The Danger of Generalizing:
Comparing Apples to Oranges to Almonds, making them all the same.
Replacing the father's/Father's authority, i.e., individualism under God with "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," i.e., the child's carnal nature, making all subject to it, with facilitator's of 'change' in charge (in control) of the children (for their "lusts" sake) instead of the father/Father (who wants them to do right and not wrong for their soul sake). (1 John 2:16)
Generalization requires the removal of what makes things different in order to come up with what makes them the same, i.e., what they have in common. Generalization is the basis of common-ism. If an "educator" has a class of twenty students, each from a home which has a strong position on issues—which differ from the other parents—the only way the "educator" can overcome the individualism of each student in the classroom—which comes from their adherence to (belief in) their parent's position on issues—is to focus upon what the students have in common, i.e., their likes and dislikes, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, advocating that which they all have in common, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life"—which is the basis of common-ism. By the use of deductive reasoning, reasoning from an a prior, an established premise or position, which is approved by the parents, the teacher is limited to preaching, teaching, and discussing with the students only established commands, rules, facts, and truth, mimicking and therefore supporting the parents' authority system. But with the use of inductive reasoning, i.e., dialogue, i.e., reasoning from the students own life experience, i.e., reasoning from their own "sense experience," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," focusing upon information ("appropriate information") that is only relevant (that makes "sense") to their own "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., their own opinions, 'justifying' their own carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' their "feelings," i.e., "self interests" end up directing the outcome of the lesson. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Through the praxis of generalization, finding out what all fruit have in common, i.e., what makes them the same, in this case making right and wrong subject to the students carnal nature, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, that which makes them different, i.e., their parents position of authority, becomes irrational, unreasonably and therefore irrelevant, is negated.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9
Through the use of generalization, i.e., indicative 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue the "educator" can move the students in the desired direction of his or her "liking," encouraging or suggesting "appropriate information," i.e., "positive" information, dialoguing with the students only that information that is "relevant," i.e., "rational," i.e., "reasonable" to their desired outcome, i.e., "self interest" while ignoring, questioning, or leaving out "inappropriate information," i.e., "negative" information that inhibits or blocks their desired outcome, i.e., "self interest," leaving the students with the impression that they are directing "the show," i.e., in control of the outcome—when in truth it is the "educator" and his or her way of thinking (their ideology) that is in control of the classroom, i.e., the students. By "educators" negating the parents authority system, i.e., deductive reasoning, i.e., didactic reasoning in the classroom, replacing reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth with 'reasoning' from the students "feeling" instead, right and wrong become subjective, i.e., subject to the students "feelings," effectively negating the parents authority system in the students thoughts and actions. 'Liberating' the students from their parent's authority system in the classroom turns the students against their parents when they get home.
"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
It was not that, in some cases, there were not already tensions and conflicts in the home between the parents and their children, this just made sure it happened to the breaking point, resulting in the parent's abdicating their traditional way of thinking and acting to their children's (and their) "feelings" i.e., to their children's (and their) carnal desires of the 'moment,' no longer holding themselves and their children accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. This praxis of generalization in the classroom (and in the workplace, government, "church," home, etc.) is comparable to pouring gas on a fire. Generalization, which is tied to dialogue and inductive reasoning, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from a persons own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), i.e., making right and wrong subject to a persons "feelings" and the current situation (situation ethics) is at the heart of the 'change' we have seen (and are seeing) in this nation—regarding respect for, in this case disrespect and hatred toward authority.
In the praxis of generalization the person is judged on their thoughts (thought police), i.e., how they thing, not just their actions—their actions are 'justified,' even if they are wrong, wicked, or evil, providing their way of 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from "feelings" instead of from established commands, rules, facts and truth) is appropriate to advancing the desired outcome—which is common-ism. Generalization is the practice of using "fusion" words, i.e., ambiguous words, i.e., plastic words, i.e., words that can mean different things to different people—when looked at specifically—to bring people together deceptively. For example: an "educator" might say to you, "Your child is showing himself (herself) to be leadership material." What does that mean? But it makes you "feel good," and you "trust" the "educator" (the expert), so you go no further than to thank them for their "good work." But ask them what they mean by "leadership," i.e., go for the details (it is all in the details) and you just might feel them—remaining vague—become defensive (offended), making you appear argumentative (ungrateful).
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
Discussion, which is tied to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth maintains the parents' authority system. Dialogue, which is tied to the "feelings," i.e., desires and dissatisfactions of the children/students and "educator,"' requires all participants to suspend, as on a cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth that inhibits or blocks dialogue, thus effectively negating the parent's and traditional teachers authority system, making the parents/teacher and the children/students "equal" in office—making the children's "feelings" toward an authoritarian figure in government, who is oppressing "the people," equal to their parents authority system, preventing them from having or doing what they want. Generalization hides itself in dialogue. It is exposed in discussion, i.e., it is all in the details. This is why socialists, 'liberal's, etc., refuse to discuss facts and truth but insist upon dialoguing "feelings" instead, injecting dialogue into the discussion, forcing the "conversation" into generalization, i.e., "feelings" in order to get their way, i.e., in order to end up with their desired outcome.
"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 Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "What is essential here [in the consensus process—common-ism] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) Bohm's psychotherapist was Patrick de Maré, who was a student of Wilfred Bion—of Tavistock fame. Bion summed the whole process of dialogue up as "preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." The objective of dialogue is to "prevent" the traditional minded parent/teacher along with their established commands, rules, facts, and truth from directing/controlling the children's/students thoughts and actions, preventing 'change.'
While parents may discuss (or refuse to discuss) why they hold to their position on issues with their children, maintaining their position of authority, common-ists rely upon dialogue, i.e., the children's "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., their opinion of the 'moment' regarding personal-social issues in order to 'liberate' them from their parents authority. While discussion (if we can personalize it), which is formal, i.e., specific, seeks to arrive at the bottom of things, based upon facts and truth, focusing upon doing right and not wrong—maintaining the parent's authority (despite their facts possibly being wrong)—dialogue, which is informal, i.e., general, seeks to arrive at agreement (affirmation), i.e., common-ism based upon "feelings" which we all have in common—negating the parent's authority. There is no parent's authority in dialogue, only 1)"liberty" from it, 2) "equality" between all parties involved, and 3) affirmation, i.e., consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., "relationship" based upon "feelings," i.e., their desire for pleasure ("peace"), i.e., doing what they want with approval from others ("affirmation") regarding what they want—which they all have in common—Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Dialogue is the medium through which fables—utopia, i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony"—are 'created' in the minds of men. It is the ground from which the French, Russian, Chinese revolutions were created, and many other revolutions which have followed, including the "velvet" ones.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4
Generalization is the child's ability to take a broom and, in his imagination, turn it into a horse, turning what "is" into something which is not, so he can ride it for his own pleasure. While this is "normal" for a child, when an adult applies the same thought and action to the world he lives in, especially when he has the power, i.e., the authority to do so, he can drive by someone else's property and, in his imagination, i.e., believing it is his own, pass or insist upon laws that tax the true owner, forcing him to use the land as the politician desires, for his, the politicians own pleasure—how he imagines the land should be used. In this way his "feelings," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" guide him on how other people should think and act, taking it personal when they do not support his way of thinking, i.e., imagination—that all people own the land collectively, in his mind, for the betterment of all "the people," i.e., himself. Through generalization, turning brooms into horses, he can imagine another mans wife (or any child or adult) as being his (without accountability to anyone—who would know?), using her (or it) for his own pleasure.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21)
Hegel believed it was the child's carnal nature, i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint, which was even part of the parents way of thinking and acting, that made us all common (as quoted below). Therefore, through the "gift" of generalizing, he could write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for pleasure, including the approval (affirmation) of men and hate of restraint], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong," "above-below," "either-or," "Mine. Not yours." way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In other words, according to this 'logic,' i.e., generalization, your spouse is not yours, your children are not yours, your property is not yours, your business is not yours, even you, i.e., your "self" is not yours, but is the property of the collective, i.e., the social-psychologist (who made the statement). As J. L. Moreno stated it in his book Who Shall Survive?: "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality [i.e., to the social-psychologist]."
Traditional education, which reinforces the parent's authority system—which engenders a guilty conscience in the children when they do wrong, disobey, sin—prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks common-ism from happening, i.e., inhibits or blocks the "educator" from 'liberating' the students from their parent's authority, i.e., from their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth. In traditional education, by focusing upon what positions the parent's have in common the "educator" can end up teaching only limited information, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth that the parents can all agree upon (or do not disagree on), thus supporting their position of authority in the home (that which makes the students different, i.e., divides them from one another, making them individuals, under authority, i.e., under their parent's and/or God's authority). The parent's (and traditional educator's) authority is based upon their 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed (as given), teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), and discussing (at their discretion) with their children (students) any question(s) the children might have on how best to do what they are being told to do, 2) rewarding or blessing the child who obeys and does things right, 3) not rewarding or chastening the child who does wrong or disobeys, and 4) casting out or rejecting any child who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, or attacks their authority. This is traditional education, i.e., "old school" where respect for authority is expected by all students, i.e., children, not only in the classroom, but in the home and in the public arena as well. This way of thinking and acting is called a Patriarchal paradigm, where the father's/Father's authority rules in the lives of those under his/His authority. This is the so called "old" world order.
"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?)
The so called "new" world order is based upon the children's/students love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., that which they have in common with one another. Common-ism is based upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the students desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward their parent's authority, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority which gets in the way of pleasure. Georg Hegel wrote, regarding the child: "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, i.e., he has become, through dialogue, his "self" again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth came into his life—preventing him from being his "self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
By starting with the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature, making it the foundation of life, the father's/Father's authority is negated. By disregarding, what Abraham Maslow labeled "theory X," i.e., the father's/Father's authority, focusing only upon "theory Y," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," "X," i.e., the father's/Father's authority is negated in the thoughts and actions of the next generation—replacing individualism-nationalism, under God with socialism-globalism, under "group psychotherapists." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself [one's "self," i.e., one's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and one's hate of restraint] 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) In the dialoging of opinions to a consensus, "group grade" classroom, where the students 'discover' what they have in common, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, the father's/Father's authority system is negated in their thoughts and actions, 'liberating' them to be their "self," i.e., of the world only, questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, disobeying, attacking their parent's authority when they get home. "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)
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16
"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') If pleasure (dopamine emancipation), i.e., "lust," that which we all have in common, is the 'drive' of life, rather than doing "right and not wrong" according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., that which divides us from one another, then the augmentation of pleasure, i.e., "lust" becomes its 'purpose'—requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority, negating the 1) preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed (as given), the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), the discussing of any question(s) in order to do right, obey, not sin, the 2) rewarding or blessing of those who obey, do right, do not sin, the 3) not rewarding or chastening of those who do wrong, disobey, sin, and the 4) casting out or rejecting of any who question, challenge, defy, disregard, or attack authority.
Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [where the children have to humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to do the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son humbled, denied, died to his "self" in order to the Father's will, calling all who follow him to do the same], the former [the traditional family system with its father's authority (engendering prejudice and a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning)] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically [in the "thoughts" of the child] and practically [in accordance to (in agreement with) the law of the flesh—what all children have in common—which is the basis of common-ism]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)
Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child subject to the father's/Father's authority, humbling, denying, die to his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will—instead of his own] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., the child finding his identity, i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint in "the group," i.e., in society] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to be "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
Now to the apples, oranges, and almonds: Once the universality (the commonality) of all fruit is learned, the individuality of each particular fruit (the apple, the orange, the almond, etc.)—according to Karl Marx (The Holy Family)—is never seen the same way again, the individual fruit is from then on only perceived through the universality (commonality) of "The Fruit," i.e., what all children have in common, i.e., their love of pleasure (love of the world) and their hate of restraint (hate of the father's/Father's authority), i.e., through the "Marxist lens." In the same way the children (in the "group grade," i.e., "group therapy," i.e. psychotherapy classroom) no longer perceive themselves as being under the father's/Father's authority, individually isolated from the universal, i.e. "alienated" from all the children of the world, i.e. with all children being divided from one other according to their father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. belief, but now perceive their identity as being "equal" (common) with all the children of the world—based upon their common desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint. 'Liberated' to openly share their "feelings," theory, or opinion (without reproof, correction, or rebuke, i.e. the father's/Father's authority), they now bare the fruit of unrighteousness and abomination over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority—correlated to parochialism, individualism, nationalism, i.e. isolationism, under God. Thus individuality (the soul of man, i.e. the child doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, engendering the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—"neurosis" according to those who generalize)—is sacrificed on the alter of universality (the carnal nature of the children, i.e. with all children augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, engendering the "super-ego," where the children's "will" is now tied to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires, i.e., their "self interests" of the 'moment' instead of to their father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), 'liberating' the children to do unconscionable things in the name of universality, i.e., in the name of "the people,"
Through the praxis of generalizing (called "general system theory," i.e. calling apples and oranges the same since they are both fruit, i.e. "the Fruit," Karl Marx, The Holy Family), those of dialectic 'reasoning' correlate the father's/Father's authority (God) to all the social "ills" ("neurosis") of society, including and especially Nationalism, which they correlate with Fascism, i.e. with prejudice, i.e. with racism, i.e. with behaviorism, i.e. with "Mine. Not yours," with people judging people according to commands, rules, facts, and truth established by the father/Father (God). According to those of dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., of the flesh, i.e., of "self" 'justification,' i.e., "of and for" the child's carnal nature, God, and any who believe in and obey His commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. who refuse to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack His authority—making themselves therefore "repressed," "alienated," and "neurotic"—are Fascists, racists, phobic, maladjusted, lower order thinkers, negative, divisive, hateful, etc.,.
The error of using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue in the "church" (because of the leadership's praxis of evaluating and judging God and His Word from their own 'reasoning'—treating their "self," i.e., their opinion or another man's opinion as the foundation from which to know facts or truth—putting "human reasoning" between God and man, then using force, i.e. government to establish God's kingdom here on earth, imprisoning and/or killing any who get in their opinions way) is that it is up to man (with God "helping"), according to man's effort (with God "helping"), i.e. according to his flesh and 'reasoning' (with God "helping") to 'create' "peace" on earth through the use of force (leaving the flesh and its lusts in place, "under God"). The solution (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning') is to leave the flesh and its lusts in place, calling them "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) instead of "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," replacing God with "human nature," i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restrain, bringing "God and heaven" down to earth, making God and mankind one and the same, therefore making mankind God, with facilitator's of 'change' in oversight, i.e. in control. It is the "churches" use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, i.e., generalization that brings it into oneness with the world—by excluding or redefining any part of the Word of God which gets in the way of "relationship building," i.e., "feelings."
"The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the child's carnal, i.e., sinful nature, i.e., in "human nature"]; the foundation has to be recovered [the child must be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the child, dialoguing with his "self" (his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer) must be "grouped" with all the children of the world, who are themselves dialoguing with their "self" (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer), and through dialoguing ('discovering' common ground) with one another unite upon what they all have in common (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer)—making the child's love of the world and hate of the father's/Father's authority the basis of life, 'creating' common-ism through dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' with others, i.e., affirmation making "feelings" the foundation of right and wrong, making all children, i.e., mankind seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable (as "human resources," like Pavlov's dog, Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats) by "group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change' for theirs own pleasure and gain]." "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.' (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
God condemns such praxis."Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
According to God and His Word, we are to put no man between us and the Father (His only begotten Son, who 'redeemed' us and 'reconciled' us to the Father, who, though being between us and the Father, does not divide us from the Father, but provides us atonement and 'reconciliation' with Him instead). All man can do is come along side each other and encourage one another in their walk with the Father and the Son. Our nation's government was established upon the same principle, putting no father figure (King) between the father and his children in the home, limiting the power of government instead. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' conveniently overlook this truth in their agenda of global dominance, in their effort to destroy the father's/Father's authority—by 'liberating' the child's carnal nature (opening "Pandora's Box") instead.
"The affective domain [the heart of the child, i.e. the carnal nature, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint of the child] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box' [a mythological box, full of evils, which, once opened, can not be closed—the lid of the box being parental authority, i.e. the father's authority, i.e. Godly restraint]." "It is in this 'box' [the child's "feelings" of the 'moment'] that the most influential controls are to be found [it is where the child can be most easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated by the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of 'change']. The affective domain [the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. his desire for pleasure and affirmation by others] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [the teachers ability to 'liberate' the student's "feelings" in the classroom in order to help them 'liberate' their "self" from parental authority in the home] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues [to dialogue their opinions with one another to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) "Bloom's Taxonomies," from which all "educators" are certified and schools accredited, are based upon the "weltanschauung," i.e., world view of Marxists, such as Theodor Adorno (The Authoritarian Personality).
Theodor Adorno, correlating (generalizing) the father's/Father's authority, what he called "authoritarianism," to Fascism, wrote: "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the father's/Father's authority] 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], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "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 [the negation of Fascism, i.e. prejudice, i.e. right-wrong thinking, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]." "Techniques for overcoming resistance [overcoming those who remain 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority], developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
By generalizing, i.e., classifying the benevolent, i.e., loving, forgiving, merciful father/Father, who discusses things with his children (when they can understand, there is time, and they are not challenging his authority—where he says "Because I said so" when they are not able to understand, there is no time, or they are challenging his authority) as being the same as the tyrannical father, who, acting as a carnal child, rules as a despot, with no forgiveness, mercy, or grace, who never discusses things with his children (always saying "Because I said so," cutting off any discussion whatsoever), prejudice, based upon doing right and not wrong (according to established commands, rule, facts, and truth) is replaced with prejudice against the patriarchal paradigm, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system itself. The praxis of dialogue, where you have to be tolerant of ambiguity (generalization), suspending, as on the cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of pleasure—which are "negative," which get in the way of people "feeling good" about their "self'—negates the father's/Father's authority in all who participate, negating faith in and obedience to authority, including God himself. Guilt by association with the father's/Father's authority—preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, refusing to dialogue when it comes to established standards (refusing to participate in compromise for the sake of relationship, i.e., someone else's "feelings"), blessing or rewarding those who obey or do things right, reproving, correcting, rebuking, or chastening those who do wrong or disobey, and casting out or rejecting those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority—then becomes the law of the land. This is the agenda of those who praxis generalization, comparing apples to oranges, who praxis "lawfulness without law," i.e., the carnal nature of the child without the father's/Father's restraints. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)
If we were only dealing with apples and oranges this would not be a big deal. But since we are dealing with the souls of men, women, and children it is a big deal. Generalization is not only deceitful, it is wicked as well, making laws subject to, i.e., changeable according to the "felt needs," i.e., carnal desires of those in power. "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)
Generalization is antithetical to the gospel message, i.e., it is antithetical to 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
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018, 2020