"A plus negative A equals A"
(A + -A = A)
("Hegel's" dialectical diabolical formula)
Forward and Introduction


Dean Gotcher


Note: all bracketed information inserted within quotations is added by me and is not from the original source.  I am throwing you in, so struggle through (some of this, or maybe most of this article, may be hard to grasp at first reading but will become understandable if you press on through―think it through).  This article is like a college course in itself, at least how they used to be taught: revealing, demanding, and life changing in doing what is right (good) and not doing what is wrong (evil).  Part 1 and Part 2, how the formula (A plus -A equals A) is used to produce 'change,' will be more understandable as you read through this forward and the following introduction.  This article explains the 'reasoning' behind the formula for the "new" world order, i.e. the 'drive' and the 'purpose' for 'change.'

I am writing this article more as a witness to what has happened than as an effort of stopping it from happening.  It seems the more I hone in on the root cause and effect of the dialectical process (sensuousness and 'reasoning' superseding righteousness, 'reasoning' freed from the restrains of righteousness, that is to say reasoning freed from deductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning freed from facts and truth preached and taught "as is," "as given," i.e. reasoning freed from revelation truth―facts and truth are no longer ascertained through didactic reasoning, whereby a person is thus 'liberated' or freed to 'reason' by the means of sensuousness alone, freed to 'reason' by means of inductive reasoning, whereby he can 'reason' from his own feelings and thoughts, i.e. reason from his own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e. his own "sense experience," freed to 'reason' "from his own nature only"―'facts' and 'truth' are now 'discovered' through dialectic 'reasoning'), and its effect upon this country, fewer people want to hear what I have to say, come to me for answers, or want me around.  People want to get rid of the "bad side" of the dialectic formula (totalitarianism) without dealing with the formula itself because of what they get from its "good side" (sensuousness freed from the restraints of righteousness).  In other words, they might lose what they gain from their use of the formula, i.e. the sensuous (carnal) pleasures of this life.  If you understand what I am saying and take it to heart and live accordingly it will increasingly cost you as well (in 'friends').  What even the church is preaching today is a "financially successful" ("enjoyable") Christianity, i.e. "If it is going to cost me in money and friends (cost me in the pleasures, i.e. cost me in the "enjoyment" of this life, especially the "approval of men"), I'm not interested."  What they are saying in their thoughts and their actions is:  "Without 'the approval of man' we can not be 'successful' in doing God's work."

"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men [living according to his own sensuousness, i.e. lusting after the things of the world], but to the will of God [living according to God's imputed righteousness, i.e. lead by His spirit―Galatians 5:13-26].  For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead."  1 Peter 4:1-5  bracketed information added  While this verse applies to the worldly it unfortunately now also applies to the 'church,' i.e. the 'contemporary church,' i.e. the sensuous 'church,' the apostate 'church,' i.e. the dialectic 'church,' i.e. the 'church' which does not want to appear 'religious' or offend the 'natural' man,' i.e. the church which is 'driven' by the sensuousness of man for the 'purpose' of winning souls for their "Kingdom of God," i.e. a Kingdom which is built upon the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. "marketing skills" of man (supposedly along with the righteousness of God―an impossibility since the righteousness of the Lord, i.e. a gospel of "suffering" in the flesh where God rules over the persons thoughts and actions, the person having humbled his will―of the flesh―to God's will―of the spirit―can not be in harmony with a "gospel" of "sensuousness," a gospel of "pleasures" of the flesh whereby man, or rather the environment which stimulates pleasure, is in control over his thoughts and actions―engendering "the pride of life," i.e. a "gospel" glorifying the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities of lustful men who are in control, i.e. think they are in control of their own lives.)

All men must die to themselves as well as die to the approval of their fellow man―die to "the lusts of men"―and follow after the Lord, giving him total authority over their lives, to be a witness of the true gospel, "living the rest of his time in the flesh ... to the will of God," i.e. living "in the world but not of it," i.e. living in the world of sensuousness below but thinking and acting according to that righteousness which can only come from God aboveJames 4:1-10.  The dialectical question is:  "How do you 'market' a gospel of pain, i.e. 'suffering.'" The dialectical answer is: "You transform it into a gospel of  pleasure, i.e. 'enjoyment' in this life, and 'market' it.  Define it as a gospel of sensuousness, built upon the pain-pleasure spectrum of the man, i.e. of man's needs, works, and solutions (concerned is about pleasing man, i.e. man has input in his salvation) and you can "grow" the church with "marketing skills" all day long.  But if you identify it (according to the word of God) as a gospel of righteousness, built upon the redemptive work of God alone, (concern is about pleasing God, i.e. only the Lord can impute salvation to man) with the redeemed "suffering in the flesh" and only "the Lord add[ing] to the church daily"―"such as should be saved"―then "marketing" it is out of the question.  "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2: 47

The "pride of life" is the self-esteemed man (group esteemed man, i.e. of "man's approval") deceived into believing that he is in control of his own life, i.e. controlling the environment (or being at one with it) for the 'purpose' of augmenting pleasure, when in truth it is the environment (the "approval of men") which is in control of him.  Since it, i.e. the environment of approving men, consists of that which is gratifying to him (dopamine emancipation, i.e. the chemical our body naturally produces which stimulates a craving, a wanting for the object which stimulated its emancipation within our body) it, i.e. the environment of approving men, is in reality 'driving' him into action to initiate and/or sustain its stimulation of pleasure in him.  As I stated in an early article on the subject of dopamine (A Spiraling Process of "Changingness"), "The person is not in love with the object which stimulates Dopamine emancipation, he is in love with the emancipated Dopamine which the object stimulates.  He just wants to control the gratifying object (the environment) for more Dopamine emancipation."  Making it (the object in the environment) subject to his will makes him subject (servant) to its gratifying power (dopamine emancipation). Manipulating it for the augmentation of his own sensuous pleasures makes him seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by those who control it, i.e. manipulate it and therefore him, for their own sensuous pleasures, making all participants servants to the "lusts of men."  "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."  Luke 16:13

Whatever it is that is gratifying to a person, that the state or any institution which is under the influence and control of sensuousness, including the 'church,' has the potential of taking from him, has control of him because sensuousness (the things of this world, i.e. the world) has control of him.  One of the most powerful controls over a person is the desire for "the approval of men."  "The approval of man" is the means whereby they are able to attain or retain the other gratifying things of the world (engendering the "pride of life"). Thus when a man is "liberated" from the restraints of God, i.e. when sensuousness is liberated from the restraints of righteousness, a man is under the control of the world.  But when a man is dead to himself and alive in Christ (humbling himself before the Lord and casting all his cares upon Him), i.e. when righteousness thwarts the seduction, deception, and manipulation which comes through sensuousness, he is liberated from the controlling nature of the world, i.e. he is "free indeed."  "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:34-36

While freedom, for fallen man, might be perceived as being found in the 'liberation' of sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness, it is only control that he finds.  "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system [the "old system" meaning the system of Righteousness as will be explained below], nevertheless feel free.  They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do.  By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished [that which is of the system of sensuousness, i.e. of the flesh].  The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises."   (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)   True freedom is found in righteousness.  Freedom is negated in the praxis of sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of the "new" world order, i.e. the praxis of servitude to the flesh and sin.  Man can only be freed from the controlling power of sensuousness by the righteousness of God.   Freedom from the praxis of (servitude to) sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of (servitude to) sin, i.e. the praxis of (servitude to) the "new" world order can only be found in Christ Jesus, His righteousness being imputed to whosoever that believes upon him―whosever that walks by faith (lives in His righteousness) and not by sight (lives in servitude to their sensuousness).  Those of the "new" world order, blinded by their "lust" for, thus being controlled by, the things of this world, can not comprehend this truth, their minds being darkened by the "pride of life."

The 'church' which markets "the gospel" (using polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and synergistic programming, i.e. guided by the environmentally seduced, deceived, and manipulated opinions of men) so that the world can understand it and join with it and it can understand the world and join with it―both becoming or 'emerging' as one―is a sensuous 'driven' 'church' and a sensuous 'purposed' 'church,.' i.e. a purpose driven 'church' which is in, of, and for the world―'emerging' at-one-with the world in the praxis of controlling the world, i.e. being controlled by the world, for its own pleasure.  While convinced in itself (through dialectical 'reasoning') it is doing wonderful things "in the name of the Lord" it is instead a 'church' where iniquity abounds, it is a 'church' which excommunicates (with and without writ) any and all who hold it accountable to that righteousness which can only come from God above, it is a 'church' which can not comprehend living according to the "will of God" (righteousness) alone without tolerating and incorporating "the lust of men" (sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment") as well, below.  It is an apostate, adulterous, and whorish (wicked) 'church,' lusting after the things of the world "in the name of the Lord."  Any redeemed within it must "come out" from it for their souls sake.  The "approval of man" (the "group hug") is intoxicating and will drag all who embrace it into damnation.

The "separation of church and state" debate made it where today the church (of righteousness) is not in the world because the world (of sensuousness) is in the church.  While the church is to be in the world the church is not to be of the world.  Put another way, while the church is to be in the state, the state is not to be in the church.  When the church―the herald of righteousness, is no longer preaching and teaching righteousness in the state (now 'driven' with the 'purpose' of "getting along," i.e. being "respected" in the eyes of the world, i.e. making Christianity "enjoyable" to both lost and saved) then the state―the herald of sensuousness (the "approval of man") is in control of the church.  Therefore, when the state (of sensuousness) is in the church (of righteousness), both state and church become Godless with only man, i.e. "human relationship" becoming god ("godliness without God").  A person from then on, while being allowed to worship God in private (keeping God out of the state), can no longer preach and teach righteousness ("propagandize" God, i.e. promote "hate") in the state―a major platform of the "former" USSR constitution.  A 'moment' of silent pray (for the sake of social unity, i.e. "getting along" with everyone else) in a room full of 'diverse' gods, is a 'moment' of Godlessness, with man, i.e. "human relationship" becoming god.

This is what "Education Nation" is all about: education (and this nation) no longer being about righteousness, i.e. God and His creation, but rather being about sensuousness, i.e. man and his world.  "Education Nation" is of the "new" world order, with the "old" world order of "top-down" (with God above judging man below, i.e. righteousness judging sensuousness) being replaced with the "new" world order of "equality of opportunity" (with God and man becoming as one as "God" takes on the "image of man," i.e. as "God" becomes progressively more "tolerant of deviancy," i.e. more in "tune" with sensuousness, i.e. more "enjoyment" oriented) with more "equality of opportunity" for the "educated" (those "tolerant of deviancy") than for the righteous―those, i.e. the righteous that is, who for righteousness sake, can not participate in the "special opportunity" of becoming (along with the world) at-one-with "God," i.e. the "God" of man's making that is, i.e. made in his sensuous image.  In this way, "Education Nation" removes righteousness as an issue of life, making it only an option (an "unhealthy" option) of the "uneducated."  The sad thing is, the "contemporary" church is proselytizing  (prostituting) the true church with the same 'driving purpose,' that 'purpose' being, that both church and state might 'emerge' as one under the banner of "human relationship building."  Instead of building upon the foundation of the righteousness of Christ it is now building upon the foundation of the sensuous relationship of man with man.

I realize few will struggle to read all the way through this article, wading through it's 'redundancies' (for it is painfully redundant―the redundancy is like breathing though, i.e. enduring to the last breath in this life, living in the Lords righteousness no matter what comes your way, constantly being confronted by and warned of the ways of the world, while the pain comes in the awareness of how wicked your wickedness really is and the increasing awareness of how it, i.e. wickedness, pervades the world you love and live within, and how deceivable you really are when left to your wicked ways and the wicked ways of the world), but for those who endure reading through this article, it will confirm the 'madness,' rather the evilness of the days to come as being simply the 'purification' of the dialectical process, a process being put into social praxis not only in government, but also in the workplace, education, and even the church.  It is a process which was first put into practice or action (over and against righteousness) in the garden in Eden.  That first dialectical experience ended (or rather was restrained for a time) with a flood, then again restrained at a tower called Babel, the next time it will end in fire.  All men will stand (or rather kneel) before the Lord and be held accountable (except the redeemed) for their participation in its agenda which is the negation of that righteousness which can only come from God above.

Most people want me to speak on how the dialectical process is being used to 'change' education, the workplace, government, and even the church and how to respond to it (emotionally and intellectually in a way so as not to loose the "respect of men"), but they do not want me to speak on the real reason for the use of the process and the only solution to overcoming its use, righteousness.   From the response that I receive from most "conservatives," i.e. "Christians" wanting to talk about anything under the sun except righteousness (after having just heard me speak on the dialectic process and its agenda to negate righteousness in education, in the workplace, in government and even in the church) those who have used the dialectical process to produce 'change' (the negation of righteousness) seem to have been very successful.  By treating my teaching on righteousness as being 'irrelevant,' when it comes to solving social-political problems (giving it lip service at the most), they reveal that they perceive those who preach and teach righteousness as the only solution to social-political problems as being 'irrational,' which is the way people think when they have been dialectically processed ("educated")―that is wanting the "approval" of men (sensuousness) more than the approval of God (righteousness), i.e. "educated" in dialectical 'reasoning,' trying to make that which is above, God's will (which is righteousness) subject to (in servitude to) to that which is below, man's will, thus making both man and God in hegemony to sensuousness (making that righteousness, which is God alone, 'irrational' to the mind of man and thus 'irrelevant' in man's actions to 'change' world).

What they never teach you in the university is that the dialectical process has only one 'purpose,' righteousness, that is, how to negate it in the life of the individual and annihilate it in the actions (praxis) of the community. Those who praxis the dialectic process must exclude (negate-annihilate) righteousness as the only solution to personal-social problems because it is righteousness which prevents them from using the dialectic process in initiating and sustaining control over the people who are within their sphere of influence (for their own sensuous gain).  Throughout this article I provide many quotations from dialectic thinkers, Hegel, Marx, Maslow, Rogers, et cetera, which will make their agenda, i.e. the negation and annihilation of righteousness, very clear.

You can not explain, much less understand the dialectical process, without first knowing that it "moves and has its being" for only one 'purpose,' the negation of righteousness.  Why bring it up, recognize it, or exonerate it as being a solution, much less the only solution (righteousness that is), when it is the very thing you have to negate to be "normal," i.e. to be "human"?  (This is the reason inalienable rights―rights which society, i.e. socialists can not change, and 'human rights'―rights which are adaptable to 'change' as socialists perceive how societies, i.e. socialists needs are 'changing,' are anathema to one another.)  By not making righteousness the foundation for your communication, i.e. not bringing it up when it can cause personal-social disharmony, you have negated it in your mind (personal) and annihilated it in your actions (social), you have done diaprax, i.e. you have put the dialectical process ("theory and practice") into social action (praxis).   We do it ("Hegel's" A plus -A = A formula, i.e. diaprax) every time we don't share the truth (especially when the Lord is leading us to do so) because we might lose something "enjoyable" by doing so.  For example: we fear suffering the loss of relationship with others we "enjoy" being around, i.e. losing their "respect" by "damaging" their "enjoyment" of being around us because we hurt their feelings, causing contention over something they naturally (sensually) want to do or have (something they had 'rationally justified' in themselves in doing or having until we made them "feel guilty," i.e. "judged" them).  Righteousness has a way of doing this in an environment of sensuousness and human 'reasoning,'  that is, "messing up" human relationships.
    Righteousness is a matter of eternal importance to you and to God (God being eternally righteous and eternal life).   Righteousness and eternal life can only be imputed by God to you (through Christ).  It can not be "self-actualized" by you or any man (although the unrighteous man might not agree).  Righteousness can not be "experientially" known (come into being through "cosmic" consciousness), i.e. through sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' i.e. through "sense experience" (other than by hearing the word of God in faith), it can only be known through faith, belief, obedience, and chasteningrighteousness is not of the creation, of man, of human nature, it is only of the creator, of God.  If you seek to attain and maintain 'righteousness' and 'life' in the "here-and-now," by basing 'righteousness' (which correlates with having a "guiltless" or "readily adaptable to change" 'conscience,' i.e. a super-ego―a "seared conscience") upon your ability to determine 'good' and 'evil' between yourself and your fellow man and the world, you can not receive righteousness from God, righteousness based upon His eternal nature, i.e. spiritual, perfect, and holy (which he requires of you, which condemns you, creating within you a "guilty conscience").  Basing 'righteousness' upon your own sensuousness, i.e. your nature, your 'reasoning' abilities will always 'drive' you into using the dialectical process (using inductive 'reasoning') for "self-environmental 'justification.'"  Sensuousness 'justified' by human 'reasoning' is 'righteousness' without (thus establishing itself over and against) the righteousness of God.  You can only receive the Lord's righteousness by having faith in Him, through His revealed Word―using the didactic procedure (deductive reasoning), where justification can only be found in a higher authority not influenced by, controlled by, or of the "self-environmental," sensuousness based 'moment.'
    While righteousness itself can only be found in the Lord God Almighty it is replicated as a system within the world, i.e. a system of Righteousness or a paradigm―more specifically a patriarchal paradigm (a right-wrong, top-down way of thinking and acting) where the patriarchal parent, teacher, boss, etc establish what is right and what is wrong (in thought and in action) for those under their authority.  As long as you are under authority which requires of you  faith, belief, obedience, and uses chastening when necessary, or you are in a position of authority, demanding the same of those under you as is demanded of you (all under God), the system of Righteousness prevails within your life.  Interestingly humanism as well as evolution is recognized as being a religion for this very same reason, their god being man, i.e. human nature or nature itself, requiring faith (the 'facts' aren't in, what they have won't support their opinions, i.e. the formula just isn't working the way they had hoped―or maybe it is―i.e. why they have to lie, i.e. deny or distort the truth, i.e. manipulate the facts to support their desired outcome―the manipulation of people, i.e. "human resources," that is what you do with "natural resources," isn't it, i.e. manipulate them―didn't you wake up this morning saying "I just can't wait to be manipulated."), belief, obedience, and chastening (chastening you through your lose of job or promotion or recognition if you don't agree with them). 
    Evolution-humanism is all about sin, that is the negation of it (by redefining it).  God's judgment upon sin, i.e. man's disobedience to His will, is no longer an issue in the thoughts and actions of men.  But rather man's judgment is upon his own sin (sin being the alienation of man with man and nature). Man's will to 'emerge' at-one-with the universe, via. the pleasures of this world, is now the 'driving purpose' of life.  Bring righteousness into the 'discussion' and you will be "invited" out.  You will be chastened for not obeying the rules of godlessness or rather "godliness without God." 
    A good example of the system of Righteousness is Jesus requesting that John the Baptist "suffer" him to be baptized of him "to fulfil all righteousness,"  fulfilled all the conditions of the system of Righteousness: faith, belief, obedience, as well as the chastening of the flesh, the flesh being made subject to faith, belief, obedience, in the death, burial, and resurrection of baptism.  In this same way we are to take captive every thought to "the obedience of Christ"  (2 Corinthians 10:5) who could do nothing apart from His Father's will, making himself subject to all of the Father's commands.  "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 I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)  The same system, under God, i.e. under our Heavenly Father, is required of us. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 
    While all religions carry a semblance of the systems of Righteousness it can only be fulfilled in Christ (be in right order, no longer engendered and controlled by the systems of sensuousness and human 'reasoning'), with His Heavenly Father being the highest authority. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  The semblance of the system of Righteousness, the earthly family or religious group still being 'driven' by sensuousness, i.e. 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure (Hebrews 12:5-11, vs. 10), is thus divided only for one reason, for righteousness sake, i.e. accepting the Father of Christ as being their only Father (with Christ being the Fathers only begotten son), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being righteousness alone (righteousness not being of man therefore having to be imputed to man, i.e. only being attainable through faith in Christ).  Since righteousness is not of the creation, of sensuousness, of sight, of man, of his opinions, of human 'reasoning' God must divide or separate a man from earthly institutions by adopting him into His heavenly institution, i.e. transforming him from being controlled by his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. being controlled by the creation, which condemns him, into finding life in His righteousness, i.e. being directed by the Lord, which redeems him.  "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross [the cross being social rejection], and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."  "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  "  Matthew 10:34-37, 32-33 bracketed information added   In none of this does Jesus disparage the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the system of Righteousness.
    Man uses the dialectical process to 'liberate' himself from the authority of the patriarchal parent, teacher, boss, etc. (negating the system of Righteousness), replacing "thy will be done" with "my will be done" transforming into "our will be done." "What would my parents [or God] say" is replaced with "what does it mean to me [or what does what I am thinking or doing mean to "the group," "the village," the community, society, etc.]?" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  (The "Do as I say."  "Because I said so." preaching and teaching of the parents is replaced with the "I feel ...." and "I think ...." dialoguing of the children, where human approval, i.e. the approval of being 'human,' i.e. "the pride of life" now controls life, controls mans thoughts and actions―called "theory and practice.")  By 'justifying' his 'rebellious' nature, his sensuousness, as being 'righteous' ('normal' human behavior, common to all men as being 'good') in his own eyes, he 'liberates' himself not only from the authority of the patriarchal parent, teacher, and boss, but also 'liberates' himself from the authority of God (His righteousness) and negates, in his thoughts and in his actions any fear of God's judgment upon him for his sins, for his 'normal' (wicked) human behavior―behavior which is based upon sensuousness (of a yin-yang, Taoistic nature, i.e. adaptable to 'change' in 'changing' times, i.e. man subject to the whims of the situation or to the ways of man rather than to the established ways of the Lord). 
    While the system of Righteousness applies to both the secular and the sacred realms (both realms being subject to higher authority, under God), righteousness itself can only be imputed by God.  Dialectical thought and action (theory and practice) is the praxis of negating the latter (righteousness) by negating the former (the system of Righteousness).  When 'reasoning' makes sensuousness equal with (but separate from) righteousness (Kant―"Hegel would never have found his dialectical method without the transcendental dialectic delineated in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason." Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel), 'reasoning' will always sides with sensuousness therefore justifying sensuousness as being 'righteousness,' i.e. positioning sensuousness over and against righteousness (Hegel), thus 'justifying' the negation-annihilation of righteousness through sensuous-'rational' social action―praxis (Marx), i.e. consensus put into action (where 'truth' and "the approval of men" become synonymous).  This is the dialectical pathway down which our dialectic minded legislators, executors, and judiciary (and worst of all dialectically minded ministers) have taken us. 
    When 'reasoning' makes the child (of the system of sensuousness) equal with the parent (of the system of Righteousness), 'reasoning' justifies the child's "felt needs" (man above law) over and against parental authority (law above man), thus 'justifying' the negation-annihilation of parental authority over the child through social action (through common-unity, i.e. community participation, i.e. communitarianismlawlessness ruling as law).  As the Pope usurps the authority of God (circumvent the system of Righteousness under the righteousness of God, i.e. having a form of the system of Righteousness but denying the power of righteousness which is of God only) by having his priests (through 'confessionals') attain the sensuous needs of the 'religious' community (with the bishops then compiling this information attained from the region) wherewithal he is able to address the "felt" needs of the 'church' in the 'changing' times, thus being perceived as the "all knowing," i.e. being in "touch" with God and the people, guaranteeing the satisfaction of his own "felt" needs―control over the masses to sustain his own sensuous pleasures, so 'contemporary ministers' do the same through their polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and synergistic (soviet style) organizations.  The same dialectic (soviet―facilitated, diverse group, dialoguing to consensus) method (turning principles and beliefs into opinions and theories, i.e. where all "truth," even  "truth" preached and taught as revelation truth when it is not, is in actuality "truth" engendered from the dialoguing of men's opinions engendered from their sensuous desires, to initiate and sustain the process of 'change') is being used today in government to influence and control the citizens and their duly elected representatives. 
    Both the state and the 'church' today necessitate the negation-annihilation of the patriarchal system (the patriarchal paradigm) of the traditional family to initiate and sustain their control over the "masses" (only giving the family lip service as a form, when beneficial to the 'cause,' but taking from the parents their power of authority to demand from their children faith, belief, and obedience, with the authority to chasten them when they are disobedient, all under God's authority).  All dialectic thinking and acting institutions, as you will see, are contemptuous and hostile toward the traditional home (despite their facade of "support").   The dialectical objective is to accomplish this trickery (the negation-annihilation of the traditional family through social programs and social actions disguised as protecting the family, while, in reality protecting, i.e. 'liberating' the individuals within it, i.e. the wife and the children from the fathers authority to rule) without being detected and blocked.  By focusing upon the "felt needs" of the children, i.e. their "felt needs" which are common with the parents "felt needs," the parents will abdicate their position of authority and follow after the now liberated will of the child, i.e. both parents and children thereafter following after those who now direct (manipulate) the child's liberated thoughts and actions. Socialism, in any form (including "democracy"), is as much an act against righteousness as it is an act against the traditional family, with 'justification' from above being supplanted by self-justification and social-justification becoming united below (it is, in the end, not about your will or "our" will, it is all about the Father's will, that is, the negation of it).  The dialectic process is all about destroying the father's authority over the family.  When the child's will is emancipated from the father's will, made equal with (and thus over and against) the father's will, the traditional (patriarchal) family is moribund, the dialectically liberated child now being "unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family."  (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society
    Those who use the dialectical process, making the child's will "equal" with the father's will, use their "newly" gained power over and against the office of the father (an office promoting "honesty and industry," of the system of righteousness) to initiate and sustain control of his assets.  Money represents stored up (potential) pleasure (lovers of pleasure are lovers of money and lovers of money are lovers of pleasure, controlling money augments the potential for pleasure)―the "pride of life" is man's ability to control the environment for his own pleasure, thus the "pride if life," the "love of money," and the "love of pleasure" are all united within the human 'moment' of 'self-environment' justification.  Therefore by "the children of disobedience" (both young and old) gaining access to and control over the father's money (over and against the fathers will―who is now under duress, forced to pay his taxes which are then used to undermine his authority via federal-state regulations, offices, and departments anathema of the patriarchal family system, i.e. hostel towards the system of Righteousness), the initiators and sustainers of 'change' ('change' agents 'liberating' the children from the father's authority) gain access to and control over the fathers money as well (and thus gain control over the family, the "village," the state, the nation, and the world) through the children, guaranteeing to themselves a life of worldly pleasures (something traditional, patriarchal fathers would not support or "finance," i.e. would instead fight and chasten against if not now 'fearful' of losing their families in doing so).  
    Socio-psychologists initiate and sustain their livelihood (a life of sensuous pleasures) by initiating and sustaining contention and misery within the traditional family.  "Meyers in his study emphasizing group think, Higher Horizons 1961, stated that 'to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents' produces 'conflict and tension between parents and children ... who are not participating in the special opportunities." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain―a popular book used in training teachers)  By their praxis of 'liberating' children from parental authority, i.e. 'liberating' the child's will from the father's will, i.e. making them equal in praxis, they engender a "new" world order (out of the "will" of the children, out of the system of sensuousness), over and against the "old" world order (which was subject to the will of the fathers, of the system of Righteousness―dad and mom are not perfect but their office is), they guarantee themselves ("the children of disobedience," both young and old) a life of worldly pleasures, freed of a 'guilty' conscience―a "new" world order dialectically 'liberated' from the restraints of the system of Righteousness.
    While God says "rule," "occupy," "endure," and "stand, having done all to continue standing" in His righteousness―a patriarchal construct or paradigm or way of feeling, thinking, and acting of 'everlastingness' (standing upon a solid rock)―sensuous man "takes control over," conquers," 'changes' the environment for the 'goodness' of himself and others (to augment his sensuousness of pleasure) not realizing that it is the environment, i.e. his lust for it, which has taken control of him, resulting in a heresiarchal construct or paradigm or way of feeling, thinking, and acting of 'changingness'  (where man is continuously wandering about upon the ever 'shifting' sands of his "felt" needs, ever 'driven' by the environment).   The peace that passes understanding, which is of God's righteousness (unchanging, established forever), can only come through the chastening of that 'peace' which comes through human 'reasoning,' which is of man's sensuousness (ever changing, never satisfied―ever seeking after those things of the world which stimulate dopamine emancipation, i.e. the wanting of gratifying objects of the world).
    While contentment and peace are established in righteousness they are never truly initiated or sustained in sensuousness, although to fallen man they might "seem to" be for the 'moment.' "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." "The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace."  Isaiah 48:22; 59:8   "Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it ["He will never see it," vs. 11]."  Psalms 10:13  Thus man, in order to "rule" over the world in his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities (blinded by―thus blind to―his own wickedness) must, through the process of 'change,' remove (negate) the righteousness of God from his thoughts and his actions (remove the righteousness of God from his "sense perception:" internally, by imagining what he can be "if only...," and externally, by focusing upon only that which the 'natural' environment provides) in order to create a "new" world order where he can perceive himself as being, like God, 'righteous' in and of himself―freeing himself from any guilt (from having a "guilty conscience") for his praxis of disobedience toward God, which to him, is no longer an issue of importance (being no longer "relevant" to man's praxis of individual-social-environmental unity).
    While God is glorified in His creation (ruling over it in His righteousness) man glorifies himself in his ability to 'change' it ('changing' it through his own 'reasoning' abilities so that he can control it for his own sensuous pleasures).  Only when man becomes conscious of himself (self-conscious), cognizant of his dissatisfaction with righteousness restraining sensuousness, does he have the potential for 'change,' does he have the potential for taking control of his own life and the lives of others (the world in actuality taking control of him).  By using his own 'reasoning' abilities (by dialectical 'reasoning') he can liberate his sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness and then in his 'rational'-sensual action (revolution and evolution) liberate himself from the consciousness of God (negating righteousness, fixity, by the theory and practice of sensuousness, 'changingness'), glorifying himself as being 'creator,' rather than God. 
    This is the diabolical pathway of dialectical thinking and acting (theory and practice) where man, in his "wisdom" and his strength (in his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' ability), initiates and sustains his own kingdom, a kingdom of his own nature, perceiving his unrighteousness as being 'righteousness' ("sensuous-'felt' needs" satisfied through social action, initiating and sustaining social unity―the way of Antichrist), thus 'necessitating' the negation-annihilation of God's kingdom, that kingdom which is only of His righteousness (Christ), negating-annihilating the kingdom (of righteousness) which is the source of alienation and social disharmony. For example: while God says:  "And what concord [harmony] hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"  (2 Corinthians 6:15), man says: "Alienation has a long history.  Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden."  God is thus the anthropological source of alienation"  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Critical Theorists and their Theory).  Thus man, glorifying himself in his own works, i.e. in his own 'reasoning' abilities, chooses Caesar (man―sensuousness) rather than the Lord (God―righteousness). "We have no king but Caesar." John 19:15  When man rules over sin, i.e. when he tries to control the world, he becomes a servant to sin, i.e. he is controlled by the world, and, like Cane, must kill the righteous, to 'justify' his newly created kingdom built upon "self-esteem." 
      While God divides between sensuousness and righteousness man unites 'righteousness' with sensuousness, making them one through human 'reasoning,' via. his use of the dialectical process.  " But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."  2 Corinthians 3:18   By looking upon man and his 'glory' we remain in his image (sensuous and wicked) but by looking upon "the glory of the Lord" we are changed "by the Spirit of the Lord" into his image (righteous and holy).
    To mingle the two, God's righteousness (that which is above) with man's sensuousness (that which is below) creates confusion, thus making it easier for 'change' agents,' the seducers, deceivers, and manipulates of 'change,' to facilitate their diabolical process of 'change' negating-annihilating righteousness.  It is only by means of dialectical 'reasoning' that the antithesis of righteousness and sensuousness, the duality of (and conflict between) consciousness and self-consciousness can be overcome (synthesized), according to dialectical thinkers (humanists―where the essence of man is found in man alone, i.e. in human nature alone).  The tension between righteousness and sensuousness can only be negated-annihilated through human 'reasoning,' influenced and guided by sensuousness, and sensuousness, influenced and guided by human 'reasoning,' both being put into social action (praxis)―social action over and against righteousness.  Diaprax is Kant's equalization of righteousness and sensuousness (with 'reasoning' on the side of sensuousness), sensuousness and 'reasoning' synthesized by Hegel, being put into Marx's social action (praxis) negating righteousness ("equality of opportunity" in the garden in Eden was man become as gods―becoming 'righteous' in his own eyes he negated righteousness)―with man becoming himself as he progressively, collectively, 'rationally,' 'liberates' himself from that which is not of his nature, i.e. God―resulting in "godliness without God."  "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."  2 Timothy 3:1-4 emphasis added   As will be explained, the negation of righteousness through dialectal 'reasoning' (human reasoning) leads to a people who are no longer guided by their conscience, resulting in a people who are easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated (through their sensuous 'reasoning' abilities) into doing unconscionable things, a people of "consciousness without the conscience,"  a people "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
    I am, not because I think, but, because God says I AM. 
To think otherwise, i.e. to think "I am because I think" (Descartes), i.e. to question what is, is to negate-annihilate righteousness.  It is God, the creator, who gives us validation, not our awareness of ourselves in the light of His creation and our reasoning-physical (psycho-motor) ability to 'change' it for our own 'good,' for our own 'purpose,' for our own pleasure. (While the "light" of the creation, i.e. the creation and its order, i.e. its laws, might make me aware that there is a God, it is only by the light of the gospel that I can come to know Him as He IS.)  It is His righteousness (that which is from above), not my sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities (that which is of the world below), which gives me life.  All mankind, all who are of the world below, i.e. who remain in their unrighteousness, i.e. without Christ, are simply the "dead walking."  Every breath that a man takes is a temporary gift of life from God to man for his time on the earth, only to end with his last breath, his eternal life whether it be in heaven, in the Lords peace, joy, and love or in hell, in torment and anguish, being determined by God, judging him according to his thoughts and actions, whether they were in servitude to the sensuousness of the world (uniting him with the world through sight) or directed by the will of the Father (made possible by the righteousness of Christ being imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him), while in this earthy, sensuous world.  To attempt to validate God through my thoughts and my actions (through sensuousness) is to invalidate the righteousness of God, which can only be known through hearing His word and having faith in Him (in His Word alone).  In such an attempt, my feeling and thoughts, guided by my "sense perception," will negate-annihilate the righteousness of God as being the only way of life.  To confuse the two, making both righteousness and sensuousness equally good, of equal value (which only makes them appear to be equal but separate since righteousness―God, can never consider itself―Himself, as being equal with sensuousness―with man), is to negate-annihilate the righteousness of God (who alone is good) and exonerate the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities of man.  Thus in the group experience (the "youth group" included), where feelings and thoughts are 'liberated' (focused upon as being common to all) for the purpose of building social harmony/unity, building human relationships, the righteousness of God (which condemns all men as being wicked, that is, all men who are not living under His authority, not walking according to "His will," i.e. living and walking in His Word and by the power of His Spirit only) is (must be) negated-annihilated. 
    To suspend righteousness, even for a 'moment' is to negate it.  When the suspension of righteousness is 'justified,' negation annihilates itTo set aside, suspend, righteousness in the social human 'moment,' in the praxis of 'discovering' common feelings and common thoughts (common-ism), for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining social unity (common-ism), is to praxis the negation-annihilation of righteousness as being the only way of life (why Billy Graham and others of like mind end up saying that there are many different ways to God―to believe that there are many different ways is to negate-annihilate belief in the only way).  Thus that unity, which is a byproduct of righteousness, which is of God (from above alone) is replaced with that unity which is of, by, and for man, that which it is of his sensuousness, from below The fruit of the Spirit, God's love, can only come from above, is eternal, is of the creator, pure, holy, righteous.  The fruit of the flesh, man's love, can only come from below, is temporal, is of the creation, sensuous.  To mingle the two, as being equal in value, is to create chaos and confusion, leading to a dialectical outcome of humanism, socialism, i.e. the negation of that which is from above (righteousness: of the right-wrong, i.e. either-or duality) by that which is from below (sensuousness: of the pain-pleasure, i.e. more-less spectrum/continuum/plurality).  Unless a person repents before God, i.e. repents before He who is from above, repents for his praxis, i.e. repents for his participation within the dialectical process, i.e. repents for 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' that which is below over and against that which is above, he can not know the righteousness of God and eternal life, both of which are imputed to men of faith in Christ alone, through Christ alone ("before Abraham was, I AM"  John 8:38-59―restoring man to His Father, the "I AM that I AM").  To separate the Son from the Father ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.") is to separate righteousness from God, making man (sensuousness without the law, i.e. man's will) equal with God (righteousness in law, i.e. God's will)―this is the great deception and the great falling away.  Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of the Father to restore man to the Father (to do the Fathers will in the Lords righteousness alone) not negate it to free man from the Father (so that man can to do his own will of sensuousness, in the name of the Lord).  The law is still in effect, doing what it is supposed to do, condemning all who reject that righteousness which can only come through Christ Jesus.  The law of righteousness―the law fulfilled in Christ alone and its righteousness imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him alone―makes available to all men (who are willing to believe in Him alone) being the only way to the Father (restoring man to the will of the Father, i.e. to "Thy will be done ...").
    Sensuous man is deceived in his believing that the dialectical process has a 'good' side (a "positive" side).  That it can be used to acquire contentment and peace (leisure and guaranteed sustenance, beauty and 'liberty').  He only sees the 'bad' side (the "negative" side) of the dialectical process, i.e. seeing the 'bad side of being 'emancipated,' 'liberated,'  'self-environmental justified' from the restraints of righteousness, that is ugliness and bondage (the fruit of wickedness) when it is too late.  By 'justifying' his "new" paradigm (sensuousness and 'reasoning' united in social action) as being 'right' (or more 'right' than 'wrong') man classifies the "old" paradigm (righteousness restraining sensuousness and 'reasoning') as being 'wrong,' irrational, unreal, out of touch with the 'changing' times, out of touch with "human needs" etc. What happened in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3) was the first praxis of 'emancipation,' 'liberation,', 'self justification' of man, the first praxis of man 'rationally' (dialectically) 'justifying' his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, over and against the righteousness of God.  By making his sensuous feelings and his sensuous thoughts the foundation for defining 'reality,' his sense based opinions became the measure of what is good and what is evil, thus placing him over and against God and His Word, over and against His will, over and against His righteousness.
    While 'liberty,' for the carnal man, is found in the 'liberation' of sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness (where "wishy-washy" man will sell his soul and all that is right, i.e. all that is his to rule over under God, for the temporary-'changing,' more or less, i.e. "more pleasure-less pain" of the 'moment'), true liberty can only be found in the permanent either-or of righteousness (where man is freed from the confusion, fear, manipulation, and control which sensuousness engenders, and which those of the system of 'reasoning' perpetrate).  Only in the system of Righteousness does "give me liberty or give me death" have any true and lasting meaning.  While revolutionaries (of the dialectic variety) might use the phrase, they are not really defending that which is theirs to defend, including life (although they may claim that as their 'purpose'), but rather they are taking that which is not theirs to take, including life (which they may claim is their 'right,' since they perceive that all the world, and all its pleasures, is theirs to take, i.e. theirs to control, i.e. theirs to 'liberate'―that man might no longer be under the authority of a God who judges man eternally for "doing his own thing" in the "here-and-now." 
    In dialectical 'reasoning' there are no personal, individual rights apart from universal, social 'rights.'  Liberty is only found in social life (in the "universal"), not in individual life (in the "particular") alone.  'Liberty,' for the unrighteous man, is being 'free' to pursue that which is of his own nature and nature alone (which is individual-social in nature only), i.e. freed from having to have faith in, believe upon, obey and be chastened by that which is not of his own nature and nature alone (where the individual, and thus the world, is to be under God's authority alone).  According to dialectical 'reasoning,' when man's nature (and nature itself) is freed from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. when he is 'free' to pursue the sensuousness of the pleasure of this world only (along with, i.e. in consensus with all men), he is 'uninhibited,' 'rational,' 'educated,' and 'healthy.'  Liberty, for the righteous man, is being free to pursue God alone, i.e. freed from the controlling attributes of his own nature and thus freed from those who would use them (by controlling, i.e. manipulating the environment) to seduce, deceive, and manipulate him (use him) for theirs (and his) worldly pleasures only. According to dialectical 'reasoning,' when man's nature (and nature itself) is restrained by righteousness, i.e. when man is no longer 'free' to pursue the sensuousness of the pleasure of this world only (along with, i.e. in consensus with all men), he is 'repressed,' 'neurotic,' 'uneducated,' and 'unhealthy.'
    "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6)  Marx declared that there is no eternal soul in man, that man is not created in the image of God and therefore is not accountable to Him for his thoughts and actions.  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations."  ibid.  Marx therefore declared that: as man 're-creates' himself in the image of society (by participating with it in the praxis of negating the image of God within himself, i.e. negating that which is not of his own nature, which is common to all nature, i.e. all mankind), he is, from then on, only accountable to society (to nature) for his thoughts and his actions.  "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)   He declares that: without the aid of social intervention the individual will remain isolated ("destroyed"), and therefore remain subject to that which is not of nature, i.e. subject to that which is not in common with his own nature (subject to sensuous only).  "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)   Only within the realm of "education" (re-education)―"Education Nation―where the individual is subjected to dialectical 'reasoning' in a social setting (not in a group of individuals but rather in a "social" group environment void of the restraints of righteousness), does man have the "potential" of become a "rational being."  "The individual is emancipated in the social group."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  Freud, although he worked on individuals outside the group setting, did not perceive of man as being an isolated individual subject to something or someone not of "the species." "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the ‘gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Freud,  Moses and Monotheism in Herbart Marcuse,  Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud)  "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature"One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group."  (Irvine D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  Only within the "social" group setting (in a dialectical environment) can man 'discover,' 'emancipate,' and 'actualize' his true identity ('discover,' 'emancipate' and 'actualize' his "social" image, thereby freeing himself from the "image of God").  "The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Karl Marx, Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy by T. B. Bottomore)  "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)  Without the 'help' of the master facilitator in the garden in Eden, man would have forever remained in the image of God, unable to 'rationally' discover his sensuous identity with the world and therefore 'rationally' justify his nature as being at-one-with it.  This is the praxis of Marx, of Diaprax, of Genesis 3:1-6, of Lucifer, man liberating himself from "an alien and hostile force," i.e. dialectically liberating himself from God, to be god himself, i.e. a god of his own sensuous nature, made in his own image. "A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein ‘the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man) 
    Man is therefore, in dialectical 'reasoning,' not created in the image of God (subject to His righteousness) but rather is to be 'recreated' in the image of society (subject to his and its ways of sensuousness and 'reasoning' united as one).  Without becoming aware of the restraining nature of the first image (the antithesis between righteousness and sensuousness) and 'rationally' transcending it ('rationally' going beyond the antithesis condition caused by righteousness) he can not be transformed into the latter image (of sensuousness and 'reasoning' united), i.e. become as he really is, carnal (sensual, 'rational') only.  Therefore, if it is so natural for man to sin, why fight that which is natural?  "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [in a world preaching and teaching righteousness], Critical Criticism  [the dialectical thinker, i.e. the "higher order thinker" in morals and ethics] must set up a sinful world in its own home ['rationally' make sensuousness the only way of life]."  (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)   By 'rationally,' "intellectually" finding consensus (at-oneness) with nature, i.e. using his own 'reasoning' abilities ("higher order thinking skills) to identify and thus transcend that which is not of his nature, he can 'rationally' transcend the issue of sin itself.  "I'm OK." "Your OK." "If it feels good, just do it." "Can't we all just get along?" "Boys will be boys." "No Fear." "Make love, not war." etc. therefore becomes the language of society.  This is where Hegel, Marx, Freud, and all who like them, i.e. thinking dialectically, join "hand in hand," that is, join sensually and 'rationally' together in the negation, within the individual, and the annihilation, within society, of righteousness having anything to do with the issues of life and death―other than being perceived and responded to as an 'unhealthy' condition from which man is to collectively and 'rationally' "emancipate," "liberate," "change" himself and society from, via. social praxis
    When man removes God's hedge of protection (His righteousness), he, through his 'reasoning' abilities, falls victim to the wolves of unrighteousness, falls victim to their agenda of 'change'―their agenda of 'changing' him into their own image of seduction, deception, and manipulation, 'changing' him into becoming a facilitator of 'change,' a "minister of righteousness" himself―which is really unrighteousness.  "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."  2 Corinthians 11:13-15 I remember, during the Vietnam War, seeing many young men go into ministry to avoid being drafted, thereby carrying their wicked (unrepentant) ways with them into church leadership whereby they were able to victimize the innocent and unwary with their dialectical sensuous 'reasoning' abilities (self-social justification).  This was about the time that church "youth groups" exploded upon the scene.
    Justification is either founded upon God's righteousness (which is life) or man's sensuousness and 'reasoning' (the end thereof being death).  There is no in-between the two.  There is no spectrum, continuum, or gradient between righteousness and sensuousness, as many would deceive you into believing, only to betray you in the end.  The spectrum is only found within sensuousness (of the flesh), subject to a gradation between pain and pleasure with man approaching pleasure and avoiding pain being the highest 'good,' making 'good' (and thus 'evil') subject to sensuousness, i.e. the 'good' day being of more pleasure than pain.  Righteousness instead is only of God, i.e. to break one part of the law is to break all of it (which is the same rule applied to the laws of nature, i.e. to ignore a law of nature, for example gravity, can kill you even if you get the rest, i.e. drag, thrust, lift, right, i.e. being more 'right' than 'wrong' in the field of science can kill you).  That which is of God, righteousness, is not of man, sensuousness.  Apart from God's righteousness man is unrighteous, his 'reasoning' therefore being only subject to his sensuousness (basing 'righteousness,' good and evil, right and wrong, upon the spectrum of sensuousness, thus deceiving himself and taking pleasure while doing it to others, i.e. 'justifying' his deception by basing righteousness upon a pain-pleasure spectrum). Thus reasoning must be made subject of righteousness (absolutes) or it will be used to 'justify' sensuousness (relativism). God's love and righteousness require the chastening of man's flesh (reprimanding sensuousness), i.e. restraining it, making sensuousness subject to righteousness (where opinions are made subject to truth which is preached and taught), while man's love and 'righteousness' require the liberation of man's flesh (augmenting sensuousness), i.e. encouraging it, making 'righteousness' subject to sensuousness (where truth is made subject to opinions which are dialogued). 
    What wolves in sheep skin, hirelings, the prodigal son's friends, councilors, facilitators, 'change' agents, philosophers, psychiatrists, socialists, contemporary "ministries," etc. all have in common is that they will all help you in satisfying your "felt needs" (sensuousness),  i.e. they "care" about you, until they run out of your money or you are no longer beneficial or satisfying to their sensuous "need" (serve the perception of others of their being beneficial to them), whereupon, unlike family, they will leave you to your own hopeless, miserable demise.  Like the scriptural account of the prodigal son, it's not about you or your friends' "love" for you and the things or people of this world―sensuousness, it is about the Father's love for you―righteousness). 
    Most people, when they don't like (or don't have anything to "gain" from) the 'bad' side of the dialectical process (which is totalitarian control―the consequence of dialectical praxis), only want to stop its 'bad' side from oppressing them, wanting to keep the sensuous pleasures of its 'good' side in place, not knowing it is the 'good' side ("the justification of self" and "the approval of man," both based upon the sensuousness of dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. man 'reasoning' from his own sensuousness, 'reasoning' from that which is of his nature only, i.e. to "approach pleasure and avoid pain," with the augmentation of pleasure―the controlling of the environment to satiate the wanting of gratifying objects which lie within it, which is never satisfied―"Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20―which includes not only the desire to "survive," placing hope in this world of sensuousness, but also the desire for "the approval of men," placing hope in sensuous man himself―both being the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life) which is the catalyst for the 'bad' side, i.e. (totalitarianism).  Being indifferent to the effect which the "bad" side of the process has upon others, because of the benefits the "good" side has for you, is just as much an act of violence as the act of hate itself.  Like Esau, man has sold his birth-right of righteousness and eternal life (both given by God, who desires that none be lost, making both, i.e. righteousness and eternal life now attainable, through faith in Him, through believing upon and trusting in His only begotten Son), rejected them (and Him) for the pleasures ('momentary' sensuousness) of this world (man leaning instead upon his own sense based 'reasoning' for understanding―cursing God and his blessing of eternal life, because of his love for the pleasures of this life, which ends in eternal death).  By dialectical 'reasoning' man has rejected that which can only come from God (righteousness and life) and has therefore embraced that which is only of his own nature (sensuousness and death), that which is of the world, that which man can commonly, collectively relate with―his knowledge and his understanding being darkened, void of the knowledge and understanding of righteousness which can only begin with the fear of the Lord.

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.  Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.  And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.  But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him."  Luke 12:2-5

    Fallen man, for the sake of sustaining the 'good' side of the process, i.e. "the pleasures of this world" (controlling his own life in the augmentation of pleasure) refuses to recognize that his participation within the process (controlling the environment for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining worldly pleasures) is itself evil (letting the environment control, i.e. influence him into 'rationally' determining what is 'good' and what is 'evil' based upon his own carnal nature).  Thus, refusing to recognize his participation within the process (using it for 'good') as being evil, he refuse to see himself as being wicked (having sensuous eyes he can not see himself for what he is, wicked).  It is only when a person comes to see the wickedness of his own heart (in the light of God's Word, in the light of His righteousness) that he can come to understand the wickedness of the dialectical process and its diabolical effect upon himself and the world he lives within. 
    Today no university professor (or university) can expose the dialectical process for what it is―wicked―and be recognized by his pears and the university as being right.  Martin Luther noted in his day that universities had become wide gates to Hell because "... they teach not Christ but human reasoning. . .  Woe to these lost and dreadful men of Sodom and Gomorrah!" "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them!  This is frivolous and ungodly.  The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds. . . let us reject the word of man."   (Martin Luther, Luther's Works"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." Jude 7, 8
    An understanding of the dialectical process can not come through an academic exercise in the "reasoning's" of Socrates, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Lenin, Lukács, Gramsci, Freud, Adorno, Moreno, Lewin (having taught in a university―lecturing on the subject of the dialectical process and its effect upon the American culture―I dedicating one three hour class on Kurt Lewin alone because his work on "group dynamics," "force fields," and "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing" and their use by 'teachers' in the American classroom has been that influential in the 'changing' of our culture), Maslow, Rogers, Bloom, Drucker, etc. (all, and more, have had their input in the 'changing' of the world we live within), any way I digress, as I was saying, an understanding of the dialectical process and its effect upon you and the world you live in can not come from an academic exercise in 'discovering' who you are before man, through philosophy (including psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.), it can only come through a spiritual understanding of who you are before God, by His Word and His Holy Spirit―something which the 'contemporary' church has abdicated (and fights against), because of its participation within the dialectical process, i.e. 'driven' by and 'purposed' in 'growing,' 'emerging,' etc. its sensuous, love of this world, self (where the feeling of "'righteousness' without righteousness" pervades, i.e. man sensually and 'rationally' 'driven' with the 'purpose' of augmenting an environment which engenders sensuousness over and against righteousness―choosing the unrighteousness of mankind (being "positive," non-judgmental) over and against the righteousness of God (being "negative," judgmental) in his effort to unit mankind in 'peace and justice,' sensuous 'beauty' and sensuous 'freedom'―the aesthetic dream becoming 'reality' as dialectical thought is put into social action―praxis).  "It is Satan, the god of all dissension, who stirs up daily new sects, and last of all, which of all others I should not have foreseen or once suspected, he has raised up a sect such as teaches that man should not be terrified by the law but be gently exalted by the grace of Christ." Martin Luther  Without the law, man can not know he is a sinner.  Without his knowledge that he is a sinner he can not know of judgment.  Without having a fear of judgment he would not look for a redeemer.  Without knowing the redeemer he can not know God's mercy and grace.  An academic understanding of the dialectical process alone circumvents the issue of the wickedness of man's heart by making the righteousness of God irrelevant, which is the intent of the process in the first place.
    As the children of Israel (on their way to the promised land), remained (in their hearts) lovers of pleasure―worshipers of the creation―and thus wanted to return to the pleasures of Egypt (or at least have the pleasures of Egypt with them, while in the desert) instead of being lovers of God―worshiping the creator―trusting in the Lord (the manna of life) while walking through the wilderness, Christians, who murmur against righteousness (trying to 'circumvent' or negate, by the use of dialectical 'reasoning' and action, God's restraints against and chastening for lusting after the pleasures of this life, including the "approval of men") reject the restraints and chastening which come with following the Lord (2 Corinthians 10:5), in their hearts.  Having never left the sensuousness (the lusts of the flesh) of Egypt, they, as the children of Israel who quickly fell victim to the sensuousness of Canaan―whoring after their unrighteous ways, not only sin but 'rationally' 'justify' it by calling it 'normal human behavior.'  When the opportunity of sensuousness affords itself (their heart not being right, i.e. righteous, in the Lord) they quickly join in.  Thus negating God's judgment upon sin, through their justification of human nature through their use of polls, surveys, feasibility studies, i.e. depending upon the sensuousness and 'reasoning' (opinions) of man, they reject the mercy and grace of God, not only in their lives but also in the lives of others who look up to them for guidance.
    Psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy (the "wisdom" of man) are all anathema to the gospel for they (those who praxis them) can not make themselves subject to the will of the Father (under the righteousness of God) and still remain in control over their lives and the lives of others (for the 'purpose' of augmenting the sensuousness of pleasure).  Not being righteous in and of himself, man is only able to pursue the augmentation of the pleasures (and the attenuation of the pain and grief) of this world, perceiving that (doing 'good' to others) is an act of 'righteousness' in and of itself―doing good is not bad, it is just that it is not righteousness in and of itself―thus dialectically redefining righteousness, that which restrains, chastens, and condemns human nature, as being evil itself.  Man, in his sensuousness, 'rationally' perceives the way of righteousness as being the initiator and sustainer of physical, mental, and social pain and grief, as being the cause of alienation, repression, and reification2 Corinthians 10:3-6  Thus, contemporary "ministers," trained in the profession of dialectical thought and action, as scribes and Pharisees, love the seat of Moses, i.e. love the accolades of men, but reject the spirit of Moses (who chose to suffer with the children of Israel in the wilderness, living in the righteousness of God, rather than live in the pleasures of Egypt, living in the pleasures of this life, in sensuousness) and use dialectical trickery to seduce, deceive, and manipulate believers, i.e. the "called out ones," into thinking that they can synchronize, "synergistically," the sensuousness of Egypt and the righteousness of God and call it the church.  Dialectically deceived into believing that they are 'leading' the 'church' into the promised land they are instead leading (taking pleasure in deceiving) those who follow them into Babylon.
    Only those who trust in the Lord with all their heart, who do not lean to their own understanding (dialectical thinking, 'reasoning' based upon sensuousness over, and therefore against, righteousness), who acknowledge Him in all their ways (letting the Lord direct their thoughts and their actions), who are not wise in their own eyes, i.e. who fear the lord, love His Word rather than this world, including their very own lives, and depart from evil (Proverbs 3:5-7), only those who are redeemed by the Lamb of God, whose sins are covered by His blood, his righteousness being imputed to them by their faith in and belief upon Him, will not spend eternity in Hell, in torment, in sorrow for their participation in the dialectic process, but instead will spend it in Heaven (in the new earth, in the new Jerusalem), in the Love, Joy and Peace of the Holy Spirit, Glorifying God our Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son.  "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled;  In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:"  Colossians 1:19-22
    It is all about man's 'reasoning' ability (man's ability to evaluate what is 'good' and what is 'evil' for himself) being used to 'justify' sensuousness over and against righteousness, 'justifying' that which is in and of man (sensuousness―of nature) over and against that which is not in and of man (refuting, denouncing, and condemning righteousness, that which is not in or of man, i.e. which is foreign or alien to human nature, being only of God), which (man's 'dissatisfaction' with righteousness) can therefore be used to unite man with man.  When man and his fallen nature (sensuousness) are 'rationally' (dialectically) liberated from the restraints of righteousness, human nature (sensuousness and human 'reasoning') becomes the foundation of 'humanity.'   That which man has in common with all of mankind, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," thus, dialectically, becomes the "ground of being" for 'common-ism' and "world unity," i.e. "social justice" and "world peace," since it is sensuousness (man's "lust" for the things of this world and his 'rational' ability to control, i.e. 'change' the world, the environment, to initiate and sustain the augmentation of them) which all of society has in common.  When sensuousness is 'rationally' liberated from the restraints of righteousness it is 'rationally' 'justified' in the negating of righteousness.  While God, through his Word, declares: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (1 John 2:16) man, (worshiping the creation rather than the creator), in his "wisdom," declares: "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world.  Eros is the foundation of morality."  (Brown, Norman O, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History"... the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind  ....  link the ‘lower' faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud)   There is no in-between heaven and hell, no escaping the Heavenly Father and his condemnation of sinful man (condemnation for his fallen nature, condemnation for his lusting after his own sensuousness over and against God's righteousness), except a temporary, illusionary 'escape,' initiated and sustained ('momentarily') in the imagination of men's heartsOther through faith in, believing upon, and following after the only begotten Son of God, in obeying His Heavenly Father's will, can man escape the condemnation of hell.  There is no "third" (or "forth") force or way, though those who are possessed with dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. seducers, deceivers, and manipulators, would like you to believe that there is another way, another 'truth,' another life, another gospel.  For the sensuous man, an hour in heaven (living in righteousness alone, glorifying God alone) would be (according to his feelings, thoughts, and actions) an hour in hell.  Even "Rock" songs declare as much, although it won't happen, i.e. a carnal man being in heaven that is.
    Thus man finds himself, in his theory and his practice (in his thinking and in his actions), 'living' and thinking over and against righteousness (perfection)―that which is not in, nor of man, which is only of God, who demands perfection (righteousness) in man. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."  (Matthew 5:48)   Perfection and righteousness is what man can not do in and of himself, which therefore separates God, who is perfect, righteous, and eternal, from man, who is imperfect, unrighteous, and temporal, which thus divides men who are made righteous, i.e. perfect in Christ, "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13:21), from men who remain in their sin, who willfully remain in their unrighteousness, justifying their carnal thoughts and actions as being 'normal' human behavior. 
    Others seek to 'justify' themselves before themselves, others, and God by attempting to fulfill the law of God to fulfill God's demand for perfection and righteousness.  Yet all men, not redeemed through Jesus Christ (not redeemed through His blood), not "perfect in every good work to do his will," continue to love this world (sensuousness) and their own unrighteous impulses, desires, and deeds (sensuousness) in it, including those who live according to the law rather than living in Christ―who fulfilled the law in Himself―living in His righteousness.

    "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."  Romans 3: 20-29
    "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  I John 2:15, 17

    It is here (in man's love of this world and his own sensuous nature, which is stimulated by the things of the world) that dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. the use of "Hegel's" 'A plus negative A equals A' formula comes into 'play' (comes into praxis or practice).  In man's effort to 'justify' himself, 'justify' his carnal lustful desires, he redefines his sin (his sensuous nature) as simply being 'normal' human behavior (via. the use of "behavior 'science'"), i.e. comparing himself with himself ('justifying' his sensuousness) rather than comparing himself with God (where justification can only be found in God's righteousness, imputed through faith in Jesus Christ, for it is impossible for man to be righteous in and of himself for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"), he therefore rejects justification, and therefore salvation, which can only come by that righteousness which is not of his nature, that righteousness which is from above, from the will of the Father, from the obedience of His only begotten Son, and from the power of the Holy Spirit.

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

    God's thoughts are upon (emanate from) His righteousness (Spirit, i.e. "light" with "no shadow of turning").  Man's thoughts are upon (emanate from) his sensuousness (flesh, i.e. "darkness," which to man, "seems to be 'light'"; "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35).  God's ways are patriarchal in paradigm, i.e. from above, unchanging, i.e. established, i.e. perfect, i.e. righteous and spiritual (something which has not escaped the attention of those who think dialectically).  Man's ways are heresiarchal in paradigm, i.e. from below, ever changing, i.e. imperfect, i.e. as "children of disobedience" ever seeking after the pleasures of this life, ever learning through the ways of sensuousness therefore never able to comprehend the true meaning of life―righteousness, "never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" which can only come from He who is above man's sensuous nature.  Man's nature being unrighteous and sensual, i.e. not being righteous in and of itself, makes man in and of himself, incapable of being righteous, his sensuousness always taking him captive to the sensuous 'moment'―2 Timothy 3:1-8.  Apart from God and His righteousness all man has to lean upon is his own understanding, i.e. his own sensuousness and 'reasoning.'  Therefore, being blind to the truth, man is, in and of himself, incapable of knowing himself as he really is―wicked.

    "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6 
    "There is none righteous, no, not one:  There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."  Romans 3:10-19

    This article is about "Hegel's" 'A plus -A equals A' formula which is the praxis of human 'reasoning' (man's 'rational' mind) being used to 'justify' the liberation of man's sensuousness from the restraints (and judgment) of God's righteousness, i.e. man perceiving (and deceiving) himself as being 'righteous,' in and of himself, in his praxis of negating righteousness, i.e. negating that righteousness which is not of his nature.  If you understand this article you understand the "new world order" (which is as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6, which is the replacing of our Heavenly Father and His will with man and his will, replacing God's way of thinking and acting, based upon His righteousness, with man's way of thinking and acting, based upon his sensuousness) and its affect upon you and the world you live within.

 "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.  Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:5-7

    To obey (do) the will of His Heavenly Father is the reason why Jesus came.  Our Heavenly Father and His love for us, is the 'justification' for Christ's virgin birth, death on the cross, and resurrection from the grave―His virgin birth and resurrection from the grave (by the will of the Father and an act of the Holy Spirit) being incomprehensible to, as well as condemning of, those who think and act dialectically.  "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6  "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."  1 John 4:14  Dialectical thinkers, having rejected the father (who sent his only begotten son so that man can come to know the father of life) and thus rejecting the son (who obeyed the father in all things and has called us to do the same), have rejected salvation, i.e. salvation from the fathers wrath upon them.  By 'chosen' their sensuousness over and against His righteousness, they have chosen eternal death instead of eternal live.
     The negation of the Father (the father figure) is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of "Hegel's" 'A plus -A equals A' formula, and thus the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the "new" world order.  The Antichrist is "another" Christ, a dialectic Christ, one not sent by the Father, one who places himself over and against the will of the Father, speaking Agape but only able to produce Eros, promising salvation but only able to sustain condemnation and guarantee damnation.

Chart: The taxonomizing of people (the student in the classroom, the worker in the workplace, the legislature in the sub-committee, the citizen at the town hall meeting, the minister at the ministers alliance, etc.) for the sake of 'change' is required if the facilitator (as a 'scientist') is to know what needs to be 'changed,' who needs to be 'changed,' and how 'change' is to be accomplished.  When preaching and teaching is used to justify an established position, with chastening being used to reinforce the established position and thus restrain the person from the praxis of 'change,' a thesis position or a patriarchal paradigm or a traditional way of thinking and acting is maintained.  But because the nature of 'change,' the influences of "felt needs," impulses, or "sensuous needs" of the flesh, stimulated by the sensuous 'moment' (the worldly environment stimulating the system of sensuousness) produces an antithesis condition it thus challenges the categorical imperatives of the thesis position.  Dialoguing one's feelings and thoughts thus brings into question the commands and rules of righteousness, which restrain 'change.'
    The 'purpose' of the dialectical way of thinking and acting (theory and practice), is to 'change' the environment from being one which initiates and sustains a thesis position (a formal-logical environment created by preaching and teaching) to one which synthesizes a person's "sensuous need" with his "sense perceptions" (an informal-imaginative environment created by dialoguing to consensus).  Thus by creating an environment which makes 'reasoning' subject to sensuousness (subject to human "sense experience," subject to the imagination of the heart) rather than subject to the righteousness of God (subject to the Spirit of God, subject to His thesis position, i.e. His every word) a person's dependence upon an established thesis position is called into question, thus is perceived as being impractical and is thus irrational, thus is irrelevant in the 'light' of the 'moment,' thus is negated, thus 'liberating' him (and the group) from the patriarchal paradigm.  Through the 'justification,' i.e. emancipation of his sensuousness through 'reasoning' and putting them (his feelings conjoined with his thoughts) into social action (praxis), man is liberated (emotionally and mentally) from being under the control of the patriarchal paradigm, thereby negating the patriarchal paradigm (the system of Righteousness) as a way of thinking and acting, not only for the individual but for society as well.  Justification for 'life' is thereby (dialectically) founded and established (initiated and sustained) upon human sensuous social action (praxis) rather than upon Righteousness (rather than upon the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home, workplace, and government, all limited by Godly restraint).

    The "new" world order and the Antichrist have their foundation upon "Hegel's" diabolical process which has become the way of thinking and acting for Americans today.  "Contemporary social science, especially in America, bears the impact of Hegelian thinking to an extraordinary degree. Cultural anthropology and social psychology, especially of the psychoanalytic and Gestalt variety, and much of present day sociology… are more Hegelian than they would like to admit, or do acknowledge." (Friedrich)
    Our government is now being directed (seduced, deceived, and manipulated by facilitators of 'change,' and thus is seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the American public) through the praxis of dialectical thought and dialectical action (theory and practice).  If you understand this article you will also understand how you must respond if you do not want to be (remain) a part of the "'new' world order"―"Education Nation."

    "Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:  But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Isaiah 59:1, 2 
    "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;" Acts 3:19 
    "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21


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.  By 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 parents and the children becoming equals, the family fell under the influence and control of socio-psychologists, i.e. therapists or facilitators of 'change'―all (the individual, the family, and society being subjected to "polymorphously perverse" ideology) become subject to "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' through 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 of 'change,' engendering the super-ego of permissiveness), 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 protected from his spontaneous-sensuous nature (his carnal impulses) by parental restraints (righteousness restraining spontaneous sensuousness), so man must be protected from himself by Godly restraint, by men in civil government (beginning with the father in the home) restrained by righteousness.   (As a side note: babies, who are not yet conscious of their actions, should not be 'punished' for their behavior but rather loved despite their actions, while children who are conscious of their actions should be chastened for their bad behavior and loved as well, i.e. love for the child being expressed in the exercise of chastening as well as afterwards, in the "peaceful fruit of righteousness" which follows, i.e. God chastens those he loves, i.e. loves those he chastens).  Government has been 'changed' into 'government' protecting the child's spontaneous-sensuousness (carnal) nature from the restraints of parental righteousness.  In this dialectical way of thinking and acting (theory and practice) society is being 'liberated' from "neurosis" by 'liberating' 'normal' human behavior from the restraints by 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, void of the restraints of righteousness"right" being made "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) be 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 of disobedience"―'driven' by sensuousness, whose wrath is upon the "children of righteousness") over and against God (the creator, the Father―who is righteousness, whose wrath is upon "the children of disobedience").

    "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, over their upbringing, i.e. over their education.] 
    "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 be 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, who 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 (as stated above but repeated here to make very clear what the gospel is all about):

"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 only about the Son's love for "whosoever," it is also about the Son's love for, and obedience to, His Heavenly 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 FreudFreud 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, through group approval, i.e. the approval of men] 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. as Satan, declaring "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 shared by the parents … [producing] conflict and tension between parents and children [the conflict and thus tension being between the system of Righteousness, of the parent, and the system of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' of the now 'enlightened,' 'liberated' child]…" (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.  Genesis 3:1-6 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 in control of his own life and the creation), 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, according to sensuousness and 'human' reasoning, God's tree is similar to man's trees, then it is 'irrational' to preach and teach that a particular tree is His tree, and only His tree, "because He says so."  It is therefore within the praxis of common-ism that righteousness is negated-annihilated.
    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 therefore 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 righteousnessfaith, 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 procedure 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 the socialist cause). 
    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, the desired outcome being engendered through the use of inductive reasoning. 
    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 of the world as well). 
    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, etcdepending 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 unitesman 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 Historyi.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 imputedpurifying 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 being 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' sensuousnessrighteousness 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 sensuousnessSensuousness 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).

continue:  Part 1 or Part  2

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2011-2015