How the dialectic process changes the individual into a socialist.
(the dialectic formula being used for 'change')
by Dean Gotcher
Two Paradigms: God's/the Father's Paradigm (Patriarchal Paradigm, established from above) and man's/the child's Paradigm (Heresiarchal, i.e. subject to 'change' below): "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9 "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart [Patriarchal Paradigm, faith]; and lean not unto thine own understanding [Heresiarchal Paradigm, sight]. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6 The Heresiarchal Paradigm is based upon the heart of man: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 The Patriarchal Paradigm is based upon the child's obedience to the Father, i.e. man's obedience to God: "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
The "old" world order is based upon the Patriarchal Paradigm (the Father's authority, established facts and truth; doing right and not wrong) while the "new" world order is based upon the Heresiarchal Paradigm ("human nature," the child's nature, i.e. feelings; approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, subject to the ever 'changing' 'moment'). While the Word of God informs us that "the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof" (1Corinthians 10:26), i.e. with man having dominion over it (Genesis 1:26), dialectic 'reasoning' asserts that "the fruits of the earth belong to us all [including your family, i.e. your wife and children, your property, your business, and even your very own life], and the earth itself to nobody [except the social engineers, i.e. the facilitators of 'change']." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality). "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." "We propose, therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the social parent." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive?) "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
God's Paradigm (the Patriarchal Paradigm of "fixity" or absolutes, with the Son doing His Father's will): "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 3:30; 12: 49 He has called all to live according to His Father's Paradigm: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9; 12:50; 7:21 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:4
Man's Paradigm (the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' with the children, united as one, doing their will according to their "felt" needs, i.e. their carnal desires of the 'moment') seeks to negate the Father's authority: "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity [facts, unadaptability, absolutes] to changingness [feelings, adaptability, relativism], from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy). "All individuals (organisms) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the centre." (Carl Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy)
God's Paradigm judges Man's Paradigm, i.e. The Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. God, i.e. the Father judges the Heresiarchal Paradigm, i.e. those of the world: "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 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:18 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 5:6
The Patriarchal Paradigm: Thesis (the Father's authority) restrains Antithesis (the child's nature).
Thesis—the Father's authority, i.e. the Law of God: "And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11 The Father's authority is to 1) give rules and commands, to 2) blesses all who obey them, to 3) chasten those who do not, and to 4) cast out those who disrespect (refuse to recognize and honour) His authority.
Antithesis—the child's nature, i.e. the law of the Flesh: "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 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 7:14-25 The child's nature is to 1) approach pleasure and to 2) avoid pain, making flesh and its desire to be at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' the standard from which to determine right from wrong, good from evil. Only Jesus Christ, i.e. in obedience to His Father, i.e. fulfilling the law, i.e. fulfilling all righteousness can 'liberate' us from antithesis, i.e. from His Father's judgment upon us for our sins, for our "lust" of the flesh, "lust" of the eyes, and "pride" of life (covering our sins by His own blood), 'reconciling' us (in His resurrection) to His Father, 'liberating' us from the law of the Flesh that we might walk in the Law of the Spirit, i.e. in Him, i.e. in His righteousness (in His obedience) which is imputed to us by the Father, according to our faith in His Son.
The Heresiarchal Paradigm: Thesis (the child's nature) 'liberated' from Antithesis (the Father's authority) engenders Synthesis (the children united in the praxis of negating the Father's authority):
Synthesis—the children united as one, 'justifying' the law of the Flesh over and against the Law of God, dialectically ('rationally') 'liberating' themselves from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' themselves to the world: "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." Genesis 3:1-6 The child's nature to approach pleasure and avoid pain draws the child to become at-one-with nature, in pleasure, in the 'moment.' Dialectic 'reasoning' unites him as one with all the children of the world, 'justifying' themselves in their carnal desire to augment pleasure and attenuate pain, requiring the negation of the Father's authority so that they can do as they please, through the consensus process, becoming at "peace" with themselves and with the world, i.e. doing what comes naturally, without having a "guilty conscience."
The two Paradigm are anathema to one another: If you love the Father, His restraint prevents you from become at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment.' If you love the world, the Father's authority must be negated if you are to become at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment.' Patriarchal Paradigm: Thesis = the Father (righteousness; do right, do not do wrong), Antithesis = the child (sensuousness; approach pleasure, avoid pain). Chastening prevents synthesis. Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change': Thesis = the child, Antithesis = the Father, Synthesis = all children 'rationally' united through dialoguing their opinion to a consensus, (there is no Father's authority in dialogue, i.e. the Father abdicates His authority, i.e. His right to chasten by His participation in dialogue) liberating sensuousness from the Father's authority, i.e. 'justifying' sensuousness ("human nature") over and against righteousness (doing the Father's will) in the praxis of consensus = engendering abomination. "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)
Communism: Hegel, Marx, and Freud united as one in the praxis of negating the Father's authority: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "Freud, Hegel,... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Freud speaks of religion [the children loving the Father over and against their carnal nature] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate' of the people [man loving God over and against the world]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) While Traditional Marxist focused only upon killing the Father (using bullets and blood], Transformational Marxists united Marx with Freud, 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority through the use of the soviet, i.e. the consensus process in the "group grade" setting. A soviet is a diverse group of children (traditional, transitional, transformational), dialoging their opinions to a consensus, over social issues, to a pre-determined outcome (that no decision will be made without a diverse group of children, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, ....). Only by someone, i.e. trained in the dialectic process, i.e. the facilitator of 'change' helping the children participate in the process of 'change' ('liberating' them from the fear of judgment, i.e. "Ye shall not surely die," allowing them to think and act according to their "felt" needs of the 'moment,' according to the given situation) can a "new" world order of 'change' (a world void of the Father's authority) become a reality.
George Hegel: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Make the child's nature ("human nature") the standard from which to establish society, and the Father's authority over his home, i.e. private family, private property, and private business is negated. Hegel, more Marx than Marx, wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." ibid.
Karl Marx: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the individuals thoughts and in his social action]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)
Sigmund Freud: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father [he is no longer around] or abstained from the deed [he no longer functions with a Father's authority],' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [there is no Father's authority in the home and in society]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt [the Father's authority engendering a "guilty conscience" in the child while he is doing (or thinking about doing) that which comes naturally, i.e. becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, i.e. following after his carnal nature, i.e. satisfying his urges and impulses of the 'moment, i.e. "lusting" after the things of the world—Freud believed that children were sexually active and that the parents restraint of that which came naturally was what engendering neurosis] created the familial organization." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [to be at-one-with nature, i.e. following after their natural urges and impulses of the 'moment']—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan," (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) "Freud noted that patricide [negating the Father's authority] and incest ['liberating' the child's carnal nature] are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
How it is done: Kurt Lewin: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "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." (Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality) "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." From then on "the new system of values and beliefs dominates the individual's perception." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) "What better way to help the [student] recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the [facilitator of 'change']? The [facilitator of 'change'] is the living personification of all parental images. Group [facilitators] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group [the students] to explore and to employ its [their] own resources. The [students must] feel free to confront the [facilitator], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. [The student] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if [the classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the [student] changes the past by reconstituting it." "By shifting the [student's] attention from ‘then-and-there' [from rules and commands to be obeyed without question] to ‘here-and-now' [to the group's "felt" needs of the 'moment,' the facilitator] performs a service to the group … focusing the group upon itself. [The student] must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting [his] personal needs. Once a [student] realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself. [Students] should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "Change in organization [paradigm] can be derived from the overlapping between play [the child's nature: approaching pleasure and avoiding pain] and barrier [the Father's authority: doing right and not doing wrong] behavior. To be governed by two strong goals [approval by the group and obeying the Father] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization ["The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one's behavior or ones belief." Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" found in Child Behavior and Development) "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief] in the face of apparent group unanimity [consensus]; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
Common Core is based upon "Bloom's (Marzano's/Webb's) Taxonomies," i.e. the dialectic process, i.e. communist curriculum. Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain: "a psychological classification system." "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." ("In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." Karl Marx) David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, etc. Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2 Affective Domain: "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." "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box." "a Weltanschauung1" "1 Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950"
What the dialectic process is all about, i.e. 'liberating' man from God, i.e. making mankind (collectively) god himself: "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods) "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015