The Difference Between Discussion And Dialogue In The Garden In Eden.
(Personal note.)
by
Dean Gotcher
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16, 17
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:1-6
"Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" is a Neurolinguistics sentence structure, i.e., an embedded statement in a question (which is the most powerful tool in hypnosis) which draws out a persons "self interest," i.e., carnal desire (impulse or urge) of the 'moment' which the situation (the tree in this case) elicits, i.e., her desire to "touch" it ("neither shall ye touch it" was not in God's command). Her "I feel," i.e., "sensuous need," i.e., "lust of the flesh," i.e., desire to "touch," 'liberated' from "Thou shalt surely die," with the lie (half truth) "Ye shall not surely die" leads to "sense perception," i.e., she "saw," i.e., "lust of the eyes," leading her to 'reason' from "sense experience" ("This tree is like all the other trees, which are good"), resulting in "the pride of life," i.e., "I can decide for my 'self,' i.e., from my carnal nature, what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong," making 'reasoning' from and for her "self," instead of from God's Word the means to knowing the truth, making her "self" (and Adam following) god. "Behold, the man is become as one of us [God], to know good and evil:" Genesis 3:22 The only option God had was to remove them from having access to the "tree of life" ("lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:") so they, eventually dying, would know they are not God.
"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 In dialogue, with our "self" and with others, we 'justify' our "self," i.e., our carnal desires of the 'moment,' making our "self" God.
"Self" 'justification' is the same pattern or method used in counseling (therapy) today. "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) "Sense perception" therefore becomes the pathway to truth, instead of faith in God's Word. "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (ibid.) The scriptures warn us: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
"And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: ...." Genesis 3:11, 17 emphasis added.
The soul knows from being told. The flesh from "sense experience." The agenda of the world is to "prevent someone who KNOWS [telling man right from wrong] from filling the empty space" (preventing dialogue) so man can do wrong, disobey, sin ("lust") without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so he can do wrong, disobey, sin ("lust") with impunity (affirmation). (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) This is where the difference between discussion and dialogue comes in.
"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 You can dialogue with your "self" and with others your 'likes' and 'dislikes,' regarding all you have been told you can do (by the father/Father) but the 'moment' you dialogue about what you have been told you are not to do, "lust" is made manifest.
God gave Adam two commands in the garden in Eden. One he could dialogue with his "self" (and with the woman) about—what fruit he (and she) 'liked' and 'disliked,' i.e., preferred (which is informal, i.e., "feelings" based, i.e., subjective, i.e., having no established limit or measure, i.e., no absolute)—the other he could only discuss with his "self" (and with the woman) about—what fruit he (and she) could eat and what fruit he (and she) could not eat, i.e., what fruit was right to eat and what fruit was wrong to eat (which is formal, i.e., command, rule, fact, truth based, i.e., objective, i.e., having established limits and measure, i.e., absolute). When, at lunch (for example) you are choosing what you want to eat from a menu, i.e., your 'likes' and 'dislikes' of the 'moment,' you are dialoguing with your "self" and with others. When you are determining (from some standard) what is good for you to eat and what is bad for you to eat, you are discussing (right and wrong) with your "self" and with others. By bringing dialogue ('like') into the realm of discussion (right and wrong) you can end up eating what is bad (wrong) for you to eat, without having a guilty conscience (until later). By the woman dialoguing ("I feel," "I think," i.e., 'reasoning' from her "sensuous need" of the 'moment' and her "sense perception" of the situation, i.e., from her carnal nature, which the world stimulated) regarding "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (the "Because God said so," i.e., the "thou shalt not," i.e., the "It is written" tree), she made that which was only for discussion (formal), i.e., doing right and not wrong according to God's, i.e., the "Father's" established commands, rules, facts, and truth, subject to dialogue (informal), i.e., subject to her carnal desires ('likes'-'dislikes') of the 'moment,' with Adam, abdicating his office of authority joining her, 'justifying' her rebellion.
In eating the fruit of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," i.e., knowing right from wrong not from being told but from her own "sense experience," the woman in essence became the first environmentalist, i.e., "tree hugger," choosing relationship with her "self" and the world over obedience to God (encouraging Adam to do the same), and Adam became the first humanist, choosing relationship with the woman over and therefore against fellowshipping with and obeying God, with both becoming the first 'liberals' ('liberal's blame the environment or someone else when they get caught doing wrong, i.e., when "things go wrong," i.e., when things go "badly," i.e., when things did not go right, in their mind—knowing there is no condemnation, punishment, etc., for when things going "badly," only the need for remediation, i.e., to do things "better," at the most, making sure everyone else is doing their job right the next time, not letting them down—for a 'liberal' to admit he is wrong would be equivalent to a slug pouring salt on itself, he would no longer be a 'liberal'), with Adam throwing the woman "under the buss," i.e., "it's her fault" when he got caught doing wrong, blaming God for 'creating' an unhealthy environment ("The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Genesis 3:12), and the woman doing the same with the serpent ("The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.")—both showing no contrition for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, only 'justifying' their "self." Such is the effect of dialogue in an environment of right and wrong.
"In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) In a discussion you must suspend, as upon a cross, your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest" in order to hear and receive the truth, i.e., you must humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, making your "self" subject to authority (accountable for your thoughts and actions).
"A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (ibid.) In dialogue you must suspend, as upon a cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of dialogue, i.e., that inhibits or blocks, i.e., prevents you and the other persons from discovering and building relationship with one another based upon your and their common carnal nature, i.e., your and their common "self interests" (what "lusts," i.e., carnal desires you and they have in common)—which is the broad path of common-ism.
"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) It is in dialogue we discover our commonality with one another, i.e., our common "self interests" in each other, 'justifying' our "self," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., what which we have in common, i.e., that which is "of the world" only. "Lust" becomes manifest when dialogue is brought into the realm of discussion, establishing "self," i.e., love of pleasure over and therefore against established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will.
By bringing dialogue, i.e., the children's/men's opinion, i.e., "I feel," "I think" into the arena of discussion, i.e., "I know" (from being told—the soul knows by being told, the flesh knows through "sense experience" only), i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (God's Word), the child's/man's sinful nature is 'justified' over and therefore against the Father's/God's authority. The father's/Father's authority (both secular and sacred) is based upon preaching, teaching, and discussion. The child's carnal nature is based upon dialogue. All of counseling today, even in the "Church" is based upon dialogue, i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "How do you feel?" "What do you think?" putting into praxis the first counseling session introduced in the garden in Eden, making God's Word, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to the opinions of children/men, so children/mankind can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (in their mind), doing wrong, disobeying, sinning without having a guilty conscience. It worked back then. It works today. Until judgment.
By the facilitator of 'change' creating a "safe zone/space/place," a "Don't be 'negative'" ("thou shalt surly die"), "Be positive" ("thou shalt not surly die"), 'open ended' ("We can talk about anything"), 'non-directive' ("I am not going to tell you what you can and can not do") environment where students will not be judged, put down, condemned, cast out for sharing (dialoguing) their carnal thoughts (opinions) regarding establishing commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., creating a "thou shalt not surly die" space in the classroom, students are 'liberated' to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's (the father's/Father's) authority, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth, creating a "new" world order where the law of the flesh, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" rules over and therefore against the "Father's" authority—what Immanuel Kant called "lawfulness without law," where the law of the flesh (the child's carnal nature) rules without the law of God (the father's/Father's authority) getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had this same idea (agenda) in mind.
"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'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), of (and now for) "self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
"Once the earthly family [with children having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline their "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth] is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family [with the Son humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self" in order to do the Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth], the former [the earthly father's authority, i.e., the system itself with children having to trust in (have faith in) and obey the father (their parents), their teacher, the laws of the land, etc.,] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice [in the children's thoughts as well as in their actions—resulting in children no longer "fellowshipping" with one another based upon the father's/Father's (their parents/God's) commands, rules, facts, and truth but, through dialogue, "building relationship" with one another based upon their carnal nature, i.e., their carnal desires, i.e., their "self interests," i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment,' 'creating' a "new" world order of "lawfulness without law," i.e., "lawlessness" where the child's carnal nature rules without parental restraint]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
"'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 [the father no longer exercises his authority or has authority over his children in the home, forcing them to do right and not wrong according to his established commands, rules, facts, and truth that go against their nature, i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment,' that the world stimulates]." His history is of civilization (what he based psychology on) is that of children who, loving the pleasures of the 'moment,' what he called "incest," hating the father's/Father's authority (restraint), what he called a "barrier to incest," not only "killed" the father but ate ("devoured") him as well. "... 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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)
Any time you bring dialogue ("I feel," "I think") into an environment of discussion ("I know," "It is written," etc.,), i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth ("rule of law") the child's carnal nature, i.e., "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates is moving to negate (usurp) the father's/Father's authority. It is the pathway our nation (and most shamefully and wickedly the "church") has taken, putting into praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, doing what first took place in the garden in Eden. The 'purpose' of replacing discussion with dialogue in communication, when it comes to doing right and not wrong is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," so children can be or become their "self," i.e., at-one-with the world according to their carnal nature only, without having a sense of guilt, i.e., a guilty conscience, which the father's/Father's authority engenders, for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning ("lusting"). (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future)
"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:" Romans 7:18
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself 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
"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
Facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychologists, i.e., behavioral "scientists," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from/through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone/space/place," "Don't be negative, be positive," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the father's/Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the father's/father's authority engenders, for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no father's/Father's authority), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, i.e., rejecting any "inappropriate" information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, i.e., pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, i.e., treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust" with impunity.
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17
Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," i.e., 'reasoning' from/through your "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, with them affirming your carnal nature) in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the father/Father for your doing wrong, disobedience, sins—which is the real agenda.
"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates over and therefore against 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
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2020