Opinions Dialogued to a Consensus: by Dean Gotcher

Opinions Dialogued to a Consensus:
the motto of the French Revolution,
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.

by
Dean Gotcher

Liberté:

Opinions 'liberate' us from the father's/Father's authority. There is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in an opinion, only the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and his or her dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward the father's/Father's authority which gets in the way. While belief binds us to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth our opinion, which is bound to our carnal nature, i.e., our "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e., our "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience," seeks 'liberation' from the father's/Father's restraints. This is the same effect theory ("I think") has upon facts and truth ("I know"), negating facts and truth, making them subject to theory. You can not say "I know" in an opinion, only "I feel" or "I think." Even "I think I know" is an opinion. Opinions liberates us from the father's/Father's authority (accountability), engendering liberté.

When in private, i.e., out of fear of being judged, i.e., corrected, reproved, rebuked, condemned for our opinion, we dialogue with our "self" (our desires and dissatisfactions), we make our "self" subject to the world that is around us (that stimulates our desires and dissatisfactions) and the world around us subject to our desire to 'change' it, in order to have pleasure (or more of it) and negate pain. In dialogue pleasure, i.e., that which the child desires is "positive," needing to be augmented, and pain i.e., that which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child from having pleasure (correlated to the father's/Father's authority, which restrains, i.e., "represses" the child) is "negative," needing to be attenuated. It is here, in our dialoguing with our "self" (our desires and our dissatisfactions) that philosophy resides—thinking about how the world "is," subject to authority, preventing us from doing what we want, how it "ought" to be, where we can do what we want, when we want, and how it "can" be, once authority is negated, i.e., removed from the world we live in.

Égalité:

Dialogue makes us all equal. There is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in dialogue, only everyone (when in a group) having equal opportunity to share their opinion. You can not say "I am right and you are wrong," i.e., preach commands and rules to be obeyed without question, teach facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, or discuss (at the one in authority's discretion) any misunderstand or disagreement in dialogue. Discussion is formal (focusing upon being or doing right and not wrong, based upon established facts and truth). Dialogue is informal (making "right and wrong" subject to a persons "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' with pleasure, including affirmation being "right" and pain, including the pain which comes with being rejected being "wrong"). Discussion of facts and truth cuts off the dialoguing of "feelings." Dialogue requires everyone to suspend, as on a cross, the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's' commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., anything negative which would cut off everybody's opportunity to share their opinion, i.e., their "feelings" and "thoughts." Dialogue allows everyone to share their opinion without fear of judgment, i.e., without fear of the father's/Father's authority ("Because I said so"/"It is written"). Dialogue makes all participants equal, engendering égalité.

While "feelings" or emotions, i.e., emotion laden examples (generalized stories, fables, illustrations) come to the aid of dialogue, lessons of the past, i.e., established facts and truth are the emphasis of discussion, making the two incompatible. This the difference between a history class (lessons learned from the past being discussed) and social studies (socialist studies—reflecting the "feelings" of the students regarding current situations—"discussing" personal-social issues, which is actually dialogue). Bringing dialogue (emotions) into a discussion (facts and truth) only creates confuses , i.e., cognitive dissonance (which is caused by attempting to merge the two), turning discussion into dialogue, turning facts and truth into theories and belief into opinions, thus making facts and truth and belief readily adaptable to 'change'—based upon the carnal needs (desires) of those carrying on the "conversation"—with the "need" to compromise (be tolerant, i.e., "positive") in order to "get along," i.e., in order to initiate or sustain "relationship" outweighing the need to be right and not wrong (prejudiced, judgmental, etc., i.e., "negative"). The very praxis of bringing dialogue into the discussion moves the conversation (and the outcome) in the direction of the one pushing dialogue, i.e., emotions, i.e., their "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment,' which the world (situation) stimulates. This is why 'liberal's' push emotion laden stories, examples, etc., into the conservation whenever facts and truth are introduced which go against their desired outcome.

This is also why parent's use the phrase "Because I said so" to the child's "Why?"—the child's natural response to a rule or command which the parent has given, which the child does not want to accept—in order to cut off the child's attempt to move the conversation into dialogue, an attempt, by the child, to manipulate the parents into abdicating their authority for the sake of initiating or sustaining relationship with him. There comes a time when parent's have to "draw a line in the sand"—when those who love to dialogue , i.e., love to focus upon "feelings" (in order to "get their way") refuse to enter into a discussion, i.e., refuse to look at or accept the facts or the truth, i.e., try to get the parent's to abdicate their power of authority so the child can "do his thing," with their affirmation.

Fraternité:

Consensus makes us all one, i.e., "of and for self," according to our carnal nature, i.e., common desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., "self interests." There is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in consensus, , i.e., affirmation, only all participants arriving at a "feeling" of "oneness" as a result of their 'liberty' to 'equally' share (dialogue) their opinions without judgment ("negativity"), i.e., without the father's/Father's authority. Consensus makes everyone equal in everyone's eyes, affirming, i.e., "building relationship upon" everyone's common "self interest" (the basis of common-ism), i.e., 'justifying' everyone's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment which are stimulated by the world and their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, making everyone one in thought and action (praxis), engendering fraternité.

The praxis of opinions being dialogued to a consensus, the same dialectic (dialogue) procedure which was used in the French, Russian, Chinese, etc., Revolutions (including the so called "velvet" ones), i.e., the French Directorate and the Soviet System (which filters out, i.e., negates the father's/Father's authority in establishing policy and making decisions—what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in mind) requires a "group psychotherapist," i.e., a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a Transformational Marxist (all three being the same—children of disobedience) to "guide," i.e., seduce, deceive, and manipulate "the group," "helping" "the group" initiate and sustain the process of 'change.' It is the same process being used in the "group grade" classroom today (via the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"), 'liberating' the next generation from the father's/Father's authority in their thoughts and actions (called "theory and practice"), washing their brain of the father's/Father's authority, turning them against their parent's authority, 'justifying' their questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority when they get home, turning them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists—so they can do wrong, disobey, sin (hate authority) without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so the can do wrong, disobey, sin (hate authority) with impunity. If we enforced the hate crime laws today we would not have enough cells to hold all the 'liberal's,' socialists, globalists, i.e., "contemporary democrats." It is why they insist on having power (at all cost) so they can throw anyone who oppose them, i.e., who get in their way into jail instead (or at least classify/label them as being "mentally ill," i.e., "psychological," preventing them from having any influence in society).

"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)

It is a process not only being used in education—public, private, charter, and even "home school"; pre-school, grade school, high school, college, university, vo-tech, seminary, etc.,—but also in the workplace, police, military, medical profession, government, etc., and even in the "church." You can put any title or name you want on it, but it is still the same dialectic (dialogue) process which was first used in a garden called Eden—by the master facilitator of 'change,' i.e., Genesis 3:1-6, 'liberating' two "children" from the Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong disobeying, sinning in the process (Romans 7:14-25)—making the woman and Adam the first 'liberals,' with Adam "throwing the woman under the bus" and the woman the devil in an effort to 'justify' their "self," like a 'liberal,' refusing to admit to and repent of their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. That is the effect dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., "self" 'justification' has upon a person (and a people). It is the platform on which the so called "new" world order stands—it is that "new."

"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 "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure (dopamine emancipation) is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 "Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., who 'justifies' his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes "self," i.e., "human nature" as being equal with, therefore above or greater than, therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority—thus negating the Father's authority, i.e., the fear of God in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand [though there be consensus with others], he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

"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, 16

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4

Instead of reading, listening to, studying, and following after men and their opinion of the Word of God, letting your flesh (carnal desires of the 'moment,' including your natural desire for the affirmation of men) direct your steps (dying in your sins), read, listen to, and study the Word of God itself, humbling, denying, dying to your "self" daily, picking up your cross (enduring the rejection of men, including your "friends"—you will never go deeper into the Word of God than your "friendship"/"relationship" with others will allow you), following after the Son of God, Jesus Christ, having faith in and obeying God, doing the Father's will, walking in the Spirit, (giving your life to the Lord) letting the Lord direct your steps/paths (inheriting eternal life). "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "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 "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 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin [your "lusts," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., of your flesh and eyes and your pride of life, 'justifying' your "self"] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, through faith] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10 "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3