Why?
(With a lot of How? thrown in.)
Written for teachers caught up in the process of 'change,' not liking what they are seeing or doing but not knowing what it is.
by
Dean Gotcher
"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
"Once the earthly family [with the children having to humble and deny their "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His Heavenly Father's will], the former [the earthly father's authority in the home, with children having to trust in (have faith in) and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, negated] in theory and in practice [in the children's carnal thoughts as well as in their social actions (behavior)—it is here that dialogue becomes the focus of attention, i.e., the means to 'change,' i.e., the means to 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority (there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue)—so that children, having 'justified their "self" can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be their "self," i.e., "lust" without having a guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders), i.e., so that children can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be their "self," i.e., "lust" with impunity]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jeremiah 10:23)
Being commands, rules, facts, and truth (which are taught) directed.
vs.
"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
Being "feelings" (which are stimulated by the world) driven.
"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
Since we, by nature, dialogue with our "self," i.e., 'reason' from our "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world—'justifying' our "self," i.e., our natural desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world simulates, thereby 'justifying' our hate of restraint—we are all philosophers, thinking (dialoguing within our "self") about how the world "is," preventing us from doing what we want, when we want, how it "ought" to be, where we can do what we want, when we want, and how it "can" be once the father's/Father's authority (which gets in the way of our carnal desires of the 'moment') is negated (is no longer in the way). It is in dialogue (dialoguing within our "self," i.e., "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making." Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) we 'create,' i.e., imagine a world of our own 'liking,' i.e., a world which is in harmony (consensus) with our carnal desires ("human nature"), 'liberating' us (at least in the 'moment,' in our mind) from the world that "is," i.e., "bypassing" a world which is subject to the father's/Father's authority—having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth ("rule of law"). Yet when we grow up, having children of our own we tend to restore the father's/Father's authority, using it to control our children (or our employees), making them subject to our established commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in the way of their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment. Therefore (since there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue, i.e., in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., in 'reasoning' from our "feelings"—only our "self interest," i.e., our carnal desires of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world) the only way man can become his "self," i.e., "actualize" his "self" is for someone to come along (Genesis 3:1-6) and, through dialogue, i.e., through dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' through "feelings"), i.e., through "self" 'justification' "help" him 'liberate' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), thereby negating the guilty conscience which the father's/Father's authority engenders (Romans 7:14-25), 'liberating' him not only in this thoughts but in his actions, so he can be "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, so he can "lust," i.e., become at-one-with the world in pleasure, without having a guilty conscience—removing (negating) anyone who gets in the way of pleasure (including the unborn and elderly) without a thought (without "feelings"). In discussion you are taken captive to the world that "is," i.e., a world that is already created, making you accountable to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. In dialogue you are the "creator" of a world of your imagination, i.e., a world as it "ought" to be, i.e., subject to your carnal nature and the world which stimulates it. It is where dialogue (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—affirmation) has brought us today—as in the days of Noah.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21)
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26, 27
If we determine right and wrong (good and evil) through discussion (where we have to set aside our "feelings," i.e., our "self," i.e., our carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., our opinion, i.e., our "self interest" in order to hear the facts or truth) then right and wrong (good and evil) remain subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., remain subject to the father's/Father's authority, resulting in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth remaining in place but if we determine right and wrong (good and evil) through dialogue (where we have to suspend any command, rule, fact, or the truth that gets in the way of dialogue, as upon a cross, in order to continue the dialogue, i.e., in order not to hurt the other persons "feelings"—thus cutting off dialogue) then right and wrong (good and evil) become subjective, i.e., subject to the child's (our) carnal nature, i.e., subject to the child's "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, 'justifying' the child's hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority which gets in the way of pleasure (dialogue, i.e., "lust")—with pleasure ("lust") becoming right (good) and pain, i.e., restraint, i.e., missing out on pleasure (missing out on "lust") becoming wrong (evil), making the father's/Father's authority wrong (evil).
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;" Isaiah 5:20
The "good" life for the world resides in the carnal nature of the child, i.e., in the child's "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, rejecting the child having to "humble" himself and be "converted" in order to do the father's/Father's will.
"Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: ‘Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven.'" "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become [once they are 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority].'" (Norman O. Brown,, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Mathew 18:2-4
Karl Marx noted that the only way to prevent the father's/Father's authority from re-appearing in society (preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking children, i.e., the "proletariat" from being their "self") was to negate the father's/Father's authority (the "bourgeoisie") through the process of 'change.' Hard line Marxists (Traditional Marxists) interpreted this to mean that if the fathers, i.e., the "bourgeoisie" would not 'change,' i.e., would not submit to the desires of the children, i.e., the "proletariat" then the only solution was to kill them outright (which resulted in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "old" world order re-appearing in the next generation of children). Those advocating the "velvet revolution" (Transformational Marxists) on the other hand, i.e., in order (as in "new" world order) to initiate and sustain 'change' use dialogue instead, negating the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the next generation of children—through their participation in dialogue. The Berlin Wall did not come down because common-ism was defeated (only the hard line Marxists, perpetrating the father's authority—forcing socialism "down everyone's throat"—were defeated). It came down because common-ism had succeeded—getting everyone to dialogue their opinions to a consensus, negating the father's/Father's authority in their "self," no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, so they could do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. Marx wrote:
"The philosophers [those who are dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to authority (as a child is subject to the father's authority, as man is subject to God's authority), thinking about how it "ought" to be, i.e., where they can satisfy their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment' instead, without restraint] have only interpreted the world in different ways [preaching and teaching their "opinion" as the only right way, thus, re-establishing the father's/Father's authority (with them now in control) inhibiting or blocking others from enjoying the carnal pleasures ("lusts") of the 'moment' which they desire], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' (dialogue) itself (there is no father's/Father's authority and guilty conscience in dialogue)]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Marx's "logic" is: if "lust" (feeling guilty for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) is a product of the father's/Father's authority, then by getting rid of the father's/Father's authority (which we do when we dialogue with our "self") "lust" becomes "normal," i.e., "human nature," i.e., no longer a sin—sinning against the father/Father (and having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) becomes moot, i.e., no longer an issue. In this way of 'reasoning' ('reasoning' through dialogue) man can do wrong, disobey, sin ("lust") with impunity, i.e., without having a guilty conscience.
"In short, philosophy as theory finds the 'ought' implied within the 'is', and as praxis seeks to make the two coincide." (Comments by Joseph O'Malley Ed. of Karl Marx's, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Through dialogue, getting the father to share his "feelings," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (his "ought") which the world stimulates (including his desire for the child's approval of him, i.e., the child's love for him—remember dialogue is not about the child's love of the father/Father, who restrains the child's carnal nature it is about the child's love of the world, which stimulates pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation), 'liberating' the child's carnal nature (desires, i.e., "lusts") in the father, i.e., the child and the father can become one in nature, i.e., 'reconciled,' thinking and acting in "harmony" (in consensus) with one another, according to their carnal nature, i.e., their "lusts" (desires) of the 'moment.' In this way of "reasoning," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' through "feelings" 'reconciliation' is not about the child becoming 'reconciled' to the father (by the child's acceptance of the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth—by faith) but about the father becoming 'reconciled' to the child, by the father suspending, as upon a cross, any established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of the child's and the father's "feelings," i.e., the child's desire to relate with the world and the father's desire to relate with the child, and visa versa (both the child's "feelings," i.e., desires and the father's "feelings," i.e., desires becoming one and the same in the 'moment'—removing any object or command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way—the deception being the father thinking the child's love is for him when in fact the child's love is for that which is of the world which stimulates pleasure, with the child being able to do what he wants, when he wants with the father's approval, i.e., affirmation). When someone tells you "It is not about you." when you insist upon doing right and not wrong according to established, i.e., "your" commands, rules, facts, and truth, you might think (be deceived into thinking that) they are saying "It is all about everyone's feelings." when in fact (the truth is) "It is all about their feelings." instead, i.e., they do not want to "feel guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning ("lusting") themselves.
"The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) When facts and truth are based upon opinion ("feelings," which are stimulated by the world—making "facts" and "truth" ever subject to 'change') then only that which is made manifest through dialogue is 'real,' i.e., is 'justified,' negating any fact or truth that gets in the way of 'change,' i.e., "feelings."
"We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Benjamin Bloom simply paraphrased Karl Marx: "In the eyes of the dialectical process [dialogue], nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." All "educators" are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's taxonomies" in the classroom.
"Preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) "KNOWING" messes up (prevents) dialogue, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from "feelings," i.e., "I feel" and "I think," i.e., "building relationships upon self interest."
"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [through persuasion], though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process [based upon "feelings" which are subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to changing situations]." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous [with doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth directing his steps, yet being capable of compromise, suspending, as upon a cross those established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of initiating "relationship" with someone who he "likes," i.e., who he wants to "relate" with, who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks his established commands, rules, facts, and truth]. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness [subject to his "feelings" of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., by the situation, i.e., by whoever is manipulating the situation (and therefore him) in the 'moment']." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) In other words, the role of the "therapist," through his or her use of dialogue, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation is to 'liberate' the child from the father's/Father's authority ("fixity") so the child (and the "therapist") can readily adapt to a 'changing' world. "Therapists" use dialogue, i.e., "feelings," bypassing discussion, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth when it gets (they get) in the way of the child's carnal nature (desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment'), in order for the child to become his "self," i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority.
If we reason (communicate) with one another from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority then we must humble, deny, die to, control, discipline our "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order (as in "old" world order) to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which makes right and wrong objective, external to our carnal nature. But, if we 'reason' (communicate) with one another from our "feelings," i.e., from our carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., in order (as in "new" world order) to "build relationship" with others, then right and wrong become subjective, i.e., subject to our carnal nature—with right being pleasure and wrong being anyone who gets in the way of our carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment,' making the father's/Father's authority, which gets in the way of "lust," i.e., "human nature" wrong.
"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?'" (Rogers) The end result of therapy (dialogue) is the father/Father is no longer the child's savior. It is the therapist who is the child's savior, who (through dialogue) 'liberates' the child from the father's/Father's authority, 'reconciling' him to his "self" and the world only, instead.
"History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower [the father's/Father's authority with the child humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self"' in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will], but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency [in the child's carnal nature, being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, in order (as in "new" world order) to "build relationship" with others who are "of and for self" and the world only—"self actualization"]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) According to Maslow, the 'change' in thinking (reasoning) is: man is no longer reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., deductive reasoning, indicative of the father's/Father's authority which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks 'change,' but is now 'reasoning' from his "feelings" of the 'moment,' in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., inductive reasoning, indicative of the child's carnal nature, initiating and sustaining rapid 'change.'
"Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15 A minister of the Word of God, preaches, teaches, and discusses the Word of God, weighing the Word of God with the Word of God, making all subject to it. A minister of the world (disguised as a minister of the Word of God) dialogues the Word of God, making it subject to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, which includes the approval (affirmation) of men.
It is not how far down the road (dialectic, i.e., dialogue road—"broad path") you have traveled ("I'm not as bad as he is"), it is that you are on the road in the first place. As stepping in a pig pen, one step on it and you stink—right and wrong (good and evil) become subject to your carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to 'change.'
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14
Dialogue, in and of its self, is not evil or wrong. It is when it takes the place of (replaces) discussion, where right and wrong are based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth. For example, when we, at lunch, are choosing an item from the menu, we discuss with our "self" and with others what is good (right) for us to eat and what is bad (wrong) for us to eat according to commands, rules, facts, and truth we have learned (know). On the other hand, we dialogue with our "self" and with others what we want (desire, i.e., prefer) to eat, i.e., what we "feel" like eating at the 'moment.' But when we dialogue with our "self" and with others what is good (right) and what is bad (wrong) for us to eat on the menu, we can make that which is bad (wrong) for us to eat "good" (right in our eyes, i.e., right in our perception), making us "feel" good about, i.e., not "feel" guilty about eating, i.e., "lusting" after what is bad (wrong) for us to eat—which is bad (wrong). Hum! Ever done that? That is the "power" ("self" deception) of dialogue. It is not that we do not dialogue our "feelings," i.e., make decisions according to our carnal desires (preferences) of the 'moment.' We do. What we want to eat at lunch being an example. What color we want for the room being another. But when it comes to doing right and not wrong, we discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth with our "self" and with others instead, in order to do (or be) right and not wrong. It is why children turn to dialogue (with their "Why?") when discussion (commands, rules, facts, and truth) get in the way of their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment.' It is our carnal nature to bypass (get around, i.e., circumvent) discussion, i.e., the father's authority by getting the father into dialogue instead, i.e., by getting the father to respond to our "Why?"—which we voice in response to his command, rule, fact, or truth that prevents us from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating—all the while dreading the father's "Because I said so" ("It is written") to our "Why?" which cuts off dialogue, i.e., which cuts off our pathway to pleasure. It is why therapists turn to dialogue, forcing the father to join in (respond to the child's "Why?" through dialogue), negating his (the father's) authority, i.e., the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth and the guilty conscience which they (his authority) engender in the process.
"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past [in other words the "superego" incorporates the child's "feelings," i.e., his resentment towards authority, i.e., toward restraint in the past and in the present].'" (Brown)
Kurt Lewin explained how the guilty conscience is created and how it can be negated, i.e., replaced with the "super-ego" instead.
"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality) According to Kurt Lewin, since the guilty conscience, what he called a "negative valance," is the result of the father's/Father's threat of punishment for doing wrong or for disobeying, what Lewin called "an induced field of force of an adult," preventing the child from having or doing what he desires to do or from having what he wants to have in the 'moment,' what Lewin called "a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child," by simply removing, in the mind of the child, the father's/Father's authority, i.e., by putting the child in a "safe zone, space, or place," where he can question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority, negating that which is "negative" without fear of reprimand, i.e., "if this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority" the guilty conscience is negated in the process, i.e., "the negative valance also disappears." In two sentences Kurt Lewin explained how the guilty conscience is 'created' and how it can be negated, i.e., how it can be replaced with the "super-ego"—which incorporates the child's carnal "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his natural "attraction" toward "a forbidden object" in deciding right from wrong, i.e., how he should think and act in the current situation. If you follow Lewin's line of 'reasoning,' a "positive" environment would be one which is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, not making people "feel bad," i.e., feel guilty for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning and a "negative" environment would be one which includes the father's/Father's authority, making people "feel bad," i.e., feel guilty for doing wrong, disobeying sinning. Thus by simply insisting upon having a "positive" environment, i.e., insisting upon dialogue in order to determine right from wrong, the father's/Father's authority is negated, allowing all participants to do wrong, disobey, sin ("lust") with impunity, i.e., with no sense of guilt.
In essence in dialogue the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world is stimulating is "positive," making the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which get in the way of pleasure ("lust"), "negative." It is why therapy is grounded upon the child's "feelings," i.e., dialogue and not the father's/Father's authority, i.e., obeying established commands, rules facts, and truth—in dialogue negating the father's/Father's authority (called "the negation of negation").
"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, "of and for self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
The child of disobedience who, "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, "esteems" his "self," sides with Rousseau, "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody," 'liberating' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality). On the other hand, the child of obedience, who humbles, denies, dies to, controls, disciplines his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will sides with the father's/Father's authority, "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof," holding his "self" accountable to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. (1 Corinthians 10:26) Following the 'logic' of Rousseau, Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born) then wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common nature of "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world is stimulating, especially their desire for approval from others (affirmation), 'justifying' their carnal desires, i.e., "lusts"], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one [Dialogue is ("feelings" are) informal, i.e., subjective. Discussion is (facts and truth are) formal, objective. Bringing dialogue ("feelings," i.e., opinions, i.e., "self interest") into discussion (facts and truth, i.e., right and wrong) makes discussion (established commands, rules, facts, and truth) subject to the "feelings," i.e., opinions, i.e., "self interest" of those in control of the meeting—any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of the "feelings," i.e., opinions, i.e., "self interest" of the 'moment' is negated, i.e., is rejected, i.e., is left out]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In other words your spouse is not yours, but societies, your children are not yours, but societies, your property is not yours, but societies, your business is not yours, but societies, etc., and even you are not yours, but societies, i.e., subject to the "felt" needs of the 'moment' of those who are in control (power), who, through dialogue, i.e., according to their "self interest," i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' are determining what societies "needs" are. In that 'moment,' sovereignty, private convictions, private property, private business, posterity, inheritance, unalienable rights, "rule of law," etc., disappear, i.e., are negated, i.e., are rejected, i.e., are left out.
"'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 has authority in his home, i.e., over his children]." Freud's history of society (and therefore psychology) is based upon the children's ("sons") "hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest'," i.e., "the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father." "Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology." "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
"Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvine D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
"It is not individualism [the child subject to the father's/Father's authority, having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., building relationship with others upon the child's carnal desires, i.e., finding one's identity, i.e., "self" in "the group," i.e., in society—"self esteem"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) By making the individual subject to the cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor domains only, Karl Marx (and Sigmund Freud) negated the soul of man, which is made in the image of God, knowing right from wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in man having a guilty conscience for doing wrong. This is why Georg Hegel could not use the world "wrong," using the word "badly" instead, when describing how we are to 'reason,' i.e., relate (communicate) with one another.
"When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) There is no condemnation (judgment) in doing things "badly," only the need to do things "better." There is condemnation (judgment) in doing things "wrong." Without condemnation (judgment) of others behavior (and thoughts), "social relations" becomes man's pathway to freedom, i.e., freedom from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., freedom from condemnation (judgment) for doing things wrong—the only condemnation ("wrong") then being those who insist upon condemning (judging) others for doing wrong. With "wrong" ("judgmentalism," i.e., condemnation) out of the way, according to Hegel, man can have "peace," i.e., enjoy the "lusts" of the 'moment' without having a guilty conscience, with "affirmation," i.e., with everyone else's approval. He, in essence, simply added the clause "or till someone better comes along" to the wedding vow "for better or for worse, till death do us part." Which describes our culture today.
"The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6) It is in the "building of relationship upon common self interest," uninhibited by the father's/Father's authority (which divides "self" from the world and alienates family from family) that "community" is initiated and sustained. In other words: when doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (compromise) is done for the "good" of "the group," i.e., for the "good" of "the people" it becomes right, i.e., "good." In order to "build relationships upon common self interest" the father's/Father's authority must be "bypassed" through dialogue, allowing everyone to come to a consensus based upon their "human nature," i.e., 'creating' unity based upon what all men have in common, their carnal nature only—it should be noted while Traditional Marxist attack the father's/Father's authority outright, Transformational Marxists "bypass" it instead (at least at first).
"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)
"Authoritarian submission [the father's/Father's authority] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "An attitude of complete submissiveness toward 'supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of ‘many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Theodor Adorno was a Marxist, i.e., a member of the "Frankfurt School," i.e., The Institute of Social Research (described below). By generalizing, lumping all authority's (benevolent and tyrannical authority) together as one, identifying them as Fascist in structure, Marxists are able to make the negation of the traditional family (the father's/Father's authority) the solution to alienation.
"Personal relations between men have this character of alienation. Hegel and Marx have laid the foundations for the understanding of the problem of alienation." "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) Both Adorno and Fromm (members of the "Frankfurt School") were the "weltanschauung" (world view) of "Bloom's Taxonomies," curriculum by which all "educators" are certified and schools accredited today.
"Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject [the child] engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity [makes himself subject to the father's/Father's authority]." (Stephen Erik Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
"The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) For Marx, the fault lies in the child, not the father—by the child submitting his "self" to an "alien and hostile force." Without "help" from outside, the child (being to weak) can not rescue his "self" from his mistake.
"The bourgeoisie [parents united as one, defending their authority] fighting on its own ground will prove superior to the proletariat [to the children]... it is self-evident that the bourgeoisie fighting on its own ground will be both more experienced and more expert… the superiority of the proletariat must lie exclusively in its ability to see society from the centre as a coherent whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) György Lukács along with Karl Korsch founded (in their writings) The Institute of Social Research. According to Lukács, without "help" from outside, i.e., without the use of 'change' agents, uniting the children (the proletariat) as "one"—"helping" them to see their "self" as "one," i.e., to see their "self" in one another (thinking and acting according to their carnal nature)—they would remain "buffeted about aimlessly and uncontrollably" by those in authority. The Institute of Social Research eventually become know as the "Frankfurt School" as most members, in the early 30's, emigrated to the USA from Frankfurt Germany, where the Institute was located (fleeing Nazi Germany). Although Kurt Lewin was not an official member of the Institute (he edited their paper, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung) his work on "group dynamics," "force field analysis," and "unfreezing, moving, refreezing" made their work a reality, becoming the method used (along with J. L. Moreno's "role-playing") by the National Training Laboratories (as elaborated in Human Relations in Curriculum Change) and The Aspin Institute in the US, and The Tavistock Institute in Great Britain—which are patterned after Felix Weil's Marxistische Arbeitswoche ("Marxist Work-week"), which implementing Lukács writings (with Lukács attending the first work-week in Thuringia, German in 1922).
"For one class to stand for the whole of society [a child centered ("feelings" based) society], another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits [parental authority, restraining "human nature," preventing the children from being their "self"]. A particular social sphere [traditional parents preventing 'change,' "repressing" their children, "alienating" them, preventing them from having relationship with the other children of the community] must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere [from parental authority] 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." "The only practically possible emancipation [for children] is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man [the child is the supreme being for the child]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Only in meetings where opinion are dialogued to a consensus, i.e., where everyone agrees (affirms) that "feelings" are the basis of life, not obeying established commands, rules, facts, and truth, can the "human(ist)" class 'liberate' itself from the father's/Father's authority.
"Estrangement is a phase of the dialectical process, and that by experiencing and overcoming it [children 'discovering' their commonalty in one another and uniting as one in overcoming parental authority, i.e., 'liberating' themselves from that which divides them] man creates his own self and then fulfills himself as a man." (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx) In other words, the child "creates" "and then fulfills" his "self" in 'liberating' his "self" from parental authority, finding his identity in the collective, i.e., in the children of the community instead. It is in the classroom that such a community exists, waiting to be used in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' the children from parental authority, i.e., from the "bourgeoisie."
"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) Educators, according to Marx, must become 'change agents' (agents of 'change') if 'change' is to take place in the classroom, i.e., society.
A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations ["innovation" means 'change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education) Kurt Lewin identified this role of the 'change' agents as being able to use "force field analysis" in order to identity who is "defending" and promoting (initiating and sustaining) 'change' and who is "resisting" (inhibiting or blocking) 'change.'
"A change in the curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents ....." We "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to their belief or position, i.e., refusing to compromise, thus sustaining the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group ['changing' their 'loyalty' from the one restraining the child's carnal nature to the one(s) 'liberating' it]." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values [Marxism/common-ism/socialism], the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes [what is called a "paradigm 'change'" or 'shift,' i.e., 'shifting' his 'loyalty' from the one, i.e., from the father/Father, to his "self," and then, with the help of the facilitator of 'change,' to the many, i.e. to "the group," i.e., to society—from a Patriarchal Paradigm of stability (establishment), through a Matriarchal Paradigm of "feelings," to the Heresiarchal Paradigm of continuous 'change,' i.e., "self" 'justification'] and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed.... many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern [the father's/Father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
"What better way to help the patient [the student, your child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [resentments] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator of 'change']? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the student, your child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [if his classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the student, your child] changes the past by reconstituting it." (Yalom)
"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) As explained in more detail below, the "educator" does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parents authority when they get home from school (if they are not already doing that), they will do that automatically after participating in the "group grade" classroom.
"Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man [the child] overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the carnal nature of the child]; the foundation has to be recovered." (Brown)
"The individual is emancipated ['liberated' from the father's/Father's authority] in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants [through the consensus process] could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Brown)
"As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud [dialogue].'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) The "Frankfurt School" was a group of Marxists, i.e., Transformational Marxists (Transformational Marxists merge Marx and Freud, i.e., socialism and psychology, i.e., "the group" and the individual), who, fleeing Nazi Germany, came to the United States in the early 30's. Entering our Universities they advised our national leaders, courts, educators, media, ministers, and corporations on how to facilitate 'change,' i.e., advance Marxism through psychology (group psychotherapy), training up the next generation of "professionals" to do the same. Instead of forcing Marx "down peoples throats," as Traditional Marxists do, Transformational Marxists (through the use of dialogue) "help" them 'discover' and then 'liberate' the Karl Marx, i.e., the love of pleasure and hate of restraint in their "self" instead, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience which it engenders—which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks 'change.'
"Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Marcuse)
"Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions [being of the world only] are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [obeying the father/Father] stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." (Maslow, Journals)
"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
"In the process of self-actualization [finding our identity and 'purpose' in the society], the ego creates an objective, resistant world over against itself [the child's desire to pleasure the father/Father turns the child's against his "self," making him "conscious" of the "other," i.e. the world of desire, i.e. the world of pleasure which the father/Father, i.e., the father's/Father's authority restrains]. This implies an obstacle whose resistance has to be overcome. We realize our liberty and independence through the successful overcoming of this resistance [through the child, along with the other children, united as one in overcoming the Father's authority, i.e., the restraint to pleasure]. It is in this process of the ego bringing into existence a world over against itself and then overcoming the limitations with which it is confronted that Fichte finds the sequence of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. This is of course a Fichtean, not an Hegelian, formula." (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx) It is the child's desire, restrained by the father's/Father's authority that engenders 'reasoning,' i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" justification, i.e., dialogue, which, when once put into praxis, becomes "actualized."
"Sense experience [sensuousness, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' being stimulated by the world, i.e., responding to it according to his own carnal nature, thinking he is in control] must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception ["lust of the eyes"] and sensuous need ["lust of the flesh"], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature [from "all that is in the world"]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Karl Marx simply made "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride if life" the laws of nature, making them academic, i.e., science, using them to determine a persons worth. Therefore, since all sin, anyone against sin, i.e., "human nature" becomes irrational, therefore irrelevant.
"Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Rogers)
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21
"Behavior science," i.e., "sense experience" makes all subject to their carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" and the world which stimulates it, 'liberating' mankind from the father's/Father's authority (faith). Therefore, the only way there can be "world(ly) peace and social(ist) harmony" is for psychologists, i.e., group psychotherapists, i.e., facilitators of 'change', i.e., Transformational Marxists to come between the parents and their children and, in a "safe zone/space/place," i.e., "positive" environment (using "Bloom's Taxonomies"), seduce, deceive, and manipulate them into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (affirmation), affectively negating the father's/Father's authority in their thoughts and actions—so they can do wrong, disobey, sin (be their "self") with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin (be their "self") without having a guilty conscience.
"The dialectical method was overthrown [the father/Father retained his authority over his children]—the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within themselves collectively]." "For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." (Lukács) It is the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and the actions of the child that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks 'change.' Immanuel Kant's world of "lawfulness without law," where the child's carnal nature rules without the father's/Father's authority getting in the way can not become a 'reality' as long as the father's/Father's authority remains in place.
"The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access [through getting him or her to dialogue, i.e., to share his or her "feelings" of the 'moment' with others] is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential [for 'change,' i.e., to become of and for "self" and the world only—'liberating' "self" from the father's/Father's authority]." (Adorno) It is through dialogue we share our "lust" (for the things of the world) and hate (toward authority that gets in the way of pleasure). By 'justifying'' "lust" ("human nature"), making pleasure the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, hate (toward authority) is 'justified.' Love and hate go hand in hand, the one (love) 'justifying' the other (hate).
"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words, "self" becomes "actualized" in the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' stimulated by the world, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority—the carnal nature of man and nature itself, becoming at-one-with-one-another in the 'moment,' must negate the father's/Father's authority in order to become "actual."
"Nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations." (Maslow, Journals)
"I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
"When the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming." "The qualities of the client's expression at any one point [the amount of pleasure he is enjoying in the 'moment'] might indicate this position on this continuum, might indicate where he stood in the process of change." (Rogers) In other words, where a person began, subject to authority, 'limited' in pleasure to where he is now, enjoying the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' which the world (situation) stimulates, which he at first (or in the resent past) would not participate in (due to his "self" inflicted restraints, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's ) reveals the level of 'changingness' he is at, at any given 'moment' on the continuum of 'change.'
"The life [authority or power] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Therefore, according to Marx, only by being "helped" to 'liberate' his "self" from his "self" inflected restraints can the child become his "self" again, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority which he 'created' (in his obedience to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth which prevented him from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which he desired, which the world stimulated).
"We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness [the situation or environment that stimulates the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' which stimulates his dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred of authority—which gets in the way]." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction [with authority]." (Benne)
"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 only in the children 'discovering,' through dialogue, their common identity with one another, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint that they can 'liberation' of their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, resulting in "self" becoming 'reality,' i.e., 'actualized,' resulting in "self" become 'actualized,' i.e., "oughtiness" becoming "is."
"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals [there is no top-down father's/Father's authority, i.e., "Because I said so"/"It is written" in dialogue]." "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 [to their position]. 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 [how we really "feel" about things] ... [dialogue engenders] genuine and creative collective consciousness [with everyone 'discovering' and then "building relationship" upon what they all have in common, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., their "self interest"]." "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)
"The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics [the child dialoguing with his "self" his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates and his dissatisfaction and resentment toward parental authority that gets in the way]." "Freud's finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'" (Brown)
"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)
"Change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group." (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development) As long as the educator (as a traditional father) preaches commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaches facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discusses with their students any questions the students might have regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth (at the educators discretion: providing they have time, the students can understand, and they are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority), rewarding or blessing the students who obey and do things right (to encourage them to continue doing so), correcting, reproving, and/or chastening the students who disobey and/or do things wrong (to encourage them to obey and do things right), and casting out or expelling any student who questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks authority (to retain order, as in "old" world order, in the classroom) the students will remain 'loyal' to their parent's authority (generally speaking) when they get home. The "educator" who 'changes' the curriculum to where the students can dialogue their opinions to a consensus, finding common ground with one another on their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority (if they were not doing that already) when they get home from school, the students will do that automatically after participating in the "group think" classroom the "educator" has created.
"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately [their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation and their fear of rejection drawing them into participation]." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, 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." (Yalom)
"Once you can identify a community [where people are willing to 'compromise,' i.e., set aside their belief or faith, i.e., the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "get along," i.e., "build relationships" and solve problems], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change." (Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing emphasis added) "Positive social change" is based upon 'liberating' the child's carnal nature (which is positive) from the father's/Father's authority (which is negative).
"For to accept that solution [where all must participate in dialogue, i.e., participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., participate in being "positive" (supportive of the child's carnal nature) and "not negative" (supportive of the father's/Father's authority)], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective, from his carnal nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parent's authority]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." "As soon as the bourgeoisie [the parent] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [is forced to dialogue with the child], it is lost." (Lukács)
"Any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching ... once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
The objective is to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Adorno) In 1969 BSTEP ("Behavior Science in Education Programing" became the Federal benchmark for all Federal Grants to education—"using social-environmental forces" to change not only the parents behavior but also the teachers behavior toward the child.
"'The ideological history of the bourgeoisie [the parents] was nothing but a desperate resistance to every insight into the true nature of the society it had created [their children's "felt needs"] and thus to a real understanding of its class situation [its "creation" of a "top-down," "Do what I say or else" authority system over their children, "repressing" their children, "alienating" them from one another and the world]." "The Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [the traditional family structure] produces its own grave-diggers [their children].'" (Lukács) As parents "push back" to restore order in the home, the children, now "feeling" threatened are justified (in their mind) of the need to negate their parents.
"An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry ...any attempt to prevent human freedom [any attempt to prevent the child from questioning authority] is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness [which discourages questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding attacking authority] is guilty of oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry [the children ability to "question," circumvent, strike out against, and negate the father's/Father's authority] is guilty of violent oppression." (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed) In other words, since the father's/Father's authority "oppresses" the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature, any act to support the father's/Father's authority, i.e., to "oppress" the child must be perceived as and responded to as a crime against "the people."
For globalism to become a 'reality' the father's/Father's authority must be negated along with the guilty conscience it engenders. Replacing discussion (commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority) with dialogue ("feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature)—or even mixing the two in order to determine right from wrong—does the trick.
"Change in organization [paradigm, i.e., way of feeling, thinking, and acting, i.e., relating with "self," others, and the world, and responding to authority] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [dialogue (which is informal) and discussion (which is formal)]. To be governed by two strong goals [obeying the father/Father and being accepted (not rejected) by "the group"—which questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization ["feelings," i.e., personal desires begin to predominate over facts and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth]. Also, a certain disorganization should result [cognitive dissonance, where a person is caught between his belief and his carnal desire(s) of the 'moment,' i.e., doing the father's/Father's will and "lusting" after the carnal pleasure(s) of the 'moment'—which includes approval, i.e., affirmation by the group] and from the fact that the cognitive-motor system [habit] loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." (Kurt Lewin in Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression) In other words you have to choose between doing the father's/Father's will (and being rejected by "the group") or going with "the group" (and rejecting the father's/Father's authority).
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16
The Word of God explains why man chooses dialogue over and therefore against discussion when it comes to doing right and not wrong. It also warns of God's judgment upon man for making his heart (his "feelings") the standard from which to determine right from wrong.
"[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12
"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 inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 No one can see their heart as being deceitful and wicked because their love of "self," i.e., their love of pleasure 'justifies' their hated toward anyone getting in their way, blinding them to the truth that their heart is "deceitful above all things" and "desperately wicked."
"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 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
"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12
"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
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4
"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." Jeremiah 6:16, 17
"But my people would not hearken to my voice;" "So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels." Psalms 81:11, 12
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3 Marxism would not work if Marx was not already in your heart, coveting the pleasures of the world, waiting to be seduced, deceived, and manipulated and then used (bought and sold) as "natural resource" ("human resource") by facilitators of 'change' (Marxists) for their own pleasure and gain—with your approval (affirmation).
"Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity." "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity." Psalms 39:5; 94:11
"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 1:2; 11:9, 10; 12:13, 14
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32
"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "lusts" 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 ("lust") 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
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
"The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Rogers)
"Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception [what can I get out of this environment, i.e., this situation for my "self"—"self interest"]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason ['reasoning' from his own "feelings," i.e., his "sensuous needs" ("lust of the flesh") and "sense perception" ("lust of the eyes"), i.e., 'reasoning' from his "sense experience" ("pride of life"), 'justifying' his "self'] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the Word of God, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth] nor that authority of the church [the Son of God, Jesus Christ] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)
"We must ultimately assume at the highest theoretical levels of enlightenment management theory, a preference or a tendency." ". . . to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ [doing the Father's will]. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2, 3
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: 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
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
"Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2
"And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Galatians 5:24
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
"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
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15, 16
"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18
"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24
The 'moment' the "church" replaces the preaching, teaching, and discussing of God's Word with men dialoguing their opinion of it instead, in order to arrive at a consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness") the "church" becomes apostate serving Belial instead of the Lord. As the "church" goes the nation goes. Even the Marxists (and Karl Marx himself) know this.
"The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)
"If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)
"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 3:22
Marxists decided not to fight against the "church" but to join it instead, growing it through "feelings," i.e., through dialogue, 'liberating' it from the Father's authority in the process. Without the Father there is no Son. Without the Son's obedience to the Father in all things commanded, dying on the cross for our sins, 'redeeming' us from the Father's judgment upon us for our sins, there is not gospel. Without the Father raising His Son from the grave, there is no 'reconciliation' with the Father that we might inherit eternal life. Without the Father and the Son sending the Holy Spirit to confirm the Word and guide our steps we have no strength. Without the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit there is only eternal death, i.e., only the lake of fire that is never quenched. The gospel message is all about the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ.
"And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1
Are you a Marxist and don't even know it?
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019