [the
"liberation" of the 'true' nature of the children and thus society,
i.e. the liberation of the system of sensuousness,
the liberation of the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' from
the restraints of the father and thus God, both of who are
dialectically correlated with initiating and sustaining the
system of Righteousness] are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom,
Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"If we follow this train of thought beyond Freud, and
connect it with the twofold origin of the sense of guilt, the life and
death of Christ would appear as a struggle against the father—and as a
triumph over the father [the children annihilate the
patriarch―patricide].”
“... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a
‘barrier to incest,’ [the patriarchal paradigm is a barrier to sensuousness]... the desire (for the sons) to return
to the mother [the environment of stimulation and
gratification of sensuousness, i.e.
mother earth, i.e. the environment, i.e. nature, i.e. impulses and
spontaneity]—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled
sons [rejected and exiled by the father as deviants, i.e.
unrighteous and disobedient], the collective killing and devouring of the
father [the negation of the patriarch and his
paradigm, key to both Marx's and Freud's dialectical ideology], and the establishment of the brother clan
[the creation of the 'brotherhood,' of society], which in turn deifies the assassinated father and
introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social
morality [the guilty conscience undoes the deed of liberation,
i.e. the killing of the patriarchal paradigm by "the children of
disobedience," by leading them back into a top-down system over
society, with them at the top, ruling as a father figure―"Moreover,
this hierarchical division of pleasure was ‘justified’ by protection,
security, and even love: because the despot was the father, the hatred
with which his subjects regarded him must from the beginning have been
accompanied by a biological affection—ambivalent emotions which were
expressed in the wish to replace and imitate the father, to identify
oneself with him, with his pleasure as well as with his power."
"The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his
restoration...." "The crime against the reality principle
[against the father] is redeemed by the crime
against the pleasure principle [against the liberated children]:
redemption thus cancels itself [the children are again placed
under a patriarchal paradigm, only in a social form].”
]."
"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." (Herbart Marcuse,
Eros and Civilization:
A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
Those who think dialectically can not comprehend the true meaning of
the gospel message, which is not the negation of the Heavenly
Father, as was done in the garden in Eden (replicated in the bloody
French, Russian, Chinese, .... common-ist Revolutions―in the
"revelation" of dialectical thought and action the blood of man is
shed, whether he is yet unborn, young, or old, 'justified' for the sake
of a "new" world order, i.e. the creation of a "better" world where man
is the measure of all things, while in the revelation of God, He shed
his own blood for the sake of man's soul), but rather the gospel is the
fulfillment of the Heavenly Father's will,
that all men might know Him as Christ knows Him, in His righteousness,
as his only true Father, i.e. obeying his will on earth, as it is obeyed in heaven,―His
kingdom on earth is not of man's making, sensual, temporal, of the
sword, but of his own making, Spiritual. For Christ himself said:
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the
Father which hath sent me." John 5:30
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father
which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in
heaven." Matthew 12:50, 7:21
emphasis added
"And call no man your father upon
the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven."
Matthew 23:9
Those who would deceive the innocent by distorting
the gospel, demythologizing it, humanizing it (negating the
fathers will of righteousness, i.e. faith in and belief
in the Lord alone and obedience to His Fathers will), do so
to cover up ('justify') their own wickedness. "No
thing is as hateful to the Devil as the Gospel, for that shows
him up, so that he cannot conceal himself, and everyone sees him
as black as he is." (Martin Luther, the
Protestant Reformer, as quoted in Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death:
The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
The gospel is not just about the Son, it is also about the Son's
obedience to His Father.
Another Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., applied the
dialectical process to the gospel and came up with 'civil disobedience'
(King
did not believe Jesus rose from the grave as sited in my article
Civil Disobedience is Diaprax, i.e. it has gotten my website censored by
some web servers who apparently did not read it or at least did not read
it to know the truth, i.e. "go figure"). Although his cause was
right (ending race discrimination) the method was wrong (the
annihilation of the patriarchal family). Although King was
proud of his father's stance against race discrimination, he himself
took a stance against the father's right to raise his children in his
own 'ridged' belief. Rather than preaching a gospel of Fatherly
authority (Jesus obeying his Father's will to the death), he preached a
'gospel' negating the father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' the
children from the patriarchal system, thus leading to the praxis
of disobedience to authority (civil disobedience). By negating
civil government, i.e. government limited by the restrains of
righteousness in the hearts of men, social tyranny could prevail in
the praxis of negating the restraints upon sensuousness,
restraints which come with the patriarchal paradigm, thus negating
righteousness itself.
Not just the black family but all families have suffered
since. Don't misquote me or get me wrong. I hate race
discrimination. But it is not a race issue, it is a sin issue.
It has always been and will always be a sin issue. One is based
upon sensuousness (and thus subject to dialectical 'reasoning')
the other is based upon righteousness (and thus subject to the
Fathers will). Don't confuse the two as many do, thereby being
deceived and taking pleasure in deceiving others. While man tries
to 'change' social conditions, using 'human reasoning' and dialogue to
'change' man's heart (both society and man's heart remaining subject to
sensuousness) God changes man's heart through the preaching
and teaching of His Word, thus changing the social conditions
(both man and society now becoming cognizant of God's righteousness
and His impending judgment upon man for his sensuous thoughts and actions).
Righteousness before the Heavenly Father is the message of the true
gospel. The dialectical thinker "must" capture the gospel message
and make it his own (redefine it) using it instead to 'liberty' himself
and mankind from righteousness and its restraint upon
sensuousness, if sensuousness is to prevail over
righteousness as the issue of life. This is what civil disobedience,
King's dialectical dream, has done.
Dialectical 'thinkers' as
J. L. Moreno (interpreting the gospel through a dialectical,
"neo-Marxist" lens) always come up with another gospel. In Moreno's
dialectical world, the Father has no right to his offspring after they
are born (except a "psychological one" since, after birth,
"they belong to the universe") and thus in his dialectical world
"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).'"
This is the same pathway that those of the "church growth" and "emergent
church" are treading down. When sensuousness is
dialectically justified as being equal with righteousness,
it emerges from the restraints of righteousness and
declares itself to be 'righteousness' instead. Thereby, 'driven' by the
desire to sustain the 'liberation' of sensuousness from the
restraints of righteousness, those under the influence of the
dialectal process, i.e. the process of 'rationally' 'liberating'
sensuousness from the restraints and judgment of righteousness,
become 'purposed' in the negation of righteousness for the
sake of "humanity," i.e. for the sake of "fraternity, equality,
liberty," i.e. for the sake of communitarianism, i.e. "world
peace" and "social harmony," i.e. for the sake of unity―common-unity,
i.e. beauty and justice, i.e. sensuousness and
spontaneity, i.e. becoming lovers of sensuousness more than
lovers of righteousness). When people become 'driven' by
the sensuousness of this world they must become 'purposed' in the
negation of the righteousness of the "other world."
Traveler beware!
"
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled
Eve through his subtility, 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)
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him
that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which
is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would
pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so
say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed." "For do I now
persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased
men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you,
brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man."
(Galatians 1:6-11) emphasis added]
The "neurosis of society,"
according to Freud (see chart on
Freud), was due to the persistence of the conscience (developed in
the traditional patriarchal home environment, an environment where the
father and husband is the head of the home, ruling over the home, i.e.
the mother and wife submitting the desires of her heart to her husband,
and the children obeying their parents, in the Lord) which engenders a
sense of guilt for one's anti-patriarchal thoughts and actions when they
are manifested, thus resulting in the restoration of patriarchal
principles and order and the re-establishing of its "taboos" against
one's own natural carnal impulses (perversities or abominations―as
listed, for example, in the Bible, i.e. Leviticus chapters 19-21), thus
the necessity of "converting" the conscience (originally established
through the submission of the child's will to the father's will, i.e. to
the father
figure and his commands) into a super-ego (established by social action―social
praxis, i.e. sensually engendered impulses and urges recognized,
tolerated, and encouraged as behavior which is common to human nature) 'liberated'
(emancipated through the 'tolerance of ambiguity') within the
consensus process (the group think environment), resulting in
human nature usurping, i.e. negating, the will of the father,
with no longer a sense of guilt but rather a sense of 'purpose' in the
person's individual thoughts and his social actions ('purposed' in the
removal, destruction, or "recycling" of the things of the past―commands
and principles of the past which engender restraint upon present urges and
desires―"converting" them, i.e. redefining them in the 'light' of
'present' "sensuous needs" and extrapolating from them only
those parts
which are "sense perceived" as being "useful" or relevant
to/in the 'moment' and the desired outcome, and thus
supportive of the present and the future). While the conscience
has a father figure who rules over the affairs of men the
super-ego has none.
First you must identify what it is that must
be 'changed.' "What we call ‘conscience’ perpetuates
inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: ..."
"The guilty conscience is formed in
childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be
father of oneself." (Norman O. Brown,
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
“Social control is most effective at the individual level.
The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control,
refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The
family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously
instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued
reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior.” (Dr.
Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing: The meaning of
“Community” in Community Policing)
Then you must 'justify' why it must be
'changed.' “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
[removing the fear of God or parent makes you more adaptable to 'change'].” (Michael Ray in Maslow on Management,
Abraham Maslow) “...
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 ...[are the
unnatural repressions engendered by the system of
Righteousness]" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization:
A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
Freud wrote: “‘Every renunciation ... becomes a ... conscience;
every fresh abandonment of gratification
increases its severity and intolerance ...
every impulse of aggression which we omit to gratify
is taken over by the super-ego
and goes to heighten its aggressiveness.’” (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1949)
“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...."
(Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization:
A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
Then you must explain how it can be 'changed.'
Herbart Marcuse, in his book The Future of an
Illusion, wrote that Freud "... praised science and
scientific reason as the great liberating antagonist of religion.”
"The foundation on which the man of the future
will be built is already there [within his sensuous nature],
in the repressed unconscious [repressed by the demands and
conditions of righteousness]; the foundation has to be
recovered [when 'reasoning' is used to remove the fear of judgment against
sensuous
desires within the group setting, sensuousness is liberated both
within the individual and within the group, 'scientifically,' both the
individual and the group are 'liberated' of a guilty conscience for
their thoughts and their actions over and against the system of
Righteousness and righteousness itself]."
"Freud
commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants [only through the
consensus process] could the sense of guilt
be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown,
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
“The philosophical effort to mediate, in the aesthetic dimension,
between sensuousness and reason thus appears as an attempt to reconcile
the two spheres of the human existence which were torn asunder by a
repressive reality principle
[righteousness, i.e. reasoning being made subject to righteousness].”
“... the aesthetic reconciliation implies strengthening sensuousness as
against the tyranny of reason and, ultimately, even calls for the
liberation of sensuousness from the repressive domination of reason
[when reasoning is made subject to righteousness over and
against sensuousness].”
“... on the basis of Kant’s theory, the aesthetic function becomes ...
the philosophy of culture ... a non-repressive civilization, in which
reason is sensuous and sensuousness rational
[where the
effects of
righteousness
upon
reasoning
is
negated
and thus
reasoning
and
sensuousness
can now be re-united as one].”
(Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization:
A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
Without man
being re-educated (experiencing for himself a world free of parental
restraints, i.e. the brain washed of the effects of the system of
Righteousness, i.e. the conscience washed of the effects of the
patriarchal paradigm), through his 'willful' participation within the
consensus process, he will not be successfully 'changed' into a
citizen of the "new" world order, he will not be freed of 'neurosis,'
freed of the effects of the patriarchal paradigm, washed of the residue
of the system of Righteousness, cleansed of the "guilty
conscience."
"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 Kenneth Benne, Human
Relations in Curriculum Change).
“... according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities
belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself.”
"According to Freud, the ultimate essence
of our being is erotic." “The aim of Eros is union with objects
outside the self ." "Eros is the foundation of morality."
(Norman O. Brown, Life against Death:
The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
Without
the liberation of
Eros, i.e. the liberation of sensuousness, facilitated (liberated) in a
group setting, i.e. facilitated through the art craft, i.e. 'trickery'
of social-psychologist,
i.e. therapists, i.e. 'change agents,' identified and supported by
all as being the norm (in a "safe
zone" of 'discovery' and experimentation, i.e. "You will not die,..."), society
would remain repressed, i.e. "neurotic"―the result of the effects
of righteousness (the patriarchal paradigm) upon its conscience,
preventing the 'proper' development of the super-ego and therefore
society―both (the individual and society) united, guided, and controlled by socio-psychologists,
by Transformational Marxists (historical materialists),
i.e. controlled by the deceived themselves, who take great pleasure
(prestige and financial reward) in deceiving ('liberating') others from
the system of Righteousness (and from righteousness
itself), turning to the "reasoning's" of man rather than (or, more
deceptively, "sense perceived" as being in harmony with)
the word of God for direction in life. "But he
[Jesus] answered [the devil] and said, It is written [My
father says], Man shall not live by bread alone [feeding the body―subject
to the pain and pleasure spectrum of sensuousness―from the
creation―temporal―satisfying only for the 'moment,' during a
period of satiation―'changing'], but by every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God [feeding the soul of man―of righteousness―from
the creator―eternal―not established upon the pain and pleasure
spectrum of sensuousness but upon God―unchanging]."
Matthew 4:4 bracketed information added
The
environment effects men differently. Thus temporal man responds
to the environment according to his "felt" needs (sensuousness
or "sensuous needs") at that 'moment.'
Changing environmental conditions and the spectrum of man's sensuous
"felt needs," engenders differing
opinions and theories in the mind of men regarding cause and effects
stemming from the changing environmental conditions which stimulate
"here-and-now" urges, impulses, and responses. Therefore 'reasoning' or
justification for one's actions must be expressed through
dialogue, "I feel" or "I think" so as to be
understood by all in the 'moment.' Dialogue, like a velvet
covered hammer, i.e. a "velvet revolution," can feel 'good' or be
perceived as being 'good' to the senses at the 'moment'―labeled
"Good Sense"―but can end up oppressing and killing not only those of the
system of righteousness but also those of the system
of sensuousness in the end. Dialogue, by its very
nature, negates the system of Righteousness.
When people are pressured into using dialogue for the 'purpose'
of unity (for group approval) it becomes a tool for brainwashing.
“We know how to disintegrate a man’s personality structure, dissolving
his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and
making him dependent on another. … brainwashing.” (Rogers) “If the goal is a group goal rather
than individual goals of the members, then the introduction of
content into the group makes the group almost certain to be a
brainwashing group.” (Dr. Shofstall as quoted in Dr. William
Coulson, “Encounter Groups and Brainwashing” Notre Dame Journal of
Education) For example:
the Transformational Marxist, Antonio Gramsci calling the "velvet
revolution" a "passive revolution" or "Trasformismo.
This term was used to describe the process [the dialectical
process] where by the
so-called 'historical' Left and Right parties converge
[through dialogue] until
there ceased to be any substantive difference—a 'revolution'
without a 'revolution' or a 'passive revolution.'" (Gramsci)
Consensus is a sensuousness engendering condition or
environment whereby all parties of opposition can eventually 'shift'
their position for the 'purpose' of unity, i.e. unity based upon their own
"feelings" and "thoughts," rather than remaining divided because of their
individual personal-private convictions developed from their prior
experiences within the system of Righteousness. Through the praxis of
dialoguing to consensus, man can resolve his sensuous
needs in sensuous harmony rather than remain divided, defending
the system of righteousness, i.e. using
guns and bullets to defend his position (and his paradigm) when other means
won't suffice: when limited government fails or is dissolved, 1) when he
no longer has a venue wherewith to petition his grievances and actually
be heard―his grievances not being righteously addressed but
only
being "recognized" (given lip service) and then 'rationally' dismissed (as being
irrational or irrelevant to the 'cause') or 2) he can no longer find a
place to emigrate to, i.e. he can no longer find a place to escape from
the system of oppression. As Hegel stated, the
system is not successful until no one can escape 'change,' no longer
able to avoid "firm cohesion" (consensus) by escaping to
"satisfy its needs in the
accustomed way":
"Concerning politics in
North America the need of a firm cohesion is not yet present..." "For a state [society (Marx)] to become a state [society
(Marx)] it is necessary
that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating, but that
the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside,
presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban
professions ["it takes a 'village'"]. ... for a real state and a real government only develop
when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty
become very large and a situation arises where a great number of
people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way."
"But America does not yet approach this tension . . ."
(Hegel as quoted Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
Hegel, at the turn of the nineteenth century, as did Karl Marx some
fifty years later, did not considered the U.S. as a state or
society because of the citizens ability to avoid socialism, i.e. avoid 'change,' by escaping to the west, taking their "old" ways with them. Hegel
wrote some 20 years after American's ratified the Constitution of the
United States of America: “America is therefore the land of the
future. . . . But what has so far happened there is only an echo of the
old world and an expression of an alien aliveness [life is still
tied to the "past," with man's affections still subject to the system
of Righteousness], and as the country of the future it does
not concern us here.” ibid.
Thus only in a socialist (sensuous) environment can a person, according to
dialectical thought, 'discover' and 'actualize' his true nature, come to
know himself as he really "is," i.e. his sensuous
nature no longer restrained by "the old world" order, i.e.
restrained by the system of
righteousness Any objective truth which inhibits or
blocks the potential synthesis of subjective and objective truth
(preventing man and nature, i.e. mankind from becoming as one) is
dialectically regarded as being irrational and therefore not real.
Reality therefore resides only in that which the person has that is
common with nature. If what he is experiencing is not found in
nature (is not of human nature, i.e. not common to all mankind) it is
not real.
Therefore it is "enjoyment," that which man seeks from nature
and that which nature provides, which becomes the 'driving' force of
life, whereby man is able to 'rationally' 'discover' his 'purpose' in
life (the augmentation of pleasure).
"Feelings, joy, and pleasure
["Empfindung,
Lust und Genuss"]
are sanctioned and justified so that nature and freedom,
sensuousness and reason, find their unity their right and
their gratification."
(Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik
Volume 1)
If man is to become self-actualized, i.e. be at-one-with himself and
nature, whatever inhibits or blocks the potential for "enjoyment"
(pleasure-sensuousness) must be negated. In this way
of thinking, in dialectical 'reasoning,' "enjoyment" (pleasure-sensuousness)
and reality are one. Whatever (whoever) therefore excludes
"enjoyment" from the praxis of common (social) life is irrational
and must be regarded and treated as being not only irrelevant but
"immoral" as well. For example: according to dialectical
'reasoning,' i.e. according to Hegel, the labor required to satisfy a
persons "felt needs" must also include "enjoyment" (Eros, i.e.
sensuous pleasure, i.e. "lust") or it is "immoral," i.e. it is
antithetical to the 'purpose' of life.
Therefore capitalism, which often requires work which is not
enjoyable to the laborer, i.e. the laborer having to put off personal
enjoyment in the work environment in an effort to complete the job, i.e.
"get the job done right and on time or else," so as to satisfy his
employers desires (the laborers "enjoyment" is put off into the future,
i.e. during his own time after the days work is done, depending upon
whether he is paid enough to satisfy his own personal felt "needs" after
the job is done), is dialectically perceived as being immoral. (Man
rejecting the pleasures of the present world because he has placed his
hope in a heaven in the future, according to Hegel, is not only
deceived, he is also immoral in preaching and teaching the
same to others.) Man working (eating his bread) "by the sweat of his
brow," due to his sin against God, is therefore immoral. While
God's word does not correlate labor with suffering, it does reveal labor
as necessity for satisfying our daily needs, i.e. food, clothing, and a
roof over our head (providing for our family and other people in need).
Entertainment or "leisure and guaranteed sustenance" is not on the list
of "necessities." While bread (and labor which is required to
attain it) is a part of life, living by every Word "which proceedeth
from the mouth of God," i.e. hearing and obeying the parents
commands, is most important. It is the latter part which Hegel
denounces. The traditional family structure (the bourgeoisie)
which requires obedience to the parents commands and utilizing
chastening to initiate and sustain it, is dialectically correlated to
capitalism (of the system of Righteousness) and must be
negated if a man is to become himself, i.e. become free.
Today we live in a society which believes that "enjoyment" is
the 'purpose' of life. This includes the church―suffering in the
flesh (1 Peter 4:1-5) no longer
seems to apply to the Christians walk, except when a person is asked to
sacrifice time and money for a social cause. "Suffering" in a "group
setting," i.e. suffering to augment enjoyment for mankind with "group
approval," i.e. "right sizing" in the workplace to keep others employed
or aborting an unborn child to alleviate overpopulation in the world,
with "societies" approval, seems to appease the pain, i.e. alleviate
"the sting of death." If the children are not
"enjoying" the church experience ("having" to go to church because the
parents "say so" instead of "wanting" to go to church because the
"group," i.e. their "contemporaries," are there) then it's not worth
going. Worshiping God is more about "enjoyment" (sensuous
pleasure) than praising God for his mercy and grace towards a wicked,
lustful, sinful soul, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, i.e. a man thus
suffering rejection by the world for righteousness sake (obeying
God no matter what man might say or do). All you have to do today
is dangle "enjoyment" (sensuousness) in front of "believers,"
like the Canaanite women did before the men of Israel, and you have "got
them."
Today, when you share the truth with people, if it is not
"enjoyable," you are not worth listening to. It is in fallen man's
nature to seek after pleasure and use his reasoning abilities to attain
it, i.e. to enjoy and become at-one-with the things of this world which
are gratifying ("lusting" after the things of the world). This is
where reality and morality conjoin, according to dialectical
'reasoning,' i.e. why, according to Herbart Marcuse, labor and Eros (for
example women in "man's" workplace stimulates pleasure in men, and visa
visa, thus making the work environment "enjoyable") is essential for a
'healthy' society. Note the effect this has had upon the
traditional family, weakening it and breaking it up, which is the
dialectical intent. (Take "the Peoples" "enjoyment" from them,
other than for the augmentation of "enjoyment," and they will attack,
i.e. kill, tear down, and destroy whatever it is that stands in their
way―this is the heart and soul of the tyranny of the masses, why men
sell their souls to totalitarianism, i.e. the consensus process,
which is always the end result of dialectical 'reasoning'―consensus
is simply a micro experience of totalitarianism, preparing man to accept
the "new" world order, where "enjoyment," sensuousness void of
the unnatural restraints of righteousness, is the only way to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
Morality therefore resides only in man's "felt" needs and in
nature which satisfies them (sensuousness) and not in any source
outside of or above human nature which restrains them (righteousness).
It is therefore only in a social environment of "enjoyment," an
environment where man is able to unit with that which he has in common
with nature, that man can come to "know" his true identity.
Without sensuousness and dialectical 'reasoning' being put into
social action (praxis) man can not escape the restraints of
righteousness and come to know himself as he 'really' is, ever
'changing.' It is therefore essential for the dialectician to
create an environment whereby the children (and adults) can be 'helped'
(facilitated, i.e. "educated") in negating (escaping) the effects
of righteousness upon their lives and unite in annihilating
its effect upon society. At least that is what the dialectic hope
is aka "Hegel's" formula A + -A = A.
If, according to Hegel, truth, morality, and ethics are to be
found in the children (of the system of sensuousness)
becoming at-one-with nature (universal and particular united upon
sensuousness, "enjoyment" united via. "intellect," via. "education,"
with "education" now asking the children for their opinions, i.e. what
they "enjoy" and don't "enjoy," what they "like" or don't "like") then
"He who is above nature," i.e. God or the parent being as God (righteousness,
i.e. "Do as I say or else.... Because I said so.") must be negated
from the children's thoughts (and the parent's thoughts) and
annihilated in their social action (praxis). In other
words, parent's (and teachers and ministers, i.e. "youth ministers")
need to quite "preaching" and "teaching" doctrines and
rules, thereby establishing an "either-or," right-wrong" way thinking
and acting in their children or students (inculcating righteousness),
using pain, i.e. chastening, i.e. external force, to do so, and start
"dialoguing" with them, helping them to 'discover' and unite upon
"common ground" (emancipating sensuousness), using pleasure, i.e.
"enjoyment," i.e. their personal interests, to do so.
In dialectical 'reasoning,' from the pre-school environment
to that of the nursing home, top-down leadership (of the system
of Righteousness) must be replaced with those who see things
through natures eyes, i.e. socially, collectively, commonly, only
sensuously (of the system of sensuous 'reasoning') if
the world is to be united upon sensuousness ("I'm OK. You're OK."
"We working for Us.") and no longer divided by righteousness
("You're wrong and I'm right." "I'm above and you're below.").
Thus, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' morality is not established
by someone above man, external to human nature, but rather morality is
in, of, and for human nature, i.e. man in harmony with his human nature
in harmony with all mankind in harmony with their human nature,
'discovered' through dialectical 'reasoning' (Hegel) and 'liberated'
through social praxis (Marx), united in the collective
negation-annihilation of the system of Righteousness
via. the consensus ("enjoyment") process being put into social
action. Machiavellian in attitude. Don't just think about
it. (Hegel) Do it. (Marx) "Enjoyment" that is. "If
it feels good, just do it." (Marcuse) “Hegel was able
to see the dialectic of reality as ‘bacchanalian revel, in which no
member is not drunk.’” (Brown)
Hegel's ethics is Pandora's box opened. If you don't
start with and end with righteousness being the issue of life
(beginning with the fear of God, i.e. a reverent fear), you can not
restrain yourself from opening Pandora's box, with sensuousness,
i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life" controlling your life, leading you into
eternal death (damnation). In this way the "suffering" of
the gospel has been replaced with the "enjoyment" of human
relationship. Living in the "suffering" of righteousness,
living in the "suffering" of Christ has been resolved through living in
the "enjoyment" of sensuousness, living in the "enjoyment" of the
flesh. Through the "enjoyment" of his own 'righteousness,' i.e.
being at-one-with his own human nature, man is now liberated from the
law of God, liberated from God's condemnation upon him for his praxis
of 'justifying' his own nature, 'justifying' the sensuousness of
pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment," as being the measure of 'good.' This
is Hegel's ethics, his 'justification' of sin (not calling it sin but
rather reality, i.e. man coming to know himself as he really "is," as he
"ought to be," i.e. in dialectical thought and practice 'discovering'
and 'actualizing' his "full potential").
God's word is constant, speaking to the soul of man for
eternity showing him how he is to
walk forever before God (proclaiming man's need for righteousness,
which, as a categorical imperative, universal and unquestionable,
which, since it is not of the creation, must be inculcated through preaching and teaching, "It is
written" or "Because I said so," and accepted by faith).
While sensuousness is restrained by the system of
righteous―restraining the excess of the flesh, restraining that
which is of the earth, directing that which was "formed from the dust
of the ground," the soul of man is liberated (no longer subject to
the whims, i.e. 'changingness,' uncertainty, ambiguity, and carnality of
the world). When righteousness is negated-annihilated
by the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning'
dialectically synthesized (redefining the soul of man as simply
being sensual in nature), that which is of the creator, that which is
"God breathed," the soul of man, is oppressed. "And I will give children to be their princes,
and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by
another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly
against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women
rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy
the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12
"When I tried to understand all this, it
was oppressive to me till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I
understood their final destiny." Psalm 73:16
Yet the outcome of the effects of dialectical thinking and
acting (the negation of the traditional family through the
social praxis of "theory and practice") always results in a
police state (with cameras at every corner), the force of government
oppressing the people since all are perceived and treated as criminals
(potential criminals) until they are proven innocent (contributors to the
sensuous, unrighteous cause), i.e. if the police, or authorities in power,
think or feel you are guilty (of being anti-social in behavior or acting
'paranoid'), you are, until you can prove yourself innocent, by
participating in and supporting the social cause, i.e. 'justifying' the
police state as being necessary for the 'good' of all (for example in
the use of anonymity, where the citizens report the actions of one
another to the authorities, who then evaluate the situation in the
"light" of social cause, rather than the citizens addressing the
situation themselves, civilly, out of a strong conscience).
"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." [Once the
family, the foundation for the development of the consciences, is no
longer supported by social action then that immediate unit
(community) above
the family (where the family compromises to keep relationships) must be identified and utilized in annihilating
the family and the conscience] "... once you can identify a community
[community built upon common sensuous interest, community
built upon common "enjoyment" (and not upon an established doctrine
or belief)],
you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and
the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about
positive social change."
(Dr.
Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing: The meaning of
“Community” in Community Policing)
The use of the super-ego as an
agent of social control always results in the attitude of, "It is ok as
long as it can be either 'justified' as being 'good' for the
'brotherhood,' i.e. What is 'good' for the 'brotherhood,' the community, the
consensus group of the 'moment,' is 'good' for society," or
everybody of 'importance' would understand and approve, or you won't get
caught, and if you do, just treat it as being the norm, i.e. you were
simply being victimized by an anti-social situation, and you will
probably get off (with some therapy and 'community service')," thus
promulgating the consensus process. Whoever defines the
'good' man or the 'good society' measures you, i.e. your feelings, your
thoughts, and your behavior, according to their standards, whether they
be of the system of Righteousness, evaluating you from
their "inculcated" conscience, or of the system of
sensuousness, evaluating you from their "socio-psychologically
engineered" super-ego.
“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?’”
(Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist
View of Psychotherapy) [Read
Genesis 3:1-6; it was simply Rogerian psychology being put into
praxis in the garden in Eden where doctrines and
righteousness were replaced with common interests, i.e.
sensuousness and human 'reasoning.']
"Parents have no right upon their offspring except a
psychological right." "We propose,
therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two
distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the
social parent. They may come together in one individual or
they may not. But the problem is how to produce a procedure
which is able to substitute and improve this ancient order."
"Religion
[the 'unnatural' voice of authority, i.e. the voice of the
patriarch] and science
[the natural impulses and desires of the child, i.e. the "child
within"] can be kept apart... in 'role playing.'"
(J. L. Moreno, Who
Shall Survive)
"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."
(Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
“Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental
complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the
paternalistic state and the patriarchal God.” (Norman O. Brown,
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
“… 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.”
“Any non-family-based (dialectic)
collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to
regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a
democratizing (anti-patriarchal) impact on that relationship . . .
any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial
democracy regardless of its intent.” (Warren Bennis, The Temporary
Society) [Once righteousness is perceived as being "a
possible liability to the child in the world approaching"
sensuousness and 'reasoning' makes righteousness
"moribund."]
The development and use of Bloom's Taxonomies was
“… to develop
attitudes and values toward learning which are not shaped by the parents …
[producing] conflict and tension between parents and children
[the conflict and thus tension being between the system
of Righteousness, of the parents, and the system of
sensuousness and 'reasoning,' of the now 'enlightened'
children]…"
(David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives: Book 2 Affective Domain, p. 83).
Bloom's Taxonomies of the 50's and 60's is now
the foundation for all teacher certification and school accreditation.
They are the basis of curriculum development used by certified teachers.
The curriculum method used determines which paradigm the next generation
will use in 'solving' problems, how they will 'deal' with their unborn
babies and you when their unborn babies and/or you stand in the
way of social progress, their sensuousness liberated. Curriculum developed in the classroom, according to
the use of Bloom's Taxonomy, is psychological (any academics is just sheep skin used to cover the wolf),
converting the next generation's conscience, developed in the
traditional home, into a super-ego, developed in the contemporary
Transformational Marxist classroom. Bloom wrote: “The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as
functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience [both
have an external voice, one comes from above one's sensuous
nature, restraining it, the other is in harmony with one's sensuous nature, liberating it―“... the super-ego ‘unites in
itself the influences of the present and of the past.’” (Norman
O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of
History) Uniting or synthesizing the present
(sensuousness)
and the past (righteousness),
negates righteousness, making it 'rationally' subject to the
"emotional
impulses," the urges and desires, of the present
(sensuousness).
“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.” (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)].
"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.”
(David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, p. 39)
In other
words, "the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive
levels of goal setting appropriate to" the negation
of the system of Righteousness in society. Through the
actualization of the system of sensuousness and
'reasoning' in the learning environment (by developing "higher order thinking skills" in morals and
ethics―Socratic critical thinking
skills―in the classroom), society
can be 'changed' into a society of 'changingness.'
It is clear that the intent of those
who promoted (as well as those who continue to promote) the use of
Bloom's Taxonomy in the classroom was the liberation of the individual
(and thus society) from the restraints of righteousness (the
patriarchal paradigm), emancipating man's carnal nature, making him now
subject to those who control the environment of human 'sense
perception' and 'sensuous needs,' making him thereby subject
to the master facilitator, Satan, and his
dialectical (diabolical) trickery―why I call "Bloom's Taxonomies,"
secularized Satanism, intellectualized witchcraft. It all
follows after the same pattern of thinking first put into praxis
in
Genesis 3:1-6.
Which is the system of sensuousness and 'reasoning,'
negating righteousness for the 'purpose' of liberation, i.e. so that
man can 'discover' and actualize his 'full potential,' i.e. the
praxis of emancipating man from the 'fixity' of the past
(from his creator) so that he can experience for himself the
'changingness' of the present, for the sake of a 'better'
future (so that man can perceive himself as being a creator, i.e. being
as a god), with man (his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities)
'controlling' his own destiny. Or so he thinks.
“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.” “In client-centered therapy, … we institute certain
attitudinal conditions, and the client has relatively little voice in the
establishment of these conditions.” (Carl Rogers, on becoming a
person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
The truth is that man
can not create, he can only manipulate that which has been created by
God, thus worshiping that which he makes with his own hands, deceiving
himself in thinking he created it.
"... the function possessed by so-called irrational institutions such as the
family, ... so-called rational bourgeois [family based] society ... is in
reality irrational." "... the survival of irrational 'moments'
... can only survive through irrational institutions like the family ... called the germ-cell of society... the irrational conditions
of society can only be maintained through the survival of these irrational
functions ... of the family." (Theodor Adorno,
Introduction to Sociology) Adorno's work, The
Authoritarian Personality, was the ideology of "Bloom's
Taxonomies," as noted by Bloom in Book 2 Affective Domain,
pg. 166
The common theme of those infatuated
with (and possessed by) the dialectical process is the negation of
the father figure as the initiator and sustainer of what is right and what is wrong,
what is good and what is evil (the
father
being the originator and the arbiter of righteousness)
"because He says so." His way of thinking must be negated through the use of
the consensus process, initiation and sustaining right and wrong,
good and evil upon opinions rather than established truth. Thus the attributes of God or the person of the
patriarchal paradigm is labeled as being negative, divisive,
hateful, intolerant, lower order thinking, prejudiced, a blocker, a
special interest pleader, self seeker, maladjusted, discriminatory,
neurotic, in denial, an aggressor, etc. i.e. intolerant of, hostile
toward sensuousness and 'reasoning'―impractical, and
the attributes of sensuous man,
liberated from 'rigidity' or 'fixity' of God or the patriarchal paradigm, are defined as
being encouraging, harmonizing, compromising, tolerant, caring,
conscientious, perceptive, free thinking, sensitive, rational, etc. i.e.
tolerant of, friendly toward the diversity of sensuousness and
human 'reasoning'―practical.
If the process of 'change' is to be actualized, if sensuousness
is to be liberated from the restraints of righteousness.
If reasoning is to be liberated
from 'deductive
reasoning,' liberated from
an a priori, fixed position, the environment must first be purging of the "irrational,"
it must be purged of that which is not "sense perceived" as being
relevant to the 'moment.'
Through the use of 'inductive
reasoning,' i.e. 'reasoning' from "sense experience,"
man is able to identify, neutralize,
marginalize, and negate that which he "sense perceives" as
being "irrelevant" to the sensuous 'moment.'
He can negate that which he "sense perceives" as being a "relic" of the past.
He can negate that which he "sense perceives" as being
detrimental to the present and the future. He can negate
that which he "sense perceives" as being inhibitive to the
potential for 'change.' He can negate that which is
preventing the "development" and "improvement"
of a future 'rationally'-sensually unified society,
a society which is united over
and against the divided society of the past, a society united in the
praxis of purging from the environment
the preachers of righteousness and teachers of absolutes (both holding
man bound to the things
of the 'past,' i.e. keeping him subject to those things which are
greater than the common "sensuousness" of the the human
'moment'). If all trees are man's trees (of sensuousness),
then it is 'irrational' to preach and teach that one tree (which
is like all the other trees―sensual)
is only God's tree "because He says so."
Those who continue to hold to their "'fixed'
beliefs, 'private convictions,' and principles," who refuse to
participate in the process of 'change' in the present, who refuse to
participate in dialogue to find common ground with all of mankind,
must be 'changed' in their way of thinking or be neutralized,
marginalized, or removed. Dialogue is thus used to purge the environment of those
(preachers and teachers of righteousness) who resist the
soviet style (dialectic based)
procedure. The soviet was developed in an effort to negate righteousness
and its effects upon man and society. Anyone participating
within its procedure must put aside righteousness―faith, belief,
obedience, and chastening, and righteousness itself―and thus
must reject the patriarchal institutions of the traditional family and
private business along with the believing church, all perpetuating God's commands, doctrines,
and ways of thinking and acting upon man. In setting public and
private policy (as in public-private partnership)
the
soviet is a procedure of dialoguing to
consensus over social issues with a diverse
group of people (all tolerant of deviancy) in a facilitated meeting to a pre-determined outcome,
perpetuating an outcome where all issues of life require the use of "Hegel's"
'A plus -A
equals A formula' (the dialectical process, i.e. first demonstrated
in Genesis 3:1-6) as a means of finding common ground―negating
"God's tree is God's tree and not man's tree," to the end of
actualizing unity out of diversity, "all trees are man's trees,"
creating a "new" society built upon common-ism,
i.e. built upon human sensuousness and 'reasoning, i.e.
self-social 'justification,' all united in negating the effect of the
traditional family upon the individual, the 'community,' and society.
The dialectical process (as used in the soviet) is a process used to "manipulate" man, i.e.
liberate or emancipate his feelings,
his thinking, and his actions (his paradigm), into becoming "what he can
be" (in his own eyes), classifying man as being neither 'good' nor 'evil,' only
that his current method of thinking and acting, which he is using to set
policy or
make decisions from, is defined either as being 'good' or 'evil'
(relevant or irrelevant, practical or impractical) according to the
sensuous 'moment.' If his way of thinking and acting is
over and against the social moment, his way of thinking and acting is
wrong. "The group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his
perceptions, his feelings, and his actions." (Kurt Lewin, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics)
By changing the group setting, how policy is being made (from
preaching and teaching to dialogue), you can change
the individuals within the group, and thereby eventually change society
into a society of 'changingness,' into a society of sensuousness
and spontaneity working together in socialist harmony.
Dialectically, man has potential only for 'good' or 'evil'
based upon the resulting paradigm, or way of thinking and acting, or
behavior (patterns) which he has learned (experienced) and is currently
putting into practice (as a result of having participated―'willingly'―within a particular environment).
According to dialectical 'reasoning,' all must submit their will either
to the parents or God (and become 'neurotic') or to society (and become
'healthy') or become 'maladjusted' (D. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 2 Affective Domain,
fn on pg. 166―the same fn on pg. 166 also references the
Transformational Marxists, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm as the "Weltanschauung" or ideology of the
Taxonomy)
The person's
prior environment of learning, his former life experiences, i.e. his
history, is of major importance to the 'change' process―historical
materialism. Without ascertaining the person's history
(his learned paradigm) 'appropriate' methods for 'change' might not be
applied and the persons 're-education' (socialist programming) might end
in failure (the person might either fight against socialist programming
or the programming experience, not coming to fruition within the person,
might result in his social 'maladjustment,' he is 'liberated from the
patriarchal paradigm, i.e. freed from the restraints of righteousness
but he is not working for or is inhibiting or being a drain on society
and socialist causes).
The
environment of learning, i.e. the learning environment itself is being used
to identify a particular paradigm and then being used to initiate and sustain another paradigm.
The paradigm the person is using is therefore
dialectically being classified, i.e. taxonomized as being either
'good' or 'evil.' The purpose of
"Bloom's Taxonomies" was to 'shift' the paradigm or the learning
environment in the classroom, from a patriarchal paradigm of righteousness, i.e.
faith, belief, obedience and chastening , i.e. absolutes initiated
and sustained through the teaching and preaching of
established truth, to a heresiarchal paradigm of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' i.e.
seduction, deception, and
manipulation, where 'changingness'
is initiated and sustained through the dialoguing of theories
and opinions of 'practical' truth only, 'rationally'
'discovering' 'truth' through "sense experience," and
sensuousness alone.
In dialectical
theory and practice, it is a man's environmental upbringing which qualifies
as the initiator and sustainer of that which is either 'good' or 'evil'
regarding his behavior, i.e. regarding his manifested paradigm (his way of thinking and acting). In
this way of thinking (dialectical thinking, "higher order thinking
skill" in morals and ethics, socio-psychological thinking), the understanding which
begins with
the fear of God, i.e. that man, because of his sin against God, i.e.
disobeying His
will, is condemned, from birth, to eternal death, and is in need of a
savior if he is to know eternal life (requiring faith, belief,
obedience, chastening, repentance, and righteousness, i.e. a
righteousness which can only
be imputed to him from the Lord since man's 'righteousness' is as
a "filthy rag" before a Holy, Pure, Righteous God) must be negated in his
own mind and annihilated in his social actions if he and all of
mankind are to sensually and 'rationally' "understand" (come to
"know") their own nature (come to
"grips" with themselves and the world they live within), i.e. come to
"know"
themselves as they are, experientially, and thus have any hope in
initiating and sustaining "world peace and social justice"
based upon human nature (initiate
and sustain "beauty
and freedom," sensuousness and spontaneity, not
only for themselves but for all the world).
In dialectical thought and action, without a world of
sin (reclassifying
man's deviancy as being 'normal'
human behavior through the 'scientific' praxis of
socio-psychology), i.e. without the sensuousness of 'human nature' and man's 'reasoning' ability to 'justify' it
as being 'normal,' the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life has
no meaning (that is, in a dialectic, sensuousness-'reasoning'―affective-cognitive―synthesized,
facilitated world). Sensuousness and 'reasoning' can not
'emerge' united―synthesized―as long
as righteousness remains the issue of life, blocking sensuousness (the individuals
"sensuous needs," his carnal
nature) from being the 'drive' and 'reasoning' (his ability to
'perceive-discover' his identity as being
'liberated-initiated' and 'actualized-sustained' only within a social "sense
experienced" world, his "sense perception"
of his desire to be "at-one-with" mankind and nature,
his own included―becoming as 'one' in pleasure) as being
the 'purpose' of life. The "pride of life" (dialectical
praxis) is man's 'reasoning' ability to 'justify' his own sensuousness as being 'normal' and 'desirable' and then
control/manipulate the environment so as to initiate and sustain it―the
pleasures of this life―not only for himself
but for others as well, i.e. the "approval of men"-"consensus"
being the indubitable 'justification' for his praxis of
sin-revolution against righteousness.
In this way of thinking (dialectical thinking) a person can no longer find meaning
or 'purpose' in/for life outside of his 'understanding' (his experiencing,
the "sense experience") of himself as "becoming"
or being a
part of a general system of 'social-human mobility' (social motion, i.e.
social emotion, i.e. self-esteem―which comes from group-esteem, i.e. the approval from others, i.e. a
common sensation of "peace and affirmation"
with the world, Hegel),' i.e. 'change' motivated by 'principles' emerging from
empathy (empathy transcends borders and thus can be used―by
those who envy what those who have borders have, i.e. what those
who have principles have―to
negate borders, i.e. to negate righteousness, the hedge of
protection for the soul) rather than
principles revealed in righteousness, which can appear to be hostile toward
empathy
i.e. sensuousness (where a person is perceived as being uncaring or "cold hearted" when holding to
his principles in an environment propagandizing
empathy), where all mankind is 'purposed' in providing
"equality of
opportunity" for all, seeking for an environment where all men can "free"
(liberate) themselves from the "blinders"
imposed by their "accidental" birth into a traditional patriarchal family
environment of rules, principles, absolutes, etc. according to
James
Coleman (Public School-Private School), i.e. having
"unfortunately" been raised in
an "unhealthy," i.e. according to dialectical thinking, "discriminating"
(right-wrong), "segregating" (good-evil), "judgmental"
(righteous-unrighteous),
"inadaptable to 'change,'" "intolerant of ambiguity," "anti/a-social-ist,"
"'neurosis' engendering," "negative,"
divisive environment (engendering the "alienation," "repression,"
and the "reification" of the human condition).
Being fair (matriarch in paradigm―equality) is not the same as
being right (patriarch in paradigm―top-down) although they can be
confused (synthesized) in the mind of deceivable man. By making
fair, i.e. equality, equal with right, i.e. top-down,
equality must rises up over and against righteousness (man
becoming equal with God must rise up, emerge, over and against God) in
the praxis of initiating and sustaining 'change' (become
heresiarch in paradigm).
"Every form of objectification [in
faith, believing and obeying higher authority, of the system
of Righteousness]...
results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending
objectification..... Alienation and reification destroy both the dialectical
interrelation of being and consciousness and, as a necessary
consequence, the dialectical interrelation of theory and practice."
(Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
"The life which he has
given to the object [by having faith in, believing in, and obeying higher
authority] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force
[accepting chastening from them as their right and duty]."
(Karl Marx MEGA I/3)
"... the origin of repression
leads back to the origin of instinctual repression ... early childhood.”
"The full force of
civilized morality was mobilized
against the use of the body as an instrument of pleasure; such reification was
tabooed, and remained the ill-reputed privilege of whores,
degenerates, and perverts." "With the emergence of a
non-repressive reality principle
this process would be reversed." With "the fulfillment
of childhood wishes ... the body in its entirety would become an
object of cathexis ... an
instrument of pleasure...." leading to the "disintegration of
the ... monogamic and patriarchal family."
(Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization).
“We must develop persons who see
non-influenceability of private convictions [people with
principles of righteousness] in joint deliberations
[in a meeting of common
sensuous interests striving to arrive at consensus]
as a vice rather than
a virtue.” (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in
Curriculum Change 1951) bracketed information added
Thus, like 'good' Marxists, children
in the classroom and citizens in the community must be programmed into
perceiving righteousness
as being a "vice rather than a virtue" when it stands in the
way of sensuousness and 'reasoning becoming united within the
consensus
process. The ways of unrighteousness therefore outweigh the value of
righteousness when it comes to the "sense perceived" "sensuous
needs" of society. In other words people must be re-educated, i.e. socially
programmed (be seduced, deceived, and manipulated) into
perceiving that those who hold to principles (hold to their beliefs, i.e.
hold to righteousness) in a meeting socially engineered to set
policy on common interest (socially engineered to come to consensus), are not to be admired
and praised but are rather to be recognized as being the enemy, i.e.
obstacles to 'change' and 'progress.' Whether done in the name of
Fascism or socialism, aka. common-ism, aka. Globalism, aka.
environmentalism, etc., the cause and the effect are the same.
In 1933 Germany people were afraid of holding to principle
(righteousness) because of what it might cost them (sensuousness).
The Germany of 1933 came into being because people were afraid of holding to
principle (righteousness) because of what it might cost them (sensuousness). Jesus went to the cross because
of the envy (the love of sensuousness) of those who turned their
personal-social interests (the
approval and praise of men, i.e. in the name of the people, i.e. "for
their 'best interest'") into principle, who therefore chose Rome over Christ, common-unity/society over God,
sensuousness over
righteousness.
The meaning and
'purpose' for life is thus tied to the dynamics of individual-social
life (social empathy, i.e. envy against the principled for
what they have), i.e. group dynamics, i.e. "experiential," sense based
"understanding," i.e. "sense experienced" knowledge
(hermetic, gnostic), where the individual's "sensuous
need" for "survival," for "self preservation"―his individual inclination to avoid pain
and approach
pleasure, not only physically but also mentally―and his natural desire
for "approval from others"―his social inclination to avoid
pain and approach pleasure, not only mentally but also socially―'drives' the individual's sensuous
thoughts and actions toward attaining harmony (self-actualized
homeostasis) with social action (the current environment, i.e. the group, i.e.
society), which requires the 'driving,' i.e. manipulation via.
the "sense
perception" of the "group's" social action toward
attaining harmony (consensus)
in agreement (in empathy) with the
individual's sensuous thoughts and actions, and the "sense
perception" of the individuals sensuous thoughts and actions
toward attaining harmony (consensus) with the "group's" social action (all 'liberated'
and 'united' in
the dynamics of the dialectical―sensual-rational―group experience), all 'rationally' becoming
as one in a dialectical environment, in the dialectical 'moment'
(in a facilitated environment
which does not proceed from nature itself and therefore does not come naturally,
an environment which must therefore be
initiated and sustained by those of the system of 'reasoning,'
i.e. seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of 'change'―making
individual principles subject to common interest, by engendering interest
over principles, where the meeting is 'driven' by interest, i.e. feelings, rather
than interest being made subject to principles―using environmental/social/personal crisis to 'force' people to
'willingly' participate in the 'change' process, i.e. 'encouraging'
people to participate in making "life changing" decisions,
'changing' their paradigm from a paradigm of individual principle to
a paradigm of social interest, out of
their concern for survival and their fear of the loss of respect of
man―not from the fear God or parent but
from the fear of man himself, the fear of rejection by the group,
by society itself) which engenders or "liberates"
everyone's common sensuous thought and thus "encourages"
everyone's common sensuous
participation (where self-social-environmental unity
is founded and grounded, in theory and in practice, in
social action, in social
praxis, aka. common-ism).
“Freedom becomes anchored in the subject. Nevertheless,
what this means remains open to question. Freedom is now content to contest
power and thus forgets that power is necessary to constrain its arbitrary
exercise. The ethical and practical function of freedom is lost. Indeed,
since subjective freedom is a social phenomenon, maintaining sanity depends
upon the ability of the individual to fill a social role and affirm his or
her fullest potential.” (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
“The
individual is emancipated in the social group.” "...
self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the
world in pleasure." (Norman O.
Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of
History)
“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.” “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.” (Wilhelm Reich,
The Mass Psychology of Fascism)
“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)
In one paradigm (the patriarchal way of thinking and acting)
"survival" is based upon the approval of the one (the
specific) who is greater, who is preached and taught as being pure, i.e.
righteous (producing awe, wonder, dread, and fear, where unity is
through faith and belief in, repentance and obedience toward He who is
the initiator and sustainer of
righteousness), while in the other paradigm (the heresiarchal way
of thinking and acting) survival is based upon the approval
of the many (the general), who are perceived as being equals,
'discovered' as being of one's own nature, i.e. sensuous
('scientifically 'discovering' and producing unity in the diversity of
commonality, i.e. creating 'community' along the spectrum of the
'changingness' of sensuousness). Looking upon
the glory of God we are changed into his image of righteousness
and life. Looking upon the image of man we are 'changed' into his
image of sensuousness and death.
"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of
his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth
forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James
1:14, 15
It was found that 'change' does not
come naturally from the environment itself, i.e. that man does not
readily "evolve" to a 'higher state' without the introduction and support
of some source outside of the natural way of doing things. The desire for change (driven
by man's sensuousness) may be present, but the justification for sensuousness
(over and against righteousness)
is not "yet" at the point of negating (circumventing)
the system of
Righteousness (in other words, the fear of judgment for doing what
is wrong, i.e. wrong according to a higher authority than one's own
sensuousness, inhibits or blocks one's movement in the direction of
fulfilling the drive or desire of sensuousness), where the 'commitment' and the "how to," the 'drive'
and the 'purpose,' which is engendered by the system of 'reasoning,'
is not available to "help" the person in 'justifying,' to
himself, the necessity of negating
the system of righteousness (treating the commands
of restraint against his natural desires as being irrational and
therefore irrelevant in the sensuous moment), if he is to "know
himself" as he 'really' is. People who are not
readily adaptable to change must rather be conditioned, i.e.
prodded, i.e. 'tricked' into 'shifting' their paradigm from "survival
and approval" being dependent upon one above their sensuous
nature (of the system of Righteousness, i.e. eternal, i.e.
above the nature of sensuousness, i.e. super-natural) to "survival and
approval" being dependent upon those of their own sensuous nature
(of the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' i.e.
temporal, i.e. of the nature of sensuousness, i.e. natural).
Some source (enticement) outside the current environment
(that is, outside the current environment of righteousness
restraining the 'drive' of sensuousness, i.e. righteousness
using the fear of judgment against natural sensuous
thoughts or natural sensuous actions, i.e. one's natural thoughts
and actions declared as being the foundation for determining what is
good or evil, right or wrong, to inhibit or prevent 'change') must be the initiator and
sustainer of the 'change' process. People must be enticed
into 'justifying' their participation (for example: for the 'good' of
others) within the 'change' process or
people will not take 'ownership' of the 'change' process themselves, i.e. let
the dialectical process (the negation of righteousness―the
negation of righteousness as being the only way, the
only truth, and the only life, i.e. righteousness no longer
being perceived as being rational and therefore relevant
in the times of 'changingness,' i.e. in the times of sensuousness) take over
(possess) their lives as they use it, i.e. the dialectic process, i.e. the
system of 'reasoning', i.e. democratic ethics, on themselves
and on others, for their own 'good.' The "'good' in their own
eyes" blinds them to the damage (death and destruction, not only
spiritually, but also mentally and physically) that the process
is doing to themselves and to others as they participate in propagating
it upon others to 'justify' their compromise, i.e. their sin,
i.e. their unrighteousness (the praxis of their synthesis with
unrighteousness, i.e. finding harmony, i.e. "oneness" with their carnal
nature and the carnal nature of the world, which is required within
the 'change' process).
In your participation in the dialectical process, resolution
of a crisis always produces confusion. Trying to trust in the
Lord, His righteousness (denying yourself and not living for the
"approval of men"), and trust in man, your sensuousness (for self preservation
and your desire for the "approval of men"), at
the same time produces cognitive dissonance, a conflict between
your belief (righteousness preached and taught and "accepted as
is") and your desires and actions (sensuousness dialogued on what
"ought to, could, should, or might be"), known as a belief-action
dichotomy, from which your response, i.e. your paradigm, i.e. your way
of thinking and acting in dealing with a crisis is then dialectically
evaluated, i.e. categorized, i.e. taxonomized to see where along
the continuum of "adaptability to change" you are at the moment.
In the dialectical environment of confusion you are pressured to
either turn to God and His Word, i.e. remain 'unchanged' as far as who
establishes right and wrong, good and evil for you, i.e. hold to
your thesis or principles, or turn to your feelings and thoughts,
i.e. change, i.e. compromise your thesis or principles for the sake of
the moment, i.e. determining good and evil, right and wrong from your
own nature. The former―a
patriarchal paradigm, always being discouraged as an outcome, i.e. as a way of
thinking and acting, i.e. as a paradigm, and the latter―a heresiarchal paradigm
of 'changingness,' always being
'encouraged' as an outcome, i.e. as a better way of thinking and acting.
The greatest trickery, praxised by those who use the
dialectical process, is to convince, i.e. deceive, i.e. 'trick' you into
believing that you can evaluate, define, and respond to, i.e. know God
and His Word (righteousness) in the 'light' of your own feelings and thoughts
('learning' how to use your own "sense experiences," i.e.
"sensuous needs," "sense perception," 'reasoning,' 'wisdom,' and
'logic' in coming to the 'knowledge' of the 'truth' on how to respond to
God, His Word, His Holy Spirit, and life's crises), thus willingly
participating in the praxis of negating the former
(trusting in the Lord) while actualizing the latter (trusting in
your own feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. theory and practice)
while responding to a crisis, thus basing 'reality' upon your "sense
experiences" of this world. It is not that we put aside
feelings, thoughts, and actions while dealing with a crisis in life (we
do live in the world), it is that by participating in the
dialectical process we willingly put aside
(suspend) God and His Word as the director and judge over our feelings,
thoughts, and actions,
i.e. done for the sake of "working" with others in the 'moment,' i.e.
done for the
"approval
of men," i.e. for the sake of not "offending" them, while dealing with
the crisis, thus living according to the conditions of and the
approval of the world rather than trusting and living in the Lord.
The "divide and conquer," which proceeds from participation within the
dialectical process, is not the dividing of people from one another but
rather dividing a person from his principles (learned from parents and
God) for the sake of social interests (for social approval).
In this "new"
way of thinking and acting (the thinking and acting of the "new" world order) righteousness is
thus no longer defined by God, the creator of man and nature, judging man's
thoughts and actions according to His own righteousness, his Holy will, contrasting
between that which comes from Him above, which is spiritual and good, i.e.
who is righteous (in and of himself only) and that which is
from the world below, carnal and evil, i.e. only sensual in
thought and in action (in and of the creation only). Nature is not evil since God has
given it pre-determined laws, it is that man, when he attends to his
nature only, i.e. when he puts aside or rejects God's laws of righteousness and
instead attends to his own sensuous laws of the flesh, is evil
(setting his "affections" on things below rather than on things above).
When 'righteousness' is defined by man himself, i.e.
man 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically redefines (re-educates) himself as
becoming sensually and 'rationally' whole, i.e. unites with
himself, i.e. his nature and the world, i.e.
physically, mentally, and socially healthy, dialectically, i.e.
"scientifically," 'discovering' that meaning and 'purpose' in life
can only be 'realized' and then 'actualized' as he becomes sensuously
at-one-with himself and nature, as he becomes sensuously at-one-with the 'creation,'
as he learns to 'scientifically,' i.e. dialectically, judge his
thoughts and actions and other's thoughts and actions according to his own carnal,
sensuous nature, i.e. according
to that nature which he has in common with all of mankind, as he learns
to live according to
his own carnal, sensuous will (which seems to be "good" to him), i.e. according to that will which he has in common
with all of mankind, i.e. comparing himself and others with his own nature,
which he has in common with others and with
nature itself, thus exalting himself (within his own unrighteous, sinful
nature) as being equal with God, i.e. as being greater than God, i.e. as
being "as a God," as he (through his own
reasoning abilities, i.e. through his use of Hegel's 'A plus
negative A
equals A,' "scientific," dialectical formula) initiates and sustains a
"new" world order (a world ordered dialectically, a world
freed of unnatural restraints, a world freed of the restraints and
judgment of righteousness), a world based upon
dialectical thought and dialectical action (theory and practice),
i.e. dialectically known as praxis (social action negating,
in the individual's mind, and annihilating, in his social action,
his need for God, i.e. his dependence upon His righteousness, his need to be saved,
i.e. his need to be redeemed from eternal death and his need to
inherit eternal life, i.e. his need to live by faith in the Lord, i.e.
living by God's mercy and grace alone), i.e. imagining (sensuously
reasoning and reasoning sensuously) and then
creating, along with all of mankind, a world where his sensuousness,
the pleasure of his unrighteousness,
is in harmony with this world below, usurping (negating in his
mind and in his actions) his need for God's righteousness from
above, i.e. imagining and then creating, along with all of mankind, a world of
his own making where his sensuousness becomes
the foundation (his ground for becoming) for determining what is good and what is evil (instead of
accepting and depending upon God's righteousness to make those
distinctions), man justifies his own sin (his own nature) as being 'good'
(as it does good for others) ruling over it (his own sin),
'justifying' it and sustaining it for his own (and societies) goodness' sake.
In which case, enlightened mankind, as Cane (Genesis
4:1-12), dialectically justifies himself to himself, "ruling" over his
sensuous nature, i.e. initiating and sustaining an environment of
vanity, justifying his lust for "the approval of men," justifying,
to himself, his "pride of life," in the name of humanity and social change, ruling over his sin nature as a master facilitator,
justifying his envy, i.e. justifying his resentment and hatred
toward the conditions of righteousness (and the blessings
bestowed upon the righteous) projected against the righteous
(and the conditions of righteousness), and as Cane, justifying
himself in his praxis of "negating" righteousness,
i.e. in the killing of (purging from society, purifying the environment,
attempting to remove from the face of the world) the conditions of
righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and
chastening, and annihilating the righteous (those who
are supportive of the patriarch paradigm), now dialectically classified
(taxonomized, i.e. labeled) as oppressors, judgmental,
authoritarian, bourgeoisie, Fascist, "pigs," antisocial,
asocial, "extremists," "fundamentalists," "challenged," "homophobes,"
"self-righteous," "lower order thinkers," "relics of the past," etc.
dialectically, i.e. "sensually-'rationally,'" perceived as
being the initiators and sustainers of "repression," "alienation," "low
self-esteem," "discrimination," "isolationism," "imperialism,"
prejudice, discrimination, etc―depending
upon a higher authority than human nature (beyond human sense
experience) and human wisdom (higher than "dialectical thinking"
or "higher order thinking skills"), i.e. 'letting' higher
authority, i.e. parent or God, "call the shots" on what he is to
receive (or not receive) for his "best" efforts (according to his
natural talents, according to his natural "desires"), determined by
how higher authority "feels and thinks," i.e. according to the
conditions established by the Patriarch.
"If thou doest well,
shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the
door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over
him." Genesis 4:7
In Hegel's 'A plus negative A equals A' formula, it
is man's "ruling" over his sin nature ('rationally justified' as being
"'normal' human behavior" by those of the 'art craft' of dialectical
thinking, aka. "behavior scientists" and "social scientists") which
is to be accepted by himself, for the sake of all of mankind.
Man's sin nature is thus the 'norm,' the desired outcome from his
'willful' participation within the dialectic facilitated environment,
i.e. an environment which is antithetical to (over and against) man's
concern about being accepted by God , i.e. dialectically perceived as
man living according to (unnaturally under) the conditions of
righteousness, i.e. under a system of faith, belief, obedience, and
chastening.
Thus, instead of living by faith, man can
dialectically live by sight, with no "sense perception" of
guilt or condemnation from God or parent for his "sensuous needs,"
i.e. his sensuous thoughts and his sensuous actions, i.e.
thoughts and actions which go counter to God or the parent's will ("No
Fear"), thus having no concern (regard) for his thoughts and actions
before the parent or a Good, Great, Pure, Holy, Righteous God who
judges all men, i.e. their unrighteous thoughts and their unrighteous
actions, according to His Righteousness (both the traditional
parent and God are dialectically perceived as being of the same
system, i.e. of the system of Righteousness).
While parents and God (according to God's design) are of the same
system, of the system of Righteousness, requiring
faith, belief, obedience and, chastening, only God is
righteous. Jesus stated he would divide the Father from the son
but he did not negate, nor did he annihilate the position
of the father (the patriarchal paradigm) as a position of authority,
only that His Father is the final authority, i.e. that we are to call no
man Father on earth, i.e. that we are to put our complete trust in the
Lord and not in man, that we are not to lean to our own understanding,
i.e. trusting in ourselves, in our 'reasoning' abilities, and therefore
in man. While our earthly parents are not perfect, the office they
serve in (being patterned according to God's will, i.e. the Fifth
Commandment of the Ten Commandments) is. In dialectical thought
(which is antithetical to righteousness), God is patterned
after (according to) the earthly (patriarchal) family, i.e. the
family is subject to the father figure (who, as God, requires faith,
belief, obedience, and uses chastening to initiate and
sustain obedience). Therefore, by negating and
annihilating the earthly father figure, i.e. by coming between the
children and the parents, on the side of the sensuousness
(pleasures) of the children (in support of the children of
disobedience), i.e. their dissatisfaction and resentment toward the
demands of righteousness coming first. Faith in,
belief in, and obedience to parents, i.e. God, i.e.
righteousness, can thus be negated in the thoughts and
actions of the next generation and thus annihilated in the
thoughts and actions of society (see Marx's
Feuerbach Thesis #4). Thus man, as a drunkard (intoxicated in himself), can take the truth (the word of God) and
hold it
captive (make it subject) to his unrighteousness (make it subject to his
sensuousness, i.e. his vanity, and his reasoning, i.e. his
philosophical abilities) as he staggers down
the dialectical pathway to his own destruction and death, thinking all
the while that what he is doing is 'right.'
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to
faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness;" Rom 1:17, 18
"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 3:3-12
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth
himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:11
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through
God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations,
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of
God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of
Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when
your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:3-6
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with
you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that
he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth
already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken
out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the
Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy
with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after
the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And
with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. " 2
Thessalonians 3:3-10
"Class consciousness"
is simply a person's
"sense perception" of how the Patriarchal paradigm of
the system of Righteousness is an
oppressive and irrational system of thinking and acting
preventing him from knowing himself as he 'really' is and thus
preventing him from actualizing his full potential as a human being.
"Class consciousness" found its first praxis in the Garden in
Eden. Genesis 3:1-6.
Class consciousness is the "classification" of the Patriarchal
paradigm of the
system of Righteousness as an "oppressed-oppressor"
environmental condition, when "taxonomized," i.e. measured along a
spectrum of sensuousness, i.e. when measured within an avoid pain-approach pleasure sense
based environment (a permissive, non-judgmental environment, i.e. an "open ended," "non-directed"
environment engenders a non-judgmental, permissive environment), i.e.
when measured within a "sense experienced" physical, mental, and social
"pain-pleasure" continuum, i.e. a continuum or spectrum proceeding from
the
system of
Righteousness (where truth is preached and taught
"as given," producing and environment of judgment and
restraint, which divides man from his nature), through the
system of sensuousness
(which confuses a person as he is caught, divided, between his own
sensuousness and spontaneity which comes from his own nature and righteousness
and restraint which comes from above,
i.e. beyond his nature), to the system
of 'reasoning' (where 'truth' is situational or relative, i.e. 'discovered' through dialogue, which
spontaneously unites
man upon his own sensuousness rather than upon, i.e. over and against
the righteousness which comes from outside his nature, thus
restraining it), known,
comprehended, applies, analyzed, synthesizes and evaluated through the
consensus process, a process used to purge sensuousness,
and therefore society, of the rigidity, i.e. "divisiveness" of the
system of Righteousness, re-creating
the learning (or policy making) environment where the world (where 'reality') is man
'rationally' (sensually) "proceeding only from Nature,"
a world of "peace and justice" (according to human wisdom), that is according to the
Heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness,' of the system of
dialectical 'reasoning' (where 'reasoning' is synthesized to
sensuousness), i.e.
according to
"Hegel's" 'A + -A = A' humanistic formula of 'change')―
(the Patriarchal paradigm of the
system of Righteousness being identified as a
paradigm of unchangingness,
i.e. requiring faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e. a
system which is intolerant of ambiguity, i.e. evaluating thoughts
and actions according to
specific facts and truth learned from the parent or God, i.e. of their law, i.e.
"formal logical law of contradiction"―"formal"
meaning being preached and taught "as is," and not informally
dialogued as an opinion amongst opinions, "logical" meaning
rules to be memorized as established laws and not to be
re-discovered experientially from life's 'changing' "sense
experiences," i.e. not emotionally or sensually
'changeable,' and "law
of contradiction" meaning there is either a "right answer"
or a "wrong answer" with no variability, i.e. there is no "other
answer," i.e. all "other answers" are wrong answers, all
"supported" with the phrase "Because I said so," which is, according
to dialectical thought, a condition "whereby the mind
submits to operate under general conditions of repression,”
i.e. a "repressive" condition where the child or man, believing in the
parent or God, i.e. accepts and obeys their commands "as
given," by faith, i.e. their actions therefore proceeding from their faith in a
higher authority than their 'immediate' sensuousness and
'reasoning' abilities―Norman O. Brown, Life
Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History―i.e. "rigid," i.e. established, i.e.
spiritual, i.e. spirit which is not of, nor readily influenceable
by, the sensuousness, i.e. "sensuous needs" and "sense
perception" of the human 'moment,' i.e. reasoning is not inclined to
the "here-and-now," i.e. not readily adaptable to 'change,'
where reasoning is above
sensuousness, i.e. of the parent inculcating facts and truth to the child,
i.e. rules of
life and the necessity of obedience to higher authority, i.e. humbling
his will to higher authorities will, i.e. 'conditioning,' training up, the children to
accept God speaking to the soul of man to repent of his sin, i.e. to be in agreement with or
at-one-with God and be saved from the judgment of rejection and
punishment, i.e. by both parent and God, and, with God, to be saved from eternal death―John
3:14-21, i.e. all of the Father's will, i.e. sending His only begotten Son, Jesus
the Christ, to die on the cross for man's sins, to redeem individual man,
i.e. "whosoever," requiring faith, belief, obedience, and
the acceptance of
chastening, determining judgment―either condemnation,
i.e. eternity in Hell for sinning against God and rejecting the only
means of salvation, i.e. not believing in His
only begotten Son and obeying his commands, or redemption, i.e.
rejecting eternity in Heaven,
i.e. rejecting the new heaven and the new earth, i.e. rejecting eternity with God in His glory, through repentance
for sinning against God and believing in His only begotten Son for the
remission of his sins and then obeying his commands, i.e. rejecting His righteousness imputed―purifying
the individual man of His sin against higher authority, of his sin against God
above, where good and evil is determined by He who is greater than man's sensuousness of
the 'moment').
Hegel defined "class consciousness" this way: "And
formative education (Bildung)
is this absolute exchanging in the absolute concept wherein every
subject, and universal too, makes its particularity immediately into
universality, and in the see-saw posits itself as universal at the very
moment when it posits itself as one level and is thus confronted by its
'being a level,' and by the unmediated universality in that being, so
that it itself becomes a particular." (George Hegel, System of
Ethical Life) Thus when "need," "labor," and
"enjoyment" are subject to that which is not universal, to that
which is not practical, not intellectually comprehendible, the person is
forced into a "level" which is not at-one-with or of the universal (in
harmony with his nature). If the "concept" (the individual, the
particular) must find itself in the "intuition" (in the social, in the
universal) then "intuition" (the social, the universal) must be posited
within the "concept" (the individual, the particular). According
to Hegel, "What can no longer be related to a concept [begriffen]
no longer exists." (George Hegel, The German Constitution)
If society can no longer relate with the individual (not being of the
individuals, i.e. the citizens collective interest), than the
individual, i.e. the citizen, and therefore, according to Hegel, the
state, no longer exists. It is only in war (in crisis) and not in
peace (status quo) that the 'health' of a society, i.e. that the
concepts of the individuals can be revealed. Hegel wrote: "The
health of a state generally reveals itself not so much in the
tranquility of peace as in the turmoil of war." "For it is not
what is [the restraint of the parent, the restraint of
righteousness, according to Hegel, the experiences of the past]
that makes us impetuous and causes us distress, but the fact that it is
not as it ought to be [that the children, that sensuousness,
that human interests in the present are not liberated]; but if we
recognize that it is as it must be, i.e. that it is not the product of
arbitrariness and chance [that the restraint against human nature is
not the product of a higher authority of "change"], we also recognize
that it is as it ought to be [that the restraint is justified, being
a product of nature]." ibid. Regarding German (in
1802), i.e. its loss of identity with the universal because of its
identity with the particular (local traditions preventing global
interests from surfacing), Hegel wrote: "The obduracy of the German
character has never yielded sufficiently for the individual parts [of
Germany] to sacrifice their particular characteristics [the fathers
restraining the children] to society [the children becoming
cognizant of being universal with all of mankind], to unite in a
universal [whole], and to discover freedom in common, free subjection to
a supreme political authority." ibid. The traditional parent-child
relationship thus produces the individualization of the child, i.e.
"a greater inner negativity and therefore a higher individuality"
(George Hegel, System of
Ethical Life),
as a result of the child's awareness (self-consciousness) of and
response to "different," (his feelings are in conflict with
parental commands), i.e. "liberating itself from difference" via.
"intellect" and "education," i.e.
with the help of enlightened facilitators of 'change.' "Intuition" or
the "universal" resides within the child and can only be
liberated through the "corporeal sign" or "tool" of the
"spoken word" (through dialogue), from the "possession is property" and thus a
"legal right" of the parent. If, according to Hegel,
"possession" or "property" are a "universal right,"
then the child's (the individual's) "needs" (sensual
needs) must incorporate "enjoyment" whenever "labor" is
involved in satiating the "need." It is "surplus money" (Hegel
sounds like Marx here or rather Marx sounds like Hegel) which keeps the
top-down system of the traditional family in tact, in defiance to
nature itself, keeping "need" and the satiation of it ("enjoyment")
divided through the use of un-enjoyable "labor," man
subjected to a hierarchical system engendering restraint upon the
natural impulses (sensuousness) of the "lower" class. "On account of the
absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child
[correlating with his concept of all branches of government working in
partnership as one],
where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to
object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their
indifference is not a formal or a legal one. So too all contracts
regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these
things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality.
Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all,
inherently and explicitly." ibid. It is only when
the next generation is liberated from the restraints of the 'past,' i.e.
given freedom to relate with the present (via. "education"), that
society can take on the image of man.
All things, according to Hegel, are of, by, and for the
universal (which is by nature found within the child). "The child,
contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the
relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which
produces itself once again as such." ibid. As the
universal (society) is 'discovered' by the particular, i.e. by the
child, via. his "intellect," via. the "spoken word"
(dialogue), via. "education," being inherent in the particular,
in the child, the particular's thoughts and actions, i.e. the child's
thoughts and actions can become at-one-with the universal (synthesis)
and be freed from the unnatural (the thesis) restraining the
natural (engendering an antithesis condition) , i.e. 'liberated'
from the effects of the system of Righteousness, i.e.
'liberated' from the father ruling, the mother submitting the desires of
her heart to her husband, and the children obeying their parents, in the
Lord. It is thus "intellect," freed of the restraints of
the unnatural, which becomes the pathway to the totality of the
universal, for it is only by "intellect" that the universal
outside the person can be 'discovered' within the person, that the
person can 'discover' that he is "truly infinite." It is
thus, only by dialectical reasoning, that man can "see the spirit of
his spirit in and through the ethical order," i.e. in and through
the universal, i.e. in and through the "new" world order. ibid.
If, according to Hegel, government is universal (social,
sensual), i.e. of nature, and not just of a particular (of the
individual above the natural, of righteousness), i.e. of God or
of the parent, sovereignty of the particular (sovereignty of the
individual, the family, the state, or the nation, being the result of
having being raised up in an environment inculcating loyalty to a
particular, i.e. God or parent) must be negated. He closes
with this statement: "In democracy absolute religion does exist, but
unstably, or rather it is a religion of nature; ethical life is bound up
with nature, and the link with objective nature makes democracy easy of
access for the intellect." ibid. Therefore, only when
the individual, i.e. the "particular" becomes "conscious" that
his true identity is found in the universal, in nature, in the social,
and not in the particular, i.e. in the parent or the family or the state
or the nation or God alone, can he, along with his "class," i.e. those,
who with him, become "conscious" of the same condition, rise up against
and overthrow the top-down patriarchal order, i.e. negate within
themselves and annihilate in society (through finding
consensus and putting it into society action) the system of
Righteousness, i.e. negate-annihilate that which is not of
nature―so that man can become man
alone, i.e. be innovator, i.e. creator
alone, i.e. be "Ubermensch" (Nietzsche). It is only
when the child finds himself in a class of common age and interests,
freed from parental authority, that he can become conscious of himself
as being at-one-with the universal, i.e. find his identity in nature, no
longer being subject to a particular not at-one-with the universal, i.e.
subject to the traditional family―why the
one room school (or home school), subject to the top-down system of the
traditional home, had to be transformed into the community, i.e. public
school of age-interest appropriateness (producing a "new" society
engendered through 'discovering' common-ism). The classroom
environment alone 'changed' the paradigm of the child and thus 'changed'
the paradigm of the home, the home now having to deal with the conflict
and tension produced by the "educated," "class conscious,"
enlightened, "intellectually" liberated child.
The Patriarchal paradigm of the
system of Righteousness is thus dialectically identified as a system
which is antithetical to human nature, i.e. dialectically
identified as a system of "repression" and "alienation"
toward the
Matriarchal paradigm of the system of
sensuousness and thus is a system which can not be permitted to
exist in the mind of the individual and the actions of society if human
nature is to become fully actualized
(the Matriarchal paradigm of the system of sensuousness be
identified as "changingness,"
i.e. "sense perception," i.e. doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness,
i.e. the system of ambivalence and ambiguity, i.e. "general," i.e. of the
senses, i.e. the
natural environment stimulating the
body and the mind to respond to it, i.e. the "wanting" of, "lusting"
after, that which is in the
environment that is "gratifying" according to the natural body, i.e.
to actualize 'oneness' with nature i.e. discovering and manifesting 'wholistic'
relationship, i.e. unity, with nature, i.e. becoming at-one-with "only that
which is of Nature," negating,
i.e. washing from the brain the
fear of judgment, i.e. rejection and punishment from parent and God, and, with God, eternal death,
being no longer relevant to one's thoughts and actions―purifying
"society" of the men whose minds and actions are directed by the
system of Righteousness, so that good and evil is no
longer determined by that which is greater than the human 'moment,'
greater than the human "sense experience," i.e. good and evil is
no longer super-natural, but is now 'guided' by the "sensuous needs,"
"sense perceptions," and "sense experiences," which are
common to all of mankind, i.e. being only of human nature, i.e. of the here-and-now,
"proceeding only from Nature," Karl Marx,
waiting to be 'discovered' through the use of the dialectical process of
'change').
The 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the
Heresiarchal paradigm of the system of 'reasoning,' aka the process of
'changingness,' i.e. the dialectical process, is the negation
of the Patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the negation of the system of
Righteousness.
There is no other 'driving' force. There is no other
intended 'purpose.'
Dialectically, people are perceived as needing to be re-educated,
i.e. 'changed'
(brainwashed, i.e. their brain washed of the system
of Righteousness, of 'unchangingness,' of "fixity," thereby negating its residue, the
"guilty conscience"), aka "Education Nation" where people
are re-educated in "class consciousness," i.e. democratic ethics
(where the parent's children are perceived as and therefore
treated as society's children, i.e. the
socialists' children, i.e. the world's children, i.e. worldly children,
i.e. nature's children, i.e. the naturalists', environmentalists' children,
etc.), if
they are to be made aware of the source of their "dissatisfactions"
in life, if they are to become united in negating and
annihilating the source of "repression" (in the individual) and
"alienation" (in society), i.e. creating a "new" world order where all
men are dialectically (sensually-'rationally') united, dialectically 'discovering' their common ground,
their common
'purpose,' and their common identity with humanity and are thus "becoming a person" in the social praxis (action) of
negating (in the individual) and annihilating (in society)
the "divisive" spirit vs. flesh, above-below, top-down,
Patriarchal system of Righteousness.
In dialectical thought, there are no 'good' benevolent kings,
leaders, or parents. Their very 'dogmatism' and position of
unquestioned authority makes them 'evil,' even if they do 'good' for the
people. Their beliefs must be turned into opinions (thus
negating their position of authority in the mind and actions of
those under their authority) if 'good' is to become a reality.
Their benevolence must become 'intellectually satisfying', freed from
"fundamentalism" (in harmony with human nature, humanistic, aka
"Christian humanism"), if it is to be of any value or worth. Otherwise
their benevolence continues to initiate and sustain the system of
"repression" and "alienation," i.e. the Patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the
system of Righteousness. (As will be explained
later, the system of Righteousness is not righteousness
itself, that is only of God. In the hands of man, who is subject,
i.e. influenced, by the system of sensuousness, it only
allows righteousness a position of respect in the mind of the individual
and a place in the actions of society, aka a civil society, aka limited
government as the king, the legislators, executives, judges, and the
people are all subject to laws greater than human nature, restraining
man's vanity and tendencies toward despotism―see
Patrick Henry's and
George Washington's comments on the heart of man and despotism
compared to
George Lukacs' and
Lenin's "peace" program).
Hegel's formula, the Heresiarchal paradigm of the
system of 'reasoning,'
i.e. seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e. building on Kant's Critique of Pure
Reason (as old as
Genesis 3:1-6, in regards to "human" thought and action), is
"perceived" as being the only 'rational' means available to man to resolve the
individual and social problems of "repression" and "alienation"
(the 'oppressed-oppressor' syndrome, i.e. the "tower of Babel" syndrome,
i.e. the "It's not my fault." "It's her fault." "Its the smiling
lizard's fault." "It's your fault." "It's the parent's fault." "It's
society's fault." "It's the environment's fault." syndrome, first
"sense experienced" by man in the garden in Eden),
dialectically "perceived" as emanating from the Patriarchal paradigm of
the system of Righteousness. Facilitators of
'change' (following after their 'master facilitator,' who revealed
himself and his "art craft" in the garden in Eden) are men and women who use "Hegel's" formula to initiate and
sustain influence and control over people, "helping" them, i.e. using
them like drug pushers (pushing the drug of sensuousness, i.e.
pleasure and sense based 'reasoning,' where the environment is 'rationally' set free from,
'liberated' from, the restraints of righteousness and faith) so that they
(the facilitators of 'change') can initiate and
sustain their own pleasures of unrighteousness (with the physical,
mental, and social support of the deceived "masses" following after,
i.e. worshiping and supporting them and their way of thinking).
It is this formula (Hegel's 'A plus negative A equals A'),
which those of the "new" world order, i.e. the "new" order of the world,
where 'reasoning'
is used to
liberate (emancipate)
sensuousness from righteousness, thus liberating
itself ('reasoning') from righteousness, at which point 'reasoning'
becomes 'righteousness'
itself. When sensuousness 'rationally'
becomes the bases for determining what is relevant and what is not
relevant, righteousness 'rationally' becomes irrelevant.
When only that which is 'rational,' i.e. sensual, is "sense
perceived" as being 'real,' i.e. sensual and only that which
is 'real,' i.e. sensual, is "sense perceived" as
being 'rational,' i.e. sensual, both 'reality' and 'rationality'
become united (synthesized) as one in sensuality, making
righteousness (in the dialectically oriented mind) both irrational
and unreal and therefore irrelevant (this is why you get that
"deer in the headlight look" from those who you are trying to warn
regarding their participation within the process)―the beast emerges, i.e. the
seducer, deceiver, manipulator, controller, and oppressor of the world through
humanistic 'reasoning,' emerges from the sea, i.e. from the
masses, from the "We the
people" (as Patrick Henry warned us about), from the "We working for us," riding upon the liberated whore, i.e.
the sensuousness
and spontaneity of emancipated carnal human desires, i.e.
the sensuousness and spontaneity of children, in adult
bodies, "freed" from the restraints of righteousness―
is used to negate
the "old" paradigm, i.e. the "old" order of the world where sensuousness
is made subject to the system of Righteousness, i.e. where reasoning proceeds from,
i.e. is in agreement with
He who is Righteous, i.e. He who is right in and of Himself
is overthrown (killed and eaten) by the Heresiarch, i.e.
the children of 'reasoning' in their praxis of liberating the Matriarch (and thus having total
control of life, a life unrestrained by righteousness, therefore
having unrestrained
access to sensuousness), i.e. the mother, i.e. the sensuousness of
"mother
earth," by negating and annihilating the authority of the
Patriarch, i.e. the father figure and his position of righteousness
(his authority to set the standards of what is right and what is not
right, i.e. to rule) over the Matriarch and the Heresiarch, i.e. judging
"the children of unrighteousness" as wicked (who when they rule,
are 'driven' with the 'purpose' of negating the father
as being the head
of the home, i.e. negating him ruling over them and the family, i.e.
negating him ruling not only over his wife, i.e. the mother of
his children, his own children, his own business, and his own land but
also over himself, all according to the will of God, according to His
righteousness).
In dialectical
thinking, when
reasoning proceeds from Righteousness (when right and
not right proceed from God or the father, i.e. proceeding from the Patriarchal Paradigm) it divides humanity
but when 'reasoning,' the "scientific," dialectic, self-social-environment
justifying process, proceeds from sensuousness (from the child's
nature or from the society of human "impulses, urges, and
'drives,'" i.e. from human nature itself only) it has
the potential for uniting humanity (it is the common ground from which
global unity
can be, "scientifically 'discovered'" and "rationally 'justified,'"
being then initiated and sustained for the sake of social unity, i.e.
mankind united upon sensuousness and 'reasoning'). Therefore the latter (plurality,
diversity in unity, the pain-pleasure
continuum of sensuousness, theory and practice synthesized,
i.e. "changingness") must negate the former (duality,
good-evil, right-wrong, i.e. the right-not right 'disparity,' belief-action dichotomy of righteousness
vs. sensuousness, i.e. belief-feelings
antithesis, i.e. "unchangingness") if world unity and social
harmony are to become actualized. Thought (reasoning) must be changed from
seeking after righteousness (absolute, "fixity," "rigidity,"
unmoving, established truth, justification is not of nature but from He
who is the creator of, above, and greater than nature) to seeking after
sensuousness (relativism, fluidity, emotion, self-justification,
i.e. justification of one's own nature) to seeking after
'reasoning'
('changingness,' 'tolerance of ambiguity,' 'continuous improvement,'
'sustainable development, i.e. 'rationally' justifying and then initiating and sustaining perpetual
social motion, i.e. unyielding justification of the nature of mankind
over and against anything which 'unnaturally' restrains it from
'discovering' its 'potential' and 'purpose') if the "new" world order is to become
'reality.' 'Reality' must therefore be based upon sensuousness
and the 'reasoning' which liberates it, rather than upon
righteousness which inhibits or restraints it. As was the
basis for Sodom and Gomorrah so is the basis for the "new" world
order―human nature rules, freed of Godly restraint, i.e. the
sensuousness of the 'moment,' of the here-below (that which is of
the 'here-and-now,' of the present and the imagined 'future,' that which
is of human potential) overcoming that which comes from above (that
which is of the 'there-and-then,' of the 'past' and the predetermined
future, that which is of God alone).
“The value of a thought
[the life of "pleasure"] is measured by its distance from the continuity
of the familiar. It is objectively devalued as this distance is
reduced.” (Stephen Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its
Theorists)
The closer a person's thoughts are to his
parent's or God's will and their established commands, i.e. the more his thoughts are
upon righteousness (doing what is right and not doing what is
wrong in the eyes of their parents or God), the less
value (dopamine emancipation) his thoughts have (and therefore the less
worth he has) in a dialectical world (the less dopamine emancipation he
initiates and sustains for others).
The more a person is unchanging (the more he sustains a world of
"righteousness," i.e. a world of self restraint and self
control, i.e. humbling and denying himself), the less value he has in a
"rapidly changing (sensuously 'driven') world,"
i.e. the more he is "sense perceived" as being 'irrational,' 'impractical,' and
therefore 'irrelevant' in a world of sensuousness. As WW II
revealed (in Berlin near the closing of the war), children with no conscience, children who have no internal
voice of parental restraint, restraining their impulsive-sensuous
nature, are ruthless in their praxis and will do unthinkable
things with no sense of shame, i.e.
no sense of guilt―even
in adult form, i.e. the
'justification' of abortion, for example, manifests the same physical-mental-social,
dialectical conditioning where physical, mental, and social "wellbeing"
is at stake, where the physical state, i.e. the life or death condition
which the child will bring upon the mother, the mental state, i.e. the
"pain" and restraints/inconvenience the child will bring upon the people
involved, and the social state, i.e. the "over population" the child
will bring upon the world, all come together in 'rationally'
'justifying' the praxis of taking of the child's life, i.e. all
for the love of the pleasures of this life, i.e. for "the love of
money," from and for all involved, i.e. from and for the "mother," her
"'caring' friends," the abortionist, and the socialist; the
killing of the innocent and helpless is always 'justified' in a
dialectic state of becoming when it is 'rationally' perceived
as benefiting the sensuousness of the 'whole'―state that in a "NOW"
meeting and you will 'discover' the wrath, i.e. the hate against
righteousness which comes from those possessed with dialectical
thinking, i.e. from the pro-active advocates of "human rights"
over and against inalienable rights, i.e. sensuousness
over and against righteousness, all in the name of
"equality," "liberty," and "society."
That "old" order (or Patriarchal paradigm of 'higher
authority') is the system of
Righteousness (God above man, parent above children, boss above worker,
teacher above student, etc.). The "new" order
(or Heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness') is the system of
'reasoning' emerging from sensuousness (commonality and equality
'rationally' engendered), i.e.
sensuousness 'rationally' (inductively) being liberated (enticed) from
righteousness, i.e. 'reasoning' liberating sensuousness
from the restraints of righteousness, (sensuousness
'liberated' from the restraints of righteousness, through 'reasoning,' i.e.
making decisions with
sensuous 'reasoning,' experiential 'reasoning,' only,
i.e. man and God becoming as one, as children and adult, i.e. society,
becomes as one in the praxis of sensuousness―'reasoning'
engendered upon dialogue
i.e. where 'reasonableness' ("sense perception") is required to filter righteousness from
'restraining' sensuousness―righteousness directing
thought and action through preaching, teaching, and
chastening―by 'liberating' sensuousness from the
restraints of righteousness through the praxis of
dialogue). Instead of the Heavenly Father ruling over man, as
the husband rules over the home, as the parents rule over children, i.e.
all being righteousness minded (do what you are told is right and
do not do what is not right), i.e. all being producer driven ("Do it
right or else."), i.e. working in pain if necessary to do what is
right, i.e. laboring "by the sweat of
the brow" (Genesis 3:19) to feed the family and pay the bills, the children rule
instead, i.e. all
being sensuousness minded, i.e. all being consumer driven ("What is there
in it for me."), i.e. 'laboring' in and for pleasure (for entertainment),
i.e. in and for Eros for self and others of like mindedness). Thus
'reasoning' (self-social justification) liberates itself from righteousness
(liberating man, i.e. detaching his mind from the justification, and thus judgment, which comes from above,
i.e. from that which is counter to or not in harmony with his nature,
i.e. the nature of mankind),
i.e. negating righteousness by becoming 'righteousness' itself (righteousness
is no longer above nature, restraining nature, but
'righteousness' is now of and for nature only, 'righteousness' is
now 'reasoning' being used to 'discover' and then liberate
sensuousness, i.e. nature―that which is common between the individual and society, from the restraints and
judgments which emanate from that reasoning which proceeds from
and supports
righteousness―where the child's position is the parent's
position and man's position is God's position "because the parent or God
'said so'").
One system or paradigm "represses" sensuousness
(ruling over nature, i.e. ruling from above natures 'will,' i.e. led by
the spirit, i.e. directed by that which is greater or higher than
nature, i.e. directing man by that which is not 'driven' by his nature,
i.e. not influenced, controlled, or led by the 'will' of nature itself―the
'will' of nature is sensuousness pursuing the satiation of its
'lust' for sensuousness, i.e. 'lusting' after the 'gratifying'
things which are of the world). The other system or paradigm
"liberates" sensuousness (being 'driven' by the 'will' of nature
itself, i.e. not being 'led' by the spirit of God, which is not of or
from nature, since He created, controls, and directs nature by His will). One system is the source of
"alienation," alienating man from his nature and nature itself,
restraining sensuousness.
The other system is the means to "liberating" sensuousness, liberating man and
society from the system that "represses" and "alienates" sensuousness,
liberating carnal human nature so that man can 'rationally discover' his 'oneness'
within nature (within himself and the rest of mankind) and thus actualize "oneness"
within nature, i.e. within society (united within the environment and the world,
in the 'moment,' via. the consensus process, united via Hegel's 'A plus -A equals A' formula put into praxis).
The system of Righteousness is a system of
duality (of contrast where, according to sensuousness
and the dialectical process or 'reasoning' by the use of sensuousness, good and evil are
arbitrarily laws, i.e. rigidly established, i.e. not being subject to
the "changingness" of feelings―sensuousness―and
thoughts―'reasoning,' good and
evil having been determined by authority not constrained or influenced
by the variability, plurality, or ambiguity of sensuousness).
The system of sensuousness is a system of plurality
(of similarity―the commonality of
the variability of human experience―where good and evil are
experientially adaptable to 'change,' i.e. flexible, i.e. situational,
i.e. ambiguous, i.e. subject to a spectrum of sensuousness, i.e. where good and
evil, i.e. agree-disagree, is determined along a spectrum of "approach
pleasure and avoid pain," i.e. where pleasure and no pain is the
best day, more pleasure than pain is a better day than more pain and
less pleasure, and all pain and no pleasure is the worse day or where
opinion of most agree, agree, disagree, most disagree follow along the
same direction of decision making, i.e. the
value or worth of life is based upon the spectrum of sensuousness
and opinion, i.e. 'reasoning,
and not upon righteousness where life is valued in and of itself,
whether in pain or not, i.e. since life, i.e. the soul, is eternal, not
being based upon the 'changingness' of sensuality, i.e. carnality, alone).
Dialectically, reasoning and action (speculative evaluation and behavior or
theory and practice) are "Taxonomized" along a continuum (plurality)
of sensuousness over and against the rigidity (duality) of
righteousness. Flesh (sensuousness) is not evil,
neither is it good. It is the mind ('reasoning') set upon it
more than (over and against) righteousness which is evil,
according to the
system of Righteousness. By dialectically
redefining righteousness, man can live in sin, i.e. live
according to his carnal nature, and perceive
himself as being 'righteous,' i.e. as being 'normal' in his own eyes and
in the eyes of others.
"For men
shall be lovers of their own selves ....
disobedient to parents ....
lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God:
Having a form of godliness,
but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
2 Timothy 3:2-5
"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a
reproach to any people." Proverbs 14:34
"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. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct
thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
Man can never say he was
deceived because somebody lied to him. He is deceived
because he trusted in man (trusted in himself, i.e. trusted in his
sensuousness and 'reasoning') rather than in the Lord. Those who put their trust
in man (themselves and others), guided by dialectical thought and
action, deceive themselves, taking pleasure in deceiving others as well,
all for their own carnal (sensuous) gain.
Carl Rogers, Theodor Adorno, and Abraham Maslow are examples
of the dialectical system of 'reasoning,' i.e. a system of
seduction, deception, and manipulation, "using" the system
of sensuousness as the 'drive' and 'purpose' for the praxis
of negating the system of Righteousness:
“Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which
nothing is fixed.” “The more that the client perceives the therapist as
empathic, as having an unconditional regard for him, the more the client
will move away from a static, fixed way of functioning, and the more he will
move toward a fluid, changing way of functioning.” “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.” (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A
Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
emphasis added
“A natural step in the present study, therefore,
was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to
extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals
along this continuum.” (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
"History, almost
universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now
clear that they are on the same continuum, in a
hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency."
(Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
“The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is
a process [a process of 'changingness']. 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.” (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist
View of Psychotherapy)
In dialectical praxis it is righteousness
(a system of "fixity" which restrains sensuousness through the use of force, i.e. chastening,
and the threatening of a future time of judgment for one's actions and
thoughts which are not right, i.e. go counter to an "as given"
position, i.e. which challenge belief) which in turn engenders sensuousness (a
system of "flow," where dissatisfaction
with the demands of righteousness produces a condition of antithesis, i.e.
redefining the former belief of absolute right and wrong as just another
person's thesis or another person's opinion amongst opinions, i.e. in
dialectical thought changing duality into plurality to facilitate
'change,' i.e. to make 'change' easier)
which in turn engenders 'reasoning' (self- actualization,
justification for one's self, i.e. one's thoughts and actions as being
right when proceeding from and in agreement with nature, i.e. of
sensuousness, i.e. of the here-and-now human 'moment,' i.e.
changeable) which in
turn engenders
the social negation of righteousness, i.e. praxis or social
action being used to annihilate the force or threat of force used to
maintain the
system of Righteousness, through the negation of
'unnatural' judgment and the fear of judgment in a future time for one's
natural actions and natural thoughts, i.e. judgment by that which is not of nature,
i.e. by that which is not in harmony with nature) and making sensuousness and
'reasoning'
'righteousness,' i.e. in the "now," having changed belief into thesis or
opinions so that differing opinions, i.e. antithesis can be synthesized,
i.e. the way a person feels, thinks, and acts, his paradigm, therefore determines
'righteousness' (determines what is the 'right' way of thinking and acting, i.e.
which is plurality―along the spectrum
or "flow" of
sensuousness, and what is the 'wrong' way of thinking and
acting, i.e. which is duality―along the
"fixity" of
righteousness). Thus "sound 'reasoning'" is bound to, i.e. engendered from,
the psycho-motor domain of man (proceeding only from human nature), i.e.
all 'righteous' human actions and thoughts are therefore 'of' human nature
as all biblical "sound doctrines" are replaced with, negated by, "
sense-experienced 'reasoning,'" human doctrines of
'changingness,' i.e. adaptability. With human
nature dialectically united (cognitively, affectively, and
physiologically, i.e. psycho-motor), 'righteousness,' i.e.
'reasoning'
(self 'justification') is no longer restrained by authority above human nature
(external to the human 'moment' of sensuousness),
restraining and blocking it, but is 'discovered' from within human
nature, within sensuousness, liberating it. This is "Hegel's"
dialectical formula (AKA "the new
world order") of abomination that is now overtaking the world for the
'purpose' of 'liberating' sensuousness from the restraints of
righteousness, in the name of "world peace and social harmony and justice."
“Spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond
the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present,
omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits.”
(G. W. F. Hegel in Carl
Fredrick, The Philosophy of Hegel)
Hegel's god is mankind, united,
as one, in mind (in thought). Marx simply took that mind, united
as one, and put it into social action (into praxis), negating
the system of Righteousness (negating
'irrationality' with 'rationality'), and replacing it with the
systems of sensuousness and
'reasoning' united, until
all become 'rational,' i.e. all become one in nature (sensuousness)
only.
God is spirit (Holy), reasoning from
(in harmony with) His
Righteousness, while man is temporal (reprobate), 'reasoning' from his
sensuousness. "Hegel's" 'righteousness' is dialectic, subject to the
sensuousness and the 'reasoning' of man, calling it 'spirit,' i.e. man's
sensuous desire for "oneness" with himself and with nature itself
'rationally' becoming as one, i.e. righteousness not
found above
human nature
but 'righteousness' found within human nature itself, i.e. the synthesis of sensuousness and
'reasoning' becoming 'righteousness' itself as man is liberated from
that righteousness which is not of his nature, i.e. that
Righteousness which is of God. Language is a product of
culture, how people communicate with one another. The Word of God
is a language of the culture (if I can define it this way) of
righteousness, speaking to the soul of man, while the language of
fallen man is the language of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' of
the heart and head of man. The language of true
righteousness, i.e. "Is" and "Not," is duality
(good and evil are eternally established, unchanging), i.e.
righteousness determining what is good and what is evil in all
situations (being formal, logical, and contradictory―either
right or wrong, while the language of so called 'righteousness' (dialectical
'righteousness,' based upon the changing situations of man's heart and
head, i.e. 'truth' subject to his "sense perception" of the
situation), i.e. "ought" and "seems to," is of plurality
(negating the duality which comes from the "not"
which is
above and thus not of the sensuousness of the human 'moment,'
i.e. restraining human nature), i.e.
sensuousness and 'reasoning' determining what is
'good' and what
is 'evil' in any given situation, i.e. in any given 'moment' (being
informal, immediate, and coherent, i.e. understandable to all mankind
because it is common to all mankind, i.e. unholy).
As stated above, language (grammar) is a product of the culture. When the language is above
nature (spiritual―unchanging) it is of (and supports) a "culture" greater than
nature. It is a "culture" of righteousness. But when language is of
"nature" (temporal, 'changing'―the truth
being that the laws of nature are unchanging themselves since they are
established once and for all by God, but it is only man's understanding
of them which is changeable in regards to his 'discovering' and use of
them, thus making him subject to the language of theory and opinions,
i.e. subject his uncertainty and ambiguity, thus making him no longer
subject, in his mind, to rigidity and judgment for his thoughts and
actions) it is of (and
supports) the "culture" of "nature" (language and thus grammar
reflecting and supporting a culture of 'changingness,' i.e. supportive
of a culture of sensuousness). When you change the language (and
grammar) of the
culture you change the culture. And when you change the culture you
change the language (and grammar) of the culture. Reasoning will then be used to
either 'justify' the 'change' in language and thus 'justify' the
'change' in culture (and 'change' in culture, thus 'change' in language)
or reasoning will remain subject to (and thus sustain) the language of
the culture and thus sustain the culture itself. Language and
culture are thus subject to each other, either sustaining the culture
and language or 'changing' them. By changing language (especially
its structure) from the preaching and teaching of belief ("is"
and "not") to the dialoguing of opinions ("feel" and "think") you
change the culture, you change its paradigm, its way of communicating―Bloom's
taxonomies are, for example, all about changing communication, changing
how teachers, students, parents, and the community communicate with one
another, for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. changing the classroom
environment from the preaching and teaching of established truth
to the 'discovering' of 'truth' through dialoguing opinions and putting
them into practice, i.e. through experimentation, i.e. through theory
and practice, through "higher order thinking skills" in morels and
ethics, thus 'liberating' the next generation from their respect toward
and support of patriarchal authority.
"Mass media, and an ever-increasing
range of personal experiences [initiated and sustained in the
'contemporary' classroom], gives an adolescent social
sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient
role of the child in the family." (James Coleman, The
Adolescent Society)
For example: by man adding or
taking away from
the Word of God,
taking that language which is of a heavenly,
God breathed, righteous culture, and 'changing' it (for the
'purpose' of making it more understandable to the human mind, so as to
'reach' more people for the "gospel") into a language of opinions, i.e.
uncertainty, subject to changingness ("I think" and "I feel"), man is able to 'change' the
church into a worldly, sensuous, speculative culture, building it
upon human opinions rather than upon Godly righteousness. Any resistance to the
'changing' of the language of the scriptures (now sensuous based
and 'rational,' i.e. in harmony with and thus sympathetic toward human nature) is
then perceived by the church as being an attack upon the church itself
(now a sensuous, 'reasonable' church, united upon the
sensuousness and 'reasoning' ability of man i.e. guided by the opinions of men,
i.e. where 'truth' is now 'discovered' through polls, surveys, and
feasibility studies). Thus
the system of 'reasoning' becomes 'good' in all situations
and the system of Righteousness becomes 'evil' (a barrier
to necessary 'change,' i.e. necessary 'change' as man perceives
it) in all
situations. Dialectically, 'righteousness' (or the 'good' life)
has no meaning (no 'purpose' or value) apart from sensuousness
being
'rationally' ordered in the praxis of annihilating the
system of Righteousness,
i.e. negating, in the individual, and annihilating, in the
culture, the system of unchangingness (the language of righteousness), by the praxis of all men
of the "community" 'willing' participating in the process of 'change,'
participating the culture of 'change' where the language of 'ought'
and 'seems to' washes from the mind (of the individual) and the
environment (of the culture) the restraints of the language of
righteousness, the language of the "past," the "negative" language of "not" which
is greater than nature, where righteousness restrains sensuousness,
i.e. inhibiting and blocking man from dialectically ('rationally'
and sensually) 'discovering' his 'true' identity, opportunity,
and potential of life, i.e. 'discovering' the meaning of life and actualizing
his 'purpose' in it.
It is not that sensuousness (the "ought," i.e. the
sensuous desire for 'change,' i.e. the sensuous desire for
liberation from righteousness) does not need to be restrained in
both systems (the system of Righteousness preventing
change' via. preaching, teaching, and chastening' and the
system of 'reasoning' initiating and sustaining 'change' via.
"openness" and dialogue), it
does. It is which system is being used to restrain sensuousness so that it
can accomplish its determined outcome, i.e. change to righteousness
(repentance) or 'change' to sensuous 'reasoning'
(self-social-environmental 'justification'). In
dialectical 'reasoning,' righteousness (that which does not proceed
from nature) is unnatural, thus causing "neurosis" because
sensuousness and 'reasoning' are forced to capitulate to
righteousness's unnatural demands and commands, while sensuousness and 'reasoning'
(that which proceeds from nature) are "sense perceived"
as being natural, and therefore 'righteous' in man's own eyes. When a person can
'rationally' 'justify'
sensuousness ("Man is 'good' when he is 'good' to others and he
deserve a life of pleasure. He deserve heaven.") over and against righteousness
("Man is wicked no matter what 'good' he does for others and he deserve
death. He deserve hell.") he can do
whatever "seems to" be 'right' in his own eyes (over and against
righteousness) without it bothering his conscience, his conscience
having now been seared, having instead been 'replaced' with (what
psychology calls, i.e. Freud called) a
"super-ego," i.e. the 'voice' of his human nature and the "village"
united,
i.e. "all proceeding from nature only." (Karl
Marx) Because the 'ground' of
common-ism (composed of the common-ism of human nature―sensuousness)
does not perceive man as being a "slave" to a higher authority, subject
to (to be directed by) its every command from cradle to grave, but rather that man is equal
to higher authority (he is higher authority) being "repressed" by an
unnatural authority and its unnatural commands, it is his 'rational,'
i.e. natural 'duty' to negate the effects of higher authority
upon his own feelings, thoughts, and actions and 'unite' with all of
mankind (society) in the praxis of "ruthlessly"
(Karl Marx) annihilating
the patriarchal environment (and the people who propagate such an environment) which
initiates and sustains a higher authority and its system of
righteousness, i.e. annihilating any environment which is greater than the common system of
sensuousness, annihilating any environment which prevents
"equality of opportunity," so that man can 'discover' and act upon
that which he has in common with all of mankind. Environment
control or climate control is what education is all about these days (Bloom's
Taxonomies), with the dialectical process being the name of the game
in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in the church, in the
neighborhood, and in the home ("Education Nation," i.e. "life long
learning" in the dialectical process until all have participated, i.e.
we will leave no one behind and all must participate, i.e.
"participatory democracy," common-unitarianism, democratization, conscietization,
perestroika, etc.).
"Democratization has encouraged people to
participate, 'glasnost’ has allowed them to
articulate their feelings, and pluralism has
legitimated the rights of groups to form on the
basis of a consciousness of self-interest."
(David Lane, Soviet Society under Perestroika )
Righteousness can not work "in harmony with"
sensuousness nor
can it be "added to" by (leavened with) sensuousness, i.e. be made subject to the "will" of
sensuousness. Sensuousness must always be subject to
righteousness for righteousness to remain righteousness.
Adding 'unity' (based upon sensuousness) to all human
praxis 'justifies' the praxis of negating and
annihilating the system of Righteousness, i.e.
faith, belief, obedience, and chasten (in, to, and from a
higher authority), in a person's life and in his 'community' ("in
theory and in practice," i.e. "theoretically and
practically" Karl Marx). For example: by "simply" adding
the system of sensuousness to the church, to help "grow"
the church in 'unity,' makes it an apostate church, makes it a church
dedicated to ('driven' in) the praxis of negating and
annihilating the system of Righteousness for the
'purpose' of initiating and sustaining community, i.e. common-unity
which can only be 'rationally' built upon sensuousness.
Systems used have consequences. "Nations" of
dialectical 'righteousness,' i.e. of 'changingness,' kill their own citizens (purifying, i.e.
purging, the environment of the top-down system of
righteousness, i.e. negating "ingroup-outgroup,"
i.e. righteousness-unrighteousness, i.e. saved-lost thinking,
having negated, in the mind, i.e. in the "sense perception"
of the individual citizen, and annihilated,
in the mind of 'society,' i.e. in the 'collective mind' of the citizen,
i.e. in man's "sense perception" of himself in "societies eyes,"
i.e. in "the
ether of the brain," as Karl Marx defined it, the necessity for the sovereignty of the
individual, home,
the state, and the nation under God, i.e. its 'citizens' now 'driven' with the 'purpose' of initiating and
sustaining "human rights," i.e. common-unity rights, "social-ist rights," i.e.
global-ist - environmental-ist rights, i.e. common-ist rights,
negating 'inalienable rights' through the praxis of
'human-ist rights') while nations of the system of
Righteousness 'serve and protect'
(at least with a semblance) their individual citizens from all enemies "foreign and domestic"
(serving, protecting, and defending their citizen from those who might
seek to negate and annihilate their top-down system
of righteousness, i.e. take away
their "inalienable rights," i.e. usurp their individual rights, i.e.
attack the patriarch family's rights, under God). While dialectical
'righteousness' is at first perceived as offering liberty and prosperity
it always ends up in tyranny, i.e. the tyranny of the masses, i.e. the
killing of its own citizens for 'righteousness' sake, i.e. for society
sake. Vanity, greed, and envy have always been the catalyst for 'change.'
"There is a way
that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
Proverbs 16:25
"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 ['driven' by their own sensuousness].
Therefore let no man glory in
men." 1 Corinthians 3:18-21 bracketed information added.
Thus, for Hegel, without the reasoning
(thesis) which proceeds from or is in harmony with the system
of Righteousness (whether coming from the
parent, the boss, or especially from God―"repressing" the system of sensuousness, "repressing" the child's, the worker's, man's, i.e. societies
"sense-perceived sensuous needs"―engendering the condition of antithesis)
the true sensuousness of man, human nature (man's true nature seeking "oneness,"
synthesis with nature)
could not become manifest, he could not become dissatisfied with and thus
become rebellious
towards righteousness, and 'reasoning' (dialectical 'reality,'
the "divine spark") could not become known (Gnosticism) and 'liberated'
from the control of thesis, i.e. the parents, the boss, or God and "restored" to man,
restored to sensuousness. Without
dialectical revolution negating righteousness, synthesis
being put into social action, man could not be 'liberating' from the
control of thesis, he can not experience incarnation, oneness,
wholism, etc. with nature, he could not know himself as he is.
Without 'liberating' man's
sensuousness and 'reasoning' from the "repression" and
"alienation" of the system of Righteousness, the "human
spirit" (the "divine spark") could not be 'liberated' and all of nature
become united as one. This is "Hegel's" diabolical system of
thought.
In "Hegel's" 'A plus -A
equals A' formula, sin (which is man's sensuousness and 'reasoning' in disobedience
to Righteousness) becomes sensuousness and 'reasoning' in
obedience to the system of Righteousness. Sin is thus man 'repressing'
and 'alienating' himself from himself and from nature itself by his
practice of faith in, belief in, and obedience toward that which is not
of nature, his acceptance of chastening for, judgment upon, and
condemnation of unrighteousness, i.e. human nature, as being right)
Only through the synthesis of sensuousness and 'reasoning'
can righteousness be negated. Synthesis negates that system which divides sensuousness and 'reasoning,'
that system being Righteousness. The psycho-motor
domain could not be 'liberated' without the uniting of the cognitive and
affective domains in dialectical thought and action.
Freeing man from the
restraints of righteousness by uniting his feelings and thought
in social action makes him whole again.
By
making 'righteousness' only that which is of nature, by creating an
environment where sensuousness can be at-one-with 'reasoning' and
'reasoning' can be at-one-with sensuousness,
all things in nature, dialectically, become one, thus overcoming duality
(right and wrong) with plurality (relevant and irrelevant. Situational ethics,
"sense experience" dialectically become a third way, where the cognitive domain
(knowing-consciousness) is dialectically ("scientifically") synthesized
to the affective domain (feeling-self consciousness), liberating the
psycho-motor domain ('reasoning') from the antithesis
(the duality of right and wrong, the "neurosis of civilization" - where a person is caught between his belief and
his natural behavior with his conscience ruling over his natural inclinations).
By dialectically turning Righteousness into 'righteousness,'
man can find his salvation in being at-one-with his nature and with nature itself.
By dialectically negating the
"lust of the flesh," the "lust of the eyes," and
the "pride of this life," i.e. human nature in control of itself
for itself) as being sin, man can 'rationally' 'justifying' his life of sin
as no
longer man being sin but that man is dialectically becoming natural,
man is proceeding from and 'rationally' becoming at-one-with sensuous nature. Avatar.
We now live in a world of "Hegel's" formula. A world
intoxicated in the praxis of 'reasoning' "actualizing" itself,
i.e. "knowing" itself, i.e. becoming itself in the act (praxis) of
"liberating" sensuousness and 'reasoning' from that righteousness
which is not of, by, and for man, i.e. not of nature. Hegel's 'A plus -A equals A' formula,
when put into praxis, negates the system of
Righteousness and righteousness itself (in the thoughts and actions
of men) by making sensuousness and 'reasoning' (synthesized by the dialectical process),
'righteousness' instead―when put into social praxis
(common social action). Common-ism, that 'righteousness' which is common to
human nature (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life,
i.e. that which is of the world and not of the Father, i.e. making all men
lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, i.e. 'rationally' justifying the "approach
pleasure - avoid pain" spectrum of the flesh of man,
i.e. knowing "good and evil" by the sensuousness of man,
making sensuousness more important in determining good and evil than the "righteousness-wickedness" duality of the spirit/Holiness of God,
who is good, judging the
flesh/depravity of man as evil, negating the knowing of "good and evil"
via. the
righteousness of God by the praxis of the "knowing," i.e.
"Gnosis," of "good and evil" via. the sensuousness of man), thus
man in, of, and for himself, becomes the way, the truth, and life. And that
righteousness, which can only be imputed to "whosoever
believeth" upon Christ, i.e. imputed by the Lord upon those
who have faith in him, that righteousness which can only be
imputed by God
himself (His Holiness and righteousness thus dividing, i.e. alienating, man from his
carnal nature and the way of the world), is
dialectically negated (determining righteousness as being 'irrational' and
therefore 'irrelevant' in a sense based world―read
Karl Marx in Part 1). Thus man, having eyes (sensuous eyes) can
not see ("sense perceive") the righteousness of the Lord, and having ears
(sensuous ears)
can not hear ("sense perceive") the righteousness of the
Lord, his 'reasoning' having 'justified'
his own sensuousness, his own
nature, his own perception, and his own ability to control his own
life (his ability to initiate and sustain 'change' to augment
pleasure) as being 'righteousness' instead
(proceeding from nature only,
affirming man
as being as god, i.e. self-determining what is good and what is evil
based upon his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities). In this way, the "lust's"
of man's heart becomes a norm to be attained, as the "pride of life"
becomes man's dialectical ("scientific") ability to 'rationally' control
his life and the lives of others, i.e. control the environment which he lives
within, for the 'purpose' of
augmenting a life of pleasure (augmenting a life of pleasure for himself
as he deceitfully gives the impression to others that he is doing it for
them, thus 'justifying' his praxis of unrighteousness as being
'good' in the eyes of man as it is 'good' in his own eyes, their approval
giving him approval, thus 'justifying' his dialectical praxis of
deceitfulness).
While the 'religious' (those who sensuously 'serve' the Lord, while not
knowing Him, i.e. not knowing His righteousness that is, i.e. Him not knowing them) may scoff at this formula as
some intellectual nothingness, i.e. as some mumbo-jumbo, it is Satan's
device, as was used in Genesis 3:1-6, which is still being used today to
seduce, deceive, and manipulate men in the ways of unrighteousness. Being ignorant of
(or deceitfully using) Satan's devices, the 'religious'
build their 'righteousness' upon the very system they scoff at (for
obvious reasons diverting attention away from its use when it is exposed
as being the way of unrighteousness, i.e. as being evil, i.e. "How
can it be evil if it is being used for 'God's work,' and is manifesting
such 'good' and 'positive' results."). In
their 'self willed' ignorance they apply it to their own lives, and the
lives of others who follow after them, for the 'purpose' of initiating
and sustaining sensuous social 'unity' through the augmentation
of the system of sensuousness, i.e. through the
augmentation of pleasure for all men, in their 'religious institutions.'
You can not market righteousness. You can only market sensuousness.
There is no money (customers) to be 'made' in promoting a gospel of
suffering in this life (unless you deceitfully use it for personal
gain via empathy―sensuousness). A gospel of denying yourself, picking up your cross, and following Jesus
(enduring to the end), to know His Father as He knows His Father, is not
a 'gospel' built upon the sensuousness of carnal man and human
'reasoning.
People will not be knocking down your door for more righteousness,
especially when they can 'rationally justify' their sensuousness'
with another 'gospel.' But there is much
money to be made in propagandizing (justifying and liberating) the
pleasures of this life, presenting it as the 'gospel.' People will be knocking down your door for
more of your 'gospel of pleasure,' your 'gospel' of 'change,' your
'gospel' of self-social justification. A little leaven goes a long
ways.
By making the "spirit of unity" sensuousness
based, instead of righteousness based (righteousness makes
it an either-or, intolerance of ambiguity, simplicity, as in
simplicity of the gospel issue, while sensuousness makes it a
more-or-less, tolerance of ambiguity, complexity, as in complexity of the process of
seduction, deception and manipulation issue), sensuousness
becomes the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of/for the
'gospel,' circumventing the gospel of righteousness―personally dying daily to self,
denying self, loving the Lord more than this life,
loving righteousness more than sensuousness, and living daily in Christ,
coming together in Him, in His name, in His righteousness, with unity
between men not being the 'purpose' but rather an outcome of His righteousness, His love,
His peace, His joy, His
word, His power, and His glory, each believer doing the will of His
Heavenly Father by
the power of the Holy Spirit, with koinania, the fellowship, the
assembly, the congregation being a byproduct,
unity in brotherly love being the result of Christ's work in the heart
of each redeemed man, His word converting their soul.
Without unity being the outcome of righteousness, "the spirit of the world" rules
over their 'religious
(sensuous based) institutions.' Not knowing the "spirit which is of God"
(the spirit of righteousness),
their 'worldly wisdom' (their dialectical wisdom, based upon the
sensuousness―'practicality'―of
man, made manifest by their leaning upon polls, surveys, and
feasibility studies―like Eve, learning upon her own understanding
disobeyed God, like Sarah, Abrahams wife, leaning to her own
understanding questioned God, like the ten spies, leaning to their own
understanding and the understanding of others, i.e. the Canaanites,
turned the nation of Israel into murmurs against God, like David,
leaning to his own understanding, numbered Israel,
establishing his strength upon the flesh of man rather than the power of
God, etc―they lean upon their own understanding to "grow" the church, to 'grow the
Kingdom of God,' 'justifying' in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their
followers, their deceitful and wicked hearts are being 'good.' In
their use of "Hegel's" diabolical 'A
plus negative A equals A' formula, used in initiating and sustaining
a 'gospel' which can only seen sensually, blinded all to
the way, the truth, and the life of righteousness, they 'justifying'
sensuousness as being a 'useful'
tool for the 'purpose' of furthering the
'gospel,' promoting their gospel of sensuousness.
Thus they control
(seducing, deceiving, and manipulating) the lives of
those who 'willingly' (foolishly) participate in their 'fellowship' of
'unity,' as thy utilize "human relationship building skills" to
"grow" the 'church.'
In regard to the fellowshipping (assembling, congregating) of the saints, unity is not
the issue. How it is attained is. The question is: "By what
spirit is unity defined, initiated, and sustained?" Is it by
"the spirit of God" (by his righteousness) or by "the spirit of the world," i.e.
Hegel's "spirit in all spirits," i.e. human
sensuousness and 'reasoning.'
Is it by God's work of
righteousness in us, directing us through His righteousness,
or by our sensuousness, 'rational,' 'practical' doing "'works'
for God," 'driven' in our sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities,"
manifested in our talents and 'spiritual' gifting (sensuousness)?" Are we
united in Christ (in His name alone, lead by His work in us alone,
directed by His Fathers will , His Word , and the Holy Spirit alone) or
are we united in our sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, 'rationally' purposed' in
our 'work' while calling it His work, initiating and
sustaining a common "sense experience" of the
sensation
of 'oneness' in praxis, where all are 'driven' by and united in
social action, in self-social work being done "in his
name"? It is a subtle difference, His work in us (based upon
His righteousness) and our work for Him (based upon our
sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities), but both have eternal consequences.
While some might falsely think
(preach and teach) that God has done nothing without man, the truth is,
God has done nothing
with man (in partnership with, in harmony with his sensuousness
and 'reasoning').
Man must be 'dead' to himself (dead to his sensuousness), and
alive in Christ (alive in his righteousness) to know the working
of God in and through his life (to know the righteousness of
Christ and have fellowship with those of like mind, i.e. all having
"the mind of Christ," 1 Corinthians 2:16).
"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
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I
will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding
of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the
disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the
Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach
Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks
foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is
wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see
your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the
world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and
things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to
bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1
Corinthians 1:18-29
I
was born into sin
(born into the world of sensuousness, with its vanity and pride, along with all men) and apart from God's work alone
(His work of righteousness) in me, done through His
only begotten Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father's will (manifesting
His love, mercy, and His grace), i.e. and not of any of my own doing (there is
no good in me), i.e. the only 'work,' if you want to call it that, being
believing upon Him, I have no hope of redemption from God's
wrath upon me for my sin of disobedience, for my love of the
sensuousness of this world, i.e. for my use of "Hegel's" Genesis
3:1-6 formula, over and against the Lord and His righteousness.
This is true for all men. Apart from
Christ, His righteousness before his Holy Father, and the work of
the Holy Spirit, all men live according to the "spirit of this world,"
(live according to their sensuousness nature and their
'reasoning'
abilities
which 'justifies' themselves―their sensuous nature―and the "spirit of this world," in their
own eyes).
Without the "preaching of the cross," i.e. "the power of God,"
no man can be saved from God's judgment
(His wrath) upon him and his sin (be saved from God's wrath "upon the children of disobedience," i.e. His
wrath upon the children of
sensuousness and 'reasoning,' i.e. His wrath upon those who
praxis the dialectical process, i.e. those who seek after self-social justification).
For "no flesh [shall] glory in his presence."
The question is, if you are saved by the righteousness
which is of Christ alone, by faith alone in Him, that is, saved
from your use of "Hegel's" dialectical formula (where your sense based
'reasoning' directs and controls your life), how then can you use the "Hegelian" process to 'serve' the Lord,
using sight, your "sense perception," using polls, surveys,
feasibility studies, synergistic methods, etc. to 'further'
His Kingdom? "Hegel's" formula
(your self-social justification) must be cast off at the cross or the cross has
no meaning, worth, or value for you―other than for some
individual-social "experiential," i.e. sensual,
"here-and-now" event, done for the 'goodness' of
self and "society," i.e. for the 'purpose' of social unity, 'driven' by
your love of sensuousness, i.e. 'driven' by the lust of your sensuous flesh
(your 'cognition') and the lust of your sensuous eyes
(your 'affection'), and 'justified' by your pride
of this life (your ability to 'control' your life, through your own
'rational' and physical skills, your 'psycho-motor' skills, i.e.
'changing' the environment around you for the 'purpose' of augmenting
the pleasures of sensuousness―you can say you're doing it
for others all you want, i.e. for the "We," the "Use," and "Others," i.e.
doing it out of your "caring" for and loving of others, but you are still doing it for yourself, i.e.
for your own vanity, i.e. for sensuousness sake).
Forward,
Part 1,
Part 2
© Institution for Authority Research,
Dean Gotcher 2011