Sometimes the simplest of things are the hardest to understand.
What makes the dialectic process so hard to understand is that it is actually too close to home to see. It is our "human nature" being "justified" by our "human 'reasoning.'" By starting with our feelings, our thoughts are taken captive to the nature of things, i.e. taken captive the environment around us (and within us), i.e. our thoughts taken captive to our heart's desire for the things of the world, of the surrounding environment. 'Driven' by our nature to approach pleasure and avoid pain, our thoughts are set upon engendering a "more perfect" world in which to live, i.e. the 'purpose' of life becoming the augmenting of pleasure and the attenuating of pain.
Those things which are barriers to the pleasures of life (those things which engender pain) are therefore "sense-perceived" as being "negative." It is therefore our "human reasoning," which sides with the approaching of pleasure, to attenuate, i.e. "negate" those things which engender pain in our lives (and in the lives of others who give us pleasure). Our salvation therefore is found in the removal of the "negative" things of life (through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' "human reasoning") so that we can enjoy the "positive" things of life, i.e. pleasure.
While the child is too weak to remove the "negative" things in his life by himself (including the commands of his Father, who, through His use of chastening, inhibits the child's natural pursuit of pleasure), his mind stills retains the desire, i.e. his thoughts still retain the desire (in the words "ought to," "should have," "might have," "could have," etc.). The "ought," as in "I ought to be able to ____" can only come into existence, i.e. within the child's mind (the precursor to dialectic 'reasoning'), with the Father's "Not," i.e. in the Father's statement "Can not" or "No" which prevents the child from actualizing his heart's desire in the 'moment.' It is illogical for the child to say "I ought to be able to go out" when no one has told him that he can not go out. Therefore, for the child to have the "ought" in his mind (the internally expressed desire of "human nature," i.e. the language of "human nature"), the Father's "Not" (that which is not in harmony with the child's nature in the 'moment,' inhibiting it) must be expressed or put into action. The Father's "Not" comes in the form of preaching, restraining "human nature," while the child's "ought" comes in the form of dialoging, defending or 'justifying' "human nature."
It is only when the child comes into an environment with others of like experience (having "ought's" engendered from their Father's "Not's") and is able to express his heart's desire (his "natural inclination" to be at-one-with nature in pleasure in the moment') that he can become conscious of his true self, i.e. his natural "oneness" (his commonality) with the world in the pursuit of pleasure in the 'moment.' By holding to his Father's position, i.e. the Father's commands which go counter to the child's "human nature," and the fear of chastening which keeps the Father's commands in place in the child's mind, the child can not come into agreement with the nature of others, their expressing of the same nature as his, which he is "repressing" by holding to his Father's commands. Therefore, holding to His Father's position, the child can not become at-one-with the children around him, instead, reproving and judging them for their "immoral" ways, alienating himself not only from his own nature but also from others who think and put into action that same nature.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is only through the child being free to (finding himself in an environment where he can freely) share his "ought," i.e. freeing himself from His Father's authority, that the child can realize his potential as a "human being." Therefore, by creating an environment where the children (collectively, i.e. the individual child in a room with other individual children, all being subject to their Father's authority) can now share their "ought," each child can become at-one-with the children of the world, i.e. all children becoming "one" in thought and in desired action (in "theory" and in "practice") according to "human nature."
Language expresses this chain of events (Paradigm 'change'). The child's desire ("human nature") to attain or approach an object of gratification in the environment, when blocked by his Father's command, i.e. the Father's "No" or "Can not" (a system of preaching), engenders the first stage of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the "Why?" The "Why?" is used by the child to to bring the Father into dialogue, to get Him to participate in the first act of "equality," (there is no Father's authority, i.e. no "Can not," nor right to chasten, in dialogue, i.e. in "I feel" and "I think."). If the Father says "I don't feel like you should go out" or "I don't think you should go out," he can not chasten the child, if the child does go out, since it is only the Father's opinion that the child should not go out, not a command.
But then the Father responds to the child's "Why?" with "Because I said so!" (which carries with it the force of authority) He stops the process of "equality" (which can only be established upon "human nature" and not upon the Father's commands—not upon the Father's do right and don't do wrong, i.e. "Obey me or else" since they are not understandable to the child, the child being, by nature, only subject to the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain). "Because I said so." is the same as "I cause to be." as in I am the creator and you are the created, i.e. I give the commands, i.e. "I determine what is right and what it wrong (over your nature), and it is up to you to obey." "Because I said so" is a form of language which is external to nature (super-natural), i.e. not subject to "human nature," not subject to the child's approaching of pleasure and avoiding of pain in the 'moment,' with the pursuit of pleasure in the 'moment' being the child's 'drive' of life. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the Father's authority which produces a barrier to the actualization of "human nature."
Because the child can not continue in his course of action of getting the Father into dialogue (in to the system of "equality"), his only recourse is to dialogue within himself. It is here that he begins to "reflect" within himself, i.e. caught between humbling himself before his Father (not doing his own will but doing the Father's will instead) and esteeming himself ('justify' doing his own will, i.e. engendering the first stage of indifference to his Father's will). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's "I ought to be able to ____" (his "imagination of the heart"), though only expressed within, makes the life that "is" tolerable (makes the life of 'change' possible) in the midst of "repression" and "alienation." The potential for 'change' therefore resides within all the children of the world, within their "ought," waiting to be delivered from their Father's "Not."
According to dialectic 'reasoning.' the only way the child can become "normal," i.e. freed from his "neurotic" condition, the "ought-Not" condition, i.e. the condition of doing his Father's will, while, according to his own nature, "feeling" and "thinking" counter to it, is to come to the 'realization' that his desires are "normal" and his Father's office of authority is not—the Father's office of authority being instead an office of his own making, engendered, i.e. initiated and sustained by his obeying his Father's will in the first place. While being to weak by himself (as a child isolated by himself under his Father's authority, i.e. his "human nature" restrained by his Father's authority), with the aid of other children (in adult bodies) helping him (with other children of his own age), he can come to 'realize' that his "human nature" is "normal," being common to all the children of the world. In an environment of dialogue, that environment which the Father would not participate in, for the sake of initiating and sustaining His office of authority, all the children of the world can 'liberate' themselves from their Father's office of authority. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' by getting the children's "ought" ought of them, in an environment of dialogue, the children can, united in thought and in action, deliver themselves from their Father's "Not." By doing it in a "group setting" thy can unite in the praxis (social action) of negating the Father's authority, not only in their own lives, but in the lives of all the children in the world, i.e. in society. This is the bases of common-ism AKA communism.
If you start with the Father's authority, then the world remains subject to the Father, i.e. under God's authority (according to Marx, an "opiate," according to Freud, a "substitute-gratification"). The Thesis (position) remains with the Father and the Antithesis (the child's "human nature") remains subject to the Father's commands. But, if you start with the premise that the children are the Thesis, i.e. that the Thesis is how man "feels" and what he "thinks," i.e. "human nature," and that the Father and His commands are the Antithesis, then you negate the Father's authority (His use of preaching, teaching, and chastening to initiate and sustain His "old" world order). It is only possible to create a "new" world order through the use of dialogue, i.e. where the children (collectively) can become themselves again, freed of their Father's authority. It is only through the 'liberating' of the child's "ought," engendering a world of "thought," that the children of the world can create a world of man's (the child's) own making, i.e. a world built upon "human nature," i.e. a world of abomination. The "new" world order of 'change,' democracy, socialism, communism, globalism are all established upon this premise.
"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 family is one of these social forms which ... cannot be changed without change in the total social framework." (Max Horkheimer, Kritische Theori) "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Now, hopefully, you will understand the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' possessed with the process of 'change,' i.e. you will understand statements made by Hegel, Marx, and Freud regarding the emancipation of the child's nature and the necessity of negating the Father's authority if 'change' is to be made. Hegel 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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4) Sigmund Freud, in harmony with Marx, wrote: "'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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)
The sole 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' is to help the child 'justify' his "human nature," making it easy for him to unite with all the children of the world in negating the Father's authority, making it possible for him to 'liberate' his natural 'drive' to become at-one-with the world, i.e. to become at-one-with the children of the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' justifying a praxis known as communism (man uniting only upon that which he has in common with all men, i.e. his "human nature," negating that which inhibits "human nature" from becoming manifest in all men (and children) in the pursuit of pleasure in the 'moment,' i.e. negating the Father's authority to issue commands to be obeyed without question, i.e. negating his use of force to enforce them). As the Transformational Marxist György Lukács stated it: "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts [the children, while under their Father's authority] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [with all the children of the world]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) The only solution to the problem, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is the negation of the Father, i.e. is to negate His commands and His use of force to enforce them, is to negate his right to say "Mine, not yours," as in "My family, not yours," "My children, not yours," "My property, not yours," "My business, not yours," "My nation, not yours," etc. "Because I say so!"
The only reason Jesus Christ came (and, in obedience to His Heavenly Father, died upon the cross) was to 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us, i.e. for our love of the world (for thinking and acting according to our "human nature"—"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; "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15; "No servant 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." Luke 16:13; "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7), the Father raising Him from the grave to 'reconcile' us to Himself, that we might inherit eternal life (partake in His holiness), providing we 'repent' of our sins, i.e. repent for our praxis of 'justifying' ourselves, i.e. 'justifying' our "human nature" over and against His will, i.e. dialectically 'justifying' our sensuousness over and against His righteousness.
"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 2013-2015