authorityresearch.com

Institution for Authority Research

Article on Diaprax

Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis
To obey (or disobey) or to circumvent?—that is the question.

by Dean Gotcher

September, 2007
(Revised 03-19, 2008)

For an understanding of the application of diaprax, when finished with this article, read Diaprax Applied.

Introduction

The battle line is between either "right and wrong" (absolute, objective truth) or "the tolerance of ambiguity" (relativism, subjective truth). Either you have no tolerance of ambiguity, "right is right and wrong is wrong," or you are tolerant of ambiguity, "there is no right or wrong answer." The school system today, which promotes a program which has no tolerance for "right and wrong (conscience)," and can only tolerate ambiguity (consensus), is producing a generation what has a paradigm of intolerance toward righteousness i.e. refusing to accept, associate with and promote those who are doing what is right and abstain from, expose, and if in a position of authority judge that which is wrong.  For a believer to tolerate any deviance from "right and wrong" is to embrace confusion, the halfway house to consensus. 

Your tolerance or non-tolerance of ambiguity defines your paradigm, i.e. the way you think. A non-tolerance of ambiguity paradigm is a praxis (practice or system) of a patriarchal paradigm (a "black-white," "right-wrong" way of thinking).  A tolerance of ambiguity paradigm is a praxis of a heresiarchal paradigm (a "there is no right or wrong answer" way of thinking). You can only be patriarch in paradigm (obey God) or heresiarch in paradigm (discover your "human" potential, with Satan's facilitation), you can not be both patriarch and heresiarch.  No matter how much the heresiarch would like you to believe otherwise, it is either one or the other. In the end there is only a patriarch paradigm, all the rest is an illusion, founded on the paradigm of deception—a shifty paradigm not a paradigm shift.  The heresiarch would tell you the opposite, that the patriarchal paradigm is an illusion, willing even to give you the benefit of a doubt, for, just like yeast, a little doubt can go a long ways.

In this article, though it may be difficult to read at times, just press through.  It will explain the difference between the patriarchal paradigm—where the father sets rules, the matriarchal paradigm—where the mother sets her hearts desires not upon her husband but upon herself and her children i.e. seeking justice without law (which leads to tyranny), and the heresiarchal paradigm—where the children rule (the practice of patricide and incest) i.e. tyranny.

"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

If you want to know, really want to know, what is happening to the world around you, it is important to understand this battle line.  It only comes down to two sides (two roads), one side (a narrow and straight road) can not tolerate (can not participate in the praxis of) ambiguity , the other side (a broad road) can not tolerate the intolerance of ambiguity. Many will think they are on the right side (road) when they are not i.e. continuing to practice tolerance of ambiguity, coming to consensus with unbelievers on spiritual matters, deceiving themselves and taking pleasure in deceiving others.

"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

"The right path leads to eternal life while the wrong path leads to eternal death. Not that anyone can have eternal life from knowing about the right path.  That is only possible by knowing the one who is the path, the way—Jesus Christ.  "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

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."  "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;"  "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." 2 Peter 2:, 2, 15, 21

"Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." Jude 1:11

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5: 20, 21

In the end it was all about our fathers as seen through the eyes of children of rebellion i.e. how to take hold of that which is of the father, without his control.

Paraphrase of Karl Marx's Thesis #4 by Dean Gotcher
Once our earthly father (for disobedient children the earthly father is the source of dread, the dread of chastening and alienation) is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly father (for disobedient children the heavenly father is the source of dread, the dread of chastening and alienation), the earthy father's must be eradicated, both in the thoughts and feelings of the children and in the practice of the community. 

Paraphrase of Herbert Marcuse Eros and Civilization by Dean Gotcher
In dialectical reasoning, it is not a matter whether one's father is alive or dead, what matters is, if he is still alive, he no longer demands you practice (praxis) an "Obey me and you will be blessed, disobey me and you will be cursed," "right-wrong" way of thinking—a patriarchal paradigm which carries with it the dread of chastening for those who praxis that which is wrong. 

Paraphrase of Kurt Lewin as quoted in Kenneth Benne's Human Relations in Curriculum Change by Dean Gotcher 
The dread of chastening, when one finds themselves in the presence "of a forbidden object which in itself attracts them," is usually the result of the chastening or threat of chastening of a person in authority—a father figure.  If a person finds themselves in an environment where they can perceive the one in authority having no position or intent to chasten, the dread of chastening disappears, i.e. the children of rebellion are freed from any sense of guilt for their praxis.

All along there has been no other purpose but freedom from the dread of chastening i.e. for rebellious children, freedom from the author of dread, the "authoritarian" father!

Table of contents

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 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 2:1-3

Forward:  Oughtiness—Negating the "Not" (Godly restraint) to emancipate cosmic "Thought" (The imagination of the heart, i.e. humanism).
Preface:   Patricide—Negating the Patriarchal Paradigm (killing the fathers) so all the children can actualize the praxis of cosmic incest—consensus.
Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis: Part  I
Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis: Part II
"Closure"
Endnotes:
    "de-ceit"
    Some of my sources

Forward

"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

The question is:
whether to obey or disobey the father, either to live according to his standards, honoring his office, preserving the "past experience" (when we received his standards) as a guide for the present and the future (faith),
or to knowingly go against his standards, still preserving the office of the father,
still preserving the "good-evil" of the "past experience" (a guilty conscience),
or whether to circumvent them both, the office of the father with his the ensuing commands and the conscience, so we can freely participation in the present, unrestrained by the "experiences of the past" (sight)—modern day therapy?
"Why are you keeping the promises you made to your father who died twenty years ago?" 
paraphrase of Carl Rogers response to a women counselee.
"What does it mean to me?" replacing "What would my father say?"

"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. 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. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:15-18

The 'ought' is "If I had the power and authority to subdue you so I could will (live) my life my way, I would do it—my way."  'Ought' is desire (lust, "felt" needs) seeking freedom of expression, still under the fear (dread) of judgment/punishment (in a state of anxiety).  The 'is' is "You will do it my way because I say so." 'Is' is purpose expecting recognition and honour.  Both are 'I will.'  The difference being, the 'is,' has power, has authority, is established ("I Am"), tying the present to the past and the future (commands and consequence), the 'there-and-then,' i.e. objective thinking, while the 'ought' is powerless, unestablished (a non-actualized "I will"), still in an "I feel" sulking state, not aware of or possessed by an "I think," self justifying (actualizing) state, not yet intellectualized, educated, not yet able to tie the present to the present and the future (desires and possibilities, "Feelings with thoughts"), the "ought" is the 'here-and-now' in waiting, self awaiting actualization i.e. subjective thinking, the "ought" is pent up rebellion seeking manifestation (revolution is materialized rebellion). 

The 'ought' is a timid, weak, suppressed 'I will' of the present desires, an uneducated "I will," a changing, 'living will,' based upon the desires of the recipient in the moment—the future is not obligated or restrained by the voice of the past but instead it is being influenced by the sensual (sensuous) voices of the current cosmic environment. The 'is' is the 'I will" of the past, an established will based upon the benefactors conditions, shaping the recipients behavior in the present, to be actualized by the recipient only after the benefactors passing—the present and the future desires are restrained by the voice of the past, obligated to the demands of the past.  The objective of the dialectical process is to make all wills subjective, guided by the common interest, common desires, of all parties in the present, not just determined by the one with property, seen as "surplus repression", limiting its distribution based upon the property owners particular guidelines, their definition of proper behavior. 

"Thinking through the process it is dialectically faulty to start with the negative, with anxiety.  The problem is to name the dynamic factor provoking anxiety to emerge [the "intrusive" command of the father].  Anxiety is a function of spontaneity.  Spontaneity can be defined as the adequate response to a new situation, or the novel response to an old situation.  With decrease of spontaneity anxiety increases.  With entire lose of spontaneity anxiety reaches its maximum, the point of panic."  J. L. Moreno  Who Shall Survive

The key to understanding this dialectical formula is the removal (the negation) of the word 'Not,' "the dynamic factor provoking anxiety to emerge."  'Not' offers only the choice of 'obey' or 'disobey.' Its exclusion in problem solving allows discourse. Dialogue is the pathway toward "rational" compromise, of change "justified"—differences mediated.  'Not,' the "negative" voice of restraint, the voice of the authority of the father expecting to being honored, removed from the room, allows the 'ought,' the "positive" internal voice seeking liberation, self seeking the openness of "spontaneity," the voice of the authorization of the self being esteemed (lust), freedom of discourse, which in turn liberates the freedom of thought (the land of theory, the world of "seem to").  The "is-ought" heresiarchal praxis, a worldly paradigm (human way of thinking), negates an "is-not" patriarchal praxis, a Godly paradigm (Biblical way of thinking), instantly. The very act of participation produces spiritual death.

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. 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. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."  James 4: 1-10

Put another way, 'is' (the office of authority) with a 'Not' (command limiting natural inclination, spontaneity repressed) is a patriarchal praxis—a purpose directed life, led by God's desire, by his word and by his spirit, to bring us into right relationship (atonement) with him, authority defines proper behavior for those under their rule  i.e. what is right behavior and what is not, in regards to relationship with people or things in the present and future (not yet experienced) environment—obedience to commands given from someone above current common "felt" needs.  'Is' (the office of authority) with an 'ought' (natural inclination, spontaneity) is a heresiarchal praxis—a purpose driven life, led by human desires, by human nature, to relate with someone or something within the natural universe, authority discovers "proper" behavior common with their own desires and desires of others i.e. what is right behavior and what is not, in regards to relationship with people or things in the present, based upon finding common ground with the current and future (potential) environment—questioning, through dialogue, any command which interferes with the actualization of common "felt" needs. Therefore, "is" driven by "ought," (the office of authority driven by the spontaneity of common "felt" needs) negates the office of the father (the patriarchal paradigm, the office of authority directing the person to take control over the spontaneity of human nature, of common "felt" needs) with its restraining 'Not.'

"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.  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21

Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.  (John 5:19)  He obeyed his Fathers will, redeeming us from the wrath of the law. (Romans 5:8-6:18) Thus his patriarchal praxis, in relationship with his patriarchal Father, can become our patriarchal praxis, in relationship with his patriarchal Father.  Through his shed blood and the power of the Holy Spirit (through baptism in water and in his Spirit), all patriarchal in praxis,  the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit were both sent by the Father for us.  In Christ Jesus we have become children of God (not in flesh but in spirit), joint heirs through him, in his praxis, and with him, in his praxis.  Jesus never praxised an ought, and has never asked anyone to do so. To praxis an ought defeats our true purpose, given to us by a holy, pure, and righteous God, to be as Jesus, to be an obedient child.  The law externally imposed is the law without Christ Jesus.  In Christ the law becomes internally expressed through work of the Holy Spirit.  Without the recognition of our wickedness, the works of the flesh and our mind subject to its will, and Gods judgment upon wickedness we would not recognize the necessity of the work of Christ, His life, His death, and His resurrection, all done according to the will for our Heavenly Father, "thy will be done," for our redemption, that we might have eternal life "enter into the kingdom of heaven" instead of death "cast into hell," "everlasting punishment"  Matthew 5:46

"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."  Matthew 18:2-4

It was the Fathers will to send his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to redeem us from our sin, our separation from him, our "shifty" paradigm (so called paradigm shift) of self-determination and self-deception (Mark 2:17).  It was the Fathers will to send his Holy Spirit to teach us and to guide us into all truth and righteousness.  Thus we might perceive the fathers commands being of the past, from the law and the prophets, which we can not accomplish in ourselves, while in truth his law is now in the present, through the work of the Holy Spirit, in us.  When we walk and live in the spirit, setting our minds on things above, His Spirit bearing witness with our spirit, we fulfill his will, being obedient children. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint–heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."  Romans 8:16, 17  There is no 'ought' in his Spirit, only a 'must.'  The suffering comes from our refusal to praxis the law of the flesh, from not setting our mind on the things of the earth with its "felt" needs, its human desires, with its 'ought's.'  The suffering comes from our refusal to praxis consensus, the dialectical, diabolical, deadly "game" of philosophy and change—'theory and practice'—whose foundation is built upon human nature and human reasoning.

Preface

"‘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.” (Herbert Marcuse  Eros and Civilization, 1955 quoting Sigmund Freud)

Paraphrase:

It's not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or he is still around as long as his "Obey me or else ..., because I say so." is circumvented (the dread of chastening is silenced) through the praxis of consensus.

In dialectical reasoning, it is not a matter whether one's father is alive or dead, what matters is there is no one who demands you practice (praxis) an "Obey me and you will be blessed, disobey me and you will be cursed." way of thinking—a patriarchal paradigm.  What matter is there is no one around who will chasten you for disobeying rules they, like God, have arbitrarily established, rules which make no sense to you—non-sensuous, rules you can not experientially comprehend, rules which block normal human behavior (for "Boys will be boys."), intolerant rules which prevent the praxis of an "I'm OK. Your OK." "Can't we all just get along." "If it feels good, just do it." outcome—a heresiarchal paradigm i.e. postmodernism, where there are supposedly no  fixed laws.

If the conscience is the outcome of a "thesis-antithesis" environment, and if consensus is the outcome of an "emerging synthesis" environment, then a person with a conscience will be perceived as cacophonous (out of harmony) in an environment of consensus.
Dean Gotcher  Social health through consensus

“Some of the formal properties of religion, such as the rigid antithesis of good and evil, … still exercise considerable power.”  Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality

“We don’t know the answers to the question: What proportion of the population is irreversibly authoritarian?” Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management

Dialectic is deviancy in unity without sacrificing deviancy. Thus deviancy becomes the norm
Consensus is deviancy in unity without sacrificing deviancy.  Thus deviancy becomes the norm
Conscience is "the key element" of self-control, "refraining from deviant behavior." (Trojanowicz )

In dialectical "logic" since "truth is found in the emerging synthesis" and "not found in the thesis nor the antithesis"  (Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love), since truth is not found in whether dad's command is right or wrong, since truth is not found in any pre-determined "good-evil," "right-wrong," "obey or else" command, since truth is not established without our "enlightened" consent, then it is everybody's responsibility in the "village" to either convert the father, (help him see the error of his way and change), or remove him from his children (or remove his children from him), or kill him i.e. remove him from the village.  The first choice is to convert him: to neuter him; to sanitize him, his home, and "the village" of his patriarchal praxis, to make the village—its businesses, its government, its education system, its "churches," etc.—socially healthy i.e. germ free. “Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process.” Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person

“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 comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?’” (Rogers)

“We will know that our knowledge of the authoritarian character structure is truly scientific when an average authoritarian character will be able to read the information on the subject and the regard his own authoritarian character as undesirable or sick or pathological and will go about trying to get rid of it.” Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management

 The seekers of "sensuous truth"

“... planned change which is consistent with democratic ideology ... must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue.”  
Kenneth Benne  Human Relations in Curriculum Change

convert

Since, according to dialectical "reasoning," "truth is not found in the thesis nor the antithesis" (God's commands, whether their outcome is right or not in light of the given situation) but instead "is found in the emerging synthesis," (how man feels and what he thinks concerning his "felt" needs) (King), since truth is found in the experience (praxis) of seeking and discovering common ground, since truth is actualized through discourse and not found in any unchangeable law, laws established outside of the common human experience of the moment, contrasting things below (common human experience) from things above (out of reach of common human experience), then every effort should be made to facilitate his conversion through the praxis of consensus building.  (Note: Dialectical "reasoning" is similar to Hermeticism: "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck.  This "As above, so below" dialectical philo-religion is occult: "the Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucians, and the First Freemasons.) This is the praxis of transformation, i.e. the praxis of alignment, through role-playing, with "cosmic energy."  The occult phrase "As above, so below" (common) is used in place of "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (contrast) Matthew 6:10 (KJV) by Eugene Peterson's in his Hermetic based "bible," The Message.  The apostate church is built on dialectically "reasoned," occult books like Peterson's, i.e. Church Growth, Emerging Church.

neutralize

If he refuses to convert to a dialectical praxis, he is identified as a resister to change and must be neutralized.  This is achieved by getting everybody's input, including his own, in making a decision, making laws flexible to the "times," “Laws ...must change as ... the people change.” (Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right).  This frees others from his rigid patriarchal paradigm, and begins the praxis of circumvention. 

This is comparable to silencing a singer by letting him sing, all he wants, next to a noisy jet engine, no one is telling him he "can not" sing, no one is overtly putting him down.  He is being "encouraged" to abdicate the "attitude" of having it "his way." He is being conditioned to listen to the "feelings" and "thoughts" of others, he is being conditioned to not base other's singing (noise) upon his "right-wrong" way of singing. “Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts.” (Rogers) He is learning to say "I feel annoyed by what you are doing," rather than, "What you are doing is all wrong."  Like Pavlov's dogs, when conditioned to social noise, people will perform proper social behavior when the bell (sound bite of social noise) is rung.  Truth, according to the dialectical paradigm, is to be found in the noise of social change (man's feelings and thoughts, his opinions) and not in any predetermined arbitrary law, laws established outside of the common human comprehension or experience of the "here-and-now."

"listening" for "changing truth" vs. listing for Truth:
 a short audio of Shirley McCune

marginalize

If he continues on insisting in his way, the use of his paradigm, (do you understand it is not the information he is sharing, it is the paradigm he is using) then, as his friends and associates become converted, they become tolerant of ambiguity*, tolerable of social "noise"—“In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity.” Carl Rogers On Becoming A Person  "Once a member realizes that others [the group, the village] accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself [i.e. open to his homosexual nature]." (Yalom)—he will be marginalized (shunned—recognized as not worthy of being listening to) he will be shamed (Jesus "despised" the shame of the cross, Hebrews 12:2  Shaming is a people thing). This happens when his "friends" realize their association with him jeopardizes their approval by others and endangers their future interests, interests which depend upon village association—the respect of men.

*The word "ambiguous" is used in place of the word homosexual by Charles Fourier who "ennobled and sanctified all sexual acts, including those he termed ‘ambiguous’ [ie. homosexual].”  See Daniel Guerin Homosexualité et Révolution, p.15; "The dialectical relation to be established between homosexuality and the words Revolution." [The major and last obstacle to overcome is] "the bourgeois based upon the family." Guerin also authored Anarchism: From Theory to Practice and No Gods No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism; his work is all about a borderless society—mentally, emotionally, physically, and socially, i.e. the working class and homosexuality. Abraham Maslow, who worked closely with Rogers, wrote in his journal about his experimentation in homosexuality, stating he was still old fashioned and was going slow in that direction. While scriptures of a strong patriarchal nature are now being marked as statements of "hate," people using them in some lands being reprimanded, those of the dialectical paradigm can express their hate of those with a patriarchal paradigm, calling them "homophobes," without being reprimanded. Freedom of speech in a dialectical worlds always censors didactic speech, in the name of tolerance.  Even those who expose such abnormality of thinking are in danger of being expurgated by those who supposedly resent censorship. 

remove

After all this effort is spent on him, to help him see the "error of his way" (refusing to recognize that he was "into denial"),  if he persists in the praxis of a patriarchal paradigm, he will be removed from occupying any position of power or participating in any situation of influence—"killed"—by the ruck—the "family" and the community—patricide.  Since all in the neighborhood, in the workplace, in the "church," etc. have succumbed to the paradigm which believes that "It takes a village to raise the family," he will become isolated—his camaraderie with those around him will cease to exist. He will learn that his worth is  based upon his participation with the "village," and no longer based upon a voice higher than the human cause. Of course, "the village" will do this out of a "caring heart," for everyone's "good," including his. 

"It is important that the therapist attempt to screen out patients who will become marked deviants, deviants because of their interpersonal behavior in the group sessions and not because of a deviant life style or past history." "There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established.… the patient with a homosexual orientation often adds breadth and depth to the group." "... the deviant … correlates very highly with negative outcome: a member deemed by the others … to be ‘out’ of the group has virtually no chance of benefiting from the group and a strong chance of suffering harm." "The successful leader … reinforces each member’s activity … escort the deviant back into the group, and he discourages the development of scapegoating and judgmentalism." "One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial." "Communication toward a deviant is very great initially and then drops off sharply as the group rejects the deviant. Eventually, the group will extrude the deviant. They may smile at one another when he speaks or behaves irrelevantly; they will mascot him, they will ignore him rather than invest the necessary time to understand his interventions."  (Irvin Yalom  Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

If our perception of the environment (sight) tells us that everyone is doing it, then it is easier for us to justify (through human reasoning) our participation—consensus (sensuous truth).

"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." II Corinthians 10:12
"(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"  II Corinthians 5:7
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  Romans 10:17
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  Hebrews 11:6
"Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."  John 12:42, 43

The object is not the father's removal, it is the annihilation of his biblically based—above human—patriarchal paradigm, his superfluous way of thinking—thinking that he must be above, and below, someone, that someone must obey his commands, that he must rule (a command from God), that his wife must submit to his rule (a command from God), and that his children must obey his commands, "in the Lord," (a command from God)—all under a Heavenly Father and his commands:  Ephesians chapters 5-6.  In the church the emphasis has shifted from preaching and teaching the word of God, evaluating our lives from the light of God's word, to discourse and sharing in the evaluation of God's word, in the "light" of our lives, our common "felt" needs. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud both believed that to negate the Heavenly Father, the earthly father must first be negated.  The agenda was to shift our focus from commands to be obeyed, deductively, toward desires to be experienced, inductively. Therefore, according to dialectical thinking, "‘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.” (Freud quoted by Marcuse) 

In consensus there is no father figure (and thus no objective truth), only an altered state of fatherhood (corrupted) which exists in the role of a facilitator. "…the therapist is the living personification of all parental images, Group therapists 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. [It is] essential … that the group feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation." (Yalom)

In a patriarchal praxis standards are established above man's common experience and temporal comprehension, by God; standards are established above a child's common experience and comprehension (at least at the time), by parents.

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."  I John 3:7-20

sin

"Sin" in a dialectical (heresiarchal) paradigm is different than sin in a didactical (patriarchal) paradigm. In the patriarchal paradigm "Sin is the estrangement of man from God."  "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, ..." Colossians 1:21-24   In the dialectical paradigm “‘Sin’ is the estrangement of man from man.” (Leonard Wheat Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) "Estrangement," according to those pushing this paradigm, is caused by the “status‑anxiety [patriarchal authority structure] so often found in families of prejudiced subjects [people with fixed positions and values given to them by a higher authority, those who accept a hierarchy system and its values as given and live by its definitions and expect others to abide within it boundaries]" and "is reflected in the adoption of a rigid and externalized set of values [quoting scriptures, bible" thumpers," fundamental religious believers-extremists—a person willing to loose his promotion, even his job^life, over an non-experienced (undiscovered) truth.]:” (Adorno) "But Brown (Life Against Death) believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin [freedom from the patriarchal paradigm by the act of killing the patriarch, in the persons thoughts—in his mind, and in the community he lives in—in society]--namely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot.  (Mike Connor. From the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz)

"… a scientifically [dialectically] acceptable solution does exist … For to accept that solution, even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [observing the world from the children's world view which effectively negates the parent's office, have's and have-not's synthesized] other than that of the bourgeoisie ["This is mine and not yours." "I can and you can not," "I am right and you are wrong"]. 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 [in the children's experiential environment with dialogue, tolerant of ambiguity], it is lost."  Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness March, 1920

In other words, the moment the patriarch, the father, is "forced to take up [his] stand on [the] terrain" of dialogue with his child—forced internally, to keep the feeling of approval (love) of the child and forced externally, to keep the feeling of approval (love) of the village—forced to keep human relationship, forced by the fear of losing respect in the eyes of others ("Can't you feel the love."), the parent immediately loses (abdicates) his office of authority given to him by God. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [the Greek word used here is exousia (εξουσία),  meaning authority, not dunamis (δύναμις), meaning power. Exousia is an office given by God, and not found in a man.  The office of authority (εξουσία) is from God, even though the power (δύναμις), the sword, might be in the hand of the man, i.e. a tyrant is a man who uses his δύναμις of the sword while in the office of εξουσία, given by God, for his own personal gain.  You do not have to obey the tyrant (you will suffer for that), but you need to recognize and honour the office.]. For there is no εξουσία but of God: the εξουσίαs that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the εξουσία, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Romans 13:1, 2 The dialectical process is the negating the εξουσία of the father and replacing it with the δύναμις of carnal man—democracy is the tyranny of the masses, where the carnal δύναμις of man is rushing to overthrow the εξουσία of God.  It's like standing in front of an avalanche. In this case it is a mass of unstable people moving in the same direction.  Without the patriarchal paradigm, we are now "willingly" living in tyranny, both in mind and in action—"All δύναμις to the people."  Everyone's thoughts and behavior are now being assessed, based upon their participating in finding immediate "felt" needs and fulfilling them in the "light" to the world at hand. "May the force be with you" has replaced "May God be with you."  "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." II John 1:9-11

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."  I Corinthians 15:19

Immanuel Kant believed the purpose of life, the hope of life, is based in happiness, which is pleasure. If in this life only, we have hope, he would be right, but that would not be hope.  That kind of "hope" is hopelessness; it would be hopefulness without hope, a sensation of hope without the promise.  "The ability to promise involves the loss of the natural animal forgetfulness of the past, which is the precondition for healthy living in the present. Through the ability to promise, the future is bound to the past.o" (Brown)  But my hope is found on nothing less than in Jesus' blood and righteousness.

  "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation [dialogue] received by tradition from your fathers [carnal fathers]; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God."  I Peter 1:18-21  "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost."  Romans 15:13  "And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."  Romans 8:23-25

According to dialectical "logic," only when the patriarch is "killed" or abdicates his God given office, allowing himself to be brought "into captivity to the law of sin which is in [his] members," choosing the pathway of "the flesh,"—"the law of sin," (like Adam did in the Garden in Eden)—choosing human relationship with Eve (Genesis 3:17) rather than obedience to God (Romans 5:19),  forsaking the didactic way of thinking (paradigm) of "right-wrong,"  "good-evil,"  then and only then can there be "equality of opportunity" to praxis Eros in the home and in society. "For equality of opportunity to exist [in the home and in society] the family as a unit must be weakened." (James Coleman  The Adolescent Society)   When the father is silenced (removed from the family or killed) or, if still present, he willingly forsakes his office as the patriarch, the head of the family, or keeps it in name only, then the patriarchal family is moribund, and the heresiarchal "family" (the village) takes his place.  “Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship regardless of its intent.... once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society) "Confronted with the rigidity of the adult, one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individuals life, . . .” (Adorno)

It is no joke, it is the purpose in "purpose driven."  After all the story writers have written and all the philosophers have philosophized, and all the interpreters have interpreted, and all the facilitators have facilitated, it is all about "de-ceit." And deceit is subtle. And deceit is winning. That is until our Heavenly Father takes care of it in the end.

Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis: Part I
To obey (disobey) or to circumvent?—that is the question.

by Dean Gotcher

After reading this article on the choice between truth or theory, read how and where Diaprax is applied.

All [ brackets ] below mean emphasis, quotations, or information has been added within a quotation.

top of page
Forward
Preface

Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis: Part I

The "logic" of "Sensitivity Training:" dialectical "logic"
    The de-formation of civilization according to Freud
    The nature of man according to Freud
    The re-formation of civilization (replacing conscience with consensus)
        The taxonomies of change: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
        If E ≈ p, and if p ≈ v&b, then E ≈ v&b
        Tie God to your sensuousness and before long you serve a sensuous god.
    Alienated labor
        Surplus Labor
    "Culture War"
        "Child" labor laws and works salvation
The Synergy of Eros and the Eros of Synergy
    'purposiveness without purpose' 'lawfulness without law'
Sensitivity training
    Feuerbach Thesis #1 Karl Marx
    The life which he has given
    Alienation
"The transformation of the family's role"

Two Roads: Didactic or Dialectic and their praxis: Part II
"Closure"
Endnotes:
    "de-ceit"
    Some of my sources

The "logic" of "Sensitivity Training"
Dialectical "Logic"

Our present culture is being re-designed from the following "logic."  This "logic" is a way of thinking. A way of thinking which is cunning.  It is troublesome to recognize and exhausting to understand, that is, until it is exposed by the light of the word of God. Then it will be revealed that this way of thinking (dialectical paradigm) is perverse, that it is diabolical, that it is wicked, that it is ruthless (Genesis 19:9).  Both ways of thought (didactic-patriarchal and dialectic-heresiarchal paradigms) will be presented in the following article. Then it will be clear why and how we have become a wicked nation promoting wickedness as the way of life.  I will start with a quotation by Herbert Marcuse, the man many of our influential "leaders" have shaped their minds around.

“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." (Marcuse)

“What the great world needs, of course, is a little more Eros and less strife. . . . [i.e.] dialectical dreamers.”
(Norman O. Brown  Life Against Death)

The de-formation of civilization according to Freud (the conscience)

  Marcuse, a member of the Marxist organization "The Institution of Social Research" (informally known as the "Frankfurt School"), believed that Freud and Marx were on the same page when it came to the dialectical process. While Marx saw the resolution to the dialectical rift between man and society through the use of  violent "revolution," Freud could not accept this outcome. Freud could not reconcile himself to what he called the "exploding" of civilization.  He, according to Marcuse, believed that the dialectical "neurosis" of civilization was the result of a patriarchal paradigm (the father figure)—"neurosis" equated to the fear of the father figure, the fear of God. A paradigm, according to Freud, which was established in the first tribe (a "primal horde"), with its patriarch, his wife, and their children.  He believed the children desired to have sexual relations with the wife of the patriarch and with one another—incest. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man’s deepest nature."  (Yalom)  It is important to know that Freud believed all children were sexually active. He believed all the senses—touch, taste, sight, smell, sound—were a part of the sex act ("pleasure principle"), whether conception (procreation—"reality principle") was intended, or possible or not. The objective of sex was pleasure, not procreation. Procreation was simply a byproduct, wanted or unwanted, of the quest for pleasure (Eros.) The "logical outgrowth" of Freud's scenario is "justified" homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, pornography, incest, etc. as well as patricide—"Vatermord" i.e. murder of the father. 

“Emancipation lies in fantasy and the language of experience irreducible to linguistic rules: mimesis. . . . Marcuse thus could write that ‘the realm of freedom lies beyond mimesis.’”
Stephen Erik Bronner Of Critical Theory and its Theorists

“Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or ‘impulse.’”
Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action 
“Impulse, the primary fact, back of which, psychically we cannot go.”
John Dewey, “Social Psychology,” Psychological Review, I (July, 1894), p. 404

The incest-patricide dialectical praxis is bases upon mimesis (subconscious sensuous experience actualized, internal "reality" imitated, externalized, and realized) and caprice (an un-meditated expression of subconscious desire) on the one hand and the reaction (resentment) toward any object which  interferes with their realization on the other i.e. resisters to change. Since the dark side of Eros, the "death instinct" is hindered by the desire to stay alive and enjoy pleasure, the '"life instinct" (the father is more powerful than the child and can destroy him), collective power is necessary to overcome the patriarch and the fear of him (the source of the fear of death—physical, mental, and especially social)—the conscience. If all kill the father, in the quest for common pleasure, then the deed is socially "justified" and the individual conscience is not awakened.  It is this pathway, this orgiastic, Dionysian, dialectical praxis, where "life" and "death" (both sides of Eros) are united in the moment, which some are proactively pushing into our culture. It is their "purpose," to legalize, through consensus, this abominable dialectical praxis in our homes, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and nation. Example: "The great utopian [Fourier] wants to see no form of attraction repressed for, an ancestor of Freud, he is too well aware of the psychological damage done by the constriction of the instincts and how unhappy we are when we are struggling against ourselves. Even more serious than the individual suffering caused by the repression of the passions are the effects on society. If they are held in check, they immediately reappear in a more harmful form which Fourier called 'recurrent', and it is then and only then that they create disorder : 'Any dammed up passion produces its counter-passion which is as harmful as the natural passion would have been beneficial.'" Daniel Guerin ‘Le nouveau monde amoureux de Fourier’ in Arcadie nos. 168 & 169 (1967 & 1968), pp.554-60 & 16-23, quote p.554.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

 

"Polymorphically perverse" praxis
"reach out and touch"

Pleasure (touch, taste, sight, smell, sound) of the organs associated with procreation without the intent or possibility of procreation (outside the husband-wife relationship) "justifies," in the eyes of dialectical man, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, pornography, etc.

According to Freud, because of the sensuous behavior of the children, in relation to his wife, the patriarch drove the "polymorphically perverse" children out of the tribe.  The outcast children regrouped, swore consensus, then got some of the children still in the tribe to join with them and killed the patriarch (reminiscent of the French Revolution). "One day, the brothers who had been driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so made an end of the patriarchal horde" ( Freud, Totem and taboo  1912-1913a, p. 141). This fictitious story becomes the main source for human guilt and is thus the foundation upon which psychoanalysis is "justified."  The act of parricide, the killing of ones father becomes in social context patricide, the killing of ones king—the king may not be perfect but God is (it is important to know God was disappointed with Israel for wanting a King i.e. rejecting faith in Him 1 Samuel 8:7).  Both unite upon the intent and praxis of the "negation of the negation" of the patriarchal paradigm as well as the patriarch himself, be he head of the family, head of the nation, or, the original intent, God himself.

"We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization."   (Brown)

Then, according to this neo-Gnostic fable, the children, out of a guilty conscience, restored the patriarchal paradigm back over the tribe, (setting laws of restraint above nature, reestablishing order above change, conscience above Eros, supernatural life above natural life, denying self above esteeming self, the law of God—the father figure—above the the law of the flesh, Rex above Lex, etc), to protect the tribe from an orgiastic, Dionysian, Eros death i.e. from anarchy, from "exploding").   Except, this time, instead of the purpose in life being established in and by one figure, it became the social standard established by a privileged few at the top for all below them to obey, who saw it as their duty, as a father figure, a patriarch, "to serve and to protect" the natural resources i.e. the father's wife, the children's mother, from the excess of the rest of the children, thus forming civilization as it is known today. Therefore a few at the top, who owned private property, could keep the rest of the family (the rest of mankind) from having sexual relations, sensuous pleasure, with the mother while they themselves enjoyed the "pleasures of life."  The "have" above the "have nots" was reestablished and sustained for the sake of preserving civilization and order.  This becomes the dichotomy upon which the dialectical praxis justifies itself in the annihilation of nationalism, racism, feminism, sexism i.e. anti-homosexuality, with its ultimate agenda of negating God over man, i.e. parents over children—a patriarchal paradigm.

"To serve and to protect" in the patriarchal paradigm,
property (natural resource) is under the control of a patriarch, therefore
private property is the immanent domain of the patriarch, justified and supported by his will and force.
 
"To serve and to protect" in the heresiarchal paradigm,
all property (natural resource) is under the control of "the village," "the brotherhood", therefore
all property is the immanent domain of the "village," justified and supported by its will and force.

Again:  According to Freud, those on top "justified" their use of the patriarchal paradigm as their responsibility "to serve and to protect" the tribe, just as the original patriarch had done. Therein lay the separation of resources between the private and the public sectors of society, a few private citizens controlling the resources of the general public, producing a civilization with the haves and the have-nots (God insisting the Garden in Eden was his and not Adam's and Eve's, driving them off his property when they set aside his laws of restraint. Adam and Eve claiming the garden, the natural resources, as theirs, making themselves equal with God when they did not abide by his non-sensuous patriarchal paradigm of obedience, and instead dialectically justified it as theirs, as at one with them). “... the modifications and deflections of instinctual energy necessitated by the perpetuation of the monogamic-patriarchal family, or by a hierarchical division of labor, or by public control of the individuals private existence are instances of surplus- repression ..."  (Marcuse) 

If private property, if the Garden in Eden, could be gained back to mankind, without restraint on Eros, if the patriarchal office could be removed or abandon, surplus repression (possession laws restraining Eros) would be negated, and mankind would be free to be himself again, to enjoy the uniting of his nature with nature, to unite his Eros with the Eros of nature, to enjoy the pleasures of nature with all of mankind—"World Peace"—a world without "violence," a world of "trust."  A world in which all mankind can make inquiry into all things,  like Eve did in the Garden in Eden, but this time without restraint, a time when and a place where all can 'discover' truth without fear of a violent reprimand, without experiencing physical, mental, and social  violence. 

Turning "good into evil and evil into good," violence is now defined as any praxis which judges harshly the praxis of questing not only the commands but also the office of parents, boss, and God, with its intent of negating their "autocratic" repression of carnal-human nature.  Violence is now redefined as any act which interferes with the praxis of a dialectical paradigm, and its promotion of human nature.  Therefore war crimes can be levied upon any person or people who praxis a patriarchal paradigm, who attempt to sustain themselves in this paradigm as well as defending themselves from the praxis of a dialectical paradigm.  This is the very essence of "liberation theology," now called "church growth," the "emerging church," and whatever else comes down the road basing its purpose upon the praxis of a dialectical paradigm.

"An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry ...any attempt to prevent human freedom is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness is guilty of oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry is guilty of violent oppression." (Freire, P.1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. p.74)

 

Adam and Eve and the forbidden tree  vs.  Adam and Eve and God

"atonement of man with nature"  vs.  "atonement of man with God"

"pleasure principle" vs. "reality principle"
children of Eros vs. Father of Agape
redirected permissiveness vs. chastening
Heresiarch vs. Patriarch
Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie
Have-nots vs. Haves
man and his carnal law vs. God and his spiritual law
self esteem vs. self control
synthesis vs. antithesis
"If it feel good, do it."  vs. good and evil, right and wrong, obey
positive vs. negative
similar—to the things of this world  vs. contrast—discrimination between that which is below, mankind and the things of this world (temporal & temporary) and that which is above, God and his kingdom (spiritual & eternal)
"is and ought" vs. "is and not"
theory vs. belief
questioning vs. obeying
"honest" doubt vs. faith
outgroup vs. ingroup
"seems to be" vs. truth
human "rights" vs. inalienable rights
ideas vs. ideals
speculating vs. knowing
uncertainty vs. certainty
deceit vs. honesty
positive force field  vs. negative force field
so called science  vs. real science
discourse, dialogue vs. discussion
etc.

 

You can get rid of the father, but then how do you get rid of the conscience, which recalls the fathers commands? 
You can bypass (sear) of the conscience, but then how do you keep society from "exploding?"

“The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle is redeemed by the crime against the pleasure principle: redemption thus cancels itself.” (Marcuse)  In other words, you can overthrow the patriarch but still retain a semblance of the patriarchal—the conscience—canceling out redemption from the praxis of the patriarchal paradigm itself. The crime of killing the father redeemed the tribe from repression, redeemed it from the oppressor and his laws of oppression (having to obey non-sensuous—non-human—commands, "obey me or else," i.e. God in the Garden in Eden—oppressive to sensuous desires; the mind still set on the flesh, i.e. the world, while supposedly still under Godly restraint produces a sensation of oppression).  But to redeem their conscience from the guilt of the crime, the father's "oppressive" system was retained, thus canceling out redemption from the praxis of the patriarchal paradigm.  Redemption would have to wait until all of society, at least a threshold or perception, a consensus, was present and "citizens" were willing and able to praxis the diabolical dialectic process and unite in the annihilation of the praxis of the patriarchal paradigm.  It's annihilation, in both the life of the individual (alive in his mind, his emotions, and his habits—cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor), as a result of the patriarchal family structure still having control over the raising of children, and in society, (alive in its history, its nostalgia, and its customs), as the result of patriarchal individuals still having control over setting and maintaining public policy, could not be accomplished without doing "violence" to the individual and to society.  This is Freud's take on how civilization was initiated and sustained, albeit in a "neurotic" state (a dichotomy of "haves against have-nots," connecting him to Karl Marx and his "haves against have-nots," the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat). 

As Mortimer Adler, the founder and former director of the Aspen Institute in Aspen Colorado, wrote: “In my long experience of conducting Aspen seminars, in which the Communist Manifesto is read and discussed, I have always begun by saying that Marx is more right than wrong;”  “Marx and Lenin were not wrong in all respects; nor were they entirely right. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine is not wholly true and sound; but neither is it wholly false and unsound. The millions upon millions of people who have lived under communism in this century have not been totally deluded, deceived, and misguided. Hence the other question to be answered . . .: What principles in Marxist-Leninist doctrine should be retained and what others should be rejected? The choice is not between the extremes of all or none, but rather in the middle ground of partial retention and partial rejection."  (Mortimer Adler  Haves Without Have-Nots)  Leaders of the world (including US Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, owners of the major media outlets) are loyal members of the Aspen Institute after attending this week long training summit on transformational Marxism—Marx and Freud—and the 21st century.  It is all about creating a world of haves without the have-nots, a world without the patriarchal paradigm of sovereignty, private property, capitalism, "this is mine and not yours," the chastening father, which is the cause, according to dialectical "reasoning," of the  world of "have-nots,"  the world of "neurosis." The trickery was not to attack capitalism openly but rather to synthesize it with socialism, thereby effectively circumventing (negating) it.  Private-public partnership circumvents (negates) the private. Father-family partnership circumvents (negates) the father.

“If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis.”  (Brown)

The dilemma for Freud was how to kill the father figure (praxis patricide) and at the same time negate the affect of  "the father figure in the mind"—the conscience—and still maintain civilization.  "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents."  (Brown)  Only if both the patriarch outside the person (the patriarchal few controlling the praxis of society, the father figure controlling the home, both resulting in a perception of the world under control of a patriarchal system) and the patriarch inside the person (the conscience, the father's standards of the past, internalized, restraining the individual from his natural human praxis—a condition termed "neurosis" by Freud, "incongruence" by Rogers) were annihilated (the children unite in the praxis of patricide—consensus), could all the children share equally in sensuous relations with the mother, with natural resources, where everyone could have access and  freely relate, giving pleasure and receiving pleasure, in all ways and with all things in the world, at least in perception.  Thus with the free praxis of interpersonal relationship with the environment around them, mankind could actualize a world of oneness, reuniting with a world from which they were originally created, i.e. "evolved" from—"In the beginning was matter." 

According to Marcuse, and Freud, the praxis of patricide (externally and internally, in theory and in practice, in the individual and in society)  liberates incest, then all things have the right (the "right" of the child) to enjoy pleasure (touch, taste, sight, smell, sound—sex) with all things, and creates the pathway to "higher civilization".   Yet for Freud, how could the "serving and protecting" of the tribe, a remnant of the patriarchal paradigm, be maintained, while unrestrained Eros—"polymorphic perverse" behavior—flourished.  His reasoning only lead him to the "explosion" of civilization.  He could not resolve the dilemma and therefore was not willing to "explode" it, the Machiavellian way,  as Marx was. “'These relations [hierarchy relations],' Marx states, 'are not those between one individual and another, but between worker and capitalist, tenant and landlord, etc. Eliminate these relations and you abolish the whole of society; …'” Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness March, 1920  Freud's only remedy was to put God on his couch, hoping that through self-analysis he would realize his humanity.  J. L. Moreno, the Marxist father of role-playing stated: “I told Freud he put people on a couch and isolated them, which was entirely wrong.  We don’t live on a couch; we live in groups from birth to death.  Freud took people into the past, I take them into the present and future.  Psychodrama deals with the Here-and-Now.”  Jane Howard in her book Please Touch:  A Guide Tour of the Human Potential Movement   The contemporary "church" does this by putting the Bible on it's couch, i.e. in its encounter group, and conjure its meaning through the eyes of the group—humanizes it.

The nature of man according to Freud

According to Marcuse, once Freud's definition of the de-formation of civilization was explained, Freud's definition of the nature of man was necessary.  Freud's perception of the nature of man is based upon two Greek mythological figures, Orpheus, and Narcissus. Orpheus represents man freely expressing himself  i.e. internal Eros seeking expression.  Narcissus represents man drawn to nature, finding a common identity of self in nature (in others), i.e. external Eros seeking recognition.  Orpheus and Narcissus unite man in Eros—consensus.

Orpheus is the Eros of "self" being freely expressed. He is song.  He unites all nature which hears and joins in his Eros. He is a homosexual making love to "young boys,"—Pederasty. Despite his beauty, he is hated by patriarchal centered women, whom he does not desire.  Out of jealousy they kill him.  They are, according to the UN's definition of patriarchal centered women, "the nuclear essence of transcendental evil power ... the bad or evil mother”  UNESCO Tensions that cause war —the mother who spanks her child when he does not obey commands.

“Universal Reconciliation - where reconciliation includes the interaction of human beings with nature, with animals, plants, and minerals.” (Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action. 1981)

Narcissus saw the reflection of his face in a body of water.  He fell in love with it.  He was not in love with himself; he was in love with his nature, his Eros, being reflected back to him from nature—Eros of self in "others."  Thus, according to this mythological rendition of man, you are designed to freely express yourself in a way that others can see themselves in you, their Eros in you, and others must be given the right to freely express themselves so that you can see yourself in them, your Eros in them, so all can become self-actualized.  It is this unification of man's common carnal nature, Eros, upon which consensus is actualized. This was the goal of traditional Marxist communism, albeit a bloody pathway, "Shoot the patriarch"—this sanitizes the village of patriarchal elements—for the sake of a healthy community and the next generation—but tends to weaken if not destroy the infrastructure of the village. Traditional Marxism has produced this outcome for over a century. It is the same quest for transformational Marxists—socialism, communism, globalism, humanism, environmentalism, social-psychologists, etc—today, but in their minds can be done without the shooting, yet.  It's outcome is just as bloody but not as obvious (abortion, euthanasia, non-lethal weapons, etc.).  The difference being, the shooting kills the patriarch's body but leaves his soul alive, the consensus process keeps the patriarch's body but kills his soul. The conversion method will be applied until dialectical control is universally accepted, then the final purging will be attempted.  It is that plain and simple; it is the "logical outgrowth." 

"Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity, … This activity contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life to reflection and conception. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith, and thus the period of destruction commences." "It may be said that Philosophy first commences when a race for the most part has left its concrete life, when separation and change of class have begun, and the people approach toward their fall; when a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life becomes dissolved."  (Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.)

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."  Ephesians 5:11

 

In the world which praxis' the dialectical paradigm, freedom of speech ends when one begins to exposes the deceitfulness and wickedness of its way.
"The person who comments on process sets himself apart from the others; he is viewed with suspicion as ‘not one of us.’" (Yalom)

Yet for Freud, Orpheus and Narcissus represented two opposites. Orpheus was Eros expressed—sensuousness,  Narcissus was Eros enticing—morality. Narcissus Eros, Eros observed in others, produces a common felt identity with, compassion for, and a drawing towards others—laws of morality.  Yet, Just as Freud could not justify the "explosion" of civilization, he could not, according to Marcuse, reconcile these "two poles of human existence."   Sensuousness under social law—"morality"—becomes sublimated (the desire remains but can not be voiced or acted out for fear of punishment by the community to keep civilization from "exploding"), yet sensuousness, liberated, would result in anarchy and chaos, civilization "exploding". 

The re-formation of civilization
replacing the individual conscience with a social consensus

The 'fatherless society' where incest, the 'sensuous life,' reigns and individuality, the 'alienated life,' is estranged.
The replacement of 'inalienable rights' with 'human rights' in the praxis of compassion—feelings for the suffering of others—the negation of chastening, in defense of the flesh.  Compassion for the flesh taking the place of compassion for the souls of man—losing sight of God and his purpose.

You can get rid of the father, but then how do you get rid of the conscience, which remembers the fathers commands? 
You can bypass (sear) the conscience, but then how do you keep society from "exploding?" 

“... the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind  ....  link[ing] the ‘lower’ faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence" (Marcuse)

Marcuse and the Frankfurt School found their solution to Freud's dilemma, of civilization "exploding," in Immanuel Kant's  "aesthetic dimension."   Hegel, Marx, and other dialectic pushers found something in Kant's work which they needed in their quest to justify their use of the process—democratic ethics.  Kant, as taught, did not merge faith and reason, but supposedly left faith in tack. I disagree.  He negated both. Reality for Kant was found in hope and hope was realized in happiness. Outside of happiness there is no reality, according to Kant.  Since man is "hard wired," by God, to approach pleasure and avoid pain.  Some neurons are "pre-wired" to inform us of environmental conditions of danger (avoid pain) or and others of environmental conditions of attraction (approach pleasure).  It is the environment which allows the most freedom for pleasure which receives recognition and promotion, naturally, for the dialectical minded.  It is the personal experience of pleasure, and its personal-social (private-public) actualization, which becomes the focus.  For example: even in reading, Louise Rosenblatt "... distinction between two opposing modes of experiencing a text—the 'efferent' [recall and recitation] and the 'aesthetic.' ['thinking with feelings'—personal 'lived through' experiences involved]”. 

Neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, chemically assist neurons in the conveying of this information, information acquired from the outside work and transmitted into our brain through the senses of touch, taste, sight, smell, and sound.  The mind is affected by these neurons and neurotransmitters.  For example, when dopamine is released into the brain via the pleasure neurons, awareness, muscle activity, and memory is heightened.  This is all done for the sake of continuing, restoring, or creating an activity of pleasure. Thus, not until pleasure is experienced in the activity (praxis) of the brain, in accordance to the conditions in the surrounding environment, is happiness actualized. Although an artificial environment can be created in the mind—imagination, for Kant true happiness (reality) is only actualized when both the mind and the environment are synchronized in the moment—consensus.

“If the goal is a group goal [public-private] rather than individual goals [private] of the members, then the introduction of content into the group makes the group almost certain to be a brainwashing group.” Dr. Shofstall   Dr. William Coulson, “Encounter Groups and Brainwashing” Notre Dame Journal of Education, 1971  The "appropriate information," necessary to attain the group goal, must first overwhelm and then negate any private information which interferes with group hegemony.