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


Dean Gotcher


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 actsknown 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 chasteningtaxonomized 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 permissivenesstaxonomized 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 manipulationtaxonomized 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, in its public offices, in its public works, etc) in order to negate the effects of righteousnesses (and the effects the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the father figure) which might be found within man (that effect being the "guilty conscience"). (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 who have jurisdiction over the money, 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." 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 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. (Marcuse)  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 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 endsfor 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'"  (Jay)
    "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."  (Brown) 
    "The relation of theory to therapy is just as constitutive for Freudian theory as the relation of theory to praxis is for Marxist theory."
  (Habermas, Theory)

    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 Benne) 
    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 actionsinitiated 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 Marcuse)  
    "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Adorno)  [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."  (Marcuse) 

    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 Brown)  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 'liberate' 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, 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."  (Brown)    "Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Trojanowicz)
    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 as quoted in Maslow, on Management"... 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]" (MarcuseFreud 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...."  (Marcuse)
    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."  (Brown) 
    "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]."  (Marcuse)

    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 Benne).   
    "... 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." (Brown) 

     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 in Friedrich)  
    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 versa, 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."  (Trojanowicz)

    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?'" (Rogers) [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.'"  (Moreno
In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." (Maslow, 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." (Brown)
    "… 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." (Bennis) [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,' i.e. 'liberated' child]…" (Krathwohl and Bloom, pg. 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.'" (Brown)  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." (Adorno)].
    "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society.  Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development."
(Krathwohl and Bloom, pg. 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 ethicsSocratic critical thinking skillsin 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."  (Rogers)

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 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 itselfand 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 groundnegating "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' (Krathwohl and Bloom, 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). 
he 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-cognitivesynthesized, 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 itthe 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-esteemwhich 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 usedby those who envy what those who have borders have, i.e. what those who have principles haveto 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." (Bronner)
    "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."   (Marcuse).

    "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."  (Benne)  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 mentallyand 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 dialecticalsensual-rationalgroup 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." (Bronner) 
    "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "... self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure."  (Brown)
    "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."  (Reich)
    "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 righteousnessthe negation of righteousness as being the only  way, the only truth, and the only life, i.e. righteousness no longer being perceived as being rational and therefore relevant in the times of 'changingness,' i.e. in the times of sensuousness) take over (possess) their lives as they use it, i.e. the dialectic process, i.e. the system of 'reasoning', i.e. democratic ethics, on themselves and on others, for their own 'good.'  The "'good' in their own eyes" blinds them to the damage (death and destruction, not only spiritually, but also mentally and physically) that the process is doing to themselves and to others as they participate in propagating it upon others to 'justify' their compromise, i.e. their sin, i.e. their unrighteousness (the praxis of their synthesis with unrighteousness, i.e. finding harmony, i.e. "oneness" with their carnal nature and the carnal nature of the world, which is required within the 'change' process). 
    In your participation in the dialectical process, resolution of a crisis always produces confusion.  Trying to trust in the Lord, His righteousness (denying yourself and not living for the "approval of men"), and trust in man, your sensuousness (for self preservation and your desire for the "approval of men"), at the same time produces cognitive dissonance, a conflict between your belief (righteousness preached and taught and "accepted as is") and your desires and actions (sensuousness dialogued on what "ought to, could, should, or might be"), known as a belief-action dichotomy, from which your response, i.e. your paradigm, i.e. your way of thinking and acting in dealing with a crisis is then dialectically evaluated, i.e. categorized, i.e. taxonomized to see where along the continuum of "adaptability to change" you are at the moment.  In the dialectical environment of confusion you are pressured to either turn to God and His Word, i.e. remain 'unchanged' as far as who establishes right and wrong, good and evil for you, i.e. hold to your thesis or principles, or turn to your feelings and thoughts, i.e. change, i.e. compromise your thesis or principles for the sake of the moment, i.e. determining good and evil, right and wrong from your own nature.   The former―a patriarchal paradigm, always being discouraged as an outcome, i.e. as a way of thinking and acting, i.e. as a paradigm, and the latter―a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness,' always being 'encouraged' as an outcome, i.e. as a better way of thinking and acting. 
    The greatest trickery, praxised by those who use the dialectical process, is to convince, i.e. deceive, i.e. 'trick' you into believing that you can evaluate, define, and respond to, i.e. know God and His Word (righteousness) in the 'light' of your own feelings and thoughts ('learning' how to use your own "sense experiences," i.e. "sensuous needs," "sense perception," 'reasoning,' 'wisdom,' and 'logic' in coming to the 'knowledge' of the 'truth' on how to respond to God, His Word, His Holy Spirit, and life's crises), thus willingly participating in the praxis of negating the former (trusting in the Lord) while actualizing the latter (trusting in your own feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. theory and practice) while responding to a crisis, thus basing 'reality' upon your "sense experiences" of this world.  It is not that we put aside feelings, thoughts, and actions while dealing with a crisis in life (we do live in the world), it is that by participating in the dialectical process we willingly put aside (suspend) God and His Word as the director and judge over our feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. done for the sake of "working" with others in the 'moment,' i.e. done for the "approval of men," i.e. for the sake of not "offending" them, while dealing with the crisis, thus living according to the conditions of and the approval of the world rather than trusting and living in the Lord.  The "divide and conquer," which proceeds from participation within the dialectical process, is not the dividing of people from one another but rather dividing a person from his principles (learned from parents and God) for the sake of social interests (for social approval).
    In this "new" way of thinking and acting (the thinking and acting of the "new" world order) righteousness is thus no longer defined by God, the creator of man and nature, judging man's thoughts and actions according to His own righteousness, his Holy will, contrasting between that which comes from Him above, which is spiritual and good, i.e. who is righteous (in and of himself only) and that which is from the world below, carnal and evil, i.e. only sensual in thought and in action (in and of the creation only).  Nature is not evil since God has given it pre-determined laws, it is that man, when he attends to his nature only, i.e. when he puts aside or rejects God's laws of righteousness and instead attends to his own sensuous laws of the flesh, is evil (setting his "affections" on things below rather than on things above).  When 'righteousness' is defined by man himself, i.e. man 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically redefines (re-educates) himself as becoming sensually and 'rationally' whole, i.e. unites with himself, i.e. his nature and the world, i.e. physically, mentally, and socially healthy, dialectically, i.e. "scientifically," 'discovering' that meaning and 'purpose' in life can only be 'realized' and then 'actualized' as he becomes sensuously at-one-with himself and nature, as he becomes sensuously at-one-with the 'creation,' as he learns to 'scientifically,' i.e. dialectically, judge his thoughts and actions and other's thoughts and actions according to his own carnal, sensuous nature, i.e. according to that nature which he has in common with all of mankind, as he learns to live according to his own carnal, sensuous will (which seems to be "good" to him), i.e. according to that will which he has in common with all of mankind, i.e. comparing himself  and others with his own nature, which he has in common with others and with nature itself, thus exalting himself (within his own unrighteous, sinful nature) as being equal with God, i.e. as being greater than God, i.e. as being "as a God," as he (through his own reasoning abilities, i.e. through his use of Hegel's 'A plus negative A equals A,' "scientific," dialectical formula) initiates and sustains a "new" world order (a world ordered dialectically, a world freed of unnatural restraints, a world freed of the restraints and judgment of righteousness), a world based upon dialectical thought and dialectical action (theory and practice), i.e. dialectically known as praxis (social action negating, in the individual's mind, and annihilating, in his social action, his need for God, i.e. his dependence upon His righteousness, his need to be saved, i.e. his need to be redeemed from eternal death and his need to inherit eternal life, i.e. his need to live by faith in the Lord, i.e. living by God's mercy and grace alone), i.e. imagining (sensuously reasoning and reasoning sensuously) and then creating, along with all of mankind, a world where his sensuousness, the pleasure of his unrighteousness, is in harmony with this world below, usurping (negating in his mind and in his actions) his need for God's righteousness from above, i.e. imagining and then creating, along with all of mankind, a world of his own making where his sensuousness becomes the foundation (his ground for becoming) for determining what is good and what is evil (instead of accepting and depending upon God's righteousness to make those distinctions), man justifies his own sin (his own nature) as being 'good' (as it does good for others) ruling over it (his own sin), 'justifying' it and sustaining it for his own (and societies) goodness' sake.
    In which case, enlightened mankind, as Cane (Genesis 4:1-12), dialectically justifies himself to himself, "ruling" over his sensuous nature, i.e. initiating and sustaining an environment of vanity, justifying his lust for "the approval of men," justifying, to himself, his "pride of life," in the name of humanity and social change, ruling over his sin nature as a master facilitator, justifying his envy, i.e. justifying his resentment and hatred toward the conditions of righteousness (and the blessings bestowed upon the righteous) projected against the righteous (and the conditions of righteousness), and as Cane, justifying himself in his praxis of "negating" righteousness, i.e. in the killing of (purging from society, purifying the environment, attempting to remove from the face of the world) the conditions of righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, and annihilating the righteous (those who are supportive of the patriarch paradigm), now dialectically classified (taxonomized, i.e. labeled) as oppressors, judgmental, authoritarian, bourgeoisie, Fascist, "pigs," antisocial, asocial, "extremists," "fundamentalists," "challenged," "homophobes," "self-righteous," "lower order thinkers," "relics of the past," etc. dialectically, i.e. "sensually-'rationally,'" perceived as being the initiators and sustainers of "repression," "alienation," "low self-esteem," "discrimination," "isolationism," "imperialism," prejudice, discrimination, etc―depending upon a higher authority than human nature (beyond human sense experience) and human wisdom (higher than "dialectical thinking" or "higher order thinking skills"), i.e. 'letting' higher authority, i.e. parent or God, "call the shots" on what he is to receive (or not receive) for his "best" efforts (according to his natural talents, according to his natural "desires"), determined by how higher authority "feels and thinks," i.e. according to the conditions established by the Patriarch.

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.  And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."  Genesis 4:7

    In Hegel's 'A plus negative A equals A' formula, it is man's "ruling" over his sin nature ('rationally justified' as being "'normal' human behavior" by those of the 'art craft' of dialectical thinking, aka. "behavior scientists" and "social scientists") which is to be accepted by himself, for the sake of all of mankind.  Man's sin nature is thus the 'norm,' the desired outcome from his 'willful' participation within the dialectic facilitated environment, i.e. an environment which is antithetical to (over and against) man's concern about being accepted by God , i.e. dialectically perceived as man living according to (unnaturally under) the conditions of righteousness, i.e. under a system of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening
    Thus, instead of living by faith, man can dialectically live by sight, with no "sense perception" of guilt or condemnation from God or parent for his "sensuous needs," i.e. his sensuous thoughts and his sensuous actions, i.e. thoughts and actions which go counter to God or the parent's will ("No Fear"), thus having no concern (regard) for his thoughts and actions before the parent or a Good, Great, Pure, Holy, Righteous God who judges all men, i.e. their unrighteous thoughts and their unrighteous actions, according to His Righteousness (both the traditional parent and God are dialectically perceived as being of the same system, i.e. of the system of Righteousness).  While parents and God (according to God's design) are of the same system, of the system of Righteousness, requiring faith, belief, obedience and, chastening, only God is righteous.  Jesus stated he would divide the Father from the son but he did not negate, nor did he annihilate the position of the father (the patriarchal paradigm) as a position of authority, only that His Father is the final authority, i.e. that we are to call no man Father on earth, i.e. that we are to put our complete trust in the Lord and not in man, that we are not to lean to our own understanding, i.e. trusting in ourselves, in our 'reasoning' abilities, and therefore in man.  While our earthly parents are not perfect, the office they serve in (being patterned according to God's will, i.e. the Fifth Commandment of the Ten Commandments) is.  In dialectical thought (which is antithetical to righteousness), God is patterned after (according to) the earthly (patriarchal) family, i.e. the family is subject to the father figure (who, as God, requires faith, belief, obedience, and uses chastening to initiate and sustain obedience).  Therefore, by negating and annihilating the earthly father figure, i.e. by coming between the children and the parents, on the side of the sensuousness (pleasures) of the children (in support of the children of disobedience), i.e. their dissatisfaction and resentment toward the demands of righteousness coming first.  Faith in, belief in, and obedience to parents, i.e. God, i.e. righteousness, can thus be negated in the thoughts and actions of the next generation and thus annihilated in the thoughts and actions of society (see Marx's Feuerbach Thesis #4).  Thus man, as a drunkard (intoxicated in himself), can take the truth (the word of God) and hold it captive (make it subject) to his unrighteousness (make it subject to his sensuousness, i.e. his vanity, and his reasoning, i.e. his philosophical abilities) as he staggers down the dialectical pathway to his own destruction and death, thinking all the while that what he is doing is 'right.'

    "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.   For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Rom 1:17, 18 
    "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 3:3-12
    "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."  Luke 14:11   
    "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 
2 Corinthians 10:3-6
    "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. " 2 Thessalonians 3:3-10

    "Class consciousness" is simply a person's "sense perception" of how the Patriarchal paradigm of the system of Righteousness is an oppressive and irrational system of thinking and acting preventing him from knowing himself as he 'really' is and thus preventing him from actualizing his full potential as a human being.  "Class consciousness" found its first praxis in the Garden in Eden.  Genesis 3:1-6.  Class consciousness is the "classification" of the Patriarchal paradigm of the system of Righteousness as an "oppressed-oppressor" environmental condition, when "taxonomized," i.e. measured along a spectrum of sensuousness, i.e. when measured within an avoid pain-approach pleasure sense based environment (a permissive, non-judgmental environment, i.e. an "open ended," "non-directed" environment engenders a non-judgmental, permissive environment), i.e. when measured within a "sense experienced" physical, mental, and social "pain-pleasure" continuum, i.e. a continuum or spectrum proceeding from the system of Righteousness (where truth is preached and taught "as given," producing and environment of judgment and restraint, which divides man from his nature), through the system of sensuousness (which confuses a person as he is caught, divided, between his own sensuousness and spontaneity which comes from his own nature and righteousness and restraint which comes from above, i.e. beyond his nature), to the system of 'reasoning' (where 'truth' is situational or relative, i.e. 'discovered' through dialogue, which spontaneously unites man upon his own sensuousness rather than upon, i.e. over and against the righteousness which comes from outside his nature, thus restraining it), known, comprehended, applies, analyzed, synthesizes and evaluated through the consensus process, a process used to purge sensuousness, and therefore society, of the rigidity, i.e. "divisiveness" of the system of Righteousness, re-creating the learning (or policy making) environment where the world (where 'reality') is man 'rationally' (sensually) "proceeding only from Nature," a world of "peace and justice" (according to human wisdom), that is according to the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness,' of the system of dialectical 'reasoning' (where 'reasoning' is synthesized to sensuousness), i.e. according to "Hegel's" 'A + -A = A' humanistic formula of 'change') (the Patriarchal paradigm of the system of Righteousness being identified as a paradigm of unchangingness, i.e. requiring faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e. a system which is intolerant of ambiguity, i.e. evaluating thoughts and actions according to specific facts and truth learned from the parent or God, i.e. of their law, i.e. "formal logical law of contradiction""formal" meaning being preached and taught "as is," and not informally dialogued as an opinion amongst opinions, "logical" meaning rules to be memorized as established laws and not to be re-discovered experientially from life's 'changing' "sense experiences," i.e. not emotionally or sensually 'changeable,' and "law of contradiction" meaning there is either a "right answer" or a "wrong answer" with no variability, i.e. there is no "other answer," i.e. all "other answers" are wrong answers, all "supported" with the phrase "Because I said so," which is, according to dialectical thought, a condition "whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression," i.e. a "repressive" condition where the child or man, believing in the parent or God, i.e. accepts and obeys their commands "as given," by faith, i.e. their actions therefore proceeding from their faith in a higher authority than their 'immediate' sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. "rigid," i.e. established, i.e. spiritual, i.e. spirit which is not of, nor readily influenceable by, the sensuousness, i.e. "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the human 'moment,' i.e. reasoning is not inclined to the "here-and-now," i.e. not readily adaptable to 'change,' where reasoning is above sensuousness, i.e. of the parent inculcating facts and truth to the child, i.e. rules of life and the necessity of obedience to higher authority, i.e. humbling his will to higher authorities will, i.e. 'conditioning,' training up, the children to accept God speaking to the soul of man to repent of his sin, i.e. to be in agreement with or at-one-with God and be saved from the judgment of rejection and punishment, i.e. by both parent and God, and, with God, to be saved from eternal death―John 3:14-21, i.e. all of the Father's will, i.e. sending His only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, to die on the cross for man's sins, to redeem individual man, i.e. "whosoever," requiring faith, belief, obedience, and the acceptance of chastening, determining judgment―either condemnation, i.e. eternity in Hell for sinning against God and rejecting the only means of salvation, i.e. not believing in His only begotten Son and obeying his commands, or redemption, i.e. rejecting eternity in Heaven, i.e. rejecting the new heaven and the new earth, i.e. rejecting eternity with God in His glory, through repentance for sinning against God and believing in His only begotten Son for the remission of his sins and then obeying his commands, i.e. rejecting His righteousness 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 natureso 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 Lukács' 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." (Bronner)  

    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. naturethat which is common between the individual and society, from the restraints and judgments which emanate from that reasoning which proceeds from and supports righteousnesswhere 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 itselfthe '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 feelingssensuousnessand 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."  (Rogers)  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."
    "History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency." (Maslow, The Journals) 
    "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."  (Rogers)

    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." (Coleman)

    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 naturesensuousness) 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' insteadwhen 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 below).  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, Him not knowing them), those who base their salvation on their works of sensuousness, may scoff at "Hegel's" formula as being some intellectual nothingness, as beings some mumbo-jumbo, it is the very same device they are using as Satan used in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6), used today to seduce, deceive, and manipulate men in the ways of unrighteousness.  Being ignorant of or deceitfully using Satan's sensuousness-'reasoning' based device, the 'religious' build their 'righteousness' upon the very same system they scoff at (for obvious reasons diverting attention away from their use of it when it is exposed as being the way of unrighteousness, as being evil, i.e. "How can it be evil when it can be 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 social 'unity' ("in the name of Jesus") through the augmentation of the system of sensuousness, i.e. through the augmentation of pleasure for all men, in their 'religious institutions,' 'shifting' the message of the gospel from righteousness to sensuousness for the 'purpose' of "growth."
    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 empathysensuousness).  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 righteousnesspersonally 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).  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).
    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 can only be 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), then how 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).

A plus -A equals A
(Hegel's dialectical diabolical formula)


Dean Gotcher

The system of Righteousness:  where good and evil are pre-established, i.e. requiring faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, is described in the scriptures: Hebrews 12:5-11.  (See Diaprax Chart for visual of systems being described.) 
    In the following article Righteousness is not the same as the system of Righteousness.  Righteousness itself can only be imputed by (from) God to man, it can only be imputed by Christ to those who believe upon Him, (Romans 4:1-25; vs. 6, 8, 11, 20-25; 5:13-17).   "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"  Romans 5:1   "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."  Acts 4:12 
    Yet there is a correlation between God and man regarding the system of Righteousness (R).  It is this correlation which 'drives' those of dialectical thought (of "Hegel's" formula) with the 'purpose' of negating the system of Righteousness and Righteousness itself from the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of all men on the face of the earth.  Although man is of flesh (yet made in the image of God) and God is Spirit, both use chastening to initiate and sustain the system of Righteousness, i.e.  "to produce a peaceful fruit of righteousness," i.e. our earthly fathers chastening us "after their own pleasure" (for sensuousness sake) while God does it "that we might be partakers of his holiness" Hebrews 12:5-11, (for righteousness sake). 

Chart:  The source of social controversy and contention, according to dialectical 'reasoning' is the system of Righteousness (R), i.e. the fear of chastening or judgment by parent or God for one's unrighteous thoughts or action inhibiting or preventing 'change,' i.e. inhibiting social unity which is based upon sensuousness.

    The system of Righteousness (R-s) correlates with the traditional home, with the father ruling, the desire of the heart of the wife being to her husband, and the children obeying their parents, in the Lord, with faith, belief, obedience, and chastening being key components to the environment, known as a patriarchal paradigm (a top-down way of thinking and acting).
    The attributes of the system of Righteousness are anathema to those of dialectical thought and practice, i.e. antithetical to "Hegel's" 'A + -A = A' 'scientific' formula (as will be explained in this article).  And conversely the attributes of dialectical thought and practice (also referred to as theory and practice) are anathema to those of the system of Righteousness, even though they are often used, by 'men of iniquity,' for their own 'righteousness' sake (Matthew 7:21-23).
    Unless a man is alive in Christ, walking in His imputed righteousness, he will deceitfully use the system of Righteousness along with the two systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' to initiate and sustain himself as being as a 'god,' making a name for himself, i.e. for the 'purpose' of controlling his own life (and the life of others), i.e. 'initiating' and 'sustaining' control over his surroundings to decrease pain and increase pleasure for himself, including the pleasure of receiving praise from others for "his" works of love and caring for 'them,' or at least he will 'perceive' that he is being 'needed' by God for God to accomplish His work (through human 'reasoning' and human efforttheory and practice), thus making himself and God partners in the dialectical process of 'changingness.'  The secular (and mystic) only redefine God as being a society of "oneness" in thought and in action, i.e. fascism, socialism, occultism.  This is why the 'church,' when it embraces the dialectic process, embraces mystic practices.

The system of sensuousness: where 'good' and 'evil' are temporally determined, i.e. "approach pleasure and avoid pain" is described in the scriptures:  Romans 7:14-25.   The system of sensuousness, which is simply our body's nervous system identifying what it is in the environment that produces pain or pleasure, what is, or is perceived as, potentially harmful or pleasurable to us.  It is the senses of touch, taste, sight, smell, sound and our ability to know the difference between pain and pleasure which helps us in responding 'appropriately' to the environment.  It, therefore, is the element in man which engenders satisfaction or dissatisfaction regarding his current environmental conditions. 
    While the environment may stimulate pleasure (and our nature is to approach that which is pleasurable) a higher authority than nature may use words of warning and/or inflect pain upon us to turn us away from the source of pleasure (away from the natural) toward themselves (toward the super-natural), making them the source for knowing right from wrong, basing life upon them and their standards (the right - wrong, good - evil, duality of righteousnessobeying God is good while disobeying God is evil, i.e. obeying parents is right while disobeying parents is wrong) rather than upon the natural environment itself (the pleasure - pain, i.e. "right - wrong," "good - evil," spectrum of sensuousness―augmenting pleasure is good while augmenting pain is evil, i.e. initiating and sustaining social pleasure (equality) is right thinking and acting, i.e. right behavior, and inflicting social pain (discrimination), i.e. alienation, is wrong thinking and acting, i.e. wrong behavior).  According to dialectical thought, that which is not in harmony with nature and/or for harmony with nature, i.e. restraining man from relationship with the sensuous world of pleasure (using the sensuousness of pain to do so), is the source of alienation, social disharmony, and war.  In dialectical 'reasoning' the system of Righteousness divides man from his own nature and nature itself, engendering social disharmony (the "tower of Babel 'syndrome'"), while the system of sensuousness affords man the only avenue he has available to achieve unit with his own nature and nature itself, engendering social harmony. 
     According to dialectical thinking, for example, when a father chastens his son for inappropriate behavior (according to the father's standards which are not in harmony with or "understanding" of the son's nature), he is developing within the son an unnatural (super-natural) system of Righteousness "suppressing" the natural system of sensuousness " ('alienating' the son from his own nature and nature, i.e. social nature, itself).  the system of Righteousness thus causes a rift (a self-environmental rift) between the son and the world's system of sensuousness.  
    As the chart below shows, man's natural inclination to approach pleasure begins with his nervous system coming in contact with a gratifying object in the environment.   From then on "nature" follows a course where the person seeks to control either the object of gratification or control the environment which controls the object of gratification for the continuation of pleasure (Dopamine emancipation).  The former is by force and the latter is by manipulation but both are subject to the same system of sensuousness with the latter using the system of 'reasoning' to accomplish its desired end, i.e. the initiation and sustentation of pleasure.  The system of Righteousness cuts off this cycle, using force (chastening) to turn the person away from nature (sensuousness) to a higher authority (righteousness) for 'purpose' in life.  In dialectic thought, "felt needs," the natural desires of life which are constantly 'changing,' should only be satiated (satisfied) in an environment which supplies "enjoyment" (Dopamine emancipation) while satisfying (satiating) those "felt" need.  Thus any action which inhibits or blocks the person from "enjoyment" in satisfying his "felt" needs is an unnatural action and must be negated for the "betterment" of the person and society.

    Throughout this article I will use sensuousness for the sensuousness of pleasure rather than the sensuousness of pain, i.e. our natural desire to approach whatever stimulates pleasure (stimulates Dopamine emancipation in particular) when it is in the environment (or imagined as being potentially available in the environment). The system of sensuousness (in its spontaneity form) is the mimesis of the system of 'reasoning', i.e. doubting, questioning, and disobeying the system of Righteousness, when the system of Righteousness restricts or blocks man's natural desire to approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. when the system of Righteousness is no longer satisfying, i.e. produces dissatisfaction and thus does not "seem to" make 'sense,' i.e. the mind proceeds from consciousness ('repressed' by the system of Righteousness, being made subject to it) to self-consciousness (made 'conscious' of itself in the system of sensuousness conflicting with the system of Righteousness).  (To eventually become 'actualizing' in 'reasoning'―as will be covered next.)  It is here, in the system of sensuousness, that antithesis (tension, conflict, and 'crisis') is initiated and the dialectical process has its potentiality (its foothold) of initiating 'change,' i.e. setting in motion the eventual annihilation of the system of Righteousness by the system of 'reasoning' being put into praxis, i.e. taking the place of righteousness (putting itself, as scribes and Pharisees, in Moses seat, Matthew 23:2 ; Mark 12:38;  Luke 20:46)

The system of 'reasoning': 
    The system of 'reasoning', i.e. seduction, deception, and manipulation, is described in the scriptures:  Genesis 3:1-6.
And finally reasoning is our ability to evaluate the environment (either through God or the parent's definitionour reasoning is subject to their will, or else through our own senses―our 'reasoning' is subject to our will), so as to 'continue to do' what is right and not do what is wrong (subject to the system of  righteousness) and also to evaluate how to 'change' the environment to increase pleasure and decrease pain (subject to the system of sensuousness).  When reasoning is submitted to the system of Righteousness, faith, belief, obedience, and chastening are accepted as fundamental (foundational) to life, i.e. directing our lives in doing what is right and not doing what is wrong according to pre-determined absolutes, with the pain - pleasure spectrum (sensuousness) being subject to the system of Righteousness. Reasoning, when made subject to human nature (man leaning to his own understanding) redefines that which is spiritual into sensual terms, making reasoning no longer reasoning subject to the system of Righteousness, of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, but rather a 'scientific' system ("so called 'science'") proceeding 'from' the system of sensuousness, i.e. doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness.  It is thus a system of 'reasoning' of seduction, deception, manipulation, and negation, i.e. 'purposed' in the negation of that righteousness which comes from God alone by making human nature 'righteousness' instead, making the system of 'reasoning' an extremely deceptive tool when placed in the hands of the deceiver.  Redefining science, which is used to discover established laws found in animals, plants, and rocks, into a 'science' used to evaluate man according to the laws of his own carnal, sensuous nature alone, thus deceitfully using 'science' (no longer a true science) as a tool to negate and then annihilate the system of Righteousness, i.e. removing 'discrimination' and 'segregation' (the duality of absolute above-below, good-evil, right-wrong) off the face of the earth.  Science under the system of Righteousness is a science of laws and facts found in nature while 'science,' under the system of sensuous 'reasoning' only, 'reasoning' defines man as a product of nature only, i.e. the truth of man and his nature known by God's word, i.e. by faith, belief, obedience and chastening is changed into the truth of "sense perception" and "sensuous needs" only.  Such 'reasoning' disdains the traditional use of science, i.e. the recognition of and glorification of God as the creator of the world (Romans 1:16-).

"Thus when ‘science' maintains that the manner in which data immediately present themselves is an adequate foundation of scientific conceptualisation and that the actual form of these data is the appropriate starting-point for the formation of scientific concepts, it thereby takes its stand simply and dogmatically on the basis of capitalist society.  It uncritically accepts the nature of the object as it is given and the laws of that society as the unalterable foundation of ‘science'."  "The dialectical method was overthrown and with it the methodological supremacy of the totality over the individual aspects; the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole and, instead, the whole was dismissed as unscientific or else it degenerated into the mere ‘idea' or ‘sum' of the parts. With the totality out of the way, the fetishistic relations of the isolated parts appeared as a timeless law valid for every human society." (Lukacs)  emphasis added

    The system of Righteousness, with its attributes of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, cuts off or negates the seduction, deception, and manipulation aspects of the system of 'reasoning' (when it is subject to, i.e. justifying, the system of sensuousness).  When reasoning is subject to righteousness it is didactic, deductive reasoning, i.e. based upon categorical imperatives, i.e. unquestionable and universal commands and answers (as Jesus manifested in the wilderness temptations, i.e. "It is written...."  Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13 and the night before the cross, i.e. "thy will be done."  Matthew 26:42)
    Because the system of Righteousness, and righteousness itself, is not of, i.e. does not proceed from the system of sensuousness, when the system of 'reasoning' is used to augment the sensuousness of pleasure, while the person is under the system of Righteousness, doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness is liberated ('justified').  Upon 'help' (facilitation, i.e. "enticement") by those of the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' (those using "Hegel's" 'A + -A = A' formula), i.e. in the social praxis of liberation from the restraints of the system of Righteousness, the person finds himself in an "open ended," "non-directed," "non-judgmental" environment"open-ended, non-directed" questions engender sensuous and spontaneous answers, thus engendering "non-judgmental" and "non-condemning" responses or reactionsand soon learns how to 'rationally justify' to himself and to others the 'impracticality,' 'irrationality,' and therefore the 'irrelevance' of the system of Righteousness, thus 'realizing' the 'necessity' of negating and annihilating the system of Righteousness from the world, i.e. for the sake of others, i.e. for the 'purpose' of imagining and creating a 'healthy' society, i.e. imagining and creating a "new" world order of 'peace' and 'social harmony,' i.e. a world 'freed' of "discrimination," "prejudice," and 'divisiveness,' i.e. 'freed' of people who are inadaptable to 'change,' intolerant of ambiguity, 'judgmental,' fundamental, i.e. thinking and acting according to the system of Righteousness.
    While the system of Righteousness (the parent, i.e. the earthly father, or God the heavenly father) restrains the system of sensuousness (the child or man), reasoning is used to evaluate what is right and what is wrong, good and evil thought and behavior, based upon laws established by the parents or God.  When reasoning is used to change rocks, plants, and animals into useful things for man's use, evaluating nature and changing nature according to established laws of nature, it is true science ("How do things work the way they do?" "What are the laws which make things to what they do?" rather than "Why should I have to listen to my parents, teacher, or God when I don't feel like it or don't want to?" and "How can I get around their commands and laws?"). 
    If this is the case applied to man, other than to his physical body, then the only laws which can be evaluated and used are the laws of sensuousness, since the laws of righteousness do not proceed from nature but only from God.  The very recognition and use of "behavior science," i.e. "dialectical materialism," ('reasoning' from sensuousness) negates the system of Righteousness.  Making righteousness subject to the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning', i.e. synthesizing sensuousness and 'reasoning' negates that righteousness which is not of nature, thus making 'righteousness' of nature only (changing righteousness into sensuousness, truth into a theory, belief into an opinion, absolutes into relativity, faith into doubting, belief into questioning, obedience into disobedience, chastening into annihilation, evil into good, good into evil, only Christ, only Scriptures, only Faith, and only Grace into anathema, God into man's nature, and the church into a harlot, i.e. marketing herself at street corners, i.e. buying and selling souls via polls, surveys, and feasibility studies.). 
    When the system of 'reasoning' is used to 'justify' the system of sensuousness (facilitating 'change' i.e. making 'change' in the way man thinks and actscounter to the system of Righteousness'easier,' making sensuousness, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, of greater importance than righteousness), it negates or annihilates the system of Righteousness, now "sense perceived" as being an unnatural (super-natural, 'irrational') source of pain and an unnatural (super-natural, 'irrational') restrainer of pleasure, it becomes "science falsely so called."  1 Timothy 6:20, 21   The system of 'reasoning', when it is used by man to 'liberate' himself from the system of Righteousness, becomes a system of trickery, used to 'help' him, through seduction, deception, and manipulation (anarchy and revolution), circumvent the system of Righteousness, for his own sensuous 'gain.'  Mark 8:36-39   

"Hegel's" dialectic "formula" and the Spiritual consequences of anyone participating in its process:
When man uses the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' to support, i.e. initiate and sustain, the system of Righteousness on the earth, he builds kingdoms for himself, i.e. kingdoms (institutions) of sensuousness, often in the name of the Lord, justifying 'his' actions (thoughts and actions of the system of sensuousness) by the system of 'reasoning'.  All ideologies and actions, i.e. thoughts and actions of 'righteousness,' which lead in the direction of man-nature equilibrium (sensuousness-'reasoning' actualization) utilize the social ("scientific") gospel of the potential 'goodness' of man, i.e. basing the "human level of man" as 'goodness' (you will chose only that which is 'good' when you 'know' yourself and the world as becoming as one).  Thus any state or condition which prevents such 'goodness' (prevents the "collective soul of interconnectedness") from becoming actualized is perceives as being evil (a Gnostic, Kabbalist, Hermetic concept). 
    This is not the gospel of the scriptures.  The gospel calls no man to the use of deadly force (or makes him subject to a "oneness" force 'bonding' him with the 'creation-creator') to initiate and sustain the kingdom of God (or "discover" the 'kingdom of God' lying within himself).  The Lord calls all men to repentance for their sins, as well as to a life of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening according to His will, by His commands (His Word revealed, i.e. God breathed, i.e. revealed by His Holy Spirit, through men of faith, men of His own choosing, and not by the private opinions―by the sensuousness and 'reasoning'―of men), by His shed blood (by his work alone), and by the Holy Spirit (by His righteousness alone). 
    Those of the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' are kingdom builders of men, making a name for themselves (even, like wolves in sheep skin, doing it in the name of Jesus, i.e. Joshua), using force to remove your way of thinking and acting from the environment (changing the environment), i.e. destroy you while God chastens to correct us (changing your heart).  Those of the 'formula' say they 'care' about you (saying they having a 'caring' ministry) but will betray you in the end, using force (government) to clear the environment of 'inappropriate' information' and 'irrational,' i.e. irrelevant people (killing the unborn and elderly and anyone one else who happens to gets in the way of social, i.e. global 'progress').  When the Lord returns, and only when he returns, will there by force used upon the kingdoms of men (kingdoms of men united as 'one' by "Hegel's" formula 'A + -A = A'), judging them for their use of sensuousness and 'reasoning' (sight and pride) in the praxis of negating and annihilating the system of Righteousness (faith), rejecting that Righteousness which can only be imputed by the Lord upon all who place their trust (and faith) in him.  It is only in Him, in His Righteousness, that true liberty is found.  All other 'liberty' is of slavery to the sensuousness and 'reasoning' of man, making man subject to seduction, deception and manipulation.  In it, the way of man, true freedom is never found because the issue of freedom never comes up (man is already doing what he wants to do, thinking freedom lies therein).
    The Lord first came as a lamb, as a redeemer (redeeming men from Hell), he is returning the second time as a lion, i.e. as a judge, judging all, man and his kingdoms, according to His Righteousness, judging all to Hell who rejected his righteousness (turning instead to their sensuousness and 'reasoning'), bringing to nought the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning'.  Those of the latter systems turn to the apostate church and their false apostles (who also use the latter systems for their so called system of Righteousness), noting their use and abuse of men, using them as an example of the 'evilness' of the  system of Righteousness, 'justifying' to themselves and to all who listen to them of the necessity of negating of the system of Righteousness, i.e. both secular and sacred then united in the praxis of negating Righteousness by their synthesis of sensuousness and 'reasoning', used to 'justify' their own 'righteousness,' both united under the same system and name of Antichrist, deceiving the world into worshipping him as their 'God,' their 'lord and savior,' i.e. the same Gnostic 'lord and savior' who came to the women and Adam in the garden in Eden and helped liberate them from God's righteousness back then).  In this way both the sacred and the secular (in a sacred-secular partnership) swallow up the individual (the individual soul before a holy and just God) by their creation of a society of 'righteousness' ("oneness") here on earth (or somewhere in the cosmos), all for the 'betterment' of man and 'society.'

"Hegel's" 'scientific process' negates the Father's will that men might "be born" again in His righteousness:
    This is the "scientific" method of the dialectical process, of "Hegel's" 'A + -A = A' formula.  It is the use of 'reasoning' to liberate sensuousness (self-consciousness) from the restraints of Righteousness (consciousness), thus 'justifying' the praxis of negating Righteousness.  By redefining Righteousness through "human eyes and human ears" (Marx), 'righteousness' (right behavior, ethics, morals, meaning and purpose of life, etc.) becomes subject to human sensuousness ("sense experience"), human 'reasoning' (dialectic process) and social action (social praxis), rather than sensuousness and 'reasoning' (man) being subject to Righteousness (God).  God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth.  God's truth (revealed) is not man's 'truth (sense experienced and philosophically reasoned).  God is only known through his Word which is revealed (knowing that there is a God is made possible through His witness of the creation).  God is not a feeling or a thought, something which is in common with human sensuousness (subject therefore to human interpretation).  Man can only comprehend a God through his own sensuousness, by sight and 'reasoning', while God is spirit and must reveal himself through His Word and His Spirit (all three in agreement) which must be accepted by faith.  While man is born of the flesh (of sensuousness, of the creation) he must be born again of the spirit (of righteousness, by the regenerating work of the creator, by the Son and the Holy Spirit).  It is upon "this rock," i.e. the Word of God, the messiah, is revealed by the Father, i.e. that Christ is the son of the living God, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven," from which the church is built, i.e. "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."   Man can only know who he is, where he came from, and where he is going by God's Word revealed, preached, and taught.  He can never know who he is, where he came from, and where he is going by his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' (by his own "flesh and blood").  Man's opinions and actions (theory and practice) have no eternal value other than death.  It is only by the Father, His only begotten son, and the work of the Holy Spirit (all three in one) that life has meaning and 'purpose.'  Apart from God and His revealed word ("It is written") all man has is dialectical 'reasoning's,' i.e. opinions ("I feel," and "I think") to 'discover' meaning and 'purpose' in life, both being 'driven' by his sensuous and 'rational' vanity.  By man defining righteousness by his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' ("sense experience"), he deludes himself, 'convincing' himself that he is 'good,' that his vanity, when it is put into praxis 'helping' humanity 'discover' and create unity and peace amongst itself (the Gnostic "oneness" concept), is 'righteousness' becoming.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 23:9

    By redefining the role of the father, through the children's eyes and ears (their sensuousness and 'reasoning'), the family becomes subject to the feelings and thoughts of the children, rather than the family being subject to the will of the father (of the system of Righteousness).  By redefining the role of God through man's eyes and ears, man and the creation becomes subject to the feelings and thoughts of man, rather than man and the creation being subject to the will of God.  By redefining the role of the citizen through the socialist's eyes and ears, the citizen becomes subject to the feelings and thoughts of the socialist, rather than the government being subject to the will of the citizen, the citizen becomes subject to a (are oppressed by a) government which serves and protects the socialist (of the system of 'reasoning'; seducing, deceiving, and manipulating) rather than a government serving and protecting the citizen (of the system of Righteousness). 
    When the "Thou shalt not" and the "Because I said so" (the "Is" and "Is Not" which is preach and taught in the system of Righteousness) 'willingly' participates in the "ought's" of life (dialogues with the system of sensuousness and its dissatisfaction with the system of Righteousness) then the "seems to be" of life (of the system of 'reasoning') negates, the "Thou shalt not's" and the "Because I said so."  When those of the system of Righteousness dialogue with those of the system of sensuousness, to find common ground, their new found unity via the system of 'reasoning' (synthesis), liberates the system of sensuousness from the system of Righteousness (antithesis), thus negating the system of Righteousness.  'Righteousness,' from then on find's its essence and being within the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' (sensuousness and 'reasoning' become one in 'purpose,' liberation from, and the annihilation of the system of Righteousness). 
    The dialectical process, i.e. the system of 'reasoning', turns the good of the system of Righteousness into evil and the evil of the system of sensuousness into good, making good and evil subject to sensuousness and 'reasoning' (man's nature and the creation) rather than to righteousness (God, the creator).  In this way man can participate in his own 'salvation' in his social praxis of the 'salvation' for others, for 'righteousness' sake (social harmony and world peace) with the nature of man (antichrist) ruling.  Grace and faith (as well as Christ and the scriptures) thus become anathema to the opinions and works of men when the word "only" (only Christ, only grace, only faith, only God's word) is applied to them.  

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."  Ephesians 2:8, 9

All must participate (none can escape) if the dialectic process is to be successful:
    The process is not a one shot deal, but rather a process of 'changingness,' repeated over and over, again and again, to the end of 'life.' That is why it is called 'progressivism.'  It will harass you, wearing you down until you are 'willing' to cooperate with its demands and participation in its 'life changing' process, to get it "off your back" (at least for a while you think). 
    Like the Marxist waltz, it will pressure you into taking two steps forward until you are ready to petition for help (to defeat it), escape, or strike back (squeal), then it will give you one step back, giving you the impression that you won, when instead you lost the first step ("win-win" means the Marxists win the one step forward while they let you think you win by giving you your one step back).  By participating in the process (to get it "off your back"), you gave it recognition and life (you give it its first step), therefore giving it place in your life and thus in the lives of others.  Those in the process (the stakeholders, those of the "let's agree to disagree" mindset) are thankful for the first step you gave them, the empowerment you gave to them and the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' ('justifying' their compromise as being 'right').  Now, by your participation, all are liberated from the system of Righteousness (from judgment by it), while you, thinking you kept them from the second step, are relieved (but deceived), thankful that you got them "off your back," at least for a while. 
    It is the first step, i.e. your meeting with them half way, your taking that first step on the dialectic dance floor, which negates the system of Righteousness.  It is a dance of unrighteousness and eternal death to all who participate. 
    How "Hegel's" socialist formula applies to you and me, i.e. how it affects us and the world we live within, will be explained in more detail below.  'A + -A = A' is not just some "scientific" formula being experimented with in some distant sinister laboratory.  The 'laboratory' is the world (the "new" order of the world) you now live within and, like Pavlov's dogs, Skinners rats, and Thorndike's chickens, you, your family and loved ones are the objects (dogs, rats, and chickens) being experimented with, being 'encouraged' to 'change' from righteousness to sensuousness through putting 'reasoning' (the dialectical process) into praxis (into practice) in your life and the lives of others, so that all can become at-one-with the world.

"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."  2 Corinthians 6:15-18

'A + -A = A':
     Of "Hegel's" 'A + -A = A', (A) is a person who thinks there is absolute right and wrong and that he is right (in other words he has a thesis position) and anybody who differs from him is wrong and negative A, (-A), is another person who also thinks there is absolute right and wrong and that he is right (in other words he also has a thesis position) and anybody who differs from him is wrong.  A and -A differ from one another only on what they think is right and wrong, so therefore they, having differing positions on an issue, don't get along with one another (a condition known as antithesis).  Therefore A and -A can not be united as 'one' (synthesized) because of the way they think.  The problem, according to dialectical thought, lies in their thinking that there is absolute right and absolute wrong.  The only way A and -A can become as one (in the old fashioned way, the non-dialectic way) is either A or -A persuades the other person that he is right and the other person is wrong or else he uses force, i.e. pain (chastening), to bring the other person to his position, i.e. 'convince' him that his right is right and that the other person's right is wrong.  Actually both become subject to the same position, i.e. the position is what makes them one (with feelings following, only being a byproduct of unity in position, i.e. both being subject to position, both constrained by the same objective truth). 
    "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  Matthew 18:20  Our 'feelings' for the object, i.e. for Christ in the verse above, predominate over our feelings for one another while not negating them.  In other words our feelings for one another are not to predominate over our feelings for Christ but instead are strengthened for one another in Him, being what I call a byproduct, i.e. Christian fellowship (the bride, the congregation of believers) is a byproduct of believers in Christ gathering together at one time at one place in his name (in His righteousness).  The gathering of one another together as 'one' (sensuousness) is not the agenda.  He is the agenda of each and every individual believer gathered.  Our togetherness, in his righteousness, is simply a byproduct for the moment and place.  While our togetherness comes and goes, His righteousness in the individual remains.  The togetherness is simply for the edification, encouragement, and reproof of the individual believers, for the sake of the righteousness of Christ in each individual.  It is not our togetherness (even in his name) that makes us righteous, it His righteousness in us that makes us righteous and our meeting in His name a time of edification, encouragement, and reproof, to continue in His righteousness, i.e. in the faith.  It is our position in Him which gives us position, not our position in togetherness, i.e. in one another.  The position of togetherness is simply a byproduct of our position in Him.  Otherwise our position would be found within our togetherness, making Christ subject to our togetherness, i.e. a dialectic construct.

Hebrews 12:5-11―Chastening and Righteousness go hand in hand:
    Both A and -A carry a way of thinking which correlates with Hebrews 12:5-11.  They both use chastening to convince another person, under their authority, that what the other person is thinking and doing is wrong and what they are thinking and doing is right, that their "chastening" of the person is necessary if they are to learn a way of thinking and acting which is right.  the system of Righteousness uses chastening to produce a "peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."  Chastening (or the threat of it), from an authority who is greater than the self-environment 'sensuousness' of the 'moment,' is used to initiate and sustain the system of Righteousness (creating a 'self-environmental dialectical rift', dividing a person's thoughts and actions from his own nature, i.e. his natural inclinations, and from nature, i.e. from the object of 'desire,' itself).

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

    It is the act of chastening sensuousness (and the fear of chastening for one's sensuous thoughts and actions) which restrains the love of pleasure, which inhibits and blocks man's love of this world, which lies at the heart of dialectical 'reasoning', being dialectically perceived as "repressing" human behavior.  The 'hate' of chastening, or the fear of it, is what 'justifies,' to the 'reasoning' of sensuous man, the use of the dialectical process (to justify sensuousness over and against the system of Righteousness) in the act (or praxis) of negating the system of Righteousness.

"Thus ‘Threat orientation,' [the fear of getting caught for disobeying the parents commands, fear of doing wrong, fear of judgment] so often found in the background of prejudiced [the righteousness minded, faithful, believing, and obedient] children, is lacking in the history of the tolerant [the sensuousness minded, doubting, questioning, disobedient, i.e. "experimenting," "experiential," permissive] child.  Only when life is free from intolerable threats [freed of chastening, experienced in an "open ended," "non-directed," non-judgmental, "tolerant of ambiguity" ("tolerant of uncertainty") environment], or when these threats are adequately handled with inner strength [through rebellion against authority, i.e. questioning the system of parental authority because of the 'irrationality' and 'irrelevance of "authoritative" parents], can one be at ease with all sorts and conditions [with the deviancies, depravities, and abominations] of men."  (Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice)  bracketed information added

    In dialectical thought and practice (theory and practice), the act of chastening must be negated if the system of Righteousness is to be annihilated and the person (along with society) is to be freed from the effects of being judged, i.e. judged as being unrighteous (thus producing a guilty conscience, i.e. the source of 'neurosis,' i.e. 'irrational' fear, i.e. fear of God or an 'other' authority, greater than, not in harmony with, or inadaptable to nature; nature meaning of the 'immediate' "sensuous need" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e. the "sense experience" of the tangible "here-and-now").  In dialectical thought and practice, only a humanist, i.e. a person of, or in touch with, nature, "in the moment," freed of any 'unnatural' authority, freed of that which is not of nature, dialectically liberated from any authority which is not of the cosmos, is 'rational' and therefore qualified in helping others (and society) in the process of 'discovering' that which is "in there (its) 'best interest.'"   Therefore if you're not a humanist or you disagree with the 'principles' of humanism, you are 'irrational,' and anything of nature (which is under your authority) must be taken away from you for its own "health, safety, and best interest."  In dialectical thought, chastening, used to initiate and sustain the system of Righteousness, i.e. to support that which is not in harmony with nature in the 'moment,' is not only an act of physical abuse (repressing natural impulses and urges), it is also an act of mental and social abuse, inhibiting natural desires and thoughts which are common to all of mankind, and therefore, preventing 'reasoning' skills from properly developing in the individual, blocking the potential of the individual developing 'healthy' relationship building skills, i.e. 'discovering' his identity with the world.
    Without the changing of the home environment from a closed 'society' of top-down authority and commands ("repressing" sensuousness and 'reasoning') to and open 'society' of feelings, thoughts and social action ('rationally' liberating sensuousness), society can not be 'changed' into a one world system, a "new" order of the world where man himself, instead of God, rules over the affairs of man, i.e. man's feelings and thoughts direct (his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' directs) him in his affairs instead of God and His Word (God's righteousness which is not of human sensuousness and 'reasoning')  Kurt Lewin wrote: "... 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)  Without 'neurosis' (the urge to do something natural, but the "fear of judgment"―by someone who is not in harmony with that which is naturalpreventing you from doing it), the dialectical process has no 'drive' or 'purpose.'  The 'drive' and 'purpose' of the dialectic process is the wanting of liberation from 'neurosis' (freedom from the fear of judgment, from righteousness, for doing that which is natural, sensual, i.e. normal to nature, i.e. carnal, i.e. 'practical') and its source, i.e. the system of Righteousness, the traditional, i.e. patriarchal, home.

    "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'"  (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, as quoted in Bronner) 
    "Every neurosis is an example of dynamic adaptation; it is essentially an adaptation to such external conditions as are in themselves irrational and, generally speaking, unfavorable to the growth of the child."  (Fromm) 
    "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "Dreams and neurotic symptoms show that the frustration of reality cannot destroy the desires which are the essence of our being."  "If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis."   "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction."   "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic."  (Brown)
    "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle." "Fore-pleasure is the preliminary play with all parts of the body, and represent a perpetuation of the pure polymorphous perverse play of infantile sexuality." "The energy or desire with which the human being pursues pleasure is the pleasurable activity of an organ of the body. Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves. Infants know no guide except the pleasure-principle.  In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown; repression, (and consequently neurosis) distinguishes man from the other animals." (Brown)
    "The doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind, . . . the pattern of history exhibits a dialectic of neurosis [a conflict between one's belief and one's behavior, a dissatisfaction with what one is doing, i.e. having to do, counter of what one 'wants' to do, not being able to do that which is different or new]."   "The core of the neurosis of individuals lay in the ‘memory-traces of the experiences of former generations.'"  "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion." "Psychoanalysis must treat religion [the system of Righteousness] as a neurosis."  "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Brown)  bracketed information added
    "A patriarchal culture is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of social actualization"  "To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc."  "My work on motivations come from the clinic, from a study of neurotic people."  "This carry-over from the study of neurosis to the study of labor in factories is legitimate." "Work is not about paying the rent anymoreit is about self-fulfillment."  (Maslow, on Management)
    "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate free-animality-humanness.  It's the easiest to take.  Must encourage it.
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."  (ibid.)
    "Neurosis . . . the age old problem of the relationship between is and ought [the parent and the child]...We see our is [the parent's authority and commands―the system of Righteousness] as extremely far away from our ought [the child's desires―the system of sensuousness].... We have learned to see it in a dialectical fashion [through the child's feelings, eyes, and thoughts]." "Discovering one's real nature is simultaneously an ought quest and an is quest.... Is becomes the same as ought ['righteousness' and sensuousness become as one]."  "Oughtiness [sensuous desires antithetical to parental rules and authority] is itself a fact to be perceived.  We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness."  "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the "is," but from a scaling down of the "ought," from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality and therefore to attainability [the 'ought' is not to be like the parent, "demanding" what he wants, what 'is' his, but to negate the rule, the "not" of the parent altogether, re-creating the parent and the child as being one, of the same desires, i.e. of nature only]."  (Maslow, Human Nature)  bracketed information added
    "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner [liberating and escorting the "id" through the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning', involving dialogue, social issues, doubt, opinions, questioning authority, consensus, permissiveness, etc.], rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [restraining ("repressing") the "id" by the system of Righteousness, involving preaching and teaching right and wrong, faith, belief, obedience, conscience, chastening, etc.]." (Rogers)  bracketed information added

Opinions negate the system of Righteousness, i.e. thereby negating righteousness as being the issue of life, replacing it with the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning'
    There is no absolute right or absolute wrong (not right) in an opinion.  Dialogue negates absolutes.  When belief, i.e. facts and truths, are shaped into the language of opinions (feelings and theories), everyone is more concerned about how everyone else is "feeling" or what they are "thinking," i.e. their sensuousness and 'reasoning' in the 'moment,' than they are about whether their thoughts or actions will have eternal consequences in the future.  Anyone who continues to preach and teach truth (dialectically perceived as being 'their' truth, 'their' belief, i.e. their opinion) as being the only way, i.e. promoting a system of Righteousness,  is from then on responded to as being either "out of it" or else "out to cause" dissention, division, and war (a potential terrorist), and therefore needs to be either 'helped,' i.e. counseled into participating within the process of 'change' (or at least not to question or criticize it) or be neutralized, marginalized, or removed from society if necessary.  Such is the fate of the 'neurotic,' i.e. those of the system of Righteousness, that is, in "Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's," .... dialectical diabolical mind, i.e. the paradigm of the  "new" order (system) of the world. 
    This is why every child and adult must participate in the 'change process' finding common ground through dialogue.  In 'life long learning' the dialectical process is put into social practice (praxis), for the sake of the "we," the "us," and the "all," for the sake of the physical, mental, and social health of everyone in a communitarian (conscietization, democratization), totalitarian, globalist, humanist, environmentalist "new" (dialectical) order of the world, where justice is dialectical justice, order is dialectical order, harmony is dialectical harmony, and peace is dialectical peace, where all (dialectally minded individual) are for one (dialectically minded society) and one (dialectically minded society) is for all (dialectically minded individuals).  If you are not dialectic in your thoughts and actions (in theory and practice), dialectic laws, dialectic management, and dialectic courts will not 'permit' you to buy or sell (for the betterment of the "we," the "us," and the "all"),  The righteous will not be 'permitted' to have control in a dialectical diabolical world.  Dialectically, your opinion (of the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning') makes a difference for 'change,' not your belief (of the system of Righteousness).  Dialectically, one system initiates 'change' for 'good' while the other system inhibits or blocks the 'change' process and therefore maintains 'evil.'

The Patriarchal Paradigm:
    This way of thinking and acting, known as a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. where a person's belief and action is based upon absolute right and absolute wrong ("categorical imperatives") established by a higher authority, is dialectically perceived as the source of division amongst men (having determined that sensuousness―"sense experience" (sensuous desire) is the common pathway to social oneness, since all can readily identify with, understand, and agree upon feelings and thoughts engendered from having to do what one 'does not feel like doing,' i.e. does not 'want to do' or not being able to do what one 'feels like doing,' i.e. 'wants to do,'  i.e. personal desire being the catalyst for 'change'). According to dialectical thinking, the patriarchal paradigm, with its inculcating (preaching and teaching) of absolute right and absolute wrong ('training up' the next generation in the use of the system of Righteousness), using chastening when necessary (to restrain their natural system of sensuousness), is the cause of division, suffering, and war in the world. Those of the system of Righteousness recognizes the opposite, that it is the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' which are the catalyst for war.

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."  James 4:1-3

    Physical, mental, and social 'health' or 'abuse' is based upon whether a person participates (or is allowed to participate) within the dialectical process of 'changingness' or not.  The dialectical question is: "What can negate division, suffering, and war in the world?"  "What can bring man together as one?"  "Physically, mentally, and socially."  The answer is in 'changing' the way people think and act, convincing them that there is no absolute right and wrong. That when it comes to unnatural (super-natural, beyond naturally understood in the 'moment') positions that demanding that all must believe two plus two always equals four and can never equal any other number is limiting human potential, i.e. that if you are give any other answer than four by the other person you must accept that answer as well, based upon the person's own perception of things, not punish him for being wrong but rather encourage him to continue "discovering" the right answer for himself, to continue "thinking for himself," i.e. to continue "thinking outside the box," to continue practicing (praxis) the 'scientific method' of 'discovering' truth through one's own "sense experiences."

"Any time we teach a child something [inculcating the system of Righteousness], we keep him from discovering it himself [preventing him from 'discover' for himself the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' synthesized]," (Piaget)

    It is in this dialectical 'light' of sensuousness and 'reasoning' that those of the system of Righteousness, of the patriarchal paradigm, of the traditional home which inculcates faith, belief, obedience, and chastening (to reinforce obedience) must abdicate their 'old' way of thinking and acting or be negated.  Without its negation in the life experience ("sensuous experience") of the next generation, there is not hope for individual-social justice, individual-social harmony, and world peace.  Hope in the world is based upon happiness, which proceeds from pleasure, which proceeds from the body and mind, which proceeds from sensuousness, which proceeds from the present environment, which proceeds only from nature, which is worldly.

Affirmative Action, Sensuousness, the "Scientific process" and the negation of the patriarchal home:
    According to the dialectic way of thinking, i.e. according to the heresiarch paradigm of 'changingness,' the problem does not lie in the person's wrong answer, it lies in his wrong way of thinking and acting, i.e. in his 'faulty' paradigm which inculcates absolute right and wrong to be accepted by faith, believed without question, and obeyed, i.e. it lies in his acceptance of and use of the patriarchal paradigm to know good and evil, right and wrong.  Hegel stated his opposition to the patriarchal paradigm, the system of Righteousness (and righteousness itself) in this way:

"When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)

    Instead of righteousness, or rightness of position (absolutes), being of interest, where right and wrong (not right) are pre-established (determined) by some higher authority (dialectically perceived as being "out of touch" with, inadaptable to the 'changingness' of the  system of sensuousness, i.e. the "sensuous needs" of the person in the 'moment'), i.e. where right and not right are pre-determined by the parent or God and are therefore fundamental in directing a person's thoughts and actions, thus limiting a person's ability to learn for himself, "damaging" him, preventing him from learning how to use the "scientific method" of the dialectical process to discover 'truth,' discovering what works and what does not work according to the situation, in the 'moment,' for himself, where 'rightness' (a quality, a "sense perception") is tied to sensuousness and 'reasoning', both having 'immediate' relevance to his own feelings and thoughts, thus making 'rightness' subject to the 'changing' situation and relative to his "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience"  (Karl Marx), i.e. thus his "subjective freedom" can only be engendered through social contact and only be fulfilled, i.e. find 'purpose' in social praxis.

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

    According to dialectical 'reasoning,' by switching the focus (affections) from righteousness to sensuousness, from positions of truth to human relationship, from 'religion' to "science," from above to below, from preaching and teaching truth and facts to dialoguing opinions, from established right and wrong to mediation, from "the narrow path" to "the broad path," from "lower order thinking skills" dependent upon Righteousness to "higher order thinking skills" 'justifying' sensuousness, from truths/facts/ideals and beliefs to opinions and theories, man can be 'freed' from division, divisiveness, and war, i.e. the affects of higher authorities restraint upon human nature (the effect of righteousness upon sensuousness).  By "scientifically" ('rationally') 'discovering' his own nature (getting in touch with his own sensuousness), 'discovering' that he is the same nature as others, i.e. 1) that his desires for survival and having pleasure in this life are the same desires of others, and 2) that his desire for the approval of others is the same desire of others, he can learn how to initiate and sustain a common human relationship with others and with nature itself, thereby negating the sources of division, divisiveness, and war, i.e. he can 'scientifically' learn how to identify, neutralize, marginalize, and negate the authority of the system of Righteousness which/who refuses to (can not) come under or refuses to (can not) submit to the 'scientific method' of the dialectical process (without negating itself/himself).  By refusing to participate in the dialectical process categorizes oneself as being suspect, i.e. profiles one as being a potential 'terrorist' to the dialectical process and an enemy (an "extremist") to those who are attempting to initiate and sustain its use in creating a world of social harmony, justice, and peace for all mankind (caring for everyone's health, safety, and "best interest"). 

The dialectical process is a misuse use of science, making it "science falsely so called":  
    Karl Marx wrote, regarding the "sensuous" nature of the "scientific method" of the dialectical process and its affect upon man and society: 

"Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3"Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity."  (Lukács)

    G. F. W. Hegel wrote, regarding the scientific structure of the dialectical process

"It is clear that no expositions can be regarded as scientific which do not follow the course of this method, and which are not conformable to its simple rhythm, for that is the course of the thing itself." (Hegel as quoted in Friedrich)  

    The Apostle Paul warned Timothy (and us today) of the effects of using "science falsely so called," i.e. the "scientific method" of the dialectical process, he warned Timothy to avoid the dialectical process:

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [sensuous and] vain babblings [dialogue], and oppositions [antithesis] of science falsely so called [science when used on rocks, plants, animals, and man's body is true science but becomes "science falsely so called" when used on man's feelings, thoughts, and actions]: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21  bracketed information added

'A + -A = A' means that "nothing is Absolute or Sacred":
    "In the eyes of dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."  (Karl Marx)  "But, as has been pointed out before, we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objective  Book 1: Cognitive Domain, 1956  p. 32

    If there is therefore no longer absolute right and wrong, then the need for chastening, which is used to maintain that way of thinking, is no longer necessary (to chasten when there is no 'wrong' would be masochistic for the one accepting it and sadistic for the one administrating it; an Erick Fromm's theme labeling the patriarch paradigm as being "sado-masochistic").  By the removal of chastening, or fear of chastening from the environment (classroom, workplace, government, church, etc. environment) , i.e. the removal of the fear of judgment from a higher authority than nature or an attitude of accountability for one's actions, the person is liberated from the way of thinking (that of the higher authority itself who demands righteousness, i.e. living, thinking, and acting according to his standards) which causes division, social disharmony, and war.  In this "new" environment of 'change,' this "new" order of the world, this "new world order" (all three being the same), he learns how to build common ground with all mankind, building it upon that which he has in common with all others, his sensuous (worldly) nature and their sensuous (worldly) nature.  If the essence of man is sensuous desire, then the becoming of mankind (the "new" world order) can only be 'actualized' by the liberation of sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness through dialectical 'reasoning' being put into social action against the system of Righteousness (praxis).  "Youth groups" in the contemporary church, for example, are built upon the dialectical process of sensuousness and 'reasoning', dialogue and opinions, "freeing" the next generation from "sound doctrine," i.e. from the authority of God and His Word, i.e. from righteousness
    Marxism and praxis go hand in hand: 

"Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action [sensuous 'reasoning' and sensuous praxis]."   (introduction to Gramsci)  bracketed information added

    Therefore, the only thing absolute is sensuousness, 'reasoning', and the dialectical process itself, i.e. the "philosophy of praxis."  "The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization [sensuousness] of thought, an absolute humanism [sensuousness] of history [why socialist always re-write history, 'demythologizing' it, i.e. 'purging' it of any righteousness].' " (Gramsci)  bracketed information added    The dialectical process put into practice (praxis, i.e. the dialectical process put into social action) is "the philosophy of praxis."  The "philosophy of praxis" is the 'rational' demythologizing of the realm of righteousness, i.e. the negation of the system of Righteousness as having any relevance in regards to the realm of sensuousness, not only in human though but also in human action.  The dialectical ideal is "Don't 'disobey' your parents, and maintain their relevance, rather create their irrelevance by doing what comes natural, i.e. practice your sensuous thoughts, i.e. praxis philosophy, i.e. praxis your dissatisfactions over and against their authority and their commands, by putting your dissatisfaction into social action."  This is the hate that lies hidden beneath the surface of the so called 'academics' of the dialectical process (of Bloom's Taxonomies), i.e. hate toward the realm of righteousness, both in thought and in action, becoming manifest the moment the process is put into praxis.

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3

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 2:17

The Sensuous (Carnal) Nature of the Children is the Heart ('Drive' and 'Purpose') of the Dialectical Process:
      By accepting the platform (the platform of the dialectical process) that "all that is of the world, lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" is not evil, is not wrong but rather is 'good,' is the 'right' way of thinking and acting, the Father figure, i.e. he who chastens his children when they are doing wrong (1 John 2:15-18) is negated.  Once "lust," and the one who labels it as being evil or wrong, is "sense perceived" as being 'irrational' (since "lust," that which is of the system of sensuousness, is only normal human behavior, i.e. "Boys will be boys."), his office of authority and his definition of right and wrong are 'rationalized,' propagandized, and actualized as 'irrelevant.'  Thus "lust," known as sin in the old way of thinking (the 'old' world order), becomes simply normal human behavior (the child's heart), and the world in 'change' (the 'new' world order) is simply mankind (of the system of sensuousness) freeing himself of the restraints of the past (of the system of Righteousness―the child's will toward sensuousness freed from parental restraints, freed from God or the parent's will of righteousness, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the parent's will), with only that which proceeds from Nature (the will of the sensuousness of the child) becoming 'reality.'  This is the sole 'purpose' and 'drive' of those using the dialectical process, the 'drive' being sensuousness, the purpose being 'change,' i.e. emotion-motion becoming as one in the praxis of negating
the system of Righteousness.  (The praxis of man becoming as one in sensuousness and 'reasoning'―consensus― is the praxis of negating the system of Righteousness.)
    It is not enough just to be disobedient, to be unrighteous, i.e. to sin, through following after sensuousness (action).  It is also necessary to negate obedience, negate
the system of Righteousness, i.e. negate the guilt of sin, through using 'reasoning' (thought) to 'justify' sensuousness.  It is not enough just to be freed from the system of Righteousness.  It is also necessary to be sensuous and 'reasoning', i.e. to justify sin (sensuousness) as being 'normal' ('justifiable' human behavior).  Thus if a 'scientific method' (dialectical 'reasoning') can be used to 'justify' human behavior, define what is 'good and what is evil' in the 'moment,' then the issue of sin, defined by an authority greater than nature, becomes mute (becomes 'irrelevant'), and the nature of the child's sensuous heart can then become the foundation from which to built a future society.  Sensuous action must be put into sensuous thought and sensuous though must be put into sensuous action, for the two (theory and practice) to become one in the praxis of negating the system of Righteousness.

Sensuousness and unrighteousness go hand in hand:
  Thus the dialectical process is in diabolical opposition to God and His word.  Satan praxised it on himself (Isaiah 14:13, 14, then facilitated it in the garden in Eden, Genesis 3:1-6).  Since then all have praxised it (except for the Lord).  It is only in him (in Christ), in his righteousness, that we can obtain salvation from God's judgment upon all who have used the dialectical process to 'justify' their unrighteous deeds, i.e. for all have sinned.

"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."  1 John 2:15, 16, 18

As the system of sensuousness and unrighteousness go hand in hand, chastening and the system of Righteousness go hand in hand. 
    The rod of correction points the child in the right way, i.e. away from the way of sensuousness (and the condemnation of eternal death) to the way of righteousness (and the good news of eternal life).  The gospel (the "good news"), that we have been redemption from hell by the work of Christ and our faith in Him, his righteousness imputed unto all who believe upon him, has not meaning without there being a hell.  Otherwise it is only a social gospel, making hell only an earthly experience of sensuousness (an earthly life of pain till death) and not an issue of righteousness (an eternal death of pain in hell or eternal life of joy in heaven.
    The influence of dialectical thought upon ministers of the gospel is revealed by those ministers who negate any warning regarding eternal damnation in Hell.  Because of our wicked, sensuous-
'reasoning' fallen nature and our need for a redeemer (not of our own making), hell and eternal death take on real meaning.  Without the "rod of correction" in this life, warning us of the consequence of our disobedience to God ("the wrath of God is upon the children of disobedience"), our life would be without consideration of our thoughts and actions regarding God's demand for righteousness, chastening not being necessary for the purpose of righteousness, we would not become cognizant of our condemnation to eternal death in hell (not taking the revealed word of God serious) and our need for redemption, only made possible by the work of Christ on the cross, covering our sins, and his resurrection, giving us hope of eternal life in heaven, would have no meaning other than to be used as a tool of trickery to raise money (through tithe and indulgences) for the sensual pleasures of church leadership and those they desire to have 'mercy' upon, i.e. control for their own gain.  Unfortunately this is where most of 'church' history resides, and 'justifies' in the mind of those who praxis the dialectical process that their evil work (which they do not perceive as being evil but instead perceive as being good) is a tool needed to help mankind 'discover' his 'goodness,' and then used to help him in working together to remove others and their message which preaches and teaches otherwise, i.e. that man is wicked and in need of a savior.

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."  "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."  "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."  Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:14

Grief, being without hope from sensuousness and 'reasoning':
    While chastening "
yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."  (Hebrews 12:11) it is also grievous. "Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous:"  ibid.  Grievousness is a state of being where a person has no control over the situation they are in, where they can only endure their present inability to be in charge of their surrounding, having to surrender their will to another source for the right answer or for the right solution (only being able to ask for their mercy and grace, if they so desire), not being able to control the environment in a way that they would desire (for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of others, i.e. according to their pre-conceived solution), other factors having dominance (turning trust over to the father, i.e. the father being in total control of the situation).  It is then that the person, having to depend totally on another source for help, resigns himself and the situation totally to their mercy and grace, thus producing a peace of mind, "no matter what happens, it is all in someone else's, i.e. God's hands."  The person's "will to power" (his "sensuous needs,"  "sense perception," and "sense experience" is negated as the foundation for 'reasoning', i.e. seduction, deception, and manipulation is negated, i.e. his will is negated in the system of Righteousness
    Jesus was acquainted with grief, being subject to his heavenly fathers will, for the purpose of salvation for our souls, for the covering of our sins (of our sensuousness and 'reasoning') with his own blood (of His righteousness): "
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  John 3:16 

"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.  Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.  He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.  Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.  He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53:3-11

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

    Being "acquainted with grief" is knowing you have no control over the situation, there is no way you can change things according to your thoughts and actions, having to depend upon someone else for mercy, having to endure the pain of helplessness in the 'moment,' i.e. enduring the pain of rejection (sensuousness), for the joy (of righteousness) that lay ahead.

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."  Hebrews 12:1-6

    Without chastening, man's flesh, i.e. man's carnal (sensuous) nature (the lust of his flesh, the lust of his eyes, and the pride of his life―the spirit of rebellion against the father and his authority) and the Antichrist (the spirit of rebellion against God and his authority) rules.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."  Proverbs 9:10

Fear of God: 
 It is from chastening that the fear of God is initiated and sustained.  Fear of God is not a fear of him as being a tyrant (his wrath is upon "the children of disobedience") but rather a fear of what would happen to us without his mercy and grace, i.e. the dread of what would happen to us if we were left to our own sensuous desires and 'reasoning' powers.  Those of dialectical thought, esteeming sensuous desires and 'reasoning,' both used to 'justify' themselves, perceive chastening, which produces a fear of the parent (and God), as being mental abuse, inhibiting and blocking man's natural love of self and the world.  They will circumvent (break) any law they perceive as standing in their way of 'helping' others (and themselves) liberate their sensuous desires, i.e. using 'reasoning' to 'justify' themselves.  In dialectical thinking it is not enough to use 'reasoning' to liberate sensuousness, it must also be used to negate the system of Righteousness, thus creating a 'healthy' environment of 'change,' for the sake of the next generation and the (imagined) future society.

Those who praxis the dialectical process do not chasten for righteousness sake, they instead negate and annihilate righteousness for their sensuousness sake:  
    While preaching, teaching, and chastening initiates and sustains the system of Righteousness, dialogue and mediation, for the sake of the system of sensuousness, negates it.  You can only have one or the other.  To move in the direction of the system of Righteousness is to chasten sensuousness.  To move in the direction of sensuousness is to negate the system of Righteousness.  One is a way of righteousness (and eternal life, I write here of God's righteousness imputed to man through belief upon Christ), the other is a way of sensuousness (and eternal death, having 'pleasure' only in this life). 
    When man, even for the sake of the 'gospel,' the 'church,' or the 'kingdom of God,' uses the dialectical process (liberating sensuousness from the system of Righteousness) for 'righteousness' sake, he always uses physical, mental, and social force for his 'righteousness' sake, i.e. to initiate and sustain the system of sensuousness.  This is not the gospel, the congregation of the saints, nor the kingdom of God.  God chastens by his word (God breathed) for righteousness sake, while the world negates God's word (even in its praxis of 'promoting' it) for its sensuousness sake, synthesizing the two as being (becoming) one (making God's word subject to mans opinion), i.e. abomination, using force (as was attempted in Sodom) to do so.  It is to the latter 'church' that those who think dialectic foolishly turn to 'justify' their hate of the system of Righteousness and their love of sensuousness.
    A child, in a system of Righteousness, i.e. God's method of redemption, is chasten for holiness sake (Hebrews 12:10).  A child, in a system of sensuousness and 'reasoning', i.e. man's "scientific" method of counseling, is seduced, deceived, and manipulated (beguiled; 2 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 2:4, 18) in the praxis of negating the system of Righteousness, i.e. annihilating the father figure and his righteousness for sensuousness sake, i.e. for both the child's and the counselor's sensuousness sake (for the sake of worldly pleasures).  It's not just about the children, its also about the counselors, those who are simply disobedient children in adult bodies (the wrath of God is upon the children of disobedience, even though they be in adult bodies; Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6), hating the father and his chastening (and judgment), rejecting his righteousness (imputed to anyone who believes upon Christ), loving themselves, this world, and the sensuousness of the pleasure of this life instead of (more than) the Lord (He who is Righteousness in Himself).

The Negation of the Father―the Negation of the system of Righteousness:
    In dialectical 'reasoning', with its focus upon only that which is of nature (thus claiming itself to be a 'scientific process'), the father figure ("For all that is in the world ... is not of the Father, but is of the world."), i.e. an authority figure with his 'arbitrary laws' restraining (inhibiting and blocking) the children's natural (worldly) behavior, is negated, i.e. is no longer an issue of relevance.  He (the father of the family) is simply a biological being, the same as the children, i.e. a product of nature (of the same nature as the child, repressed by his patriarchal upbringing).  In this 'light' the father in heaven is negated ('irrelevant') as well, the negation of the system of Righteousness making mute, i.e. null and void, the issue of righteousness itself (negating eternal judgment in Hell and thus the need for repentance for one's sins against God and belief in the physical resurrection of Christ from the grave).  The focus then becomes a matter of social well being.  Remove the father figure from the gospel and the gospel becomes a social agenda, i.e. another gospel, i.e. just another theory or opinion to be dialogued

Marx and Freud found common ground in Hegel, i.e. the negation of the father figure:
    Karl Marx, a product of Hegel's thinking ('demythologizing' Hegel by putting 'his' process into social action, i.e. praxis), wrote: 

"Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)

    Sigmund Freud, also a product of Hegel's thinking, wrote: 

"‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Marcuse)

    All of philosophy is built upon this common theme, the negation of the father figure as the arbiter of right and wrong, of good and evil.  Philosophy is the will of the rebellious child, the sensuous child, negating the will of the Father, the righteous father, through rebellion (the questioning of parental authority) and revolution (the rejection of parental chastening), through the changing of paradigms, through the dialectical 'creation' of a "new" order of the world, where the children's will rules (sensuousness rules) instead of the father's will (instead of the system of Righteousness).  Philosophy 'commences' when a person is no longer satisfied with the way things are and desires 'change,' according to his "sense experiences." It is here that man began his dialectic 'journey' in the garden in Eden, moving out from under the restraints of the system of Righteousness and into a life of 'change,' walking down the pathway of sensuousness and 'reasoning', following after the dialectical pathway of unrighteousness (sin) and death.

 Didactic Reasoning Comes From the Father while Dialectic 'Reasoning' Comes From/For the Children (taking them from the Father):
    Deductive reasoning
, didactic reasoning which is reasoning from a known truth or fact―an a priori, which was learned and memorized in the past (detached from the sensuousness of the 'moment'), is the accepting, by faith, of the authorities (parent's, teacher's, God's) word as truth (as a categorical imperative).  It is acknowledging the father's system of Righteousness as the foundation for truth and life.  It is reasoning from his word, having certainty regarding the right answer and the right response, an unchanging position, give by the parent or God, which is then preached and taught as is.  It is knowing, believing, and obeying higher authority, accepting their "Because I said so." and "It is written." as the only right answer.
    Inductive 'reasoning', dialectic 'reasoning' which is 'reasoning' from what is available in the immediate ("sense experienced") environment or perceivable future environment, is the accepting, by "sense perception," of the evidence at hand, in the 'moment,' as 'truth.'  When the scientific method of inductive 'reasoning' is used, on rocks, plants, animals, and the human body to discover truth, it is true science, but when used for the "discovering" of 'truth,' i.e. "discovering" 'good and evil,' 'right and wrong,' in morals and ethics it becomes diabolical in construct (making man subject only to the creation, material, subject only to the cosmos and the angels, i.e. fallen angels―no man is to be subject―servant―to even Holy angels, all the creation is to be subject to God's will).  It is recognizing the child's sensuousness as the grounds for reality.  It is 'reasoning' from his feelings, i.e. his own "sensuous needs," trusting in his own sensuousness, i.e. his own "sense perception", and 'reasoning' from his own "sense experience," having an uncertainty (ambiguity, i.e. adaptability to 'change') regarding his answer, a changeable position which can then be dialogued by all to find relevance in, to, and for the 'moment.'  His position is ever 'changing,' dependent upon the relative situation, subject to the given 'moment.'   All ideals are to be dialogued, treated as theories and opinions (humanized, secularized).  Bloom Taxonomies "lower order thinking skills" to deductive, didactic, patriarchal reasoning and "higher order thinking skills" to inductive, dialectical, heresiarchal 'reasoning,' thus authority (their position of giving position) is to be questioned ("question authority," "question everything").  He is to be a "critical thinker," a "higher order thinker" (in morals and ethics), challenging "Because I said so."  and "It is written."  Not only questioning, challenging to negate, their commands but, question, challenging to negate, their right (of authority) to give such commands and their right to chasten (bring forth judgment) for disobedience against them. 
    Thus, in dialectical thinking, the didactic thinker must accept the dialectic thinkers negation of himself, 'willingly' participating in the dialectical process 'to be accepted,' i.e. 'to get ahead,' accepting the negation of himself (the negation of truth being outside the creation, i.e. truth residing in a higher authority other than the sensuous 'moment') in the process. To walk down the dialectical pathway of sensuousness and 'reasoning' (which leads to eternal death) is to negate walking down the pathway of righteousness (which is eternal life).  The righteous man "abhorreth" evil, the sensuous-'reasoning' man does not.  Psalms 36:1-4
    While the academic study of "Hegel's" dialectical process can make one appear 'heady,' when one rides (surfs) upon the wave of "Hegel's" dialectical 'reasoning' with their sensuousness, they end up in the occult, in the mystic domain.  After all, the dialectical process is built upon a Gnostic construct, with Satan being the savior, i.e. the master facilitator of 'change' via. sensuousness and 'reasoning', as was done in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6)  Secularizing or intellectualizing it only makes it only that much more difficult to detect ("Go figure.").  It's intended 'purpose' is the negation of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, used to reinforce the need for righteousness.  It is all about the negation of
the system of Righteousness by the process of sensuousness and 'reasoning'.  All who use it, even to 'grow' the church, are in Satan's domain.  Satan doesn't fight the church, he joins it, helping administer it in doing "God's" work through the use of polls, surveys, feasibility studies, etc.  Then, instead of walking by faith, i.e. trusting in God and His Word to direct mans steps, i.e. walking in the Lords righteousness, it walks by sight, i.e. trusting in the flesh of man and his wisdom in directing his own steps, i.e. trusting in common, collective, sensuousness and 'reasoning'.

    "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God [where deductive reasoning begins]."  Romans 10:17
    "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is [deductive reasoning], and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6  bracketed information added to verses above.

    "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom [inductive 'reasoning'] knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching [deductive reasoning] to save them that believe."  1 Corinthians 1:21
    "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety [inductive 'reasoning'], so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity [deductive reasoning] that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3
    "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully [inductive 'reasoning'];"   "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake  [deductive reasoning]." 2 Corinthians 4:2, 5  bracketed information added to verses above.

The Liberation of the Children―Sensuousness:
    Both, Marx and Freud, recognized the effect the father figure had upon the 'human race,' i.e. producing "repression" according to Marx and "neurosis" according to Freud.  Norman Brown, regarding the common message of Marx and Freud, i.e. their opinion of the father figure of the traditional family, wrote: 

"By ‘dialectical' I mean an activity of consciousness struggling to circumvent the limitations [limiting access to and expression of the system of sensuousness] imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction [the right-not right way of thinking and acting of the system of Righteousness, the patriarchal paradigm, the father figure requiring faith, belief, and obedience from the children]." "Formal logic and the law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression [the restraint of the system of sensuousness, the heresiarchal paradigm, the child's nature via. the praxis of chastening or threat of chastening]." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Brown)  bracketed information added

    Jürgen Habermas defined the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the negation of the father figure this way:

"Revolutionary violence reconciles the disunited parties by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism that set in with the repression of initial morality. … the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life, which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes, suppress justified interests, call forth the reactions of suppressed life, and finally experience their just fate in revolution. " (Habermas, Knowledge)

    Brown further explained the dialectical tie to the system of sensuousness and its 'drive' and 'purpose' in the negation of the father figure, via. the liberation of the system of sensuousness, made possible by the facilitation provided by the system of seduction, deception, and manipulation.  He wrote:

"Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression."  "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body [an abominable reinterpretation of scripture]."  "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body."  "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven [another abominable reinterpretation of scripture]." "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world."  "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world."  "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body ["touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc."].  "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body."  "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual [homosexual, lesbian, pedophilic, bestial, abominable] character of human nature;"  "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires."  "Eros is the foundation of morality." (Brown bracketed information added

    "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."  Galatians 6:8

Liberated from the system of Righteousness―Liberated (taken captive) to Sensuousness:
    With the 'concept' of the father figure (a higher authority than human nature restraining human nature, i.e. sensuousness) as no longer being 'relevant,' the conscience, with its sense of guilt for disobedience, is negated.  The conscience, dialectically perceived as being a vessel of internal control being incorrectly used in defending absolute right and wrong, must be liberated (reprogrammed) to work within the realm of sensuousness and 'reasoning', thus becoming a 'healthy' super-ego, supporting and assisting the person's fight for human nature, not fighting against it.  As Erick Fromm advocated, it is not just freedom from the system of Righteousness (the negation of father figure) that is of issue here, it is also the freedom to the system of sensuousness (the liberation of "the child within"). Without the freedom to, the freedom from is not actualized. 

"Freedom, as Fromm argued in Escape from Freedom meant ‘freedom to,' not merely ‘freedom from.'"  (Jay)

The Conscience and the Traditional Family:
    Recognizing the conscience as being a byproduct of the father figure, i.e. of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. of the system of Righteousness, it is essential that all facilitators understand the 'drive' and 'purpose' of the dialectical process, that of liberating all people from the source of the conscience and the conscience's affect upon their lives.  Therefore, it is essential that all social contacts negate the effects of the conscience upon their own lives and the lives of others if those using the dialectical process are to succeed in achieving world domination.

    "The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated.  The family,... is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Trojanowicz) 
    "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself."  "What we call ‘conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:"  "The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)."  (Brown) 
    "The most effective method for weakening the child's will is to arouse his sense of guilt." "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience."  (Fromm)

An Experiential Chasm:
    It is therefore essential that an environment (an "experiential chasm") be provided for the next generation, an environment which will free them from the sense of guilt and condemnation for not obeying higher authority.  It is in this "open-ended," "non-directed," permissive environment, that the family structure is negated with "here-and-now," sensuous desires and resentments toward chastening to accountability, i.e. to the system of Righteousness being dialogued.  In no way is a child to be abused, but care is to be taken on the definition of that word.  Whoever defines terms for you controls your life.  For the citizens to establish standards or definitions is different than letting government or non-government (socialist minded) agencies establish those standards or definitions.  the system of Righteousness defines words differently than dialectical sensuousness and 'reasoning'.  The environment change from preaching and teaching to dialogue also affects the definition of terms. 
    Warren Bennis wrote regarding the need of creating an "experiential chasm," if change was to be initiated and sustained:

"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.  It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children— One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant."   ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent. The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching."  "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken. The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore."  "Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship. For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission, an overweening interest in the future development of the childin other words, a child centered orientation."  (Bennis)  emphasis added

    By any agency of the government coming between the parents and the children, usurping the authority of the parents, the authority of the parents is negated in the mind of the child by government concerns and actions regarding the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children.  The concern becomes social, i.e. collective, rather than local, i.e. parochialism and the conscience, i.e. subject to a higher authority than the sensuousness of the 'moment,' becomes a "super-ego," subject to the 'sensuousness' and ''reasoning'' of the 'moment.'  The social element, "positive social change," forced upon the family environment instantly negates the authority of the parents and the patriarchal structure of the traditional home.  Money always seems to be at the heart of the "need" for social 'change,' with "social capital," i.e. the worth of the person based upon their contribution or burden upon society, being the major criteria for 'justifying' the 'change,' i.e. negation of the traditional home structure.

    An example of how CPS (Child Protective Services) is doing Diaprax (the negation of the patriarchal family): "Impoverished communities lack formal and informal social networks, community organizations and services, sufficient institutions of education, and other indicators of social capital (Furstenberg & Hughes 1995)."  ["Social capital" is a persons value or worth to his "community" and determines his "right" of physical and mental capital, his "right" of ownership and opportunity.] ""The non confrontational and supportive nature of engaging families [the parents who readily abdicate the patriarchal family structure to social agencies]… represents a more responsive service strategy for culturally diverse children and families who may be distrustful of the child welfare system" (Osterling et al 2008, 5)."  "There must also be an open line of communication between the families, the agency, the service providers and the community resources and providers." [If the parents refuse to keep "and open line of communicate" they are suspect and will be treated as a "problem"]  "Overall a shift in a CPS  [Child Protective Services] systems philosophical approach, regarding beliefs about families and parents, has to occur in order for DR to be implemented as well as supported by all stakeholders. [Social workers must shift from directly confronting the traditional patriarchal family, forcing them into socialist compliance to seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them into 'willful' participation.]  The Program Manager of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said, 'We have shifted from an external expert system that monitors parents and requires compliance to the CP agency's plan, to a safety focused family partnership where the CP agency and family work and plan in partnership to assure the safety and well being of all family members. All structure, process, policy and protocol then flow from this safety through engagement principle.'" 
    "Because of DCFS'
[Department of Child and Family Services] forward thinking and cutting edge work with the Permanency Enhancement Initiative, Protective Factors, LANs programs, and Family Advocacy Center, it is recommended that the Department considers implementing differential response [DR] in a pilot roll out as it focuses on formalizing a network of community organizations and helping better link to the differential response network of community services."  "It will provide a model and a practice philosophy along with legislation to support DCFS in engaging community, and linking families to services as DCFS uses current initiatives ['changes'] and programs."  "As authors argue, families who are subject to CPS investigations perceive the system as invasive and often leave families in hostile and defensive positions feeling impressed upon by the system (Dumbrill, 2006; Loman, 2006; Osterling et al, 2008).  This does not foster cooperative or collaborative interactions between families and CPS agencies, and children experience the negative impact of this the most."  "Differential response, also called family assessment, dual track, multiple track, and alternative response, is one of the most widely discussed front end reforms and is being increasingly implemented in CPS agencies nationwide (Christian, 1997; English et al, 2000; Osterling et al, 2008; Merkel-Holguin et al, 2006; Schene, 2001)." 
    "According to Comp. Stat. Ch. 325, § 5/3: Abused child means a child whose parent, immediate family member, any person responsible for the child's welfare, any individual residing in the same home as the child, or a paramour of the child's parent: Inflicts, causes or allows to be inflicted, or creates a substantial risk of physical injury, by other than accidental means, that causes death, disfigurement, impairment of physical or emotional health
[subjective, i.e. ambiguous (all inclusive) and thus changeable in meaning to best serve the socialist agenda, any disagreement by the parents is perceived by socialist agents as being argumentative and the parents are thus suspect of defying the socialist agenda], or loss or impairment of any bodily function; Commits or allows to be committed an act or acts of torture upon the child [subjective, i.e. ambiguous (all inclusive) and thus changeable in meaning to best serve the socialist agenda, any disagreement ...]; Inflicts excessive corporal punishment [subjective, i.e. ambiguous (all inclusive) and thus changeable in meaning to best serve the socialist agenda, any disagreement ...]; Commits or allows to be committed the offense of female genital mutilation; Causes a controlled substance to be sold, transferred, distributed, or given to the child under age 18, in violation of the ... Controlled Substances Act or Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act. 
    According to Comp. Stat. Ch. 325, § 5/3: Neglected child means any child who is: Not receiving the proper or necessary
[subjective, i.e. ambiguous (all inclusive) and thus changeable in meaning to best serve the socialist agenda, any disagreement ...] nourishment or medically indicated treatment including food or care, not provided solely on the basis of the present or anticipated mental or physical impairment as determined by a physician, or otherwise is not receiving the proper or necessary support or medical or other remedial care as necessary for a child's well-being; Not receiving other care necessary for his or her well-being [subjective, i.e. ambiguous (all inclusive) and thus changeable in meaning to best serve the socialist agenda, any disagreement ...], including adequate food, clothing, and shelter; A newborn infant whose blood, urine, or meconium contains any amount of a controlled substance or a metabolite thereof."  (Jennifer Richardson,  DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE: LITERATURE REVIEW, November 2008)

    Another example of parent-community partnership, socializing the family from a patriarch paradigm to a socialist heresiarch paradigm of 'change' is from a pamphlet entitled:   Protecting Children by Strengthening Families: Six ways to keep families strong through early care and education 

    "Parents need friends. When they have an informal network of trusted friends in their community, they have a support system for meeting both practical and emotional needs. They can brainstorm about problems together, give and receive back-up child care, and help meet unexpected needs such as transportation. As a social group, parents provide each other with norms for how family and community issues should be handled."  "Early childhood professionals can partner with parents in building a community within the program." 

    While a child is not to be treated as being a nuisance or as an inconvenience (to be aborted, physically and/or mentally tortured, in the true meaning of the word [cognitive dissonance, used by social engineers to engender 'change,' is a form of mental torture having a physical effect upon people―not just children but adults as well have committed suicide due to its use by social engineers, they would say "untrained" use], abandoned, etc. to 'justify' the parent's or societies vain desires), or as an object to be hated, or treated or used as a toy or an animal, they are created in God's image, only organizations which recognize, respect, and honour the God given authority parents have regarding the raising of their children, as well as the protected rights of the parents, guaranteed by the Constitution [the concept of "limited [Federal, State, and Local government" is based upon the understanding of the authority of the Home, the birthplace of the conscience via. chastening "which produces a peaceful fruit of righteousness," and the wickedness of man's heart, naturally disposed to despotism without Godly restraint], to face those who accuse them of 'abusing' their children, should have input in family matters.  Any citizen should have the right to address the parents themselves, addressing them in the way they are 'raising' their children and ruling over their family (the citizen's conscience should move him into action, not social action silence his acting upon his conscience―institutions do not have a conscience, only individual people have a conscience).  If public servants are called in, the parents have the right to know what the charge is and who is making it, at that time (as was done before Diaprax became the "official" method used for the "development" of public servants).  Through the use of dialectical reasoning, where value is based upon sensuousness (based upon an equality, child centered, "human rights" paradigm) rather than righteousness (a top-down, parent centered, "inalienable rights" paradigm), the focus of 'rights' have 'shifted' from the control of the next generation's paradigm being in the hands of parents to being in control of socio-psychologists (which is anathema to the patriarchal paradigm, the traditional home and its authority, as noted by Warren Bennis above). 
    An example, though from another country (South Africa), gives evidence to such 'shifts' in government policies (where ideologies which were engendered from a patriarchal, father centered, righteousness based paradigm, i.e. an "old" world order, have now 'shifted,' through the 'influence' of socio-psychology (soviet style departments facilitated by unelected social engineers, "helping" executives, legislators, and judges set public policy) upon the court system, to a heresiarchal, child centered, sensuousness based paradigm, i.e. a "new" world order):  7.2.7 Grounds for removing children:  "In terms of the Child Care Amendment Act 96 of 1996 (South Africa), the primary ground for removing a child is now that the child is 'in need of care,' rather than the previous ground which required that the parents be found 'unfit' or 'unable' to care for the child. With the amendment of section 14, the legislature has moved care proceedings from a predominantly fault or parent-based approach to a predominantly child-centered approach. This dramatic shift may be defended as being in line with section 28(2) of the Constitution, in terms of which, a 'child's best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child'.... Section 28(2) provides for the best interests of the child standard, here described as 'paramount'.... Its application via the Constitution to every matter concerning the child is therefore significant." emphasis in original
    "At present under common law, parents have a right to reasonable chastisement of their child. This position derives from Roman Dutch law, and has not altered with recent Constitutional Court pronouncements on the question of judicially imposed corporal punishment. The common law position is still, too, that the parental powers in this regard may be delegated to a person acting in the parent's stead. But corporal punishment has recently been prohibited as a disciplinary measure in schools, and the parental power to delegate the common law right of reasonable chastisement has, to this extent, changed through statute.... common laws rules concerning the status of the infant and the minor are chiefly aimed at the protection of children by reason of immaturity. The common law rules are based on motives of paternalism in order to protect minors against themselves....
The most significant common law rule pertaining to children is arguably the concept of parental power (also known as parental authority) which is the 'collective term for the sum total of rights and obligations which a parent enjoys in relation to his child, the child's estate and administration thereof, and includes assisting the child in legal proceedings'.... Professor June Sinclair, amongst other commentators, has argued that the idea of parental power is out of step in a modern era characterized by children's rights and parental responsibilities, and that the South African law in this regard is still in need of urgent reform. It should more properly be described as an office of trust, concerned more with duties than powers. question by experts, who have argued this rule has a discriminatory effect against children With the impending advent of the Family Court as an institution for the furtherance of the interests of children and families, and the notion that all child related judicial issues be centered in this court or the attached children's court, it may be necessary to amend the rules, both statutory and those derived from common law, so as to transfer the functions of the High Court regarding children to this forum.emphasis added
    1.3 The Commission's working methodology:  "The project is aimed at a comprehensive review of the Child Care Act and all other South African legislation affecting children, together with the common law, the customary law and religious laws relating to children in this country. The aim is to develop recommendations for new, appropriate and far-reaching child legislation, legislation which will take into account not only the present realities, but also the future social, political and economic constraints of the society which it aims to serve. The Departments of Welfare and Population Development and of Justice, through the South African Law Commission [Note: not the citizens of South Africa], will be responsible for initiating and ultimately drafting legislation to implement the process of reform arising out of the project."  bracketed information added
    "Although it is theoretically possible for a homosexual person (but not a homosexual couple) to adopt a child, such adoptions are not very frequently allowed in this country. It would also appear to be the case that fostering of children by homosexual persons and couples has in the past occurred relatively infrequently. If new legislation validating homosexual marriages is passed in South Africa, then the present legal obstacle to adoption of children by homosexual couples will be removed. There are, however, a range of social prejudices and misconceptions surrounding adoption and fostering of children by homosexual persons or couples which will still need to be addressed."  emphasis in original (SOUTH AFRICAN LAW COMMISSION,  ISSUE PAPER 13, Project 110: THE REVIEW OF THE CHILD CARE ACT FIRST ISSUE PAPER [18 April 1998])

The "Negation of the Negation":
    What is called "the negation of negation" is simply the creation of an environment of 'change,' the negating of the system of Righteousness which inhibits 'change' (the tripartite test of equality, dialogue, and consensus of the French Revolution; liberté, égalité, fraternité), where the father figure and the conscience are negated in a method used to initiate and sustain human relations ('human rights'), set policy, and solve crises for both the individual and society as noted in this declaration from the Directorate of the French Revolution:

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility."   "Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights."  (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen)  

Thus the individual can only realize and actualize his true identity in "a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts" (Rogers) and society can only finds its identity in a sensuous and rational nature, in a nature which is common to all individuals (common to all of mankind).  It is in the praxis of "negation of negation" (the negation of the system of duality which advocates "right" and "not right" or "wrong"), the negation of the negation of the system of Righteousness, in which social 'righteousness' is dialectically incarnated, created out of human nature itself, engendering 'human' rights.   "... right reasserts itself by negating this negation of itself," sensuous rights negating the righteousness which is not of itself, not of nature, not from man, which divides man from his own nature and thus divides mankind from one another, i.e. preventing man from knowing that 'righteousness' which he has in common with all of mankindsensuousness.  Sensuousness 'justified,' negates justification by righteousness.

"In this process the right is mediated by returning into itself out of the negation of itself; thereby it makes itself actual and valid ['purifies' itself of unnatural righteousness], while at the start it was only implicit and something immediate [resentment towards the restraints of authority could be sensed in the 'moment' but not put into praxis, i.e. could not be 'self-actualized' due to the 'negative force field' of righteousness―via. chastening―still in the culture, i.e. in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in the government, in the church, in the people, etc.  Only in social action can man become man, i.e. be "purified," be made 'right,' be "born again"but this time not from above but rather from within the social grouphis brain washed of the effects of righteousness]."   (Hegel, Philosophy of Right)

    According to Hegel's dialectical thought process, outside of society (sensuousness and 'reasoning' united by and united within the social 'moment') the individual can not know his 'true' identity.  Without the common social experience, i.e. outside the 'brotherhood' (fellowship) of mankind, man has no identity, i.e. no 'purpose.'  Placing his identity in scriptura, fide, gratia, Christus or Christo, and Deo gloria Soli (placing his identity in scriptures, faith, grace, Christ, and glory to God only) thus makes man 'neurotic.'  Outside of nature, i.e. human sensuousness and human 'reasoning', man could not actualize or validate himself.  Works, the sensuousness, 'reasoning', and praxis of man, therefore become essential for human identity and human worth. This effectively negates the righteousness which must be imputed by God, through Christ, to man, by faith.  Righteousness (that which is above, God) is thus negated in sensuousness (that which is below, society).  Karl Marx wrote

"Communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being...  This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."  "The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life [the negation of "mine, not yours"], is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence."  "Thus society is the complete unity of man with nature – the true resurrection of nature – the consistent naturalism of man and the consistent humanism of nature."  "In his consciousness of species man confirms his real social life."  "Each of his human relations to the world – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, observing, experiencing, wanting, acting, loving – in short, all the organs of his individual being, like those organs which are directly social in their form, are in their objective orientation, or in their orientation to the object, the appropriation of the object, the appropriation of human reality."  "In practice I can relate myself to a thing humanly only if the thing relates itself humanly to the human being."  "... subjectivity and objectivity, spirituality and materiality, activity and suffering, lose their antithetical character, and – thus their existence as such antitheses only within the framework of society."  "A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being.... The fact that nature and man exist on their own account is incomprehensible to it, because it contradicts everything tangible in practical life."  (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) emphasis in original, bracketed information added  

    For Marx, anything outside of sensuousness is abstraction (non-material) and thus negates the reality of nature, goes counter to what is sensible.  It is in theory and in practice, in human thought and human social action, that God is not simply apposed (maintaining antithesis) but that he becomes 'irrelevant' (neither to be "advance or inhibited")  thus 'liberating' man of the effects of righteousness in his personal thoughts and in his social actions.  Anyone therefore, who is serving in government (including teachers), when they become conscious of initiating or sustaining righteousness, must detach themselves from "excessive entanglement" with it, because only that which is "secular" ("tangible in practical life"―materialistic, humanistic) has "purpose."  'Reasoning' from sensuousness does not make righteousness "wrong," thereby keeping antithesis (right and wrong) in place, but rather makes it irrelevant (negating wrong, i.e. negating that which is not of sensuousness, righteousness which divides man, by that which is common to all men, sensuousness which unites all men as one)There is no 'wrong' in a theory (in an opinion), there is only the 'potential' of being right.  Thereby the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the individual (the citizen, the private, the spiritual, the specific) is sacrificed at the alter of the human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of society (the citizenry, the public, the material, the general). 
    Thus, in dialectical thought and practice, there was no "My tree, not your tree." (righteousness―right-wrong) in the garden in Eden, there was only "our trees" (sensuousness―right).  In the praxis of God's tree becomes everybody's tree, private is negated with public.  It was up to dialectical 'reasoning' to redefine "My tree, not your tree," that which is private, individual, inhibiting the sensuousness of the common 'moment,' not as being "wrong" but rather as being 'irrational' (non-sensuous reasoning) and thus 'irrelevant' (in the mind of sensuous man), thereby making all things public, social, of nature, blinding man to the truth and the righteousness of God.  Dialectical 'logic,' when put into praxis, 'changes' a nation, washing its citizens brains of righteousness.  What you set you mind upon is what you become.
"Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2  You are either sensuousness minded (which is of your own nature) or righteousness minded (which is of God).  There is no synthesis of (or harmony between) the two, as some would like to deceive you into believing―seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you into negating the latter.  In the praxis of common-ism, private is always sacrificed on the alter of the public, sacred is always sacrificed on the alter of the secular, righteousness is always sacrificed on the alter of sensuousness, the conscience is always sacrificed on the alter of consensus, the authority of the father is always sacrificed on the alter of the desires of the children.
    For example: the tripartite test or
The Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) of the Supreme Court concluded that "government's action 1) must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) must not result in an 'excessive government entanglement' with religion."  By separating, i.e. 'liberating' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness, any action within/by/for government must treat religion (duality/'wrong') as a neurosis, without saying as much. The environment of 'change' within the learning environment therefore effectively negates the importance of religion, i.e. 'wrong' (, i.e. inhibits or blocks the patriarchal home and the authority of the father and his right of inculcating upon the next generation, and generations to come, the importance of limiting the power of government, i.e. to prevent government's usurpation of the family's God-given right to raise up (educate) their children in accordance to their religious beliefs, teaching them to do what is right and not do what is wrong according to the parents beliefs, without government encroachment (taxation in support of a secular mandate, i.e. in the name of "equality," 'justifies' and thus produce such an encroachment―the tension between the secular and sacred, which 'justifies' limiting governments action (public) upon the family (private), limiting its powers to preserve the private, to preserve the family, limiting itself to building roads, defending jurisdictions, etc. without negating, i.e. without encroaching upon the system of Righteousness, and the family which engenders it through chastening.  Otherwise the sacred would effectively be negated with a secular, i.e. Godless, sensuousness based mandate, serving a secularizing 'purpose'―which was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.  Any restraint upon the federal government was regarding setting up an established church and was not upon religion or righteousness. The States had state churches up until the early 1830's.  Thus federal encroachment upon education (usurping the parent's right to develop their children in their own image) was 'justified' in the praxis of negating the patriarchal family structure through government established secularism, government 'purposed' in propagating a secular mandate.  Most federal judges never figured out where the "test" came from or how it could even be related with and applied to the principles of the Constitution, i.e. not being in agreement with the inalienable rights of the citizen.  The inalienable rights of the individual citizen was instead negated.   Social 'rights' by necessity negates individual rights.  Social rights negates the reasoning behind limiting the powers of government, giving the government unlimited power over the citizens for governmental mandates, 'liberating' the unrighteous nature of men's hearts from the restraints of righteousness, so that it could be used over and against righteousness.
    Through the court system, the tripartite test of the French Revolution has come to America , i.e. through the abdication of the legislative system, i.e. the negation of the citizens inalienable right's, i.e. the negation of representatives representing those citizens who placed them in office to protect their constitutional rights (protect their principles of righteousness) from the despotic usurpation of the socialist (all for "us," for the "common 'good'") mindset (with departments and agencies of social 'change' guiding 'representatives' in setting policy).  The "wall of separation" argument (negating righteousness from having control over sensuousness and
reasoning) was therefore effectively used to tear down any "walls of separation" (negating righteousness itself―washing righteousness out of the classroom experience, any residue being perceived as "out of touch with reality," 'irrationally' fighting against 'changing' times.  To endorse the separation of sensuousness and reasoning from the restraints of righteousness is to praxis sensuousness and 'reasoning' negating righteousness.  Negating the duality of righteousness-unrighteousness (top-down, above-below, right-wrong, good-evil) guaranteed the plurality ("we," "use," and "all") of unrighteousness, keeping unrighteousness in place, negating righteousness (actualizing Genesis 3:1-6 in social praxis).
    Over time, by dialectical  (socialist) encroachment into all aspects of life, for the sake of creating a more 'healthy' community (in the nature of Sodom and Gomorrah), the parents will learn, some the hard way, that their children are not theirs but rather the "communities," the socialists, the worlds (to be used for the worlds pleasure).  For example, the use of anonymity, to protect those who accuse parents of 'abusing' their children physically, mentally, and socially, negates the citizen's inalienable right to know who their accuser is, to know who they are at the time of accusation and not 'discover' who they are at court, after their children have been removed from their authority and dialectically processed by 'change' agents).  Those who swear to defend the constitution (legislators, executives, and judges, including the police) thus commit treason by submitting to dialectical 'reasoning' (socialist agencies run by agents of 'change' and their socialist ideologies) rather than to the citizen's (the parent's) constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Treason is treason, even when it is done "in the name of the 'children.'"  The Marxist J. L. Moreno, the 'father' of role-playing, i.e. "sensitivity training" (which all federal agents must participate in), stated it this way:

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

    In this sensuous and 'rational,' i.e. "non-hostile," environment of 'change,' the system of Righteousness, i.e. having faith in the Father as being the creator of all things, believing in His Word as being absolute and right ("unquestionable and universal"―a categorical imperative), and obedience to his command without question, accepting his use of chastening to reinforce obedience, is no longer given a platform or right to be accepted "as is."   Thus the parent no longer has the right to restrain human nature, inhibiting the natural desires of the child from being expressed (inhibiting sensuous experiences which are presumable 'beneficial' for the child when done in a "safe" environment―non-judgmental environment).  Any use of the system of Righteousness to restrain the system of sensuousness, preventing the child from 'discovering' and 'actualizing' his human potential―preventing the child from 'liberating' his system of sensuousness with the use of the system of  'reasoning' (the 'right' of the child to "question authority")― is, in socialistic 'reasoning,' 'irrational.' 

"The dialectic of Hegel and Marx's variation on the theme, contain discrepancies between actual and desired conditions. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis [the self and the object of restraint in the environment―the other, the desires (standards and laws) of the parent (establishing the parent as higher authority) and the desires (feelings and thoughts) of the child (desiring liberté, égalité, fraternité)] set up pressures that eventually force a new state of affairs, the synthesis. The desired condition is synthesis, the elimination of contradiction and conflict between thesis and antithesis [the 'elimination' of the office of authority of the parent over the child]. Conflict between thesis and antithesis bring about a restructuring that reduces or eliminates (negates) the conflict [focus on the desires of the parent and child (what they both have in common) and the standards of the parent disappears, i.e. is negated along with his office of control over the sensuousness (impulsiveness) and ''reasoning'' (self-justification) of the child]." (Richardson, George P., Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory as quoted in Judy McLemore, The Architects of Total Quality Management General Systems Theory and Marxist Theory-Praxis; Quality Management - General Systems Theory - Marxist Theory-Praxis by JudyMcLemore.pdf) bracketed information added

R + -R = 'R':
    It is easier to understand Hegel's 'A plus -A', by stating it as R plus -R, with both R's representing the system of Righteousness, i.e. where right is right and wrong is wrong according to a higher authority rather than according to the sensuousness of the 'moment'―ridged right and wrong being dialectically perceived as 'repressing' the desire one party might have to relate with the other party, i.e. preventing unity, since both persons R (position of right and wrong) is antithetical to the other and thus produces a -R (and antithesis condition), a differing of position between both parties, while both parties insist upon the same way of thinking and acting (that being the system of Righteousness).  The problem, according to dialectical thinking, does not lie with which party is right or wrong, it lies in their use of right and wrong in determining who they will relate with.  Without overcoming the effects of R (the system of Righteousness) upon the individual, social unity is not attainable as an outcome.  The solution to the problem lies within each person private desire for 'liberation' from the restraints of righteousness―when personal desires initiated by the system of sensuousness (which are repressed by the conditions of righteousness: faith, belief, obedience, and chastening)  produce internal dissatisfaction (discontentment) with the system of Righteousness.  Without gaining access to the persons dissatisfactions, the dialectical process and thus 'change' is moribund.
    This practice of synthesizing opposites, through the group pressure of conformity of desires (survival and approval of others), takes on relevance when considering responses to brainwashing techniques used on American solders by the communist Koreans and communist Chinese during the Korean War.  'A + -A = A' (or R + -R = 'R'), is the same method called brainwashing (washing from the brain of the participants the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the system of Righteousness way of thinking and acting).  Major MacGhee wrote on his cell house wall, as a POW in North Korea: "Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose."  (P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee responding to brainwashing attempts by the North Korean , January 19th, 1953)  
    R and -R are simply two people or groups with differing positions on what is right and what is wrong but both people thinking the same way, i.e. absolute right and absolute wrong.  This results in division (isolationism) between each party (ingroup-outgroup believing and acting), both defending their possessions from the other, or domination (imperialism) by one party over and against the other, with both parties holding rigidly to their position to the death while attempting to overcome the other, i.e. make it's possessions, their possessions.  This condition is know as Antithesis, where the Thesis of one party, being different or diverse (deviant) to the Thesis of the other party or being just plain "wrong" (the former, plurality, focuses upon sensuousness while the latter, duality, focuses upon righteousness) results in opposition and war―the former inhibits while the latter prevents Synthesis―the latter (focusing upon righteousnesspreaching and teaching truth to those under authority) must be 'changed' to the former (focusing upon sensuousnessdialoguing 'opinions' amongst 'equals') before Synthesis can be achieved.  All I have to do is get you to respond with "I feel" or "I think" (your opinion) in response to my question about your fathers position (a position or truth of his you are dissatisfied with―where your sensuousness is dissatisfied with his righteousness) and I've got you. 
    The limiting of government (by separating the branches of government)―as presented through the Constitution of the United States of America―was an effort to limit the potential for despotism (socialism, democracy, i.e. the tyranny of the masses).   By limiting the power of government, the despot is hampered in his effort of negating the influence of the traditional home (the initiator and sustainer of the conscience), thus preventing him (the tyrant) from encroaching upon the system of Righteousness and the inalienable rights of the citizens― the right to be an individual under God's authority over and, if necessary, against man's authority. 
 Inalienable rights (the right of the conscience or freedom of the consciencethe conscience is developed under the system of Righteousness―truth based rather than opinion based) are individual rights (no man, humanist, or society of men can put a lean upon the right of the citizen to place God's authority over man's authority) while 'human rights' are humanist rights (no individual, man's conscience, or God can put a lean upon the authority ("felt needs") of "society."  While the conscience is developed under the system of Righteousness the super-ego is developed under the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' synthesized―making all 'rights' sensuous based, i.e. materialistic
    Socialist based departments, established to 'assist' the three branches of government are now circumventing the limitations placed upon government.  Representatives are abdicating control of the citizens (over their lives) by being controlled (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) by socialist minded agencies.  Rather than recognizing the system of sensuousness, i.e. man's heart of deceitfulness and wickedness, as being the source of greed, hate, and war, those influenced by the dialectic process, in its trickery of 'reasoning': seduction, deceit, and manipulation now overrun the restraints placed upon them.  Self-justification by dialectical 'reasoning' they now perceive greed, hate, and war as proceeding from the system of Righteousness (proceeding from the 'isolationist,' non- or anti-socialist citizen with his absolutist, ridged, demanding, "autocratic," potential fascist mindset and behavior).  By perceiving the system of sensuousness as being 'good' (the 'best' means of meeting the "felt needs" of the citizens), the system of Righteousness is perceived as being evil.  In this way of thinking, sensuousness is perceived as 'Righteousness' ('R') in man's eyes (noted in the chart below as S(-r) meaning: Sensuousness rationally (dialectically) liberated from the system of Righteousness becomes 'righteousness' itself, resulting in a 'righteousness' which is fuzzy, 'tolerant of ambiguity,' tolerant of unrighteousness, uncertain, ever 'changing,' i.e. subject to sensuousness, influenced by every 'changing' sensuous situation, humanistic. 

    "Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity."  (Lukács)
    "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life.  Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'"  (Brown)

"For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."  Acts 28:27

A plus -A equals A 
(Hegel's dialectical diabolical formula)

part 2
by Dean Gotcher

    "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."  Luke 16:15
    "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3

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

Dialectical 'reasoning' Liberates Sensuousness from the system of Righteousness, i.e. Liberates the Children from the Father, so that all can become one in Sensuousness (it's how pedophiles work)―Dialectical 'reasoning' is abomination, i.e. the pathway to death and eternal damnation; "It is not how far down the road you've gone, it's the road you're on." You can't be half pregnant or partly defiled or pure:
    In dialectical thought there is a condition which resides within each party, a resentment toward being told what is good and what is evil (being told what to do and how to do it) and being forced to think this way when it inhibits or blocks their personal desires and/or does not seem relevant to their "sense perception" of the situation, i.e. of how things 'ought' to be according to their "sensuous needs" of the 'moment.'  Those who think dialectically conclude that since resentment is engendered by the system of Righteousness, 'repressing' man's natural system of sensuousness, 'resentment' or dissatisfaction is a key component of man's nature, providing him a way of thinking and acting which will lead him to his own self 'discovery,' dialectically discovering his true identity with the world, i.e. with Nature, i.e. with the world spirit.  It is in this spirit that the dialectical process has its 'drive' and its 'purpose.'  (It is c
hastening which chases "dissatisfaction," i.e. the world spirit out of the mind, heart, and soul of the child).  The 'purpose' of dialectic thinking is to continue the process until sensuousness (man) is liberated of all restraints of righteousness (God) and all can follow, uninhibited with a 'guilty conscience,' the lawless one, i.e. spirit of the Antichrist, the world spirit of global oneness, all mankind united in the name of and for the cause of 'humanity.'

Chart: The resolution of social controversy and contentions: the negation of the system of Righteousness (R), i.e. the negation of the fear of chastening or judgment by parent or God for one's unrighteous thoughts or action.

"Spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world [righteousness over and restraining sensuousness]. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits ['righteousness,' i.e. human 'reasoning' in, of, and for sensuousness, i.e. 'reasoning' 'emerging' from man, i.e. sensuousness seeking liberation' from God, i.e. righteousness]." (Hegel)  bracketed information added

    While Marx countered Hegel with: "In direct contrast to German philosophy, which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/5) he could not (nor intended to) change the source and outcome of the dialectical process, sin.  "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [man living in a world defined by God], Critical Criticism [the 'reasoning' of man] must set up a sinful world [a world of sensuousness] in its own home." (Karl Marx The Holy Family Chapter VII Critical Criticism's Correspondence 1; The Critical Mass) bracketed information added  This is the motto of the "new" world order.  Although Karl Marx "turned Hegel on his head," i.e. turned the dialectical process "right side up," making the sensuousness and 'reasoning' nature of man the "omnipresent ... spirit in all spirits," redefining Hegel's "Spirit of 'God'" as the sensuous nature of society, with a world of individual men becoming as one, i.e. individual men uniting as a society of one, the "separated parts" becoming the whole, the "divine sparks" becoming (returning) as one 'God,' the sensuousness of man and the sensuousness of the world, rationally (theoretically) and actively (practically) becoming as the one and "all," he only ended up secularizing Satanism, intellectualizing witchcraft, leaving the spirit of darkness, the father of lies, still in his 'high' place doing his evil praxis on the earth, only now clothed in the garb of doing academics, business, and government (even in the church "doing business" for the 'purpose' of "growth,") with everything becoming as one under his influence and power. 
    "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."  Isaiah 14:13, 14
 It is that same spirit of resentment against authority (against God and His unchanging Word) which resides in the hearts of men.  This is the spirit and spiritual structure from which Hegel, Marx, Freud, and all who sought and continue to seek a 'new' order of the world take their instructions.  A "new" order of the world of Satan's "I will," built upon the sensuousness of 'changingness,' becoming god, rejecting the "old" world order of "Thy will be done," built upon God's everlasting righteousness, all that is created being God's.  "The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein."  Psalms 24:1

    "In the beginning man gives birth to himself, he becomes what he potentially is [a sensuous and 'rational' being]. He became what Satan the symbol of wisdom and rebellionpromised and which the patriarchal God of Adam did now wish, that man would become God himself."  (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods) bracketed information added   It is not about academics, social ills, and race, i.e. humanity.  It has never been about academics, social ills, and race, i.e. humanity.  It has always been about righteousness and eternal life (only imputed to those who believe in the Lord) and wickedness and eternal death (which is of this present world, the world of sensuousness and human 'reasoning', under the influence of the spirit of darkness, "the prince of the power of the air."  Ephesians 2:2)

    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."  "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."  Ephesians 6:12; 2:2, 3

Flesh and blood (sensuousness) and the kingdom of God (righteousness), i.e. doing the will of your father in heaven:
    To maintain life, physical, mental, and socially, support from the one in authority and those who follow him is essential, thus the person abdicates ("suppresses") his 'right' of self-sensuousness, abdicates his will of 'self' fulfillment to the fulfillment of higher authority's will, i.e. supporting his right of sensuousness, as higher authority serves and protects him from the 'evils' of his nature and the 'evils' of others who are not under his authority.  While this is true of mankind (who is sensuous) it is not true of God (who is Spirit). God's kingdom is not created and sustained by the flesh and blood of man, subject to and built upon mans sensuousness and
'reasoning'.  It is built upon doing the Father's will.  God is not made by man, i.e. by human 'reasoning', i.e. made in man's image, to be sensuous, but rather man is made in God's image, to be righteous in Him.  Because man is made a "living soul" (eternal) he is more than sensuousness and 'reasoning' (temporal), he was created righteous before the fall and is recreated in righteousness ("made a new creature") in Christ, to all who believe upon him, to appear righteous before his Holy, Pure, and Righteous heavenly father.  All who reject the Lord (continuing in the praxis of 'justifying' their sensuousness through their own 'reasoning') reject His righteousness, and all who reject His righteousness (which is imputed by the Lord to men of faith) reject the Lord.  Without that righteousness which is imputed by Christ alone, man "cannot inherit the kingdom of God."  Apart from Christ (except by His righteousness alone) "no man cometh unto the Father."

    "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 1 Corinthians 15:50  "For 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  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."  Matthew 6:9, 10  "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   Bold added for emphasis to all verses above
        "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"  Titus 2:12  "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."  John 1:17  "Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."  "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace. God forbid."  "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."  Romans 5:20-21; 6:15; 7:7  "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."  Matthew 5:17  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."  Ephesians. 2:8   "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"   Romans 3:24  "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins."  Ephesians 1:7  "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."  Acts 4:12  "For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world."  2 Corinthians 1:12

'Reasoning,' initiated by and justifying Sensuousness, over and against the system of Righteousness, is of the Spirit of Antichrist, i.e. the 'Christ' who loves the world (temporal) over and against the only begotten son of God who loves the Father (spiritual):
    This is where the dialectical process reveals its color, i.e. its spiritual agenda, i.e. the negation of that righteousness which can only come to man from God, the righteousness of Christ, freely imputed to all who believe upon him and obey his commands (Romans 4:1-25; vs. 6, 8, 11, 20-25; 5:13-17).  By the negation of the system of Righteousness, the patriarchal paradigm, the father figure of the traditional home, from the minds of men, the father in Heaven is negated from the minds of all men.  At least that is the dialectical hope, i.e. that hope is not found in God the creator of the world but rather is to be found in happiness, i.e. in pleasure, i.e. in "enjoyment," i.e. in the mind, i.e. in the emancipation of dopamine, i.e. in the environment, i.e. in the creation, i.e. in nature, i.e. in the things of this world.  Without the hope provided by dialectical thought and action, according to dialectical thinking, mankind remains alienated to his own nature, others, and nature itself, his hope being subject to that which is not of his nature, his hope being subject to that will which is "alien" to his will. 

    "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will." (Wheat) 
    "Alienation, according to Feuerbach, derives from the externalization (Entausserung) of human powers and possibilities upon a non-existent entity: God.  God is thus the anthropological source of alienation . . ." (Bronner)

    God, in dialectical thought, is that authority who resides outside the cosmos, i.e. beyond the creation, who is not part of nor dependent upon any part of it, for his existence.  While work, for instance, under the system of Righteousness: faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, is "to pay the rent" ("work by the sweat of your brow"), under the system of 'reasoning': seduction, deception, and manipulation, it is for the purpose of "entertainment," i.e. to support the system of sensuousness ("eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage"), i.e. all is aimed at supporting those who "work" at initiating and sustaining the system of 'reasoning.'  The believers labor of love emanates from the Lords love for him and the Lords love in him, i.e. love emanating from what the Lord has done for him and is doing in him, and not out of his vain desires, i.e. man's love being vain no matter how 'good' or beneficial it may appear to be to others.  Jesus himself testified of the difference between doing man's sensuous will (by sight or appearance) and God's righteous will (according to His word, by faith).

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."  "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."  John 7:-

    Work, in the righteousness of Christ, is to the praise of God ("doing your best as unto the Lord").  God does not 'need' our praise and worship of him.  He deserves our praise and worship of him.  Our labor is not to appease him (as it is to man, i.e. for his carnal pleasures) but of him (out of His love for us and His love within us).  The 'righteousness' of man (of the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning'), perceived as being the righteousness of God (which is only of himself alone), is the spirit of Antichrist.  While man is building his "communities" of sensuousness, for his 'good' pleasure, the Lord is preparing a city of righteousness, for those who believe upon him.

Sensuousness is Global (Common-ism)―Righteousness is 'God' and Country (Fascist) in dialectic thinking:
    Thus in dialectical thought, by mankind yielding to the system of Righteousness, accepting right and wrong "as given" by a higher authority than one's own nature, i.e. honoring the father figure, obeying his commands, and accepting the consequence of disobedience, i.e. chastening, division is created between a man and his own sensuous nature, the sensuous nature of others, and nature itself.  But by embracing the system of sensuousness, i.e. building upon that which is common to all mankind and nature itself (no longer being in 'denial' of himself), unity is created between a man and his own nature, others, and nature itself.  How to accomplish unity, i.e. circumvent the system of Righteousness in order to negate it, is the main objective of those using (possessed by) the dialectical process.  Their challenge is to engender and sustain 'reasoning' through sensuousness, i.e. negating the system of Righteousness, without the system of Righteousness rising up and winning the day, i.e. without mankind returning to making his reasoning, and thus his sensuousness, subject to the system of Righteousness
In dialectical thought, the praxis of accepting God as the creator of the world and thus making all mankind accountable to his will is tantamount to mankind following after fascism.

    ". . . should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. . . ‘rugged individualism'" "It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle-class phenomenon, that it is ‘in the culture' and, hence, that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced [this hypothesis by Adorno, being used around the world to justify the destruction of the middle-class, has been proven false over and over again, but persists in being the banner cry of all globalists, i.e. the justification for spreading Marxist style Democracy around the world, destroying nations which have a family based structure]." (Adorno) 
The authoritarian family becomes the factory in which the state's structure and ideology are molded." (Reich)  According to Adorno, Reich, Marx, Freud, and others who think dialectically, Fascism (nationalism, capitalism, isolationism, imperialism, anti-socialism, etc) is 'created' in the "breeding ground" of the traditional family, i.e. created by the next generation being raised within the "authoritarian" family structure, supported and protected by traditional minded (righteousness minded) citizens who themselves were raised within the traditional family structure, i.e. all seeking to protect the "authoritarian" family (according to Adorno and Reich), protecting the environment which engenders "potential fascist," from the environment which initiates and sustains the process of 'change,' i.e. internationalism, globalism, socialism, humanism (humanitarianism), environmentalism ("greening"-ism, nature-ism), democratization, conscietization, etc., i.e. common-ism, i.e. "'diversity' in unity," i.e. if it can't be united it is of the divisive-ness (duality, "fixity") of righteousness and not of the diversity (spectrum, 'changingness') of sensuousness.

    The error in correlating the traditional family to fascism is due to the nature of the dialectical process itself (the negation of the patriarchal paradigm/righteousness being its 'drive' and 'purpose').  Having rejected man as being wicked, in and of himself, blaming environmental conditions instead, whether it be a race, religion, or way of thinking which is to blame, those who are bound to the process must find their solution to life's problems in the changing of cultural conditions, i.e. in the removal of a race, a religion, or a paradigm from the environment, if it's outcome of "peace and justice" is to be realized.  The protestant reformation was a liberation from such thinking in that the "priesthood of all believers" came from the recognition of God (righteousness) being the Father over the individual (sensuousness), and not the church, the state, or society (sensuousness), thus liberating the individual (his soul) from church-state totalitarianism (sensuousness) while retaining the church and the state, all without negating the patriarchal paradigm (righteousness), even the "earthly family" being subject to the "heavenly families" work in the heart of its individual members, i.e. the work of Godly righteousness"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."  Matthew 10:34-39
    In a class I took, under Dr. Poteet, I remember studying a book by Allen, entitled Northeim, Nazi Seizure of Power, a book explaining in some detail how the Fascist were able to take control of the village of Northeim, Germany. I remember my teacher commenting that the title was an incorrect interpretation of the Fascist take over of the village, that they had not seized power but rather that it was abdicated to them.  I now know he was wrong in that the Fascist were able to seize power, but that it was from the socialists-globalist (Transformational Marxist) movement they seized it (you can call it any name you want, their foundation was Marx's theory, i.e. critical theory being put into social praxis). 
    Allen, in his book, focused upon how the Fascist were able to take control of the clubs (chess clubs, walking clubs, etc.) of the German communities, using propaganda and intimidation (and force, i.e. violence, when necessary, as it is always necessary for any form of socialism to succeed, despite its propaganda promising "freedom").  The Transformational Marxists, Kurt Lewin, during the war (after fleeing to America from Berlin), made comment on how the Fascist were able to take control of groups and that a similar pattern had to be accomplished by the globalists (Transformational Marxists) as well, if they were to succeed in their agenda of world domination, in their creating of a "new" world order.
    The only difference between National socialism (fascism) and Global socialism (democracy, i.e. democratization) is how the group perceives the world.  For those under control of the Nationalists, it is an "us against them" (inlanders-outlanders, "ingroup-outgroup") paradigm (incorrectly correlated with the traditional, patriarchal paradigm by the Globalistsrighteousness not being a part of their formula), while for the Globalists it is simply "we," all others counter to the social mind being irrational and therefore irrelevant (not being part of the "we" yet, still "win-lose" and not "win-win" yet).  Yet all forms of socialism must destroy the traditional family, i.e. annihilate the patriarchal paradigm, if they are to be 'successful' in their endeavor. "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." "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost."  (Maslow, Human Nature)  Socialism (democracy) must advance itself by force when it perceives it is necessary. "Sometimes people must rather forcefully be made to see what democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole means."  (Kurt Lewin in Benne) emphasis added
    It is only by limiting the power of government (separating the branches of power, limiting their jurisdiction) that the patriarchal, traditional family can survive. Limiting the power of government is anathema to socialism of any kind, including "democracy," which is just a more subtle version of global socialism, as Maslow's and Lewin's statements above revealed.  Call it democracy all you want is still socialism, i.e. common-ism (with a smile) leading man down the pathway of totalitarianism. 
    In Germany, the Fascists did seize power, but it was seized, not from the families, but from the Common-ists (who were themselves setting policies which were anathema to the traditional, according to Adornoa Transformational Marxist―"autocratic," "authoritarian" family structure, i.e. the patriarchal family.  Thus abdicating his office of authority under God, the father of the German family turned to the Fascist propaganda of the Folk (to the state) for 'help' against the Common-ist agenda of annihilating the traditional family.  Rejecting righteousness as a way out of totalitarianism (classifying it as a tool for totalitarianism) Adorno's dialectical logic went: "It would then be more understandable why the German family, with its long history of authoritarian, threatening father figures, could become susceptible to a fascist ideology." (Adorno)  The true is: when the family turned to national socialism to rescue itself from global socialism (instead of to the Lord) the father's authority over the home was destroyed.  It was the fathers abdication of the family structure to the state (giving the government greater powers in an effort to rescue the family from government control―you don't have to think to hard on that one to see the outcome) which resulted in the disasters of Europe (the same disaster which is happening to America today, only in a more controlled way, i.e. rust is fire, just slower in its destructive ways, the end result being the same, in this case the negation of righteousness in the thoughts and actions of the people).
    While the Transformational Marxists (socio-psychologists) of America seek to prevent Fascism (nationalism) again, by the negation of the traditional home, it is the fathers of the families who are again abdicating their position of authority over the home, under God, by turning to the government (state and church) for help, empowering the government rather than limiting its powers, under God.  As God told Adam (not the woman) to 'rule,' when he abdicated righteousness for sensuousness sake, "empowering" himself, following the "empowered" woman, following the counsel of, the facilitation of the Devil, taking 'control' over his own life, i.e. negating top-down authority, under God, by 'discovering' equality with the creation, we see the same message and outcome in America today.  God's instructions being ignored, i.e. husbands and fathers refusing to trust in and obey the Lord, instead trusting in themselvesleaning upon their own understanding, tuning to the 'wisdom' (philosophy and vain speculations) of men (socio-psychology).  The fathers have given up, abdicating their office of authority, and thus sacrifice their families to the social cause, as they seek after the things of this world, including the approval of men for the sake of survival, thus building their foundation no longer upon the solid rock of righteousness, but instead building it upon the shifting sands of sensuousness, letting sensuousness negate righteousness for the sake of "peace" in the home and "justice" in the community.  Totalitarianism awaits.

"Now that we know how positive reinforcement [dialoguing sensuousness; seduction, deception, and manipulation] works, and why negative [preaching and teaching righteousness; obedience and chastening] doesn't ... we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design.  We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free.  They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do.  That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt.  By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished.  The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Rogers)

The child's "heart of hearts": 
    Like a disobedient child, the greatest fear of those who use the dialectical though process (sensuousness and 'reasoning') as the only means to knowing the 'truth,' is that the righteous one (the parent) will one day reappear and expose their sensuousness and 'reasoning' as wickedness and judge them for their evil ways.  Rejecting God, they foolishly, turn to human nature and human 'reasoning' as the only way to overcome their dreaded man of righteousness and the system of Righteousness, all be it in a human form, i.e. Hitler.  Thus the Karl Marx in your child's 'heart of hearts' (when properly 'coached') perceives the parent, who chastens him, repressing his human nature, as a Hitler.  It is here that "making the world 'safe for democracy'" has its 'drive' and its 'purpose,' i.e. the negation of the system of Righteousness, i.e. wiping sovereignty, nationalism, isolationism, imperialism, i.e. Fascism and the traditional family structure which initiates and sustains it i.e. the "authoritarian" family being the seed bed of Fascism (according to the global socialists interpretation), off the face of the earth by creating a "new" world order of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' (via the soviet style of equalization and citizen "empowerment"a diverse group of people-tolerant of the deviant, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a pre-determined outcome that all thoughts and actions of life, i.e. policies of life will be resolved through this soviet method, engendering "fraternity, equality, and liberty," amongst the common-ist 'citizens' of the common-unity, all united in the praxis of negation the system of Righteousness, i.e. 'liberating' the child's "heart of hearts" (his sensuous nature) from the repressive nature of the "authoritarian" father figure (from Godly righteousness).  the system of Righteousness is not heartless or uncaring (as dialectical thinkers classify it), it just knows what is good and what is evil and does not let the deceitful and wicked heart of the child manipulate it into 'justifying' evil.  It prevents the child from blindly following after sensuousness, thinking that it can "see," i.e. 'justify' its actions, and end up harming itself and others.  In the act of chastening, for righteousness sake, the parent's love for the child is manifested. His love is revealed in his caring for the child (feeding, sheltering, protecting, and instructing him in the ways of righteousness, i.e. encouraging him in doing what is right and admonishing him when he does wrong).   "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"  Matthew 7:9-11

Starting with Sensuousness, not Righteousness, changes the "negative" environment of 'unchangingness' (do what I say when I say it, or else) into a "positive" environment of 'change' (do as you will, i.e. as long as it does no 'harm' to others or it is 'good' for all):
    "Thinking through the process it is dialectically faulty to start with the negative, with anxiety."  (Moreno)  Thus in dialectical thought it is "faulty" to begin with that which divides both parties (righteousness, doing that which is right according to the parent or God's will as opposed to what you and/or the 'group' wants to do), that which makes them different, thus reinforcing the conscience (the sense of guilt for not obeying the parent or God).  This only leads to more animosity, with one side either accumulating information to help support his position and/or weakening the other side's ability to do the same  (quantity). By building relationships between all parties in a 'non-hostile' environment (non-righteous environment), sensuousness can come to the forefront, and 'reasoning' (humanity, i.e. the unrighteous, sensuous 'child within') can prevail over the system of Righteousness (the parent and God).

'Reasoning' through sensuousness desensitizes a person to the system of Righteousness (the parent and God) and righteousness (God).  He can then do unthinkable (unrighteous―abominable) things, even in the name of 'righteousness' (in the name of society):
    By both parties 'discovering' that their position is not "their" position, i.e. a position built upon their own sensuous nature and their own sensuous 'reasoning', but that their position is actually a higher authorities position, a position of righteousness that they have accepted by faith, i.e. accepted out of the fear of chastening, they come to 'realize' that it is only within their own "senses experiences" that 'truth' ('reality') resides.  That being the case, their only objective, i.e. 'purpose' in and 'drive' of life, is to rationally initiate and sustain a world of sensuousness (negating
the system of Righteousness as the 'purpose' and 'drive' of life) via. the individual-social praxis of the dialectical process of 'changingness.'

R(-s) + -R(-s) = 'R', i.e. "Hegel's" 'A + -A = A', is sensuousness, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' being liberated out from under the restraints of the system of Righteousness, thereby negating righteousness, thus producing a 'reasonable' (practical) world of sensuousness, "sense perceived" (dialectically 'justified') by all of mankind as being 'Righteous,':
    By mankind finding common ground through the praxis of consensus, i.e. 'rationally' building upon his own sensuousness,
the system of Righteousness, which causes division amongst men, can be negated and oneness (the 'new' world order) can be actualized.  "Getting in touch with your feelings." and "Can't we all just get along?" can then come together in a 'moment' of "truth," in a sensuous 'moment' of oneness and pleasure. 

    "'Truth' is a moment in correct praxis."  (Gramsci) 

    Bloom's "Cognitive Domain Taxonomy" (a sociological-psychological classification system) when put into praxis in the contemporary classroom follows the same "Hegelian" formula:  Knowing is the father stating, "You can not go out."  Now the child knows.  Comprehension is the father looking the child in the eyes and stating, "Do you understand what I just said? ("Do you understand what I mean?").  Now the child understands he had better not go out or he will be punished. This is a thesis condition where  faith, belief, obedience, and the acceptance of chastening from the parent or God for doing wrong is required.  According to Bloom, this is indicative of "lower order thinking skills."  Application might be the child instead feeling like going out and then doing so.  Analysis is the child knowing how important knowing is as dad is taking him to the "wood shed," i.e. chastening him.  This is an antithesis condition where a person is caught between their righteous belief, given by the teacher or parent, and their sensuous behavior, of their own nature (a time of doubting, questioning, and confusion).  Synthesis is where Bloom then takes the class, where every child must praxis sin, i.e. where every child must experience for himself 'discovering' for himself what is good and what is evil, guided by his own sensuous nature and his own sense 'driven' 'reasoning,' i.e. in the "light" of others sensuous nature and sense 'driven' 'reasoning' ('driven' by the "sensuous needs" of survival and the approval of others, both of "sense perception," one internal the other external, both manifest a fear of the loss of the pleasures of this world, "of nature only"). Evaluation is therefore the same system of 'reasoning' as was used by the woman in the garden in Eden, i.e. the system of 'reasoning' ("higher order thinking skills") used in 'justifying' the negation of the system of Righteousness, i.e. God's warning of "lest ye die" is "sense perceived" as being irrational, in the "light" of the "sensuous need" to "touch" and the 'sense based evidence' that the tree will be 'good' for them (all of the 'moment') and therefore his command, not to eat of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," becomes irrelevant in the "light" of her 'here-and-now' "sense experience."  In his praxis of the dialectical process man is moved from placing his faith in God ("trusting in the Lord with all his heart") to trusting in his own sight ("leaning to his own understanding"), thus 'changing' himself and the world around him from righteousness and life to sensuousness and death.  Take a generation of students through Bloom's Taxonomies and they will not longer need (and thus will negate) the Ten Commandments, prayer to the Lord, the Word of God, and chastening for doing wrong in their life experience, sensuousness negating righteousness will become the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life.

    "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 2:14, 21  emphasis added
    "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. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith [reprobate: of no judgment]." 2 Timothy 3:1-8  emphasis added
    "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5: 20, 21
    "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." Jude 1:11

    Like the spider and the fly, all who enter into the dialectical lair, never come out.  The 'boarders' of a dialectical country are not there to keep the deviant from entering, they are there to keep the righteous from escaping its intended 'purpose,' the negation of the system of Righteousness in their lives.  "For a state to become a state it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating, but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty become very large and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way."  (Hegel quoted in Friedrich)  Thus the dialectical process is not successful until no one can escape.  All must participate if it is be successful.  "We will leave no child (or adult) behind." and "All children (and adults) are 'at risk'." take on new meaning when you realize the intended purpose of those pushing (by force when necessary) their "Democratic ideal" upon all the world, all being done for the 'purpose' of 'global governance.' 
    You can not have faith in God, i.e. fear God and love His Word, and participate in the dialectical process.  I have never met a minister of the Church Growth, Emerging Church, Mega Church crowd who fears God and loves His Word.  They all champion dialogue.  They are all in love with their own and other's opinions of God's Word.  When they preaching and teaching the Word of God itself, they do so only to silent any opposition to their "new" program of 'change.'  In this they reveal their love for the approval of men and their love of the pleasures of this life, hiding their wolf nature under the cover of "saving the lost" for Jesus, while growing (synergizing) 'His' church and 'His' Kingdom through their polls, surveys, and feasibility studies, i.e. through the use of human sensuousness and 'reasoning' skills.  It is upon this foundation (the dialectical process of seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e. sensuousness, lies, and exploitation) that the harlot church and beast unite, with the beast destroying the whore (the sensuous 'church') in the end.

    "And what concord [harmony] hath Christ with Belial?"  2 Corinthians 6:15. 
    "No man can serve two masters:  for either he will hate the one, and love the other. . .Ye cannot serve God and mammon."  Matthew 6:24 

The violent praxis of "Hegel's" 'A plus -A equals A' formula:
    While the formula calls for the removal from society of that which blocks nature it does not change the hate nature of man, i.e. man's nature to "have it his way or else."  Whether done by command of others or from one's own desires, violence results in a change of the environment, via. the use of violent death (including hastened death, i.e. "non-lethal-weapons" which expedite death).  While the system of Righteousness chastens the individual, which is "grievous for a season," the dialectic process kills in mass, with violent death (disconcerting those who might live on) .  Since 'perception' rules the minds of men, all acts of violence, done by those promoting "Hegel's" formula upon others (unborn babies, believers, elderly) are extrapolated from the media (visual and mental awareness is minimized, redefined, or 'justified' to advance the process) while all effort is made to 'expose' any act of violence (including acts of defense) done by those 'opposing' the process, any act of violence done by those defending the system of Righteousness from the violent attacks (emotional, mental, and physical attacks) perpetrated by those of the formula, any act of violence (physical, mental, and social response) done against those who are using the formula to promote "world peace" and "social harmony," is labeled as terroristic (or potential terroristic) behavior or anti-social behavior at the least.  While no man can defend his faith, or righteousness itself (faith and righteousness defends the believer from the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' from them becoming united over and united against faith and righteousness), the system of Righteousness must be defended if civil government is to prevail and tyranny is to be abated.  God has not called believers to the use of violence to initiate and sustain 'change' as those who perpetuating the dialectical process think and do.
 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."  Romans 12:19  "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
    Since the systems of sensuousness and 'reasoning' (self-social justification) do not tie to eternal consequences (the realization that all men will be held accountable for their thoughts and actions which are counter to God's will in this life, after this life), the 'good' life is "sense perceived" as being for the sensuous 'moment.'  If environment change, i.e. the removal of barriers to a life of pleasure (for self and others), is the praxis of life, i.e. done for the sake of society (which has no soul other than perception, in one's mind) then the death of another person or of self is based upon the betterment of the environment for mankind in general and the individual in particular on a carnal level (dying with dignity meaning everybody 'feels good' about your death, including you, when it benefits society).  Eat, drink, and be merry thus rules.  When done on a global scale, violent death, while being labeled the result of the use of the system of Righteousness, ("It's something in the environments fault, not my fault") is multiplied exponentially by the use of the dialectical process (world wars and civil wars are engendered by it's use and used for its advancement).  Justification of acts of violence for social and environmental causes (the negation of the conscience) results in a callous heart toward those of 'no worth,' i.e. those who do not praxis the dialectical process, as well as those who no longer are perceived as assisting in its advancement, i.e. who have served their time or whose demise can better serve the cause, according to some "consensus" group's collective opinion.  All human praxis is for the sake of society and the environment.  To question those who are 'guided' by the formula is to put oneself in peril.
    In all cases the heart is not changed.  Greed, vanity, and envy rule the day, only on a larger scale of silenced 'corporation' with the process, so that the individual (possessed by, i.e. justified by, 'group think') can 'live' in the pleasures of the approval of men for another day.  Leaders of the world, driven by the approval of men and the pleasures of this life (as drug addicts) justify the 'collateral damage' done to millions in their efforts to save the 'world' from potential calamity, i.e. saving it from the effects of the system of Righteousness, i.e. saving it from 'alienation' and 'reification,' saving it from Armageddon.  Lifting no finger to rescue the Righteousness when being violently killed (unless for controlling  the perception of the masses, i.e. we 'care' for all people), it will spend all its effort in rescuing (liberating) those of the processes (Marxists, socialists, etc. i.e. socialists are actually Marxist who are in denial) from those of the system of Righteousness (now improperly, i.e. for ulterior motives, labeled as Fascist or potential Fascists―Adorno).   Without changing the heart the object in the environment which is to be hated is all that is changed, with the environment, sensuousness and human 'reasoning' being the only guide in its 'justification.'
    Death is no longer considered judgment for sin―with eternal consequences, but is just a passage of time for all to either collectively remember the person as a contributor to the process of 'humanity' or forget them as having been a waste of time, a burden upon society.  History is expunged of remembrances of the 'moments' of Righteousness (only recorded as a time of repression and alienation) leaving only moments of sensuousness and 'reasoning' advancing the world to higher states of being, to be exonerated and advanced.  Hate and violence (mental, physical and social) are now regarded as 'love' when done for the cause of humanity, turning God's love, chastening man to bring him to righteousness, into an act of hate, an act of violence against human nature, an act which is to be hated by all mankind, with all mankind united in one dialectical voice of 'consensus' over and against it, it being righteousness.  With righteousness no longer on the mind man, death no longer has a sting.  "The style of integrity developed by his culture or civilization thus becomes the ‘patrimony of his soul,' the seal of his moral paternity of himself." "Before this final solution, death loses its sting."  (Krathwohl and Bloom)  This would be just some more social-psychological jargon if it were not for the fact that it is from the textbook which all certified teachers and all accredited schools must base their curriculum development upon.  "Death loses its sting" not because of righteousness and eternal life (from God) but rather because of the negation of them―the approval of men and social praxis negating the "guilty conscience." 
    In the end, the eternal consequence for one's thoughts and actions (the fear of judgment for one's praxis against righteousness) is abated by a person's (or the next generation's) participation within the dialectical formula of social 'change.'  Death is no longer recognizes as the consequence of sin but has becomes a social 'moment,' a time of passing by one so that all can come together, united in a 'moment' of remembrance for their social contribution. 
    Hate of sin is displaced with hate of righteousness. The righteous (the haters of sin) are now perceived as being haters of humanity―haters of human-unity.  No longer perceived as being an act of hate but rather as being a praxis of love for human-unity (sensuousness), hate of righteousness is thus dialectically 'justified.'  It is the same spirit of vanity, pride, and envy which 'drove' men to put Jesus (righteousness) on the Cross, the spirit of human-unity (the 'love' of sensuousness dialectically 'justified' as being 'righteousness' instead).

What can you do to stop the spread of this diabolical process?  Repent of your sins before the Lord, trust in him with all your heart, lean not upon your own dialectical 'reasoning', preach and teach the truth of His righteousness, and let him direct your steps, enduring the hate of the world toward you (his righteousness in you) to the end, holding fast to that which he has given you, i.e. His Word, to the death. "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."  Philippians 1:21

    "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b 

The praxis of sensuousness and 'reasoning' negates the system of Righteousness by making itself 'righteousness.'  By changing the work environment from an environment of the system of Righteousness (didactic 'reasoning', patriarchal paradigm, where everyone does what the boss says, or else ...) into a permissive environment of sensuousness and humanistic 'reasoning' (dialectic 'reasoning', where a deviant group, i.e. men and women working together, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, must always come to a pre-determined outcome that no decision is to be made without first going through the sensuous dialectical process, where human relationship building―initiating and sustaining common-ism―becomes the 'driving purpose' for life), because the work environment is carried back into the home, the home environment, a patriarch environment of right and wrong, where chastening and love, i.e. chastening and the system of Righteousness go hand in hand  (Hebrews 12:5-11), where the husband rules, the desire of the heart of the wife is to her husband, and children obey their parents, in the Lord, is 'changed' into an environment of sensuousness and humanistic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6), an environment of permissiveness and unrighteousness, where unrighteousness, i.e. the sensuous will of the children, 'influences and monopolizes' the home experience.  In this way the conscience, which is developed in the patriarchal home, which ties a person to the system of Righteousness, is negated with the dialectically development of the super-ego, which 'rationally' ties the person to his sensuousness and the sensuousness of the 'village.' Both the individual and the 'village,' i.e. the deviant group, are united within a common sensuous 'moment' of common sensuous 'reasoning', 'discovering ' developing, and sustaining a world which continuously uses the dialectical process in developing and sustaining all workplace, home, and common-unity policies, all working and living within in a common sensuous-'reasoning' experience
    "Teambuilding," building of human relationships, encounter groups, etc. are all the product of a system where: 1) a diverse group of people (plurality negating duality), 2) dialoguing to consensus (opinions negating righteousness, i.e. negating the preaching and teaching of truth), 3) over social issues (the temporal-man negating the spiritual-of God), 4) in a facilitated meeting (the manipulation of feelings and thoughts which speaks to the heart and head of man negating the persuasion of logic and truth based upon righteousness which speaks to the soul of man), 5) to a pre-determined outcome that all must participate in the these five steps every time a decision is to be made.  This is a soviet system.  The idea being that with the use of this dialectical system in setting policy, the top-down system of "representation" is negated.  While people may vote for a particular person to occupy an office in government (be it legislative, executive, or judicial), by departments using the soviet system in assisting him in making policy and then carrying out government initiated agendas ("to serve the people"), unelected people (who have not sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic) now make laws, enforce them, judging and punishing those who do not obey them "for the common good."  With the networking between all branches of government, via these soviets (where all branches of government are united when the soviets under each branch unit with the soviets of the other branches as one) we now have a politburo form of government, all 'driven' in the 'purpose' of "making the world safe for democracy."  
    The individual from then on only has worth as he 'willingly' (for personal survival and the desire for approval of others, i.e. for the 'common good') participates within the process and works for the continuous improvement of a social-istic workplace, home, and common-unity, i.e. world peace and social harmony (all citizens working together for a common sensuous cause, i.e. the augmentation of the sensuousness of pleasure for "the all"), and he 'willingly' sustains the development of a workplace, home, and common-unity built upon the scientific, material-istic, human-istic, common-istic, sensuousness-'reasoning' 'unifying' method called the dialectic process, or else ....  The righteous individual has, from then on, no say on matters of the workplace, home, and country, unless he also bends his knees to the abominable dialectical beast and 'discovers' his sensuous 'child within' and 'rationally' joins with the rest of the children (in adult bodies) in their annihilation of the patriarchal father figure, i.e. the negation of the system of Righteousness from man's thoughts and from his common-unity praxis.
     This is the pattern applied to all institutions, including the 'church,' i.e. the apostate, harlot, whorish (synergistic, emergent) church.  All working together for the sake of negating the patriarch home and its father figure from the mind of the individual (theory) and from the actions of society (practice), i.e. and thereby negating belief in the Righteous, Pure, Holy, unchanging God of absolutes, i.e. God defining good and evil according to His eternally established will, condemning all to Hell who refuse to do it his way:  "Be ye perfect as I am perfect," which requires our repentance (godly sorrow) for our wickedness in trying to be as a 'god' ('reasoning' good and evil according to our sensuousness).  And is only possible because of His mercy, His grace, and His righteousness
    This is what theory and practice is all about. It is the illusion of building of a 'better' person, home, church, workplace, common-unity, and world through the praxis of the dialectical process, i.e. negating the system of Righteousness, negating what those who facilitate and participate in it perceive as the cause of division, dissention, and war in the person, home, church, workplace, common-unity, and the world, i.e. negating the system of Righteousness (the father) from restraining sensuousness (the child's love of self and the world) from uniting with 'reasoning' (the collective), and then 'reasoning' (the self will with the collective will) justifying sensuousness (hatred toward the father and his restraint upon the self and thus the collective), all united in the praxis of negating the system of Righteousness.   And you thought it was all about building better houses, 'schools,' 'churches,' roads, cars, planes, and boats.  Don't let your sensuousness and 'reasoning' blind you to the truth that it is all about His righteousness, and His righteousness alone (exposing your 'righteousness' as wickedness).

    "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Ephesians 4:17-19
    "But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."  Ephesians 4:20-24
    "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication
(πορνεία  porneia, which we get the word pornography from: includes adultery and incest).
    "Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Corinthians 6:15-20

    Without His righteousness, no matter how you feel, or what you think, you are going nowhere but 'down.'  You can jump out of an airplane, twenty thousand feet above the ground without a parachute, and tell yourself "I don't feel" or "I don't think that there is such a thing as gravity" all you want, but eventually you are going to meet an object, and at that 'moment' it won't matter how you feel or what you think.  Your opinion won't count. 
    Some day you are going to take your last breath, the last of all the breaths that God has given you.  You might not feel or think he has given you every one of your breaths, that he is even giving you your next breath right now, instead denying him, but after the last breath he gives you, you are meeting an object.  You are meeting God who gave you all the breaths of your life (given you that you might, knowing his love, mercy, and grace and praise and worship him as your savior and Lord).  But at that moment, after your last breath, your opinion that God is not the source of your life, that there is no heaven or hell (rejecting that he alone is the one who determines, according to His will, i.e. according to His work, who will spend eternity where), your dialectical ('A + -A = A') opinion, united with all the opinions of the world, won't count―John 3:16.

    "Every one that is proud in heart [thinking that he can 'direct' his own steps] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5  bracketed information added
    "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Mark 13:12
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."  2 Timothy 4:3-5
    And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Revelation 12:11
    "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort  and to convince the gainsayers."  Titus 1:9 

    Paul is encouraging those of faith to press on in the Lord's word, "and to convince the gainsayers," those who oppose themselves (Anti-Lego, in their use of the dialectical process), to know the truth (ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth), convincing them that there is a God who loves them, who is faithful to his word of mercy and grace to those who repent and turn from their wicked ways, who sent his only begotten son to die for their sins, taking their place of chastening, that they might come to the way, truth, and life which is only found in Christ, that they might come to know his righteousness, imputed to all who believe upon him, that they might turn away from the way of sensuousness, 'reasoning's,' and death and instead walk in the way of the Lord, in his righteousness and life, which is made available by God, i.e. our Heavenly Father, His only begotten Son, our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, to all who believe upon the him.
    "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."  Revelation 3:19-22  emphasis added
    "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of GodPraying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;"  Ephesians 6:10-18  emphasis added

(not all authors and their works used are listed)

Adorno, Theodor, The Authoritarian Personality
Benne, Kenneth, Human Relations in Curriculum Change
Bennis, Warren, The Temporary Society
Bronner, Stephen Eric,  Of Critical Theorists and their Theory
Brown, Norman O.,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History
Coleman, James, The Adolescent Society
Friedrich, Carl, The Philosophy of Hegel
Fromm, Erick, Escape from Freedom
Gramsci, Antonio,  Selections from The Prison Notebooks
Habermas, Jürgen, Knowledge & Human Interest
                             Theory and Practice

Jay, Martin, The Dialectical Imagination
Krathwohl, David, and Benjamin Bloom,  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II  Affective Domain
Lukacs, Georg, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?
Marcuse, Herbert, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud
Maslow, Abraham,  The Further Reaches of Human Nature
                               The Journals of Abraham Maslow
                               Maslow on Management
Moreno, J. L.,  Who Shall Survive
Reich, Wilhelm, The Mass Psychology of Fascism
Rogers, Carl, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy                              
Trojanowicz, Dr. Robert, Community Policing: The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing
Wheat, Leonard, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2011-2015