All That Is Of The World:
the child's carnal nature.


Dean Gotcher
(personal note)

"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 here may lie the individual's potential [for 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

If dialogue is not present then it must be initiated.

"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Opinions, dialogue, and consensus (all that is "of and for self," i.e., of and for the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., all that we have in common with one another) are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority system, negating it in the praxis. In other words, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48 is antithetical to the child's carnal nature, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 The latter can only be overcome by faith in the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, i.e., faith in the work of the Son, Jesus Christ, who, through His obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, including His death on the cross, 'redeemed' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience (sins) against Him, imputing His righteousness (perfection) unto us through our faith in Him, and the Father, who, 'resurrecting' His Son from the grave, 'reconciled' us to Himself, "lest any man should boast."

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians. 2:8, 9

Opinions, dialogue, and consensus, rejecting (void of) the father's/Father's authority, 'justify' sin instead. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., evaluating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth from the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., from "human nature" (aufheben) 'justifies' the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., 'justifies' the child's carnal desires and dissatisfaction, i.e., 'justifies' "human nature," resulting in the child basing 'redemption' in the works of his own praxis, 'reconciling' himself to his "self and the world only—negating the father's/Father's authority (and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) in the process., so that he (in his mind) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

The "love of the Father" is the Father's love for His children, hating, not them, but their carnal actions instead, i.e., when they do wrong, i.e., when they disobey, i.e., when they sin, chastening them, in His love for them, that they might learn to obey, i.e., do what is right, i.e., not sin, casting out, i.e., not recognizing as his own those children ("the children of disobedience") who reject His authority, i.e., who refuse to accept His chastening, i.e., who in defiance disobey Him, "doing their own thing," i.e., loving the pleasures of the world over and therefore against Him and His authority—with judgment (damnation) waiting for them after their last breath (all breaths having been given to them by God, who, they, in their love for this world, have rejected, using their free breaths from Him to praise themselves and the things of this world, cursing God instead of praising Him). God desires that none die, but, since He is the source of life and that which is of the world is not, when man (Adam) chose the world over God, he chooses death over life, resulting in all men, born as children—by their carnal nature loving dopamine emancipation (explained below) and the world which stimulates it—having to choose between loving themselves and this world (choosing eternal death) or loving the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ (choosing eternal life).

While the Father loves His children, children, by their carnal nature, i.e., loving pleasure, i.e., loving dopamine emancipation, i.e., loving the things of the world which stimulate it, hate the Father when He gets in their way of having pleasure, i.e., when he/He prevents, i.e., blocks or inhibits them from experiencing dopamine emancipation, i.e., loving the world, i.e., doing what they want to do when they want to do it. The "love of the Father" and the children's love of pleasure, i.e., love of dopamine emancipation, i.e., love of the world are two different paradigms, i.e., two different ways of feeling, thinking, acting and relating, which are antithetical to one another. When children get into a position of authority, they oppress and kill (negate) those who get in their way of pleasure. The Father, loving the children, calls them to repentance instead, forgiving them, redeeming them, and reconciling them to Himself if and when they do, that they might have eternal life.

When we have "the love of the Father" in us, we do not hate others when they do us wrong, we hate what they do. We therefore, instead of hating them, desire that they come to know the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, that they to might come to know His love for them.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:2

Dopamine the chemical of desire.

Dopamine and it's connection to our lusting after the things of the world and hating restraint.

The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine which contact with (or thinking upon) the toy 'liberates' ('emancipates') into the synaptic gaps of his nervous system (in the synaptic gaps between the nerve endings, along the way to the brain, and between the the dendrites and nerve endings in the brain, where the child becomes aware of the sensation of pleasure). We are not in love with the things or the people we say we love. We are in love with the dopamine that is 'liberated' into our synaptic gaps when we come into contact with (or think upon) the gratifying things of the world or the people who we say we love (we love to be around). True love (agape) comes from the Father, not from the world (eros) or from those who we associate with (phileo).

"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

This is why the preacher said vanity, vanity, "all is vanity," i.e., "Dopamine, dopamine, give me more dopamine."

"Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:8, 13-14

Man's love, no matter how caring, is taken captive to his love of pleasure, i.e. to his love of the flesh, i.e., to his "lust" for dopamine emancipation. Man is 'driven' in identifying and 'purposed in "controlling" that which stimulates the sensation of pleasure, not knowing that it is the sensation of pleasure that "controls" him. The woman was not in love with the "forbidden tree" in the garden in Eden, she was in love with the dopamine 'emancipation,' i.e. the sensation of pleasure, it stimulated within her every time she went by it, making the sensation of pleasure the standard whereby to determine right from wrong, good from evil from, establishing "human nature," her love of the things of this world over and against God's authority. Genesis 3:1-6 is the "children" establishing themselves, i.e. their "human nature," i.e. their love of dopamine 'emanciaption' over and against their Father's authority, negating the Father's authority, i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11, thereby negating the "guilty conscience" which the Father's authority engenders, i.e. Romans 7:14-25., 'liberating' man to "do as he pleases," i.e. "lusting" after the things of the world with no "guilty conscience." It is here that the master facilitator of 'change' could seduce, deceive, and manipulate, not only the woman, but all of mankind into disobedience to God, by "helping" us 'justifying' ourselves according to our carnal desires, deciding right from wrong according to how we "feel," i.e. according to our "lust" for dopamine 'emancipation.' Adam was not deceived. He knew better. This makes the woman the first "environmentalist," i.e. choosing the sensation of relationship with the environment over and against the authority of God, and Adam the first "humanist," i.e. choosing the woman (the sensation of "human relationship") over and against the authority of God.

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves .... disobedient to parents .... lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God ...: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:2-5 (excerpts) "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10

Money is simply stored up drug money, i.e. stored up dopamine which money can release in the future in the form of a vacation, good food, a new outfit, a new home, the praises of men, etc. It is why we get a rush of dopamine on pay day, i.e. thinking about the things we can do or buy with our paycheck. You could make a long list of things which trigger the emancipation of dopamine within you when you come into contact with or think upon them. It is not that pleasure, money, i.e. dopamine is evil in and of itself. God created us to enjoy the things of this world while we praise him for creating them. It only becomes evil when we choose to enjoy it over and against His will, worshiping the pleasures of the flesh rather than He who created it, i.e. instructing us in how to live our lives, i.e. letting Him work His perfect will through our lives by yielding ourselves to His will, according to His Word and the power of His Holy Spirit, for His glory.

The Apostle Paul wrote of the power of dopamine (of "the law of the flesh") and it's "control" over us. "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 1:24 If you can walk away from pleasure you control it. If you can not, it controls you. The answer to our sinful nature, i.e. to our "lusting" after dopamine emancipation, can not be found in us, in man, or in the world, but can only found in Christ Jesus. It can only be found in Him (obeying His Father's will to the death over and against the "lust" of dopamine 'emancipation').

"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 1:25

The law, thought perfect, can only expose our love of dopamine emancipation, i.e. condemn us for our love of the flesh, expose us for our love of pleasure over and against love of God. It can not save us. The only answer to our "lusting" after the things of the world, our only hope of salvation is in Jesus Christ our Lord and savior, who 'redeemed' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our love of dopamine emancipation over and against Him and His Heavenly Fathers authority, i.e. for our love of our flesh and the world, and 'reconciled' us to His Heavenly Father, providing we, by faith accept Him, i.e. accept His work of salvation for us, as the only answer, and follow Him over and against our "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation.' God's love is eternal, i.e. according to His nature (Spirit). Our love is only for the 'moment,' temporary, i.e. subject only to our nature (subject to our loving of the things of the world which stimulate dopamine 'emancipation').

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." "We love him, because he first loved us." 1 John 4:10, 19

Only in God's love is true love found, loving that which is unlovable, i.e. loving us while we were yet in our sins, i.e. loving us while we were still taken captive to our love of pleasure, i.e. "lusting" after the things of this world, sending His only begotten Son to die for us, covering our sins with His blood, 'redeeming' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sin, 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father, in holiness, according to His righteousness, i.e. with His righteousness imputed to us by His grace, i.e. requiring faith in Him alone, i.e. "lest any man should boast," and filling us with His Holy Spirit, that we might think and act according to His will, being able to do that which He desires of us to do, i.e. live in righteous before Him and the world, thinking and acting according to His Heavenly Father's will, as He did.

    "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
    "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Ephesians 2:1-9

    "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
    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 8:13-17

Although we might "think" or "feel" that we love the object of gratification (whether the object is real or imagined), the fact is, the object of gratification is in "control" of us, drawing us to it because of its stimulation of dopamine 'emancipation' within our nervous system. Therefore, whoever gains "control" of the object of gratification or the environment in which it resides, whether real or imagined, and "helps" us to become at-one-with it (facilitates 'change, "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience") "controls" us, i.e. "controls" our thoughts, and therein "controls" our actions as we yield to our "feelings" (with us "thinking" through our "feelings") over and against the restraints of the Father, i.e. the Father's authority. This is why it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to communicate the truth to children (including children in adult bodies) who are caught up in the process of 'change,' i.e. "lusting" after dopamine 'emanciaption,' 'justifying' themselves, i.e. their thoughts and their actions, over and against the Father's authority, i.e. replacing right and wrong with their opinion, i.e. "thinking through their feelings," i.e. replacing belief with theory.

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15

Our carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," is of the flesh, i.e. is of the "law of sin." Since it is of the earth (flesh) and not of God (spirit), it is subject, by nature, to the world and not to God, who is not of the world, i.e. who, being spirit, can not be taken captive to the nature of the flesh, being above it and therefore above man (having created all things—man can not create, only being able to 'change' things, i.e. having to destroy what is and rearrange it to "create"). Sin is man turning to his flesh to determine right from wrong instead of to God to determine right from wrong. It is equivalent to the child turning to, and following after his own opinion, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts" instead of to his Father to determine right from wrong. Jesus Christ, being equal with His Father, humbled himself and took on the form of a man (took on a fleshly body) and, as a child submitting to His Father's will, obeyed His Father's authority, to overcome, for us, the "lust" of the flesh, i.e. the power of our love for dopamine 'emancipation, taking our sins away, i.e. placing His Father's judgment upon Himself for our salvation, showing us His love for His Father and His Father's love for us. It is our carnal nature, our "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation, which engenders our "natural inclination" of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain in disobedience to the Father will. It is what 'drives' us to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' i.e. doing what we can to remove that which restrains, inhibits, or blocks our carnal desires, i.e. striking out against, rebelling against, or seeking to negate that which initiates and sustains the pain of "missing out," i.e. that which separates us from the gratifying things of the world, all done in order to 'change' the conditions of the environment so that we can have what "we want," i.e. what our flesh is craving after in the 'moment,' i.e. with dopamine 'emancipation' being engendered as a result of having or hoping to have the gratifying object of the world. God, or the Father's authority, is not based upon the child's pain-pleasure spectrum of the 'moment,' but instead is based upon the Father's doing right and not doing wrong, (terminating, "suspending," or restraining the child's "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation' to instead think and act according to his Father's will), with the child doing right being recognition and rewarded, i.e. with pleasure, i.e. receiving the Father's approval, and doing wrong being recognized and "rewarded" with chastening, i.e. with pain, i.e. receiving the Father's disapproval, to encourage the child to do what is right, i.e. encouraging the child to think and act according to the Father's will, i.e. having an adults brain, instead of chasing after dopamine 'emancipation,' i.e. maintaining a child's brain.

"The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity, and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." 2 Timothy 2:22

Both the earthy father and the Heavenly Father use a system or way of "doing business," i.e. setting policy, what I call a system of righteousness: 1) the giving of commands (what they can and can not do) to his children, to be obeyed without question, i.e. to be obeyed despite how they might "feel" or what they might "think" about it in the 'moment,' 2) the chastening of them when they disobey, and the casting out those who disrespect His authority. This system (or paradigm) is explained in Hebrews 12:5-11. Righteousness itself can only be imputed by God (who alone is righteous in and of Himself) to men (who are not righteous in and of themselves) who have faith in Him, i.e. through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

Today, having rejected the Father's authority, we have adults with children's brains, obsessed with and possessed by their youthful "lust," i.e. their "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation.' The national debt reflects the effect of children (in adult bodies), with their Father's credit card (the peoples future, the child's inheritance), who have no understanding of the value of a dollar (spending someone else's money until they run out and getting upset with them for not having or making more, i.e. for not "giving," i.e. for not "caring" more). Those of dialectic 'reasoning' can not accept God (the Father's authority) as "is," "as given" (by faith, which is based upon the Spirit of God and not upon dopamine emancipation). Therefore they can only identify God in the earthly father's authority (that God's authority, i.e. the Heavenly Father's authority is engendered in the thoughts and actions of the children as a result of the children submitting their will to their earthly father's authority, alienating themselves not only from their own "human nature" but also from the "human nature" of all the children of the world). Marx understand the significance of the Father's authority in the establishment of faith, the "guilty conscience," and sovereignty in the next generation of citizens (preventing 'change'). He set out to 'change' the world by negating the Father's authority, i.e. negating the condition which prevents 'change,' i.e. 'change' meaning man being subject to the conditions of his carnal nature, "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation' only, rather than being subject to the righteousness of God or the authority of the Father, i.e. trusting in a higher authority than nature itself, i.e. in that which prevents 'change,' i.e. in that which does not tolerate deviancy, i.e. which judges man's carnal nature, i.e. his depravity as abomination. It is unfortunate that the citizens of this nation do not understand the significance of the Father's authority, having rejected the condition which retains faith, the "guilty conscience," sovereignty (and self-restraint), and a civil society (inalienable rights—independence in the French Revolution was government freeing man from the Father's authority, i.e. advocating and enforcing "human rights," while in the American Revolution, independence was to free man so he could think and act according to His Heavenly Father's authority, without government repression). It is this fact alone that has taken us into such debt, i.e. the children (in adult bodies), living unrestrained, having "their way or else," refusing to recognize a Father's authority, i.e. thinking and acting according to their love of dopamine 'emancipation,' living a life of abomination.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [decent];" Romans 1:28

"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." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject [the child] engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity [makes himself subject to his Father's will]." (Stephen Erik Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

"The more of himself man attributes to God [the more the child accepts his Father's authority], the less he has left in himself." "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84)

Perceiving the earthly father's authority as being "repressive," that is, "repressive" according to the child's nature, i.e. restraining his "human nature," i.e. restraining his dopamine 'emancipation,' those of dialectic 'reasoning' can only perceive the Father's authority as being an act of "violence" against "human nature," i.e. "alienating" the child not only from himself, but also from all that he has in common with the world, i.e. his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' where "human nature," the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding pain is "sense perceived" as being the 'drive' of life, and the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain as being the 'purpose' of life only. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the Father's "do right" and "don't do wrong" "attitude," i.e. His "forcing" the child to think and act according to His will, that causes the condition known as "neurosis." "Neurosis" is when the child, while acting in obedience to his Father's will, is thinking about attaining an object of gratification which stimulates dopamine 'emancipation' within himself, which if he attained it (or acted in attaining it) would put him into disobedience against his Father's will—questioning his Father's right and wrong would be tantamount to questioning his Father's authority outright. It is this condition, i.e. the Father's authority which engenders "neurosis," i.e. the "guilty conscience." As Kurt Lewin called it, the "negative valance." It is what blocks the child from 'changing' with the 'changing' world around him, i.e. from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' i.e. "forcing" him to live a life restrained by laws of "morality," i.e. living according to laws which are established by someone who is greater than his carnal nature, i.e. laws which do not emanate from his carnal nature. Without negating the "guilty conscience" (the "negative valance"), the condition which engenders "neurosis," i.e. the Father's authority can not be negated. Without removing the fear of God, i.e. the child's accountability to his Father's authority, in the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the child, 'change' can not be 'realized.' This is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the "new" world order (to use any and all crisis, i.e. natural, created, or fabricated) to negate the Father's authority, i.e. to remove the fear of God in the child's thoughts, thus 'liberating' his actions so that he can become at-one-with the world, i.e. so that he can become "human" again, "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation' with no "guilty conscience," i.e. become as he was before his Father's first command and threat of chastening.

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers)

"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic. Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

History, according to social-psychology, is not the lessons of the past to be learned to make right decisions in the present and future, as inculcated by the Father to his children, but is of the child's own life experience, trying to 'liberate' himself from his Father's authority.

"Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Behavior science is the study of how the child can become himself as he 'liberates' himself from his Father's image, making himself in his own image, i.e. carnal, i.e. only of the world.

According to man's carnal mind, the essence of communism, i.e. common-ism, can only come from nature, i.e. can only come from man's "human nature," i.e. from his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation. Therefore, the Father's authority, inhibiting or blocking "human nature," i.e. restraining the child from "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' can only be perceived as being not only anti-individualistic but also anti-socialistic. While the child, under the Father's authority, can be an individual within or without "the group," under the "control" of "the group" he can no longer be an individual apart from "the group."

"It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) sense experience

Since all authority is of God (while the KJV uses "power" instead of "authority" in Romans 13:1-6, i.e. King James wanted power, the sword, over the "church," listen to audios on the subject by James Borchert, part one, part two, part three, authority is the proper translation of the Greek word ἐξουσία), the earthy father's authority replicates the system or structure of the Heavenly Father's authority (referred to as a patriarchal paradigm, a "top-down," hierarchical way of thinking and acting, i.e. correlated with "religion," i.e. a system referred to by Marx and Freud as being an "opiate," a "substitute gratification," i.e. according to them the real deal being of the world, from below, i.e. carnal, of the flesh only, not of God, spiritual, from above). The difference between the earthly father and the Heavenly Father is: the earthly father is not perfect. Being of the flesh he is not holy, pure, and righteous in and of himself. While the Heavenly Father is perfect. Being of the spirit He is holy, pure, and righteous in and of Himself. I use "Father's authority" (with the first letter capitalized) to reflect the system of the earthly father's authority, under God's authority (whether the earthly father realizes or recognizes it or not).

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Romans 13:1

If you yield to "power" you have to obey Hitler, since power is in the use of force in the here and now, i.e. in the power of the sword. But if you yield to the higher "authority," you can disobey Hitler, when he goes against God's will, with a clear conscience—the "freedom of the conscience," over the authority of man, can only be established by one, by God. Although man might, through his use of power, kill you for your disobedience against him, he will be judged for his abuse of the office of authority, under God. With the former, i.e. with you having to be subject to Hitler's power, you have a problem with your conscience, but with the latter, i.e. with all men being under the authority of God, you can die with a clear conscience, having done what is right before God. If the German people had feared God and not man, i.e. loving God's word and fearing Him, Hitler could never have come to power. They instead put their trust in man, making it possible for him to use the "power" of fear to take "control" of them. You can not blame the Lord for the problems of "religion," you can only blame man for misusing and abusing ("humanizing") God's word to take "control" over man for his own gain, taking that which is not his to take, the soul of man.

Even the Marxist recognize that dialectic 'reasoning' (and Karl Marx himself) will "collapse into a bottomless pit" (that is, according to their 'reasoning,' they can not gain control over "the people"), if this condition, i.e. the Father's authority, is maintained in the thoughts and actions of "the people," making all men subject to (accountable to) the authority of God. Unfortunately, it is a condition the citizens, the politicians, the leaders, and the courts of our nation, in consensus with Karl Marx, have now rejected ("Christian revelation" that is, i.e. that God rules over all, reflected in the Father's authority over his family, business, and property), embracing instead Karl Marx's way of thinking and acting where man (the child) is to live according "to nature only," freed from His Father's restraints (so that his family, his business, his property, and even himself is now subject to the community, i.e. to "the global village"—Karl Marx believed that the King's horse was everyone's horse just as two in the garden in Eden believed that "God's tree" is everyone's tree). Instead of "serving and protecting" the Father's authority over his family, under God (the reason for limiting the power of government), government is now negating the Father's authority, "serving" the "children of disobedience," i.e. using "the people" and their money to protect themselves (the children, including the children in adult bodies) from the Father's authority, engendering government "control" over all "the people" (which is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of "global governance," i.e. Agenda 21, Common Core, Sustainable Development, democratization, conscietization, communitization, synergism, etc. all one and the same, everyone thinking and acting according to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. children freed from their Father's authority, i.e. like children on drugs, chasing after that which engenders dopamine 'emanciaption,' using all their inheritance, i.e. selling their soul to sustain their "habit," prospering the drug pushers, i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' i.e. making them masters of their soul).

"If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [where man is to deny his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' preaching and teaching the truth, bringing those who are "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation' under conviction, to where they either want to "get right with the Lord" or "get rid of you," and follow after the Son of God, living in complete obedience to His Father's will, even unto death], then Marx [and "the children of disobedience"] must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)

"The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society." "The state arises out of the exigencies of man's nature." "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual . . ." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

Immanuel Kant called it "lawfulness without law." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Justice) In other words the "-ness" of "lawfulness" meaning "quality" of the flesh, i.e. the "law is of the flesh" only, i.e. the "law of sin" only, i.e. void any law which would restrain it (condemning man of sin), liberates children from their Father's authority, i.e. 'liberates' man, i.e. his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' from Godly restraint. Therefore Kant's "purposiveness without purpose" means man's "purpose" in life is the 'liberating,' i.e. augmentation of the flesh over and against the spirit, i.e. negating anything, especially God, who would restrain it. By removing the preaching and teaching of righteousness, i.e. "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" and "Do this and not that," "Because I said so," i.e. "Because God said so," i.e. "It is written ...", from society—through the treating of belief as an opinion, i.e. negating belief by making it subject to the flesh (subject to man's 'reasoning' through his "feelings," i.e. why they ask you if you "feel" better after you have preached the truth to them, i.e. its the only way they can "think," their brain having been washed of right and wrong as a way of thinking).

"Our liberation from the present Christian state of the world and the liberation of the world from it are ultimately our sole occupation. We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and superhuman. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion. Our Christian opponents are guilty of immorality when they make the world and man dependent on the grace of a God. We lay claim to the meaning of history; but we see in history not the revelation of "God" but of man and only of man. The "more divine", in other words, the more inhuman, something is, the less we shall be able to admire it. The more "godly" they are, the more inhuman, the more bestial." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844)

This nation went from a Christian concept of government (with an understanding that God ultimately judges man's thoughts and actions) to a dialectic concept of government (with man 'justifying' his own actions, according to his own "lust" for pleasure) as our courts moved from a Christian concept of law to a dialectic concept of law. Prior to the courts of the 50's, 60's and 70's our highest courts of the land saw law as emanating from "the Christian concept of right and wrong."

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, (1941)

During the 50's, 60's and 70's our courts went dialectic, deciding law according to the concepts of men's carnal opinions, i.e. following after stoic ideology rather than the Christian principles of restraint. All their decisions, and the laws of the land, have gone this way since, based solely upon the 'changing' opinions of men, i.e. subject to the "'changing' times," subject to man's augmentation of pleasure over and against the authority of God. The Father's authority, engendering "civil society," perceived as the cause of wars and divisions, i.e. engendering private property, private business, private families, dividing "communities."

Rousseau defined "civil society" this way:

"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)

Hegel had the solution to "civil society":

"On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [all are of "human nature"], the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality [man having a soul, accountable to God for his thoughts and actions]. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) [Sounds sort of like Karl Marx, doesn't it. Pun intended.]

Karl Marx put it into action. The solution to man's nature, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is violence against the Father's authority, i.e. taking that which is his for oneself. It is the only solution to man's predicament, i.e. how he can overcome the restraints against dopamine 'liberation,' i.e. creating a world of the pleasure of this life, i.e. of "human nature" only. The "legalization" of abortion was 'justified' according to this 'logic.'

"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)

Abortion is an act of violence done in the name of pleasure or peace, i.e. 'choice,' where the mother (and the father) of the killed child can 'justify' the act, i.e. have peace with the 'choice' since it was done for the sake of the "quality" of life (a purely materialistic, i.e. Godless construct).

We have moved from "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7 to the 'justification' of the wicked, i.e. the 'justification' of abomination. Even the Marxist Max Horkheimer knew that the intent of the men who framed the Constitution was to limited the power of government so that the Father could be king in his own home, that it was shaped around the Christian faith, that individualism, i.e. "the priesthood of all believers," a protestant understanding of the Word of God, correlated with "freedom of the conscience," under God, was key to the freedom of the citizen, keeping them from tyranny. "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) "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung, in Martin Jay The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950) Without the understanding of the child (the representative) being held accountable for this thoughts and actions before his Father (the citizens), i.e. the wickedness of the child's heart, lusting after dopamine 'emancipation,' limited government (limiting his use of his Father's money to his Father's will and not for his personal desires) would make no sense.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7

If you sow death for the sake of your pleasure, you will die for someone else's pleasure. You have no "right to life" if "right to life" is in your hands, i.e. in the hands of a child seeking after dopamine 'emancipation,' history has shown the brutality that comes from such thinking. Not that man is good in and of himself. But without the restraint, i.e. the fear of God, the wickedness of his heart has no restraint, i.e. has no limitations, i.e. all things he thinks become possible (without a "guilty conscience").

While the earthly father is not perfect, the office he serves in is, i.e. being given to him by God, to rule in under His authority, according to His will. The earthly father is not to take the place of God, but only to show the children "a form of godliness," i.e. giving commands to do right and not wrong, chastening them when they do wrong. While governments, subject to man's wicked heart, have used the Father's authority (the King power) to evil intent, the structure itself is good, being from God. It is why our founding fathers limited the power of government so the Father could be King of his home, business, and property, subject to God and not man, i.e. not subject to the collective, who always 'justifies' the wickedness of their heart, deceiving themselves, believing that it is "good." The gospel message is of Jesus doing his Father's will, even unto death, redeeming' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, i.e. for 'justifying' our wicked heart, 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father, calling us to follow Him in His obedience to His Heavenly Father (this is the message missing from the "church" today, the Father's authority over His children, directing their steps, now taken over with the children, some in adult bodies, ruling over their lives, according to their opinions, i.e. their "feelings" and "thoughts"). Thus, as you will see (quotations by Hegel, Marx, Freud, etc. following), all that those of the "new" world order have in common is their hatred towards the Father's authority. They are united upon this one agenda, 'redeeming' the child from his Father's authority, i.e. from his "subservience to the demands of the parents," i.e. "repressing" his own "human nature," "alienating" himself from himself and from the world, inhibiting and block the creation of the "new" world order. Thus the only 'purpose' of "the children of disobedience" is to "control" the world, i.e. 'reconciling' the children of the world back to the world, to where they can think and act according to "human nature," i.e. thinking and acting according to that which is of the world only, i.e. "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' creating a "new" world order on "human nature" only. It is "family relationship," under the Father's authority, which stands in the way of the "new" world order.

"Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Doing what is right and not doing what is wrong, for the "approval of the Father," is the 'purpose' in life in the patriarchal structured home (in the traditional family). Thus the child is subject to that which is not of his nature, not of his "lusting" after the things of the world in the 'moment," i.e. of the world, i.e. "of Nature only" (Karl Marx), i.e. "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation.' The Father's authority (according to the child's perception) is not of the "here-and-now" (taken captive to the "here-and-now" only) but is of the "there-and-then," i.e. of the past, preparing the child for the "there-and-then" i.e. preparing the child for the future. The Father's authority does not emanate from the child's carnal nature to "lust" after the gratifying object of the environment (in the 'moment'). The Father's authority does not 'liberate' the child to become at one with the carnal pleasures of the environment, but instead restrains him from it (setting conditions for relating with and not relating with it, for being in but not of the world). The Father's authority is therefore correlated to that which is of the spirit and not of the flesh, as being from above the child's nature and not from the child's nature, i.e. from below. Even though the restraining or blocking of the child's dopamine 'emancipation' comes from the earthly father, who is flesh, his action of authority over the child's flesh places him above the the child's nature, restraining his flesh, making the child's flesh subject to the earthly father's will, i.e. flesh restraining flesh establishing something greater than flesh, i.e. the spirit, separating time and space (separating the 'moment' of desire and the acquiring of the object of gratification, i.e. separating "theory and practice," thought and action, making the Father's authority ruler over all). While the child's thoughts are upon doing his Father's will, his nature, i.e. his flesh is upon doing the will of the world, "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation.'

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:5-10

The doing right and not doing wrong (doing good and not evil) is of the Father's authority (is of the patriarchal paradigm of the Father—establishing commands and rules which are not situational, i.e. which are not subject to the 'changing' environment and therefore are absolute despite the 'changing' times, i.e. despite objects of gratification coming into the child's environment, drawing him, according to his nature, to them). Doing right and not doing wrong, according to the Father's will (according to His authority), is not according to the child's pain-pleasure spectrum of the 'moment' (according to the child's avoid pain-approach pleasure behavior), i.e. is not of the heresiarchal paradigm of the child of 'change,' i.e. is not subject to the 'changing' environment and therefore is not situational, i.e. is not 'changeable' according to the 'changing' times. It is in this correlation, the earthly father to the Heavenly Father, that, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' by negating the authority of the earthly father (in the thoughts and the actions of the children), i.e. by bringing the child's carnal thoughts "into alignment with" his carnal nature and therefore with the world, the Heavenly Father's authority is negated. If you understand this, you understand the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. you understand all that has happened from the garden in Eden, all that is happening today (in education, in politics, in the workplace, in entertainment, and even in the "church"), and all that will happen when the Lord, i.e. the obedient Son of God, returns to judge the world, i.e. judging "the children of disobedience" for their disobedience to His Heavenly Father's will. The focus of the "new" world order is upon the Father's authority, i.e. how to negate it in the thoughts and actions of the children, replacing doing right and not doing wrong with concern about how people "feel" and what they "think," making all things relative to the 'changing' times, i.e. subject to dopamine 'emancipation' only. First, as a "scientist," you have to identify what it is you want to 'change,' i.e. to negate who or what "is," to create what "ought" to be.

"God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

"Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

God formed man from "the dust of the ground," breathed "the breath of life into his nostrils," and made him a "living soul." When God calls his spirit back out of man, the flesh goes back to dust from which it came (which all men have in common), but the soul of man is eternal, making him, as an individual, accountable to God for his personal thoughts and actions. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' defining man only of the world, spirit is not above man, but is man himself, coming to know himself as he is, carnal, as he frees himself from the authority and restraints of God. Therefore the only way for the child to free himself from his Father's authority, the only way he can become at-one-with the world again, as he was before his Father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience, is to negate the Father's authority, replacing the spirit, i.e. the one who is from above, i.e. the Father (to the child), i.e. God (to man), with the spirit which is from below, i.e. of "human nature," with man, in consensus, becoming as God, united as "one" below, i.e. negating the one who is from above from his carnal thought and carnal actions below, holding the one who is above in contempt.

"An attitude of complete submissiveness toward 'supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of 'many important things' [the child accepting the Father's concerns as his concerns, i.e. as the issue of the day] strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the 'justification' of "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' the child's nature of "lusting" after dopamine 'emanciaption as being "normal," freedom of religion (freedom of the Father's authority to restrain his child's carnal nature) becomes freedom from religion (freedom from the Father's authority to restrain his child's carnal nature, 'liberating' the child's carnal nature). The carnal nature of the child, and therefore the world, is 'liberated' from the Father's authority through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the "spirit" of the world.

"Spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits." (G. F. W. Hegel as quoted in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' right and wrong is not established above man or the child, i.e. above "human nature," by God or the Father, but instead is of man of the child, i.e. of his own nature seeking to become at-one-with nature, with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' with nature being right and anything or anyone "repressing" it or "alienating" man or the child from it being wrong.

"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 one of the casual notes preserved at Widener; source: Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)

According to dialectic 'reasoning' sin is not man in rebellion against God, i.e. the child in rebellion against his Father, but "sin" is man submitting to God's will, suppressing his own carnal naturel, i.e. "sin" is the child submitting to his Father's will, suppressing his own carnal nature. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' sin is when the child does his Father's will over and against his own carnal nature. In this 'logic' Christ, who submits His will to His Father's will, is thus replaced with the "Christ" (the Antichrist, i.e. another Christ) who is free from the Father's will, i.e. freeing man from the Father's will. This is not the Christ of the gospel who declared:

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12: 49, 50

"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

"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." Matthew 7:21

"And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

The "Christ" of dialectic 'reasoning' (who operates through polls, surveys, and feasibility studies, i.e. through men's opinions) seeks to free man from God's authority by freeing the children from their Father's authority. As Abraham Maslow succinctly stated it:

"I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

The "authoritarian student" is the child who submit his will to his Father's will, "repressing" his "human nature," i.e. correlated to the bourgeois "repressing" the proletariat. See Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov's (Lenin's) speech on the subject.

"The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

In America that would mean the negation of those who initiate and sustain sovereignty, i.e. private business, private property, the traditional family, i.e. limiting government so that the Father can rule his home well.

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' there is no other 'purpose' in life then the negation of the Father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in the thoughts and actions of the children. The "old" system of God ruling over the affairs of man, i.e. of the Father ruling over the affairs of the child, is through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' replaced with the "new" system of man in "control" of his own affairs, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, i.e. the child, along with all the children of the world, in "control" of his own affairs, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, in harmony (in consensus) with all the children of the world (at least that is what the socialist, dialectic, "message" is). Only by creating a world where the child can 'discover' himself in his own nature, i.e. with the nature of the child and the world, i.e. with all the children of the world becoming as one, can he free himself from the nature of his Father authority, i.e. can he free himself from being held accountable to a higher authority than "human nature" itself.

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin, as quoted in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Dopamine 'emancipation' is only for the 'moment.' Once it becomes satiated it basks in the sensation of the 'moment,' next time needing more, i.e. "wanting" more, to get the same "kick." That is why we are never satisfied, wanting more and more of what is "good" in our own eyes. "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20. Things of pleasure (which stimulate dopamine 'liberation') attract us. Our "natural inclination" is to approach them. The things of pain repel us. Our "natural inclination" is to avoid them. Therefore, if we are controlled by our "lusting" after (our "enjoyment" of) the things which stimulate dopamine 'emancipation,' we are controlled by the environment which contains (or promises to contain, or according to our imagination, might, could, should, or "ought" to contain) them. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is therefore imperative that everyone identifies (become cognizant of) what conditions restrain, inhibit, or block pleasure and what conditions 'liberate' it, i.e. what conditions attenuate and what conditions augment dopamine 'emancipation.' Dialoguing opinions, i.e. how people "feel" and what they "thing," to a consensus, unites people upon the sensation of pleasure. Preaching and teaching what is right and what is wrong, conversely, divides people, i.e. resulting in everyone evaluating and judging themselves and others, i.e. their "lusting" after the sensation of pleasure, according to a higher standard than pleasure itself, i.e. restraining their "lusting" after pleasure. It is the power of dialogue (the child freely expressing his desire to be at-one-with, i.e. in harmony with pleasure, i.e. with the world) to free the child from the power of preaching (from the Father's authority which restraints pleasure, which divides the child from himself and from the world). Karl Marx noted the importance of sensuousness (pleasure, i.e. "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience" which are "of Nature only"), even being present in the believer (giving him potential to 'change'). It is important to know that it was the "transformational" Marxists (who merged Marx and Freud, i.e. merged socialism with therapy to neuter the Father's authority in the individual) who saw the importance of using dialogue to create 'change,' not the traditional Marxist, who used brute force (killing the Father along those who supported His authority). Note Marx's understanding of the gospel.

"The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

Therefore for socialist unity to become a reality, the Father's authority to preach and teach must be replaced with the child's right to dialogue his opinion to a consensus, negating the Father's authority, i.e. allowing the child (the particular) to find his identity in the children of the world (in the universal) through the children (the universal) finding their identity in the nature of the child (in the particular), i.e. both becoming as "one," i.e. "as one level," i.e. the universal and the particular united as one over and against the other level (the Father's authority) which prevented its "oneness" (common-ism) from becoming 'reality.' All classes of "Common Core" have this in 'purpose,' the replacing of the Father's authority with the "voice of the village" in the thoughts and actions of all the children, giving all children a socialist mindset, i.e. no longer being able to thing as an individual, subject to their Father's authority, but only as an a member of the "group," i.e. "the village," "serving and protecting" the collective from the Father's authority.

"And formative education (Bildung) is this absolute exchanging in the absolute concept wherein every subject, and universal too, makes its particularity immediately into universality, and in the see-saw posits itself as universal at the very moment when it posits itself as one level and is thus confronted by its 'being a level,' and by the unmediated universality in that being, so that it itself becomes a particular." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

What is called "class consciousness?" It is the children, i.e. the "repressed," i.e. those prevented from experiencing dopamine 'emancipation' at their will, becoming conscious of, learning to identify and overcome the condition which engenders, not only "repression," but also "alienation," i.e. uniting with all the other children, as "one," in the praxis (in the socialist action) of negating the Father's authority which restrains, i.e. inhibits or blocks dopamine 'emancipation,' it is man ("the village") negating that condition which restrains, i.e. inhibits or blocks man's "natural inclination" to seek after dopamine 'emancipation.' To do the one, i.e. for the child to become carnal, i.e. become "human" again, requires the other, i.e. 'liberating' himself from his Father's authority, freeing man from the influences of religion, i.e. doing right and not doing wrong, according to a higher authority than "human nature," i.e. the impulses and urges of the 'moment.' Only in the socialist praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus can the child—through finding what he has in common with all the children (his "lust" for dopamine 'emancipation' and his dissatisfaction with his Father's authority which restrains it)— become self-actualized, i.e. come to know himself as he "really" is, i.e. a "human beings" i.e. of the flesh only, "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' united as "one" with all the children of the world, in a "classless society," i.e. in a society freed of the Father's "top-down," do right-don't do wrong way of thinking and acting.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:2

The Father's authority reflects the structure of religion, i.e. requiring faith on the part of the child, faith in that which is not of his carnal 'moment,' not of sight (not of his "sense perception"), not of the gratifying objects of the world, i.e. not of that which engenders the carnal desires of his flesh (not of "mammon"). Self-control, self-discipline, i.e. the denying and humbling of self is controlling and disciplining, i.e. denying and humbling the flesh to the Father's authority. It is the child making his flesh subject to his Father's will. Being selfish is being fleshy, with the child's attention centered upon himself, upon the sensation of his flesh, i.e. upon satisfying his flesh. Self-esteem is the esteeming of the flesh through the "approval of others" over and against the Father's authority. The sequence of events (the spectrum of 'change'), according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is from self, in obedience to the Father, through self, in disobedience to the Father's authority, yet with a "guilty conscience," to self, negating the Father's authority, with no "guilty conscience."

"The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

Suicide is the killing of one's self, i.e. the result of the child caught between the denying of his self (humbling his self, i.e. his flesh) to his Father's will and the exalting of the his self, being at-one-with the gratifying things of the flesh, i.e. of the world, over and against the Father's will (the child finding no hope in the Father because of his "lusting" after the flesh, yet, under "control" of the Father while being detached, in mind, from the Father, i.e. seeing no hope in attaining the object of gratification, i.e. with no hope in satisfying the flesh). Having no hope in "doing that which he wants to do," i.e. not "perceiving" himself as ever being able to be one-with-the gratifying thing of the world, i.e. having no hope in having a life of the flesh, of being himself, his only "hope" is "getting even" with the Father by taking his life, having "control" over his own life by taking that which is not his to take, his own life, i.e. instead of denying the flesh or exalting it (self-esteem needs group or other esteem), killing it instead (life being not worth living). It is man having no hope in God and having no hope of satisfying his flesh. There is no identity in self. Worth or value for self is found in that which self seeks after. Identity is either found in God, of the spirit (of righteousness) only, dealing with the soul of man, with man seeking after "the approval of God," or is found in man, of the flesh (of sensuousness) only, man seeking after "the approval of men." According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the person, unable to move through or out of transition (the antithesis of the "present"), caught between tradition (the "past") and transformation (the "future"), becomes maladjusted. With no hope of escaping tradition, with no hope in attaining transformation (freedom from the "guilty conscience," i.e. condemnation), the person becomes depressed, dopamine 'emancipation' being unattainable in mind. Having no hope in eternal life (of the soul), i.e. hoping only in the pleasures of this life (of the flesh), when man loses hope in attaining the pleasure this life, he lives in the pain of death.

With man (apart from God), hope is found in the pleasures of this life only. Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason, inducted that hope is found in happiness, happiness is in pleasure, pleasure is in the mind, and now we know that that is dopamine being 'emanciaption' in our synaptic gaps in the brain as a result of coming into contact with or thinking upon a gratifying object in the world (the environment) that our nervous system recognizes as pleasurable. Therefore carnal man's fear is the fear of man (who might take pleasure from him). The 'purpose' of life is therefore the survival of the flesh, i.e. the will at-one-with the world, negating that which is not of the world.. With God, hope is found only in Him (spiritual, i.e. "the blessed hope," "the hope of glory"), and therefore fear is, fear (reverencing) of Him, for the sake of eternal life, i.e. escaping eternal death. The 'purpose' of life is therefore the "survival" (salvation) of the soul, i.e. the will submitted to God ("Not my will, but thy will be done"), the person therefore being able to "endure" the absence of pleasure and the presence of pain in the Lord, i.e. "suffering with Christ." Something the world, i.e. those of the flesh, of sight, can not know or understand, being subject only to the world, the flesh, sight.

"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:4, 5

he "classless society" is a "society" where the child's thoughts and actions are brought together as "one," in the flesh, along with all the children of the world, in the flesh, in indifference to and in defiance of the Father's authority. A "classless society" is a "society" of the "children of disobedience," i.e. a "society" of the flesh only, a "society" void of the Father's restraint, a "society" void of a "guilty conscience," having only a "super-ego" the "voice of the village," i.e. the collective, i.e. man doing his duty for the institution, the brotherhood, the community, i.e. for "society." Therefore it is a bloody and violent "society." It is a "new" order of the world where the belief-action dichotomy (believing yet not always acting accordingly, i.e. believing in God but still being tempted by the flesh, i.e. the antithesis or tension between believing in the Father but still being tempted to go the way of the world), has been negated (where the Father's authority and therefore the guilt of sin is no longer perceived as being "rational" and therefore is no longer perceived as being "relevant") in the child's personal thoughts and socialist actions (with the child finding "peace" with himself, i.e. "peace" with his-self, i.e. "peace" with his flesh, and therefore "peace" with the world). Through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," according to the flesh—there is no Father's authority, conviction, contrition, repentance, i.e. need of salvation in dialogue), the child becomes at-one-with the "children of the disobedience," i.e. becomes at-one-with the children who are at-one-with the world, i.e. at "peace" with themselves, i.e. at "peace" with their flesh and at "peace" with the world, not only in thought but also in action (in theory and practice).

"'The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.' Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the Father's authority prevents the children from coming together as "one." It prevents the children from becoming aware of their "common-ism," i.e. that what they have in common is their 'drive' (their thoughts) of dopamine 'emancipation' and therefore that the 'purpose' (the action) of life is the augmentation of dopamine 'emancipation' for, not only themselves, but for everyone. With the Father's authority (the bourgeoisie) still in place "the dialectical method was overthrown―the parts [the proletariat, the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (Georg Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Whether it is 'change' (getting rid of the Father's authority to let "deviancy" have its way) in the workplace, in the government, or the "church," 'change' has to first take place in the classroom. "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." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality) Without the "philosophy of praxis" ("theory and practice," thought and action, becoming united as "one") the children could not collectively be unite as "one" (in consensus), i.e. united as "one" in the socialist praxis of negating the resister to 'change,' i.e. negating the Father's authority, not only in themselves (negating the "guilty conscience," which restrain the child's "deviant" behavior), but in the world as well (negating the preaching and teaching of righteousness in the public arena), i.e. not only for their own sake but for the sake of the whole world as well.

"Then both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context [thinking and acting according to their Father's right and wrong, which divided them one from the other, instead of thinking and acting according to that which they had in common, their own "human nature," i.e. their "natural inclination" of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. that which makes them "equal'] . And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

"In the process of self-actualization [finding our identity and 'purpose' in the collective], the ego creates an objective, resistant world over against itself [the child's will to attain pleasure is made subject to his Father's will, turning the child's will against itself, making him "conscious" of the "other," i.e. the world of desire, i.e. pleasure, and the Father of restraint, i.e. pain]. This implies an obstacle whose resistance has to be overcome. We realize our liberty and independence through the successful overcoming of this resistance [through the child, with the other children of the world, united as one in overcoming the Father's authority]. It is in this process of the ego bringing into existence a world over against itself and then overcoming the limitations with which it is confronted that Fichte finds the sequence of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. This is of course a Fichtean, not an Hegelian, formula." (John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx)

Our opinion, i.e. our "sense perception" of what we "think" and "feel" is good and what we "think" and "feel" is evil (both "feelings" and "thought" united as one in the 'moment'), i.e. what we want to approach or attain (as being "good") and what we want to avoid or negate (as being "evil") is based upon the pleasure-pain spectrum of our carnal "human nature," i.e. our "natural inclination" to attain, i.e. to be at-one-with, the objects of gratification in the environment (and overcome any barrier which comes between us and them). Therefore, whoever or whatever controls or creates the environment of our "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e. whoever determines the "appropriate information" for our attention, controls us, providing they know what "turns us on," i.e. they know what it is in the environment (or in our imagination) that stimulates dopamine 'emancipation' within us in the 'moment.' If the Father determines the "appropriate information," i.e. if He is the thesis, then the child is subject to his Father's will, i.e. is subject to a pre-set, "top-down," right and wrong way of thinking and acting, with the child's nature to disobey his Father's authority engendering antithesis , the "guilty conscience" for disobedience (with no hope of synthesis with the world). But if the child is free to share how he "feels" and what he "thinks," according to his "human nature," i.e. freed to determine the "appropriate information," i.e. he becomes the thesis. He is then freed from His Father's authority, i.e. freed from His Father's "repressing" of his "human nature," making his Father's authority the source of antithesis. With his Father's authority being the antithesis, his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation' (his sinful nature) is therefore what unites him with the world. It is what allows him and the world to become as one, in synthesis. Only by addressing the Father factor (negating it, negating the condition of antithesis, i.e. negating the Father's "external domination" over "human nature") can the child factor be dealt with ('liberating' "human nature," i.e. 'liberating' the child, making him at-one-with all the children of the world, engendering synthesis). The "new" thesis is the dialectic cycle of the children continuously, progressively 'liberating' themselves from their Father's authority, i.e. from Godliness and righteousness, i.e. according to Marx, from the "opiate" of the world, i.e. religion. Freud called the Father (religion) a "substitute gratification" for the 'real' thing, i.e. the child's love of his carnal nature and the world which stimulates it.

"Freud [and] Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression. Under the conditions of repression the essence of being lies in the unconscious." "Psychoanalysis, mysticism, Freud, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen." "Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered." "Infants are absorbed in their own bodies; they are in love with themselves." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "Life is of the body and only life creates value; all values are bodily values." "The true life of the body is also the life of the id." "In the id, says Freud, there is nothing corresponding to the act of negation." "The key to the nature of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation." "Freud saw that in the id there is no negation, only affirmation and eternity." "In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time. A healthy human being, in whom ego and id were unified, would not live in time." "Only the abolition of guilt can abolish time [the "past" preventing the "present" and the "future from becoming "one"]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

George Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [when the child's "natural inclination" to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment' is 'liberated' from his Father's authority, i.e. when his Father no longer has authority to make "human nature" subject to His will, i.e. "repressing" it, the child (Id, i.e. "human nature" unrestrained by righteousness) becomes the 'drive' of and the 'purpose' for life]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [the earthly father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family [the Heavenly Father's authority], the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and in practice [the Father's authority must be negated in the child's personal thoughts and in his socialist actions through the dialoging of opinions to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") being put into social action, i.e. praxis, negating the Father's authority of the "past"]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

Sigmund 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 [the "father" no longer functions with a father's authority in the home, with the family now dialoging opinions to 'discover' what is right and what is wrong behavior for the 'moment']." (Sigmund Freud quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

Therefore, synthesis, i.e. man united as "one" according to that which he has in common with the world, i.e. his "human nature," i.e. his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' can not overcome antithesis, the Father's authority restraining "human nature," without the thesis becoming the child (or the child becoming the thesis), i.e. "human nature" (the child's opinion, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks") becoming the standard by which to evaluate right and wrong from. Hegel, Marx, and Freud held this theme in common, that the nature of man, i.e. the nature of the child must be held over and against the authority of God, i.e. the authority of the Father, if man is to know himself as he "is," if there is to be 'change.' By changing the environment from the preaching and teaching of truth and facts to be accepted "as given," to be accepted by faith, i.e. which retains the antithesis condition, i.e. retains the Father's authority over the child's nature (the conflict between the spirit and the flesh), to an environment of dialogue, where the child's opinion, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts" can be freely expressed without fear of punishment, the antithesis, the Father's authority is negated. The dialectic objective is to progressively "help" the children of the world negate their Father's authority, i.e. his restraining of dopamine 'emancipation within them and in the world, by allowing the child's "natural inclination" of approaching the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' i.e. his "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' to be freely expression, i.e. allowing "human nature" to become the thesis, i.e. with the child's "Why" and his "ought," i.e. his opinion being placed over and against (circumventing) the Father's "Can not" and "Because I said so." Our "ought's," as in "The world 'ought' to be this way and not that way," is our "sense perception" (our imagination) of how the environment "should be," i.e. to initiate and sustain dopamine 'emancipation" within us, i.e. to 'liberate' "human nature" from the restraints of the Father's authority (His "Can not" to the child's actions and His "Because I said so" in response to the child's "Why?"). Our "ought," i.e. our opinion, i.e. how we "feel" and what we "think" is thus always over and against any condition which engenders pain, including and especially the pain of restrained or blocked dopamine 'emancipation,' i.e. the condition which causes us to "miss out" on the pleasures of the world, in the 'moment.'

"The need for collaboration across lines of divergent action interests in a given situation requiring change, individuals and groups must be helped to see that the task is to discover and construct a common interest out of the conflicting interests which they bring to the interpretation of the situation and to the direction of changes in it." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

The individual's "ought" (his desires for dopamine 'emancipation') must become the same "ought" (the same desires, the same "action interest") as the collective (and visa versa) so that, in his perception, his "ought" can only become actualized through the "ought" of the collective. Therefore the world that "is," that contains the restrainer of dopamine 'emancipation,' must be 'changed,' i.e. the restrainer of "ought" must be negated in the thoughts and actions of all participants in the 'change' process if the "ought," i.e. mankind united in pleasure, is to become attainable. Theory, i.e. what the person thinks the world "ought" to be like, i.e. "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation,' must can come into practice, i.e. 'liberating' how a person naturally behaves, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. how children naturally behave unrestrained by their Father's authority (man unrestrained by God's authority), if the world is to become as it "ought" to be.

"We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic." "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the is, but from a scaling down of the ought, from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality and therefore to attainability." "Discovering one's real nature is simultaneously an ought quest and an is quest." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

To gain access to the persons "ought" is to gain access to his potential to 'change,' i.e. as in 'change' him and, through him, 'change' world. Through the praxis of dialogue, i.e. the dialoguing of opinions (exposing the person's "ought's," his carnal desires, his objects of gratification) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," the dopamine 'liberating' experience of "the approval by others," holding the key to initiating and sustaining future dopamine 'emancipation' for everyone), the collective connecting of "ought's" becomes possible, i.e. the person is detached from the "one" restraining dopamine 'emancipation' and re-attached to the many, united, as "one," in 'liberating' it. The hope of attaining or retaining the object of gratification, i.e. of pleasure, i.e. of "enjoyment," i.e. of dopamine 'emancipation' is from then on perceived by the person as being unattainable apart from "the approval of the group," i.e. apart from "the approval of the village." It is in the process of 'change,' through the consensus process, that the masses can become united as "one" in a force over and against any force restraining dopamine 'emancipation.

"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 here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Carl Rogers wrote: "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person)

All habitual drugs, including tobacco and caffeine, either stimulate dopamine 'emancipation,' imitate dopamine, or prevent it's reuptake (leaving it longer in the synaptic gap for the sensation of pleasure). Dopamine 'liberation' is also the result of our smelling of freshly baked bread, watching a beautiful sunset, touching something soft, tasting of something sweet, or listening to something enjoyable, including complements, i.e. "the approval of men." The environment affects us, either for good or for evil, i.e. with good and evil being decided either according to our flesh's desires, i.e. according to us 'justifying' "human nature" by our use of "human reasoning,' augmenting dopamine 'emancipation,' i.e. calling it "good," or by the Word of God, i.e. in the case of the family, by the words of the father, restraining it, making it (and therefore the child) subject to his father's will (what Freud called a "substitute gratification" and Marx called an "opiate").

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

Without dopamine 'emancipation' life would be depressing to say the least. God gave it to us that we would enjoy His creation and give him praise. But instead, since the woman's 'choice' of dopamine 'emancipation—while the woman was deceived, Adam knew better, so sin was laid upon him, and, through him, all the world—in the garden in Eden, over and against the righteousness of God (rejecting the obeying of His command and the heeding of His warning, negated the law restraining dopamine 'emancipation,' making it, i.e. dopamine 'emancipation' the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, i.e. making all men subject to the 'liberator' of pleasure, i.e. taken captive to the master facilitator of 'change,' i.e. following after the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of man through the environment, which includes mans imagination, i.e. his carnal desires, instead of loving God and obeying His will), man, as a "child of disobedience," has been worshiping the creation instead of the creator, worshiping dopamine 'emancipation' rather then God—who created it, so that we would worship Him, thinking Him for His love towards us.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:20-25

It is over this simple neurotransmitter that man goes to war. As the child, who receives a gift from his parents, chooses it over and against his parent's authority (when the parent commands him to put it up and come and eat, etc.), i.e. reaches out for the object of gratification (with his Karl Marx hand) and attacks the parent (expressing the Sigmund Freud of the "child within") when the parent takes it away and puts it up, so man disobeys, rebels against, rejects, etc. God when God restrains his carnal nature, i.e. removes the object of gratification which engenders dopamine 'emancipation,' even responding in the same way to his fellow man (as the child does to his Father) who attempts to do the same, i.e. restraining "human nature" as God does—sovereignty and jurisdiction come from the garden in Eden where God, in essences said, "My garden. Not yours." (from where we get private property, family, and business, i.e. "My property. Not your property." "My children. Not your children." "My business. Not your business.") driving those in rebellion, i.e. those loving dopamine 'emancipation' more than the giver of gifts, out of the garden (off the land, out of the home, out of the business). Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the Father's authority over his children gives us the same order as God's order over that which is His and those who are His, placing all men under His final authority (both saved and lost, regenerate and unregenerate, judging each man according to his thoughts and actions), engendering the condition of Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for disobedience. The "guilty conscience" is "the voice of the Father" in the mind of the child, restraining his thoughts and actions, directing him according to his Father's will. The "super-ego" is "the voice of the village" (the collective) in the mind of the child, 'liberating' his thoughts and actions, 'driving' him according to the "will of the people" in the 'moment.'

"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the super-ego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" "The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

The praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 (the consensus process, i.e. the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. the 'justifying' of "human nature," i.e. augmenting dopamine 'emancipation' over and against the righteousness of God) negates them both (the Father's authority and the "guilty conscience"), leaving man in his sin, lusting after those things of the world which engender dopamine 'emancipation.' Only in this case, i.e. in the condition of consensus, instead of seeking dopamine 'emancipation' for himself alone, he is seduced, deceived, and manipulated into believing that he is seeking it for others as well, while still only seeking it for himself. The "guilty conscience," having been replaced with the "super-ego" (the seared conscience), no longer restrains man from killing, tearing down, and destroying when he can not have his way. Only now, through the use of the consensus process, i.e. through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' he is now 'justified' in killing, tearing down, and destroying the Father's authority, i.e. negating sovereignty, for the sake of "the collective," i.e. for "humanity," i.e. for "worldly peace" and "socialist harmony." Crime goes on but instead of government "serving and protecting" the citizen from it, government uses it to gain access into and take control over the lives of the citizens, for its own gain.

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3

This is why the Apostle Paul stated: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 1:25 Underlining added for emphasis.

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the object in and of itself has no value. That is, you have no value in and of yourself. Only the pleasure you engender or have the potential of engendering in the lives of others gives you value or worth to them and visa versa, them to you.

"The aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind [which] link the ‘lower' faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality – the two poles of human existence [beauty and justice, sensuousness and freedom of spontaneity]." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud)

Without negating (annihilating) the "top-down" authority of the Father, i.e. His right to restrain "human nature," (turning the child away from the environment's control over his "human nature" to the Father's knowing of right and wrong) the "aesthetic dimension" of man and nature, i.e. man and nature united as one in pleasure, i.e. united in 'emancipating' dopamine, man would remain "restrained," i.e. remain untrue to himself, living a life according to that which is not of his own carnal nature, i.e. he would become or remain subject to God, the creator of the universe, i.e. subject to "Thy will, not my will, be done."

"Every form of objectification [recognition of a Father's authority]... results in alienation [engenders a "top-down" system, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the Father ruling over His family, his land, and his business, resulting in the child not being able to do "his own thing," i.e. "enjoy" life according to his own natural inclinations (relating with other children of the same "natural inclinations," lusting after dopamine 'emancipation'), i.e. righteousness (God, the Father's authority) "repressing" sensuousness ("human nature," approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, including the pain of missing out on pleasure), "alienating" man from his own nature and the world]. Transcending alienation [overcoming the Father's pre-set standards, standards established above the child's "sense experience" of the 'moment,' i.e. restraining "human nature" (the Father's standards discriminating between good and evil, i.e. good being that which is in agreement with the Father's will, evil being the child responding in disobedience to his Father's will, i.e. lusting after dopamine 'emancipation'), overcoming the Father's "repressing" of "human nature" by negating His use of commands to be obeyed without question (by establishing the 'right' and 'duty' of the children to "question authority") and by negating His use of chastening (negating His right and duty to use force to retain His "top-down" order, i.e. to instill obedience to His will) by establishing laws and "programing" government agents to restrain and/or arrest ("repress") the Father, and any who think and act like Him, who use force upon children, preventing them from seeking after and 'discovering' "oneness" with the universe through their "lusting" after dopamine 'emancipation'] involves transcending objectification [negating the Father's authority to rule over his family and chasten his children for their disobedience by engendering, in the thoughts and actions of the next generation, a "new" world order, i.e. an order of the world with children in "control" of their destiny, i.e. the object of life being no longer obeying that which restrains "human nature," i.e. the Father and His authority, but serving and protecting "human nature" itself, i.e. augmenting that which all the children have in common, their "lust" for dopamine 'emancipation'];" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

Karl Marx wrote: "The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84)

"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." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)

If this 'logic' is carried out to it's conclusion then the object itself has no value other than the pleasure (dopamine 'emancipation') it engenders or has the potential of engendering in the world, i.e. in the lives of others. According to dialectic 'reasoning' only "the law of the flesh," i.e. "sense experience," i.e. "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" (Karl Marx), i.e. "human nature," gives man value, i.e. determines a person's (or child's or unborn child's) worth. Any restraint of "human nature," i.e. any act "repressing" man or child, inhibiting or blocking him from his 'quest' for pleasure, preventing him from becoming at-one-with the world (or the environment) in pleasure in the 'moment,' i.e. "alienating" himself from himself as well as from others, must be seen as "an act of violence" against "humanity." The man of restraint (the Father and His authority) must either be 'changed' (converted, i.e. neutered) or removed from the environment (negated or annihilated) for the sake of "humanity." With dopamine 'emancipation' (pleasure) becoming the 'drive,' and the augmentation of dopamine 'emancipation' the 'purpose' of life, the negating of the restrainer of dopamine 'emancipation' (the Father's authority) must become the praxis of government. Instead of those in government (as children under their Father's authority, the representatives under their constituents authority) being restrained by the principles of their constitutes (being restrained by a "guilty conscience"), they must become the government itself (they rule as children without a Father, without restraint), through the consensus process negating their constituents authority (the Father's authority) with no "guilty conscience." Therefore, hatred toward and the annihilation of the Father's authority must become the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of "the people." Thus the 'drive' and 'purpose' of government (and of education, the workplace, the "church," and the home) must be the replacing of inalienable rights, i.e. the rights of the individual under God, the rights of the child under His Father's authority, with "human rights," the "rights," i.e. the ever 'changing' "privileges and duties" of the individual determined according to the consensus process, i.e. according to the ever 'changing' "felt" needs (opinions) of "the village," i.e. according to the ever 'changing' "felt" needs (opinions) of "the people," i.e. according to the ever 'changing' "felt" needs (opinions) of "the child within," all being guided (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) by the facilitator of 'change,' according to the soviet system of 'change.' 'Liberating' the "child within" not only 'liberates' dopamine 'emancipation' within the child but also 'liberates' his anger (his hate) as well, allowing him to express his anger (hate) against his Father, negating his Father and His authority for trying to restrain him.

"An act of violence is any situation in which some men prevent others from the process of inquiry ...any attempt to prevent human freedom [restrain the child's quest for dopamine 'emancipation'] is an 'act of violence.' Any system which deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness is guilty of oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students' capacity for critical inquiry [not encouraging, guiding, and supporting the children in "questioning," circumventing, striking out at, and negating the Father's authority] is guilty of violent oppression." (Freire, P.1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. p.74)

Immanuel Kant wrote of "purposiveness without purpose, and lawfulness without law" ("Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmässigkeit ohne Gesetz"). What he meant by this was that the object, in and of itself, is not the "purpose" of life, i.e. determining law, i.e. what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, but that the pleasure it engenders in the life of others is the "purpose" and the "law" of life. "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 possible serve, and also not in view of its 'internal' finality and completeness." (regarding Hegel in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Sensuousness, i.e. man's lusting after the things of this world, i.e. the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain (negating righteousness) is the only conclusion man can come to when he materializes himself, i.e. when he makes himself subject to the things of the world only. In a dialectic world, without augmenting pleasure in the lives of others, you have no value or worth other than as an example for others on how to either convert or negate the resister to 'change,' i.e. you. As Karl Marx noted, you have no value or worth in and of yourself (under God), you only have value or worth engendering dopamine 'emancipation' (consensus, i.e. a euphoric "feeling" of "oneness") within the collective (who will turn and rend you if you should "question" their dialectic way, i.e. try to take their "toys" away). "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) In other words" the "particular," i.e., the individual is not to find his identity in that which is above him, i.e., in that which is not "of and for" his carnal nature, but in that which is "of and for" him, i.e., in that which is "of and for" his carnal nature, i.e., in that which is "of and for" the world only, i.e., in that which is "of and for" society only, i.e., society itself.

The scriptures warn us: when the children rule, i.e., when dopamine emancipation becomes the foundation of life, the people are oppressed. "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17

"And for this cause [because men 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of pleasure more than God] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good," instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the world]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

The world is on a drug. It is intoxicated with its "lust" for dopamine 'emancipation.' Without Godly restraint all it has is that which is of the world only, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." (Brown, Norman O, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

While dopamine 'emancipation' ("the approval of men") may appear to give you meaning and 'purpose' in the 'moment,' being only temporary, like shifting sands, subject only to 'change, it will betray you in the end, having no eternal value.

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." John 2:17

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2018, 2019, 2020