authorityresearch.com

Theory and Practice.
"Pandora's box."

by
Dean Gotcher

Karl Marx, building upon Georg Hegel's 'reasoning,' understood the importance of uniting theory and practice, i.e., with the child putting his carnal thoughts into action, i.e., being his "self," thereby negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberating' "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., the individual and society from external (unnatural) restraints in the process (praxis). "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) Theory is simply the individual thinking about how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority which prevents (inhibits or blocks) him from doing that which comes natural to him, as well as thinking about how the world "ought" to be, where he can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires (which the world stimulates) without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for sinning. When we talk to (dialogue with) our "self" about our desires of the 'moment' along with our dissatisfaction with whoever (or whatever) is preventing (inhibiting or blocking) us from having or "enjoying" them, we are practicing dialectic or dialogic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'justifying' our "self," i.e., or  carnal desires over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. Practice is putting our carnal desires and dissatisfaction, which we 'discovered' through dialogue, we have in common (consensus) with others, building relationship with them through compromise, i.e., 'change,' i.e., setting aside or suspending (as on a cross) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order (as in "new" world order) to "get along."

Theory is the individual—reasoning from his own perception—thinking, i.e., dialoguing with his "self," speculating (vain speculation) how the world "could," "should," "ought" to be if only knowledge of the past, i.e., "knowing" because the parent, teacher, boss, ruler, God said so, would get out of the way. Theory negates knowing and knowing negates theory. You can not say "I know" and "I think" at the same time unless you make knowledge subject to your opinion, i.e., "I think I know" which means you really do not know, you just think, i.e., think you know. All you can know is that you are thinking, i.e., "I think. Therefore I am." No theorist can say he "knows" or present his theory as a fact (forcing others to accept his theory as a fact or be fired, demoted, get a bad grade etc.) without making his theory or the practice of treating a theory as a fact, a religion, i.e., with everyone else having to accept his theory as a fact or truth, making everyone subject to the theorist himself, as god, with them becoming god's themselves as they expect others to accept their or others theory (opinion) as a fact. Thus when opinion, i.e., theory becomes the law of the land (policies which controls man's actions), man becomes god. In fact, no one knows what you are actually talking to your "self" about in this very 'moment' except you and God. When you leave God out, you become god. In other words, no one, other than God himself, really knows what you are talking to your "self" about in this very 'moment,' i.e., your opinion, unless you share it with them through dialogue.

The power of dialogue, i.e., of you 'justifying' your "self," i.e., of you 'justifying' your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., your dissatisfaction of the father's/Father's authority, blinds you to the truth (fact) that you are not God. Dialogue, deceiving you into believing that since you can decide what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil according to your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' deceives you into believing you are god. It is only in death, when the man of dialogue, i.e., of "self" 'justification' takes his last breath, that he comes to know the truth that he is not God—with every breath he had taken up until then had been given to him by God (that he might come to recognize, know, thank, and worship Him as God)—with him, having rejected God, claiming to be god himself instead, entering into eternal death, i.e., the lake of fire that is never quenched. There is a price to pay with putting theory into practice, i.e., with putting you opinion (which is always right in your eyes) into social action. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

   "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
   "Ye are they which justify yourselves [your heart's desires] before men; but God knoweth your hearts [which are deceitful, thinking pleasure is the standard for "good," instead of doing God the Father's will, and wicked, hating anyone who inhibits or blocks pleasure, preventing them from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire]: for that which is highly esteemed among men ["all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 [1 John 2:16]
   "Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' words, i.e., words which you want to hear, i.e., words which make you "feel" "good," 'justifying' your "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including the affirmation of men, and your resentment/hatred toward restraint/the restrainer]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7
   "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5
   "Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes "self," i.e., "human nature" above and therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority, thus negating the Father's authority in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished."

Practice is social, i.e., is our relationship with others, which requires compromise, i.e., setting aside knowing because the parent, teacher, boss, ruler, God said so. Both according to Karl Marx are essential in a persons life, requiring the negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the negation of "Because I said so," or "It is written" if man/society is to become "normal," i.e., of nature only. Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority, being personally held accountable before them/Him for his behavior] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising' for the sake of affirmation] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

Therefore if thought, i.e., theory, i.e., opinion (based upon your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority—what you are talking to your "self" about in the 'moment') is to become a reality (actual) your thoughts must be 'justified, i.e., affirmed by others, i.e., be united with "relationship," i.e., with society, and if practice, i.e., "relationship," i.e., society or community is to be initiated and sustained, it must be based upon men's opinions, i.e., united with the other person's thoughts (their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., their dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority—that  which they are talking to their "self" about in the 'moment'), i.e., it must be 'liberated' in them as well, resulting in both your and their practice of "self" 'justification' become as one—based upon "human nature" only—with everyone's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., their dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority ruling (ruining) the day becoming the 'drive' of life, uniting everyone, through dialoguing their opinions (the practice they all have in common) to a consensus, working together as one ("We working for Us"), making the 'purpose' of life the negation ("vernichtet") of the father's/Father's authority, thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that everyone can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "of and for self," i.e., be (and for) the world only, with impunity. The object of theory and practice, i.e., everyone's opinion being dialogued to a consensus, i.e., the consensus meeting (the dialectic or dialogic, i.e., the dialogue process being applied in the classroom, workplace, government, and even in the "church") is to negate the father's/Father's authority in all individuals feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in all social affairs, i.e. is to negate parental/Godly restraint from the child's/man's thoughts and actions, so that everyone can be their "self," thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, practicing the three platforms of the French Revolution (found in all socialist/common-ist/globalist revolutions), "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité," i.e., liberty from the father's/Father's authority so that the child/man can do what he want to do, when he wants to do it, what is the hallmark of opinions (theory), equality in that all have the same way of thinking, dialoguing with their "self," 'justifying' their carnal desires of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, and in consensus, i.e., affirmation one another dialectic, i.e., "self" 'justification' way of thinking, uniting as one in putting their opinions, i.e., theory, i.e., "self" 'justification' into practice, 'justifying' the negation of the father's/Father's authority from society, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin without having guilty conscience , i.e., so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

It is in the child's carnal nature, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfactions with restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority from which dialectic 'reasoning' emanates. Georg 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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) 'Liberate' the children's carnal desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the classroom, through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, and put it into social action, i.e., into a "group project," i.e., into praxis and Karl Marx's dream of "worldly peace and socialist harmony" becomes reality.

In the world of dialectic 'reasoning,' "good" is based upon pleasure (sensation), i.e., the affective domain, not upon doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, and therefore can be achieved by man himself by learning to do "good works" for others. By making man "good" or potentially becoming "good" by doing "good works" for others makes "good" social in nature. "Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds [praxis in the Greek]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."  Colossians 3:9 The lie is that man is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" by nature. Man is not good. Only God is good. Making man, i.e., the child "good" or having the potential of becoming "good," based upon his education, i.e., upon his upbringing, makes him "good," i.e., god in his own eyes, and through "good works," god, i.e., "good" in the eyes of others, turning good, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will into evil., and evil, i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., the love of pleasure and the hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the fathers'/Father's authority into "good."

"The affective domain [the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which once opened can not be closed—the lid being the father's/Father's authority (restraint)].'" The objective of education today, i.e., in its use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom is to open the lid, i.e., 'liberate' the child's carnal nature, negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his or her relationship with others and the world in the process, resulting in the child (when he or she gets home) questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking his or her parent's authority—making Karl Marx's agenda a reality. "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)

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2017