The Dialectic (dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) Process:
breaking it down for you.
by
Dean Gotcher
Two plus two is four and can not be any other number—four is always the right number (absolutely) and therefore all other numbers are always wrong (absolutely). Despite its application (what it is applied to and the outcome) the "formula" is always the same (absolute, i.e., observable and repeatable).
The following is the "formula" of the dialectic process (the process of dialogue, i.e., 'reasoning' from your "feelings") which adds your "feelings" (your opinion, i.e., your "sense experience," i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions - from the past and in the present) to the formula of right and wrong—resulting in your "feelings" (your opinion, i.e., your "sense experiences" - past and present) always determining whether the answer is (or outcome is going to be) right or wrong (relative to the situation that stimulated your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., is observable and "definable," but not being absolute, i.e., established, i.e., not always repeatable as in the laws of nature). It is here that the difference between discussion (where doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) and dialogue (where right and wrong are subject to your "feelings," i.e., your opinion, i.e., your "sense experiences" - past and present, i.e., your desires, i.e., your "self interest") come into play. Dialogue ties you to your "feelings" and the world which stimulates them (including other's "feelings"), i.e., makes everything subjective while discussion holds you (and others) accountable to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which is objective (not subject to your or their "feelings"). You discuss belief (I know). You dialogue theory (I thing, i.e., I feel). In essence faith (absolute) is negated in dialogue (other than faith in your own opinion, i.e., your "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, which is actually sight, making everything subject to your carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world that is stimulating them). It is why we tried our best, with our "Why?" to get our parents into dialogue when they gave us a command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., "You can not go out." that got in the way of our carnal desires of the 'moment' which the world (our friends outside who are waiting for us) were stimulating. If we went into discussion with them or they said (in response to our effort to get them into dialogue) "Because I said so," cutting off dialogue, the chances were we did not get our way, i.e., get to go out and play with our friends. In that case we, in rebellion, continued the dialogue (with our "self") 'justifying' our desire over and therefore against their authority.
This is why dialogue is so important to socialists. It is the tool whereby they can 'liberate' us, and therefore their "self" from authority, which holds them accountable to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
It is not that we do not dialogue. We do. We dialogue with our "self" (and with others) what we want ("feel like," i.e., desire) to eat at lunch, that is on the menu. Conversely, we discuss with our "self" (and with others) why we should or should not eat the item listed on the menu, based upon knowing whether it is good (right) for us to eat it or not, i.e., whether it is bad (wrong) for us to eat it. If we know that is bad (wrong) for us to eat it but we go to dialogue in deciding whether to eat it or not instead (because we want to eat it), we will more than likely end up eating what is not good (what is wrong or bad) for us to eat, 'justifying' our "self," i.e., our desire of the 'moment' so we can eat it without having a guilty conscience. That is the power of dialogue.
The way we communicate with one another carries this same distinction between commands, rules, facts, and truth, which are absolute, i.e., established, i.e., known, i.e., unchanging and opinions, i.e., theories which are relative, i.e., speculative, i.e., unknown, i.e., readily changeable (adaptable to 'change'). When we discuss things with one another we are dealing with established commands, rules, facts, and truth, and therefore are concerned with having or coming to the right answer, i.e., not being wrong. On the other hand, when we dialogue with our "self" and/or with others, we are dealing with our "feelings," i.e., our opinion which is subject to our life experience, which is subject to our love of pleasure, which the world stimulates, and our hate of restraint—which gets in the way of pleasure—making that which makes us "feel good" right or good and that which makes us "feel bad" wrong or evil, making right and wrong relative, situational, subjective, i.e., making life "of and for self."
Discussion therefore requires us to set aside our "feelings," i.e., our opinion, i.e., our desires, i.e., our "self interest" and listen to and present (persuade with) commands, rules, facts, and truth, in order to arrive at the right answer, with reasoning proceeding from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, and concerned with arriving at establishing commands, rules, facts, and truth that are right (and not wrong)—making change or compromise difficult if not impossible—while dialogue requires us to set aside, i.e., suspend, as upon a cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth that inhibits or blocks dialogue, i.e., that hurts our (and/or the other's) "feelings"—making 'change' of commands, rules, facts, and truth (for the sake of "feelings," i.e., desires, including "building relationships") easy. Discussion is: "This is the only right answer, and here is why." Dialogue is: "Make me 'feel good' (quite preaching to me—quite telling me that I am wrong, that I am a sinner, etc., i.e., quite hurting my "feelings") and I will listen to you."
I will leave it up to you to fill in where and how dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' is being applied in your life and how it "affects" you and those around you. It is very "affective," replacing facts and truth with "feelings," i.e., opinions, where right and wrong are subject to the persons carnal desires of the 'moment'—with "right" being pleasure and "wrong" being anyone or anything (including two plus two always equaling four and no other number) getting in the way of pleasure. When policy is made through dialogue, instead of discussion, "rule of law" is negated, i.e., "right and wrong" are made subject to the carnal desires of the 'moment' of the person who is in authority—who is getting, i.e., seducing, deceiving, and manipulating everyone into dialoguing with him.
"[W]e 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." "By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative process . . . change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions [the inscription on Karl Marx's tombstone is his famous quote, "the objective is change" (Feuerbach Thesis # 11]." "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective ["feelings" based] objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [with the "teacher," by creating a "safe place/zone/space," i.e., a "positive" environment in the classroom, "helping" the students, i.e., "the group" feel free to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parents established commands, rules, facts, and truth which gets in the way of their "building relationship" with one another, thereby 'justifying' their questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority when they get home] and getting them to discuss issues [share their "feelings," i.e., their love of pleasure, which the world stimulates and their hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the parent's authority which gets in the way, in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., group affirmation (fear of rejection), resulting in "the group" learning to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority in the process (I know I repeated this but it bears repeating)—which is the basis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the enlightenment]." "The affective domain [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a "box" full of evils, which once opened, i.e., once 'liberated' from their parents authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority can not be closed].'" "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) All teachers are certified and schools accredited based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom and the school system.
The dialectic process is you dialoguing with your "self" (and with others—if/when/where it is "safe"), i.e., 'justifying' your "self," making pleasure (dopamine emancipation)—which "feels good"—the standard, i.e., the 'drive' of and 'purpose' for life, answering the question: "Why am I here?"—which, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is based upon your "feelings" of the 'moment' and the situation stimulating them. By 'justifying' your love of pleasure—which the world stimulates—and your hate of restraint—which follows naturally—(which all men have in common) you make "self" good, i.e., God—the source from which to know right from wrong, good from evil. Karl Marx summed it up this way: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In contemporary terms, "If it feels good, just do it." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) In other words the "actual" world, i.e., the "real" world is only knowable through your "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world, making your natural love of pleasure and hate of restraint the medium through which you are to determine what is "good" and what is "evil," with pleasure being "good," missing out on pleasure being "evil." "Self" can therefore only be actualized in a world of pleasure, 'liberated' from restraint, i.e., 'liberated' from the traditions, standards, and customs (commands, rules, facts, and truth), i.e., barriers, boundaries, and borders of the "past."
"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 Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
As the Marxists (Transformational Marxist) György Lukács explained it: "for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Immanuel Kant, with Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud following in thought, summed up the dialectic process with the phrase "lawfulness without law," or the law of the flesh, stimulated by the world, without the law of God, which is not of (subject to) the flesh and the world. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Dialectic 'reasoning' makes knowledge "subjective," i.e., subject to the persons "feelings" ("sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., his carnal desires) of the 'moment' which only the world stimulates, negating objective truth, i.e., knowledge which is external to the persons "feelings" of the 'moment,' requiring faith. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) We either discuss with our "self," i.e., in "the empty space," commands, rules, facts, and truth which we have been taught and accepted as is ("KNOW"), in order to do right and not wrong, or we dialogue with our "self," i.e., in "the empty space," our "feelings," i.e., our carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' which the world (situation) stimulates, in order to enjoy pleasure and avoid or remove pain. The objective of dialectic 'reasoning' is therefore to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) God warns us of the consequences of such praxis. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee . . .: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28, 32 Children (born and unborn), men, and women pay the price when dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "lawfulness without law" occupies the thoughts and controls the actions of those who rule over them, i.e., who they follow.
The Word of God warns us of Marx's (and Maslow's) 'logic': "Ye are they which justify yourselves [your love of pleasure and hate of restraint] before men [before one another]; but God knoweth your hearts [which are deceitful, thinking pleasure is the standard for good instead of doing God's will, and desperately wicked, hating restraint (and the restrainer)]: for that which is highly esteemed among men [love of "self," i.e., love of pleasure over love of God] is abomination in the sight of God [once the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates becomes the standard (and goal) of life the wickedness of your heart (hate of restraint) has no bounds (limits)—controlled only by that which engenders or promises to engender pleasure, i.e., the things of the world]." Luke 16:15
God is not against pleasure, he created it in us. He, as a father who loves his children, gives us things in the world to have pleasure with. He is only against us loving pleasure over (and therefore against) Him, i.e., over (and therefore against) His commands, rules, facts, and truth, as a child refusing to put the toy up, i.e., refusing to set pleasure aside in order to obey the parent, i.e., in order to do the father's will. By making your "self," i.e., your heart's desire. i.e., pleasure not only the 'drive' of life' but the 'purpose' of life as well, i.e., the goal of life, deceitfulness and wickedness, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., "human (your carnal) nature" rules over your life.
In the dialectic process, not only is love of pleasure "loosed," hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority is "loosed" as well—one follows the other, i.e., hate is engendered from love. "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, i.e., having to set aside pleasure, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to "self" in order to do God the Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth], and desperately wicked [hating God the Father and His authority which "gets in the way," i.e. which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which the world stimulates]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' as a child of disobedience ('justifying' their "self") can not see their hatred toward God the Father as being evil because their love of "self," i.e., their love of pleasure—which the world stimulates—is "in the way," blinding them to the truth of the deceitfulness and wickedness of their heart.
"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 There is no synthesis, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' proclaim. There is only antithesis ("God and mammon"). Those of the dialectic process have only one venue, that of seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all men, women, and children (as natural resource aka "human resource"), convincing them that they will not be held accountable before God for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for their disobedience to God, i.e., for their sins. 'Justifying' their "self" they make all men subject to their "self" and the world only instead—"good" therefore being defined by your "good works" toward others (making others "feel good") instead of the works of God alone (with God, who alone is good, making them "good" by His works, i.e., by His mercy and grace alone). "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
Only by humbling, denying, dying to your "self," picking up your cross (willingly accepting/enduring the rejection of men, i.e., rejecting/setting aside the pleasure which comes with the approval/affirmation of men, doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will instead) and following after Jesus, doing as he does, i.e., doing the Father's will, can you see ("KNOW") the truth, i.e., be 'liberated' from the dialectic process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification, i.e., loving pleasure and hating restraint (and the restrainer). As Jesus said: "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." John 5:30 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23 Jesus came, in obedience to the Father, to 'redeem' us from the Father's judgment upon us for our sins (damnation), paying the price instead (imputing his righteousness to us according to faith), in order for us, through his resurrection from the grave, to be 'reconciled' to the Father, that we might partake in His Holiness, doing the Father's will. "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 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "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 7:21 The gospel messages is all about the Father and His authority and the Son's obedience to Him and it, with us "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 10:5
It is therefore clear to see the intent of those who 'reason' dialectically, i.e., those who 'justify' their "self" over and therefore against the Father's authority. Karl Marx, correlating the "Holy family" structure with the "earthly family" structure (both being the same)—with the children having to humble, deny, die to their "self" in order (as in old world order) to do the father's/Father's will—and then rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority system, rejected the earthly father's authority system as well. He wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's carnal thoughts and actions (behavior)—it is here that dialogue becomes the focus of attention, i.e., the means to 'change,' i.e., 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
In other words, it is not that God created man, it is that man created God by honoring and obeying Him. As Marx explained it: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e., the parent, the teacher, the boss, the ruler, and/or God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, thus, according to Karl Marx, "empowering" the father/Father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)] Sigmund Freud (as explained by Herbart Marcuse in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) followed in Marx's footsteps, declaring war on the father's/Father's authority: "the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father," "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." Georg Hegel, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, established the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority as well. He wrote: "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 he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority—so he can be his "self" again, carnal, of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth (and threat of judgment for disobedience) came into his life]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) All of philosophy and psychology is based upon this one thing, the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of men.
Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'—'liberating' man from God the Father's authority, i.e., blinding him to the judgment (damnation) which lies ahead (because of his unrepentant heart)—leaves him in his sins. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
The dialectic process is not academic(s) or scientific, as some would like you to believe, but spiritual. The Word of God calls it "so called science." 1 Timothy 6:20 It is not how far down its pathway you have traveled, i.e., "I'm not as bad as he is." it is that you are on it in the first place. Like stepping in a pig pen, one step on (in) it, you stink. All of society now smells of it. Do you? Do your children?
When you make pleasure the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life (making having a "better life" more important than doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, no matter the cost to you) you have to make others "feel" good, requiring you (and them) to be "positive," i.e., build relationship upon what you and they have in common, i.e. upon that which you and they "like"—"building relationship upon common self interest." Therefor, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' you (and they) must reject the "negative," i.e., leave the father's/Father's authority out (which divides you from them and them from you), turning against it when it appears in your life.
What has happened to the traditional family in America and around the world has not happened by accident. Since the garden, the negation of the father's/Father's authority (in the thoughts and actions of men) has been the only objective of those who 'reason' dialectically, i.e., who 'justify' their "self" before one another. Psychologists, psychotherapists, and facilitators of 'change,' as 'liberals,' i.e., socialists (no matter what they might say, i.e., even though they might denying it) have only one agenda, 'liberating' children (and thus themselves) from the father's/Father's authority. It lies at the heart of their profession. It all goes back to the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6), where the first (master) psychotherapist, i.e., facilitator of 'change' helped two "children" 'liberate' their "self" from the "father's/Father's" authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11) and the guilty conscience which it engenders (Romans 7:14-25). Psychology is based upon the garden experience of 'liberation' from the Father's authority, i.e., disobedience, i.e., questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority. "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "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) Philosophers think the same way, questioning what "is," i.e., questioning the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how the world "ought" to be, i.e., where they can do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and planning how it "can" be, once the father/Father and his/His authority is negated, i.e., "out of the way." "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." (Erich Fromm, You shall be as gods: A radical interpretation of the old testament and its tradition)
The battle lines are clear. Even those promoting the dialectic process know the consequences of rejecting the Father's authority, yet reject it. "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [the Word of God, i.e., the authority of the Father], then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) Their agenda is instead to get rid of sin as an issue by making "human nature" the "norm" ('liberating' the sinner from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "human"). As Marx put it: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [in a world where the Word of God is preached and taught in the home and in the community, making man "feel bad"], Critical Criticism [questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father's/Father's authority, i.e. replacing the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth with dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., using "higher order thinking skills" (which are used on material things) as the means to establishing "valid" morals and ethics] must set up a sinful world in its own home ['rationally' making sensuousness , i.e. the child's carnal nature, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint the "drive" of life and its augmentation the "purpose"]." "Critical Criticism [children questioning parental authority, i.e. 'justifying' their carnal desires of the 'moment'] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)
As odd as it may seem, 'change,' i.e., the dialectic process resides in the child's "Why?"—in response to the father's/Father's command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of the child's desire of the 'moment.' The child's "Why?" (in response to a command or rule) is the child's effort to get the father/Father into dialogue. There is not father's/Father's authority in dialogue. In dialogue communication between people is based upon their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., their desire for relationship. Therefore in dialogue the father has to negate, i.e., set aside or suspend, as upon a cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of dialogue, i.e., that gets in the way of "building relationship" with the child—resulting in the child, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, free to relate with the world, and the father, 'liberated' from his authority, free to relate with the child and therefor the world. Thus in dialogue both the child and the father/Father become "equal" in the 'moment,' at-one-with the world and their carnal nature (that which they have in common), negating the father's authority in the process.
The common denominator found in the dialectic process is the negation of the father's/Father's authority—in the thoughts and actions ("theory and practice") of the next generation, making their "self" god, i.e., "good" in their own eyes. "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual [to the child]; that the purposes of society ["the group"] and of his own become identical." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other [through dialogue], they experience the common ground of their existence [their love of pleasure, which the world stimulates, and hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) "Authoritarian submission [having to humble, deny, die to "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] 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." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism, under God], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed [why all who support the father's authority, i.e., "rule of law" are called fascist, racists, etc.,] that a search for correlates of prejudice [right-wrong] had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship 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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "Bloom's Taxonomies," from which all teachers are certified and school accredited today, regard Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno as their "Weltanschauung" (world view). They acknowledge the affect they have upon the students when they get home from school, i.e., from their participation in the dialectic 'reasoning,' "self" 'justifying,' "group grade" classroom: "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) This contempt toward the father's/Father's authority carries over into the college classroom: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."(Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Our highest courts, using men like James Coleman ("Equality of Opportunity"), have made laws which negate the father's/Father's authority in education, establishing dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' as the objective of education, i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, which includes group affirmation (socialism) as the standard for education instead. "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) Once the parent's buy into this ideology (due to social pressure and socialist laws) the father's authority in the home is "moribund." "Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) The moment the classroom curriculum included the child's opinion, i.e., "feelings," i.e., affective domain, regarding personal-social issues, the parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority was under attack.
The dialectic process is explained in 1 John 2:16, i.e., "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." The dialectic process, which is the praxis of "self" 'justification,' is used to resolve the conflict and tension (antithesis) between the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's desire for ("lusting" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which is stimulated by the world, and the father's/Father's authority which "gets in the way." The child's carnal nature is subjective to him, making the world, which stimulates it (in pleasure) his "ground of being" while the father's/Father's authority, restraining the child's carnal nature, is objective (foreign or external) to him—until he accepts and embraces it himself. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the aid of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the praxis of "self" 'justification' the child will end up finding his identity in the father/Father (doing right and not wrong, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will) instead of in the world (approaching pleasure avoiding pain, i.e., being his "self"). The dialectic process uses dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., dialogue to 'justify' the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's established commands, rules facts and truth—which have to be accepted as is (written or spoken), by faith. Since the child's carnal nature is common to all children, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's desire for ("lusting" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and his or her hate of restraint, i.e., his or her hate of missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (because he or she has to do the father's/Father's will instead) is 'justified.'
Therefore, 'justifying' the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, dialectic 'reasoning' affectively negates the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions ("theory and practice") of the child, negating the child having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father in the process. In essence, by using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, i.e., focusing upon what you have in common with the world, i.e. ,the child's carnal nature, i.e, your carnal desires ("feelings") of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world around you, you are blinded to what makes you different from the world—the father's/Father's authority, i.e., knowing right from wrong, i.e., having a clear conscience for doing right and not wrong, i.e., having a guilty conscience for doing wrong and not right, according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth. The only option the child has, when he has done wrong, disobeyed, sinned against the father/Father is either to repent before the father/Father or, using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, 'justify' his "self," i.e., 'justify' his carnal nature, establishing his "self," i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. Anything in between—accepting the father's/Father's authority while doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father—leaves him with a guilty conscience.
The objective of dialectic 'reasoning' (dialogue) is to exclude (leave out, reject, remove) any information or behavior (considered "inappropriate" or "negative" information or behavior) that supports the father's/Father's authority, that engenders a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, encouraging (inserting, approving, supporting) only that information or behavior (considered "appropriate" or "positive" information or behavior) that supports the child's carnal behavior instead, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that all can be of and for the world only. While the father's/Father's authority is initiated and sustained with the preaching, teaching, discussing, and enforcing of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus seeks to negate the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. It has no other 'drive' than the child's carnal nature, no other 'purpose' than 'liberating' the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority. The dialectic process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,'' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—so all who love the world, i.e., who are filled with "the pride of life," can "lust" after the things of the world without "feeling bad" about their "self," i.e., needing to repent before the father/Father for their wrong doing, disobedience, sins.
"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2: 15 While the father/Father can love the child while hating the child's carnal behavior, having to chasten the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning or cast him out for questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, hating him/Him and his/His authority, the carnal minded child can not separate his love of pleasure and hate of the father/Father and his/His authority. Thus those of dialectic 'reasoning,' "loving the world," i.e. loving their carnal nature, i.e., hating the father's/Father's authority can not have "the love of the Father" in them. It is through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue (with his "self" and with others) the child 'justifies' his "self," i.e., 'justifies' his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, 'liberating' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority in thought and action, negating any "love of the Father" in him. Dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint sides with the flesh—loves the world. Humbling, denying, dying to "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will sides with the father/Father—has "the love of the Father." All of the "ology's" of and for the world side with the carnal nature of the child, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process.
Dialectic 'reasoning' can be explained by the following formula ((A + B) - A) = B, where A is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth and B is the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., the child's desire for ("lusting" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and his or her hate of restraint, i.e., hate of missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, having to do the father's/Father's will instead. Since the earthly father, like the child in nature, is of the flesh and therefore "lusts" after the things of the world as well, he is (A + B). As long as the father retains his authority (A) over his "self," as well as over the child, he and the child can not be "equal," i.e., Antithesis remains. Synthesis, i.e., Fraternité, i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony" can only be found in the child's carnal nature (B)—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority.
The child and the father can only become equal (B) as the father, through the use of dialogue, suspends his commands, rules, facts, and truth, as on a cross, i.e., abdicates his authority to enforce them (- A) in order to initiate and sustain relationship (dialogue) with his "self" and with the child (B). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' only by the father negating his authority system in the home or being removed from society itself can there be a world of liberté, égalité, fraternité, i.e., a world liberated from the father's authority, a world where all are equal according to the child's carnal nature, i.e., according to the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, which all men, women, and children have in common, and a world of consensus, having a "feeling" of "oneness," initiating and sustaining a "new" world order 'driven' by the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure (instead of having to do the father's/Father's will, which is of the "old" world order) and a world 'purposed' in augmenting the child's carnal nature, i.e., pleasure (instead of having to do right and not wrong according to the established commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father), engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., a world void of the father's/Father's authority, where all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity—as in the days of Noah.
(A + B) does not equal B.
(A + B) - A equals B
The earthly father (A + B) is either benevolent or tyrannical based upon how much he is willing to humble, deny, die to his "self," i.e., humble, deny, die to the child's carnal nature (B), i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint in his "self," in order to do right and not wrong according to the Father's will (A) or 'justifies' his "self," i.e., 'justifies' B, i.e., 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint in himself. The more the earthly father, while retaining his position of authority (A), embraces the child's carnal nature, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint (B), the more tyrannical he becomes, insisting upon his way without showing mercy, forgiveness, or grace (love) toward the child. The more the father holds his "self" accountable to the Father's authority (who, while hating the father's sinful nature, loves the father, chastening him that he might do right, obey, not sin) the more the earthly father is benevolent (loving) toward the child (while hating the child doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, loving the child, chastening the child that he might do right and not wrong, obey, not sin).
The earthly father's authority (A + B) engenders a condition known as "belief-action dichotomy"—since he knows and teaches right from wrong (A), yet, as a child (B), does wrong, disobeys, sins, having to either repent, i.e., humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to do right and not wrong or, using dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justify' his "self," i.e., 'justify' his carnal thoughts and carnal actions. Yet, retaining A, i.e., accountability to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, and therefore a fear of being judged for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning himself, he retains a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' this conflict between the father's belief and his carnal nature, called "belief-action dichotomy" is the cause of "neurosis"—where the father (as well as the obedient child, having embraced his father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., his father's authority) is caught between either doing right and not wrong, i.e., doing the Father's will or being his "self," i.e., loving ("lusting" after) the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and hating restraint, feeling guilty for being his "self" when his "feelings" ("lusts") come into conflict with established commands, rules, facts, and truth—which he has accepted as is (by faith). "Lust" is not "lust," it is only "human nature," i.e., the "norm" when there is not father's/Father's authority. "Neurosis," according to dialectic 'reasoning,' can only be negated by getting the father, as well as the child to set aside the father's authority system (A) so they can be their "self," so they can become at-one-with the world in pleasure, initiating and sustaining relationship with one another based upon what they have in common, i.e. the carnal nature of the child (B), so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be their "self," i.e., be of and for the world only without having a guilty conscience—overcoming "neurosis" ("mental illness") in the process. You either, humbling, denying, dying to your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, accept the father's/Father's authority—having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (therefore repenting)—or you, 'justifying' your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your carnal nature, i.e., 'justifying' your love of ("lusting" after) pleasure and hate of restraint, negate the father's/Father's authority—so you can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. Dialectic 'reasoning' does the latter.
By getting the father to focus upon the child's carnal nature (the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint)—recognizing that his carnal nature (his love of pleasure and hate of restraint) and the child's carnal nature (the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint) are one and the same in nature—the father's/Father's authority is negated (- A)—resulting in the father and the child both becoming "of and for self" i.e., of and for the world (B) only ("Boys will be boys."). "Belief-action dichotomy," i.e., "neurosis" is overcome only by the father (along with the child) using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification,' replacing the father's/Father's authority system with "theory and practice," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "normalcy"—where both the father's and the child's thoughts and actions are of and for the world only, i.e., are "of and for self" only. With both father and child no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, they are both able to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be their "self," i.e., be of and for the world only with impunity—engendering a culture which has homes without a father, i.e., homes void of a father's/Father's authority.
What we have today, as a result of dialectic 'reasoning,' is a world of forty year olds playing with toys, acting as children, totally absorbed in their "self," hating anyone who gets in their way. While in the "old" world order parent's raised their child up to do right and not wrong, despite what might come their way, in the "new" world order they raise them up to have a "better life," resulting in marriage vows no longer being "for better or for worse" only, but adding "or until something better comes along."
Dialectic 'reasoning' is thus the child (including the child in the father) 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his carnal nature before others. It is his "self" being "esteemed" (affirmed) by others, who in doing so "esteem" (affirm) their "self" as well. Look at the world around you today. You can see dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification," i.e., dialogue being put into practice (praxis) everywhere—negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—even in the "church."
It is quite simple. If you start with A, making the Father's authority (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) the focus of attention, then B, the child's carnal nature ("feelings") becomes subordinate to A. But if you start with B, making the child's carnal nature ("feelings") the focus of attention, then A (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) is negated. Since A, the father's/Father's authority gets in the way of B, the child's carnal nature, A, the father's/Father's authority is negative to B, the child. The dialectic process establishes "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, thereby (through the use of dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification') negating that which is negative, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. It is therefore called "the negation of negation" (- A). "Being positive and not negative" is all about using dialogue, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self " 'justification' in order to negate the father's/Father's authority (there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue), making all "equal" according to the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," "all that is in [and of] the world"—'creating' a "new" world order which is void of "the Father" and His authority.
The "Christ" of the "new" world order is in fact a Fatherless Christ, an anti-Christ, whose focus is upon 'liberating' the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" from the Father's authority, 'redeeming' us from the Father, 'reconciling us to our "self" and the world so we can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, dying in our sins. The true Christ came to 'redeem' us from our "self," i.e., from damnation, i.e., from eternal death, 'reconcile' us to the Father, that we might do the Father's will and inherit eternal life. The gospel is all about the Father's love for us. He is why Jesus came, that we might know His love for us, that we might have fellowship with Him. "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' negates the gospel message (the Father's authority), turning the "gospel" into man's love of "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, dying in his sins.
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) If A—through dialogue 'discovering' B in its "self"—willingly abdicates A in order to "build relationship" with B, B is 'liberated' from A, making all B. If the father/Father—through dialogue 'discovering' the child in his/His "self"—willingly abdicates his/His authority in order to "build relationship" with the child, the child is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, making all "of and for the child," i.e., all "of and for self." If this formula (dialoguing opinions to a consensus) is put into practice (praxis) at all times and in all places, A (the father's/Father's authority) becomes negated from the face of the earth, 'creating' a "new" world order with B (the child's carnal nature) in control. "For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) With A, the father's/Father's authority in control, dividing the B, the children from one another because of A's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which restrain B, the child's carnal nature, i.e., what all children have in common, B, the child's carnal nature can not become the law of the land. "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "The key to the nature of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation [negation of the father's/Father's authority]." "If there is a universal neurosis [where a person is caught between his belief and satisfying his carnal desires, i.e., "lusts" which are antithetical to his belief], it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion [God, the Father's authority]." "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." "Freud's finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'" "By 'dialectical' I mean an activity of consciousness struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction" "Common to all of them [Freud, Hegel, Marx] is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The dialectic ["self" 'justification,' dialogue] will go on until we reach the absolute whole, that which includes everything within itself [is "of and for self" and the world only], and so cannot possibly depend upon anything outside itself [upon the father/Father, i.e. upon the parent/God] ." (Frederick Beiser, Hegel)
There have been voices in the past warning us of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., that man, 'justifying' his "self," can become "good" by doing "good works," i.e., that since pleasure "feels good," pleasure is the standard for "good"—rather than good coming from God alone. Only God is good, with all good things proceeding from Him alone. Martin Luther, rejecting Aristotle's ethics, that man can become "good" through doing "good works," which the Catholic "church" embraced, wrote: "These are dialectical phantasies or opinions, that man can without the Holy Spirit love God above all things. ... They likewise said that human nature is untainted. All these ideas come from ignorance of original sin." (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV) Rene Fulop-Miller, exposing the corruption of the apostate (Catholic) church, wrote: To "purge [man] of sin with all the aids of the dialectics [of "self" 'justification'], therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny." (Rene Fulop-Miller, The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits)
Dialectic 'reasoning' is dependent upon the carnal nature of the child and is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority.
Georg Hegel: "The child [B], 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 ." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In other words: "The child" i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., B ("lusting" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and hating restraint and the restrainer, i.e., hating A, i.e., the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way of pleasure) "is the absolute," "is enduring and everlasting," is "the totality," which can "produce itself once again as such," as the child (B) is 'liberated' from the father's authority (A), i.e., only as the child learns to 'justify' his "self," i.e., establishes his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint (that which he has in common with all the children of the world—the foundation of common-ism) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (A), negating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth so he can be his "self" again ("of and for B," i.e., "of and for self" only, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only), as he was before the father's/Father's (A's) first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (getting in the way of pleasure).
While the "earthly father" and the "Heavenly Father" are different in nature, one of the flesh (B, below) the other spirit (A, above), they are both the same in structure or paradigm, i.e., patriarchal.
Hebrews 12:5-11: "Furthermore we have had fathers [A] of our flesh [+ B making them (A + B)] which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits [A, not of the flesh, i.e., not of B], and live? For they [(A + B)] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure [(+ B)]; but he [A - B] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness."
If A is "the Father of spirits," i.e., "chastening the child that he might partake of his holiness," and (A + B) is the "father of the flesh," "chastening the child after his own pleasure" (B) and B is the carnal nature of the child, i.e., of the flesh, i.e., loving pleasure and hating restraint, then the child (B), embracing the father's authority (A), i.e., becoming like the father (A + B). i.e., the earthly father in this case, developing a guilty conscience in his "self" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, can only be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority (A) by negating the A, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in himself, negating the guilty conscience in his "self" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. Remove (negate) A, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "negative" in the thoughts of the child (B) and all you have is B, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the "positive"—that which we all have in common. As you will see there is only B (no A) in dialogue and only A (no B) in discussion. Through dialogue, having to suspend, as on a cross, any commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of dialogue, we 'discover' what we have in common in the flesh. In discussion we present our position, commands, rules, facts, and truth without compromise, attempting to persuade the other person to accept our position—based upon facts and truth. This is why children (B) ask their father (A) "Why?"—in order to get their father into dialogue (and win the day)—when the father tells them to do something they do not want to do or tells them they can not do something they want to do. And this is why the father responds with "Because I said so" in order to retain his position of authority (A). The dialectic process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus is all about negating the father's/Father's authority (A). It is through dialogue we 'discover' what we have in common with one another, i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint—which is the bases of common-ism—negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., that which divides us from our "self" and from the world, in the process. Through dialogue, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' with others the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is likewise negated. This is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in mind.
The father's/Father's reasoning, i.e., reasoning from his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's restraints begin with his/His love for the child—loving the child, only hating the child's doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, having to judge the child for his or her actions (and in the heavenly Father's case for his or her thoughts). The child's 'reasoning,' on the other hand, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' begins with (is triggered by) his or her hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority, making the Father's/Father's reasoning unreasonable, irrational, impractical, therefore irrelevant in the thoughts of the carnally minded, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' child.
If B is your natural desire to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'' which the world stimulates and A is established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which is to be accepted as is and obeyed (by faith), engendering a guilty conscience (accountability) within you whenever you do wrong, disobey, sin, then the only way you can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, without having a guilty conscience (accountability) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is to negate A, i.e., negate established commands, rules, facts, and truth (and anyone preaching, teaching, discussing, and enforcing them) which get in the way—treating A, with his/His commands, rules, facts and truth as being irrational, unreasonable, impractical, etc., and therefore irrelevant, i.e., whatever happens to A is A's own fault for getting in the way (with B treating A with indifference, i.e.., with a "hard heart," i.e., with a heart of hate).
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure (B) is the standard for "good" instead of (A) doing right and not wrong according to A's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating A for preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking B from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires, i.e., preventing B from having and enjoying what it thinks it "deserves" (or is "due")]: who can know it [B can not see its hatred toward A as being evil because its love of pleasure, i.e., love of "self" and the world which stimulates it is in the way—blinding it to the truth]?" Jeremiah 17:9
"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. 1 John 2: 15 B can not know A's love (for it), thus it can not have "the love of the Father" in it without getting "self," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint out of the way, i.e., denying, humbling, dying to "self," in order to do A's will. When B keeps "self" in the way, it can only see "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., its "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience," i.e., "all that is in [and of] the world," i.e., "only that which proceeds from nature," i.e., only that which is "rational," "reasonable," "practical," to "self," i.e., only that which is "of and for self" as being "good." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)
B, by 'justifying' its "self," i.e., 'justifying' its love of pleasure, automatically 'justifies' its hatred toward A (for getting in the way of pleasure). B, not seeing its hate as being evil, perceives its hatred toward A as being "good," i.e., 'justified.' A, on the other hand, does not hate B. A only hates B's way of thinking and acting, i.e., B's praxis of "justifying itself before others," i.e., "esteeming" its "self"—based upon B's and others love of pleasure and hate of restraint.
"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 B as being equal with, therefore above or greater than, therefore against A, thus negating A's authority in B's thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3
By simply replacing discussion (facts and truth, i.e., belief-faith/knowing, i.e., doing right and not wrong, which is formal) with dialogue ("feelings," i.e., opinion/theory, i.e., loving pleasure and hating restraint, which is informal, i.e., which all people have in common and can readily relate to—Facebook, i.e., "like"-unlike, "friend-unfriend") A, i.e., doing right and not wrong is negated, negating the guilty conscience (accountability) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (without having a sense of guilt or a sense of accountability for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions). This is why 'liberal's,' i.e., socialists always attempt to move discussion (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts and truth) into dialogue (dialoging opinions to a consensus), i.e., remove discussion (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts and truth) so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with no sense of accountability, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience.
"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself [his "self"] in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." (Psalms 36:1-4)
When you make B the focus, i.e., the 'drive' of life, you make the 'purpose' of life B's 'liberation' from A. In this way of thinking, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' thinking from "feelings," i.e., from B's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, instead of from A, i.e., from established (known) commands, rules, facts, and truth, B becomes a "victim" in its own eyes, i.e., "repressed" and "alienated" (and hateful towards A, i.e., 'justified' in striking out against, censoring, and removing A) whenever A shows up "demanding its way," i.e., demanding that everyone do right and not wrong, holding them accountable to and judging them according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, engendering (in anyone who will listen) a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, getting in the way of "worldly peace and socialist harmony."
"And for this cause [because B, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., 'justify' their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, thereby 'justifying' their hatred toward the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
And you thought the dialectic (dialogue) process was just academics, something to be applied to the "secular" world. It is in truth spiritual, washing your mind of A's authority in the "here and now," "helping" you determine where you will spend eternity in the "then and there."
"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:38, 39
A is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the father/Father 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted, as is, by faith, and discussing (at A's discretion) any questions or disagreements which B (the child) might have (providing B is old enough to understand, i.e., is capable of understanding, time permits, and/or he or she is not challenging A's authority), 2) blessing or rewarding B when B does right and/or obeys, 3) chastening B when B does wrong and/or disobeys, in order for B to learn to do right and/or obey 4) casting B out when B questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks A's authority.
B is the child's carnal nature, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., the child's natural desire to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates and his natural hate of restraint and the restrainer, i.e., hating A when A gets in the way of pleasure, i.e., in the way of B's "self interest." "Self" is wrapped up in the child's carnal nature, i.e., in the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint.
If we focus upon A (the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong), insisting upon B (the child, with his or her carnal desires of the 'moment') obeying, i.e., submitting to A, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to "self" in order to do A's will, then we can not arrive at a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., affirmation (all we can affirm is our desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment, which the world stimulates, and our dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, which we all have in common—the basis of common-ism), 'justifying' the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, resulting in (instead) the father (A) remaining in authority over B, i.e., the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature, including the child's carnal nature (B) within the father himself (or maybe not so much—which is the problem—since the father, i.e., A having the child's carnal nature, i.e., B within himself, i.e., (A + B), is, like the child, likewise tempted by the world around him to act like a child, i.e., seeking pleasure over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, resenting restraint, i.e., getting caught, i.e., being held accountable). The distinction between the earthly father, who is of the flesh, i.e., subject to the child's carnal nature, i.e., loving pleasure and hating restraint, yet, unlike anything else in the creation, is created in the image of God, i.e., a living soul, i.e., able to receive from God, as well as give to his children, commands and rules to be obeyed as given, and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, understanding that he will be held accountable by God for his thoughts and actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, holding those under his authority accountable for their rebellious thoughts (voiced, i.e., verbally expressed) and actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as well, and the Heavenly Father who is spirit only, i.e., pure, perfect, and holy. While the earthly father and the Heavenly Father are different in nature/spirit, the office they hold is the same in pattern or system, i.e., a Patriarchal paradigm, with the earthly father, and all that are his, i.e., that are under his authority (below) therefore being subject to the Heavenly Father (above) for direction.
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
Karl Marx, recognizing this distinction and correlation, yet rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority, wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's personal thoughts and social actions (behavior)]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
While the father seeks to place his A, i.e., his way of thinking (believing) and acting in the child, by 1) giving the child commands and rules to obeyed as given and facts and truth to accept as given, by faith, 2) rewarding, 3) chastening, or 4) casting him out (or threatening to do so) for his behavior, i.e., holding him accountable for his actions, which is the pattern found in Hebrews 12:5-11—creating a guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, as is explained in Romans 7:14-25—those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self justification"—following after the pattern of Genesis 3:1-6—coming between the child and the father, encouraging, i.e., "helping" the child focus upon his carnal desires, i.e., his "self interest" of the 'moment, which are stimulated by the world, seek to 'liberate' the child from A, i.e., from the father's authority, i.e., from the father's way of thinking (believing) and acting, in order to 'liberate'' the child (and themselves) from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no sense of guilt.
"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)
But if we focus upon B, i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' encouraging the child to set aside (suspend, as on a cross) A, i.e., his (or her) father's authority, i.e., the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (and the threat of being held accountable for doing wrong, or disobeying) for the sake of B's, i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' then the child's guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is negated. This is also true for the father, since the father has B, i.e., the child's carnal nature within himself as well (the father being A + B in actuality).
If we correlated A and B to political systems, A would be that of commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., rule of law, defending its position of doing right and not wrong according to established standards, and B would be that of emotions, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others into supporting its agenda of satisfying its carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., its "self interests," which are stimulated by the world. While A needs emotions, i.e., compassion on those who are innocent or desire to do right and not wrong, but who have done wrong (repenting and asking for forgiveness), B needs commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "self" restraint in making decisions. Without compassion in A and restraint in B both would rule the world as despots, B ruling as A (Communist, globalists, i.e., replacing discussion with dialogue) and A ruling as B (Fascist, "nationalists," i.e., rejecting discussion and dialogue), both ruling without Godly restraint, serving their own carnal desires, i.e., "self-ish interests," in the name of "the people."
The belief-action dichotomy (between A and B)—the conflict between our desire to receive the father's/Father's approval (blessing), by doing the father's/Father's will and our desire to enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, which produces a guilty conscience in us when we do wrong, disobey, sin—can only be resolved by either humbling, denying, dying to our "self" daily, doing the father's/Father's will (the "old" world order) or "esteeming," i.e., 'justifying' our "self," negating the father's/Father's authority in our thoughts, negating our having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so that we can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (the "new" world order), accomplishing the dialectic formula of ((A + B) - A) = B. The latter is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning, i.e., of "self" 'justification, i.e., of "self actualization," i.e., of the consensus process, negating the father's/Father's authority so all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. There is no father's/Father's authority in "self," i.e. in "self actualization," i.e., in dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., in the consensus process.
It is important to know that a big part of the child's desire for pleasure includes his or her desire for the pleasure which comes with approval from the father (which comes with obeying or doing things right and not wrong, i.e., doing the father's will, i.e., setting his "self-ish" desires aside in order to do his father's will, receiving his father's approval in doing so), which is associated with fellowship. Fellowship is based upon agreement on doctrine, not on feelings, although feelings, i.e., pleasure is a result, i.e., a byproduct). The child's desire for pleasure also includes the pleasure which comes with affirmation (which comes via the child's carnal nature being affirmed by the father and/or others, as a result of the father's and/or other's desire to initiate or sustain relationship, i.e., "feelings" with the child, based upon what he and/or they have in common with the child and the child has in common with him and/or them, i.e., his and/or their carnal nature of loving pleasure and resenting or hating restraint, i.e., hating rejection, i.e., hating alienation). The carnal nature which the father and others have in common with the child, that of approaching ("lusting" after) pleasure and avoiding (resenting) pain, includes the pain (resentment) which comes with missing out on pleasure—which includes the pain (resentment) of being rejected (alienated) by others. In this way, the father, as the child—resenting being held accountable (found guilty) for his carnal thoughts and actions, i.e., nature, i.e., being judged and rejected by others for thinking and doing that which goes counter to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, even those of his own making—tries to 'justify' his "self," i.e., his carnal thoughts and behavior to others in order to keep relationship with them, establishing the carnal pleasures which comes with the respect (affirmation) of men over and therefore against doing the Father's will. In like manner he is willing to set aside (not bring up) commands, rules, facts, and truth which would hurt others "feelings" when they are doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, doing so in order to initiate and/or sustain relationship (affirmation) with them, knowing they would (might) reject him if he held them accountable (judged them) for their actions, in a round about way, 'justifying,' in them, their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process.
"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
By "encouraging" (pressuring) the father (and others holding to the father's way of thinking, i.e., believing and acting) to focus upon the child's "feelings," which the father has within himself as well, finding common identity with the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his hate of restraint, he, along with the child (setting aside, i.e., suspending, as upon a cross the father's authority, i.e., the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and accountability for doing wrong and/or disobeying, i.e., "negativity" that gets in the way of dialogue, i.e., human-ist relationship) can arrive at a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming B, i.e., the child's carnal nature (even in the father), making social relations (social-ism), i.e., "feelings" (which are stimulated by the world) more important than doing right and not wrong (which are established according to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth).
The same can be said and done to a room full of students, each coming from a family whose father's standards, i.e., position of authority, which they depend upon for their identity (as a family member) stand in the way of their common identity with one another, i.e., with "the group," that of loving pleasure and hating restraint. Overcoming the effect of individuals, based upon personal accountability to authority, can only be accomplished through the dialectic, i.e., the dialoging of opinions to a consensus process, where the individual 'discovers' his identity, not in the father's authority, which divides him from his fellow classmates, but in his own carnal nature, which he has in common with them instead. The traditional classroom, with the father's/Father's authority system in place, i.e., with the teacher holding students (individually) accountable to commands, rules, facts, and truth which they have been taught, prevents this from happening. "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child holding his "self" accountable to the father's/Father's authority, doing the father's/Father's will instead of his own] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him [Marx saw the child's act of obedience to the father, which goes counter to his own carnal nature as empowering the father to "repress" him; "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e., the parent, the teacher, the boss, the ruler, and/or God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, thus, according to Karl Marx, "empowering" the father/Father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)] . Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., through dialogue 'discovering' one's identity ("self") in "the group," i.e., in society] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6 Sigmund Freud likewise believed "the individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
As the Marxist, Max Horkheimer explained it: "Protestantism [reasoning from the Word of God, doing the Father's will] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; Reasoning and Self preservation) In other words, man can only save ("preserve") his "self" by using dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., reasoning (even the Word of God) from his "self," i.e., from his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from his own "sense experience," i.e., from what he has in common with all men, "preserving" his "self," i.e., saving his "self" from the Father's authority—even doing so in the name of the Lord (which is antithetical to the gospel message, which is, at its core, all about the Son's obedience to the Father, i.e., doing the Father's will in all things commanded, calling us to do the same, i.e., to deny our "self," endure the rejection of men, and following after him, do His Father's will as well).
While the father can identify with the child's "feelings," he must judge the child according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, only having mercy on the child if the child recognizes his own behavior (when he disobeys the father and/or does wrong) as being wrong, repents (purposes to obey the father/Father and/or do right), and asks for forgiveness. The father, loving the child but not his behavior (unlike the child, being able to distinguish between the two), has to judge the child's behavior, holding the child accountable for his actions if the child is to come to understand the father's love for him (something the child, associating pain with missing out on pleasure, i.e., hating the missing out on pleasure and, at the same time, hating the one responsible for it, can not, from his own "self" understand, i.e., separate his hate of missing out on pleasure from his hating the one standing in the way). For the child, love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer go hand in hand. Thus the child has to humble, deny, die to his "self," i.e., get "self" out of the way in order to understand the father's love for him. In fact, if the child is still dialoguing with his "self" (still 'justifying' the Karl Marx in him) after being chastened by the father/Father, he did not receive the father's/Father's correction, i.e., he is still 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer.
Without the father abdicating (setting aside) his right-wrong, top-down way of thinking and acting, i.e., A, for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship with the child, i.e., B, based upon the child's (and his, i.e., the father's) "feelings" of the 'moment,' consensus (socialist-unity, i.e., worldly peace and socialist harmony) can not become a reality. Principle (doing right and not wrong) has to be replaced with interest ("self interest") if 'change' (of paradigm) is to take place, i.e., if (A + B) is to become B.
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)
This is Georg Hegel's (actually Fichte's) A + -A = A (which is B becoming rigid again i.e., A, needing to do the process over again, ad nauseum for the rest of life until there is no A left) or Thesis plus Antithesis equals Synthesis formula or method, where through dialogue (dialectic 'reasoning') the father and the child 'discover' that their B nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., their natural loving of pleasure and hating of restraint makes them one and the same, i.e., equal. Following after Georg Hegel's emphasis upon the child's carnal nature (making it equal with, therefore establishing it over, and therefore against the father's/Father's authority), Karl Marx worked to remove the father's/Father's authority from society (by killing the fathers outright). Sigmund Freud worked to remove the father's/Father's authority from the child, i.e., from the child's thoughts and actions, thus making Hegel, Marx, and Freud one and the same in the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life, 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority, resulting in children/mankind never having to do the father's/Father's will again. This accomplishes Immanuel Kant's dictum of "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh, i.e., the child's carnal nature without ('liberated' from) the law of God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)
It is this focus upon the carnal nature, i.e., the "sensuous needs," "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience" of the child and the father, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint—which they both have in common—that makes 'liberals,' socialists, common-ists, globalists, psychologists, "group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists, etc., one and the same. Deriving that the 'drive' of life is found in the child's carnal nature, they are 'purposed' in 'liberating' the child's (and the father's) carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberating' man from Godly restraint, even doing so in the name of the Lord. Psychology, for example, falsely defines the soul as being the cognitive (data), affective ("feelings" or emotions), and psychomotor domain (what everything works through) only, i.e., which engenders love of pleasure, which the world stimulates, and hate of restraint, deliberately leaving out our ability (and need) to receive direction, i.e., commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, and facts and truth to accepted as is, by faith, i.e., desiring to do right and not wrong, being held accountable (feeling guilty) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, having peace in the soul for doing right, obeying, not sinning (even if we have missed out on pleasure), or for being forgiven (loved), after repenting.
To "purge [man] of sin with all the aids of the dialectics ["self" 'justification,' i.e., dialogue], therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny." (Rene Fulop-Miller, The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits)
Going over it again, in more detail, A is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, which even the father (A + B, i.e., the child in the father) must obey (which he might not be doing). B is based upon "feelings," i.e., the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" (which are subject to his or her "feelings" of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world—including his or her internal "feelings" of the 'moment,' whether desired or needed, i.e., whether imagined or real). When A rules over B then B, by learning to obey, develops in himself (or herself) an A, i.e., a guilty conscience for doing wrong and/or disobeying, thus preparing himself to become an (A + B) in the future. When we focus upon the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint, making "feelings" the standard for right and wrong, the guilty consciences, i.e., the A in the B, is replaced with the "super-ego," i.e., the "feelings" of the past as well as those of the 'moment,' negating A, the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobey, sinning.
While the father is trying to put an A, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (private convictions) in the child, so that he or she might do right and not wrong in the future, those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' are trying to get the A out of the child so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "human" without having a guilty conscience. "[We] must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding onto doing right, obeying, not sinning, holding others accountable for do wrong, disobey, sin, while privately judging their thoughts, i.e., temptations in order to keep their "self" "under wraps," i.e., in order to not do wrong, disobey, sin] in joint deliberations [in the consensus process] as a vice [as being mentally ill—as being "negative," hateful, hurtful to other's "feelings," divisive, etc.,] rather than a virtue [as being healthy in mind—as being "positive," affirming man's carnal nature)]." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
A, i.e., the father depends upon 1) preaching, teaching, and discussion , 2) blessing, 3) chastening, 4) casting out in order to initiate and sustain his authority. B, i.e., the child depends upon dialogue in order to 'liberate' his "self" from the father's authority. Dialogue, which is based upon our "feelings" of the 'moment,' 'liberates' us from the father's authority, making us all the same (equal) in our "feelings" of the 'moment,' Discussion, where doing right and not wrong is based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth, makes us subject to the father's authority instead.
"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 [a "new" world order]." "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)
By focusing upon dialogue, i.e., B, i.e., "feelings," discussion, i.e., A, i.e., facts and truth is negated. It is just that easy (and simple). If you miss this statement, you miss understanding the whole situation.
Like a chain, all links to an outcome of "knowing" must be of discussion ("Is this statement right/true or wrong/false?"—with right/true being accepted and wrong/false being rejected) or the outcome is wrong/false or at most unknown, i.e., an opinion, i.e., a theory, i.e., based upon "feelings." By replacing one link in the chain with dialogue, i.e., an opinion, i.e., an "I think" or "I feel" the outcome is taken captive to the "feelings," i.e., an opinion or theory of the moment, making right and wrong subject to "feelings" i.e., opinion, i.e., theory instead of facts and truth, negating the outcome and purpose of discussion—arriving at the truth. The object of those pushing dialogue ("feelings," opinion, theory, i.e., "I feel" or "I think") into a discussion ("I know") is that of "preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," thus 'liberating' their "self" from having a guilty conscience ("feeling" guilty) for being or dong wrong, disobeying, sinning, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) The "empty space" is where we either discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth (doing right and not wrong) with our "self" or dialogue with our "self" and with others, our desires and dissatisfactions ("feelings"), i.e., opinion of the 'moment,'
This is why traditional parents discuss things with their child (at the parent's discretion) in order for their children to do right (and not wrong) and why children try to get their parents into dialogue, so the children can "do their own thing," i.e., enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. How we communicate with one another reveals our paradigm, i.e., our way of thinking and acting, relating with our "self," others, and the world, as well as how we "feel" and behave toward authority—whether we honor it, disregard it, or question, challenge, defy, attack it. Put students in an environment of dialogue and you will quickly observe their paradigm, i.e., how they "feel" towards authority, with the traditional students (resisting 'change,' being "negative," insisting upon a right-wrong outcome) being either converted (seduced, deceived, and manipulated into participation) or silenced (shouted down, i.e., intimidated, i.e., censored), and the 'liberal' students being 'liberated.'
Discussion negates dialogue when it comes to A's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong, which counter B's, i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., opinion of the 'moment.' Dialogue negates discussion when it comes to B's "feelings," i.e., B's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, which counter A, i.e., the father's right-wrong, "top-down" authority system. Children naturally ask their parents "Why?" in response to any command or rule which get in the way of the child's carnal desires of the 'moment'—in order to draw the parents into dialogue, getting them to focus upon their (including the parent's) "feelings" of the 'moment' so they can "do their thing," with the parent's approval (affirmation). It is the parent's "Because I said so," implying judgment for disobeying, which cuts off dialogue. When the "Why?" is asked, regarding facts or truth, discussion is best (if time permits, the child is old enough to understand, or the child is not challenge authority). When parent's never discuss things with the child (at the parent's discretion), always saying "Because I said so," they become tyrants in the eyes of the child, resulting in the child turning to dialoguing within his "self," 'justifying' his hate of authority.
"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
This is what socialists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," globalists are looking for in the child, i.e., the child dialoguing with his "self" his desire for pleasure and his hate of restraint, 'liberating' it, i.e., the child's dialogue , i.e., dissatisfaction with authority (especially in a group setting) in order to 'liberate' the child from the father's authority (which, to the socialists, is associated with individualism, Nationalism, sovereignty, which is tantamount, according to them, to Fascism—which, unlike individualism, Nationalism, sovereignty, excluded discussion as an option with "the people," a key point 'liberal's' deliberately overlook, lumping the benevolent, i.e., loving father and the tyrannical, i.e, hateful father together as one, making them one and the same).
"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [representative, limited government which is subject to rule of law], our objective centers upon transform public opinion [the peoples "feelings" of the 'moment'] 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)
To merge the two, i.e., A and B, i.e., the father's authority and the child's "feelings," for the sake of consensus (human-ist relationship) only results in confusion, resulting in A either negating A for the sake of B's (and A's) "feelings" of the 'moment' ('creating' consensus) or holding to A for the sake of doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (sustaining division, i.e., duality, i.e., above-below, top-down, right-wrong, either-or, "Mine. Not yours." Heaven-Hell, saved-lost, redeemed-unredeemed, etc., i.e., belief-action dichotomy, i.e., rule of law over "human nature").
This is how the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated (soviet, i.e., washing the father's/Father's authority from the brain), "be positive, not negative," "safe space/zone/place," "snowflake" creating classroom is 'changing' the next generation, making their desired outcome, based upon their "feelings" of the 'moment' the 'purpose' of "communication," i.e., "Make me 'feel good' and I will listen to you. Hurt my 'feelings' and I won't hear a word you say, other than to use (twists) what you say in order to attack (negate) you.," negating their respect for authority, where they have to suspend their "feelings," i.e., their desires of the 'moment' in order to arrive at the truth—which they do not want to do—turning them into 'liberal's, socialists, globalists, common-ists, humanists, etc.(all being the same in nature, i.e., of and for B only). You can see 'change' taking place in education, in the workplace, in entertainment, in government, and even in the "church" today, destroying the traditional family with its father's authority, i.e., the middle-class, which is the basis of a civil 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)
This from the books all teachers are certified and schools are accredited by today, referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies," "a psychological classification system" (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain), 'changing' how teachers (and students) communicate with one another in the classroom, making teachers therapists ("group psychotherapists"), i.e., counselors, i.e., social-ist engineers, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., 'change' agents, 'changing' traditional minded students into socialists. "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 come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Detached from his parent's authority, in the pain of isolation, the child finds his identity in "the group," i.e., in those he can reality identify with, who have his "self interest" in mind. "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' to be his "self" again, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Those students who refuse to "participate" in the 'change' process, i.e., who defend the father's/Father's authority in the classroom face the wrath of the facilitate of 'change,' as expressed by Abraham Maslow. "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Welcome to the "group grade" classroom, "helping" the students 'liberate' their "self" from the restraints of the father's/Father's authority.
This would be just some more information to forget except for the fact that our government is turning this way to make decisions, with the courts judging you based upon opinions, i.e., judging your worth (whether you are a socialist or not, i.e., a B or an A) instead of judging you upon facts and truth, i.e., upon what really happened. If you are an A in thought (belief) and action, the 'liberal's' agenda is to character assassinate you, using any opinion or theory they can find, treating it or them as a fact or the truth—to be trusted—thus finding you guilty of a crime despite the lack or absence of evidence, i.e., lack or absence of facts or truth. But if you are a B in theory and practice, they look the other way, disregard or downplay the facts or truth, treating them or it as a theory or an opinion—not to be trusted—or accuse you of behaving "badly" only, which is not a crime. It is what, according to our carnal nature, i.e., "self interest" we do when a friend has done something wrong and we are called as a witness—subject to the pressure to sustain relationship with them, our "feelings," i.e., our "self interest" tempts us to twist (spin), put aside or dismiss (deliberately forget, leave out, or hide), or lie regarding the facts or truth in order to defend the relationship, i.e., our "self interest." If the person is someone who we do not like (or hate), telling all the truth (and more, i.e., adding our opinion) is easy to do, out actions being based upon "self interest." Without a court based upon knowing the difference between right and wrong and holding to it, i.e., insisting upon facts and truth only, rejecting opinions and theories as evidence, the pressure of social-ist 'justice' makes any outcome subjective to a persons social-ist worth (in the eyes, i.e., "self interest" of the court). The difference between deductive reasoning, where a principle is written on the board for all to evaluate their life or the situation from and inductive reasoning, where everyone's interests (opinions, i.e., "feelings" of the 'moment') are written instead, with everyone trying to arrive at a common understanding of what is right (for the times, i.e., for their "self interest" of the 'moment'), makes rules "unpredictable" and "spontaneous," i.e., subject to 'change.'
"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)
Most people think the Berlin Wall came down because communism was defeated. The truth is the Berlin Wall came down because communism had succeeded—hiding itself in the praxis of psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy," through dialogue, i.e., "How do/did you 'feel' when ...?," i.e., "What do/did you think when ...?," liberating B from A. The sole 'drive' of psychology is the child's carnal nature. Its only 'purpose' is to 'liberate' the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from parental/Godly restraint. Once it is in power it will do "whatever it takes" to keep itself in power, for the sake of B. Sigmund Freud's history of mankind is that of children 'liberating' their "self" (incest) from the father's/Father's authority, not only killing the father/Father but, to make sure that there is no trace of his/His existence i.e., not guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, "devouring" the father/Father as well (patricide)—"the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father," "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." "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 [the 'logic' being, if the father's/Father's authority is negated, then "lust" is no longer "lust," but only the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" becoming manifest ('liberated'), which is "normal," i.e., "OK," i.e., "I'm OK. Your OK."].'" "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual [in his carnal nature only, "lusting" after pleasure, hating restraint] ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage [the child's carnal nature, i.e., the love of pleasure and hate of restraint] bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology [what all children have in common, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint].'" (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) It is this emphasis upon pleasure over and therefore against the father's/Father's restraints (authority) that unites Marx and Freud (and Hegel)—'discovering' what is actual, i.e., real in the world, i.e., becoming at one with the world ("self-actualized") through our "lusting" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world. As Marx wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
Abraham Maslow wrote: "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." "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.'" "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the Humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.) (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
Warren Bennis wrote: ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
The only solution is to get government, i.e., psychology (which is a political system) out of the home, the classroom, the workplace, entertainment, government, and the "church," i.e., letting A reappear (which naturally happens on its own—while parents are not perfect, some are or were down right tyrants, their office is, given to them by God, i.e., the Heavenly Father to serve him in), restoring A's preaching, teaching, and discussing (at A's discretion) of commands, rules, facts, and truth, restoring accountability in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," rewarding those who do right and obey, chastening those do wrong and/or disobey, and casting out those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack the father's authority. If not, then B, or rather those who "guide" them ("psychotherapists") rule—killing the innocent and the righteous who get in their way, which is the hallmark of socialism. "The innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7
When "psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' 'liberals,' socialists, globalists gain power over "the people," in the name of "the people," they use "the people" as "natural resource" for their own pleasure and gain. Like what happened to the prodigal son's "friends," socialist disappear only when they run out of someone else's money, i.e., the children's inheritance (using the children instead—until they die—in the gulag, remember it was the orphaned children, whose fathers were killed in the Russian revolution, who, having no conscience, supervised, worked at, and themselves eventually died in the gulag—those in the process kill their own in the name of the process, i.e., it takes on a life of its own, living off the blood (lives) of its victims, including those who follow after, support, serve, protect, defend, praise, and worship it to begin with).
The purpose of life is not to have a "good" life but to ask our Heavenly Father, who is good, what we are to do today, i.e., for direction. When we 'changed' our desire for our children (and for our "self") from "doing right and to wrong" to "having a better life," we guaranteed their (and our) wedding vows would be "for better or for worse—or until something better comes along."
Such is the nature of the beast, i.e., your unrepentant heart—"Oh no! Not mine!" you say. I pray that is true.
"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 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7 "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
The whole of the Protestant Reformation was over the rejection of Abraham Maslow's theorem (Marxist-Freudian, i.e., Aristotelian ideology), "good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature," implying that man is "good," or has the potential of becoming "good," only need a "healthy" (socio-psychological) environment in which to grow up in, in order to be (do) "good" or become "good." Martin Luther, re-establishing the "church" upon the Word of God, first and above all, rejected this 'logic.' He wrote: "We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. ... the whole Aristotle [the same ground from which philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc., arise] is to theology as darkness is to light." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12) [The scriptures warn us: "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." (Luke 11:35)] "If Aristotle had understood the innate sinful condition, he would have called it a disposition, not only an affection. For original sin is a root and inborn evil, which only comes to an end when this body has been entirely mortified, purged by fire, and reformed. Meanwhile, however, it is not imputed to the godly." (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.165) "Inborn evil makes acts evil. That is the condition, that is to say, original sin is the root of actual sins. But Aristotle contradicts this, holding that passions are moderate virtues. For philosophers understand sins to be passions. [Personal Note: the same can be said for psychology.] But that radical sin does not cease, nor will ever be destroyed, except through the fire of the conflagration. Meanwhile in this wicked life, God deals with us in such a way that he does not impute our sins to us." (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.190) "Do you now understand why I have said so often that neither our vows nor our works are necessary for righteousness and salvation. To those who believe in Christ there are no works so bad as to accuse and condemn us, but again, there are no works so good that they could save and defend us. But all our works accuse and condemn us. Christ's works alone protect and save us.... (against Aristotle) a man acts not from a free conscience but for gain, desire for glory, or fear of punishment." (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.301)
The contemporary "church," the heart of the problem for this nation, has embraced the ideology of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., social-psychology, rejecting the Word of God. Through the use of dialogue (to "grow" the "church") it has made the Word of God subject to the opinions of men. You can only have one or the other, i.e., the Word of God or the opinions of men, for direction. You can not have both. You either fill the blackboard with the Word of God (as is), to be memorized, preached, taught, and discussed or you fill it with opinions, to be dialogued—which is the common praxis with "youth groups."
"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
While traveling from coast to coast in this country, speaking on the dialectic (dialogue) process, people would ask me where we were as a nation. My response was we have already lost. "There is water on the deck of the ship. Unless you are in a submarine, that is bad news." They would get upset with me. Then I would ask for the age of the youngest in attendance (usually in their 50's). Where are the children? They are the first to understand what I speak on—during meetings (when they were allowed to come) many would becoming filled with "joy," liberated upon hearing the truth. Without them, we have lost. When I spoke in "their church," "ministers," i.e., those using the dialectic (dialogue) process to "grow their church," i.e., to build relationships, would bus their youth to the bowling alley (etc.,) "to witness" instead of having them attend the meeting, their 'reasoning' being "It would be to hard for them to understand." As goes the "church," so goes the nation.
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Matthew 23:13
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018, 2019
