When Discussion Is Rejected:
The importance of discussion.
(This issues is an outgrowth of the issue College Syndrome)
Discussion maintains the father's/Father's authority. Dialogue negates it. When authority rejects discussion then "authoritarianism" reigns. Those hating the father's/Father's authority (socialists) reject discussion, inserting dialogue in its place in order to negate the father's/Father's authority.
Critical Mass: "The minimum amount of something required to start or maintain a venture;" (www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/critical mass) It is not that one class in college will result in cultural 'change,' it is the accumulation of classroom (and outside classroom) experiences, supported by social crisis, the media, entertainment, etc., that cultural 'change' takes place. Karl Marx wrote: "For one class to stand for the whole of society, another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right)
In other words, it is not that children grow up, leave home, marry, have a family, and work for someone else or start their own business, applying the father's/Father's authority system in their home and business, it is that children, rejecting the father's authority system itself, no longer accept it in their home or apply it in their business or in the workplace when they grow up, that Marx is advocating. It is here that the difference between discussion and dialogue come into play—moving communication away from 1) preaching, teaching, and discussing, i.e., defending established commands, rules, facts, and truth, in order to do right and not wrong, with the father/Father 2) blessing or rewarding those who obey and do things right, 3) chastening or correcting those who disobey and/or do things wrong that they might learn to obey and do right, and 4) casting out or rejecting those who question or challenge authority, maintain a "top-down" authority structure in the process toward the dialoging of opinions, i.e., "feelings" in order to initiate and sustain social(ist) harmony, i.e., consensus, i.e., affirmation, thereby establishing the child's/man's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, making right and wrong subject to dialogue, i.e., subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the "felt needs" of the 'moment' (of those in power)—power, without accountability, except to the process of 'change.' (Hint: there is no accountability in dialogue—except to "feelings," i.e., dialogue. There is in discussion—to facts and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "rule of law").
"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative." "The purpose of dialogue is to reveal the incoherence in our thought ... [thereby engendering] genuine and creative collective consciousness." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)
You discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth, in order to do (or be) right and not wrong and you dialogue your "feelings," i.e., your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and your dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward any obstacle, i.e., authority that is in the way. Discussion is formal, defending commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to do (or be) right and not wrong. Dialogue is informal, requiring the setting aside of commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of "feelings," i.e., that inhibit or block dialogue, making right and wrong subject to your and others "feelings" i.e., your and their opinion of the 'moment,' i.e., the situation, with pleasure being right or good and pain, including (especially) the pain of missing out on pleasure being wrong, bad, or evil. In that case, i.e., with dialogue, reality, i.e.,what is "actual" is based upon your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., your love of pleasure and hate of restraint, not upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth that you must obey, i.e., that "get in the way." "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
How you communicate with your "self" effects your behavior, with private convictions, i.e., having a guilty conscience—restraining you from doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against established commands, rules, facts, and truth—being dependent upon discussion, and "self" 'justification'—'liberating' you from established commands, rules, facts, and truth—being dependent upon dialogue. Yet dialogue remains hidden (for those who are dissatisfied with, resent, or hate authority), dialogue only being done with "self," i.e., hidden since fear of judgment and rejection controls the environment—which insists upon preaching, teaching, and discussing established commands, rules, facts, and truth when it comes to right and wrong, with any attempt to engender dialogue, i.e., "Why?" (to get those in authority into dialogue, thus abdicating their authority) being interrupted (cut off) with their "Because I said so," thus retaining their authority, preventing the one under authority from having their way, i.e., getting what they want. This is why it is impetrative that "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change' (attaining and maintaining a position of authority) create a "safe place/zone/space" which inhibits or blocks discussion (which inhibits or blocks 'change') so that dialogue can take its place, 'liberating' "feelings" from the restraints of established commands, rules, facts, and truth and the fear of being judged and/or punished (chastened) for doing (or being) wrong (thereby initiating and sustaining 'change'). It is not that dialogue is not important, it is important when we are dealing with preferences. It is that when dialogue, i.e., the "feelings" or desires of the 'moment' question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack discussion, i.e., when facts and truth are set aside for the sake of the "feelings" of the 'moment,' right and wrong (values) become subject to the current situation (and anyone manipulating it).
The Marxist, Theodor Adorno wrote: "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it [out of fear of being chastened, reproved, corrected, rejected]. To gain access [through getting him or her to dialogue, i.e., to share with others his or her "feelings," i.e., desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'] is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential [for 'change,' i.e., to become of and for his or her "self" and the world only—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
How you communicate with others reveals how they communicate with their "self," with them either participating with you or resisting participation. In discussion, which requires them to set aside their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' in order to do (or be) right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth they will either participate in discussion, wanting to know right from wrong, be silent, dialoguing with their "self" alone, out of fear of being judged and/or rejected, or resist discussion, moving to and insisting upon dialogue instead. In dialogue, which requires them to set aside, i.e., suspend, as upon a cross any command, rule, fact, or truth that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks dialogue, 'liberating' them from established commands, rules, facts, or truth that gets in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment,' they will either participate in dialogue, wanting to "build relationship" upon common "self interest," be silent, out of fear of being judged and/or rejected, or insisting upon discussion (facts and truth), resist participation in dialogue, i.e., resist 'change.' In the "brew" of dialogue, love of pleasure includes the pleasure which comes with affirmation, i.e., "group approval." Affirmation, like a drug, is not only intoxicating, but addictive and possessive as well.
"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvine D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
When the educator goes from discussion to dialogue in the classroom most students will follow in suit, going from discussion to dialogue as well, resulting in those who insist upon discussion becoming the source of controversy, being labeled as "resisters of 'change,'" negative, divisive, lower order thinkers, hateful, intolerant, unadaptable to 'change,' maladjusted, phobic, in denial, unreasonably, irrational, etc., in the process. It is in this dialoging of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process that the "building of relationship," based upon common "self interest"' and the negation of the father's/Father's authority most rapidly takes place, 'liberating' all participants from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from that which inhibits or blocks 'change,' uniting them on what they have in common, i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, including (and especially) group affirmation and their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority which gets in the way. The dialoging of opinions to a consensus is the hallmark 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)
Behind this 'change' from discussion (facts and truth) to dialogue ("feelings")—in order to resolve differences, i.e., 'discover' common ground (not only in the classroom but in the home, the neighborhood, city, state, nation, and the world)—there is an agenda, and it is global, based upon 'liberating' "human nature" from the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system.
"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)
It is important to understand the consequence of rejecting discussion—the true meaning of the word (facts and truth; right-wrong)—as a means to resolving differences (when the opportunity presents itself, i.e., when the one in authority has time, those under authority are able to understand, and/or they are not questioning or challenging the office of authority itself). It is when communication breaks done, i.e., when the one class, insisting upon dialogue ("feelings," which is informal, only an opinion) refuses to participate with the other class, i.e., refuses to go into discussion (facts and truth; right-wrong, i.e., which is formal, carrying consequences, personal accountability for being wrong)—thereby creating a crisis, i.e., an impasse—and the other class, in response, refuses to then enter into discussion in order to "protect" the citizens, i.e., "the people," i.e., themselves from the first—in other words, when the individual father (in authority over his family, property, business) abdicates his authority, i.e., limited government, i.e., majority vote, representative government, his unalienable rights, under God to the state, i.e., to a dictator in order to protect his authority (unwittingly abdicates his unalienable rights as an individual, under God, i.e., facts and truth, right-wrong to the needs of "the people," i.e., "feelings," i.e., "the group," i.e., society), thus engendering fascism, i.e., national socialism—that the former (the socialist, i.e., global socialist) is 'justified' in its mind in taking control over society, i.e., "the people," for the sake of "the people," i.e., themselves, replacing (negating) the "top-down" authority structure of the father-child, i.e., teacher-student, i.e., "worker-capitalist," i.e., "have-have not" with the socialist structure of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the group psychotherapist, i.e., "human resource" manager, i.e., the "vanguard party" in the process, ruling in the name of "the people." Without discussion the middle class, i.e.., upward mobility can not survive, leading to impasse, civil unrest, and socialist control.
The Transformational Marxist, György Lukács explained it this way: "'Capital' [stored up dopamine]… is, according to Marx, 'not a thing but a social relation between persons mediated through things.' 'These relations,' Marx states, 'are not those between one individual and another [personal], but between worker and capitalist, tenant and landlord [children/students and their parents/teachers; social in structure], etc.,. Eliminate these relations and you abolish the whole of society; …… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist ["behavior science," affirming the child's/student's carnal nature of loving pleasure and hating restraint over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority]… For to accept that solution, even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the children's/student's perspective] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parents/professors perspective]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [if parents/teachers are to observe the world, including their authority from their children's/student's perspective, they must first abdicate their authority to their children's/student's "feelings"]. ' '... the ideological history of the bourgeoisie [the middle class with its "top-down," rule of law, i.e., upward mobility structure of thought] was nothing but a desperate resistance to every insight into the true nature of the society it had created [the family/traditional education structure with the parent's/educator's in authority insisting upon obedience to their commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in the children/students hating them and their authority demanding 'change'] and thus to a real understanding of its class situation [its "creation" of a "top-down," "Do what I say or else" relationship, inhibiting or blocking "human nature"].… the Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [those initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's "top-down" authority structure] produces its own grave-diggers [the children of disobedience/the students of the "new" world order, engendering revolution, oppressing the people].'" (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
When your legislator moves from discussion (defense of commands, rules, facts, and truth; right-wrong) to dialogue ("self interest," i.e., opinions) in communication with you, refusing to discuss things with you, as a child of disobedience always trying to move you into dialogue, the only option you have is to remove him from office, i.e., cast him out, since in dialogue he no longer represents you—unless, like him, you are a socialist, rejecting your unalienable rights, under God.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019