Why All The Lying?
"The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) All values external to human nature are eliminated from the conversation.
"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;" Colossians 3:9 The Greek word for deeds is praxis. The lie is: man can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can lust after the carnal pleasures (lusts) of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating, i.e., can be his self without being held accountable for his thoughts and actions (theory and practice)—"there is no fear of God before his eyes." Psalms 36:1 "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12
"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
"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
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
Have you ever done something wrong (say disobeyed your parents) and lied about it? The human heart (if you personalize it) is deceived in believing that pleasure, i.e., lust is the purpose of life instead of doing the father's/Father's will. That being the case it will do "whatever it takes" to 'justify' and protect (preserve) its self (pleasure, i.e., lust) when it is caught (or fears getting caught), establishing pleasure over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., establishing self over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. When given a command, say from your father that interferes with (gets in the way of) your hearts desire, your natural tendency (after expressing your dissatisfaction—in spoken and/or body language) is to ask your father "Why?" (as in "Why can't I go out?") in order to get your father into dialogue. There is no father's/Father's authority, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth in dialogue, there is only your (and your father's) carnal desires (lusts) of the 'moment' that the current situation and/or people are stimulating (whether imagined or real). Your father, refusing to go into dialogue (refusing to abdicate his authority to your [and his] carnal desires, i.e., lusts of the 'moment') will either attempt to get you into discussion (the father/Father retains his authority, i.e., has the final say in a discussion) or say "Because I said so" ("It is written") if you persist, retaining his authority. When it comes to right and wrong behavior, by simply replacing discussion with dialogue the father's/Father's authority is negated, i.e., is replaced with the child's carnal desires (lusts) of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating.
"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) Discussion divides upon being right and not wrong, i.e., knowing, which is formal, i.e., judgmental. The father/Father retains his/His authority (has the final say) in a discussion.
"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." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) Dialogue unites upon "feelings," i.e., "I feel" and/or "I think," i.e., an opinion, which is informal, i.e., non-judgmental. The father abdicates his authority (becomes equal with the child) in dialogue.
"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) What all children (men) have in common (the basis of common-ism) is "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." When dialogue is used to established right and wrong behavior "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" is the only outcome, i.e., is 'justified," i.e., is affirmed.
"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [replacing discussion (right and wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) with dialogue (feelings, i.e., the person's lusts of the 'moment'), when it comes to determining right and wrong behavior], 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)
In the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process (as in dialogue, there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion or in the consensus process) "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the child's carnal nature (praxis) becomes the law of the land. This is Immanuel Kant's world of "lawfulness without law" where the child's canal nature, i.e., lust rules without the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., the guilty conscience getting in the way. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Karl Marx said the same. "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words it is lust that "reconciles" man to the world. That being the case then all "discussion" must be centered around the child's carnal desires (lusts of the 'moment'), not around the father's/Father's authority, i.e., not from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth. As 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'/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 for self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) The resolving of differences today, via the consensus process is done in order (as in "new" world order) for the child (the facilitator of 'change') to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders), with affirmation, i.e., with "the people's" approval (at least in his mind). There is no wrong, i.e., accountability in dialogue. There is only the need to do things "better" the next time (if caught doing wrong—no matter the harm it has done to others). Therefore, the objective of the world (when caught doing wrong) is to lie, i.e., to get everyone into dialogue. Then if that does not work, blame someone else or the situation (lie). Then lie when that does not work. Ad nauseam.
"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
"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 this cause [because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge"] God gave them up unto vile affections [let them have what they wanted, i.e., let them have their carnal pleasures (lusts) of the 'moment' they lusted after, to their own demise]:" Romans 1:21, 25
"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 (lusts) of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
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.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2021