The Identification of Paradigms Part 2 by Dean Gotcher

The Identification of Paradigms:
Your paradigm determines your worth.
Part II

by

[In this article all bracketed information is information not found in the original quotation. It is information added by me.] This is an ongoing research project on my part which includes the ongoing correction of typos, lengthy sentence paragraphs, etc. Since there is a lot of helpful information in these articles, I hope that my writing inadequacy does not stop you from perusing it. Authors are identified in bold name throughout the article.

Adorno, Theodor, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno)
                         , Introduction to Sociology
Allport, Gordon, The Nature of Prejudice
Barker, Roger, Child Behavior and Development (Barker)
Benne, Kenneth,   Human Relations in Curriculum Change (Benne)
                        , Society as Educator in an Age of Transition
Bloom, Benjamin, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect
"Bloom's Taxonomies:"
            Benjamin Bloom, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain (Bloom, Book 1: Cognitive Domain)
            David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain)
Brightman, Edgar S.,   "A Personalistic Philosophy of History," Journal of Bible and Religion
Bronner, Stephen Eric, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists (Bronner)
Brookover, Wilbur, A Sociology of Education (Brookover)
                           , Socialization in the School
Brown, Norman O., Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (Brown)
Coleman, James, The Adolescent Society (Coleman)
                         , Community Conflict
Dewey, John, Democracy and Education (Dewey)
                   , "Social Psychology," Psychological Review, I July, 1894
Drucker, Peter, ‘More freedom' or ‘more harmony'? Henriette Roland Holst, Jacques Engels and the influence of class and gender on socialists' sexual attitudes. Paper submitted to the seminar on "Labour organizations and sexuality", Université de Bourgogne, Dijon 5 October 2001 (Drucker)
Federal Education Grant: Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program, December 1969 (BSTEP)
Finlayson, James Gordon, Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics
Freire, Paulo, The Politics of Education: Culture Power and Liberation
Freud, Sigmund, Civilization and Its Discontents
Friedrich, Carl, The Philosophy of Hegel (Friedrich)
Fromm, Erick, Escape from Freedom (Fromm)
Gramsci, Antonio,   Selections from the PRISON NOTEBOOKS (Gramsci)
Habermas, Jürgen, Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other
                           , Knowledge & Human Interest
                           , The Theory of Communicative Action
Havelock, Ronald G., A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education (Havelock)
Havighurst, Robert and Hilda Taba Adolescent Character and Personality
G. F. W. Hegel,
Henry, Patrick, June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the Virginia Convention of 1788 (P. Henry)
Horkheimer, Max, Kritische Theori
                           , Eclipse of Reason
                           , Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung
Howard, Jane, Please Touch: A Guide Tour of the Human Potential Movement                          ,
Jay, Martin, The Dialectical Imagination (Jay)
Laszlo, Irvin, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order
Lewis, John, The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx
Lukacs, Georg, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism? (Lukacs)
King, Martin Luther, Jr., "Facing the Challenge of a New Age," Papers
                                    , "How Should a Christian Think About Man." Papers
                                    , Strength to Love
                                    , Stride Toward Freedom The Montgomery Story
                                    , "What is Man?"
                                    , Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?
Lenin, Vladimir, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920
Marcuse, Herbart, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud (Marcuse)
                           , Relevance of Reality
Marx, Karl, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, ed. Joseph O'Malley (Marx, Critique)
                 , Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy by T. B. Bottomore (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore)
                 , The Holy Family
Maslow, Abraham, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (Maslow, Reaches)
                             , The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Volumes I and II. Lowry R.J. ed. (Maslow, Journals)
                             , Maslow on Management (Maslow, Management)
Moreno, J. L., Who Shall Survive?
Obama, Barrack Hussein, Speech in Berlin, Summer, 2008 ("tearing down walls")
                                      , Speech in Prague Sunday, April 5, 2009 ("velvet revolution")
Reich, Wilhelm, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (Reich)
Rogers, Carl, on becoming a person: a therapist view of psychotherapy (Rogers)
Seay, George Russell, Jr., Theologian of Synthesis: The Dialectical Method of Martin Luther King, Jr. as Revealed in His Critical Thinking on Theology, History, and Ethics (Seay)
Trojanowicz, Robert Trojanowicz, Dr., Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing
Tyler, Ralph W., "Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction," Trends in Student Personnel Work, E. G. Williamson, Ed.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
Wheat, Leonard F., Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God (Wheat)
Williams, Preston N., "An Analysis of the Conception of Love and Its Influence on Justice in the Thought of Martin Luther King Jr." Journal of Religious Ethics vol. 18, 20. (Williams)
Yalom, Irvin D., Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy (Yalom)

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4

If the one spouse changes their paradigm to that of sensuousness and spontaneity (i.e. following after their 'natural inclinations') and the other spouse retains their paradigm of absolute morals and law (i.e. following after their beliefs) the breakdown in communication (i.e. conflict in paradigms) will cause a rift in the relationship, the one morally freed ("liberated") from established contracts (i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm) conflicting with the one morally obligated ("constrained") to established contracts (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm). With the patriarchal order of the home disintegrating, spousal abuse (which is wrong) would increase as one spouse, out of frustration (no support from society to retain patriarchal order in the home), would attempt to restore order through the use of force, or use force to silence any opposition to extrinsic sexual relationships (the law would increasingly be on the side of the disintegration of the patriarchal order since civilization would increasingly be built upon "community," i.e. a continuing and growing culture of "partnerships," i.e. sexual partners). "An indissoluble marriage between one man and one woman for their entire life times is, of all forms of sexual relationship, the one that corresponds least to our 'natural inclination.'" (Friedrich Engels quoted in Drucker) Drucker wrote, quoting Engels: "...‘the elimination of the need to hide sexual relations of an unusual character is one of the first preconditions for a healthy sex life and a healthy sexual morality'."

Mandela, in South Africa, was put into prison because he was a Marxist. He was released not because he stopped being a Marxist. He was released because the South African court had over time become sympathetic to Marxism. In this way, over time, with those in the court, as well as those in the public realm, participating in the process of 'change,' both the 'public and private' were changed into a public-private partnership (Global communism) without a split or divorce (i.e. without a violent revolution, but instead a "non-violent" revolution called a "velvet revolution," or civil disobedience, in which case those in authority, intimidated by the potential of social upheaval, i.e. outright revolutionary activity, gave into a more "peaceful" solution, abdication. I am not justifying their policies and actions while in office, I am simply saying that despite their abuse in office, there was nothing wrong with the office).

What is public is not secret (the very definition of public is 'not secret,' i.e. open for all to see, not just for the 'party leadership,' i.e. facilitators of 'change' to see). What is private is secret (closed or hidden from public sight, seen only by God). For the private to go into a public-private partnership, the private must reject (divulge) their privacy, their secrecy, for the sake of the public cause, cursing their right of privacy. That which is only seen by God above is now seen by god, i.e. socio-psychologists below. To befriend a dialectic thinker is to reveal that which is private to Babylon. What you had before your involvement in the process is divested of your values, of your history, of your control over it. In this way "the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower" (a patriarchal paradigm) is overcome by the emancipation of your carnal nature with its "fixations on perversions and obscenities," (a heresiarchal paradigm) formerly restrained by "parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure." So if you should decide to return, providing you can be rescued (redeemed) from the grips of the process (the process is not considered successful until no one can escape, i.e. everybody must participate in the process), there will be little if anything left to start over with. The nature of the dialectic process is to negate patriarchal history, annihilating any vestiges which exonerates it, assimilating what is left, into the matrix of the heresiarchal paradigm, for its "purpose," the total destruction of the patriarchal paradigm for the sake of "perversions and obscenities," i.e. openness. It is through your carnal nature, which the process wants access to, that it can gain control over all that God has given you, including your soul.

"The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations." (Adorno) "Sometimes patients … make a statement which may at some future time provide the therapist with great leverage." "The thrifty therapist underscores these comments in the group and stores them for future use. … at times when the patient is closed and defensive." (Yalom) Remember that these meetings are supposed to be based upon openness and freedom from threat, evidently that is until the 'therapist' wants to be a god, in this case a god who carries a little black book and likes to blackmail when necessary for the cause of "change." For the "public" (openness, unconcealed) to develop a public-private partnership with the private (closed, concealed), those facilitating the "public" meeting (i.e. the democratic-socialist-communist party pushing the public-private agenda) must have secrets, i.e. a secret agenda (they are the experts of a very subtle and complex process), which makes them subversive, i.e. enemies of both the private and the public realm (a secret society, or rather a society with secrets, out to gain information on the private so they can use it against them, to "change," i.e. control not only the public but also the private). "Conspiracy theory" will be pushed as a paranoia by those involved in the praxis of conspiracy. No one involved with the dialectical process can be loyal to any contract they claim to be defending (against all enemies foreign and domestic), unless that contract is accepted as open-ended and non-directing, a "living will" providing for "logical outgrowth," otherwise it is just a piece of paper. As the spider said to the fly, trust me.

"The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets." (Norman Lavine in George Lukacs Process of Democratization) When this happens, when a public-private partnership is created, anyone in the private with a secret (insisting upon his private rights) must be treated as a person of concern, suspect of being an enemy of the public good, i.e. fighting against the public will. In this way the private is swallowed up by the 'public,' with those pushing the "public" agenda working to keep a position of control, i.e. seeking to be treated with respect, as having the 'rights' of the private, i.e. secrecy. "It is true that people cannot be trained for democracy by autocratic methods. But it is equally true that to be able to change a group atmosphere toward democracy the democratic leader has to be in power and has to use his power for active re-education. (Benne) "Tillich's elusiveness reflects a calculated effort to remain esoteric. He keeps his deepest meanings hidden from all but a few who are prepared to receive it." "By redefining terms, Tillich cultivates a 'double-speak' designed to convey opposing messages to different groups. He refuses to define terms to which he obviously attaches definite meanings." "One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy." (Wheat). Therefore deceit (secrecy) is necessary, for the 'good' of the public. When the word 'transparency' ("sight based management" over the private) is brought up and used in the public realm a secret society is in motion, advancing its public-private agenda, i.e. seeking to gain control over the souls of men. "Can't we all just get along?" When a Democratic leader states "I will be thinking of the traditional family and the small private businessman every day that I am in office" he is not thinking of ways to promote it, but about ways to annihilate it for the sake of social "change."

Brown knew that when a momentary liberation of sensuousness and spontaneity (in a non-threatening environment), where nature (in this case the group) is drawing the child (the patient or client) to unite with it, i.e. to play with it (play incorporates the wanting of a gratifying object and having the freedom to control it for purpose of continued personal pleasure, i.e. aggressive side of beauty and freedom, i.e. the creator, i.e. the stimulator), and the child's nature is drawing him to be at one with nature, i.e. the group, to display for it, perform for it (the child being the object of gratification for others, willingly letting them have pleasure in controlling him, i.e. passive side of beauty and freedom, i.e. the object itself, in this case the child himself, being used by others for creation, i.e. the stimulated, stimulating the child for more stimulation), reasoning is liberated in the direction of the environment stimulating the pleasure of all (we think the person is being drawn to the group or object when in truth he is being drawn to the "liberating" experience, i.e. the heresiarchal environment which liberates pleasure—or at least the promise of pleasure, i.e. "rising expectations"), thus negating the patriarchal environment which restrains pleasure. The child or adult chooses the one environment over the other as his base to reason from, gaining respect for one while become "justifiable" openly disrespectful of the other (if you have ever attended a facilitated meeting, a meeting where everybody is being 'driven' towards consensus you know the experience). This is why it is so hard to restore the child, politician, minister, etc. once exposed to this process (like God taking Israel out of Egypt, few made it to the promised land, in their case, rejecting the patriarchal paradigm of law and restraint, i.e. rejecting God's promises—the promised land, which required walking by faith, i.e. trusting in him, instead seeking after the pleasures of the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the carnal things of past experience, i.e. Egypt, i.e. the leeks and melons; "We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes." Numbers 11:5, 6), having their reasoning tied to the walking by sight, i.e. trusting in themselves and their own reasoning and thus free to "justify" the experience. In this way their direction of reasoning is changed (i.e. their paradigm is changed from looking above, i.e. to parent or God) to looking below (i.e. to their human nature for the answers to life's problems, i.e. life's problems being mostly those things which interfere with the approaching of pleasure, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm).

This process can be successful in replacing the patriarchal paradigm with the heresiarchal paradigm in the child (or the adult) providing the experience does not go too far or too fast and awaken the conscience of the child (the "father within"). In that case the child may reject the new experience, blocking it from his mind (i.e. his reasoning process) due to the fear of doing what is wrong (i.e. wrong according to the father's commands, i.e. the father's definition of what is right and what is wrong—what is good and what is evil) and thus from his experience (unless he willingly participates in the experience of the process, he will not "own it"). This is why "feedback loops" are necessary for the process to continue, periodically evaluating the changes which have taken place in the person for the sake of 'refreezing' the person (via consensus) on the new level before proceeding any further down the pathway of the process of change (this is why you must attend meeting after meeting after meeting, ad infinitum, ad nauseam).

Any peripheral sensing of patriarchal presence, in person or in mind, can be detrimental to the liberating experience (same affect as the parent catching you doing something you were not supposed to do) if not properly dealt with in the beginning (negation of "peck order and the authoritarian atmosphere in which the peck order is rooted,"), i.e. freedom to share, no 'put downs,' no personal information which was shared in the meeting is to be shared outside the meeting—must keep our "dirty little secret," secret (i.e. circumventing parental restraint and therefore disobeying parental authority, i.e. practicing "incest", keeping "forbidden," "tabooed" behavior and thoughts now divulged to, accepted by, and displayed before the group, secret from the parents, etc.). Incest is equated to social harmony (social harmony 'liberated' consensually by all participants and not 'forced' from above, i.e. retaining a "peck order" which would only be done for the preservation of the patriarchal family and patriarchal society). The experience must void the restraining commands of a patriarch minded person seeking to preserve and propagate his paradigm, the traditional top-down family structure.

This was Freud's desired outcome for his patients, he just did not know how to accomplish it socially without "exploding" civilization. In other words, the traditional family is formed when the child abdicates his true nature (sensuousness and spontaneity) and accepts the restraints of the Father via the conscience (seen as spiritual, i.e. from above, restraining that which is below). In the traditional family the child's reasoning becomes tied up with the authority of the Father, subject to that which is above his nature, rather than continuing to seek and justify harmony with his own nature and thus human nature itself. His nature common to all mankind is thereby 'repressed,' i.e. the desire for sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. flesh and mind uniting with the environment of nature divided, i.e. his reasoning united with the one above against his fleshy nature, i.e. united with unnatural, restraining authority. Under these conditions, where faith is being put into practice (i.e. the child is using a patriarchal paradigm to determine the values of life) theory and practice, both key to humanism and the world system, is being put to death. "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Brown) "The most effective method for weakening the child's will is to arouse his sense of guilt [remind the child of the Father's command regarding the situation]." "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience [restoring the Father and his commands into the child's mind while he is participating in or being encouraged to participate in sin]." (Fromm)

You can see why what happened in the Garden in Eden is so relevant today. Even though the woman, later named Eve, recalled the command of God, not to eat of the fruit of the tree or she would die (a paraphrase of what God said, not being what God said, key to the change process), the half-truth, i.e. the lie from Satan, that she would not die, removed her mind from the fear of judgment, i.e. making her equal with God, freed her to be her 'own person,' and thus freeing her to think (reason) for herself, now subject to the worldly environment, her reasoning now guided by the flesh (sensuousness and spontaneity) which loves the world. The dialectical structure practiced in the Garden in Eden is the same dialectical structure being practiced today. They became disobedient children back then, and God still calls you a child today, hopefully no longer disobedient. The question is whose child are you, God's, through belief in Christ (obedient in all things), or Satan's, through belief in yourself and the world system, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm of "change?" The patriarchal paradigm can not save you but, without it, faith in God is not possible and without faith, i.e. belief, you can not be saved. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:15

Comedy plays an important role as a tool for social change. When the goal is the liberation of sensuousness and spontaneity, which are repressed by patriarchal restraints (i.e. the Father figure), laughter can be utilized in bringing the process of change into the patriarchal environment without being openly detected and therefore resisted and rejected. Through the art craft of creating perceivable conditions, via media or entertainment, where the Father figure is not present and dialogue is the means of communication, the patriarchal culture can participate via the liberation and display of the imagination. The two elements necessary for sensuousness and spontaneity to become 'reality' is found in a condition void of the threat of the Father figure, where for example, dialogue (and argument) between husband and wife and their associates can freely flow during changing situations. When put into comedy format (entertainment), the Father and his family (the patriarchal home) can willingly participate in laughter, via the mediums of TV, radio, etc., unaware of the effect it is having upon the thought processes of the traditional home. The experience itself changes them (desensitizing them, making them tolerant of ambiguity, i.e. the acceptance of "gray," or of differing "lifestyles"). We all laughed while watching Jackie Gleason in the show "The Honeymooners" participating vicariously in a situation of comedy where sensuousness and spontaneity (key elements of laughter) were liberated at the expense (i.e. absence in this case) of the Father figure, i.e. he was not present (which made the experience 'non-threatening' and therefore participatory, i.e. one can take part in the event without "hurting anybody"). Only the husband-wife, friends and associates structure was presented for the mental and emotional participation of the audience. In this way the traditional home was temporarily, if only briefly negated, momentarily being replaced by the heresiarchal home (yet we wanted more of the same experience the next day or the next week at the same time). In this way the American family let a dialectical home into our homes, calling it comedy. Soap operas and other forms of entertainment (late night shows) continued the deluge of perceivable material for the changing of the American culture (exposing it to adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, etc in a non-judgmental environment, i.e. non dared express disapproval for fear of derision). A culture war was put into practice (praxis) on the American public and the American public willingly participated, enjoying the experience.

Comedy and jokes used from the pulpit accomplish the same effect in the church, keeping the parishioners awake in the pews, wanting to come back for more of the same next week, that is more moments of sensuousness and spontaneity (theory and practice), just like the secular audience. The only difference being, it was done 'in the name of Jesus.' Don't get me wrong, when most people quote Proverbs 17:22 "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." they equate the word laughter to a merry heart. They are wrong. "A merry heart" is a heart of joy, i.e. the joy of the lord (spiritual), laughter being a byproduct of knowing God is faithful to his word (a patriarchal loving God). It is not something you try to create to keep people's attention on God's word, or to keep them awake. If someone falls asleep during the sermon, it becomes not a matter of missing the word of God but the joke that counts, i.e. "What did I miss?" When people remember the joke and not the message or have to remember the joke to remember the message, the messenger was not sent from God. While laughter is good (having a good time, when not mocking of and disrespectful toward the patriarchal paradigm, even in the home, i.e. if dad loses his balance and sits in a puddle you look into his eyes to see if he is laughing to determine your response, response based upon his position, i.e. the respect of office), it is not to be done at the expense of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. being disrespectful of the office of the patriarchal home or to humanize God, i.e. humanize his word, which is to take his word lightly and mock him (in which case God will laugh at those who decided to walk down the pathway of fools and he will mock those who do not fear him). "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 4:7-10 "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof." Proverbs 1:26-30

Jürgen Habermas explained the method (the dialectical method and its continuum, i.e. taxonomy system) used to detect and overcome "the repression of needs and wishes," i.e. repression of the "compulsion of internal nature," a nature common to all mankind which must be liberated from what he calls "objectively superfluous domination," i.e. the conscience, i.e. "surplus repression," (The defiant child might think, "It is bad enough to have dad chasten me, but to chasten myself, to have to practice self-control, to be bothered by the conscience, is unbearable when my friends want me to join them in having some 'fun'"). "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will." (Wheat) If the dream of social harmony, i.e. world peace is to become a part of human consciousness, i.e. reality, the repression of the individual's social, i.e. humanist, identity (an identity seen as being blocked from the conscious mind by the repressive constraints of "authoritarians," i.e. repressive constraints used in an effort to maintain the institution of the patriarchal family, business, neighborhood, church, etc. i.e. institutional environments where the "moral relation" of above-below is absolute), "institutionally demanded repression" must be annihilated (all patriarchal institutions must be annihilated). By incorporating a continuum, i.e. a spectrum of opinions, which includes the patriarchal institution, they will naively participate, not knowing that their participation, i.e. the participation of the patriarchal minded person (within the village of dialogue, i.e. the participation of the conscience within the continuum, i.e. diversity, for the sake of unity, i.e. for the preservation of the institution) negates the patriarchal institution and revolutionizes the person, freeing him from the "repression" of his "needs and wishes," freeing him from "authoritarianism" over his "internal nature," liberating him to discover his identity within the "social norms" of the time, i.e. "social norms" no longer constrained by the "moral relations" of the patriarchal paradigm but now attached to the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' freeing him to join in the social project of annihilating the patriarchal paradigm.

By measuring the level of restraint inherent within the institution (i.e. its moral relations), and the degree of change the person or people are (i.e. family is) willing to take to attain progress for the institution (or to preserve it), social norms can be changed (i.e. liberated from the restraints of the institution). Social relations outside the home (i.e. the institutions the family participates in) carry this tension. By finding the tension between belief and behavior inherent in any social relationship (institutional life), and using it, i.e. creating 'cognitive dissonance,' the family structure can be destabilized in its attempt to maintain social relations, i.e. the institution. Its "objectively superfluous domination" can thus be negated as the people are, i.e. the family is moved (liberated) in the direction and to the level of change which they are willing to take for the sake of preserving or advancing the institution. The old Marxist Waltz: take two steps forward until they squeal, then take one step back and they will all be on board, thinking the idea of change was theirs (taking ownership of change) if noticing the change at all since they already had that much change going in their behavior, i.e. already ignoring (tolerating) differences for the sake of unity.

To introduce the continuum into the classroom is to change the world. To change the classroom from obedience toward authority or seeking to know and serve God above, living by faith, to questioning authority or being god and serving god (mankind) below and living by sight is diabolical. This is a continuum of evil, calling itself good.

It is not simply the items or things a person has faith in, items or things not yet evident, but is also the source of that evidence which is key to having faith. For the patriarchal paradigm, the source of the evidence, or the one to have faith in, is the person in the office of higher authority, God or the parent, who reveals by command or truth (to be accepted by faith) what is not yet seen or understood intellectually, i.e. experientially, i.e. reasonable (not by private interpretation). Therefore what you know is not based simply upon human experience but is based upon how you think, i.e. setting your mind on things above. All men are under God's authority (the soul of man that is), but since we all have fleshly bodies we are materially the same in our sin nature while being materially different in our makeup, i.e. the man's body is different than the woman's body, and the children's body is different than the adult's body, then, because of our temporal makeup, the man is to rule over the woman, under God, the desire of the woman's heart is to be toward her husband, under God, both her husband and God her source of security—spiritually God, temporally the husband—and the children are to honour their parents, i.e. obeying them, in the lord. (If your skin crawls at the thought of this you are under the influence of the Heresiarchal paradigm.) The earthly father, temporal, is under the authority of the Heavenly Father, Spiritual, in the patriarchal paradigm, a top-down system (as is the wife and children spiritually, but in that order temporally).

In the heresiarchal paradigm, since the temporal, i.e. diversity, is synthesized to the spiritual, i.e. redefined the zeitgeist, i.e. the spirit of the time, both the spiritual and the temporal continually synthesize into one, i.e. moving diversity into unity. All, dialectically, are becoming one (God, man, and nature), as man moves away from setting his minds on things above, that is contrasting things below not thinking about things above, i.e. not living in faith, and learns to set his mind on things below, that is comparing things above with things below (negating that which is above), i.e. living and weighing life through the moment (increasingly reasoning sensuously and spontaneously), within the human experience, both in theory, i.e. in his thoughts, and in his practice, i.e. in his daily actions. Therefore, to have validity, knowledge (or evidence of purpose) must be acquired through experience (through that which is temporal, common to all men below, i.e. social, i.e. thus man's spirit is dialectically bound to space and time, i.e. measurable and therefore, ironically, nothing is impossible to mankind since, thinking dialectically, nothing outside his temporal imagination can inhibit his potential, i.e. "If we work together, we can make it happen."), and is not to be tied to "blind faith," a 'condition' where temporal life is 'limited,' i.e. judged by things above (that which is heavenly, not of this world, i.e. God, i.e. Spirit not limited by space and time, i.e. immeasurable, without "shadow of turning." James 1:17).

To put this in patriarchal perspective, our earthly father is not perfect, i.e. their content, i.e. commands and promises may be in in error, but their office is. If your father tells you not to bring up the gospel in his home, then you honour his command, despite him being wrong (continuing to pray the Lord would change his heart or provide a way). (A commercial, propagandizing socialism, goes like this: "You don't have to be perfect to be a perfect dad." This statement intentionally deceives the public into thinking the office is not perfect since it is humanistically based, i.e. imperfect dads are perfect dads. The father is to be perfect as God is perfect. A truth the commercial seeks to negate by visualizing the office with humanistic eyes.) To focus upon common content or issues, which may be good in themselves, and making them the common ground of our being, i.e. our purpose in life, i.e. setting our mind on things below, is to negate the purpose of the office of authority, to set our minds on things above, be it parent or God. It is easy to 'shift' from above to below since it is our nature, i.e. since our senses are directly tied to the things below and our human nature gravitates in that direction. Thus a paradigm 'shift' only needs a facilitator, a heresiarch, i.e. whose purpose is "to make change easy," to make a world which God created to be under his authority (Spiritual, i.e. depending upon faith) into a world of continuous 'change,' i.e. heresy (temporal, i.e. depending upon sight), under man, i.e. Satan's control (Antichrist).

In the heresiarchal paradigm, it is not "what" you know that is of greatest issue, it is "how" you came to know whatever it is you know (how do you determine reality, i.e. what is real, i.e. worth knowing), i.e. which paradigm did you use to acquire knowledge, i.e. learned how to reason (what kind of environment were you raised up in), i.e. to direct you in your actions (praxis), thereby creating reality. Crisis forces you to make a decision. How you make that decision determines your paradigm. Therefore only when you are under the pressure of a crisis, will you reveal your paradigm, thus revealing where along the continuum you are at any given moment. In this way your reality (your history), whether it is "irrational" (from above) or rational (from below) will become manifest. Then by the reshaping of the environment, by the exclusion (removal) of "irrational" information ("inappropriate" information, i.e. information which supports the patriarchal paradigm) and "irrational" behavior ("inappropriate" behavior, behavior which demands the use of the patriarchal paradigm) in resolving the crisis, a person's perception of reality can be changed. If what is rational (temporal) is real, then what is real (temporal) is rational.

Without the word of God man can not know God. Man can not know God without having faith in Him and his word. Without faith in God man can not please God. Man can not please God and love this world. Therefore the dialectical objective is to change perception (reality) from that which is above, via faith in the word of God, to that which is below, via human understanding (perception) of God's word. In this way Jesus' statement, "I am the way," is changed from the patriarchal paradigm into the heresiarchal paradigm by the human praxis of dialogue ("How did you feel when ...?" and What did you think when ...?"), his way is changed into the 'people's' way (the 'people's paradigm) by people seeking consensus (it is the process of finding social harmony and not finding any one final, fixed position which is the desired outcome) "in Jesus name." "I am the truth," is changed when the paradigm is change in defining truth, i.e. how it is being defined. Since human perception (sight) determines human reality, and human reality determines what is truth, then when man's perception, i.e. his opinions of Jesus' words, determines the truth of his words, the relevance of his words in any given moment is determined by the situation at the moment. Therefore, when man's perception of Jesus' words determines reality, reality is now based upon human experience and human understanding. "I am life," is therefore changed into sensual life, the life which correlates with life in the perceived reality of social harmony, i.e. love (Eros can now be called agape with everyone's approval).

Thus all mankind must be put under pressure, i.e. put into crisis (micro-terrorism) and then evaluated as to how he responds in the crisis, i.e. which paradigm he turns to for solution or escape, if change agents are to find out whether man either holds to set knowledge and truth, i.e. remains unchanging, i.e. "fundamentalist" (identifying him as having been educated in a patriarchal environment), or whether he is changeable, i.e. adaptable in his knowledge, i.e. the "purpose" of life being based upon experiential discovering, i.e. reasoning must be relative to the situation he finds himself in (identifying him as having been re-educated, i.e. the brain washed of a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. rigidity), in a heresiarchal environment ("enlightened," revolutionary, i.e. a "changeable" minded person, i.e. "always in the process of becoming," i.e. always demanding leisure and guaranteed sustenance, i.e. the Garden in Eden experience only this time without a demanding, inhibiting, unreasonable, patriarchal God around), not only for himself but for all others, in theory and in practice (the Genesis 3:1-6 praxis, i.e. what I call Satan's anti-Genesis project), i.e. don't just dream of a world freed of parental restraints (Godly restraints), get rid of the system itself which initiates and sustains parental restraints (Godly restraints), i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, by the praxis of patricide. The overall agenda is the "disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family." (Marcuse)

The matriarchal paradigm. You can not go from God's patriarchal paradigm (the purpose in life is to obey the father; faith, i.e. the father rules, i.e. the obedience of Christ; again, while dad and mom may not be perfect, the office they serve in is, i.e. it is the office of authority given by our Heavenly father to our earthly father, as imperfect as our earthly father might have been, that we might comprehend his paradigm) to the beast's heresiarchal paradigm (the purpose in life is to question everything; "critical theory," i.e. the "child within" rules, i.e. obedience to the brotherhood of mankind in touch with human behavior; because dad and mom are not perfect, the thinking is, their office of authority is the root cause of public-private "neurosis," and "neurosis" can only be overcome by detaching individuals from the one above (who expects perfection when we can not do it), i.e. negate the office and its effect, and reconnecting them to the social below, i.e. building society upon human relationship skills while "fixing" things, i.e. the facilitated meeting is not just about fixing a bridge, it is really about "fixing," i.e. neutering the fear of God in you) without first going through the adulterous-whorish, matriarchal paradigm (getting in touch with your feelings, feelings triggered by something within the environment drawing you, with the enticer beckoning you, i.e. being driven by "feelings," i.e. "sensuous needs" of pleasure, and security and peace (secretly in a "safe zone"), i.e. the seducing woman; see Revelation 17). "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

Your public school does not openly display the Ten Commandments on its walls, allow the reading of God's Holy Word, or prayer in Jesus name because of this man's "research" which helped our highest courts "justify" their decisions. He has more impact in your life than you know, or maybe care to know.

The empowered woman, freed from the patriarchal paradigm, empowers the beast, the heresiarchal paradigm. If the woman can not be empowered, but remains subject to the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. accepting of her husband's authority, she is classified as "the nuclear essence of transcendental evil power ... the bad or evil mother. . . against which the infants cry had proved of no avail." (UNESCO Tensions that cause war) When women are still under the "control" of the patriarchal paradigm, they are, according to the heresiarchal paradigm's definition, damaging their children, i.e. not allowing their children the freedom necessary to experience their own humanistic nature, because they, as mothers, do not feel free enough to experience their own humanistic nature. "In fact, children learned to obey the prevailing order at their mother's knee, despite the potential for an alternative social system implicit in the traditional matriarchal ethic of warmth, acceptance, and love [i.e. the mother still carries the law of the patriarchal father, i.e. "the prevailing order," into the lives of the children, thus defeating her humanistic "purpose" of delivering her children, via. her "warmth, acceptance, and love," as well as herself from the patriarchal paradigm]." (Jay) Since the mother, i.e. the woman, is the socializing object, i.e. the object of gratification wanted by both husband and child, she has the potential of joining both the husband-father, i.e. the patriarch and the children, i.e. the heresiarch, into one unite, i.e. by means of the negation of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide) through the actualization, i.e. the praxis of the heresiarchal paradigm (incest). She is key to the agenda of "change," moving the environment from fixity (prejudice), the husband rules, to flux (tolerance), the children are free to be "themselves," both sensuously and spontaneously. She is the pathway to social harmony, i.e. the negation of the top-down subordination system (the rampart of prejudice). The relationship between the way women are identified and social harmony, "the masses," i.e. the children, are correlates the dialectical process must recognize and build upon if it is to overcome prejudice, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the barrier to the democratic, socialist, communist, globalist, etc. (commonist, i.e. "communitarianist") agenda for "world unity," i.e. global dominance, i.e. domination. "The phenomena of ‘contempt for the masses' and the subordination of women were considered examples of ethnocentrism . . ." "Can the attitude that ‘women's place is in the home' be considered a prejudice? It would appear that it is so" (Adorno)

You can not go directly from the patriarchal paradigm to the heresiarchal paradigm: free the children from the authority above, i.e. the father figure, by having the authority figure abdicate his office of authority to become as a child, i.e. to be like a child (one void of laws and rules which inhibit nature stimulated inquiry into the environment), i.e. to be at one with the children (negating his office of authority), i.e. discover his "child within," i.e. expose and act out (praxis) his resentment toward authority, i.e. initiate and sustain change. You must first begin the process of change by empowering the matriarchal paradigm (who mediates compromise between the father and the children, based upon feelings). A woman's nature is to tend and befriend—because of a chemical her body naturally produces called oxytocin which blocks her from fight and flight, therefore, she does not produce man's nature and when empowered tends toward bitterness and ruthlessness (i.e. find common ground for the children's sake, i.e. turning the heart of the woman away from the husband and toward the children and herself). This is why those who praxis (practice) the heresiarchal paradigm always begin with initiating and sustaining the matriarchal paradigm (feelings, i.e. the "tend and befriend" nature of the woman) focusing upon women's rights and the "rights" of children. The subtle "shift" of emphasis from obedience to the father, to the feelings of the children (in the end the children rule, they are the heresiarchal paradigm), i.e. their wants moves any discussion from a patriarchal paradigm to a patriarchal-matriarchal paradigm. The continuum continues on from there to a matriarchal-patriarchal, matriarchal, matriarchal-heresiarchal, heresiarchal-matriarchal, to an eventual heresiarchal paradigm. Notice that in the garden, Satan (a heresiarchal paradigm) went to the woman first, empowering her (Genesis 3:1-6²), while God (a patriarchal paradigm) went to Adam first, questioning him for his actions (praxis) (i.e. "Who told you ....?" (Genesis 3:9-12)). Satan in fact had no power in the garden until the woman empowered him, through her participation with him and his heresiarchal system, through dialogue, i.e. "discovering" her humanity, her potential, her cosmic identity, i.e. who with his help, i.e. his facilitation, i.e. which means to make "change" easy, became empowered as well, i.e. to be "her own person." The first consensus meeting took place in the Garden in Eden, with the assistance of the first facilitator (the first "I will") helping the woman and Adam come to their "I will" to negate "Thy will be done." Your willful participation in finding consensus in a facilitated meeting empowers the facilitator, the taker of your liberty under law, under God.

Redding's Change-Acceptance Scale is used to show when to bring a facilitator or a change agent into a teacher training environment. A facilitator is utilized when it is necessary to use deception and seduction in an effort to avoid being detected and closed down. A change agent is utilized when it is necessary to use greater pressure to move participants deeper into the process. The Redding Scale is an example of how the process is used, in this case, in teacher training. It is used during in-service training to move people from a patriarchal paradigm through a matriarchal paradigm into a heresiarchal paradigm. As shown, those labeled as 0- are seen as saboteurs. They are teachers or administrators who work to derail the dialectical process and its intended outcome. That intended outcome is the negation of the patriarchal paradigm. Behaviors labeled as 1-slowdown, and 2-protest, are people who can not be easily moved into participation with the process and are recognized as resistors to change. At these stages on the scale (i.e. continuum) "participants" are actually seen as fighting against themselves, rejecting their own nature. In fighting against the process of change they are dialectically perceived as denying their democratic (socialist, communist) identity. They must therefore be neutralized, marginalized, or removed, before others can be moved toward acceptance and willful participation in the heresiarchal paradigm. At these stages on the scale (i.e. continuum), "participants" are actually seen as fighting against themselves, rejecting their own nature. In fighting against the process of change they are dialectically perceived as denying their democratic (socialist, communist) identity. They must therefore be either converted or else neutralized, marginalized, or removed, before others can be moved toward acceptance and willful participation in the heresiarchal paradigm. At levels 3-apathy and 4-indifference, conversion is just around the corner so more pressure is needed to keep those ensnare by the process from abandoning ship and causing the process to stalemating. By levels 5-acceptance, 6-support, and 7-cooporation, the facilitator is brought back into the meeting (the facilitator and change agent can be the same person, it is only the procedure being used which changes) to assist those already converted into learning how to convert others into the process of change as well, i.e. helping those less fortunate than them, i.e. those lacking an understanding of their socialist nature to understand their "unhealthy" condition and "change." (See the article on brainwashing.) By level 8-committed participants have become 'preachers and teachers' of the dialectical system of change, committed to the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide) through the praxis of facilitation, dialogue, and consensus (social incest), i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm.

For the dialectical process to be promoted in education, in governmental departments, in the workplace, and even in the mega-church (i.e. Church Growth, Emergent Church, dialectical church, i.e. apostate church) it is important that accomplices understand the system of change (i.e. know how and when to initiate it and how to sustain it). To move up the system, skill in the utilization of dissatisfaction is essential. The trick is to focus upon internal dissatisfactions and external dissatisfaction and use them in such a way as to produce "change" in paradigm.

Internal dissatisfaction is recovered from the person's subconscious mind in the form of the word "ought." "Ought" is the internal word expressed to oneself when they have to submit to a higher authority against their will, i.e. being "forced" against one's carnal will to use the patriarchal paradigm to keep things the way they are for the higher authorities sake, i.e. the status quo. Preventing the one under submission from doing what they want to do naturally produces internal dissatisfaction against the condition of restraint. When the action of acquiring an object of gratification within the environment is suppressed, the only thing available is found within the imagination and the phrase "I ought to be able to ...." Traditionally, the only resolution, for the one under submission, is to either do the externally desired thing, i.e. suppress the internal desire, i.e. obey the higher authority (and be "blessed," i.e. not to be chastened), or do the internally desired thing, i.e. disobey the higher authority (and be "cursed," i.e. be chastened). But in either case the patriarchal paradigm is kept in place. The dialectical process offers another choice, that of treating the higher authority as irrational (internally) and therefore as irrelevant (externally). Those who participate in the dialectical process do things differently, they praxis "change." This is the same paradigm "shift," i.e. change, which took place in the Garden in Eden, where the God above was replaced with the god (gods, i.e. human nature and the creation) below. See Genesis 3:1-6.

Helping people to make sense out of life, thereby bringing them to consensus: The catalyst for change, other than the internal dissatisfaction against conditions of restraint, is found in the nature of things, i.e. the crisis of life (the 'decision' moments in life). Therefore, instead of simply focusing upon internal dissatisfaction, and keeping things as they are, i.e. keeping the patriarchal paradigm in place, if the focus includes external dissatisfactions, i.e. the current conditions interfering with the status quo, i.e. the patriarchal desire to return to the way things were, then both the internal dissatisfaction and the external dissatisfaction could be overcome at the same time. By getting those with external dissatisfactions (the bridge is washed out) to focus upon internal dissatisfactions (your hurting other peoples feelings) and those with internal dissatisfactions (I don't like being told what to do) to focus upon external dissatisfaction ("We" need to fix the bridge) both dissatisfaction can be overcome by becoming united in overcoming dissatisfactions. The crisis can be overcome for one of two reasons, i.e. for one purpose 1), to restore things back to the way they were, or 2, to change things from the way they were to make them "better." These two purposes can be interpreted from a patriarchal perspective, i.e. external conditions restored to the way they were or better with higher authority still in control. But this condition, seen from the perspective of the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the fixing of the external dissatisfaction (fixing the bridge) while keeping the internal dissatisfaction of others in place, must be negated if social control over man is to be feasible. From a heresiarchal perspective, everything must be changed for the "better," i.e. both external and internal conditions must be changed. By fixing the internal dissatisfaction, incorporating the paradigm of internal dissatisfaction in solving crisis (the main objective of the consensus process), the external dissatisfaction, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, is negated. The crisis when mediated by a facilitator is only used to bait the patriarchal paradigm into the trap of global dominance. In this way the patriarch came into the meeting to fix the bridge when in reality the meeting was all about "fixing" him.

Fixing the "health care system" is not dealing with a person's physical, mental, and social health, or abortion and euthanasia would be outlawed. It is all about fixing the person's internal dissatisfaction against the patriarchal paradigm (the restrainer of sensuousness and spontaneity), i.e. the conscience. It is a system set up for the "purpose" of social life, using Socratic critical thinking (the dialectical process) as its means of achieving a heresiarchal paradigm. "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts [i.e. go beyond his current perception of the world, i.e. redefining reality though the praxis of synthesizing reasoning and sensuousness, i.e. initiating and sustaining change]." (Richard Paul Critical Thinking Handbook a workbook being used in the classroom, utilizing Socratic critical thinking for the purpose of "problem" solving) This is the paradigm which the Supreme court turned to in "legalizing" the killing of the unborn. Socratic thinking defines life as beginning at birth and not at conception. The latter is a Hebrew-Christian, patriarchal paradigm. According to Piaget, Socrates was executed for two reasons: 1) the moral corruption of the youth and 2) the destruction of faith in God, i.e. the gods above.

Under the influence of those pushing the dialectical process, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm with is internal dissatisfaction toward patriarchal authority, social health, i.e. incestuous freedom, requires the redefining of the values and purpose of life. It's drive for "change" (from the patriarchal paradigm to the heresiarchal paradigm) can only be achieved by finding the internal dissatisfaction of a person under subordination to higher authority, i.e. making them conscious (conscientization; "class consciousness") of their "suppressed life" under a patriarchal paradigm, be it God, the husband, the parents, the constituents, the boss, the traditional teacher, the traditionally minded neighbors, etc. while using the external dissatisfaction of the current crisis to bring all into participation within the subtle and complex process of change, i.e. through the use of the combination of facilitation, diversity, dialogue, consensus, and social issues, to solve the crisis, i.e. how to fix the people, i.e. change their paradigm (while they are simply trying to fix the crisis), i.e. change their personal use of the patriarchal paradigm to the use of a heresiarchal paradigm, while fixing the crisis, i.e. changing the public's perceived acceptance of the patriarchal paradigm to now accepting the use of the heresiarchal paradigm in solving crisis thereby effectively negating the acceptance of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the crisis from then on includes the fixing of anyone using the patriarchal paradigm in their effort to solve the crisis, i.e. the neutering of the patriarchal paradigm for the sake of world pleasure and peace, i.e. the liberation of homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, i.e. abomination. Therefore the crisis of a young girl tossing her new born baby into a dumpster because she had better things to do with her life, like going to a party with her friends, can dialectically be resolved in the "wiser choice" of having an abortion. In this way the conscience is not involved since social perception (i.e. the voice of the dialectical village, the super-ego) would accept the abortion as being humane. In his way the god of dopamine (of pleasure, love of the flesh, i.e. the world), i.e. sensual health, i.e. physical, mental and social health, negates the God above. From then on any opposition to the "health care system" is seen as ignorance and therefore, if resisted, treated as "heartless," i.e. hateful.

Without identifying and utilizing the matriarchal paradigm's internal dissatisfaction to higher authority and his rules, dissatisfaction due to patriarchal commands coming into conflict with her natural desire to relate with the things around her. Her nature to "tend and befriend" the things she loves, i.e. the desire of her heart, for herself, her children, and her friends, when "forcibly" turned toward her husband results in "the modifications and deflections of instinctual energy necessitated by the perpetuation of the monogamic-patriarchal family." (Marcuse) These feelings of dissatisfaction toward the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. resentment towards subordination, i.e. "lose of dignity," i.e. self-esteem, can be used by the heresiarchal paradigm to not only gain control over the matriarchal paradigm but can also be used to get her to fight against laws and people who accept and sustain the patriarchal paradigm. By not focusing upon obedience to higher authority but rather focusing upon personal feelings, i.e. focusing upon human relationships, and then using these internal feelings of resentment toward laws which restrain her earthly cosmic desires—we all have dopamine, the want of gratifying objects—she can be changed into an agent for social change. Collectively strengthened through consensus with others of like feelings, via media, community projects, volunteering, etc. the object of gratification, which is present within the environment (sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. the want not necessarily the gratifying object itself) can be used not just to silence any opposition, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, but can be used to be successful in gaining their participation, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm. By bringing those with a patriarchal paradigm into participation (via. therapy, meetings, etc.), by their participation in dialogue within the meeting, the process of change takes place. If not, the patriarchal paradigm is annihilated by force (by divorce), so that anti-social behavior, labeled as hate (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm) can be removed from the world via heresiarchal law's such as the "Hate Crime Bill." In this way mankind can aim for social harmony and world peace. Before this can be actualized however, all men, along with the women and children, must be under the control of (i.e. possessed by) the heresiarchal paradigm (i.e. the spirit of antichrist, i.e. the beast, i.e. the social animal) seducing all through force (when you can not buy or sell without the mark of the beast no one is forcing you or killing you, you just chose your own destiny, just don't expect anyone else to follow in suit since they have learned that to buy and sell they must be willing) to listen to and praxis the vain "imaginations of men's hearts," i.e. being in one accord. That is the human nature of the beast.

The "polymorphously perverse" thinking of those embracing the dialectical process goes like this: Since animals do it, and man is simply a reasoning animal, i.e. social animal, then it is natural that man should do it. Just because animals may behave in a way which is perverse, does not mean it is natural or right for a man to do it. "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Proverbs 26:11 Those who promote a life of abomination, because they see it in the animal world and have the urge within themselves to do so, must encourage the "eating of vomit" or the consumption of their own young if they are not to become hypocrites of their foolish ways, i.e. of their "wantonness," i.e. unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence, hardheartedness, rudeness, absurdity, recklessness, hedonism, uninhibited carnality, etc., etc. "During this special formative time, this period of psycho-social moratoria, there is no ‘right' or ‘wrong' answer by young people as they reflect on the ‘facts' they have learned in a search together for ‘meaning.'" (Richard J. Spady, November 18, 1994, The College and University Faculty Assembly, National Council for the Social Studies, Phoenix, Arizona) It is therefore imperative that the order which God created (i.e. the husband is to rule, the desire of the heart of the wife is to be toward her husband, and children are to obey their parents, in the Lord) be confused with "equality" so that perversity can become liberated, i.e. "come out of the closet," freed from Godly restraint, i.e. Pandora's box being opened. "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual ‘Pandora's Box.'" "We are not entirely sure that opening our ‘box' is necessarily a good thing; we are certain that it is not likely to be a source of peace and harmony among the members of a school staff [and between parents and children]." "To keep the ‘box' closed is to deny the existence of the powerful motivational forces that shape the life of each of us... "'To develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents and guardians or by the peer group in the neighborhood'" produces "'conflict and tension between parents and children, between students, and peer groups who are not participating in the special opportunities.'" (Krathwohl, Bloom Book 2 Affective Domain p. 91) "In a democratic process deviation is welcomed as a possible source of improvement in common ways of thinking and acting." (Benne)

Women behind the pulpit open the door for homosexuals to "preach" their heresiarchal gospel from the pulpit. No matter how hard those who support her praxis might believe, feel, or say, a woman taking the office of pastor (which is to "change" a patriarchal office, i.e. above-below, into a matriarchal-heresiarchal office, i.e. equal), no matter how much she might claim to be "preaching" the word of God, no matter how much she "loves" the congregation and is loved by the congregation, justifies and empowers a homosexual paradigm (a heresiarchal-matriarchal paradigm). She is not a minister of the Word of God for the very Word of God does not support her praxis, i.e. the negation of the patriarchal paradigm. Women, with their oxytocin, turn ministry into a "tend and befriend," matriarchal paradigm. Once empowered (which makes women bitter towards men, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm), in her stance of usurped authority (even though condoned by man, i.e. neutered men and not God), no one dare question her "profession" because of the loyalty of those who have fallen under her spell of "caring" and compassion, i.e. her cleaving nature, i.e. her embrace. They will support her praxis over the word of God, changing it, i.e. cutting and pasting it (Satan knows the scriptures and knows how to use them for his own outcome) to fit her apostasy, i.e. taking that which is not hers to take, i.e. to support her harlotry, "in the name of Jesus." It is from this passion of loyalty to the matriarchal paradigm, that the heresiarchal paradigm derives its power. Thus, anyone who questions the usurpation of the patriarchal paradigm by the matriarchal paradigm (sensuousness, i.e. the "life instinct" or pleasure) is labeled as being prejudiced and hateful. Those who praxis a heresiarchal paradigm are actually the ones full of hate (an "egoistic demand of a minority" ibid.) toward the patriarchal paradigm and will eventually destroy the matriarchal paradigm, after having used her for their own "purpose," i.e. the usurpation and the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm. Those intoxicated with the heresiarchal paradigm hate and seek out, to destroy, anyone or anything which might expose them for what they think and do. Only in the deception, i.e. the imagination, of a dialectical thinking person can two objects stand in the same place at the same time. The truth is, life is an either-or situation. It will always be an either-or situation. Either you believe in the truth or you believe a lie. Turning belief into an opinion, in an effort to circumvent truth (either-or), is simply the praxis of believing in and living a lie. When you do the dialectical process as a "Christian," basing God's work upon how you feel, what you think, and how you act towards others and how they act toward you, will not turn a lie into the truth, nor turn the truth into a lie, you will simply make yourself a liar.

The liar believes: If a child, following his nature (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), strikes back at a parent who is inhibiting the child's natural desires (to have candy for example), it is up to the parent to explain (dialogue) to the child the necessity of restraint, i.e. for the cause of initiating and sustaining relationship with others, or provide another option to satisfy his "lust" for pleasure, appropriate to personal-social development (redirecting). Thus, development for both the parent and the child, become social in nature (matriarchal), i.e. advantageous to the building of human relationships, without bringing harm to or destroying their personal earthly nature. But if the parent enforces, i.e. by force or threat of force (patriarchal; preaching and teaching; inculcating), his rules of proper behavior upon the child, i.e. the child who is striking back at the parent, not making his rules changeable to the child's nature, then the parent is being hateful and destructive, not only to the child's personal and social development but to his own personal and social development as well. Thus, according to dialectical thinking (the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the liar), the patriarchal paradigm is caused by the parent's own "unhealthy" upbringing, and must be negated either through therapy or through the use of "social environmental forces" (community pressure). If their dream of a future "healthy" society is to become reality, it is imperative that their way of thinking become the platform for the advancement of Marxism (communitarianism) around the world. In the end it has nothing to do with a "healthy" society, it has always been about the destruction of soul's of men, i.e. the removal of faith in God by the praxis of having faith in human reasoning, i.e. "leaning upon one's own understanding." The use of scientific methods, which are properly used on rocks, plants, and animals, upon man is the use of "oppositions of science falsely so called," i.e. the use of the dialectical process, turning illusion into reality and reality into illusion, i.e. making man equal to God, i.e. making man the creator of all things good.

A charlatan has no power until he can empower (a charlatan has no power until he is empowered by those who listen to him and take his advice). He becomes empowered when he is able to deceive those who are under a higher authority (God or parent shielding those under his care from the ways of the world, i.e. his rules being a hedge of protection from the world) into questioning the commands of that authority in the light of their own personal feelings (desires). By getting them to think about themselves, and their possibility of, i.e. hope in, fulfilling their personal desires, i.e. by getting them to look (imagine) beyond their current conditions of restraint to a place and time where sensuousness and spontaneity freely exist, i.e. to put faith in the imagination and then to pursue the dream, the charlatan, i.e. the "coach," the facilitator, the guru, the pimp, the deceiver, the "wolf in sheep skin," the psychotherapist, the analyst, the counselor, the harlot carrying beast, etc. is able to get them to supply his "needs," i.e. his pleasures, he is able to get them to join him on the pathway of earthly pleasure, devouring their souls along the way. "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) While the holy angels look upon the things done by God above (1 Peter 1:12), Satan (Revelation 12:9), the master facilitator (Genesis 3:1-6), "savors" the things of man below (Matthew 16:23). Those who "savor" the things of men, follow him down his dialectical pathway.

Lust is human desire, i.e. intense desire (wanting a gratifying object), and sin is behavior, i.e. doing whatever is "necessary" to satisfy the intense desire against God's will or directing. Lust is man looking upon that which stimulates desire, his being "drawn away" by temporal sensation Sin is thinking and acting upon the actualization of that temporal desire, all of which is outside of God's directing, His will. Any behavior within God's will, within his commands, within his directing, is not sin, i.e. is not lust or pride of life. Behavior outside of God's directing, outside of His will is sin—behavior which is guided by the lust of the flesh, the drawing away of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, the internal entertainment of or play, i.e. imagination (image-nation), of the carnal heart's desires, i.e. the minds eye set upon the things of this world. The pride of life, also done with the mind, using human reasoning to attain earthly desires, is knowing one's ability, i.e. potential, to comprehend and apprehend (become conscious off and praxis) the sensation of pleasure, i.e. directing one's own life, outside of or against God's directing, i.e. His will.

Christian ethics (man's behavior being directed from God above) declares for example, that life begins at conception. But by embracing stoic ethics our highest court turned to CIVIL LAW, i.e. stoic ethics, i.e. Babylonian law (man's behavior being directed from man below) declared that life begins at birth or shortly thereafter. The court decided in Roe v. Wade that "there has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973) Thus, what is sin for a Christian is 'human rights' for a stoic, and the Supreme Court went to the side of the stoics. The nation which uses the dialectical process always kills its own citizens for the sake of fulfilling its "purpose," human pleasure. This is now how those who founded this nation thought. John Quincy Adams wrote: "The highest glory of the American Revolution [know in Britain at the beginning of the war as the "Protestant Revolution"] was this; it connected in one dissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity .... from the day of the Declaration .... they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and the laws of the gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct." George Washington, first President of the United States, said "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports ... and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... We ought to be persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."

The heresiarchal paradigm's "logic" goes like this: if the love of the Father can be "synthesized" with the love of this world, if bringing up the law, i.e. being judgmental, i.e. prejudiced, i.e. condemning, i.e. negative, i.e. tying man to standards of the past (laws above his 'here and now' situation and nature) which is detrimental to humanity, i.e. human relationship building, then man can love both God and the world when the negative attributes of God are negated in favor of God's love, where God's "nature" of caring for man and the world can be defined within ambiguous terms, then the guilty feeling for lusting can be negated. By "rationally" rejecting Godly commands, defining them as archaic, man is set free from having to do God's will and can now follow after his own lust. God's laws and rules, which restrain and inhibit human nature, were only a passing moment of neurosis, a passing moment of the past overcome through the emancipation of human reasoning, liberated through enlightened mind.

It is just an issue of semantics, i.e. how you define love that is. "Lust," and thus sin, is seen, dialectically, not as a "lust" or sin, but as a feeling of normal human behavior. What is natural to man is thus defined as rational. Those things which are not natural to man, those things which restrains his human nature are non-human, irrational, and therefore irrelevant. Thus objective truth outside of human comprehension, blocks man from loving God through his own natural way, with his own human nature, subjectively. Those who go this dialectical route, men who still hold onto the idea of their being a God, are man who are trying to love God from an unregenerate heart. Those who propagate this method within the church, i.e. the dialectical process, the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the use of dialogue, consensus, diversity, etc. to find and fulfill "purpose" in life, have always sought to bring the Church into apostasy, i.e. to prostitute the bride of Christ. Detaching "the obedience of Christ" from the obedience to His Father will to the love of this world, turns the issue of love from being possible only from God above, to human nature below (love no longer found in obedience toward, repentance toward, forgiveness from above, to love being tolerance of human nature). In this praxis, in this subtle and complex way, the Heavenly Father is annihilated, His will is irrelevant, unless of course it fits within the human "purpose" of world peace and love, i.e. sin being the major issue between man and God (above-below) replaced with love being the major issue between man and man (below).

In dialectical thought, the children, i.e. the "proletariat," has the same right as the parent. The parent, i.e. the "bourgeoisie," (the patriarchal home) is negated when those of the heresiarchal paradigm can call the parents' children their children ("our children") and when they can call the parents' belongings their belongings ("our community"). When the children call all that which the parents "horde," as theirs, the parents have no right to alienate their children from the world's children ("our world"). When the traditional parent and their children of obedience, anti-dialectical children who refuse to "question authority," hold possessions for themselves, dialectically, those things belong to the world, i.e. socialism-capitalism, communism, globalism, they must be annihilated. Karl Marx added: "Every class lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything." (ibid. ) This is the flesh speaking: Every child "lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with" children of the world, "that revolutionary," i.e. "question everything," "boldness which flings at its advisories," strikes back at the patriarchal parents, "the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything." This is a sulking child having a temper tantrum. "The only emancipation of German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy [discontentment towards authority], its heart is the proletariat [the rebellious nature of the children against parental restraint being put into social practice]." (ibid.) "The only emancipation of" the world "is the emancipation of" human nature, i.e. the liberation of the "child within." "The head of this emancipation is" agencies like "The Child Protective Institutions" initiating and sustaining the children's dissatisfactions toward parental restraints, "its heart is" the children's desires, i.e. their "heart of hearts," to be loved according to their conditions, to be spontaneous and free to be their own selves. These are the dialectical children and the agencies which serve and protect them, in their hate towards the restrainers of natural inclinations.

For the patriarchal parent to base his conduct upon the child's "heart of heart," the child must be pure, i.e. holy. "Human perfection consists in an expansion of the self until it enjoys the world as it enjoys itself." (Brown) Only God is pure and holy. Perfection, i.e. righteousness is only found in Him. For the dialectical mind though, the purity, i.e. the innocence of the child is found within his carnal human nature seeking relationship, i.e. unity, with the environment, i.e. with nature and the world. According to Norman O. Brown, psychology sees the child in this way. "Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves." "Infants know no guide except the pleasure-principle." "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body." "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown; repression, (and consequently neurosis) distinguishes man from the other animals." "Childhood remains man's indestructible goal." "The aim of Eros is union with objects outside the self.... Eros is fundamentally a desire for union (being one) with objects in the world." "The life instinct also demands a union with others and with the world around us based not on anxiety and aggression [which are associated with the patriarchal paradigm] but on narcissism and erotic exuberance." "Dionysus affirms the dialectical unity of the great instinctual opposites: reunifies male and female, Self and Others, life and death." (Brown) Herbart Marcuse put it this way: "... the Orphic (flesh freely expressed in nature, i.e. homosexuality) and Narcissistic (flesh freely admired in nature; mankind "trying to grasp his own beauty" in nature, in society) images ... the erotic reconciliation (union) of man and nature in the aesthetic attitude ... order is beauty and work is play." (Herbart Marcus Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud )

Youth Groups and the Heresiarchal Paradigm.

When youth groups developed in the 60's, for the sake of young Christians, the environment provided a place and time where the youth could freely share their opinions, their thoughts and feelings, in response to the pressures of their social life, which included commands and demands from the traditional home as well as from the traditional church. With the intent of promoting the gospel, the youth group served a dual purpose, to strengthen the saved and to minister to the lost. Since Jesus said he came not to bring peace but rather a sword, causing division between father and son, the church leadership wrongly interpreted this verse as meaning it is justifiable to circumvent the father's authority of the traditional home (i.e. by-pass the patriarchal paradigm) for the sake of spreading the gospel. Instead of the son coming to the Lord by the Word of God being preached and taught (which would not negate the authority structure, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm of the earthly father, the only change being Jesus—His obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e. the "obedience of Christ," comes between the earthly father and the son, i.e. the father's structure in the son would not be changed, i.e. the son would be able to honour his father and mother, i.e. their office of authority still being in tack, but the final authority would change from being that of the earthly father to being that of the Heavenly Father), in the heresiarchal paradigm, the son rejects the father's authority because he rejects the authority structure of the father, i.e. rejects the patriarchal paradigm. By promoting dialogue as the means of communication, the authority structure of the patriarchal home and our patriarchal God is negated. Dialectically both are seen as spiritual, requiring faith in the one in authority and demanding obedience to his commands.

A shift from preaching and teaching the Word of God (spiritual) to dialoguing God's Word (temporal) took place. In this way, evaluating life experiences from, i.e. in the light of the Word of God, which would lead to conviction and repentance, was replaced with the dialoguing of the youth's feelings and thoughts regarding God's Word, i.e. evaluating the Word of God through life situations, i.e. experiences, turned the purpose of the fellowship, i.e. group meeting, to the building of human relationships as a means of building the church, i.e. the bases of "Church Growth." This shifted the youth group away from learning and applying the word of God in their lives, i.e. staying submitted to a patriarchal authority, i.e. this time from above, which would bring both the saved, who were straying, and the lost, who needed to repent of their sins, back under the authority of God and his Word, and shifted the youth group toward the practice of dialoguing their feelings and thoughts regarding God's Word, thus shaping the word of God around their opinions and their social setting (socialism).

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:41-43, 45, 46. [See Matthew 25:31-46 for full context. Being in Christ does not mean we do not care about peoples temporal needs, we are to care for those in need, temporally as well as spiritually.]

"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." Luke 13:24-27 [Knowing about the Lord, and being around those who do, does not mean you know the Lord (still of, i.e. loving the world below, i.e. not able to do the will of God above, as He directs, i.e. not born again, from above; "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:3, 5, 6). (doing the will of God above, as He directs) and therefore does not save you from Hell.]

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23 [How does Jesus know you. He knows you because you do the will of his Father which is heaven. Tending to others needs does not make you a believer, even when it is done in Jesus name. Just because you know about the neighbor next door and use his name (if he is popular), when it is advantageous to you, (even when your actions might spread his name) does not make you a member of his family.]

"He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all." John 3:31

Through the use of dialogue, the youth groups began the use of the heresiarchal paradigm to build the "church" of the future. As their opinions were put into action, through youth activities, their opinions supplanted the preaching and teaching of the word of God, i.e. preaching done publicly to both the lost and the saved and teaching done privately with believers only, a system which would continue to sustain the patriarchal paradigm in both situations, i.e. both public and private.

"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." Hebrews 10:7

"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matthew 26:39

"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

With the youth "leaders" changed from preaching and teaching of the Word of God to the use of dialogue of men's opinions, God's will, revealed from above, i.e. "Thy will be done," became rejected in favor of the youth's opinions, their feelings and thoughts (when their parent's words or God's Word came under the influence of their feelings and thoughts they rejected their parent's or God's authority). By moving communication from preaching and teaching to dialogue, all participants rejected the established truth of God's word in favor of "changing times," i.e. the flesh, i.e. death, i.e. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12. In this way, as a result of the youth group's change in paradigm, the earthly father and the son were divided, not because of a change of heart, but because of a change in paradigms, i.e. a change in heart would only change the final authority from being that of the earthly father to being that of our heavenly father, i.e. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven," (Matthew 23:9), but they were divided because of a change in paradigms, one paradigm still patriarchal, i.e. but still lost to the world, i.e. not being changed in heart, i.e. needing to repent, the other paradigm heresiarchal, also lost, but in this case incapable of receiving, much less tolerating God's authoritative Word, nor His authority, which is patriarchal (father authority) in paradigm. Despite this, they calling themselves "Christian," guided by the opinions, i.e. the feelings and thoughts of men, doing it "in the name of Jesus."

Some argue that Jesus had a "group." The fact is he preached and then taught them. Not once did he dialogue to find "common ground" with any of his disciples.

In this way communication amongst the youth and their leaders changed from the communication of the traditional home and church, based upon obeying rules and sound doctrine, to communication of inter-personal relationships between the youth and the society they lived in. Truth was shaped, i.e. cut and pasted, based upon how it would make someone else feel (social). When division between the father and the son is based upon God's word, i.e. conviction comes from above, the spiritual is in action, but when division between the father and the son is based upon their relationship with others, Christian or not, via the system of dialogue, where feelings and thoughts guide and direct actions, the temporal prevails. The Word of God, i.e. that which comes from above, i.e. spiritual, God breathed, can only be preached and taught. The opinions of men subject to "changing times," i.e. that which is from below, i.e. temporal, can only be dialogued (this is the basis of Marxism which teaches that all ideals and truths must be treated as opinions, i.e. material, temporal, built upon man's understanding, i.e. not subject to God's revealed word, thereby justifying socialism—human feelings and thoughts put into practice—as the purpose of any action, be it in the secular realm or the sacred realm, not really sacred in this case, i.e. just a "seems to be" sacred).

In this way temporal (below) "swallowed" up spiritual (above), while calling itself "spiritual." No longer were the youth meetings for the sake of learning the Word of God, through the paradigm of preaching and teaching, though they were billed as such, but instead the meetings were for the sake of building human relationships through dialogue, "in Jesus name." In this way the aesthetic dimension, i.e. the mind set upon the pleasure of human relationship, became the unspoken reason for the youth meeting, i.e. the youth couldn't wait to go, and the "studying" of the Word of God was only used hypocritically, i.e. superficially, to justify the youth group in the eyes of the parents (even when it was "studied," it became subject to the youths feelings and thoughts in the act of dialogue in that they did not memorize it since there were so many "translations" from which to chose from, i.e. done to force dialogue into the "bible study," see my article on the Textus Receptus).

Once in place, the next generation of church leadership, having come up in the youth groups, made sure this heresiarchal paradigm stayed in place within the church, sustaining the church as an apostate church. Thus immorality sprang up like a fountain, not only from within the youth, but from within the leadership as well. A little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.

The issue of music used within the Church followed the same dialectical pathway, the focus no longer was upon sound doctrine (spiritual, from above) but upon sensuousness, (temporal, from below, i.e. the tempo went from humble to earthy and boisterous, i.e. in music the melody comes first, presenting and supporting the message, i.e. the doctrine, then the harmony, supporting the melody, followed, and finally the tempo comes supporting both, i.e. subject both to the melody and the harmony, all being subject to the message, i.e. sound doctrine). Have you ever left a worship service talking about the experience rather than the doctrine being presented in song, i.e. worshiping the worship experience (sensuous) rather than God and His Word (spiritual), i.e. you could not wait to come back to get more, sensuousness that is. When the temporal is subject to the Spirit, God and His Word is the focus (a patriarchal paradigm), when the spirit is "subject" to the temporal (actually the temporal has rejected the spiritual since the spiritual can not, nor will not be subject to the spiritual), man and nature, i.e. sensuousness, and experience is the focus (a heresiarchal paradigm), it is not the Spirit of God which leads in that case, i.e. leads in that direction.

You are lead by the Spirit of God, you are "driven" (drawn away) by the flesh of man. Human relationship building is the "purpose" of the latter. The church is a byproduct of individual believers coming together each being in Christ. Unity is not an agenda but a byproduct of those who have Christ in their heart, coming together in his name. If unity is the agenda, even by the preaching of the doctrines of men, then men's opinions must be revealed through dialogue in an effort to find "common ground," from which to preach from, in an effort "to please men" (antichrist, i.e. another Christ, i.e. anti- means another or different than). "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:9-12 The gospel is not from the opinions of men and must only be preached and taught as is. Man's opinion of the gospel is not the gospel and when we build the church upon man's opinion of the gospel then it is not the true church but an apostate (collaborator) church, driven by the process of "change," i.e. contemporary.

Here the idea of "theory and practice," so much a part of the dialectical process, comes into play. Kant tied the theory to the mind and the practice to the senses and synthesized them in the "aesthetic attitude" via the sensation of beauty. He did not tie them to practice, i.e. action, i.e. revolution though (Hegel tied them together in theory and then Marx put them into praxis). It was the mind, tied to laws of restraint toward sensuousness, dialectically an un-natural environmental condition, which made the mind subject to what is called a belief-action dichotomy. The belief-action dichotomy was the result of a person being "forced" to set their mind on things above, i.e. above their nature, against their nature, which alienated their mind (theory) from freely participating with their nature (practice). Under these conditions, "theory" void of "practice," theory could only find freedom in the mind, via the imagination, not be externally it remained unpracticed. The theory or thought of doing what was in one's nature remained locked up in the mind because it was suppressed by chastening or the fear of it. The only way theory could be liberated was through the negation of chastening or the fear of it.

The patriarchal environment of obedience and chastening was called, by Kurt Lewin, the "field of force of an adult," i.e. a "negative force field" (Kurt Lewin) since it was counter to human nature and inhibited human nature. This patriarchal environment was internalized by the development of the conscience which supported the patriarchal paradigm's position of authority (dominance, i.e. take dominion, rule, etc.). Both conditions, the patriarchal authority, i.e. external, and the conscience, i.e. internal, limited or blocked the desired action (practice) due to physical punishment or the fear of it. It was only in the mind, via the "aesthetic attitude," the imagination, that a person could find freedom of the mind (theory or opinion) and sustain any semblance of hope for unity with objects in the environment which originally stimulated the senses, i.e. "You can look (imagine) but can not touch (practice relationship with) the object of gratification within nature." But because of the external restraint of the physical force of the higher authority, and the internal restraint of the conscience, the fear of physical force of the higher authority, the mind united with the senses (sense perception, i.e. awareness of the object of gratification within the environment which stimulated the internal desire, i.e. the want) could not be realized in practice, i.e. openly experienced in public, nor could the person find freedom internally of thinking upon it, his own imagination was tormented with feelings of guilt. Due to the external pressure of moral laws (beliefs and rules) which still resided in the public arena (i.e. parental authority and common law), the only refuge for the desire was found within the freedom of the imagination which itself was "damaged."

How do you overcome the belief-action dichotomy, i.e. the structure of the patriarchal paradigm, and its effect upon the individual and society, i.e. culture? By creating an environment, an "experiential chasm" (a laboratory project, i.e. a "pilot project," as done by Satan, recorded for us in Genesis 3:1-6), whereby sensuousness and spontaneity could be rationally liberated again (only now done in a social environment to tie them to the "village") "change" away from the patriarchal paradigm could be initiated and sustained. First an environment must be initiated and sustained which would allow freedom of the mind to be encouraged, where reasoning would be liberated freed from unnatural (patriarchal, spiritual) restraint. An "open-ended" environment must be created so that all people can openly share their theories, share their opinions, share their sensuousness, share their heart's desires, and therefore look upon the forbidden object without the fear of reprisal from the patriarchal paradigm. The very practice (praxis) alone negates the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the "preaching and teaching" of truth. The very practice (praxis) alone negates belief. The very act of participation (praxis) alone accomplishes the deed. And secondly a "non-directed" environment must be initiated and sustained where freedom of the senses is encouraged, where spontaneity is liberated, where the senses are freed from the laws of restraint, so that the person can now openly participate with nature, can openly liberate "the child within" without being told "what to do," and "how to do it." Only when these conditions of theory and practice are willingly put into practice (praxis), can a person of a group of people experience their true nature, can they be freed from the control of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. free from parental control and Godly restraint. In this way identity is no longer found with the patriarchal paradigm but is instead found outside the patriarchal paradigm.

By applying theory and practice to social work projects, i.e. volunteerism, public projects, etc. not only is the individual freed from the effects of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the belief-action dichotomy, the whole village is as well (praxis). Therefore, since all children have been damaged by exposure to the patriarchal environment, i.e. their human nature (below, i.e. earthy in nature) restrained by "inhuman," i.e. otherworldly, i.e. anti pro-nature laws (above, i.e. spiritual in nature), their history must be exposed and they must be detoxified of the "neurosis" of the patriarchal paradigm found within them, i.e. they must be re-educated, i.e. their brains washed of their prior loyalty to that which is above and reattached to that which is below, i.e. re-humanized, dialectically sensitized (sensitivity training). Thus everyone is assumed guilty, patriarchally damaged, until proven innocent, i.e. their brain is washed of the effects of their loyalty to the anti-nature laws of the patriarchal environment. A child is innocent of his actions because he "did not know any better"—which does not justly his actions and thus brings chastening in some form, i.e. verbal instruction, verbal warning, i.e. chastening or physical instruction, physical warning, i.e. chastening. To apply this reasoning of innocents, by promoting the idea of "the child within," to adults, i.e. negating right and wrong thinking for the sake of sensuously "justified" reasoning, is debauchery. But this is what is being processed dialectically into physical, mental, and social "health" today.

Anyone resisting the process, i.e. refusing to participate in the process of change, or trying to derail the dialectical, heresiarchal train (new world order) must be identified as working against progress, against the betterment of life for mankind. Whether they are working with others or not, i.e. others outside the system, they are seen as potentially if not actively working against those helping "the less fortunate." Thus, according to national law and therefore global law, those with a patriarchal paradigm are perceived as perpetrating a "notorious crime against all of society." (Marx, Critique) Therefore, according to dialectical reasoning, those with a patriarchal paradigm must be "ruthlessly" eradicated when "necessary." (See Karl Marx's Feuerbach Thesis #4.) "Once environmental-economic defects [i.e. having been raised in a patriarchal home, where a person learns to save money to better his life] had done their work during a person's upbringing-his defects of personality resulting from these social causes stuck with him, making him a member of a 'criminal' group of people." (Kazimieri Grybowki-an essay-American Bar Association, Freedom of Expression and Dissent in the Soviet Union 1972, p. 33) This logic, which was used to produce a "healthy" Soviet Union, is the same logic being used today for "public health." Stalin, a Traditional Marxist, believed the "defect," of having been raised in a traditional home "stuck" with the person for the rest of his life, making him a permanent member of "a criminal group of people." Those promoting the "health society package," i.e. social-psychologists, i.e. Transformation Marxists, believe that the person can be environmentally processed to health (what Carl Roger's call it therapy for "normals"), that is unless the person refuses to participate in therapy, at which time he will be treated as one belonging to "a criminal group of people." Both Traditional and Transformation Marxist arrive at the same outcome in the end, they achieve earthly power for a few, i.e. the facilitators for change, in the name of the many, i.e. "the grass roots." The difference is that one takes longer to get to the outcome, having hope that "adaptability" to change can be more successful in the re-education, i.e. brain washing experience of the person rather than the outright use of brute force in the traditional Marxists theater. While the Transformational Marxists use force in the first act, i.e. social pressure, in the last act they must uses brute force to remove all which is left of the patriarchal paradigm. In this way the social infrastructure is less disrupted and there are more "happy" workers, i.e. volunteers to support the system, i.e. less workers are excluded, imprisoned, or shot, providing for more citizens laboring in the "positive force fields" of "social change and progress," i.e. putting their theory into practice into praxis upon "the less fortunate," i.e. those exposed to a patriarchal paradigm of faith in God and His Word.

Thus, to the dialectical minded, i.e. enlightened "Christians" (Transformational Marxist "Christians, i.e. "humanistic Christians"), God's commands are not "wrong," they are simply irrelevant (illusionary), i.e. immaterial under "certain" conditions, i.e. since God is a God of Love first, and his law is "passed away." For God to be relevant in contemporary times his law must be seen as a relic, viewed as an archaic artifact. If the law is kept around at all it is to be something safely protected behind glass in a museum—only to be observed and discussed, as in a field trip experience, in a carefully controlled situation so as not to disturb the soul. The law must be dialogued, i.e. "How do or did you feel when ....?" "What do or did you think when .... ?" and not preached and taught as to expose man's nature as sinful, i.e. "Do you know the Law of God?" The Apostle Paul spent a considerable amount of time explaining the purpose of God's law in Romans. God can not separate his love from his law or his law from his love, as has always been misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally, i.e. out of ignorance) by "Christians" who want to keep in "contact" with the world, i.e. the flesh, on their own terms. Their idea being "If we can cut, past, and rearrange God's word so that God we can be respected by one another, i.e. we can be respected by God, then we can keep our respect, i.e. our dignity as well. As covered in other places in this article, the law is a tutor and can not save us. It only reveals our sin. It turns us to the need of a savior, to Jesus Christ. Jesus did not negate the law. He redeemed us from the wrath of it. Walking in the Spirit we, by the nature of the Holy Spirit, have the law living within us, not of our nature which it condemns, but now in his nature having the fruit of the Spirit which no law condemns (that is except Satan's dialectical laws of the flesh, i.e. the laws, fruit of the flesh which hate the laws, fruit of the spirit). All those who are not in Christ Jesus will be judged according to the law.

The breaking of God's law can be summed up as "taking that which is not yours." This is a result of having a deceitful and wicked heart regarding every earthly situation (a dialectical heart), i.e. "What can I get out of this situation from myself?" i.e. what pleasure can I get out of the person or situation in front of me, for my flesh, even while doing something "good" for them, i.e. even doing it "in Jesus name." This is what makes non-profit organizations work, i.e. getting something for yourself out of the situation while doing something for someone else. The law silences this question, i.e. "What can I get out of this situation for myself?" with the realization that all is the Lords, including, not only the earth, but our very own life (our very next breath is a gift from him), and thus brings us to repentance concerning the first statement "taking that which is not ours," thus silencing us before God by exposing our humanistic, unrepentant, natural (deceitful and wicked) heart. While the law can not save us, we would not have known we were sinners without it, i.e. that we were outside of God's will. God, a God of Love, desires that all be saved, i.e. doing his will, i.e. having faith in him and being in obedience to him. God does not love sin, he loves you, but he does not love your sin, your dialectical praxis of love of the world. Christ died for you while you were yet in sin, in love with this world and its pleasures, to redeem you from your sin and God's wrath upon it. You hold onto sin, i.e. refuse to repent of your sin, i.e. refuse to repent for "taking that which is not yours," i.e. because you can not stop yourself from the praxis of "What can I get out of this situation for myself," (all you can ever do, even for God, is vanity, unless he directs your steps, i.e. you humble yourself before God, repent of your sins, receive Christ Jesus into your heart, and let him guide and direct your steps). If you refuse to accept Christ Jesus into your heart and continue in your sin, his love for you can not save you from his Father's wrath upon you for refusing to repent of your sin. Like a bomb dropped from a plane, if you keep holding onto it and refuse to repent before God of your flesh nature (your unregenerate heart and the love of this world), you go with it. God's law is never irrelevant and out of date. Paul loved it with his mind, i.e. Romans 7:25 even though it could not deliver him "from this body of death." God's law is as much a part of the gospel as is His mercy and grace. It brings us to a Patriarchal God. Having said that, it is also important to know that we can never fulfil it, even after being saved.

To consider the law as irrelevant (or even adaptable to change) is to remove the very means of conversion. It is the law, which is perfect, which converts the soul. It is the law which bringing us to repentance for our wickedness before God. Without it there would be no condemnation, no offence to the flesh. Without the law the flesh would be justified, and therefore there would be no need for mercy and grace. The wall separating man from eternal life is the law, i.e. the law which proceeds from the Father, the law which condemns the love of the flesh, i.e. the love of the flesh which proceeds not from the Father but is of the world. Without the law there would be no awareness of man's sinful nature, i.e. his love of the flesh, i.e. his love of the world. Without the law there would be no awareness of God's judgment upon sin, the love of the flesh and the love of the world (1 John 2:15). No man can truly love the father, the giver of life and the world. Our love, which is temporal (below), can only be towards the things of this world. God's love, which is spiritual (above), can only be towards the soul of man, lost in his love of the world. Due to God's law exposing and condemning man's love of his flesh, i.e. his love for the things of this world (a dialectical connection), loving those things which gives him pleasure in this life, man can not love both this world and God. One love is death, since there is not life in it to begin with, the other love is life, since it proceeds from the giver of life Himself, God. The only way, i.e. the only doorway, to eternal life, is through Jesus Christ. Any effort on man's part to go around the wall (the law) which declares man dead in his sins, exposes him as a thief, trying to attain (take) that which is not his, life. To consider the law of God as irrelevant, is to exclude the recognition of one's sin before God and the judgment of death. To consider the law of God as irrelevant is to exclude the need for repentance for one's depravity before a Holy, Pure, Righteous, and Loving God. This is presumptuous, i.e. believing that man himself is capable of holiness, purity, righteousness, and love on his own effort "Religion, especially the Protestant Christian tradition, has permeated our culture with the concept that man is basically sinful, and only by something approaching a miracle can his sinful nature be negated." (Rogers) Or "better" yet, thinking dialectically, that holiness, purity, and righteousness are not honourable or even desirable traits after all. That even a "rational" attempt to attain them is counter to the proper development of human nature. "I have little sympathy with the rather prevalent concept that man is basically irrational, and that his impulses, if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and self." (ibid.) In other words, this is the dialectical process of self-justification, the idea that man is not depraved, just uneducated. In this way, through the used of the dialectical process, man's flesh and the world can become united, and are therefore the standard for the "good" life. By focusing upon the law of the flesh, considering it "rational," instead of the law becoming a barrier to human progress, the law becomes "irrational," and therefore irrelevant (not worth bringing up). This is no different then what transpired in the Garden in Eden with Satan, the woman, and the tree, with Adam joining in to make it a consensus. Those who bypass the law, even in sharing the gospel, go this dialectical route.

How can a judge have mercy on anybody when there was no law. Without law, there would be no crime, and therefore no opportunity for mercy. When people call you "judgmental," make sure they are upset with God's law, which condemns them, and not your use of it to condemn them. It is God's mercy and grace which counts. Your mercy and grace is based upon vanity, what you can get out of the situation for yourself, outside of the curse of the law. After all Jesus Christ himself was obedient to the law, obedient to His Father's will. The law is not the problem, the heart of man is the problem, i.e. the "imagination of the thoughts of man's heart." "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." "... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; ..." Genesis 6:5; 8:20-excerpt "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:20 "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." "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;" Romans 1:21; 2:5

Neither God's mercy or grace negates the paradigm of his law. Law, mercy, and grace are all fulfilled in a patriarchal paradigm, the law bringing us to repentance before God (from our Heavenly Father above), mercy and grace coming from the same authority (through the work of His Son who was sent by the Father from above to be a sacrifice for our sins here below and is now seated at the right hand of the Father above). The "sheepfold" of mercy and grace can only be arrived at through the wall of the law which kills, declares all dead in your sins. It is through Christ alone (i.e. the door) that we can get through the law of judgment (i.e. the wall of separation) into the sheepfold of mercy and grace. The wall (i.e. the law from the father) is not removed as a hedge of protection but continues to separate those who are without from those who are within. Our obedience in the Father's commands (doing his commands written on stone, which means we are still walking in the flesh, judged as evil) are fulfilled in our obedience in his Son's commands (believing in him, doing his commands written upon our regenerated heart, which means we are walking in the spirit, i.e. redeemed). Our justification is not found in the law (which only describes what we must be like to be like God, i.e. Godly, and thus exposes us as frauds, as wicked, thereby condemning us), which only brings to light, i.e. exposes our lusts and pride, i.e. reveals our sin, i.e. reveals our trying to be like God (an evaluator of good and evil on our own terms, i.e. temporal, carnal, earthly, sensuous) but can only be found in Christ Jesus, who by faith in and obedience to his Heavenly Father (i.e. fulfilling his law, his will) has called us to follow him in the same paradigm, living no longer under the curse of the law but redeemed by His work on the cross, living in His Word and by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Without God's mercy and grace provided through Christ, following after God's law would be legalistic, ritualistic, cultic, nationalistic, works salvation. Without God's law fulfilled in Christ, following after mercy and grace would only be licentiousness. Legalism is overcome in the Blood of Christ. The wrath of God upon those who do not fulfill the law is removed by Christ's payment for their debt. Christ Jesus fulfilling the law, having obeyed the Father in all things. And licentiousness is overcome in his resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit. His law now in us. Legalistic Christians do not accept God's mercy and grace. If grace or mercy is brought up it is only done in lip service to deceive themselves and others. They go back to the law as a cultural ritual. They just keep hanging around the wall, keeping the flesh alive in pride while rationalism, ritual, or tradition, i.e. the pride of life, remains the basis for the "justification" of their praxis. Humanistic Christians, not accepting God's law, exclude it from their lives. They depend upon worldliness to justifying their flesh. Through dialogue, they justify the use of sensuousness in their walk in the "spirit," and in the promotion of the gospel. Rationalism, sensuousness and spontaneity, which is the pride of life, remains the basis for the "justification" of their praxis. Neither legalism nor licentiousness restrain the flesh. Whether through laws and religious rituals or accentuating the flesh through tolerance, God's work in Christ is not recognized as being fulfilled. There are only two things God has called us to do. We are to deny ourselves, i.e. die to our self-life, pick up our cross, i.e. die to the village-life, and follow Jesus, i.e. the rest is in His hands. God's will for us is only fulfilled in our walk in his Spirit. Apart from God's work of mercy and grace, i.e. his work alone, i.e. Christ in us, i.e. God's law in us, we can not love and do our Heavenly Father's will.

Because His law is hated by our flesh, we can not love the Father apart from His Holy Spirit. Unless the flesh, i.e. the mind set upon the flesh, behavior controlled by it (psychology, i.e. the land of "oughtiness") is dead, we can not be in Christ and have the Father's love in us. Only through the work of His Son and the work of His Holy Spirit can we truly love our Heavenly Father. It is in Christ Jesus alone that God's law, which is external, which condemns us (all men outside of Christ should be "terrified by the law"), becomes internal, which blesses us (all men in Christ should love the law with their minds). Only through his Holy Spirit expressing God's mercy and grace, can we love our Heavenly Father. The story of the prodigal son was not about the son's love for the father but the father's love for the son. The son did not return to the father because he loved the father. He returned home because he knew his father would feed and take care of him (what can I get out of this situation for myself), even if he was a slave. It was the father who showed the love, i.e. not unconditional love in that if the son had come home with a whore in hand, i.e. disrespectful or contemptuous towards the father's commands, the father would not have let him in the house. But he came home humble, willing to be a slave, subject to his father's commands. All throughout the scriptures it is about the Father's love for us, revealed by his Law, revealed by His Son's love for the Father, revealed by His obedience to the Father will, and revealed by His Holy Spirit guiding us in both the Son's love for the Father and the Father's love for us, none of which is of this world.

What the dialectical process has done is made the wall of restraint, the law of restraint, the patriarchal paradigm, the obstacle to be overcome (as Satan did in the Garden in Eden). In this way, but making the Son's love for us supersede his love for the Father, the message of the Son's obedience to the Father in all things, the patriarchal paradigm is negated (the Son dialectically rescued us from the law of the Father negates the fact that he rescued us from the 'curse' of the law, i.e. the law of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all are in agreement to the law). Through the continual use of the dialectical process, instead of the wall being a judgment upon the flesh, condemning the flesh, it becomes an object of oppression, the restrainer of the flesh, preventing man from knowing his true self. It is therefore a new Christ, a dialectical savior, i.e. a user-friendly, readily adaptable to change, non-offensive, tolerant of ambiguity Christ, a "feeling" Christ, a facilitator of change Christ, who becomes the doorway into the sheepfold, helping man in negating the law. In this way "the sinful world," which is condemned in the patriarchal paradigm, becomes, through the use of the dialectical process, "a sinful world in its own home," i.e. man at home with himself. The sheepfold in this paradigm is not under the authority of the Father but is a sheepfold of a facilitated environment of social harmony and peace, the world and the flesh united in consensus. Those outside the sheepfold are those who remain under the control of the patriarchal paradigm, refusing to discover their "purpose" in life, refusing to experience their "freedom" from the oppressor, refusing to walk through the door of the new Christ, i.e. the way of the antichrist (the lawless one, the Fatherless one, the wall-less one), and thereby experience how to overcome the necessity of laws from above man, i.e. outside of man's nature (non-human laws), preventing him from knowing himself, i.e. preventing his self-actualization with the world, i.e. barring man from creating a new world order. The savior in the dialectical sheepfold is the facilitator of "change," the high priest of the heresiarchal paradigm, the initiator and sustainer of the dialectical experience, i.e. Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-15), the Devil, Satan, "the old serpent," the dragon (Revelation 20:2). Following down the pathway of the dialectical process is, as they say in the drug world, "chasing the dragon" (i.e. addiction to the praxis of dopamine, i.e. the want of gratifying objects put into praxis). You need more and more and are never satisfied until you are dead, i.e. having lived of, by, and for the flesh till death do you part. Your service in this life being only as a slave to the system which provides you the drug inducing environment of sensuous experience. Welcome to the world of praxis, the world of death which calls itself life.

On judgment day it is an either-or, Heaven-Hell event. Either your sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb (Christ's work), or else your will be judged according to the law (according to your works). If the law is not in you (i.e. you are not in Christ, i.e. he does not know you), it will be a catastrophic day for you (i.e. every day from thereon will be a catastrophic day for you). Hell is permanent (even though hell, and death, are cast into the "lake of fire," Revelation 20:15, there is a permanence to the situation).

When fear and dread and awe and wonder are no longer a part of our life we need to humble ourselves before God, evaluate our lives from His Word and seek his face, repenting of our sin. Fear and dread, because of our works, the works of our flesh, i.e. because we let our thoughts and our deeds, i.e. our love for our flesh and the things of this world (what we can get out of life for ourselves, i.e. the respect of men), come between us and God. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 10:31, 12:28, 29 When we become aware that we are not trusting in the Lord but instead leaning upon our own understanding, when we realize that we are reasoning according to our senses and our abilities, that we are walking in our flesh and not in His Spirit, fear and dread should awaken us to repent before Him, awakening us to His love, His mercy and His grace. Awe and wonder, because of His works, i.e. that all things around us which are good and beautiful were created by Him for His good pleasure, that despite our loving of these things, instead of loving Him, he still loved us, knowing by His Word, that when we repent before him, we can know His love. Realizing that no matter what we know or see or experience in this life, He is greater, His word is more awesome. "Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word." "Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me." Psalms 119:161, 133

**When we are no longer evaluating our life from God's word, i.e. seeking his will daily, when we are instead walking in the flesh, in our own wisdom, as the world does, we should experience fear and dread, not as the world but as the redeemed, realizing the consequence of our lack of faith and its effect upon ourselves and others. And when we are walking in the spirit, evaluating our lives from His word, seeing his work in our lives and in the lives of others we should experience awe and wonder. "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed." 1 Samuel 2:2, 3

We should therefore not be surprised to know that men like Harry Stack Sullivan, men who worked to develop the UN, aimed to remove those four words from our vocabulary. We no longer have fear of God in our nation, nor do we dread the consequences of our actions. Therefore we can not know true awe and wonder which comes from knowing Him. We are thus left only with the awe and wonder of men's works, the pride and arrogance of men's hearts which the beast will use for his own "purpose," Rev 13:11-. Therefore, as children of God, and as joint-heirs with Christ, we should walk continually in awe and wonder of his works and not in fear and dread of men's works while we suffer with him on this earth. "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 "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9

You can not say Abba (daddy) Father without a clean heart and a clear mind. When you are disobeying or have disobeyed your father's commands (having fear and dread of being caught) you can not truly love him without reservation. Asking for forgiveness, with a repentant heart, must come first. Accepting Christ's redemption for us, so that He can shed His love for His Father in us is the only way we truly love our Heavenly Father. Jesus is the only way to the Father. It is not the father's law which separates us from his love, it is our rebellious nature, i.e. our walking in the flesh (our pride of life) which prevents us from loving him, i.e. prevents us from calling him Abba Father with sincerity (having awe and wonder of Him). We can never know him as our Heavenly Father without first believing in His Son, knowing His Son's obedience to His Father and walking in obedience in His Spirit, i.e. walking in his power over the flesh and the world. Our mind on the flesh and the things of this world which please the flesh, will not allow us to love Him as he loves us. Without first being "terrified by the law," it's revealing the lust of the flesh in us, i.e. our love for it, and our dreading of the judgment which will follow, we would never have come to know his mercy, his grace, and his love. We might have heard about it. We might have wanted it. But we never would be able to know it. The world wants God's love, just not on his terms. The flesh nature of man no man can overcome. It has only been overcome through God's Son. The dialectical process is dead without the flesh nature of man, without "sensuous needs," "sense perception," "sense experience," "all proceeding from Nature," (Karl Marx) Therefore no man who is in Christ can praxis the dialectical process and say he is of God. No man who praxis' the dialectical process can call God, Abba Father. "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23 "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 "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" John 11:25, 26

Life is from the Spirit and not from the flesh. Only in the Spirit is there life. The flesh has always been dead, i.e. there is no life in the flesh, i.e. there never has been any life in the flesh. There is only life in the blood, but only temporal, sensual life, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood;" Leviticus 17:11. Flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Corinthians 15:50 Before God breathed "the breath of life" into man, man being formed from the dust of the ground, the flesh was dead (Adam was just like a corpse in a coffin, all the parts were there, but there was not life). The soul is either subject of the flesh, i.e. and its death, i.e. lifelessness, or the soul is subject to the Spirit, i.e. and its life. Even Adam and Eve, before they sinned, had to eat of the tree of life to have bodily life (having only a semblance of life, i.e. illusionary life, in their flesh), their soul alive because of the work of God; "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7. After man sinned the only means for eternal sensual life was a continuation of contact with the tree of life, "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Revelation 2:7 When God drove the man and the woman out of the Garden in Eden he did so to remove them from having access to the tree of life and thereby be able to have eternal sensual life in dialectical rebellion against Him. "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Genesis 3:22-24 For man to gain access to the tree of life he must first put on Christ (Galatians 2:20, drinking his blood and eating his flesh, for unlike man's blood and flesh which are temporal, sensual, his blood and flesh are eternal, spiritual, his blood redeeming us, his flesh sustaining us for eternal life). "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." John 6: 53-58

The angels are spirits, spirits created to serve God only, ministering to men as God directs (Hebrews 1:13, 14), not having dominion over anything. Even though they were created with more power than man, they were not made in the image of God. Man was created in the image of God, he therefore was created to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26 and Proverbs 8:3-8; Hebrews 2:5-9), even eventually to judge the angels themselves (1 Corinthians 6:3). When a man is under God's authority, he is to have dominion (a patriarchal paradigm), but when men are under the fallen angels authority (the dialectical process), they take on the system of the fallen angels (a heresiarchal paradigm) and become servant, not to the creator, but rather to the creation, i.e. environmentalists, socialists, etc. worshiping and serving the creation, i.e. man's nature, the world, and the fallen angels, i.e. all becoming his focus of service and "purpose."

Looking at this from above, where we know life having come from the "breath" of life, from God, and not from below, where we identify life with the flesh, i.e. resting, shopping, working, dressing, eating, etc, i.e. the sensual cares of this world, we realize life is found in a noun, a name, the name of the creator and not in a verb, the motions or emotions of man, tying him, his identity to the flesh. Thus when Adam and Eve chose to use their flesh nature and their human reasoning as their means of evaluating good and evil, they rejected life (spirit) and chose death (flesh), then and there (choosing the creation, i.e. the earth, the environment, the matriarchal paradigm, i.e. "mother earth," reasoning from sensual experience, over and against the creator, i.e. the father, the patriarchal paradigm, reasoning guided by and building upon faith in His word). Thus only having the flesh to "live" by, the soul of man became subject to death, i.e. angst. All men have since been dead, even though in their mind they believe they are alive, i.e. in God's mind, he is the creator after all, all men are dead (spiritually dead, dead in their sins; "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" Ephesians 2:1, i.e. thinking they are alive in the flesh, i.e. thinking they are justified in evaluating life by their carnal minds, directing their lives according to their carnal nature, because they can relate with the world sensuously.

Therefore, in the spirit, there is no fear of death, since death has no place in the spirit, i.e. the spirit can not comprehend death. Death and not life, is in the flesh. Since we eat that which is from the dust of the ground, our flesh is only of the earth, material, with no life, the soul set upon it is subject to death; "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7:24. Thus the mind set upon the flesh, which can not comprehend God's love, is the source of fear (death overtaking life). The soul anticipating eternal death, i.e. the end of the flesh "life," where there is no hope of knowing life. For example: Freud thought that memory was of the flesh since the flesh nature, sensuousness, keeps resisting the commands of God, when in truth memory is of the soul of man, man sensing his original station of life in God (lusting for life but not able to attain it). Since the soul is the result of God's "breath of life" upon the flesh and not the result of the flesh itself, the flesh has no effect upon the Spirit of God since it can not know it and therefore identify life with it. The spirit is life, peace, joy, and love. It is therefore because of the flesh, i.e. "the body of this death," that we as believers have fear and dread, fear that, in our mind, we might turn to the flesh as the means of evaluating what is life and what is death, what is good and what is evil, and by doing so return to a semblance of "life" (seems to be life) which has always been death. It is only when we die to ourselves, i.e. die to our flesh nature (die to our psychically self-life, die to our love of sensuousness), die in Christ and follow him, and receive His Holy Spirit, that we can know life, His life which is eternal, i.e. bringing peace to our soul which the world can not know. Only then can we have a life of awe and wonder, knowing His glory. To correlate life with the flesh, and the flesh with life is the work of Satan, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, blinding man of true life, a life he desires but cannot have unless he dies to himself and the world. It is Satan's Genesis 3:1-6 paradigm which is being put into practice by those possessed by the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. using the dialectical process, i.e. using the way of the flesh (sensuousness and spontaneity), to find and "create" what they think is the "good" life leading to the "new" world order.

We, who believe in Jesus Christ, we, the redeemed criminal, we, the redeemed by the righteousness of Christ, his righteousness being imputed unto us, are now no longer fearful and despiteful of the law, which reveals our lusts and pride, but, now walk in circumspect, "not as fools, but as wise," (Ephesians 5:16). We are in love with the law, which reveals his mercy and grace, we continue to preach and teach his law along with his mercy and grace. For in law, mercy, and grace, the flesh is not justified (it is dead), but the faith of Jesus Christ and the will of our Heavenly Father is (in them we have life). In him, our heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. our self justification, i.e. our "old man with his praxis" (that which is from below), is put to death. In his patriarchal paradigm, i.e. in his Father's justification, i.e. in Christ's faith and obedience to his Heavenly Father's will, in His death (our atonement) and His resurrection (our hope of eternal life), we are made alive, "here-and-now." To have faith in and obedience to his Heavenly Father's will, even in our death (in the flesh that is), there is life. In his justification from above (spiritual, i.e. by his mercy and grace we are justified) and the death of our self-justification below (temporal, sensual), for by his law no flesh is justified, we are justified before God (Spirit, above) being redeemed from eternal death to be received into eternal life, by his will and his will alone: Romans 6:1-23 and Romans 7:1-25.

Without faith in God and his word, without believing upon Jesus Christ, it is impossible to please God. It is impossible to have faith (abiding faith) in God and His Word and praxis the heresiarchal paradigm at the same time, i.e. the dialectical process which is abiding doubt ("Doubt is the starting point of modern philosophy. Rational doubts have been solved by rational answers. The irrational doubt [questioning which road is right but not questioning faith in God] has not disappeared and cannot disappear as long as man has not progressed from negative freedom to positive freedom [rejected that which is above (two roads dividing), i.e. "negative freedom," and embraced that which is below (one road progressing), i.e. "positive freedom"]. Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual authorities, but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness. 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." (Fromm). It is impossible to praxis the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. to praxis dialogue and consensus, and have faith in God and His Word, i.e. which must be revealed and accepted within a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. truth which must be preached and taught and accepted as "Is" ("I Am that I Am"), accepted by faith and put into practice.

Faith does not negate our senses (our flesh) but rather makes them (it) subject to God's will, i.e. their nature triumphed over (humbled, denied) by our faith in God and His Word only, i.e. not "leaning to our own understanding," i.e. not walking in the flesh, but "trusting in the Lord with all our heart," i.e. walking in His Holy Spirit. The ability to have faith in God, as a child has faith, testifies to a God above human nature. For to base life upon the senses is to destroy faith. Touch, taste, sight, smell, sound, i.e. sensuousness, i.e. feelings, i.e. the flesh, that from which human reasoning can only avail itself is exposed as evil, i.e. the pathway of death, by the Word of God. God's Word, i.e. His law, exposes our human nature as evil. God's Word which is Spiritual, i.e. which is revealed to man by men lead by His Holy Spirit, is not discovered through human reasoning. His Word requires our faith in Him, a paradigm which condemns our love of the flesh, a love which leads to death, and provides a way for us to love Him in His spirit, a love which is life.

When faith is changed to sight before its time, i.e. placing its vision in "sensuous needs," in "sense perception," in "sense experience," all which "proceeds from nature," i.e. that which proceeds from the world, it is no longer faith but sight. Therefore those who preach and teach grace and mercy, without the law, negate that which speaks to the souls of men, (faith and law), and instead speak to that which is of the flesh (sight and feelings, beauty and justice, i.e. Hegel). Through dialogue, human reasoning attempts an intellectual assent to God, i.e. vain philosophy. Few ministers today preach and teach to build faith in God. Most ministers today dialogue to that which builds relationship with man and his nature, i.e. that which is pleasing to man, i.e. based their ministry upon sight, those things which can be measured with the reasoning of man, i.e. where man is able to use polls and surveys, and "feasibility studies," i.e. tools of the fleshy mind, i.e. "group dynamics," "synergy," etc. "All concepts that are irreducible to facts are meaningless." ["Sort of" negates faith doesn't it? There is no "sort of" about it, dialogue does destroy faith!] "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest)] "Everything that is not reducible to number becomes illusion for the Enlightenment." "…philosophy as struggle with error and superstition is also and always enlightenment." (Bronner) "Enlightened economics must assume as a prerequisite synergic institutions set up in such a way that what benefits one benefits all." "Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation." "The more enlightened the religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal they get, the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an enlightened way." "Partnership is the same as synergy." "Synergy can be defined as the resolution of the dichotomy between selfishness and unselfishness." "The problem for the accountants is to work out some way of putting on the balance sheet the amount of synergy in the organization, the amount of time and money and effort that has been invested in getting groups to work together [measuring the effort taken to negate the patriarchal paradigm and its affect upon institutional policy making]." (Maslow, Management) A "synergetic revolution," i.e. the "breaking of hierarchies." (Ene - Silvia Sarv) "We are discovering the allness and the wholeness, a truly mego-diagnostic view of allness, a synergy of fantasy and the rational. Perception leads the way and creates the reality. What you see is what you get. I create the playground or the battle. There is a choice. And I make it [he chose to go along with the process, i.e. join in the one world system, thus condemning those who resist the process, those who refuse to bend their knee to the one world system]." (Jack R. Gibb THE MAGIC OF SELF-REGULATION: Omicron in the Organization) "New level of leadership [a critical mass of transformational leaders] characterized by an unshakeable faith to transform the lives of others by creating a synergy of energy within their circle of influence." (Erik Rees Seven Principles of Transformational Leadership — Creating A Synergy of Energy™ Source: Pastors.com, Saddleback & Rick Warren's Web site.) In the use of this diabolical process the "contemporary church," replaces faith, trusting in the Lord, with works following, with sight, trusting in polls and surveys and feasibility studies, through works, all being done "in the name of Jesus."

Faith and law (patriarchal in nature) is replaced with faithfulness and lawfulness ("-ness" is a quality, a feeling, i.e. heresiarchal in nature). Human feelings and reasoning, i.e. the affective domain and the cognitive domain united in human experience (praxis), i.e. "qualities of adaptability and compromise," become the judge of faith and law, and thus a "quality" of life, attempting to transcend the bondage man has to his carnal nature, can never be realized (since it is works salvation). Lawlessness swallows up (replaces) law, calling itself law and faithlessness swallows up (replaces) faith and calls itself faith, resulting in a perceived world of "law and faith," based upon "lawlessness and faithlessness," a world where the soul of man is replaced with the only hope man has, in himself and in human relationship, i.e. that which is above is replaced with that which is below, and thus sin, before a Holy, Pure, and Righteous God, is replaced with the morality, i.e. man's fallen human nature perceived as "beautiful" and "justified." As Hegel stated it in his comment: 'Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmässigkeit ohne Gesetz', i.e. "Lawfulness without law; Faithfulness without faith," i.e. that which is above is overcome, i.e. swallowed up, with that which is below, fulfilling Nietzsche's "God is dead" syndrome, that is "the Patriarchal God" is dead, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm is consumed through social praxis, where incest (lawlessness) can only be actualized in the praxis of patricide (the negation of the law giver and his law).

For the dialectic process to work, "lust" (wanting a gratifying object) must be "sanctioned and justified."
Herbart Marcuse summed it up this way: "... 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" (Herbert Marcuse) By "aesthetic dimension" Marcuse is referring to Kant who believed that Hope is in happiness, and happiness is in pleasure, and pleasure is in the mind, and now that we know that the brain produces chemicals, i.e. neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, which naturally respond, via the nervous system to the environment around them, and from which our mind looks back into the environment to acquire more of, i.e. pleasure, i.e. dopamine emancipation. All habitual drugs including tobacco and caffeine are tied to dopamine emancipation, that is, from an encounter with nature (for example: the smell of freshly baked bread, beautiful sunsets, and compliments from people and even from painful experiences). Therefore, dialectically, any hope which requires faith (non-sensual reasoning), i.e. which is placed in Christ, i.e. that which is above nature, i.e. that which is super-natural, i.e. that which is not of nature or not in harmony with natural inclinations, i.e. that hope which denies the senses their gratification, brings death to that hope which requires human perception (sensual reasoning), i.e. pleasure, the hope which comes from man's experience with the worldly environment. "Irrational" hope impedes man in the use of his mind for attaining world peace and harmony. His hope in things above his nature, his belief and hope in transcendence, prevent him from having an opportunity to experience "rational" reasoning. Thus his reasoning is used to restrain sensuousness. His cognitive domain is used to suppress his affective domain. Thereby his is subject to conditions beyond his nature. This condition is seen, dialectically, as illusionary. As the Marxist, Theodor Adorno, stated it: "The immediate effect of spiritual factors on the realm of the corporal is an illusion." (Adorno) Or as Karl Marx put it: "The abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions." (Karl Marx MEGA I/1/1)

Marx was calling for the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm experience (hope placed in that which is above man's control) and the liberation of the flesh (hope placed in that which is below, which man can control). The trick was to subtly cover the simplicity of his agenda (the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm) with the "complex" issues of such things as "surplus capital," social crisis, etc. Stored up money is like drug money, stored up dopamine (cash in the bank) so it can be used on a rainy day when you need some dopamine (such as a vacation). Without it you are subject to only what the immediate environment (or higher authority) will grant you (i.e. the parent, God, etc). Capitalism wants control over money for personal gain, while socialism wants control over money so that all (except for capitalist, i.e. those with a patriarchal paradigm) can participate "equally" in the dopamine moment. The latter requires patricide for it to become actualized. That is why so many landowners died in Communist revolutions around the world. While natural man is dopamine "driven," those who are in Christ are not. While dopamine is needed (without it you are depressing), it is not to be loved. We are not to love the environment, i.e. the world, i.e. the gratifying objects which stimulate its emancipation. To set your mind upon it or upon the world which stimulates it, is "lust." Both capitalism and socialism are guilty of this "crime" before God. While the patriarchal capitalists sees his future hope of pleasure as only being under his control when it is stored up as capital in the bank or in property, the heresiarchal socialist sees his future hope of pleasure as only being under his control when he has control over the "masses," treating them as social capital. For the capitalist you are of no threat if you do not assist them in their acquiring of private capital, i.e. help them acquire or maintain property. For the socialist you are a threat if do not assist them in their acquiring of social capital, i.e. participate in their control of the masses, i.e. participate in their control of you. In the end both want control over capital, traditional capitalism is just more honest about it and does not concern itself directly with the "purpose" of buying and selling the souls of men (although that may happen), while for the transformational socialism the process is more subtle and complex and does concern itself directly with the "purpose" of buying and selling souls.

When socialist and capitalist are joined in "purpose" (as they are today), they have only one "purpose," that is the buying and selling of souls. It has never been about money, it has always been about the soul of man or I should say the souls of men (collective). That is why socialists are so money, i.e. masses, oriented (you are money in their eyes). They can not do it (whatever it is) without you. Like a pedophile, it's not the lost dog they are after (any crisis will work), it is you. They take their pleasure in the victimizing of the innocent, i.e. the trusting. Whether done externally, by physical contact, or internally, vicariously, this process is evil. Those who, like drug pushers, facilitate the praxis of it, could only have come from the dark side of evil. Socialists, like pedophiles, can only think of the next moment, i.e. the "special opportunity," when they can make the next trusting soul their victim. Since whoever defines terms for you controls your life, when they state "If nobody is hurt then it must be ok," imply, if the child (trusting soul, i.e. victim) enjoyed it must be alright (if it proceeded "only from Nature to Nature"—situational ethics—and all parties enjoyed the consensus moment, i.e. the victim was benefited in the "special opportunity" then ....). This is no different a process than that which is found in Genesis 3:1-6. It is how those who sold their soul to the dialectical process want to perceive "their" world, a world of patricide and incest, i.e. get rid of the Father—the creator, the restrainer, so they can enjoy the children (and the mother)—the created (society and the natural environment). The control of money, for the "purpose" of worldly pleasure (world peace and harmony; sensuousness and spontaneity; for the hegemonization of souls upon Nature,) is the alpha and the omega (the beginning and the end) of the dialectical process. There is no knowledge of, nor fear of God—the creator (the patriarch), before their eyes, i.e. in their perception of the creation.

Thus, for 'true' hope, i.e. dialectical hope (perceived hope) to be realized or actualized, mankind must not look to any condition of "completeness" (inflexible and unchanging) above and beyond his nature (conditions and laws which inhibit or condemn his reasoning to his flesh). He must instead, with the aid of facilitators trained in the dialectical process, seek to participate in the process of change, reuniting his nature and nature itself. For him to be changeable with that which is changeable, that which is below he must learn to discover his own nature from within himself, scientifically, dialectically discovering man and nature, subject and object, synthesizing to join in erotic "play," to procreate a world of pleasure, i.e. a world of happiness, i.e. a world of hope, i.e. a world where nothing is impossible, i.e. a world where patriarchal restraints (internal and external) no longer inhibit human progress. Kurt Lewin recognized that when the object above man's nature, i.e. God, parent, etc. was placed on equal footing with the subject's desire for pleasure, i.e. his desire for happiness ("affections and lusts"), his desire for respect from men, that the objective of life (the "purpose" of life) was transformed within the person, that a paradigm 'shift' began to take place in the person. Instead of the person focusing upon God or the parent for meaning and direction, i.e. to find "purpose" in life (setting the mind upon things above to be directed by God or parent), he instead began to focus upon the conditions or environment which promised to gave the greatest meaning and direction, i.e. to find "purpose" for life (setting his mind upon the things below which augmented pleasure, letting the social, natural, worldly setting direct his life). The "purpose" of life was now dependent upon all of mankind (not only oneself but all others as well) focusing upon a world of pleasure in the "here-and-now," for all mankind.

"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play behavior and barrier behavior. To be governed by two strong goals [to relate with the present and to maintain the past, i.e. go out with your friends and keep the rules of your parents] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism [cognitive dissonance where ones behavior and beliefs (above-below) come into conflict]. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [a play behavior environment, permissive environment, using cognitive dissonance to weaken the persons affection towards, if not produces an outright hostility towards the patriarchal paradigm, drawing the person into a patricidal experience, putting aside the voice of the parent for the voice of the group]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [confusion, destabilization, lose of identity with the patriarchal paradigm result in a lose of one's own identity, lose of moral foundation, meaning in life, etc. which was founded upon them]. 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 [either the nature of the parent (barrier behavior) or the nature of the child (play behavior) come out on top from the encounter, with the one former controlling, inhibiting and blocking, the latter (status quo, static, the parent remaining in control of the child) or the latter influencing the former (change, dynamic, social relations giving direction, "purpose," to life)]." (Kurt Lewin in Barker, Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression)

Thus the objective for the dialectically-minded facilitator is to create an environment where one's belief (affection towards that which is above, i.e. faith) comes into conflict with their behavior (affection towards that which is below, human nature, their own nature in particular, i.e. sensuousness seeking actualization with the world) producing a period of destabilization. In this condition, i.e. detachment from the influence of the patriarchal paradigm, the person can be conditioned to focus upon and evaluate life from the "here and now," from the sense-based moment (from one's own feelings and thoughts), and learn to make "rational" (sensual, i.e. sensible) decisions through the process of consensus (group-social approval; unanimity). By using cognitive decisions to "drive" the person into harmony with the sensuous, the person is socially conditioned to reunite his cognitive domain with his affective domain, his thoughts with his feelings thereby becoming incorporated, he is able to integrate his reasoning ability with his own sensuousness. By this act (praxis) the person is able to overcome the segregation of his own feelings and his own thoughts (his internal behavior of rebellion against authority, i.e. his resentment against authority denied external expression) from his actions (his external behavior patterned after the one in authority), and "return" to his 'true' hu—of the earth—man nature (his internal behavior of rebellion against authority—theory, united with his external behavior of revolution against authority—practice). History is thus rewritten. History is no longer the passing of past information on into the present, unquestioned ("authoritative," "there-and-then" information, above a persons "here-and-now" feelings and thought, directing and controlling his actions in the "here-and-now"), but rather history, dialectically incorporating perception, the "in the moment" experience, becomes the reevaluation of past experiences (information being handed out from someone with an authoritative mind-set), through the "light" of one's own contemporary feelings and thoughts (opinion). In this way man's affections and lusts become as important a part of his life as the world he lives in. His communication is no longer filled with words of restraint, i.e. words from the "past" (how those with the one road theory, continuum theory want everyone to see it) or from above (the two roads, above-below, patriarchal paradigm which those with the continuum theory want to remove from everyone's perception), but rather his communication, with himself and with others, is filled with words of potential, of imagination, of unlimited possibilities. Thus hope no longer resides in an authority above man, an authority limiting his common human experience (his carnal nature), but now resides within his own common human experience, waiting to be discovered and actualized (liberated, emancipated), dialectically, with those around him, i.e. with all the world united upon the same carnal human "call" of the wild.

"Change," i.e. the banner cry of the heresiarch, is necessary. Change is required since whatever it is in the natural environment which stimulates the sensation of pleasure (the want of a gratifying object), i.e. the events in time and space which aroused the sensation, i.e. stimulated the "sensuous" need in the first place (the internal desire of man to realize, through sensuousness, his validity or purpose in life), the "sensuous" need for pleasure is satiated in the experience and withdraws itself, thus the sensuousness of pleasure (hope) needs the newness of experience within the environment to continue to exist, to develop, and to improve (sustainable development, continuous improvement, etc.). If pleasure is for one person alone, change in the environment becomes an enemy since it interferes with his control over pleasure. Thus it is necessary that he store it up for future enjoyment. By the accumulation of wealth (exchange surplus) he can guarantee its realization in the future. Therefore he works to prevent change. (This is not the gospel message but simply how the world works, i.e. greed, vanity, etc. See how Jesus responds to this attitude: Luke 12:16-21) Change in environment, once initiated, must be sustained if pleasure for others becomes the "purpose" of life. Change thus becomes the only means to life, i.e. social life. In this way hope from above (spiritual-eternal, i.e. "no variableness," no "shadow of turning", i.e. "fixed referents and traditional anchoring points") is swallowed up in the hope from below (fleshy-temporal, i.e. "a world of rapid change, of bewildering instability"). The harmonizing of "sensuous" needs with the ideas of the reason (the imagination) "deprives 'the laws of reason of their moral compulsion' and 'reconciles them with the interest of the senses.'" (Herbert Marcuse) In this way "the laws of reason," once bound to that which is above (bound to laws of "moral compulsion" which alienate the person from "the interest of the senses"), are reconciled to that which is below, i.e. "the laws of reason" are reconciled with "the interest of the senses." Thus when a person's feelings and affections toward whatever it was in the environment which initiated sensation in the first place, becomes the focus of his mind (i.e. the person sets his mind upon those things which are upon the earth) his reasoning turns toward how to attain or retain (justify) relationship (unity) with the object or objects which stimulated that pleasure in the first place. In this way of thinking (dialectical reasoning), first cause is no longer found above nature but is instead found within nature. Therefore, any condition which blocks this self-environmental relationship (inter-personal relationship), i.e. any condition which produces a self-environmental rift, must be annihilated. In this way reality is no longer found in the father and his conditions of repressing, i.e. alienation, but instead is found within the lust for spontaneity and the lust for freedom, i.e. found in the experience of childhood with its "interest of the senses," i.e. "Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves." (Brown)

Thus, when a person thinks with dialectical reasoning, things in the universe no longer have usefulness, or purpose, in glorifying God above (since the mind set upon things above divides, i.e. alienates man from his 'true' nature below), or in themselves below, but are useful as means to an end below, i.e. the means toward universal pleasure, i.e. world peace, global harmony, the dialectical process being the end (Note: the end is not world peace, the end is the use of the dialectical process to achieve it, i.e. to achieve the negation of the patriarchal paradigm). "In the aesthetic imagination, sensuousness generates universally valid principles for an objective order [the object and the order is no longer found in God above, who sets things in order below according to order nature above, i.e. Spiritual, but instead the object and the order is nature, i.e. man and his perception of nature which must put the world in order below, i.e. turning it right side up: "estrangement (man and his natural desires, i.e. his social-environmental nature, are not realized due to his mind being set upon things above producing a self-environmental rift) is a phase of the dialectical process, and that by experiencing and overcoming it man creates his own self and then fulfills himself as a man." (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx; International Pub.; NY, 65)]. Hegel knew that in the dialectical process "Feelings, joy, and pleasure [Hegel uses the German words Empfindung, Lust und Genuss translated into English as "sensation, pleasure and enjoyment" as in 'What can I get out of this situation for me?'] are sanctioned and justified so that nature and freedom, sensuousness and reason ['beauty and freedom'], find their unity their right and their gratification." (Hegel Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik Volume 1) Thus the patriarchal paradigm fulfills its purpose in the dialectical process by repressing nature so that nature can find the pleasure of realizing itself in its praxis of overcoming (patricide) its opposite, i.e. that which is not of nature, i.e. that which is from above, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm. In this way sin against God (and therefore God himself) becomes moot, setting man free to be himself. Dialectically, it is sin not to participate in the act (praxis) of freeing oneself from God's control over life. Replacing "Thy will be done." with "purpose" will do the job, i.e. "God's will is that I would ...." vs. "God's purpose is that I would ...", i.e. God moves from directing you to assisting you.

Although some of this material will be brought up later it is important that I include it here. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man's deepest nature." (Yalom) Dialectically, pleasure can only be found in the act of incest, "pregenital polymorphous eroticism," i.e. the "justification" for homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, etc., i.e. abominations, abhorred actions (Romans 1:16-32). Norman Brown defines incest as the bodies natural quest for pleasure. "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body [touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc.]. "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." Therefore, according to Brown, Freud believed "infants have a richer sexual life than adults." (Brown) Incest is dialectically synonymous with patricide (the absence of the patriarchal paradigm engenders the natural inclination of the heresiarchal paradigm, with the assistance of facilitators more than likely needed). Without the removal of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide—removal of Godly restraint), the heresiarchal paradigm (incest—social harmony and world peace) can not be realized.

Freud wrote: "‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Marcuse quoting Sigmund Freud) In other words, it is not important whether there is a father in the house or not, what is important is, if he is present he no longer represses the child's natural inclination to relate, i.e. unite, with the world around him, i.e. the mother, i.e. the social side of human nature seeking union with the social other, i.e. society, i.e. "self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure" "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." (Brown). "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality." (Marcuse) "In fact, children learned to obey the prevailing order at their mother's knee, despite the potential for an alternative social system implicit in the traditional matriarchal ethic of warmth, acceptance, and love." (Jay)

Without the removal of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the traditional home, world unity, i.e. social harmony will not be possible. Sodom and Gomorrah was all about incest and patricide, i.e. "village unity," that is until God judged it. Therefore, dialectically thinking, sin is the rejection of incest and patricide, i.e. the praxis of obedience to the patriarch, i.e. "the familial organization" against one's human nature. "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Brown) Diaprax is the use of the dialectical process, i.e. the praxis of patricide and incest. Although the hope of some who have pushed the process is that society would not degenerate into a "Dionysian, orgiastic" state of depravity, but attain an intellectual level of regulation, human nature has not cooperated. "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness." (Maslow, Journals) "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner [liberate them and use them for "change," i.e. patricide, without destroying society], rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic." (Rogers)

The dialectic system therefore requires not only thinking about change (theory, philosophy) but also requires acting it out (practice, praxis), i.e. roleplay, i.e. acting out one's rebellion against restraint, i.e. authority, i.e. overcoming inter-personal barriers (the symbol of the French Revolution, the painting of the half clad woman, i.e. the whore, leading the youth over the barricades, i.e. the rubble, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, carrying the banner of victory). It was this reason that education changed from expelling the "trouble maker" in the classroom and school, to changing the classroom and school environment to "tolerate" him. While it was presented as an effort to help keep him in school so that he could graduate, the real intent was the propagation of his "lifestyle," his dialectical way of thinking, into the school culture and curriculum. Not only did this change the school environment for the students but it also changed the required ideology of teachers, staff and administrators. Together they put pressure upon the parents, the home, and the community, to "change." This ideology was administrated into the education system by "education researchers" such as Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba. In their book Adolescent Character and Personality they wrote: "The school must itself be changed if it is to serve more effectively in the formation of good character. It must make room for the deviant student." ["There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established. (Yalom)] "This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo of the community, when such deviation is necessary to the realization of higher moral principles. How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba Adolescent Character and Personality) "Tolerance of ambiguity" is the platform from which education bases itself today in America. That phrase is used instead of the word homosexual in other nations around the world. All citizens in America today are mandated by decree to be "tolerant of ambiguity," or face prosecution, i.e. the Hate Crime Bill. Therefore the scriptures are today, in America, a Hate Crime especially when the are taken literally, as is in the case of "fundamental religious extremists," i.e. those who just "go to far." Especially those who believe in a God who gave man Leviticus chapters18 and 20. "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deuteronomy 23:18 "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27

In the end it is all about hate under the cover of "tolerance." The patriarchal paradigm initiates and sustains itself by overt force when necessary (used only against those who make their intentions known), while the heresiarchal paradigm initiates and sustains itself by the subtle and complex process of deceit and manipulation, through the use of covert force, i.e. social pressure at first and eventually using overt force (the laws of tyranny) when finally in governance. Therefore all citizens must participate in its folly. The patriarchal paradigm hates insubordination, the sin of questioning and disobeying authority. With man this is a problem, i.e. "Cursed is the man who trust in man," but with God it is not a problem, i.e. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart." Therefore in a free society there is the need for freedom of the conscience—man's ego is subject to God's will, i.e. confirmation in spirit. The heresiarchal paradigm, conversely, hates subordination, the "sin" of not questioning and "blindly" obeying authority. Therefore in a socialist society there is the need for the development of the superego—man's ego is subject to "the" social will, i.e. consensus in flesh, i.e. man justifying himself before men. Thus anyone with a patriarchal paradigm is identified, i.e. labeled, as being "intolerant," i.e. hateful. This is the basis of "human rights," "the right of the child," i.e. the "Hate Crime Bill," negating the patriarchal bill of inalienable rights, those rights which can only come from a patriarchal paradigm. "For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source." "Government and its trust is ‘found on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker and . . . [is] therefore sacred. It is an offence against Heaven to violate that trust.'" (Max Horkheimer Eclipse of Reason 1947; second quotation, a quotation of Dickinson). Max Horkheimer was the director of The Institute for Social Research, i.e. the Frankfurt School, of which all its members were Marxists. The question then is, who is defining what and where Heaven is, i.e. which paradigm is being used?

In the dialectical way of thinking the workplace, for example, must provide room for the woman, so that reason, once bound to laws of restraint against Eros, i.e. rigid laws restraining sensuousness in the workplace (get the produce made, in this way and at this time, i.e. space and time without Eros), can be turned into reason now in harmony with Eros, i.e. changeable laws in agreement with sensuousness (laws of lawlessness, i.e. "lawfulness without law," i.e. space and time with Eros, see below). "Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being." "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology." (Reich) With "sexually awakened women" in the workplace labor no longer remains demanding but pleasurable. Men just can't wait to go to work. The problem of patriarchal dominance was still present, in that most women who originally came into the workplace, to help in overcoming family financial crisis, did not quickly change their paradigm. "Women in most cases had adapted to the system and become a conservative force through their total dependence on their husbands." (Jay) But, with their participation in the workplace already producing change, only over time would that change become fixed in them. But their participation in the workplace had an immediate effect upon the men.

Since the workplace structure is carried back into the home environment, influencing it, procreation and the traditional home with its top-down structure are swallowed up in pleasure and human relationships (where pleasure negates procreation and human relationship negates the traditional home). Thus, dialectically, the order from above is replaced with the order from below, i.e. creating a 'new' world order where, for example, the patriarchal workplace is supplanted by the heresiarchal workplace for the "betterment" of all, and not for just a few, i.e. the business owner, i.e. the family business. Lenin's speech of 1920 carried the same message as far as the system being used in production went. A "more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [the middle class-traditional family system], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... gigantic problems of re-educating ..." "... eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions...." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, … in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Lenin) emphasis added. Millions, who believed in private business, died because of this speech, i.e. because of this dialectical way of thinking. The idea now is to tax and regulate the private business into participation through the use of government agencies, thereby forcing all businesses to participate in the dialectical process of "change," the negation of the patriarchal paradigm in the workplace, in the home, and in the community.

As Marcuse wrote about the women in the patriarchal workplace. The patriarchal workplace he related to Prometheus, i.e. "Prometheus is the archetype-hero of the performance principle.... the culture-hero of toil, productivity, and progress through repression," ("repression" being the suppression of Eros in the workplace). The woman he relates to Pandora, "the female principle, sexuality and pleasure." He wrote: "In the world of Prometheus, Pandora appears as curse, disruptive, destructive." Therefore, according to him, reality needs to shift, dialectically, from Prometheus (the patriarchal paradigm) to Pandora (the matriarchal paradigm) if civilization is to free itself from "neurosis." Pandora simply opens the door for the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the synthesis of Orpheus and Narcissus who are "(like Dionysus to whom they are akin, the antagonist [opposite pole] of the god who sanctions the logic of domination, the realm of reason.)" In this way, Marcuse wrote: "The beauty of the woman, and the happiness she promises are fatal in the work-world of civilization." (Marcuse) Wilhelm Reich noted the same effect women, liberated from the patriarchal paradigm ,would have upon the patriarchal paradigm. The idea being, if you can get to the workplace, i.e. bring women into it, you can get to the home (the husband tends to bring the structure or paradigm of the workplace back into the home). With the weakening of the patriarchal structure of the workplace, the idea is, the weakening of the role of the husband to rule in the home will take place and thus the rest of society will follow, i.e. change the way parents behave toward one another and their children and you can change the whole world. "Work and sexuality derive from the same biologic energy." "Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality." "It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved." "Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being." "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology." "the right of the woman to her own body." (Reich)

Orpheus and Narcissus thus must become the culture-heroes of the Western world if it is to progress out of culture of repression, i.e. mankind dominated by the patriarchal paradigm, living in a culture of "neurosis," i.e. "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "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." "Dreams and neurotic symptoms show that the frustration of reality cannot destroy the desires which are the essence of our being. If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis." "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "The pattern of history exhibits a dialectic of neurosis. The core of the neurosis of individuals lay in the ‘memory-traces of the experiences of former generations.'" [Memory of the past is good for you if it is tied to the 'good times,' but bad for you if it tied to history, that which is passed on to you from former generations, restraining you from changing in "changing times."] "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion." "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." (Brown) "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'" "A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein ‘the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, quoted in Bronner) "Every neurosis is ... essentially an adaptation to such external conditions ..., unfavorable to the growth of the child." (Fromm) "My work on motivations come from the clinic, from a study of neurotic people." "This carry-over from the study of neurosis to the study of labor in factories is legitimate." "Work is not about paying the rent anymore—it is about self-fulfillment." "Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation." "Partnership is the same as synergy." "The United States is changing into a managerial society." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." "The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health." (Maslow, Management)

In this way law (and reasoning tied to it) no longer proceed from above man (man under restraint to spiritual laws, preached and taught and thus separating him, dividing him, alienating him, between those who can hear and see, spiritually, and those who can not), but now proceed from below, from within man and nature (man under fleshy laws, uniting mankind with what he has in common, through dialogue), where temporal feelings reside, waiting to be liberated from patriarchal restraint. Thus labor is no longer an act of repression, i.e. an activity restraining Eros, i.e. an activity of production which is 'owed' to God, parent, or boss, who is above (Spiritual), but labor is now an activity of liberation, i.e. an activity restoring Eros, i.e. the activity of production owed to mankind below (temporal; the one world government), i.e. "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of existence. Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself." (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest). In this way law, which is to restrain evil, is now changed to justify it, i.e. it's no longer sinful or evil behavior it's just a different life-style. Obeying authority under God is now replaced with the obeying authority which encourages you to question authority under God. As a result of dialectical thinking, fallen and deceived man perceives the tree of 'life' (life in the here-and-now freed from the restraints placed upon it for the sake of attaining a future life) is being attainable through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. where human reasoning is guided by human feelings, i.e. sensuousness (intellectual, i.e. sensible, i.e. sensual assent to God). They believe that death is as much a part of life as life, i.e. "Death can be a learning experience." (Brown), and thus do not fear God. They see death as anything which inhibits life, i.e. alienates man from his own nature, and therefore refuse to accept the truth that death is due to man's sin against God, i.e. his love of the things of this world, which separates God from man and man from God, who is the giver and sustainer of life. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 Apart from God, there is no life, just space and time used temporarily by dead men walking.

Dialectically the purpose of life is to unite with "beauty," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. social issues, and the laws of life are to be united with freedom (spontaneity), i.e. reason, i.e. dialogue. "The two main categories defining this order are 'purposiveness without purpose' — i.e. beauty, 'lawfulness without law' — i.e. freedom. 'Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmässigkeit ohne Gesetz'" "Whatever the object may be (thing or flower, animal or man), it is represented and judged not in terms of its usefulness, not according to any purpose it may possibly serve, and also not in view of its ‘internal' finality and completeness." (Marcuse). It is therefore the pleasures of this life, those things which fallen man seeks after, i.e. "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life," i.e. the "aesthetic imagination," i.e. the "imagination of the heart," which draws man away from faith in God above, i.e. that which is Spiritual, to place his hope in experiencing the things which are below, i.e. the things of the flesh and of the world (as first practiced in the Garden in Eden, see Geneses 3:1-6). God's grace and mercy and Christian fellowship have no meaning without the law being preached and taught, i.e. the law which addresses the condition of man's soul without Christ, i.e. man condemned, man's mind remains bound to the things of the flesh, justifying it, i.e. his desire for the pleasures of this world ruling his life. Dialogue has no effect but to keep man in a state of "fixity" to the bondage of the flesh, even when done "in Jesus name." The 'contemporary church' was built upon and is bound to this dialectical pattern of thinking.

A believer is not going to be offended by the law of God, for the law is spiritual. The offence of the Gospel is not because of God's mercy and grace, but because of the law of God which condemns the works of the flesh. Without the law, the gospel message being preached or taught is not from God, but an apostate gospel of man's own making, i.e. a social gospel, of little or no offence to the flesh, i.e. leaving man still in love with the world and the lusts thereof. The lost are offended by the preaching and teaching of the law, which goes directly to the soul of man, exposing their love of this world, their love of the flesh. The saved are offended by the one preaching and teaching the law when he is not preaching God's mercy and grace as well. The secular realm, under God, would say, correctly, that 'liberty in law' is the result of a person, obeying the law, finding liberty of mind in a clear conscience at the end of the day, his conscience not bothering him. Thus a man has either 1) a clear conscience, having obeyed the secular law, under God's law, 2) a guilty conscience, having disobeyed the secular law, under God's law, and 3) no conscience, having no respect for secular law, under God's law, i.e. law condemning the love of the world and the love of the flesh (he will respect secular law only if it is lawless, i.e. not under God's law. Without God's law the world will be at "peace," i.e. the lawless one will be ruling, ruthlessly, with no sense of condemnation. "For the proletariat [the adolescent, heresiarchal paradigm, wanting justice and peace, i.e. mankind freedom from laws restraining normal human behavior] the truth [their belief that the patriarchal paradigm suppresses individual natural spontaneity and freedom, i.e. initiate and sustain "inhumanity," and therefore block social justice and peace, i.e. resist change for a "better" world order for everyone, keeping the world the same, by prior (bourgeoisie) established laws, for their personal gain] is a weapon that brings victory; and the more ruthless [the more lawless, i.e. more freedom from "inhuman" laws], the greater the victory." [In this way the conscience is pushed aside with] "consciousness as ‘practical critical activity'" (Lukacs) When the church stops preaching and teaching the law, up front, the antichrist gets out of bed and goes to work, uninhibited, i.e. unrestrained. He can even attend Church. He can even lead in the "worship experience" and "preach and teach" a user-friendly, non-offensive, readily adaptable to change, Christ, i.e. justifying the flesh, i.e. social equality.

The heresiarchal camarilla think that anyone with an un-enlightened "opinion" of God's "love," i.e. those who continues to preach and teach his law, his commands, are simply "in denial" of their own true nature, escaping their true human identity, failing to recognize the dignity of man, not only within themselves but also within the community, i.e. the "Christian" community included, i.e. the object of God's love ("whosoever"—the wicked, i.e. the individual is exchanged for "the group"—the good society, i.e. the fellowship. God's goodness, for only God is good, is not founded upon the fellowship, it is found in the individual believers, who God has turned from evil to good, coming together to have fellowship; "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20 Therefore it is not the fellowship which makes a man good. The fellowship is the result of men who have been made good, i.e. men in Christ, coming together in his name, if they have not been made good, i.e. men in Christ, then the fellowship is apostate even if held "in his name," Thus those who refuse to fellowship in the apostate group, which meet "in Jesus name," are justified before God for the justification is not based upon the fellowship but upon Christ. Marxism sees the fellowship, the good society, as the basis for individual worth. God does not. Grace and mercy do not negate the law, they simply are God's answer to our breaking of it (Jesus did not hold the law in contempt but rather fulfilled it, paying the price for us breaking it). Just because a judge has mercy on someone convicted of a crime, does not mean that he has negated the law. Yet, for the heresiarchal, anyone with the patriarchal paradigm, who persist in preaching and teaching God's commands, after reproof, are simply identified and labeled as being divisive and hateful. "The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. human nature, "the spirit of all spirits," (G. F. W. Hegel in Friedrich) i.e. what all men have in common, is thus the foundation and "purpose" of humanism, i.e. of Globalism, i.e. a new world order not built upon an order of reason (cognition restraining affection) but upon the order of sensuousness (cognition in covenant with affection). Again: God's law, i.e. commands, can not save us, but only serve to inform and remind us that we are nothing but wicked before God, without our sins being covered by the blood of the lamb, and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives we are only subject to the works of the flesh and the things of this world, no matter how hard we try. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:6)

Though justified by faith, Christ's religiousness imputed to us, we are to still love the law, no longer under its curse, but having it in our heart and on our mind. "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." (Romans 7:24, 25) "Whereof the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:15-18) While the law of God says, "thou shalt not," God's mercy and grace, says "you could not" but "I have" and through God's Holy Spirit "you will." Thus the law is not negated in mercy and grace, only fulfilled in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. The patriarchal paradigm remains unchanged. Thus the heresiarchal paradigm seeks to negate the law, i.e. which comes from above, i.e. from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the "negative field of force," which condemns human nature. By simply focusing upon mercy and grace, i.e. identified as God's unconditional love for 'humanity,' simply nullifies mercy and grace, which are meaningless without the law. Hegel rejected this truth, putting it this way: "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 Friedrich) God is not against pleasure, it is the love (lust) of it which is the problem. The same goes for money. If you can not walk away from it (anything in this world you have or desire to have, including the respect of men), in obedience to Christ, it is idolatry. Hold onto those things God has blessed you with, loosely, i.e. don't worship the things God has blessings you with, i.e. including the experience of worship itself, worship him. Jesus did not come for the kingdoms of the world, Satan offered him those, he came for you, i.e. whosoever. So live in his kingdom, that kingdom which is not of this world, and don't expect him to live in your kingdom, he has already turned that down.

Why the Ten Commandments were displayed in the Public classroom but are now removed:
We are all condemned in our love of this life, i.e. our love of the flesh, i.e. our love of this world, and without God's love, i.e. his mercy and grace, through Christ Jesus, who fulfilled the Father's commands, by his own blood (what we could not do), and who demands obedience to his commands which are not in conflict with his Father's commands, (what he did but we can not do), but are actualized only through the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e. Christ in us (what only he can do in us), we have nothing but death to hold onto, i.e. the world and the lust thereof, passing away. "But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do." (John 14:31) Thus, in a heresiarchal world, anybody preaching and teaching the Love of the Father and his commands, over and against the love of God and the love of this world must be restrained, ignored, or silenced (being accused of offending and chasing people out of the church). Anybody, who wants out from under the influence of those who say that you can "love God" and still love the world (those seeking to be seen as 'successful' in their own eyes and in the eyes of man, in friendship with this world, 'in the name of Jesus' i.e. avoiding being an offense to the world), will look for a place where they can Love the Father and his commands without restraint by law haters. (I am not justifying legalism on the one hand and licentiousness on the other, as both are based upon misinterpretation and disobedience to God's word.) The dialectical process, which justifies man and his nature to the love of the creation, is being used to seduced those in love with both God and his law, into compliance with the love of this world, i.e. consensus, i.e. using the force of human relationship building, i.e. through a method called cognitive dissonance, to pressure people into compliance with "the group," i.e. the fellowship (what I call an "altered state of koinania"—koinwnia: fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse) building a "Christian" world upon human feelings, not built upon sound doctrine (read Titus). For the dialectic process to live, the law of God must die. For the heresiarchal paradigm to live, the patriarchal paradigm must die. In dialectical thinking, if they can not love both the world and God, both united within the "Christian" community via dialogue and consensus, then they must be forced into conformity, i.e. silenced, or be negated, i.e. treated as irrelevant. This is simply following the way of the world system, where all citizens "must effectively forge human and natural resources to serve his fellow man and help create uniqueness." (Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program 1969 [B-STEP]) B-STEP is the benchmark federal document for determining the distribution of federal grants to educational institutions. It involves the use of socio-psychological profiling and tracking, two thirds of the document dealing specifically with the methods used to profile and track students, as well as a feasibility study, i.e. a futurist projection of where this process will have taken America by 1984, 2000, and 2100, all for the 'purpose' of using education to change cultural diverse into global unity, i.e. mine-yours, i.e. above-below, into "Ours," i.e. into "We.") In this way "uniqueness" replaces being a "peculiar people." "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 peter 2:9, 10)

Hegel, as well as Karl Marx, did not consider America civilized until its citizens could no longer find, or better yet, no longer desired to find a way of escape from the human community, i.e. to escape communitarianism by "going west," i.e. could no longer escape the ways of carnal natural man and find freedom from the socialist world, i.e. where man could not escape a world becoming by the justification of isolationism or empiricism. Since the dialectical process can not be successful until no one can escape, i.e. "emigrate," in dialectical fashion, the border issue is not about keeping foreigners out, it is all about keep Americans from leaving, i.e. escaping, i.e. "emigrating," so they can escape the process and promote the patriarchal paradigm elsewhere. As those who believe in and push the heresiarchal paradigm see it, if the slaves and plantation owners (the rich and the poor, the "haves" and the "have nots," the parents and the children, the above and the below) both "feel" it safer or necessary to stay on the plantation, they won't leave (or if they do leave to escape the process, they can not do so with being tracked down so they can be forcedly returned). They will just learn to cope with the situation, now, both rich and poor, slaves to the system, i.e. equality³. Thus the need to create a world hostile to Americans. It just keeps them home, safely protected, under control of the process, i.e. using homeland security, to secure the homeland for the process, tracking all citizens' movements, for their own good. Until you understand the dialectical process, i.e. how it works, it just does not make much sense, i.e. "Who would do such a thing, and why?" The question is not "'Who' are they?", or "'Why' are they doing it?" It is "How is it done?" Knowing the "how," (knowing Satan's "device," i.e. he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in the temptations.) answers the "who" and "why". Anybody up for a cosmic group hug? Have you had your group (village, community, communist) hug today? You had better get out into the village and get it or else you are not of this world, in it but not of it, i.e. like a resident alien, you will have few if any "rights," having exchange the "old," i.e. "inalienable rights," self evident rights, rights above the tyranny of the village, protecting you from the "tyranny of the masses," for the "new" human rights. Long live the flesh.

Hegel is historically identified with the dialectical process. I will use a child as an example, although Hegel wrote about adults. He believed that when feelings, i.e. fleshy desires stimulated by the natural environment, i.e. dopamine⁴, are blocked by fixed laws, i.e. laws which have no temporal, i.e. earthly meaning or value to the child at the time, i.e. in the child's "here and now" perception, if the child can not remove the situation, i.e. the restraining law and the condition which justifies them, to satisfy his feelings, i.e. to fulfill his natural human desires, i.e. through fighting against or fleeing from the parent or the situation, i.e. the situation demanding obedience to a higher authority greater than his nature (and the environment in agreement with it), he would simply succumb, i.e. capitulate, to the situation, i.e. give in to the system of submitting his human feelings, i.e. his nature to the practice of obedience to a fixed "non-human" way of life, with its fixed, repressive laws, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm (socially seen as capitalism). By being forced to "give up," his will to a higher will, i.e. a higher authority, because they are stronger, and serve and protect him, i.e. providing clothing, food, and shelter, and love (seen as conditional from the child's perspective) the child is forced into accepting the office of authority of the parent, i.e. God, i.e. objective truth, as the way of thinking, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm. Thus when the child surrenders his feelings, i.e. his internal natural desire seeking to relate with the temporal, worldly environment which originally stimulated him into interpersonal relationship with it, because he is forced to redirect his life toward his parent (to accept the one above over the many below), i.e. to humble his self-life to be at one with them, out of the fear of the loss of their love, i.e. correlating with the love of God, he surrenders his worldly, natural identity to that which is above his worldly nature, i.e. to a non-worldly, non-natural, i.e. non-human authority, i.e. spiritual authority. Rather than allowing his earthy feelings their intended desire, to fulfill harmony with the world, i.e. the love of this world, he is forced to satisfy his feelings by projecting them toward an authority greater than the world, greater than his human nature. In this way he learns a way of thinking which fights against his human nature, alienating himself from his own nature and thus alienating himself from those in the world who love that nature as well. Thus for the humanist, it is in the lust of the flesh that man finds his commonality with the world. For those with a heresiarchal paradigm, the lust of the flesh is the only foundation available to all mankind to fulfil his "purpose" of establishing an earthly kingdom, i.e. "world peace," in the "here and now." This is the basis of dialectical thinking. Without the ability and the "right" to justify "lust," i.e. the justification of human nature, i.e. "boys will be boys," i.e. human rights, i.e. the right of the child, the system would simply be subject to an authority greater than man and his nature and thus "collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas Theory and Practice)

When the heresiarchal paradigm gains control, freedom of the flesh replaces freedom of the conscience: (freedom from the flesh is replaced by bondage to the flesh).
If given an opportunity to think about his dissatisfaction with the situation, i.e. his desire for love, i.e. his desire for relationship with the world, being forced, i.e. redirected toward that which is against his nature and against the world, i.e. by his parents, i.e. higher authority, i.e. God, his feelings of dissatisfaction, i.e. his "ought," i.e. his feelings and desires suppressed, would provoke him into thinking, i.e. theorizing, i.e. philosophizing of ways of changing the current situation to bring it into harmony with his feelings toward the environment which originally triggered them, i.e. feelings of pleasure. He would first vicariously, by daydreaming (imagination), attempt to escape the situation by psychologically, philosophically creating a world which would satisfy his heart's desire, a world of "ought to be." In this way of thinking, his energy would not be used to fight against, flee from, or serve in submission to the condition, but instead it would be used in finding ways to escape the condition, i.e. escape the patriarchal paradigm, if only temporarily.

The object is not to submit to or fight against, nor to transcend, avoid, or ignore, but rather to comprehend what it is in the world which blocks progress ("class consciousness"), i.e. comprehend what it is that blocks self-environment actualization, i.e. individual-social unity, and then to neutralize, marginalize, and subsequently remove its effect upon the world, by bringing it into the process of "change." That which can not be comprehended in thought and in action (in theory and in practice) is not real, i.e. is not sensual, is not rational. Reality can only be known by testing all things through the dialectical process, dividing between spiritual and carnal, to negate spiritual and liberate carnal. Since all people have carnal in common, focus on common. Since it is the spiritual which divides, then criticize that which divides, i.e. as the woman in the garden did. By focusing upon that which was common she discovered, scientifically, that all the trees, including the forbidden tree were all common. They were all good for food and pleasing to the eyes, which made the forbidden tree the desired tree since it could make you wise, i.e. making it possible for you to praxis the dialectical process so as to overcome crisis (overcome the condition which alienated her from a gratifying object). Finding what is common in life, to build life upon common, negates that which divides, negates the idea, i.e. the paradigm, that the forbidden tree was only the patriarch's tree, when, dialectically, it was everyone's tree. In this way imagination, i.e. philosophy, i.e. what "can be," put into practice, circumvents repression and creates a new reality. By changing the pattern of social relationships, i.e. the way mankind communicates with himself, the evils of human life can be removed, i.e. that which divides, i.e. spiritual, can be overcome by that which unites, the carnal nature of man. Evil, in dialectical thinking, is the alienation of man from his own nature and the nature of the changing world around him. "Alienation is the experience of ‘estrangement' (Verfremdung) from others, . . ." "Alienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "Alienation, according to Feuerbach, derives from the externalization (Entausserung) of human powers and possibilities upon a non-existent entity: God. . ." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation . . ." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity." (Bronner) "‘Sin' is the estrangement of man from man." (Wheat) Instead of man projecting his identity upon things above his nature, the dialectical process assists man in finding his identity within nature itself. "Religion is precisely the self-awareness and self-consciousness of man who has not achieved himself, or has lost himself." Karl Marx, John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx

For Hegel the tolerance of an alienating condition (i.e. the patriarchal paradigm) was not reasonable. It left the original system, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the father figure, i.e. the foundation of personal-social alienation, i.e. the voice above the child's nature, still in place thereby separating the person from his true purpose, uniting with the world for the cause of peace, i.e. no more wars, i.e. divisions. It was essential that a "change" of the condition itself (the system which provoked the dissatisfaction in the first place) be given freedom of consideration in the mind of the child. That the child be given hope in a "change" condition, in a condition which required a "rational" system of analysis, liberating the child to analyze the "non-rational" system which blocked the original intent of the child's feelings in the first place, i.e. blocking his carnal nature from seeking after and building relationship with the world around him, as well as freedom to initiate and sustain a method of transforming the original unchanging condition into a condition of change, liberating him from future "negative" experiences.

Dialectically, the agenda is to change the human language from absolutes to relativism, i.e. from "Is" and "Not," as in having to memorize two plus two "Is" four and can "Not" be any other number, to the language of socio-psychology, i.e. "How do you feel about ....," and "What do you think when ...." with not absolute right or wrong answer, i.e. no "can not, must not, will not" commands suppressing feelings, i.e. denying sensuous needs thereby blocking sense experience. In this change of language, an environment of earthy freedom, to imagine and create a new world in harmony with his nature and in harmony with all of humanity can be used to negate an environment of restraint upon human nature.

In this way Hegel's famous formula "A" plus "negative A" equals "A" is achievable, i.e. when you add feelings of "here and now" as the common linkage between the thesis and the antithesis, i.e. A being man, negative A being man under God or child under parent, through the use of the dialectical process, both equaling A again, only now man no longer is under God but has become god (restraint is no longer from God above, over human nature, but is from man himself, for the sake of all mankind below, i.e. the god below), the "there and then" synthesized into the "here and now," and vise versa. Put another way, two plus two can equal four, five, six, or any other number as long as you do not bring the "not," the negative, into the formula. We can all get along as long as no one is negative, hurting other people's feelings (eventually it is hoped by those in the process that two plus two does end up being four, i.e. for the sake of those depending upon the product being made, it is just that that is not what is first on the list of objectives). The patriarchal paradigm can only see that there is either an A or a B, i.e. there is "either-or." If a little of B is in A, it is no longer an A, or if a little A is in B, it is no longer B, therefore it can not be an "either-or" paradigm but must be a corrupting paradigm, negating that which separated right from wrong, making all things wrong even when they "seem to be" right. As Phil Ring, puts it, "You can not be half pregnant, you either are or are not." The trickery is to get you into the "more right than wrong" language, as in "The demolition expert's tombstone reads, 'He was more right than wrong.'" Or the family doctor telling the family that their child unfortunately died during the operation, despite him doing "more things right than wrong." The Heresiarchal paradigm needs the deception, i.e. your participation in the illusion, or it is dead. To mix the two, right and wrong, as along a continuum, is to go to the side of the Heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. spiritual death, and is to praxis the mandatory persecute, attempted annihilation of the Patriarchal Paradigm, while happily traveling down the heresiarchal pathway to eternal death.

What you say in secret, in the "here and now," will be revealed, in the "there and then:" When memorizing something in the "here and now," i.e. to be used in the future, i.e. in the "there and then" (say a test next week, etc.), the "here and now" can become boring, you become dissatisfied—a feeling of impatience—with the way things are in the "here and now," i.e. you have to do your homework (which you don't want to do, i.e. your "want," i.e. dopamine, is missing in the "here and now," because you are having to learn, unwillingly—your will under the control of another—about the "there and then"). When your "here and now" is subjected to learning a "there and then" past, i.e. facts, preparing you for a "there and then" future i.e. which does not agree with your "here and now" feelings, then the "intense" desire for something you would rather be doing in the "here and now," i.e. playing, drives your mind, i.e. drives your thoughts into dreaming, i.e. imagining, about how the world should be in the "here and now," i.e. freed from the "there and then" past and the "there and then" future established by others, i.e. freed from a world established by an authority above, not in agreement with your "here and now" feelings, below (the affective domain, i.e. your personal feelings about the subject, i.e. your "sensuous need," is separated, i.e. alienated from the cognitive domain, i.e. the facts being learned, which at the time, i.e. according to your "sense perception," seem irrelevant, because they do not proceed from your nature, i.e. satisfy you desires). This is something we have all experienced while doing our mandated, non-voluntary, mundane homework. That was until the teacher came along and brought us back to the "here and now," learning the "there and then" past, preparing us for the "there and then" future, teaching us, not only about the "there and then," but how to think in the "here and now," controlled by the "there and then," i.e. self-control, self-discipline. By simply changing the lessons to be learned, i.e. the commands to be memorized, i.e. the subject matter, i.e. the content would only perpetuate the feelings of dissatisfaction in the next experience in learning, i.e. the flesh is always frustrated with restraint. The learning of facts, which become established truths for all times and all places, remains the way of thinking, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, thus blocking the person from freely experiencing "changing facts," i.e. the changing of feelings in changing times i.e. identifying with the contemporary, i.e. the praxis of a heresiarchal paradigm.

The heresiarchal paradigm regards feelings as facts, tying us to the "here and now" environment, i.e. to the world of sensuousness, i.e. the world around us, and our desire to relate with it freely, is, to them, the basis of reality. Feelings, i.e. man's id, i.e. "man's basic and unconscious nature," is thus the necessary catalyst for change in dialectical thinking. The liberation of feelings from the effects of a "un-natural" restraining experience is essential for the transformation of society from a patriarchal paradigm with its above-below rigidity, into a heresiarchal paradigm with its method of unifying the world, i.e. building it upon "changingness," i.e. justifying and liberating "the lust of flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. without God there is no longer lust and pride, there is only human instinct, "untamed forces," seeking unity with the world, needing a "wholesome and constructive" environment i.e. environment control, i.e. climate control, so that mankind can actualize themselves "salubriously." Behavior, rather than being judged by right and wrong, i.e. "higher-lower," established by authorities above human nature, must be judged scientifically according to a continuum of development, i.e. according to the environmental conditions of the pursuit of happiness (sensuousness) and free will (spontaneity), i.e. liberation immerging from restraint, i.e. the old world order being transformed into the new world order i.e. along a continuum of "prepotency & postpotency."

For the dialectical (humanistic) mind, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, since man is born with his flesh nature "in tact," his first and lasting purpose being survival and keeping pleasure in contact, i.e. harmony, with the world around him, i.e. approach pleasure and avoid pain, anything which comes into his life environment, i.e. experience, which forces him out of his natural human development, his self and world synchronization, is an unnatural event in the cosmic experience, i.e. an abortion, which must be identified and then removed (rationally identified and its removal put into practice) for the sake of individual-social harmony. This is the heart and soul of historical materialism, i.e. the idea that history is man creating his earthly kingdom through the progressive awareness and removal of unnatural environmental conditions of restraint, i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. seen as the source of "the neurosis of culture."

History: It's all in how you define it.
The difference between a traditional interpretation of history and a transformational interpretation of history is that the former bases its evaluation upon set standards, i.e. determining proper and improper behavior from an established value of right and wrong, thus no matter the age or era, man's conduct is measured from a pre-established paradigm, while in the latter case, i.e. in transformational interpretation of history, history is the evaluation of a person's particular upbringing in reference to the current changing times, i.e. the process, i.e. paradigm, they use in solving personal and social problems (seen as along a continuum of paradigms). In other words does the person in a crisis behave in a way which inhibits change, i.e. putting up barriers, i.e. "moralizing," which prevent themselves and others from keeping up with the times. Because of their previous upbringing, i.e. they have a history of being raised in a patriarchal paradigm (traditional home) environment, do they reflect "autocratic ethics." Or do they simply go along to get along, i.e. a transitional environment of upbringing, i.e. they have a history of being raised in a matriarchal paradigm (transitional coterie-home) environment, i.e. reflecting permissive, "laissez-faire ethics." Or do they adjust to any setting (tolerant of all except the intolerant, i.e. the patriarchal), not demanding of themselves or of others in an adherence to established rules, but is able to enjoy and facilitate others in enjoying living in the moment, in an environment of ambiguity, i.e. they have a history of being raised in a heresiarchal (transformational community-home, permissive home) environment, i.e. reflecting "democratic ethics."

Only in a crisis do these paradigms come to the surface for evaluation and only in a crisis are people more adaptable to change, more "willing" to change their paradigm, i.e. the actual and/ or perceived "necessity" of survival in the moment (in the current Zeitgeist), for the individual and their social identity, pressuring them into a "willingness" to change the paradigm they use, in the dialectical setting, to identify and attach the crisis at hand. Without 1.) getting a persons feelings, i.e. fear, i.e. "what is going to happen to me or my family, or .... if ...," in front of their traditional way of doing things, along with 2.) getting their "id" out from under their traditional way of doing things, they will most likely not permanently change their paradigm, i.e. change their history in favor of a globalist, communist, democracy, (diaprax, i.e. anti-Christ) weltanschauung, and "redeem" themselves, and the world around them, from "the neurosis" of the traditional culture with its divisive absolutes, and thereby be able to redefine themselves as a world citizen. You have to map the room first, identify the victim's personal history by the use of the pressure of the group meeting, those already in the process refusing to allow the patriarchal paradigm any control. And by thus creating the right environmental conditions, and by bringing them into participation within it, their history is changed, their mind washed of the patriarchal paradigm "of the past."

Listen to audios by Shirley McCune, speaking at a Governors' conference, on the subject of teaching "changing facts," i.e. sharing feelings, instead of facts, i.e. memorization of truth, in the classroom and "the transformation of society": part 1, part 2.

But by questioning and challenging the method being used in learning facts, i.e. the method used to learn commands which squelch feelings, by learning with a method which harmonizes with feelings, i.e. laws of human nature (psychology and sociology), dissatisfaction can be utilized instead of punished. Dissatisfaction is present in both paradigms. The patriarchal paradigm is dissatisfied with the way of the world, i.e. a world of rebellion below, because it is in love with a world of obedience, i.e. that which is above, and the heresiarchal paradigm is dissatisfied with the way of the world above, i.e. the love of things above, i.e. dissatisfied with the patriarchal paradigm blocking rebellion, i.e. the liberation of feelings below. Whoever controls the meeting, to resolve dissatisfactions, determines the outcome. The paradigm used to solve conflicts, i.e. to deal with crisis, determines the outcome of the meeting. Thus the method, i.e. the paradigm, used in learning the content can be changed from the memorization of the old (above), to the method of theorizing, i.e. of questioning "the old way of doing things," to keep up with the new (below). In this way of thinking, with the heresiarchal paradigm, a person can more readily, remove his dissatisfactions with the "established" way of doing things, by no longer memorizing the "this is the way it is," rigid laws, i.e. the "old" paradigm and instead invest his time in dialoguing "what might work better," i.e. flexible laws in harmony with feelings, i.e. the "new," as in "new age," paradigm, i.e. a paradigm of questioning everything, i.e. everything which inhibits or prevents a person from experiencing his naturally inquiry into nature in the "here and now," i.e. with its feelings of dissatisfactions, i.e. dissatisfactions triggered by having to learn and obey "there and then" rigid laws of the past, tying him to the rigid "there and then" future. Thus, feelings, triggered by current events, i.e. the crisis of the moment (heard of any crisis lately), would help him move away from faith in the "this is how things were done in the past," and help him think in a "new" way (it is a new as Genesis 3:1-6²), a "new" way which would help him escape a world of status quo, of absolutes, i.e. an unnatural world hostile to his changing feelings, and experience a new world of "change," i.e. changingness, i.e. a feelings-friendly world, where feelings would become as important, if not more important, than facts. In this way "the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower," would be negated, and neurosis, i.e. man's mind and thought set upon things above in conflict with his feelings below, i.e. the spiritual, the higher, inhibiting his carnal human nature, overcome. In the heresiarchal paradigm there is no higher and lower only the "neurotic" and the holistic, i.e. those who need help (the patriarchal) and those who can help them out of their "neurosis" and bring them back into touch with their flesh and the world, into holism (the heresiarchal).

Since feelings are ever changing, influenced by the environment, which is ever changing (we are not talking about God's Holy Spirit here, which is eternally in agreement with God), then life is always in flux (you have to sell the world on the concept of a "rapidly changing world," i.e. make it the focal point for human survival, to make this process work, i.e. tying changing technology to individual-social needs, i.e. therefore the world, and truth, is ever changing, i.e. life is subject to the changing situations of the world, i.e. lust is no longer seen as sin, as evil, but it is only mankind being true to his own nature, discovering his identity with the world for the sake of survival). By focusing upon environmental change, i.e. focusing upon that which is below, i.e. on earth in the "here and now," i.e. focusing upon the flesh, rather than "the accustomed way" of doing things, i.e. focusing upon that which is above, i.e. obedience to higher authority with their "there and then," i.e. the spirit, i.e. non-human, non-flesh, anti-flesh rules to learn and obey, discontentment, i.e. feelings of rebellion against restraint, became the justifier for change. Therefore, there are no established truths for all times and all places in the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. in the humanistic world view, i.e. in the transformational weltanschauung. In the dialectical process, the only established truth is the process of change itself, i.e. change for the sake of change alone. Every condition in which man finds himself must be open to change or be recognized and treated as his enemy, i.e. as an abomination to his human nature. Thus truth is not found above man, i.e. established, but is found within man, i.e. in the process of his own human nature, i.e. in the desire for change, i.e. to have that which he is not to have, i.e. in his quest to find freedom from the memorizing of and obedience to unchanging, absolute, objective truth where the "here and now" is subject to the "there and then," i.e. heaven above i.e. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10), patriarchal paradigm. Thus dialectically, truth is not to be found in the "back there and back then" commands of the past (remember they are not back in the past but from above, now), to be learned and obeyed in the "here and now," restraining the "here and now" feelings, i.e. to achieve the "there and then" future, but rather truth is found in the "here and now," feelings, freed from the "back there and back then" commands, which frees man to experience the "there and then" future, in the "here and now" present, on his way of becoming.