"A plus negative A equals A"
(A + -A = A)
dialectical diabolical formula)
Understanding "Hegel's" diabolical 'A plus negative A equals A' formula.
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" while God does it "that we might be partakers of his holiness." Hebrews 12:5-11
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 effort―theory 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 righteousness―obeying 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 definition―our 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." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?) 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 reactions―and 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 acts―counter 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
"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 Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)
"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." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom)
"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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) 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 anymore―it is about self-fulfillment." (Abraham Maslow, 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]." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of 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.]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) 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." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
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." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
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 Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
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 Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) 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].' " (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) 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." (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud, quoting Sigmund Freud)
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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) 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. " (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest)
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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) 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.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination)
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." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz , Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)
"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)." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"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." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)
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 child―in other words, a child centered orientation." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) 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" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) and society can only finds its identity in a sensuous and rational nature, in a nature which is common to all individuals (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"), 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 [negating the righteousness which is not of itself, not of nature, which divides man from his own nature and thus divides man from the nature, i.e. restraining him from that 'righteousness' which he has in common with others―sensuousness 'justified'].
"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 group―his 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, your trees" (righteousness―right-wrong) in the garden in Eden, there was only "our trees" (sensuousness―right). It was up to dialectical 'reasoning' to redefine "My tree, not your tree," that which is private, individual, inhibiting the sensuousness of the '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 righteousness of God. This 'logic' can 'change' a nation, washing its brain of righteousness. What you set you mind upon is what you are. "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 (tolerance or harmony between) the two, as some would like to deceive you into believing.
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, what is right and what is wrong according to the parents, without government encroachment (taxation in support of a secular mandate, i.e. in the name of "equality," would 'justify' and thus produce such an encroachment―the tension between the secular and sacred which 'justifies' limit government action only to those things of importance to both sides, i.e. roads, jurisdictions, etc. without negating, i.e. without encroaching upon righteousness, i.e. the system of Righteousness and the family which engendered it through chastening, would effectively be negated with a secular, i.e. Godless, sensuousness based mandate, i.e. secular 'purpose'―which was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution, any restraints, regarding the church, not religion or righteousness, was upon the Federal government and not to the States which had state churches up until the early 1830's). Thus federal encroachment upon education (usurping the parent's right to control their children's education) was 'justified' in the praxis of negating the patriarchal family structure with government established upon and '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 Constitution rights, i.e. the inalienable rights of the citizen, i.e. the individual, which it negated since social 'rights,' by necessity, negates individual rights―negates the reasoning behind limiting the powers, i.e. the force of government upon the citizens, that reasoning being the recognition, by the citizens, of the unrighteous nature of men's hearts).
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." (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive) 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; www.authorityresearch.com/Sources/Total 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 righteousness―preaching and teaching truth to those under authority) must be 'changed' to the former (focusing upon sensuousness―dialoguing '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 conscience―the 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.
"A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein ‘the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man)
"Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?)
"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.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"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
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2011-2015