Discussion - Dialogue
"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative." "The purpose of dialogue is to reveal the incoherence in our thought ... genuine and creative collective consciousness." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)
Bohm's psychotherapist (who greatly influenced him) was Patrick de Maré, who was a student of Wilfred Bion, of Tavistock fame. Bion summed the whole process up as "Preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," i.e., from directing/controlling your thoughts (and therefore your actions).
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6
While in a discussion there is accountability, i.e., a consequence, i.e., a sense of guilt for doing wrong, in dialogue there is not, since in dialogue, wrong (prejudice) must be suspended for the 'moment' in order to initiate and sustain dialogue. Liberals use dialogue ("feelings"), which unites, and avoid discussion (right and wrong), which divides (unless it is a so called "discussion" of personal-social issues, i.e., a "discussion" based upon everyone's "feelings" regarding personal-social issues of the 'moment' in an open-ended, non-directed setting), in order to initiate and sustain a so called "new" world order of 'change.' Discussion (doing right and not wrong) is founded upon the authority system of the father. Dialogue (the expressing of ones "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., ones desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) is found in the nature (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., carnal system) of the child. As long as you can stay within dialogue you can think (desire, dream, imagine, theorize, speculate, etc. and live) as you please without condemnation.
George Hegel, not being able to use the word "wrong" (the language of the father), i.e., only being able to use the spectrum or relativist word "badly" (the language of the child), wrote: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)
"Peace and affirmation" for Hegel meant the praxis of everyone enjoying the pleasures of the 'moment,' which he called "lusts," with everyone giving approval to everyone else's pleasure of the 'moment' (engendering "peace"), especially the pleasure of approval ("affirmation"). Building upon Immanuel Kant's "hope" for mankind—"lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh, i.e., pleasure (sensuousness, sight) without the law and Word of God (righteousness, faith) and "purposiveness without purpose," i.e., the purpose of life being the augmentation of "human nature," i.e., man's love of pleasure, 'liberating' himself from Godly restraints—and Hegel's dialectic 'reasoning'—"self-'justification,'" i.e., 'justification' of pleasure over and therefore against the father's authority—pleasure, i.e., the child's nature, has now become the 'driving' force of life, and the augmentation of it (in himself and others) its 'purpose,' negating the authority of the father, i.e., doing right and not wrong, according to the father's will, and the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process.
"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." 1 John 2:17
George Hegel believed that "the child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once his feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority 'system']." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In this dialectic formula of placing the child's desire for pleasure over (above) and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, the fathers'/Father's authority system (doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—thus having a guilty conscience for doing wrong) is negated, making all things of the father's/Fathers' now the property of all the children ("common-ism"). Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx, then Karl Marx himself, could then write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [with no father's authority over the children (and no husbands authority over the wife)], the surplus is not the property of one of them [there is no private, as in private property or business, i.e., no "My wife. Not yours."; "My children. Not yours."; "My property. Not yours."; "My business. Not yours"], since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." There is a consequence to basing 'reality' upon the nature of the children and their approval, i.e., basing right and wrong upon the pleasures of the 'moment.' Anyone who attains or desires to attain pleasure from your spouse, your children, your property, your business, etc., has as much "right" to them as you do.
Karl Marx wrote: "The proletariat [the child] thus has the same right as has the German king [the father] when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of right') In other words, through the use of dialogue instead of discussion, that which is the father's now belongs to the child(ren). In common law, the party who can do harm to you must provide the means whereby they can not harm you. It is their, not your responsibility or burden to provide the means whereby to protect you and your property from any activity that they are doing that can infringing upon your right of private, as in property. Dialogue and the consensus process instantly removes that burden or barrier, allowing them direct access to that which is yours, placing the burden (cost) of protection upon you. Once the parent or the employer loses their right to discipline or remove the child or worker for their actions of insubordination (for their questioning, challenging, and disobeying, i.e., for their disrespect toward the parent or the employer and their authority), the parent or employer loses their family or their business to the tyrant and the system (praxis) of tyranny. The correlation between the family and the working environment is so close that to recognize the system of the one requires the recognition of the system of other, and therefore, for the socialist, the right and duty to negate both, i.e., to negate the authority system of the parent and the authority system of the private property and/or the private business owner, negating the language of "Mine. Not yours." The same applies to all borders and jurisdictions, whether local or national.
Marxism (common-ism) is based upon "the common ground of ... existence" (that which we all have in common with the child, i.e., his desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' along with his dissatisfaction or resentment toward the one inflicting pain upon him for doing wrong, initiating and sustaining the internal pain of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' i.e., the seedbed of dialectic 'reasoning' in the child in the process). By negating the father's/Father's authority system (doing right and not wrong no matter the situation, i.e., no matter the temptation of pleasure or the presence of or the threat of pain) in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others, individualism (inalienable rights), under God is negated. By bringing dialogue, i.e., the child's feelings into the classroom, making the child's feelings of the 'moment' a part of the grade, i.e., the outcome, the parent's authority is system is negated in the child's feelings, thoughts and actions, and in his relationship with others and the world, as well as in his relationship with his parents, making him adaptable to 'change.'
Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... , i.e., man under God's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) The essential ingredient for 'change' is dialogue. The Marxist, Jürgen Habermas wrote: "Then both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context. And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) "With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view, moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation." "The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence. 'Validity' now signifies that moral norms could win the agreement of all concerned, on the condition that they jointly examine in practical discourse whether a corresponding practice is in the equal interest of all." "This idea of a discursively produced understanding also imposes a greater burden of justification on the isolated judging subject than would a monologically applied universalisation test." (Jürgen Habermas, Communicative Ethics The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory)
While conformation is the objective of those of "common faith," building fellowship upon an established position, fact, or truth, i.e., requiring persuasion and discussion (preaching and teaching) and agreement (faith), consensus (a feeling of oneness), building relationship upon feelings, i.e., "self interest" on the other hand, is the objective of those using dialogue, where the dialoguing of opinions (including polls, surveys, feasibility studies, etc.,) reveals everyone's current desires (for pleasure) and dissatisfactions (with restraint), i.e., that which men all have in common (regarding our carnal nature), with them, in the name of unity and peace, removing all that is not of "human nature," i.e., removing all that is 'irrational' and 'irrelevant' (that is not of the world), which divides or causes dissention. Without the dialogue (using preaching and teaching and discussion instead) you can not arrive at a consensus, you can only arrive at an impasse, a division, or in a conformation. To be silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e., refusing to reprove, correct, and rebuke unrighteousness for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship (unity and peace), is to consent to "human nature," making unrighteousness the "norm," i.e., the law of the land.
"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)
Thus all institutions, whether they be of education, of work, of government, of entertainment, of the media, of religion, and even of the home, must submit to the consensus process of dialogue if they are to be recognized as having any relevance in the so called "new" world order. It all starts with how the child is being educated (programed) to think and act not only in the classroom but also in the home, with government departments using "social environmental forces to 'change' the parent's behavior toward the child," pressuring parents into dialoguing (coming to consensus) with their children in the home, negating the "old" word order of parental authority in the process. (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
Liberals ("children of disobedience"), those who resent restraint and hate the restrainer, will do all they can to get you into dialogue (or into "discussing" personal-social issues, yours, theirs, and others "feelings" of the 'moment'). Dialogue (your "feelings" of the 'moment') is a universal language (of the flesh, of the 'moment') while discussion (doing right and not wrong) is local (for the soul, for all eternity). Like tying both hands behind your back and letting someone punch away, once liberals (or your children) get you into dialoguing the universality of "feelings," with you then attempting to discuss doing right and not wrong, you will find yourself becoming the odd man out, labeled as being hardheaded, intolerant, irrational, not understanding, hateful, etc. It is how those promoting the process of 'change' (the language of dialogue) make you into being the bully in town, with you attempting to restrain them (and everyone else) from being what they want to be (or can be), i.e., of the world only, in truth making themselves the bully in town instead—"pressuring" you into supporting them in what they want to do, 'creating' a "new" world order without Godly restraint. Negating, through the praxis of dialogue, the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as in their relationship with one another, 'changes' the world, 'liberates' it from having a guilty conscience for its unrighteous and abominable thoughts and actions.
By simply 'changing' ("shifting") our means of communication from discussion (doing right and not wrong, according to the father's/Father's will, i.e.., Hebrews 12:5-11 , which engenders the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., Romans 7:11- 25) to dialogue (to our feelings of the 'moment,' according to the child's natural desire for pleasure and his resentment toward restraint, i.e., hate of the retainer) the Tower of Babble, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., can be rebuilt, and world unity attained, i.e., Satan's Genesis project (Genesis 3:1-6) can be fulfilled, preparing the world for judgment day. Without Christ Jesus (by His shed blood on the cross, in obedience to His Heavenly Father) 'redeeming' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sins and (by His resurrection from the grave) 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father (to spend eternity with Him) all we have is the things of this world, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (and eternal death).
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24 "Love not the world, neither the things that are in 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 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven". Matthew 23:9 "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:1, 2 "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1
Read the issue, The Power of Dialogue, for more on the subject.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2015