authorityresearch.com

Diaprax Applied: 
 Putting the dialectic process into social action (praxis)—
actualizing cosmic unity "in theory and in practice."

by

Dean Gotcher

Rough draft: in development as time permits.  It is best you first read "Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis".

The word "human" is used with or in place of the carnal, fallen nature of man.  As best I can, I do not use it as a reference of how God created man, only how fallen man sees himself, apart from or different than Gods' definition of man and Gods' purpose for him (attempting to mingle spiritual with material— sacred and secular i.e. using a method of deception, evaluating that which is spiritual with a method which can only be used to evaluate that which is material.  Only the discerning can pick up on this trickery even though they may not be able at the time to explain its inner workings to others).

If A = B
and B = C
then A = C.

If Satan's Paradigm is the basis of Bloom's Taxonomies (and it is)
and Bloom's Taxonomies are the basis of Christian School Accreditation (and it is)
Then Satan's Paradigm is the basis of Christian School Accreditation.

When Christian Schools change their curriculum to keep up with the times so they can keep their funds up (seeking approval from the "village," seeking human approval, the approval of men), they represent the praxis of Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden, they abdicate a Patriarchal paradigm for a Heresiarch paradigm, they (Christian Schools) in deed (in praxis) become wide gates to Hell,  they must lie not only to the parents of the children they "teach," they must also lie to themselves.  No longer do they discuss how children must behave in light of what God commands but instead dialogue how they feel and what they think about what God commands in light of human "felt" needs, they substitute preaching the word of God with human reasoning skills, through dialogue—they now "think with their feelings"—having human eyes they can not see, and having human ears they can not hear, and all the time they think they are doing God's work. Quoting Karl Marx, "having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears."

BLOOM'S TAXONOMIES 

Every teacher (certified) has to study and apply Bloom's Taxonomies in the classroom.  These works follow the very same process Lucifer used to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden.  They are build upon the dialectical process.  I call Bloom's Taxonomies Secularized Satanism, Intellectualized Witchcraft. That is what they are.

    Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1 Cognitive Domain and Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain are more commonly referred to as Bloom's Taxonomies, despite David R. Krathwohl being the leading editor of Book 2.  Despite the rot that John Dewey and his progressive religion has brought to education these book have had more to do with the erosion of morals and ethics in America than any other books.  Couched in the language of "academia" they are actually the work of Transformational Marxists, using the language of social psychological to communicate to their agents an agenda to destroy the sovereignty of this nation, founded upon the sovereignty of the patriarchal based home, for a dream of a one world order.

"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." 2 Corinthians 2:11

    The bottom line of these works is to remove the protestant work ethic and true Christian belief and action based upon a Heavenly Father figure (patriarchal paradigm) from the face of the world.  For most readers this already sounds like a conspiracy agenda.  They are right. But to refuse to understand a plot against this nation would either mean you do not care what happens to you and your loved ones or you would rather stay ignorant, with the hope that the ignorant win.

"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter." Isaiah 56:10-11

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:3-7

"In fact, a large part of what we call "good teaching" is
the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through
challenging the student's fixed beliefs and
getting them to discuss issues."

David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, etc.
Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2 Affective Domain   page 54

    Every certified facilitator―educator in this nation, Christian "teachers" as well, are trained to use the system of  Bloom's Taxonomies.  That system is recognized in some fields as "General Systems Theory."  Whatever it is called it is the same paradigm which was used in the Garden in Eden by Eve to justify defiance toward God and His Word, i.e. consider his word as an opinion and treat it as insignificant when it interferes with human desires, effectively negating both his restraint and his importance in the mind of man (theory) and his current environment (praxis) .

The "affective objectives" Bloom mentions above is the "ought's" of fallen, rebellious mankind, the imagination of mans heart out of which all the evils of his fallen nature manifest themselves; "Out of the heart of man proceed" what I call the shopping list of iniquities.  The heart of man, unrestrained, is Pandora's Box, a box (jar) full of evils. Once it is opened it can not be closed, or is closed only in time to prevent hope from escaping. To achieve the liberating of these forces within the creation the restraints and the standards, "the student's fixed beliefs"  (imposed upon them by their parents) must be "challenged" wherein the student will feel free to discuss and justify their feelings toward an authority which imposes restraint upon their fleshly desires. This is exactly the same system or procedure Satan used on Eve in the Garden.

    That system is manifested in Karl Marx's statement "Once the earthy  family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family , the former must be destroyed in theory and in practice."  Feuerbach Thesis #4  In other words, once the traditional family, which demands obedience and chastens those who disobey them and their commands, is discovered to be the same system whereby God is able to communicate to the next generation, where He likewise demands obedience and chastens those who disobey him and his commands, the traditional family, according to Karl Marx, must be destroyed/annihilated both in the way people think and in the way they behave―a paradigm shift must take place. The traditional family must be seen by society as an agency which generates abnormal behavior.  Culture will not tolerate the initiation or sustaining of such behavior and will put pressure upon any agency or institution which promotes or follows such teaching style―culture war.

When you change the parents focus from obedience to God and his Word to focus of the "village," and its concern for their children, they change their paradigm from patriarchal paradigm, an established paradigm, to a heresiarchal paradigm, a shifty paradigm, as in "shifting sand."

"Using social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child."
T. W. Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality, 1950, p. 6

    Again, once the traditional family is comprehended as using the same system of thinking (paradigm) as God's―demanding obedience and chastening those who disobey, the traditional family, which also demands obedience from their children and chasten those who disobey, must be categorized (taxonomized) as a major source of abnormal behavior.  The next generation must learn how to "rationally" justify to themselves that traditional parental behavior is harmful to the health of the individual, the community, and society and must learn how to unite with others (the community) in creating a climate which will assist in the eradication of such behavior.

"We must develop persons [the "village"] who see non-influencability of private convictions [person of principle based upon doing right and exposing, and judging wrong] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." [This praxis effectively negates a representative, constitutional republic form of government.]
Kenneth Benne,  Human Relations in Curriculum Change

"Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to
initiating and controlling the change process."
Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group."
Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change

"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated."
Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 3

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Galatians 5:24

"Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior."
"The public-private status of cognitive vs. affective behaviors is deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian religion and
is a value highly cherished in the democratic traditions of the Western world."
"Perhaps a reopening of the entire question would help us to see more clearly the boundaries between education and indoctrination,
and the simple dichotomy expressed above between cognitive and affective behavior would no longer seem as real
as the rather glib separation of the two suggests."
"Education opens up possibilities for free choice and individual decisions."
"Indoctrination, on the other hand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of free choice and decision."
Bloom's Taxonomies, Cognitive and Affective Domain  emphasis added.

Bloom and his cohorts deliberately set out to re-educate (brainwash—wash from the brain any respect for a patriarchal authority and its role in restraining the flesh with its affective domain; resulting in a developed hate for a patriarchal paradigm) educators and students with the hope of destroying the traditional American home and its system of indoctrination, training up the child, inculcation, etc.  His bibliography reads like a who's who of social engineers with only one set purpose, the destruction of the patriarchal paradigm, a paradigm which made this one of the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Bloom's Taxonomy broken down.

Know, Comprehend, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation when used on rocks, plants, and animals is a true scientific method.  The laws of nature will reveal whether your theory is right (discovering a pre-set law, established by God, through the use of a scientific method) or wrong (just a theory). But when this method is used on man (Bloom's Taxonomies are a "taxonomy of psychology" Cognitive Domain: Book 1 p.6), it can only define man as material i.e. the laws of the flesh becomes the basis of all his behavior. "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:25

Bloom wrote in "... Book I: Cognitive Domain"  that it was a Taxonomy of psychology (p.6). The "current" praxis of psychology, Bloom referred to on page 6, was the synthesis of Marx and Freud, known as transformational Marxism, where Freud was used to humanize Marx, giving the "Left in America a Marx they could love." (Norman O. Brown  Life Against Death)   "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book  [Life Against Death] cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader."  (Norman O. Brown) "But Brown believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin―namely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot."  (Mike Connor)  In Bloom's own words he admits to his agenda of confusion, for the sake of humanism i.e. whatever tool of deception could be used to gain respect in the eyes of the undiscerning "village," were used to advance his agenda—the annihilation of the patriarchal home. "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." Cognitive Domain: Book 1 p. 5  "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." Affective Domain: Book 2 p. 11  Forty years later Bloom wrote "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be ‘unprovable.'" Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect

What certified teachers have been instructed in and must apply in both the public and the Accredited Christian School classroom if they are to be "respected" and promoted.

Knowing and Comprehending, in a patriarchal paradigm (thesis, obedience, truth known by revelation), means being taught a truth or fact, given a command, and then questioned to see if you understand (comprehend) that if you get it right or obey it you will be rewarded and if you get it wrong or disobey it you will not be rewarded but instead you will be punished. Therefore paying attention to an authority figure, memorization of their words and obedience to their instructions, becomes the proper way to behave. "In the more traditional society a philosophy of life, a mode of conduct, is spelled out for its members at an early stage in their lives. A major function of education in such a society is to achieve the internalization of this philosophy." Affective Domain: Book 2 p. 166  In Bloom's taxonomy a 'right vs. wrong' way of thinking i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, is known as lower order thinking skill and is held in derision through test questions and cartoons he uses as examples in the back of his book II.

Application and Analysis in a patriarchal paradigm reflects an act of disobedience (antithesis, rebellion) which requires chastening, meaning one has to experience for themselves what is right or wrong and even though authority may bring them back to what authority sees as right behavior, the person in disobedience can now feel for themselves what is "right or wrong" (truth becomes fused with feelings, i.e. truth becomes fused with personal-social "felt" needs—life becomes confusing, one is caught between seeking both objective truth [cognitive truth given by an author above human nature] and subjective "truth" [affective truth known only through human nature] at the same time), obedience is no longer based upon faith in the author of truth (producing a "peaceful fruit of righteousness" Hebrews 12) but rather "obedience" is now based upon the fear of punishment (dread). One does what they are told to do externally, but, internally—according to their personal desires and to their own perception—they are no longer in agreement with authority, i.e. doubt prevails. John Dewey called this human nature of rebellion toward Patriarchal authority "honest doubt." Rebellion (the language of "ought," as in "I ought to be able to do it my way," becomes the language of the mind) now becomes the praxis of life.  On matters of what is right and what is wrong, one can now "think for themselves," yet must still, grudgingly, obey authority to maintain continued support and sustenance. According to Bloom, academics infused with feelings can help the student achieve "Freedom from excessive tension and from pressures to adopt a particular viewpoint." "His efforts need not conform to the views of authority." Cognitive Domain: Book 1 p. 173

    "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. 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. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John  2:15-18

 Synthesis and Evaluation, the last two steps of Blooms Taxonomy, can only be attained through the praxis of rebellion against a patriarchal paradigm—rebellion against the authority of the parent, as in, was the rebellion right or wrong according to one's own heart desires and the "felt" needs of others i.e. the "village." "In fact, a large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." ibid p. 54   To synthesis with one's feelings means to "scientifically" discover that which we all have in common, our sinful human nature (vanity), our common "felt" needs, and then actualize, i.e. create unity and peace (happiness and pleasure) upon these common "felt" needs—all that is in the world—"the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." 

Revolution, the overthrow of a patriarchal paradigm, becomes the agenda for all with Bloom's special training. "… to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents … [producing] conflict and tension between parents and children … [between those who are and those] who are not participating in the special opportunities." ibid p. 83 "Special opportunities" are the facilitated meetings i.e. group grade, etc. which are instrumental in the development of a heresiarchal paradigm (an adolescent society—a proletariat society). Thus human nature becomes the standard of all things worthy of admiration.  Purpose must always be based upon what all mankind have in common, our collective "felt" (material) needs, "needs" identified by Abraham Maslow in his hierarchy of "felt" needs.

Evaluation is based upon the knowledge and ability one has to shape an environment, be it classroom, a bible study, or a legislative chamber, where the mapping (taxonimizing) of all persons present can be made for the sake of moving everyone from a patriarchal paradigm to a heresiarchal paradigm. "Using social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child."  Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality the book referenced in the Affective Domain: Book 2 p. 166  as Bloom's Weltanschauung (world view or paradigm). These are the same steps Satan used to help Adam and Eve become world class citizens.

The dialectical process exposed in Genesis 3:1-6

God's commands are seen as non-sensuous (irrational, impractical) in an enlightened society.

    Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.  But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil."  Ephesians 4:17-27

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" Galatians 4:9

Table of Contents

Forward
    Liberating the "ought" to negate the "not." The state of "oughtyness."
    "Meditation 'shift'"
Preface
    Trying to cut the patriarch off at the pass.
    The praxis of undoing Christian faith and supplanting it with "enlightenment Christianity."
Diaprax Applied
    Diaprax in the beginning:
    Diaprax in the home:
    Diaprax in education:
    Diaprax in the workplace:
    Diaprax in business:
    Diaprax in the military:
    Diaprax in the church:
    Diaprax in government:
    Diaprax in the police:
    Diaprax in the Medical/Hospital:
    Diaprax in environmental issues:
    Diaprax in the neighborhood i.e. social departments:
    Diaprax in you:

Forward

"The negation of negation."

The "negation of negation" of the dialectic is referred to as "a moment in correct praxis"—an event in time and in space when two or more people with apposing positions (differing opinions i.e. beliefs) are synthesized.  All participants, through the process of discourse, identify and then willingly work together to a accomplish a common cause or goal (positive force field; contributing appropriate information to accomplish group task and group harmony) while at the same time willingly suspend or setting aside personal differences (negative force field; negating "individualistic"—above-group, information which obstructs group harmony)  i.e. coming to a consensus. "'The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.'  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."  (Antonio Gramsci  Selections from the Prison Notes)  "Truth is a moment in correct praxis."  (Martin Jay  The Dialectical Imagination quoting Antonio Gramsci)   Dialectical praxis takes place when a persons position (thesis) and another persons apposing position (antithesis) are redefined as opinions in the context of keeping human relationships (synthesis). "The scientific [dialectic] study of ideology [revelation, belief, certainty] can only be made on the basis of theory [contemplation, opinion, uncertainty]." (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality)

Thus people are not annihilated but rather transformed. The person remains a part of the "village," while their patriarchal paradigm of "right and wrong" is annihilated—their attitude of absolutes is replaced (negated) with an attitude of tolerance of ambiguity (there is not lasting "right or wrong," "right or wrong" is situational)—the very moment they participate in the process. Truth is thus not found above man, detaching man from his "true" human nature, his nature which is common to all mankind.  Truth, in dialectical thinking, is not that which divides and alienates mankind, but instead truth is the praxis of mankind collectively (mentally, emotionally, and physiologically; i.e. consciously) discovering, through the use of a "scientific method" (the dialectical process), his commonality with nature, and thus can, "in the moment," experience oneness (come into contact) with himself, (his human nature) others (their nature), as well as with nature itself (all that is within the natural environment around him).  Only these three things, the person himself, others, and the cosmos, can provide the appropriate information to actualize personal and social harmony (world peace, wholeness, wellness, etc.) Anything outside that common experience must be negated for the sake of consensus—a sensuous moment of oneness.

In this way certainty is exchanged i.e. negated for uncertainty, truth is exchanged i.e. negated for theories, facts are exchanged i.e. negated for opinions, all for the sake of creating and sustaining social harmony, i.e. to create "peace" in the family, "peace" in the community, "peace" in the church, and "piece" in the world.  Thus a person either retains his position, with the possibility of losing relationships, or negates his position, redefining it as an opinion for the sake of relationships.  This is the foundation upon which humanism, socialism, communism, globalism, environmentalism, etc. is built.  Convincing a person that his belief is just an opinion, allows compromise to more easily take place—facilitation means to make change easy. This is done for the "purpose" of retaining or building human relationships.  This praxis effective negates the interference of a person's conscience, the voice of authority (the parent) interfering with human nature (the carnal desires of a child),  allowing for an outcome of consensus in human affairs i.e. "human rights."

If there is any statement which sums up how the 21st century is to be, it is the following by Karl Marx. "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family the former must itself be annihilated, both in theory and in practice."  Karl Marx Feuerbach Thesis #4  It certainly sums up the past 100 years. It is the purpose of all who believe in "world peace" and "social harmony."

The praxis of the "earthly" (traditional-patriarchal) family is based upon the language of  "Is" and "Not," as in "I am the one in authority and you are Not, so do what I tell you to do or you will be chastened."
The praxis of the dysfunctional (transition-matriarchal) family is based upon the language of "Ought," as in "I ought to be free to do whatever I want to do, so don't tell me what I can't do."
The praxis of the "socialist" (transformational-heresiarchal) family is based upon the language of "Seem to," as in "If it 'seems to be 'the acceptable thing to do, according to everyone present, then it must be the reasonable thing to do, so don't let anyone stop us."

"If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." Jürgen Habermas Theory and Practice

"If the 'restoring of life' is to be conceived in terms of" those who praxis a patriarchal paradigm, "then" those who praxis a heresiarchal paradigm "must collapse into a bottomless abyss." ibid paraphrased.

or "If the 'restoring of life' is to be conceived in terms of" children obeying their parents, in the Lord, "then" social-psychology "must collapse into a bottomless abyss."

Diaprax: the praxis of replacing objective truth (found in the laws of the creation, and most importantly revealed to us by the creator himself—"it is written.") with subjective speculation (how "I or we feel" and what "I or we think") for the sake of "social harmony."  In other words, in diaprax, you must not let the truth get in the way of your theory, especially if the truth causes social division and the theory "seems to" facilitate unity. Thus, insisting upon objective truth interferes with a diversity of opinions (subjective truth) arriving at unity: as deductive reasoning interferes with inductive reasoning.

Only Jesus can satisfy your soul, for all else is vanity, for all else is of our carnal human subjective desires, our "ought," seeking actualization. According to Diaprax i.e. Marx, if the "Is" and the "Not" of the earthly patriarchal family—where children are obedient to their earthly father's will—is the secret of the "Is" and the "Not" of the heavenly patriarchal family—God's creation, even his own son, Jesus Christ, is obedient to his (the Heavenly Father's) will—then the patriarchal family must be annihilated, "both in theory," in the thoughts of the children, in the conscience—where they meditate on the parents will, "and in practice," in the activities or the praxis of the community, in its perception, where the environment which is perceived, is sanitized of any tolerance toward a patriarchal paradigm.  This is done to prevent any perception of acceptance of an objective authority, such as God, having a say-so in the affairs of man.  Any power above mankind's own subjective common human experience, his common praxis, must be negated—annihilated—washed from the "villages" thoughts and actions, or at least must be seen as irrelevant. 

In 1994, a young boy, Jason Newkirk, was asked these questions (therapeutic "games") by a East Lansing, Michigan school counselor.  His parents had "specifically refused to give school officials permission to counsel their son." (John W. Whitehead The Rutherford Institution)

"A girl was listening through the keyhole of the closed door of her parents' bedroom.  Her parents were talking and didn't know she was there.  What did she hear them saying?"

"How do you feel after you've gone to the toilet?"

"If your mother promised to be home at 2:00 in the afternoon  to take you to the movies but didn't show up until supper-time and didn't even phone, what would be a good punishment for her?"

"Of all the things you have been told about God and religion, what do you think is true and what do you think isn't."
"What 'turns you on,' that is, what excites you?"
"Tell something about your father that gets you angry."
"Say something bad about your father."
"Tell something about your mother that gets you angry."
"What is the worst thing you can say about your family?  What was the worst punishment you ever got in your whole life?"
"What do you think about a boy who sometimes wished that his brother were dead?"
"If the walls of your house could talk, what would they say about your family?"
"Have you ever seen your parents drunk or very ill?"
"What do your parents do that embarrasses you the most?"

"Make believe you are telling a lie.  What's the lie? To whom are you telling it?"
"Make up a lie."

"What is the worst word you know?"
"Make believe you are doing a bad thing."
"Make believe you're vomiting."

Would you, as a parent, want someone asking your child these questions?

In the land of Diaprax there can be no actualized praxis of a patriarchal family in the community.  The patriarchal family must be identified as an "unwanted intrusion" in the praxis of community life.  All praxis in the community must be sanitized of initiating and sustaining (reinforcing) a patriarchal paradigm.  I'm sure there are "councilors" who would not "agree" with these kinds of questions being asked, yet they would have to remain silent of their opinion at work for their jobs sake.  As a friend of mine, Phil Ring, put it: "You can't be half pregnant." Which is worse, a hypocrite who abuses a child while saying he is protecting it, or a person who is deceived, who abuses a child, believing they are protecting it?

Sin is redefined as the separation of man from man because of his extra-human (non-common) absolutes and is no longer defined as a praxis of self-justification (self-actualization), which resulted in alienation between God and man.  Thus Jesus' death on the cross only becomes symbolic of a man suffering for humanity.  "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin" becomes socialist in nature and loses its eternal purpose, the reconciliation of man with God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the propitiation for all who believe upon him—the praxis of a patriarchal paradigm.  The mingling of a sociological agenda with the work of the cross is the praxis of heresy. Without a patriarchal paradigm the gospel simply becomes a socialist tool used for a "socialist" end—"world peace"—restoring the Garden in Eden, only this time without a patriarchal God demanding that his patriarchal paradigm be mans praxis; restoring the Garden in Eden with the praxis of a heresiarchal paradigm.  Therefore the pathway to peace is not found through God, above man and the creation, in the "there-and-then," but through man and the creation itself, in the "here-and-now."  The dialectical attitude is, "If God wants to help, he is certainly invited to participate, as long as he is does not demand his way on things and is willing to fit into mans praxis, to participate in his paradigm of tolerance."  This is the praxis of the heresiarchal, apostate (Gnostic) mega-church today, riding upon the emerging beast.

Listening is not the same thing as hearing.
A person can have "listening skills" and still not hear.

"Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippines 4:11-13

How the dialecticians see human nature, where the environment (the situation) affects man's praxis.

If, on the chart, A^o±d equals the persons level of approval (or disapproval, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, etc.) of prior experiences in either an environment of obedience or an environment of dialogue (or a continuum of the two).  Is he more comfortable in an environment where he must obey orders or is he more comfortable in an environment where he can freely share how he feels and what he thinks regarding any request made of him.  This is determined via. a thesis interrogation, using open ended, non-directed questions, a "no right or wrong answers" questionnaire—a dialectical test i.e.  mapping the room to identify "resistors to change".  If C^o equals an environment which predominately demands obedience (hearing and obeying) and C^d represents an environment which predominately "encourages" discourse ("listening skills" and questioning).  The predetermined outcome for participating in ether environment is either in the environment which demands obedience C^o (good or evil, you either are or you are not, belief-action dichotomy) is an increasing acceptance of obedience and an increasing rejection of discourse (questioning)—obedience seen as respect for authority, discourse seen as disrespectful for authority, i.e. back talking, etc.—B^+o-d , or conversely in the environment which encourages discourse B^d  (pre-_______ - post-_______, "progressive," theory-practice synthesis) is an increasing acceptance of discourse and and an increasing rejection of rote memory and obedience—unquestioning obedience seen as narrow minded and prejudiced, i.e. resistor to change, etc.—B^+d-o .

How you acquire knowledge determines your paradigm.
Deductive, didactic reasoning recognizes a patriarchal (Godly) paradigm while
Inductive, dialectical reasoning recognizes a heresiarchal (Humanistic) paradigm.

The way the environment is developed (C^{dialogue, by facilitation}  or C^{obediance, by teaching and preaching}) has a direct effect on how the person will think, feel, and behave towards either paradigm (approach as pleasure or avoid as pain), following their participation in the environment—environment or "climate" control determines the outcome.  A person will have respect for, take pleasure in (not find as painful), an office demanding obedience (respect for authority, providing its standards agree with the persons standards) if they praxis a didactic, patriarchal paradigm (C^obey) at home, in the classroom, in the workplace, etc., but will question, not take pleasure in (find as painful), any office which demands obedience, if they praxis a dialectic, heresiarchal paradigm (C^dialogue), (a disrespect for authority), in the home, the classroom, the workplace, etc. The former paradigm (patriarch) is built upon faith, "without faith it is imposable to please God." Hebrews 11:6  while the latter paradigm (heresiarch) is built upon doubt, "are you sure God said ..." Genesis 3:1.  It is our nature to approach pleasure and avoid pain.  Therefore the latter paradigm will be more readily accepted by human nature than the former.  Resistance will be demonstrated only when the person can not find a "common" connection between his desires of rebellion toward authority and the environment he is in which willingly accepts his rebellious nature. When this is applied to environments of paradigms, the paradigm a person has been trained up in (either one of obedience or one of free dialogue, through either education or reeducation) directly effects their willingness to participate in or resistance toward the "future" world they live in—they either accept or reject i.e. find pleasure in or find as painful (endure) the change.  For a person to participate in the environment of "honest" doubt, he must be willing to sacrifice his faith.

Replacing rectangular tables with round tables.
Replacing personal identity under God with group identity, i.e. common human nature.

Human inclinations (mans carnal desires—"law of the flesh") will be increased in the discourse environment (C^dialogue), shaming justified, while self-restraint will be increased in the obedience environment (C^obey), physical chastening justified.  This applies to all person in all situations who concede or willingly participate.  To insist upon the C^dialogue environment in all policy situations, in the home, in the workplace, in civic offices, in government, and even in the church will have a liberalizing outcome (B^d-o) upon each person willfully participating.  It will have the same effect upon towns, cities, counties, states, and nations that participate—known as a "culture war."  Ever crises which is mediated through the use of this dialectical method will guarantee an increased hatred towards the patriarchal paradigm and its praxis (they may not hate the person or people per se but they do hate their paradigm, a paradigm which now causes them pain, since it interferes with their paradigm of "justified" carnal pleasure—"human rights" i.e. the "church growth" movement, in Jesus days, praxised the dialectical paradigm, that is why they hated Moses and his law, and thus hated Jesus—they did group think (reasoned amongst themselves) while Jesus spoke with authority—he received his commands from his Heavenly Father).  The hate crime, as it is being presented today, is based upon the dialogue environment (facilitation to consensus—C^dialogue), whose "purpose" it is to annihilate the obedience environment (C^obediance) which is the praxis of faith in God and his word (revelation). Any categorical imperative (C^obediance) in a praxis of dialogue (C^dialogue)  destroys a persons religious foundation.  The crime of hate is seen as anyone who initiates and sustains the praxis of a patriarchal paradigm, a praxis which interferes with the praxis of  a heresiarchal paradigm and its quest for social harmony.

The heresiarchal paradigm is out to annihilate the patriarchal paradigm.
Man (dad, with mom's support) serving in the patriarchal office is not perfect, but the office is.

The heresiarchal paradigm, through its use of facilitation, dialogue, and consensus (flesh and sight i.e. questioning, philosophy) is out to annihilate the patriarchal paradigm, with its patriarch, commands, and obedience (spirit and hearing, i.e. faith, revelation).  The praxis of the antichrist is out to annihilate the praxis of faith in Christ, even in the name of Christ. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in they name have cast our devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."  Matthew 7:22, 23  Do you not yet understand, it is all about the praxis of paradigms. You are not saved by the praxis of a patriarchal paradigm but you can not hear God's warnings to you if you praxis a heresiarchal paradigm—having human ears they can not hear.  Which is your praxis? (C^obey) or (C^dialogue).  Jesus has gone to prepare a place, i.e. a patriarchal environment (C^obey), for those who praxis his paradigm, a paradigm of brokenness, of humbleness, and of obedience, with his Father at the top. Jesus will be at the head of the wedding table, but ALL is done for our heavenly Father, as HE wills.  It is HIS pleasure we seek and not our own, for HE is our creator and we are HIS creation, HIS son is our propitiation, our savior, and our Lord, and HIS Holy Spirit is our teacher.  Something dialectical angels (demons) and men can not comprehend, much less accept.  That is why they would love to get you into dialogue on the subject (C^dialogue), so they can own your God given possessions, including, and most important of all, your soul.  With you out of the way, all those the Lord has put under your care are now available to the wolves you decided to call your shepherds—your co-workers i.e. "ministers of righteousness."

Liberating the "ought" to negate the "not."  The state of "oughtyness."

"Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself  ‘What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?'" Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person

"Is" without "Not," i.e. the language of restraint silenced ("you will not die"—Satan), liberates "Ought," the language of rebellion ("nor touch it"—Eve),
which in turn leads to "thought" ("and Eve saw" her "felt" needs i.e. quest for personal-social-environmental harmony)
which results in a sensuous "not"—as in "meditating" upon feelings (your feelings as well as others feelings)—"meditating" upon what others "might be thinking" about you
resulting in a praxis of tolerance of ambiguity—resulting from the fear of lose of respect of men,
and "not meditating" upon:
God's word, his will—what God will think and say and do regarding my thoughts and my behavior.
The parent's command, their will—what the parent will think and say and do regarding my behavior.
The boss's orders, his will—what the boss will think and say and do regarding my behavior.
The framer's of the Constitutions intent, their will—what the framers though and if present would say and do regarding my behavior.
The teachers orders, his/her will—what the teacher will think and say and do regarding my behavior.
The citizen's inalienable rights, God's will—what those who died for them would think and say and do regarding my behavior.
The constituent's platform, their will—what those who voted for me would think and say and do regarding my behavior.
The deceased's will, his/her will—what the deceased would think and say and do regarding my behavior.
etc.
which would have resulted upon seeking the truth, doing what is right, not doing wrong, instructing others in doing good, and exposing evil.
any dialectician would consider this thinking as irrationality.

Believing despite the evidence.
The environment is to be constructed so a person will question his belief—Viewing God through "human eyes, and human ears."
Opinions expressed (through dialogue) as "beliefs," puts pressure upon every believer present to shape their belief around opinions, for the sake of gaining or maintaining human approval and social peace and unity.
Negating "Not" with "Ought" to experience common "Thought" (consensus) results in human unity—"We think therefore we are."
Common cause, the negation of a patriarchal paradigm, is actualized through the dialogue of commands with the intent of arriving at consensus i.e. the negation of our Heavenly Father and thus a redefining of His Son's praxis.

The Father never changed his mind about his Law and Jesus did not change his mind about his Fathers Law. Jesus knew, through the work of the Holy Spirit, it would no longer be carved in stone outside of a believers heart but would be now reside within his heart.  Jesus came to redeem, whosoever believes upon him, from the wrath of the Law. In all of this, not once is "Not" (His Fathers law) negated. Not once is a patriarchal paradigm circumvented. The Law was not changed. It was mans heart which was changed.  In Christ, the Father's will is fulfilled. Through the work of the Holy Spirit—teacher and restrainer—the Father's will is realized through those who believe upon his son, Jesus the Christ.

In the dialectical environment "Is" with "Ought," (C^dialogue) negates "Not," (C^obey) which leads to "Thought" (B^d-o, self-social acceptance)—innovation, change—which is the praxis of meditating (finding common ground) on our sensuous "here-and-now" desires (our collective "felt" needs):  the "'felt' needs" (desires) of mankind, children, workers, citizens, students, "human rights," society, etc.  Instead of meditating upon the parents command, their objective will for us—which restrain our personal carnal-human subjective desires (a paradigm which makes our desires subject to being either good or evil based upon their use in fulfilling authorities objective will)—we now meditate on our own personal carnal-human subjective desires (our "felt" needs) in the light of everyone else's personal carnal-human subjective desires (societies "felt" needs), discovered through dialogue—mankind's "will to power" (making our desires subject to being useful or a hindrance (there are no "right" or "wrong" answer, only respond with "least agree, agree, most agree, least disagree, disagree, most disagree) based upon our willingness to realign our desires with the villages collective subjective desires—will).  Therefore, the perception is, if everyone is doing diaprax, i.e. is continuously coming to consensus (i.e. continuous improvement, sustainable development), then nothing is imposable for us to do, we can do all things which come to our collective mind i.e. We can do all things through the "village," which strengthens us. "We can just feel it."

Contrast
"light" vs. "dark"
or
"light or dark" vs. "grey" (spectrum i.e. rainbow)
(God's bow reminds man of God's promise not to flood the earth again due to man's sins while the "rainbow" reminds man of the color spectrum of the cosmos.)
i.e. Black&White ("fixity") vs. from Black&White ("rigid, stasis") to Red/Green or any variation thereof ("flow, process")
"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible [these people are profiled as neurotic in the so-called social sciences]. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process."  Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person

Instead of contrasting between "good and evil" or "right and wrong" behavior, in light of what God, parent, boss, framer, teacher, constituent, etc. commands, which is didactic in praxis, the contrasting is dialectical in praxis, contrasting along a spectrum from conservative (status) to liberal (change), between different ways of thinking, paradigms, between those who think "right and wrong" (didactic paradigm) and those who don't think "right and wrong" but think continuum or spectrum (dialectic paradigm), those who think "tolerance of ambiguity," feeling, thinking, and acting in harmony with and according to man's common "felt" needs, the zeitgeist—lineal, pre-post not either-or, progressive—"Conservatives don't know they are liberals in waiting.  Re-educate them enough times—life long learning—and their true human nature, their dissatisfaction with the way things are, will gradually manifest itself and given enough time they will learn to justify the common need to change, live with change, and eventually promote change themselves i.e. no longer live 'in denial.'"  Where along the spectrum are they at any given time?  Open ended, non-directed questions are needed (as Satan did with Eve in the Garden in Eden) to find that information lying dormant within you, suppressed by your conscience (your parents voice within you), dissatisfactions against authority just waiting to be realized.

Compare
God's will or our will
or
Our nature and others nature

Instead of comparing our behavior to the behavior desired of God, parent, boss, framer, teacher, constitution, etc., which depends upon us accepting as truth, thing "not readily understandable" at the time, the comparison is between our carnal human nature (our "felt" needs) and the carnal human nature ("felt" needs) of others, which depends upon us accepting, as truth, only those things understandable, which "seem to" be sensible (reasonable) to us and others at the time ("appropriate information"), i.e. experiential truth, sensual truth, material truth.

Purpose
To obey God's will, as commanded in His word, as Jesus did in the wilderness and as he did on the night before going to the cross—"nevertheless, thy will be done,"  to know our purpose as being obedient children of God, letting him reveal his will for our lives—Mans purpose in life is to worship and serve his creator.  God is Good. Good is knowing God and doing His will as he directs—conformation resulting in confirmation.
or
to experience, through questioning,—through dialogue and evaluation with ourselves and others—the "discovering" of our purpose in life, as Eve did in the Garden in Eden—Mans purpose in life is to experience the fulness of life (the environment—the creation) in the "here-and-now."  Man is Good. Good is experiencing oneness with man—confusion resulting in consensus.

"The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation nor that authority of the church in order to know good and evil."
Stephen Eric Bronner Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists

The purpose of the "Is" with the "Not" is to know and accept the voice of the restrainer, the creator, "Do you understand?" i.e. "You had better not disobey me, for I know what is right and what is not right."
The purpose of the "Is" without the "Not" is to know and accept  the voice of hedonism, the creation, "Do you understand?" i.e. "You must question all things, you must question authority, you must experience life for yourself, you must justify for yourself, in light of the current situation, whether something is right or not right."

"the age old problem of the relationship between is and ought."
Abraham Maslow The Further Reaches of Human Nature

The purpose of dialogue is to release the "Ought," the voice of rebellion—the child, dissatisfaction with things as they are.  It is the language of possibilities, which was created when the "Not"—the parent, satisfied with things as they are—restrained our carnal-human nature.

"Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived."
"We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." ibid.

The purpose of the "Ought," now released, is to negate the office of "Not," make it (the father) appear as irrational, so man can again apply "thought" to his common carnal human nature—"It 'seems to' me to be the right thing to do. What do you think?  I'm glad you all feel that way to."

 "'fusion-words' [double speak] . . . to solve the 'is' and 'ought' problem."
 "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the 'is,' but from a scaling down of the 'ought,' from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality [what everyone else in the group wants] and therefore to attainability."  ibid

Our 'ought,' the voice of rebellion, still carries with it much of the patriarchal desires of ownership.  We expect to use what our Father has, for ourselves, someday.  The ought must be released but it also must be 'cleansed' of any individual hopes, tied to the fathers demands.  All that the Father has, that we can use for ourselves, must be given over to society.  All the hopes of  'oughtiness' must be tied up in the group. It is the groups 'oughtiness' which makes our 'oughtiness' of worth.

Shifting the "to serve and to protect" from the duties owed to the individual citizen to the duties owed to the facilitators of the village—shifting from limited government to a government of totalitarianism, albeit a government "with a smile" and a "we care about you."

What is amazing about this process is its success in getting people to do things they would never have done if they had understood, up front, what the process was going to do to them, or get them to do, i.e. what they were going to lose in the process, as well as take from others.  Case in point.  The "ought" is an expression of dissatisfaction with an authority figure,  his environment of control, who's command and potential judgment (negative force field) prevents the satisfaction of a particular desire—repressed "felt" need.  For the 'ought' to be released, in a facilitated meeting, the fear of judgment must first be restrained—"If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Lewin). In other words the person must feel free to express his 'ought,' his dissatisfaction with authority, whether it is present in the meeting or simply experienced in the past, without the conscience materializing.  When the person expresses his 'ought' he is able to successful neutralize the power of the patriarchal authority in him—the conscience, "the negative valence also disappears"—which once restrained him while he was physically apart from the authority figure.

The power to tax is the power to destroy:  Environmental taxation destroys sovereignty of a nation and a people.  So what? you say.  If we go to the environmental rights of "human rights" and the "right of the child," then the sovereignty rights of unalienable rights are negated.  So what? you say again. Does the word Gulag mean anything to you?  It will.

The power in this process is, while a person is freely destroying the authority figures in the room and in his mind (negating the conscience), all the possessions that that authority figure had, possessions he eventually intended to pass on to the next generation, are now being transferred over to the control of the facilitator. "A scaling down of the 'ought,' from a redefining of the expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality and therefore to attainability" simply means that the group i.e. society, under the control of facilitators, gains control of the persons future possessions i.e. the legislator hands over his constituents, via the compromise of their constitutional laws of governmental restraint, to the social engineers when he, through the praxis of consensus, passes socialist laws which, through force of laws and force of taxes, used to support socialist aims in the community, oppress his constituents he originally went to represent.  Not only does the one with the 'ought' get rid of a patriarchal figure above him, by mocking and ridiculing him as a relic of the past, he also gets rid of the patriarch's possession and all that that patriarch was willing to give to the next generation, put under their personal control in the future—with the understanding that they would continue in the praxis of his patriarchal paradigm.  He now willingly, for the sake of group approval, negates the children's inheritance and any office which guaranteed it i.e. "unalienable rights," giving the office and those who benefit from it over to a secularized society.  It is a win-win situation only for the facilitator, like Satan in the Garden in Eden, not only does he win the persons possessions, he also wins their soul—nothing like "job" security for a facilitator.  Who is your "boss"?   To say that you had to do it to keep your job is simply an act of  tyranny—called "self-actualization." Now, is everybody ready for a great big group hug?  In the sensuousness of the moment it is difficult if not impossible to realize all that you are giving up.  It would be bad enough if it was just your lose, but your participation in the process guarantees that those who depended upon you now and those who will come after you will lose even more.  Some may never be able to comprehend the lose, since they have no reference to what they could have possessed if you had not compromised, but that does not make your deed, your praxis, any less evil.  Birthrights once abdicated, don't only affect you, they affect all who would have been blessed by them, after you.

Objectification vs. Conscientization 
Taking on the image of Christ—humble yourself, pick up your cross, and follow him.
vs.
Taking on the image of man—self-actualization.

Psychological Social Liberation: "An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry [i.e. God preventing Adam and Eve from discovering 'truth' in the Garden in Eden] ...any attempt to prevent human freedom is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness [i.e. discourages the praxis of questing the commands and thus the authority of parents and God with the intent of getting rid of the office and its commands which restrain human nature] is guilty of oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry [children's 'rights' to questioning the 'right,' the office of the parent i.e. through the praxis of dialoging categorical imperatives] is guilty of violent oppression." (Freire, P.1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. p.74) Source This dialectical paradigm makes God the greatest oppressor of all, "the source of social alienation," with all who believe upon him as conspirators against world peace and its praxis of the process of individual-social liberation.  Liberation theology (Church Growth, Emerging Church) emancipates all participants from the voice of authority of the heavenly Father, thus justifying the annihilation of earthly fathers i.e. private property and business owners, didactic teachers, believers, God fearing (in the true meaning of the word) leaders and representatives, etc.

Critical Theory

When the purpose, revealed (the "Law of God/word of God") from an object above man (God, parent, owner, teacher, constituents etc.—creator)
who restrains our human nature—our carnal desires drawing us to the cosmos.
is replaced (negated) with
the "purpose," discovered (human opinions and "felt" needs) from within the subject (man, children, worker, students, etc.—created) personal experience and his nature, (the "law of the flesh", "felt" needs of the flesh),
which liberates our human nature—our carnal desires uniting with the cosmos via cosmic consciousness,
 then humanism, socialism, communism, globalism, environmentalism, etc. becomes the praxis of life,
"in theory and in practice,"
in individual thought (in the "imagination of the heart" expressed) and in public action (in the environment which drives perception).

To "think with your feelings," about how the "village" might be feeling about what you are thinking, is
the praxis of the "imagination of your heart" actualizing the tower of Babel.
The tower of Babel was a physical manifestation of the dialectical process in praxis.

"Meditation 'shift'"

"Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."  Colossians 3:2

To "shift" your meditation from setting your mind upon God's word, from what He is telling you to do, from evaluating your life from His will, from seeking to knowing him and his word of truth,
to meditating on your feelings and the feelings of others, to evaluating God's word from your subjective life experience, i.e. from your perception, according to what others have in common with you and what you have in common with them, your "felt" needs and their "felt" needs, is a meditation "shift," a paradigm "shift," from a didactic paradigm (the Biblical commission, teaching and preaching what God says—which is certainty) to a dialectical paradigm (the human commission, taking polls and surveys on how people feel and what they think about what God might be saying that might be relevant to the times for the sake of  creating and sustaining human "unity"—which is uncertainty).

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."  Mark 8:36-38

There is not hope in a man who cannot think outside his feelings and the feelings of others.  The fear of man possess his life.
He can not bare the rejection of men,  he can not endure standing alone with truth—with God. 
Jesus, despising the shame of the cross—social rejection—endured. Hebrews 12

     Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
    Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; Ephesians 6:10-18

Preface

 Liberation Theology and Self-Actualization
The negating ("eradication") of the middle-class and its promotion of the patriarchal paradigm.
People are looking at you and then assessing your worth through a neo-Marxist-Freudian lens.

A neo-Marxist-Freudian (distorted, perverse, diabolical) lens defining the traditional American home: "Can the attitude that ‘women's place is in the home' be considered a prejudice? It would appear that it is so.... Subjects who profess to some religious affiliation express more prejudice than those who do not.... people who reject organized religion are less prejudiced than those who accept it.... It is a well‑known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle‑class phenomenon, ... those who conform the most to this [middle-class] culture will be the most prejudiced.... Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account.... Prejudiced subjects tend to report a relatively harsh and more threatening type of home discipline which was experienced as arbitrary by the child.... The status‑anxiety so often found in families of prejudiced subjects is reflected in the adoption of a rigid and externalized set of values:.... to explain prejudice in order to eradicate it. Eradication means re-education."  Theodor Adorno  The Authoritarian Personality.  This was a "study" done at Berkley, California (1950), foundational for liberals and contemporary education. The middle-class is aggressively being "eradicated," mentally, emotionally, physically, financially, politically, etc. not only in America (yet especially in America) but all around the world.

Re-education means the eradication of a praxis of the patriarchal paradigm—annihilation of the middle class culture.
"It is a well‑known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle‑class phenomenon,
. . . those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced. . . . conformity works against the values of cultural diversity," (Adorno)
"The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." (Brown)
"The re-educative process has to fulfill a task which is essentially equivalent to a change in culture." (Kurt Lewin)

Re-education means "Death to America^ns"
Death to the citizens of the United States of America (abortion, euthanasia, dying with dignity, etc.)
and its Constitutional Republic—replacing limited government with "Democracy" so the patriarchal father can no longer rule over his wife and children (as God commands) and thus negate the initiating and sustentation of a patriarchal culture.
When this happens the children are given over to the "use" (abuse—"to consume") of the cosmo-homo-carnalists (human services)."

   Lenin's speech of 1920 was all about what affect the traditional family and its creation of independent small businesses had upon society.  Millions died under his dialectical paradigm, a praxis which advocated the need to eradicate all small business, to annihilate it, as Marx demanded. Don't be fooled, transformational Marxist who teach our leaders in America on the how to apply this process (The Aspen Institute) criticize Lenin, yet, despite all their efforts of cleansing themselves of his "abuses," preach his same outcome. If the "village's" perception or proper behavior, its praxis, is to be developed and controlled, then the small business owner and his patriarchal family structure, which actualizes a capitalist society, must be destroyed—this is the backbone of social-engineering—the would say "don't shoot them, just recruit them."  Today, instead of overtly shooting the small businessman, as Lenin, Mao, and other hard core social-engineers did, the current praxis is to use "positive" force, the voice of the "village," to force him into compliance, to bring him into "partnership" through requirements of certification (a "public-private, socialist-capitalist partnership"). This praxis requires "certification" (the mark of the beast) before a small businessman can "do business" (can buy and sell), badgering him into a "public-private partnership."  Just another word for a soviet, a praxis of dialogue (ambiguity—spectrum) to negate the praxis of chastening (good-evil—contrast). The "public-private soviet" requires the freedom of "Ought" in setting policy, which immediately destroys the patriarchal home and its independent small business, with its restraining "Not," and its praxis of chastening—a praxis which produces independent, non-collective, thinking citizens—entrepreneurs.  Lenin put it this way.

A "more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [middle class-traditional family system which chastens its children, employees, exc., teaching them there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things and to do it right and not wrong (obey) or there will be consequences—patriarchal paradigm], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... gigantic problems of re-educating ..." "... eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions...." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian [rebellious children, like Cain in the Bible—heresiarchal paradigm] work both outside and within the working-class movement, …" "... in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." Vladimir Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920  Emphasis added.

Wherever diaprax—"in theory and in practice"—is being applied, the citizen—the traditional parent, the private property owner, the private business owner,  the principled representative, the Bible believing Christian, etc. is under attack.  Whenever you are pressured, internally or externally, to set aside (suspend) your faith in God and his word, even for "just a moment," you are being drawn away and enticed (temped) to give up what it rightfully yours, given to you by God—your inalienable rights, your private property, your conscience. When that pressure incorporates the possible loss of support from your friends, relatives, community, fellow workers, Christians, and jeopardizes your promotion, next term in office, good grades, your families structure, etc. and also incorporates the social praxis of pressuring you to abdicate your office, your position, even "just" temporarily, you are being abused by the dialectical system.

"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. 1948, p. vii)

By putting aside the restraint your belief has upon your natural-carnal subjective desires, (when the tension you have between yourself and authority is accentuated, as authorities demands upon you produce increasing tension between you and the group, a group you have a "felt" need to please i.e. your beliefs and values conflict with group approval) you are being enticed to sin—you are being pressured, internally by your desire for approval by others, and externally by their threat of rejection if you don't join with the group to experiment with brainwashing (detaching the cognitive side of the brain from objective facts—commands of restraint—and reattaching it to subjective feelings—desire for social approval—"switching cognitive gears" by restructuring communication practices from a local ("Is," "Not") into a global ("Feel," "Think") organization of thought and communication, reproducing in a local setting, individual and group communication practices) by the group dynamic process of "unfreezing" (detaching the person from his accustomed paradigm), "moving" (moving his identity, under the pressure and heat of dialogue, into association with a "new" paradigm—new as in the Garden in Eden) and "refreezing" (re-attaching his identity to the new paradigm with a voice of consensus). These are the three steps of brainwashing, washing from your life the voice of God, your parent, your constituents, your conscience, exc., "having eyes you will no longer be able to see, having ears you will no longer be able to hear."

Trying to cut the patriarch off at the pass.
Facilitation: "taking authority when one does not have authority,"
i.e. "taking that which is not yours"—summing up the Ten Commandments: I — X.

For example read the book The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research ed. Lawrence R. Frey.  By defining the patriarchal paradigm as a "fight or flight" (aggression or withdrawal) praxis and preventing these attributes from actualization in a group setting while at the same time pushing the group solution past a majority vote, forcing it, by the mandate of 'tolerance of ambiguity' ("buggery"), to consensus, the principled person is pressured into defending his position as a "negative" contributor to the group session ("not one of us")—labeled as being hostile (hateful).  In this way an objective belief system which restrains human carnal subjective desire (conscience) is negated and the "felt" needs of the body (social approval—"It is not good that man should be alone." Genesis 2;18) become justified, through dialogue ("Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife" Genesis 3:17) as the pathway to the good life (being like God, knowing good and evil, only this time the perception and evaluation is carnal in nature). Whether the patriarchal behavior was labeled as "fight or flight," dependence, or pairing* the aim of the dialectical outcome is always the same, the negation of the patriarchal paradigm i.e. patricide—so the body and mind of man, through the praxis of consensus, can be freed from the praxis of Godly restraint.

*These three reactions were studied by the Tavistock institute with the intent of destroying their source—the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home and the limited government which gave it respect and honour. For example, "dependence:" "One person is always felt to be in a position to supply the needs of the group, and the rest in a position to which their needs are supplied. . .having thrown all their cares on the leader, they sit back and wait for him to solve all their problems. . .the dependent group soon shows that an integral part of its structure is a belief in the omniscience and omnipotence of some one member of the group." W. R. Bion Experiences in groups pp. 74, 82, 99  When it was an issue of "fight or flight," Bion wrote: "The group seems to know only two techniques of self-preservation, fight or flight. . .the kind of leadership that is recognized as appropriate is the leadership of the man who mobilizes the group to attack somebody, or alternatively to lead it in flight. . .leaders who neither fight nor run away are not easily understood." ibid pp. 63,65  For anyone who might not think these men know what they are doing Pines describes Bion's work this way: "'Experiences in Groups' is probably the shortest and most influential text in psychoanalytic group psychotherapy. Whether you agree or disagree with Bion, ignore him you cannot for he looms up at you from the darkness of the deepest areas of human experience, illuminating it with his 'beams of darkness.'" M. Pines Bion and group psychotherapy p. xi  Source: website on the Tavistock History  Another example of Bion's affect on church growth: Group Process in the work of Bion: insights for adult learning in a Christian context John Williams  Another website giving a warning of Tavistock, NTL's exc. "The Lighthouse "The Lighthouse".   I personally do not indorse any of these websites, you can decide that for yourself. I list them here as source material only.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences."  2 Corinthians 5:10, 11

Wherever diaprax is used in setting policy, in government (from the family to national leadership), it always declares war on those in authority and those who they are in authority to serve and protect. The trust the citizens have put in their elected official, to represent their position, has been betrayed and the citizens are now at the mercy of those who the elected have abdicated their office to.  The elected no longer serve the citizens but instead serve those whose desire it is to destroy the citizens individual rights, replacing them with the democratic ideal of a global "human rights." The government which uses the dialectical process in praxis always declares war on its own individual citizens.  Under its power, the individual citizen is always considered guilty until verified (certified) as innocent—requiring re-educated (brainwashed). Communities are being "certified" all across the United States of America. Anyone who wants to live the 'good' life must live in the zone, anyone in the zone must sell their soul to the process, anyone outside the zone does so at their own peril i.e. will not be permitted to participate in the 'good life.'

The praxis of undoing Christian faith and supplanting it with "enlightenment Christianity."

Diaprax is not successful until no one can escape.  For it to be successful, all individual citizens must participate—"participatory democracy."  The citizen must be prevented from having the didactic praxis of a "right-wrong,"  "righteous-wicked," "good-evil," etc. paradigm  This process can not survive without sanitizing the perception of the community of any opposition to its praxis of acceptance and tolerance (tolerance for all except those who praxis a ridged antithesis of a "good-evil" paradigm).  When the citizen looks into the "village" he must not be reminded of or introduced to a patriarchal heritage, a patriarchal history, restoring or supporting its paradigm.  When the patriarchal citizen looks into the village he must experience no support for his patriarchal paradigm. This is the praxis of  the One World Government, its praxis of totalitarianism, its praxis of global hedonism (environmentalism—worship of the creation and its pleasures rather than God). Diaprax is an "Un-American activity"—the praxis of liberalism revealed in the 50's, now being actualized in all the land.  All who resist the use of diaprax in policy making are either being converted or else being neutralized, marginalized, and if necessary removed. In all cases the patriarchal praxis is being annihilated.  It is what the Bible says will and must be attempted, before the return of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.  Luke 21:25-28; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

Diaprax Applied: 
 Putting the dialectic process into social action (praxis)—
actualizing cosmic unity "in theory and in practice."

DIAPRAX IN YOUR FACE

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Diaprax in the beginning:

Adam and Eve did not die because of the physical fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The natural resources of the tree did not kill them.  They died because they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, against God's will, against his command, against his paradigm. They died because they disobeyed God. The tree did not kill Adam and Eve, their shift in paradigm, their shift in way of thinking, their shift in praxis killed them.  They "shifted" from the praxis of faith to the praxis of sight, from the praxis of spiritual to the praxis of temporal, from the praxis of obedience to God's commands (revelation) to the praxis of justifying their own insights (enlightenment),  they shifted from the praxis of evaluating themselves and the world from God's word on what is good and what is evil (deductive reasoning, objective thinking)—as Christ Jesus did in the temptations ("It is written ...")—to the praxis of evaluating God's word through their  perception of the world and their "felt" needs (inductive reasoning, subjective thinking). They shifted from the praxis of humbling themselves, denying themselves before a holy, pure, and righteous God, a good and a great God, to the praxis of "self-actualization", evaluating for themselves, through their senses, through their own eyes, what is good and what is evil for the moment.  They shifted from the praxis of obedience to the praxis of human reasoning, to the praxis of questioning authority, i.e. using "higher order thinking skills."

In their shift from a spiritual to a material paradigm, from a deductive to an inductive paradigm, from a didactic to a dialectic paradigm, from a patriarchal to a heresiarchal paradigm, they circumvented ("negated") both God and his word, through the use of their human their eyes and the their human ears.  In the language of diaprax this is the synthesis of "negation of negation," "God is dead," at least the fear of him is gone, both "in theory and in practice." "We will keep him around, but at a distance, just in case we can use him." Through the use of diaprax in the Garden in Eden, God's word became non-sense, (in Eve's eyes his command did not make any sense) it was seen as irrational, and therefore it became irrelevant in the eyes and ears of Adam and Eve.  What they saw as life in the "here and now," in the pleasure of the moment, lead to their death in the "there and then," in the pain of the future.  The same is true for all who praxis this deadly, diabolical, process of the dialectic.  It all becomes a battle between the contrast of "light and dark" and the comparison of "common ground," (grey).  For "what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Corinthians 6:15  That which is common in the creation (the flesh and blood of man and the cosmos) will not have a voice in that which is contrasted on the day of judgment (spirit vs. flesh). "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." I Corinthians 15:50.

Diaprax in the home:  "It's not worth losing my friends and relatives over."  "What will my friends and relatives think and say about me?"

The traditional home is patriarchal in paradigm—the husband rules, the desire of the wife is toward the husband, and the children are to obey their parents, in the Lord.  In other words the authority structure is top-down; father, mother, children, all under the Lord.  If any or all of these use the office they poses for themselves (usurpation, taking that which is not theirs) they become a tyrant.  A tyrant is anyone who uses the office they serve in for their own personal gain, at the expense of services they owe to someone else.  The patriarchal paradigm is a top-down paradigm and carries with it obvious responsibilities and accountabilities. The traditional family paradigm follows a Godly paradigm with two critical elements: obedience and chastening, both inculcating the praxis of doing that which is right and not doing that which is wrong—standards established by a higher authority (objective truth), God being the highest authority—and chastening when wrong is done and rewarding when right is done.  All authority is of God.  God's will is that all who occupy an office of authority, use that office he has given them, with they power the possess, (the husband can not rule if the wife refuses to submit) to serve and to protect those, under the office of authority, who do good and to punish those who do evil.  Therefore anyone who occupies an office of authority, whether taken by force or voted into position by the citizens, and use their power to keep that office, for their own personal gain, for their own purpose, is a tyrant.

In Diaprax the opposite is to be practiced.  Any patriarchal figure (top-down paradigm), from the home to the highest office in the land, is seen, incorrectly, as a "potential fascist."

"An attitude of complete submissiveness toward ‘supernatural forces' [a social-psychology description for obedience] and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of ‘many important things' [a social-psychology description of revelation] strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes [a social-psychology description of believers] toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures‑‑parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth [profiling based upon paradigms instead of race etc. i.e. a shift from national boundaries to religious systems—polytheism vs. monotheism]." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them. [social-psychology—defining the paradigm to be destroyed]." "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: uncritical obedience to the father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhibition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority [linking the earthly and heavenly families, destroy the one-earthly, you destroy the other-heavenly]." "The power‑relationship [paradigm] between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem [social-psychology setting the sites on what to shoot]." "Few parents can be expected to persist for long in educating their children for a society that does not exist, or even in orienting themselves toward goals which they share only with a minority [social-psychology assuming patriarchal based citizens are not to have a right of authority] ." ". . . should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. . . ‘rugged individualism' [negate individualism, a product of a patriarchal paradigm, you negate inalienable rights, you destroy a Constitution Republic, you destroy the sovereignty of USA]." Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality This man and his book is the foundation of contemporary American Education. All certified teachers in your community, Christian included, must apply this communist based paradigm, propagandized in "Bloom's Taxonomies," in their classroom or face neutralization, marginalization, or removal if necessary. All school, Christian included, are being accredited based upon their acceptance of Bloom's diabolical paradigm. I know some teachers, Christian included, will get mad at me for saying this, and justify their refusal to hear any more on the matter but it goes without saying that many did not believe there was a concentration camp in Germany called Auschwitz or labor camps in Russia called a Gulag.   Those who lived to tell about them knew.  Many who worked in them saw themselves as doing nothing wrong. It is amazing how a person perceives things when they base reality upon their approval by others, particularly their peers.

In Diaprax "the family as a unite must be weakened." James Coleman The Adolescent Society   James Coleman, the student of the Marxist Paul Lazarsfield, was the advisor to the unites States Supreme Court on Educational Issues from the 50's on.

In Diaprax it is known that "any intervention between parent and child" by a non-patriarchal based institution (all social services are non-patriarchal based institutions) will destroy the traditional family paradigm.  All non-patriarchal governmental agencies i.e. all dialectical governmental agencies (who discourage and outlaw spanking—chastening), which interject themselves between the parents and their children, actualize the destruction of the traditional patriarchal home.  The "right of the child" has no other agenda except to destroy of the patriarchal home with its biblical, didactic paradigm, the responsibility of the parent.

"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 regardless of its intent." "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant."  ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society)

"Technological advancement is a primary goal of those nations who are attempting to manipulate family relationships. Once the machinery of technological growth is set in motion it will drive its wedges into the family." "... once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore.  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, the parents.  For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays an overweening interest in the future development of the child—in other words, a child centered orientation."  (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society)

In Diaprax the agenda is to liberate the children from the patriarchal paradigm of the home, with the intent of liberating the children from the environment which develops and sustains a strong conscience—a "guilty conscience."

"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "Life is of the body and only life creates value; all values are bodily values." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic" "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower [the patriarchal paradigm]." "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." Norman O. Brown  Life Against Death

In Diaprax the ultimate agenda is to wash from the individual any belief (redefined as theory) of "absolute dependence" upon God and from the community any reminder and reinforcement of the practice of (praxis) "absolute dependence" under God (a patriarchal praxis) as well as any respect (awe and wonder) for his word, his commands, his law. "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:25

". . . Definition of religious experience as experience of absolute dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general." ""Every neurosis [obedience to one's parents, against one's cosmic carnal subjective desire, the episode long forgotten but the praxis continued through the conscience "being the father of oneself"] is an example of dynamic adaptation [are changeability dependent upon who controls the environment, through the use of perception]; it is essentially an adaptation to such external conditions as are in themselves irrational [objective] and, generally speaking, unfavorable to the growth of the child." Erich Fromm  Escape from Freedom  "Anytime we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself." Jean Piaget

Diaprax in Education:  "It's not worth losing my grade over." "What would my future employer think?"

    "No school worthy of the name can exist unless the principle of respect for authority is observed.  No school can exist without discipline, without subordination of pupils to reasonable rules and regulations. Anarchy in school means anarchy in the nation later on. . . ."
    "Has authority been banished in these later days?  Is there still such a thing as discipline?  Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of a pupil soviets?"  Will C. Wood,  Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, California Blue Bulletin, 1920.

"Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change, 1950

What Benne is preaching is that the patriarchal paradigm in the learning environment (experience of principled discipline) must be negated, i.e. killed.  Teachers must no longer support the home paradigm i.e. by placing themselves above the students as a voice of authority to be obeyed—a "teacher-student contradiction." Today teachers are trained in "institutions of 'higher learning'" to be facilitators, as change agents for the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. to become equal with the students, partners in the learning experience, "discovering" truth (sensuous truth) with them, thereby, affectively, destroying the students respect and honour for a  praxis of a patriarch paradigm in the classroom, based upon obedience in the home i.e. destroy the parent's child's respect and honor toward the child's parent. Children exposed to the transformational environment will go home and "challenge" its traditional environment.

"Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of information. It is a learning situation in which the cognizable object (far from being the end of the cognitive act) intermediates the cognitive actors- teacher on the one hand and students on the other. Accordingly, the practice of problem-posing education entails at the outset that the teacher- student contradiction be resolved." (Paulo Freire Pedagogy of the Oppressed 67)

Education today with its focus upon human relationships i.e. interpersonal relationships is declaring that human nature must become the focal point in the reconciliation of all human conflicts.  This is in defiance to God's will.  Identifying common "felt" needs replace doing as you are told.  Mediation of common "felt" needs replaces a ridged antithesis of "right and wrong."

"Education which is able to resolve the contradiction between teacher and student takes place in a situation in which both address their act of cognition to the object [their human nature, their common subjective "felt" needs] by which they are mediated." (Paulo Freire Pedagogy of the Oppressed  page 81)  By focusing upon common "felt" needs of both student and teacher the patriarchal paradigm is negated in the mind of the student.  As stated before he will go home and "challenge" the parents patriarchal paradigm, bring crisis and chaos into the home, destabilizing it and preparing it for social counseling, i.e. the "villages" collective input.

Bloom's taxonomies: tools of Marxism

It is all about the environment:
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
1 John 2:16

Examples: The eight year study, Hilda Taba, Ralph Tyler, Philip E. Jacob "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain ["felt" needs, 1 John 2:16] was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)."  David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II  Affective Domain  p. 20  Jacob was a teacher at the University of Pennsylvania in the Political Science Department concentrating his efforts on measuring the outcome College teaching methods were having on students values—most professors were not using "proper" method's of instruction in their classrooms which would be conducive to the changing of the character of the nation (in the eyes of communist educators).  While progressive methods of education were having effect on changing the values of students in the grade school's and high school's of America, our colleges were producing students more in line with traditional American values.  The "shifting" of Americas values could not be accomplished if the College environment retained its traditional teaching methods, "molding the youth after Adult dreams," which blocked these "more self-sufficient" students from actualizing their dreams.  The student's were there for change, the problem was how to change the teachers and the college environment, both academic and social.  If the teaching methods could not be changed the nation would not be changed.  Technology would remain under the control of traditional capitalistic businessmen (supporting a patriarchal—Bible based—environment) and could not be "shifted" to the control of democratic (revolutionary) liberals (supporting a heresiarchal—humanist based—environment).  

"We are seeing the dawn of maturity …. Our long experience in democratic self‑government has borne fruit." Leland Bradford  The Meaning of America (Pittsburgh, 1935), p. 286.  The freedom which "Freudian Psychology" was having upon the public classroom's, "which stressed the importance and uniqueness of childhood." (Jacob) was not receiving the same freedom in the college classroom.  While the shift in America was from the worth of the adult to the worth of the child the college professor remained focused upon an adult based outcome. While the "nuclear family" was under attach from all directions i.e. education, advertisement, entertainment, etc. the college environment remain under the influence of a patriarchal paradigm.  While the growing feeling in America, from this barrage of plenty and the "right of the child" to obtain his good life for himself, was  "To be old was to be obsolete. To be young was to be special." (Jacob) the college still retained a respect for the "old."

Through the restructuring of the college and university environment, business and the work place would eventually join in this attack upon the traditional American home.  The breakdown of the American home was already taking place in the 50's through parents using Dr. Benjamin Spock's  The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care,  a book on how to raise children in a non-traditional environment, void of chastening, and entertainment reflecting disrespect for the parents with popular youth songs like "Yakety Yak," and movies like "Rebel without a cause." Parents allowed their children greater freedom in perusing their personal desires. "Personal" desires which were initiated and supported from the public school environment.  Pressure was coming from almost all corners, from the school, from the relatives, from the community, from TV, etc.  The parent was intimidated from the change taking place in their own community as well as the national environment, intimidated into shifting their focus from providing for the family to provide for their children's "felt" needs—providing for the family was redefined to now incorporating the child's opinion in setting family policy.  Spending power was shifting from being under the control of the parent to now increasingly being in the control of the youth. The merchant no longer sought the parents approval before offering candy to the parents child, now it was up front for the child to grab.  The American economy by the 50s' was already dependent upon their spending power, spending power used in pursuit of their "felt" needs.

The "pleasure" cycle was now in place.   Since there was no longer a support system of restraint coming from the community—since it's economy depended upon the cycle of pleasure—the parent's ability to restrain this cycle in their home was now becoming increasingly more difficult. "These were the years when America first came to be regarded as a 'filiarchy,' a society ruled by its children....In this society money was the primary index of one's power. Yet the young had no true economic clout. Industrial society had defined adolescence as a time of extended childhood rather than one of beginning maturity; and so the only fiscal power teens had was on sufferance from adults." (Jacob)  It was up to the tax system, in support of social programs, to remove the money parents were not spending on their children's increasing lust for pleasure, and through social programs, encourage the children's desire for pleasure.  Attach from "more independent youth" demanding their way, and financial lose through increased taxes and social activates put the traditional family under increasing emotional stress.

The progressive education systems of "high school," creating an adolescent (unstable) society.  When a child would traditionally be moving into adulthood under the control of the home or the traditional workplace, that time was now replaced, deliberately, with an environment of uncertainty and confusion. A period with which the youth would become increasingly hostile toward the traditional home, with its restraints on "pleasure."  This would be increasingly true as the youth were not demonstrating "maturity," according to the parents standards, yet demanding more "rights" so they could be accepted by their peers. The split in the home became intense.  The "generation gap" i.e. class consciousness, was now accomplished. Without class consciousness, the youth (proletariat) can not be energized into revolution against the patriarchal home (bourgeoisie) with its restraint upon sensuousness. If you understand its implications (see Two Roads article concerning Freud's obsession on Orpheus, a Greek mythological figure who was a homosexual who "made love to young boys), you would be concerned.  "The interest of restoring a youth-adult homosexuality culture, an undercurrent growing around the world, pushing for global equality, carries with it an interest in the boys of adolescent age.  This is true of almost all social-psychology material today.  For example: HANDBOOK of PARENTING Theory and research for practice Edited by MASUD HOGHUGHI NICHOLAS LONG with support for their research from researchers like Charlotte J. Patterson Charlotte J. Petterson

"For one class to stand for the whole of society, another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits.  A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." Karl Marx  Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right."

Washing the brain of a patriarchal paradigm from the parents children.
Detaching the parents brain (the conscience) from the parents children so the children can detach the parent from their brain (patricide).  Once the deed ("shift" in praxis) is done there is no turning back.

"Students, as they are increasingly posed with problems relating to themselves in the world and with the world, will feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge. Because they apprehend the challenge as interrelated to other problems within a total context, not as a theoretical question, the resulting comprehension tends to be increasingly critical and thus constantly less alienated. Their response to the challenge evokes new challenges, followed by new understandings; and gradually the students come to regard themselves as committed." (PAULO FREIRE, PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED Herder and Herder, 1971;  original Portuguese manuscript 1968, translated by Myra Bergman Ramos 68-69)

According to Jacob, urban flight (sprawl), was an effort on the part of the parents to flee the changing values of the community of pleasure and the affect it was having upon their children. Parents blamed the community for the corrupting of their children's values (and the increase in crime in the inner city) when all along it was the school system and other social systems tied to it—the school system which would follow them into the urban community, the real "agent of change" in their children's life and the life of the community. "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [socialist-humanist objectives] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II  Affective Domain  p. 54) "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual ‘Pandora's Box.  It is in this ‘box' that the most influential controls are to be found. The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people" (ibid p. 91)

The bussing issue (James Coleman  Equality of Opportunity), for example, as all educational issues resolved by the supreme court from the 50's on demonstrated, was not to help the lower class children to become middle class adults, it was, under cover, actually an effort to destroy the middle class home through an artificially created and sustained adolescent society (generation gap) by the public school system (James Coleman The Adolescent Society). To produce class consciousness between traditional and transformational paradigms, using "the race issue" as a cover.  Jacob's explanation, given below, reveals a typical dialectical inversion of the truth to justify their perception on the event.  As usually, containing some truth to cover their contempt for a biblical praxis, it reveals their caustic attitude toward the traditional home with its patriarchal paradigm.  Which in turn, when used in setting policy, "justifies" their solution.

"Adults typically explained their behavior by externalizing it. For instance, parents felt they could not confess 'I'm moving to suburbia for myself, to improve my status.' Instead, they perceived themselves as making great sacrifices for their children. Now, it cannot be doubted that sacrifices were made for kids in the fifties. Millions of women completely gave their lives over to child rearing. Millions of men took unpleasant Jobs to maintain wife and children. But the fantastic thing was that the children (and wives) were ultimately faulted for these sacrifices. The phrase 'for the sake of the children' came to be perceived as 'the children made me do it.'  (Jacob)

The purpose of school, according to Jacob, "... is not to pass on academic lessons but, rather, to inculcate cultural values."  In truth it does both, it presents values to be learned and lessons on applying those values in the academic world. "In the more traditional society a philosophy of life, a mode of conduct, is spelled out for its members at an early stage in their lives. A major function of education in such a society is to achieve the internalization of this philosophy [a patriarchal paradigm]. This is not to suggest that education in an open society [heresiarchal paradigm] does not attempt to develop personal and social values. It does indeed. But more than in traditional societies it allows the individual a greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung^{1  1}Often this is too challenging a goal for the individual to achieve on his own, and the net effect is either maladjustment [individualism] or the embracing of a philosophy of life developed by others [Fascism]. ¹Cf. Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality 1950" (Krathwohl, Bloom p. 166) The shift was from a "traditional," closed value system based upon a patriarchal education  praxis, with its emphasis upon obeying authority and learning and practicing truth, knowing the difference between right and wrong and living it, i.e. actualizing belief in higher authority and established laws, to a "transformational," "open" value system (general systems theory) based upon a heresiarchal education praxis with its emphasis upon questioning authority and practicing theory, i.e. actualizing individual opinions and thus "discovering" common ground with other opinions.

This was reflected in the shift from creation (patriarchal paradigm) taught in the public schools up until the 40's and 50's and a shift to evolution (heresiarchal paradigm) mandated from then on.  That mandate was not from the citizens themselves but from brainwashed (technical definition of brainwashing)  people in key positions of influence in education, government, media, etc., who "reflected" the so called 'grass roots.' These people were administrators and teachers of the school system as well as the mass media and governmental officials who were being indoctrinated in Communist institutions (if it walks like a duck....) such as the National Training Laboratories, Esalen, the Aspen Institute, Tavistock,, T-groups, encounter groups, etc. all skillfully being trained (brainwashed) in the subtle artcraft of subverting (circumventing) the rights of the citizens i.e. covert dynamics or sensitivity training applied in education, the workplace, government and later in the church itself, starting first with the people the citizens expected to represent them and their interests. We are so far down this road that communists are proudly printing their history, the praxis of conspiracy against the American public, unconcerned about any public response.  Anyone who would dare do so would be considered a 'conspiracy nut.'  I remember studying in college, in European history, about Jews who were treated the same way in the early 30's when they warned others of what was happening in their own country, Germany.  Facilitators of change consider Americans some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth when it comes to their ability to discern their own demise.  The 'good life' will do that. So called conservatives are the worst, or best, at this (it depends on how you look at it).  Take those who like Church Growth and Emerging Church for example—ministers who say 'trust us,' when we should love everyone and trust no one, taking every thought (even from ministers) captive to every word that proceedeth from God (translated not interpreted word).

"If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago Press. Ill. 1987, p. 259

The tumult of the school system naturally carried itself into the institution of higher learning.  But these institutions still sustained the environment which encouraged the students to "...fully accept the convention of the contemporary business society ... [if] they expect to conform to the economic status quo and to receive ample rewards...[, that progressive (anarchist) students from the public school system must] ....reconsider aberrant values [if they expect to get hired after college
]. [The institutions of higher learning were undoing what the public schools had accomplished, by re-strengthening] "... respect for the prevailing social order [traditional American values which sustained national sovereignty]." (Jacob)

College administrators were seen as a major obstacle to change in college values. Their focus upon seeking, grooming and graduating students, who would support the traditional pattern of American business prevented diaprax from entering into the world of commerce. The traditional business owner supported and hired students from the institution of his matriculation and any change on its part was seen as having a negative affecting upon their work environment and business—the emphasis was upon hiring responsible employees not "innovators" or revolutionaries for change.  Conventional attitudes and values were promoted and sustained in the college and thus in the workplace at the expense of  "honesty and frankness [contempt for authority]," regarding the student, and future employee's feelings, his "felt" needs. As a commentator of the 50's stated "The model of the ideal teen was thoroughly shaped by middle‑class fantasies."

"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 6:2, 3

While society was changing and old values were being objected to (due of the effect progressive education was having in the school system—the freeing of the youth from the honoring of the parental office with its praxis of restraint), the work environment still reflected the old fashioned way of doing business.  The work place, the business environment, and its marketing methods would all have to be changed if the perception of society was to be changed. In dialectical praxis the head of the family is affected mostly by the work environment of the husband outside the home.  Thus to change the home, the work environment had to be changed from the traditional, patriarchal, environment, men controlled by a boss, i.e. obeying authority, "What will my boss think," to a transformational environment (diversity-deviancy in unity i.e. men and women in equality of office, now deviancy in unity i.e. men with women, patriarch men with heresiarch men and patriarchal based women with heresiarchal women, men as women and women as men, all forced into the praxis of initiating and sustaining mental, emotional, and physical homony), controlled by a facilitated teamwork environment (soviet), i.e. all questioning patriarchal authority, "What will the 'group think?'  What will the 'village think?"  "Boss think" is a patriarch paradigm in praxis while "group think" is a heresiarch paradigm in praxis.

The college was now invaded with a "silent generation" of discontents, created by their physical distance (freedom) from the home, having been liberated by pleasure, now again facing restraint.  They needed to be activated if social change was to be actualized on the college and university campuses.  While the graduates wanted the pleasures, suburban home, TV, cars, etc. of the better world and could attain it through their degrees, they still retained their old values—a patriotic commitment of anti-communism—anti-dialectical praxis (only they were not taught what communism was—diaprax—so they could not recognize its application in the classroom).  Any feelings of resentment toward the current establishment, the traditional home environment, was restrained by the desire to get ahead.  It was the role of the media and liberal professors to move that resentment onto a political platform and use it against the "old order."  The bomb, the Korean war, and eventually the Viet Nam war and the civil rights movement would become the refocusing point for both student and faculty, the platform with which to "shift" the paradigm of the American culture.

In dialectical fashion, you liberalize a few professors, students, administrators, etc. who then disrupt order in conservative institutions, then, like some "innocent bystander" with consulting skills, you offer your expertise to evaluate and then mediate (in a facilitated meeting) the conflict between the conservatives in the institutions and your antagonists (of course you don't let the conservatives know that), who you acknowledge as being out of line, yet having "legitimate" needs (over social issues), that need to be addressed.  This leads to the "corporate" participation (dialoguing to consensus) of both parties, conservatives with liberals (a diverse group of people), for the sake of the survival and progress of the institutions.  You, from then on, are the institutions guide to a "better" world, lead with the assistance of your liberalized few, ever growing in number (everybody wants to keep their job).  The key to success  is to know how far you can go before the conservatives take back control.  It's the old Marxist waltz.  Two steps forward, one step back.  The first step is where you plan to take your partner, the second is to get his rejection. Then, when he rejects, give him his one step back and he will think he won.  Ha! Ha! on him.  One, Two, One. One, Two, One. . . .  It's called "progressivism," what I call "user friendly Marxism, Communism with a smile."  "Aren't we having fun!  Care for another dance?"  By the way a soviet is "a diverse group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting."  It is "a public-private partnership in a facilitated meeting."  It should be noted that when the private goes into partnership with the public, the private is always negated.  All the private, who become "stakeholders" with the public, are given a lance (a stake) to pierce the remaining private sector who refuse to join the public, they have the most to gain by showing their loyalty to the public, i.e. gang initiation rights, known historically as the tyranny of the masses.  The purpose for a soviet is to neutralize, marginalize, and then remove any conservative (Bible believing Christian) who might praxis a patriarch paradigm and influence or control public policy.  This stuff really works.

Since the 40's school administrators had been trained in skills of social engineering.  See Human Relations in Curriculum Change.  Books such as Arrogance on Campus by Lewis B. Mayhew and Four Critical Years: Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge and The Power of Protest by Alexander W. Astin are all a product of the agenda of Human Relations. Lewis. B. Mayhew, for example, stated, in sympathy with the student protest in the 60's, from the East coast (Columbia University) to the West coast. "It is just possible that out of the extracurricular activities in which the militants engage . . . can be found the elements which several decades hence will comprise the collegiate curriculum. . . . students have become skeptical and resistant to course routine, which they see as largely unrelated to real life. . . . Not finding courses linked to reality, students have gone underground and created their own curriculum, . . . Students do need considerable help in developing social presence or intelligence. Students, especially in large institutions, need help in understanding and coping with bureaucratic and institutional life. They also need assistance in understanding their changing relationships with the major institutions of society. And evidence of all these is found covertly in the language and acts of student dissent. . . . If campus disorders do not end, political power will assume control of colleges and universities, and higher education will have lost its freedom - which is the genius of its past achievements."  The "arrogance" on campus, according to Mayhew, was the attitude of the faculty who thought they were able to keep the course of the modern university.  Faculty interest was upon imparting facts and engaging in research, "that teaching and research are inextricably intertwined and that the production of knowledge is the essential role of the universities," not student desires or pleasures i.e. their "felt" needs.  In other words, the faculties interest was upon didactic, establishment desires based upon a patriarchal praxis and not upon the "progressive" (brainwashed) student's interests, developed in the public school system, their dialectical, anti-patriarchal, anti-establishment attitude, a heresiarchal praxis, programmed by globalist, socialist, humanist, communist, based teachers and administrators in the  public school, who themselves were programmed by off school training at Marxists based National Training Labs like the one at Bethel Maine, or in-service training from facilitators, trained at the Labs.  Prior to writing Four Critical Years he had published Higher Education in the Revolutionary Decades.  Mayhew was a consultant to over 500 educational institutions and advisor to President Lyndon B. Johnson (along with Ralph Tyler, a transformational Marxist friend of his, who was himself an advisor to six U. S. Presidents, concerning education.  Tyler was involved in the Rand Corporation, Delphi program, and in his writings he explains how he planned to bring America under a Politburo form of government).  Mayhew was also a former president of the American Association for Higher Education.  In his book Arrogance on Campus he stated his concern for student unrest overreaching its purpose for liberal changes on University campuses writing: "The impatience of youth for more rapid change than the system can tolerate has resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan . . . which may set higher education back fifty years."

"Patriotism . . . viewing America as an ingroup in relation to other nations as outgroups. . . . ‘patriotism' . . . involves blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing group way, and rejection of other nations as outgroups. . . .The inability to identify with humanity takes the political form of nationalism " Theador Adorno  The Authoritarian Personality

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost."  Abraham Maslow  The Further Reaches of Human Nature

Four Critical Years: Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge by Alexander W. Astin (still costs about $135.00 to buy even today) explained how the educational environment (pre-college education, home environment, race, etc. in details I would be labeled a racist or member of the KKK for writing, but since he is a liberal I guess his opinion are fundamentally sound) affect a students "political identification." This is a book aiding College and University administrators in collecting and deciphering information such as parents occupations, their church attendance, students prayer life before college and at the end of the freshman year, etc. so that students of a liberal or conservative mind can be properly picked for the "right" constellation of student mix in college classrooms to guarantee a diverse group, with enough liberals to move the process along, even on "conservative" campuses. "Any real change of the culture of a group is interwoven with the changes of power constellation within the group."  (Benne) The focus was to guarantee that the time a student spent in college would incorporate proper experiential environments so his political views would to be shifted from a local, patriarchal paradigm (national, culture praxis) to a above-local, heresiarchal paradigm (global, extra-culture praxis)—"culture war."

"Religion finds itself peculiarly tailored to the nationalistic, class, and ethnic cleavages and outlooks that sustain the prevailing social order. We can hope that this convergence of theological, sociological, and psychological analysis will lead to a further cooperation between behavior and religious disciplines. Here lies the pastor's task, his opportunity, and his challenge."  The Person in Psychology, Selected Essays by Gordon Allport, Beacon Press: Boston, 1968

Religious issues, according to Astin, can be addressed in institutions of higher learning, but his agenda was to change the focus from transcendent concerns (spiritual) to temporal concerns (social).  "We have been surveying church-going freshmen, . . . There's a large decline during college (of spiritual life), almost regardless of religious affiliation, but not a parallel decline of interest— that gets slightly stronger. [Eastern religion being the interest—dialectic in praxis]  There are a number of students and parents who want higher education to take place in an environment of similar beliefs [which can be shifted in paradigm with class environment focusing upon dialogue rather than teaching facts.] . . . .  that there are some promising trends in this direction [of religious interests—dialectic religion that is], for example the growing emphasis on service learning [see servicelearning.org—the spiritual displaced with the temporal, sensuous, "here and now," focus], which started with the advent of the college compact, which includes presidents who are intentional about promoting service learning on campuses . . . .  we believe that the secret to effective service learning experience is the use of reflection [Eastern religion: more than thinking on an experience and summarizing what happened and feelings about the event, but also includes thinking about the thinking process used for reasoning i.e. were they didactic (no dialogue) or dialectic (dialogue) in praxis; answering the questions "What?" ("What happened?") "So what?" ("So what does it mean to me or us? Is it relevant to our 'felt' needs") "Now what?" ("If it is relevant to us then how should we respond?")—critical thinking cycle of sharing, processing, generalizing, and applying], which is the best way to get in touch with interior life: values, beliefs, sense of meaning and purpose."  A Conversation With ... Dr. Alexander Astin Council for Christian Colleges & Universities  emphasis added

"Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first--it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'" Abraham Maslow  (ed. by Lowery)  The Journals of Abraham Maslow

It was no accident that Jacob's book was written to "justify" the use of  Bloom's Taxonomy's of Educational Objectives.  Books which all, I repeat all, again I repeat all, certified teachers (read mark of the beast) must learn and apply in all, I repeat all, again I repeat all classes— from the day-care center to the post-doctorate seminar. This is known as "life long learning." Books, which wash from the brain any partiality toward a patriarchal home experience, with chastening as a instrumental component.  Books which produce, in all who participate, an internal hate (contempt) for the patriarchal paradigm.  All classes which use these books are disguised as academic  in nature, but have the real motive of secularizing history— "the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Gramsci)   Books which are nothing more nor less than secularized Satanism and intellectualized witchcraft. Books presenting the same paradigm, promoting the same praxis, which Satan used to drew Eve into the dialectical process in the Garden in Eden (innovative).  Eve went after the environment, while Adam went after Eve in the environment, both were enlightened (spiritually blinded) with the pleasures of life, freed from Godly (parental) restraint, both did the praxis of "thinking with their feelings," both did diaprax. Eve was the first environmentalist, Adam the first humanist, and Satan was the first facilitator.  One of the men, Bill Spady, who helped develop and push goals 2000 down the throat of the American public, "to put OBE in all schools of the nation," said in a speech. . .

"A number of shamanistic rituals derived from research on ‘effective' schools . . . can be used to devine the unknown, cure ills, and control uncertain events . For example, policy analysts sometimes use the rituals of research . . . that appears similar to the ‘black' magic of witches .  In the typical alignment ceremony, only test items--not instruction--are changed. While students learning remains unchanged, alignment allows students to practice criterion measures and achieve higher test scores, thus giving them an advantage over comparable students in unaligned school systems. . . . the art of measurement can be used as an aid to shamanism, especially in urban schools . . . ." Rowan & Spady "Sha-manistic Rituals in Effective Schools"  source deliberatedumbingdown.com 

Thus facts based tests can be taken in both traditional and transformational education systems, but in this case when these tests incorporate affective objectives (allowing freedom of expression of negative feelings toward parental authority,  i.e. critical theory, critical thinking) in the aligned school system, the more traditional school system (unaligned, teaching facts, respect for authority) will rate lower than the transformational school system (aligned), while the factual learning may be worse in the transformational (aligned) school system.  In this way the perception of progress can be attained in the magnet schools when in actuality they are below, or at best almost equal with, the level of factual learning of the traditional local school system. Tax dollars will flow in the direction of the aligned schools, punishing the unaligned until they become aligned.  Thus the movement of the lower class up the social ladder (It is not a race issue, although that is what is used as the justification for such programs.  The issue is paradigms) is not based upon their knowledge of facts but rather upon social engineers standards (manipulated), bypassing the middle class criterion of achievement through discipline, hard work, and self-control.  Minorities have been sacrificed at this alter of progress, all for the sake of dialectical control over the nation's schools, and the soul's of the next generation.

"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 complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God."  (Brown)

S.C.H.O.O.L
Socialist, Communist, Humanist Organization Of Liberals.

The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health. 
Abraham Maslow  Maslow on Management

"If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion. Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." 
Norman O. Brown Life Against Death

"… a psychological classification system.  Members of the taxonomy group spent considerable time in attempting to find a psychological theory which would provide a sound basis for ordering the categories of the taxonomy. …consistent with relevant and accepted psychological principles and theories." Benjamin Bloom,  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book I:  Cognitive Domain

Diaprax in the pre-school:

Diaprax in the grade school:

Diaprax in the high school:

Diaprax in the college:

Diaprax in post-graduate:

Diaprax in the workplace:  "It's not worth losing my promotion or my job over."

If you want to get ahead you had better play the game.  You do have a choice though.  Can't you feel the freedom.

Diaprax in the business:  "It's not worth losing my clientele or my business over."

Diaprax in the military:  "It's not worth losing my rank, promotion, or my discharge honors over."

"It has been the tendency of our military, with their authoritarian view of life [patriarchal], to be on the side of dictators [including  constitutional republics—limited government] rather than people's revolutionary movements throughout the world. I would stress to the military the huge number of man-hours [which] could be used for education, for social service, for psychotherapeutic and growth-fostering activities of all sorts in order to make better citizens." Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management

This has been going on for decades but is in full swing today in all branches of our armed forces.  Why should our military be "trafficking with the enemy?"—facilitators can not praxis sovereignty. I repeat, facilitators can not praxis sovereignty.  When I talk to our military about this issue they tell me they are troubled by what they are being asked to praxis but have no choice. Do it or else.  The key to brainwashing is facilitating a person into share his "ought," his personal dissatisfaction with command in a diverse group. Every solider in our armed forces must do this very thing, in a group setting while building "teams"—soviets. They must participate if they expect to be promoted.  "Yes sir." "No sir." and "What sir." must now include "Why sir?"  A few years ago I shared this with a Viet Nam Vet. He raised his hand, pointed it at my head, and cocked it like a gun.  The military evidently did not do this around his watch, at least that what I gathered from his response.  They do now.

Armed Forces Code of Conduct Article 5

WHEN QUESTIONED, SHOULD I BECOME A PRISONER OF WAR, I AM REQUIRED TO GIVE NAME, RANK, SERVICE NUMBER, AND DATE OF BIRTH. I WILL EVADE ANSWERING FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE UTMOST OF MY ABILITY. I WILL MAKE NO ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS DISLOYAL TO MY COUNTRY AND ITS ALLIES OR HARMFUL TO THEIR CAUSE Armed Forces Code of Conduct Article 5

Exec. Order No. 10,631, 20 Fed. Reg. 6057 (Aug. 17, 1955). 189Id. The training material accompanying Article V of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States directs, When questioned, a prisoner of war is required by the Geneva Convention and permitted by this Code to disclose his name, rank, service number and date of birth. A prisoner of war may also communicate with the enemy regarding his individual health or welfare as a prisoner of war and, when appropriate, on routine matters of camp administration. Oral or written confessions true or false, questionnaires, personal history statements, propaganda recordings and broadcasts, appeals to other prisoners of war, signatures to peace or surrender appeals, self criticisms or any other oral or written communication on behalf of the enemy or critical or harmful to the United States, its allies, the Armed Forces or other prisoners are forbidden.

Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 918 (1949). p. 938.  It is well settled that one cannot, by mere words, be guilty of treason. That is true in the sense that the mere utterance of disloyal sentiments is not treason; aid and comfort must be given to the enemy. But the communication of an idea, whether by speech or writing, is as much a[n] act as is throwing a brick, though different muscles are used to achieve different effects . . . Trafficking with the enemy, in what ever form, is wholly outside the shelter of the First Amendment.   emphasis added

"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 (the effort to pressure him to replace a didactic paradigm with a dialectical paradigm in praxis—to praxis consensus) by the Communist North Korean's, January 19th, 1953

Diaprax in the Church: "It's not worth losing the respect of men over."

"The more enlightened the religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal they get, the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an enlightened way."  Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management

 "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation nor that authority of the church in order to know good and evil." Stephen Eric Bronner Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists I know I've used this quotation above but it bears repeating here.

Diaprax in Government: "It's not worth losing my next term over."

When politicians tell me I am right but they have to compromise to stay in their office I tell them to die a martyrs death and get it over with for their constituents didn't vote them into office for their compromise but for their refusal to compromise.

Diaprax in the village:

Diaprax in the city:

Diaprax in the county/parish Government:

Diaprax in the states Government:

Diaprax in the Federal Government:

Diaprax in White House:

Diaprax in the Legislature:

Diaprax in the Court:

Diaprax in the Police—"To serve and protect:"  "It's not worth losing my belonging to the brotherhood, the fraternity, over."

Diaprax in the Medical/Hospital:  "It's not worth loosing my career over."

Diaprax in the Environmental issues: "It's not worth losing my property over."

Diaprax in the neighborhood i.e. "Social departments—Public Health and Safety; Department of Child and Family Services, etc.:" "It's not worth losing my family over."

Diaprax in you:  "It's not worth losing my 'freedom' and my life over." "It's not worth losing my head over."  It's like spiritual Alzheimers, except in this case they have a physical head, which "intellectually" and emotionally relates to the moment, but the discerning mind is gone. Anyone who praxis' the dialectical paradigm is a dead men walking.

When you respond to diaprax with "It's not worth losing my            over," you just gave your soul to the "village," along with your land, your children, etc. i.e. all that God has given you "to serve and to protect," under him.  Every P.O.W. has to deal with this attack upon his identity, his sovereign rights, this attack upon his conscience, an attack now being applied to every institution in the land he was willing to die for.  We have all become POW's in the "land of the free" because our "leaders" have decided consensus is better than the conscience.  When it comes to our God given rights, they, by their praxis of consensus, a process now forced upon all institutions in our nation, have made us no longer the "land of the brave," but a land of "what can I get out of this for me."  Courage, according to Aristotle, was not to be found in obeying a generals command to march into battle, but instead courage was to be found in questioning the general and his command to march into battle.  Of the twelve spies sent by Moses to check out the promised land, according to Aristotle and his dialectical reasoning, the ten who questioned God's command were courageous and Joshua and Caleb were foolhardy. God and his word declare it different.  It is impossible to keep your faith in God and praxis the dialectical paradigm.  It is impossible to please God and praxis the dialectical paradigm.

What can I do to stop this process?

You can do nothing! Except

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6

"I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."
John 17:15

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2007-2015