Ether of the Brain:
Cosmic consciousness, i.e. humanist 'reasoning,' group thing, and the "contemporary church"


Dean Gotcher

God (the Father, the one above) consciousness, Self (the other below) consciousness, Cosmic (the all below) consciousness:
"What will the Father say and do,"  "What do I want to do," "What will the group say and do."
"Thy will be done,"  "My will be done,"  "Our will be done."
(In truth there is only "Thy will be done" and "My will be done."  "Our will be done" only being a 'justification,' a great deception, the "either of the brain," for "My will be done.")

"Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect [a "we" feeling] and must come to value the group [society, the community] as an important means of meeting their personal needs."  (Ervin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  "Group thinking and discussion refers to the entire process by which a group of people surveys the problem facing it, clarifies these problems, selects a problem which the group comes to feel is important and which it can hope to solve, formulates an acceptable common solution, devises ways in which the solution may be tried and decides upon the trial, and evaluates the success of the problem-solution. The leader can go no faster than the group thinking can carry him."  "Feelings of not belonging can be forestalled by making everyone feel welcome and wanted from the very beginning."  "It is probable that the individual who does not belong will act in ways not conducive to good group action."  "The best approach is to help him feel that he does belong and that he is wanted, whether or not his ideas are similar to those of the group."  "Give him a 'we' feeling if possible, and avoid any 'you vs. us' attitude by word or gesture."  "For re-education seems to be increased whenever a strong we-feeling is created."  "Practice of the good group procedures suggested in this book has led to increasingly effective work in furnishing the best possible educational opportunities for the youth in schools."   (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  Creating a "We" feeling (of the many as "one") negates a "He" feeling (of only the one as the only one).  It is the voice of the "one" (collectively), the many, the "village," the "super-ego," what the group thinks, what is "good" for the institution and/or for society which negates the conscience, the voice of the one (singular), "What will my Father or God think, say, and do" (what is His will alone, apart from the world).  Unless the children come together and find what they have in common, the Father, who treats each child as an individual, holding each one individually accountable for their thoughts and their actions) keeping them from the children of the world (from the collective voice), will forever rule over the children's thoughts and their actions (in their "guilty conscience" when He is not present), preventing them from knowing themselves through their own "human nature," that which they have in common with all the children of the world.  "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?"Class consciousness" is simply the children coming together (coming to know, i.e. experience themselves) as one (read "youth group"), i.e. through dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (to a feeling of oneness), discovering themselves as being "one," coming to know and accept their true nature as the "norm," and in praxis putting it into practice negation the condition which inhibited or prevented it (the "oneness" with their own nature and the world) from becoming actualized.

"Ownership": just another word for the 'justification' of "human nature," i.e. 'justification of the 'flesh,' i.e. 'justification of the "lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" (controlling or 'changing' the environment to continually augment the satisfying of the flesh and eyes), 'justifying' the law of sin.  The following sentence by Kenneth Benne defined the agenda of "ownership."  Information, i.e. explanations inserted by me (in brackets). You may have to read it more than once.  "From this we may conclude that social perception [that is that we see ourselves according to our "human nature," according to that which we have in common with all men (our "social perception" to be at one with that which we have in common), according to the desires of our deceitful and wicked heart—the first act (praxis) of common-ism AKA communism was the use of the "either of the brain" in finding commonality with all the trees in the garden in Eden (based upon physiological data only, according to science only, according to "nature only"), 'justifying' the eating of the "forbidden tree" (God''s tree, i.e. "Mine, not yours.") through the "sense perception" that all the trees were the same, therefore common to all, satisfying the "sensuous need" to "touch it," 'justifying the "sense experience" of putting into praxis (for all mankind) the eating of it—starting with the physiological affects the spiritual, i.e. two coming together in Christ are not coming together because they have anything in common physiological, or else "human reasoning" would be the tool whereby they evaluate their relationship with one another as well as Christ, humanizing him, but rather they are coming together in Christ, dead to themselves, thereby evaluating the physiological, i.e. their "human nature," i.e. themselves, i.e. their thoughts and actions, from Christ, i.e. according to the Word of God, i.e. from the spiritual—if you don't start with the spiritual, i.e. with righteousness, with the word of God, with God's will, then all you can evaluate from is the temporal, the flesh and the fleshy mind (your will) seeking to satisfy it, deceiving yourself, as did the women the garden in Eden, i.e. taking "ownership" of that which was not hers to take)] and freedom of choice [therefore "freedom of choice" is based upon our "carnal perception" negating the truth that we can only choose between being that which we are, unrighteous or being that which we are not, righteous, therefore only by faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and savior are we made righteous,  i.e. His righteousness (and eternal life, that which is not of the flesh and therefore not in common with the world) imputed to us by our faith in Him] are interrelated [Benne, using dialectic 'reasoning,' materializes all things, i.e. humanizes all men, thereby making all things one, i.e. "Ours, not just yours"]. Following one's conscience is identical with following the perceived intrinsic requirements of the situation [finding identity and therefore "oneness" with our carnal nature and the world around us, i.e. in a "society" of impulses and urges, i.e. uniting with all mankind according to our flesh (engendering the "team spirit" of the flesh) instead of becoming one in Christ, in the Spirit, according to God's world]. Only if and when the new set of values [when we no longer "need" God, the Father, along with his commands and chastening, which restrains our "human nature," i.e. when we  negate "fundamentalism," negate the "negative" (known as "Negation of negation" where man, "human nature," becomes the measure of all things)] is freely accepted, only if it ["human relationships," i.e. humanism] corresponds to one's superego [seeking harmony with the world through our carnal "feelings"], do those changes in social perception occur which, as we have seen, are a prerequisite for a change in conduct and therefore for a lasting effect of re-education [brainwashing, the searing of the conscience by the 'justification' of the flesh, i.e. "human nature," negating the "guilty conscience" which is engendered by the Father]. We can now formulate the dilemma which re-education has to face in this way: how can free acceptance of a new system of values [treating "human nature," and man's thoughts and actions in the "light" of it, as "good"] be brought about if the person who is to be educated is in the nature of things [still rejecting, i.e. in "denial," that we are all common AKA all communists, in that we are all "social animals"], likely to be hostile to the new values [still judging "human nature" as being "sinful"] and loyal to the old [still depends upon God the Father (the Word and the Holy Spirit) for direction in thought and action, evaluating himself and the world around him according to God's word]?"  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Karl Marx, in his work The Holy Family, used fruit as the illustration to get this concept across, where the "ether of the brain" 'changes' the persons perception of himself, i.e. the individual fruit, in the "light" of all the fruit (the group, "community," society), into perceiving himself, and all other individuals, i.e. all individual fruit, through "one collective fruit," "The Fruit," where, thereafter, no individual fruit can be comprehended apart from "The Fruit," i.e. apart from the collective, apart from the group, apart from society, apart from community, apart from "church"  (see below).  For Marx the "opiate" was the individual who was "hooked" on the one, on the Father alone, and therefore could not function properly within society (the many becoming as "one"). "Religion [the child's obedience to his Father] is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

Freud called the person's "dependence" upon the Father a "substitute gratification," diverting him from finding true gratification within the world of 'change,' i.e. within society or 'human nature," liberated from the restraints and conditions of the Father, becoming as "one."  "Freud speaks of religion [the love of the Father] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people [where man depends upon someone or something greater than nature, greater than his feelings and reasoning abilities ("repressing" them), for direction].'"  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual [according to Marx (and Freud) man can only know himself in his own nature, that which he has in common with all men, i.e. there is therefore nothing in the world other than human nature, i.e. mankind himself, collectively working as one, in thought and in action to create a better world for all mankind, a world of socialist harmony and worldly peace]."  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6"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)  "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right""The individual is emancipated in the social group."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['changes' his paradigm, his way he thinks and acts from the one above his nature, restraining it, to the "one's" of his nature, perceived as "one," 'liberating' it] by accepting belongingness to the group."  (Kurt Lewin,  Human Relations in Curriculum Change  ed. by Kenneth Benne)

 Roleplaying is "a meeting of two: eye to eye, face to face.  And when you are near I will tear your eyes out and place them inside of mine, and you will tear my eyes out and will place them inside of yours, then I will look at you with your eyes and you will look at me with mine." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive)  Getting man to look at himself and others through his own eyes as well as through their eyes ("A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein 'the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.'" Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man ) intoxicates him ('justifies' him, blinds him to the truth—why people's eyes "gloss over," i.e. get that "deer in the headlights" look when you try to warn them of what is happening to them and the country) keeps him from looking at himself through God's eyes (His Word alone), which kills him (like the woman in the garden, he can't get that which his deceitful and wicked heart "desires." "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;" Titus 2:12  Until man is dead to himself and alive in Christ he is twice dead, dead to God's peace, joy, and love, living in darkness, though he has deceived himself into thinking it is "light" ("enlightenment"), and dead to eternal life, condemned to eternal damnation.  "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:55

You (and I) are the other: The deception of dialectic 'reasoning,' is that we think the "other" is "the other" (the Father or society), and not us (singular, the individual) when in truth there is only the other, you or me (self-consciousness, the individual) or man (the "one," the collective, what we have in common below), and God (the one, singularly, above).  It is the "ether of the Brain" (Karl Marx) which creates the many below as "one," where, when we find that which we have in common with that which is below, we indentify with it rather with that which we are not in common with above.  Thus the "contemporary church" (the dialectic church) of today can quote from Satan's bible ("As above so below"), pressuring members to put aside the word of God ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" Matthew 6:10) in the name of tolerance, for the 'purpose' of unity (socialist unity and worldly peace) in the "church," defending instead the dialectic 'reasoning' of the eastern religion of "oneness": "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." (The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck)  This "As above, so below" dialectic scripture, Hermetic tradition: "was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucians, and the First Freemasons.)

Leonard Wheat, quoting and explaining Paul Tillich, and dialectic 'reasoning' which he applied to the scriptures, wrote: "The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God." "This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual." Tillich is actually directing an apologetic humanistic message to a Christian audience. He is telling those Christians who can hear that they can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will accept man as the true meaning of God. (Leonard F. Wheat,  Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)  

Psychology, as sociology and philosophy have no other 'purpose' than to emancipate mankind from God (the children from the Father), liberate all below from the one above, who restrains mans carnal nature to be at one with himself (Homosexuality, etc.) and with nature (abomination). "Freud referred to ... the group's ‘need to be governed by unrestricted force . . . it's extreme passion for authority . . . it's thirst for obedience.' Among the strongest of these is man's need for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnicaring parent, which together with his infinite capacity for self-deception creates a yearning for and a belief in a superbeing." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)  According to Freud, without 'shifting' (emancipating) man's loyalty from the Father above (singular) to mankind below (plurality), he will remain "neurotic," detached from his true "human nature," forever subject to a "guilty conscience."

"The head of the emancipation of man [emancipating him from having to obey the Father's commands, obeying the one above (over and against) his own "human nature"] is philosophy."  (Karl Marx)  Hegel wrote: "It may be said that Philosophy [thinking about our way of thinking or other peoples way of thinking] first commences when ... a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality [when what we are told to do and what we want to do are at odds], and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying [satisfying to the flesh's desire for 'change' from the condition of restraint]; when Mind [feelings and thoughts, thinking upon dopamine emancipation in the brain stimulated by a gratifying object in the environment, i.e. environment awareness, where beauty, that which is pleasing to the senses in the 'moment' and justice, having the right to acquire it to initiate and sustain it, becomes the 'purpose' in life, i.e. negating the restrainer of beauty and justice (according to the flesh, eyes, and pride of life, i.e. the 'rational' and physical ability to control the environment in augmenting pleasure for oneself and for others)] manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life [the honoring of and obedience to parental or Godly authority] becomes dissolved." "Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity [it comes naturally to carnal man, wanting liberation from the righteousness, restraints of God, the Spirit above], … This activity contains the essential element of a negation [overcoming and annihilating the restrainer to the flesh, the barrier to pleasure], because to produce [to innovate, to create] is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life [moves from faith] to reflection and conception [to sight]. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith [openly questions, challenges, and attacks authority as it sets out to "do its own thing"] , and thus the period of destruction commences [destruction of ones faith and the object or person which requires (demands) faith]."  Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.  To more clearly understand where Hegel was coming from, he wrote: "Man [the individual] knows about God [society, the institution, what he has in common with the world] only in so far as God [society, the institution] knows about himself in man [in the individual man wanting to find what he has in common with all men and nature, i.e. "human nature"];" "What truly is always true is that all is in flux [is 'changing' according to environmental changes], the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself [of man seeking to know himself, since truth is man coming to know himself as he is, not only in thought but also in action]." G. W. F. Hegel  In other words the one seeking truth is not to seek Christ, who is truth, but rather to seek "a life process of truth seeking itself [man finding peace in himself, individually and collectively at the same time]."  Hegel revealed his hermitic, Gnostic, cabalist religious view in this way: "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." (Hegel Philosophy of Religion)

"Group members must be able to discriminate between social "felt" needs [community needs, opinions dialogued to consensus] and non-social or anti-social "felt needs [the Fathers commands preached and taught, to be obeyed as is]."  "Group members must be able to synthesize individual 'felt' needs with common group 'felt' needs."  (Warren Bennis, The Planning of Change)  Social "felt" needs ("human rights") are an illusion in that society and community are enigmas to the mind, conjuring up thoughts and behaviors void of individuals (inalienable rights), while neighborhood carries within it individuals of differing social, political, religious views and actions, recognized as individual of rights, in and of themselves (though we might disagree with their position, we recognize their right as individuals to have them in opposition to our position, not pressuring them to become "one" with us, in finding "one" common position to have "rights"―common-ism AKA communism AKA communitarianism, i.e. majority vote is negated in the process of consensus, i.e. individual rights, under God, are negated in the praxis of consensus, where the voice of the "village" is over and against the voice of the Father).

While an institution might be created to serve and protect the individual citizen and his rights under God, it can (through the "ether of the brain" of the "leadership" and "followers") take on a life of its own and therefore must destroy the individual citizen, under God, in its effort to serve and protect itself (even doing so, deceiving itself and taking pleasure in deceiving others, in "the name of the Lord").

The following section is from A précis of the Introduction to the Articles.

    Philosophy, i.e. which is our "ought," i.e. is of our flesh, our mind and the world being drawn to "oneness," ties us to a generalized sensation of universality with that which is not of the particular, not of the specific, i.e. not of the Father and his commands regarding right and wrong, i.e. not of our soul and of our conscience.  For instance the Ten commandments are specific, dealing with the soul of man (dealing with every man on an individual bases).  To lie has no age discrimination (or location discrimination).  Whether three, thirty-three, or ninety-three (or in "communist" China, "democratic" America, or "socialist" England―all three being the same, i.e. dialectic in structure or order), the awareness of "wrong" (conviction) is associated with lying (as long as the person is not a product of dialectic 'reasoning' where lying, renamed "appropriate information," is considered "good" when used for the 'purpose' of social 'change,' a generalized perception of  life which is necessary for the procedure of "mediation," i.e. finding "common" ground through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus).  What Karl Marx called the "ether of the brain" (The Holy Family) allows us to generalize things ("tolerate ambiguity") so that we can circumvent the specifics (the conscience) which brings judgment upon our thoughts and actions, dividing us from ourselves (from our carnal nature) and from others (from the world) according to established rights and wrongs (established for all times and for all places), i.e. rules and commands which we have embraced as the right way of thinking and acting, according to dialectic 'reasoning, the "negative" condition of righteousness which is engendered through the Father's authority to use "chastening," used to initiate and sustain His "top-down" order, his "old fashioned" way of "doing business."

  "To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.  For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
    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. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it."

    According to dialectic 'reasoning,' good and evil has to be "sense experienced" by man, and "rationally" weighted according to his pain-pleasure spectrum (his carnal nature, i.e. according to that which is of his own sensuousness―which is to "avoid pain-approach pleasure," with the sensation of pleasure being the highest "good") before it is known (Gnosis) as good or evil (rationally understood), making all things material, i.e. all things bound to man's own nature of sensuousness―where "cosmic consciousness" is simply man's love for himself and the world, united as "one," all "working together" for the universal "good," united as one in creating a "better" world for "all," becoming "one" in a world of "pleasure," i.e. in love, i.e. in Eros (call it agape all you want, agape being a fruit of the Spirit not a "fruit" of the flesh, i.e. of human nature in love with itself), i.e. dialectically 'discovering' a world that was there all the time (only being repressed for a time by the restraints of righteousness, i.e. by the Father's commands to do "good" and not do "evil" according to His will so that reasoning itself, i.e. the "divine spirit" could be 'discovered' and known to man, becoming his "savior") i.e. only inhibited by a time of faith before reason came along and 'liberated' "love," i.e. Eros from righteousness, and man's will (to be himself, made in his image) from the will of the Father (to be like Him, made in His image).  Thereby, through the deceitfulness and wickedness of dialectic 'reasoning, righteousness (in the thoughts and actions of men) is negated.  Man's soul is thus "sense perceived" by those of dialectic 'reasoning,' as being only of the creation, sensuous, of nature only, i.e. of the "spirit" of the world, i.e. having a sense of and desire for "oneness" with the world, i.e. with the cosmos, with the souls of all men coming together as "one" cosmic soul through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning," i.e. through the consensus process being put into social action, delivering man from the Father, from God, from righteousness so that man can be himself again (before God gave him His first command and threatened to judge him if he disobeyed, i.e. becoming like God himself, i.e. coming to know "good" and "evil" according to his own 'righteousness,' according to his own carnal nature, perceiving himself to be 'righteous' in his own eyes). 
    The truth is: "... the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."  Genesis 2:7    God sees us as individual souls, judging each one of us individually, according to our own thoughts and actions, holding us individually accountable to His will.  Apart from this thesis, there can only be a position antithetical to (over and against) righteousness.  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' see our soul (as Marx called it, through the "ether of the brain," i.e. through human reasoning) as of "one soul" (social in nature), our soul only having worth or value through our collective experience of consensus, i.e. through our "sense experience" of becoming at-one-with the world, i.e. becoming as "one" below, i.e. as God in the collective sense (the plural "We" becoming as "one," as "Us").  Instead of worshiping and obeying the one above (God, who is over all), through our use of dialectic 'reasoning' we worship and obey the "one" below (God, i.e. the "spirit" of man united as "one," the sensation of "oneness" in praxis, human sensuousness and human reasoning united as one in social action, etc. ruling over all).  It is only in this way that individual man can escape the issue of sin.  By finding that sin is common to all men and by calling it "human nature" he can 'justifying' himself as being "normal."  Thus, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' man is able to make sin sin (sin being the estrangement of man from God, because of the nature of man, i.e. because of his love of sensuousness, declared by God as sin, through dialectic 'reasoning' becomes the estrangement of man from man, because of the nature of God, i.e. because of His love of righteousness, declared by man as sin, thus making righteousness 'sin' and sin 'righteousness'), good evil, light dark, unrighteousness good and righteousness evil. 

The following section is from The Identification of Paradigms, Part I

The starting point in the continuum is philosophical inquiry:  Philosophy means the love of wisdom—phileo + sophia.  Sophia, the Gnostic eon seeking to understand the essence of god (i.e. love) falls out of the pleroma and, in her frustration on how to get back, gives birth to Demiurge.  Demiurge merges matter and parts of the divine spark and creates man (a Gnostic interpretation of creation).  She, along with Satan (and later a Gnostic Jesus—the Biblical anti-Christ, the heresiarchal Jesus of "love," the lawless Jesus) set out to save man from the effects of Demiurge (the Gnostic, dialectical definition of the patriarchal God, the Father of laws—dualism with flesh as evil and spirit, i.e. divine spark, as good—flesh is not evil, it is our mind set upon it which is evil, it is just flesh, from the dust of the ground, of the world, and man has no "divine spark," an essence of God which has to be returned for his wholeness to be realized), by helping man in his praxis of returning the divine spark (love) back to god (a world of love, i.e. love of the world, an orgiastic Dionysian world in consensus).  Demiurge is the Gnostic view of God as a God with laws of restraint which are counter to god's law of love (Eros).  The Demiurge 'God' is seen as the restrainer of the divine spark, preventing it from becoming actualized back to god, through enlightened man, i.e. repressing the "life impulse" within mankind, where sensuousness and spontaneity (space and time), seeking expression within the world to know themselves in the other, were blocked from doing so because of the patriarchal paradigm and its laws of restraint.  Only through man's participation in the dialectical process, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6 (Satan's anti-genesis, anti-gospel, anti-God, anti-Christ project), i.e. through the use of philosophy (discontentment toward the restraint of love, mans desire for union with the cosmos—Eros), can man (the divine spark in man, i.e. the child reaching out for the forbidden object, i.e. sensual oneness with the cosmos) find freedom from Demiurge (the patriarchal paradigm) and begin his journey down the dialectical pathway, joining others in the hope of realizing a "just," philosophical world, i.e. returning all the divine sparks back to god, who then, through the process of seeing himself from the 'other,' (conscientization; class consciousness),  and overcoming his resistance to "change," comes to know himself, having experienced and delivered himself from his opposite, i.e. god is discovered through the praxis of negating that which is not of god in oneself and in the other and thereby letting god manifest himself. There are as many variations of Gnosticism as there are groups which describe it but this example is fairly representative of them, since their core is dialectical, i.e. essence (love, Eros) coming to know itself, i.e. all is becoming

By pressuring the parent to suspend his rules, in other words, to participate in philosophical discourse with his children, in the hope of finding common ground with their children's point of view, the parent destroys the patriarch system of the home.  The moment you suspend "your rules," i.e. you don't have faith in them, you change your paradigm.

"The philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is to change it." (Karl Marx  Feuerbach Thesis #11)

"The question has previously always been: what is God? and German philosophy has answered the question in this sense: God is man." (Frederick Engels The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844)

"The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Marx, Critique)

"Dialectics thereby reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion [emotion, i.e. love. Eros]— both in the external world and in the thought of man — two sets of laws which are identical in substance." (Engels Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy)

The dialectical, Gnostic god is based upon one word, i.e. "change." Without change (change in perception from what is, to what ought to be, to what can be) he can not experience himself and thereby come to know himself.  What is missing in all of this is that the soul of man, which is God breathed, is individual and eternal. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7  The soul of man is not a part of God (stolen from him therefore collective in nature) so that the essence of man can be returned to god and god thereby restored, now enlightened from the experience, enlightened as to who he is (or can be).  No, the truth is, Man will either spend eternity in hell, separated from God (in torment), or spend eternity in heaven with God (in peace), in either case God is not changed, his love (agape) never changing, i.e. always in agreement with his law.

Karl Marx wrote:

We see that if the Christian religion knows only one Incarnation of God, speculative philosophy has as many incarnations as there are things, just as it has here in every [person-individual*] an incarnation of the Substance, of the Absolute [People-Society-Collective Whole-Community]. The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary [people-individuals] and to say in some mysterious way that there are [fat to skinny people], [happy to sad people], [colored people] and [young to old people]. But the [fat to skinny people], [happy to sad people], [colored people] and [young to old people] that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of [fat to skinny people], semblances of [happy to sad people], semblances of [colored people] and semblances of [young to old people], for they are moments in the life of ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"], this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind. Hence what is delightful in this speculation is to rediscover all the real [people-individuals] there, but as [people-individuals] which have a higher mystical significance, which have grown out of the ether of your brain and not out of the material earth, which are incarnations of ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"], of the Absolute Subject. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"], to real natural [people-individuals], you give on the contrary the natural [people-individuals] a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions [generalizations]. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"] in all the manifestations of its life — the [fat to skinny people], the [happy to sad people], the [colored people] — that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these [people-individuals], how in each one of them ["the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"] realises itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a [young to old person] to its existence as an [colored person]. Hence the value of the ordinary [people-individuals] no longer consists in their natural qualities [as individuals], but in their speculative quality [as a part of society], which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of ["the Absolute People-Society-Collective Whole-Community"].  (Karl Marx The Holy Family) emphasis added and bracketed information added or substituted as explained below.

*In the previous quotation by Karl Marx I have substituted person-individual for fruit,  People-Society-Collective Whole-Community for Fruit, people-individuals for fruits, fat to skinny people for apples, happy to sad people for pears, colored people for almonds (all people are colored except albinos), young to old people for raisins,  "the People-Society-Collective Whole-Community" for "the Fruit," the Absolute People-Society-Collective Whole-Community for "the Absolute Fruit."

If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea "Fruit", if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea "Fruit", derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then in the language of speculative philosophy — I am declaring that "Fruit" is the "Substance" of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be a pear is not essential to the pear, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea — "Fruit". I therefore declare apples, pears, almonds, etc., to be mere forms of existence, modi, of "Fruit" My finite understanding supported by my senses does of course distinguish an apple from a pear and a pear from an almond, but my speculative reason declares these sensuous differences inessential and irrelevant. It sees in the apple the same as in the pear, and in the pear the same as in the almond, namely "Fruit". Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is "the substance" — "Fruit".  Having reduced the different real fruits to the one "fruit" of abstraction — "the Fruit", speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from "the Fruit", from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea "the Fruit" as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction. (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

God is not changed, it is man who must be changed.   The soul of man is a result of God's creative power and therefore it does not have to be returned to God so that God can come to know who he is. God is not changed by the praxis of man (temporal in nature).  Man is changed by God (spiritual above nature).  All Karl Marx did, building upon, while secularizing (demythologizing), the Gnostic theme, was to define man (the individual) as at one with society (god), i.e. the individual finding his identity with society, and society (god) as at one with the individual (man), society finding its identity within the individual.  What it thus 'scientifically' discovered, through the use of the dialectical process, is that man can only find his identity by finding what he has is common with mankind, and vice versa (through the "ether of the brain," the medium of perception), making both man and god (the individual and society) dependent upon each other, "One  for all, and all for one, (the individual for society and society for the individual, man for god and god for man)" all united in Love (Eros calling itself agape to deceive the naive; "All we need is love."  the Beetles).  By getting the next generation hooked on love, the world could be changed, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm negated.

". . . to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc."  (Maslow, Management)

". . . fuse & become one—in the mystic fusion, or in the 'good death.'" (Maslow, Journals)

"Psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must affirm." "Whitehead constantly draws attention to the dialectical patterns in mystical thought.  Psychoanalysis, mysticism, poetry, the philosophy of organism, Feuerbach, 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." (Brown)

Though philosophers attempt to escape the mystic end of the dialectic process they inevitably keep running back into it. Even Karl Marx saw the mystic power in what he called speculative philosophy (philosophical interpretations). When a person goes through this mental, i.e. dialectical programming, it is no longer person, as an individual, who come to a meeting and leave as an individual but instead it starts as the meeting of "the people," i.e. the collective experience defines the individual person (the concept of individuals, coming and going as individuals, is negated as all individuals are seen as through the eyes of "the people" whatever that might be at the time).  Semblances means to be like, as in "seems to be like" or "appears as," or "appears to be," or "feels like," as in a tentative quality.  By these methods the mind is elevated "above" that which is above (above that which separates man from his social nature), negating that which is above for that which is below, i.e. the minds of men (reasoning and sensuousness united) become social in identity.  All end up looking at the individual through socialist eyes. 
    "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  Matthew 18:20  The two or three individuals never loose their individuality when they come together in Jesus' name.  When they leave, they leave as they came, as individuals in Jesus' name, i.e. not in their name, i.e. as in the group name.  Thus they do not gather together again for the group experience but assemble as individuals in Jesus' name, Jesus being "in the midst of them." When that understanding is lost then the institutional experience, the "speculative quality," the "semblances" of , "the Fruit,"  "the People,"  "the Assembly," the "gather together" experience takes over the purpose for the individual, his individuality before God, meeting with other individuals before God "gather together in Jesus name," (sharing his love for Christ with others and his love for others in Christ) is lost, i.e. swallowed up in the group experience. He then returns for the group experience, "in Jesus name."
    Turning quantity into quality is the "purpose" of those who use of the dialectical process in the heresiarchal paradigm.  For example asking a patriarchal thinking person what the whole of 20 bricks in a pile are he would respond with the quantity answer of 20 bricks.  But when the same question is asked of a heresiarchal thinking person he would respond, "It depends upon the relationship of the bricks to one another."  "Are they still in a pile or are they placed in an attractive pattern, such as a herringbone pattern, as a part of a sidewalk?"  In other words, "The whole is different than the sum of its parts."  The sum would only be the number of bricks (quantity), the whole would include the relationship of the bricks to one another (quality).  If properly arranged, they would be pleasant to walk upon and pleasant to gaze upon ("feelings" and "thought" would be pleasant, harmonious, social in nature if we were talking about people). 
    It is in this way of thinking that Marx saw "the Fruit."  The atomization of the fruit in specific categories would only be counting the fruit, i.e. quantity, but the semblance, "the mystical interconnection" between the fruit, i.e. their association with one another in likeness would reflect a quality.  It is the quality of life which socialism seeks after.  All must come into common-ism, consensus, for there to be "purpose" in life, and all must come into participation with the process to find quality.  Quality, dialectically, is a people thing.  Quality is the dialectical " fusion of fact and desire, of present and future, of existing means and projected ends..." "... when differing points of view and conflicting interests and purposes move with their mutual tensions toward a fusion of goal and into a concerted plan of action." Quality actualized, is "the fusion of the ideal and existent in a program of action." (Benne)  To the heresiarch, the dialectical process brings quality to life ("common purpose" discovered "scientifically," dialectically, materialistically, i.e. de-spiritualized), therefore life is the dialectical process in praxis (dialectically discovered "common purpose" put into social action for the sake of improving the "quality" of life).

"A group becomes a group fully only as it forms a common purpose and decides on a course of action appropriate to that purpose.  The purpose of discussion involves, therefore, the remolding of habits, attitudes, understandings and ways of working . . . in relation to the process of problem definition and solution as a whole."  "'What is our purpose at this point?'  is recognized as one of the most helpful questions that can be asked . . ."  "Purpose:  . . . the building of group-centered attitudes and . . .  the perpetuation of such group-centered behavior." (Kenneth Bennie Human Relations in Curriculum Change) emphasis added

According to dialectic 'reasoning (according to those who seek to unite theory and practice), it is in human thought comprehending (reflecting upon) human action that morality (universality) comes into being. "... 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" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud)  Thus when we think and act upon how we "feel," (and how others "feel"), becoming more at-one-with the world (in consensus, i.e. a "feeling" of "oneness" with "the group," with "the village," communitarianism) rather than upon what we "believe" (or are told to believe) we are becoming less "neurotic" (divisive) and more human (becoming at-one-with the world in the "mystic" sense).  According to Abraham Maslow the 'purpose' of life is "To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc."  (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)  In The Holy Family, Karl Marx (talking about the many fruit and The Fruit) referred to this "cosmic consciousness," as a product of the "ether of the brain," where man can comprehend the universality of the many parts, identifying with that which all the parts have in common and thereafter seeing all the parts in the "light" of the "one" and therefore see the "light" (the divine spark") of the "one" in all the parts (in their sub-conscious seeking unity, i.e. "oneness" with the world, for Karl Marx, "only of  nature"). 

The following section is from "Controlling" crime is using crime (to control the people). It is not stopping crime. -  Changing the conscience (the voice of the one above) into a "super-ego" (the voice of "the village" below) for the 'purpose' of 'change.'

The "authorities," now dependent upon the advice of social-psychologists (who work to negate the "guilty conscience,' the voice of the one, by engendering the "super-ego," the voice of the many, united as if they are one).  They no longer depend upon the word of God or the traditions of the family (which engenders the "guilty conscience").  They are now 'purposed' in 'liberating' the individual from the "repression" of the "top-down" system of the traditional family (a "top-down" system reflected in the gang system where the youth are trying to restore that "top-down" system in their lives, only this time without a "guilty conscience").  Therefore, the authorities, instead of inculcating a "guilty conscience" in those they confront in the act of crime, they set out to bring them into dialogue (into therapy).

Freud, along with Marx, rule over the minds and thoughts of those in authority in America today, without most Americans being aware of it.  According to Freud, the pathway of "repression" (and crime) in civilization ("the neurosis of civilization), is caused by the patriarchal figure. "The primal father, ... the archetype of domination, [who] initiates the chain reaction of enslavement, rebellion, and the reinforced domination which marks the history of civilization." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud).   "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression."   "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

According to Freud, the sequence of "historical" events which initiated repression began when the sons sought after sexual relations (sensual pleasure: touch, taste, sight, sound, smell—it is important to note that, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' sensual pleasure is not for the purpose of procreation, but for the satisfaction of "felt" needs, sensual urges, which 'justifies' not only adultery but also homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, sado-masochism, i.e. abomination) with their mother (triggering events which led up to the "Oedipus complex," the desire of the son to have a sexual, i.e. sensual, i.e. orgiastic relationship with the mother, i.e. with nature).  The problems of "civilization" began when the children, who's desired it was was to "relate" with their mother, were driven out of the family (as God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden) by the Father because of their "polymorphously perverse behavior," the curiosity of the child to know (experientially know) the gratifying object which drew him to it (which to Freud was absolutely "normal" behavior on the part of the children and the mother).  The bastard children (now treated as such), driven out of the family (separated from the sensual pleasures of their siblings and mother) come to a consensus to kill the Father (like the famous "tennis court" oath of the French Revolution, the consensus to kill the King) and restore the family back to "human nature."  According to Freud, "... the prehistory of the sense of guilt ... has 'its origin in the Oedipus complex and was acquired when the father was killed by the association of the brothers.' [the brotherhood, the fraternity]" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   While, according to Freud, the sons succeeded in killing (and eating, i.e. annihilating) the father figure, to regain sensuous relationship with their mother and their siblings (which was forbidden by the father, i.e. "taboo"), their praxis of domination (to restore order, i.e. to be like their Father) produced a "guilty conscience" within them, which resulted in their re-establishing laws of "repression" upon themselves and the clan, establishing rules, separating ("repressing") all from initiating and sustaining sensuous relationship ("self-actualized 'felt' needs") with the mother.  As a result, civilization was re-created in an abnormal way, with man becoming schizophrenic (man split into two parts, with 'reality,' obeying unnatural laws, i.e. the Father's rules, being unnatural, suppressing the 'real,' i.e. natural laws, i.e. "human nature"): "... original domination becomes eternal, cosmic, and good, and in this form guards the process of civilization," "repressing" man with a "top-down" form of government.  "The 'historical rights' of the primal father are restored."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  As Karl Marx put it "The life [the authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [the Father, by obeying him] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force."  (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Supposedly, with the expansion of the "guilty conscience," which followed the sons killing of their father, "the despot-patriarch has succeeded in implanting his reality principle in the rebellious sons." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  The patriarchal paradigm, the father figure (i.e. the "top-down" husband-wife-children hierarchal institute), the bourgeois (the middle-class establishment), dominate again the matriarchal paradigm, the mother (i.e. mother-earth or natural resources), thereby preventing the heresiarchal paradigm, the adolescent, the proletariat (the lower class), from attaining self-actualization (i.e. 'liberating' the praxis of incest, manifested in the sibling-mother-father orgiastic consensus).  When men follow the "logic" of Freud, instead of bending your knee before God (fearing God, the "one" above) they bend your knee before "the village" (fearing man, the "collective" below), seeking after men for your daily "felt" (sensuous, carnal) needs. "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

It is man's 'drive' to be at-one-with the earth that engenders man's so called "super-ego," that, with the help of dialectic 'reasoning' gives man 'purpose' in negating the "guilty conscience," along with its source, the traditional "top-down" family system.  Again: Freud believed:  "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression [the Father's system of authority demanding righteousness]—a  'barrier to incest' [a barrier to the children's nature of spontaneity and sensuousness]... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [the permissive mother who is tolerant of sensuousness, the mothers whose heart is not toward her husband but toward herself and her children]—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [engendered fraternity―bipartisanship and consensus, with all uniting upon the system of sensuousness―all united upon the sensuousness of "human nature"]." The problem arises, according to Freud (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning'), when the newly liberated children, out of fear of what will happen to the clan, restore the "old" "top-down" order of the Father. "The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration [the restoration of government to "top-down" re-presentation (not mediation, i.e. consensus, i.e. uniting upon the "common ground" of man's carnal "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. according to "human nature"), instead restoring a system of right and wrong, retaining the 'guilty' conscience].... The crime against the reality principle [against the Fatherthe system of righteousness] is redeemed [undone] by the crime against the pleasure principle [against the children―the system of sensuousness]: redemption thus cancels itself [the system of sensuousness, doing that which comes natural, is thwarted because of the 'guilty' conscience, the remnants of the system of righteousness, doing the Father's will]." "... according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros  [of sensuousness] itself."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  Marx set out to negate the external Father figure through society (sociology) put into action (killing the Fathers and their authority system), Freud set out to negate the internal Father figure in the individual, through psychology.  Both (united in the praxis of social-psychology―Transformational Marxism), are facilitated in meetings today to put into praxis the annihilation of the Father system, i.e. the traditional home, and its residue, i.e. the "guilty conscience." 

Without man's "willing" participation in the 'change' process, i.e. 'changing' of the "guilty conscience" into the "super-ego," man remains subject to the authority of the Father, subject to righteousness, subject to God.  Adorno, in his book, The Authoritarian Personality, wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it all depends upon the structure (the paradigm) of the home.  "Pre-genital  morality [abomination] is an identification with the mother." [Its repression] "is bound up with the Father."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

The conscience of your local policeman, raised up in a traditional home (or respecting and desiring it), is 'changed' into a "super-ego" (adaptable to 'change') when he is "taken across the county line" (to a facilitated meeting of 'change') and "encouraged" to find "common ground" with diversity (learning to seek after "common-ism," what man has in common with one another, i.e. "how he 'feels' and what he 'thinks'").  He will come home 'changed,' (you can't talk to him any more, responding to your questions as though he had had a lobotomy) now more loyal to the institutions of 'change' than to the principles (and rights) of the family's and the individuals in his neighborhood, i.e. seeing them through his newly 'discovered' socialist eyes  ("Having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears." Karl Marx "There is no fear of God before their eyes" Romans 3:18), i.e. through their "super-ego" (gray, i.e. seeing the individual through the needs of society, according to its ever 'changing' needs―his "ether of the brain," as Karl Marx called it, taking control of his thoughts and actions, filtering the citizens actions thereafter through his perception of social needs, i.e. socialist needs, i.e. "common"-unity needs), not through the eyes of the conscience, where right and wrong (black and white) is determined according to the traditions of "the past," where a person is honest, does not lie (deceive people to "collect information"), and respects private property, treating it as private, not public, seeing it through the home owners eyes, not through the eyes of "the group."  But then again, spanking (right and wrong) is out and dialogue is in (opinions are in).  When that happens you end up with a "police state."  (Quotes following to show you that this is what is happening.)  Without a strong conscience in the people you need cameras at very street corner (a "big brother," police state) since no one is going to tell you the truth.  Why should they?  Social concerns (which require compromise, not truth) having become the issue of life, the way to do business.  "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the Greek word for "deeds" is praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."  Colossians 3:9, 10  It you create yourself in your own image, according to "human nature," calling it "normal," you live a lie (you must praxis lying).  If you are renewed in the image of God, repenting of your sins, following Him, you live in the truth (you know the truth).

The following section is from Diaprax

Therefore, if reasoning is not made subject to the system of righteousness (the Fathers will, correlated secularly, dialectically, as the patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness, i.e. the bourgeoisie), it will be used to 'justify' the system of sensuousness (the child's will, correlated secularly, dialectically, as the heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness,' i.e. the proletariat) Then, if reasoning is made subject to the system of sensuousness ('changingness'), it will be used to negate (treat as irrelevant) the system of righteousness (unchangingness).  Sensuousness, liberated from righteousness through human reasoning, will be put into social action (praxis) annihilating the father figure, i.e. annihilating the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. annihilating the bourgeoisie).  Diaprax is the praxis of patricide via. incest 'justified' (consensus). "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."  ''This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."  Galatians 4:29, 5:16

    Since those who live by the dialectical process looks at everything through systems (systems analysis), i.e. the way man feels, thinks and acts.  A man's feelings, thoughts, and actions (his way of thinking and acting) is graded along a spectrum of 'changeability,' according to his 'changingness,' his adaptability to 'change,' while under pressure, i.e. his 'changingness' of system or paradigm, i.e. progressing (progressivism) from a system of stability (absolutes) to a system of 'change' (relativism), i.e. along a spectrum or continuum, from a patriarchal paradigm (obedience to higher authority which restrains sensuousness, i.e. inhibiting or blocking 'change)' through a matriarchal paradigm (which is sensuous in nature, i.e. initiating and sustaining individual 'change') to a heresiarchal paradigm (which initiates and sustains social 'change' via. "the ether of the brain," i.e. the deceitful and manipulative use of sensuousness).  A persons history is manifested by where along this spectrum he is at any given 'moment.'  This is reflected in the development of curriculum for the classroom, according to "Bloom's Taxonomies," from "lower order thinking" to "higher order thinking," in a progression from translation (literal), interpretation (opinion), to extrapolation (relative, conditional, situational), progressing from facts which restrain 'change,' through feelings which cry out for 'change,' to "rational- sensual justification" of 'changingness.'  Man (human nature, the basis of "human rights") is the system of sensuousness (carnal, of the flesh, worldly, of below) which requires 'change' since "peace" (the feeling of satisfaction or contentment, i.e. "all is well") is always momentary (temporary, i.e. temporal, only found in the 'moment' since the body, i.e. the flesh, and the mind set upon it, can only experience pleasure―Dopamine emancipation―which fades with time, i.e. becomes satiated and then dissolves, which needs new environmental or mental stimulation at an ever increasing level to renew its sensation of pleasure again, resulting in a spiraling process of 'changingness'―thus the natural 'drive' to control (and augment) the environment which stimulates pleasure, and the 'drive' to negate anything or anyone who inhibits or blocks the pursuit of sensual pleasure, i.e. the sensation of "peace," as the world understands peace), hope being founded upon happiness, happiness being founded upon pleasure, pleasure being founded upon the mind (awareness upon what in the natural environment is stimulating a sensation of pleasure), and the mind being founded upon the body stimulated from environmental conditions which engender the sensuousness of pleasure.  "Peace" is therefore the liberation of lust via. the negation of the condition (righteousness) which exposes and condemns human nature, "lust," as being evil.  God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the system of righteousness (Holy, Spiritual, heavenly, from above, the basis of "inalienable rights"), which is not sensual (carnal) in nature, thus never changing―God's peace not needing 'change,' not dependent upon sensuousness.
While man may use the system of righteousness he can never be righteous in and of himself, only using the office of top-down authority, the system of righteousness (having a form of Godliness), using the office for his own gain (for his own sensuousness, i.e. for his own pleasure; "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: ... For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure;"  Hebrews 12:9a, 10b), therefore only having temporal power (the power of the sword, i.e. the "rod of correction," having power over only the flesh) but having no spiritual power (no power over the soul), no righteousness in and of himself (righteousness only being found in God).  In Diaprax, man is deceived and manipulated into accepting righteousness as being equal with, subject to, or irrelevant to the system of sensuousness, thereby handing his soul over to the system of sensuousness (to attain or retain the sensuous pleasures of this world).  While Abel loved God, who is righteous, Cane loved the praises (or blessings) of God, which is sensuous.  It is a subtle difference but with major consequences.
    Diaprax is man, the system of sensuousness, claiming equality with and therefore usurping the system of righteousness (as was first done in Genesis 3:1-6) via. praxis of the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation.  Diaprax is man usurping the authority of God, taking that which is not his to take, gaining the world (momentarily) but losing his soul (permanently). "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."  Galatians 6:8   Diaprax is the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation (man's kingdom, the children ruling, the lawless ruling, i.e. the laws of the flesh ruling, a system of 'change,' an open system of relativity with 'grace' and 'mercy' according to man's will) attempting to negate the system of righteousness (God's kingdom, the Father ruling, the lawful, i.e. the Law, the Word, and the Spirit from above ruling, a system of 'fixity,' a closed system of absolutes with grace and mercy according to the Father's will) by making God's kingdom (the kingdom of righteousness, "It is written," 'categorical imperatives' preached and taught) subject to the kingdom of man (the kingdom of sensuousness, "I think," "I feel" 'opinions' dialogued).  Dialectical thought has an absolute, i.e. "the mind" freeing (liberating) itself from any absolute which is not in harmony with nature (liberating man from anything alienating him from self-nature-social consciousness, annihilating the system of righteousness from preventing his self-actualization with the world experience of oneness becoming; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). 
    In Diaprax, the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation can not successfully 'liberate' itself from the system of righteousness without the assistance of the system of sensuousness, that is, without people become subject to the influence and control of 'change agents,' facilitators, etc., (Satan) who are properly train in the art craft of initiating and sustaining an environment which engenders and sustains the 'change' process (liberating the mind from the fear of God so that it can be free to 'question everything'―"critical theory"―and become at-one with human nature), i.e. the dialectical process put into social practice (praxis).  I will retain the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation within the system of sensuousness throughout this article so as keep the article from being to burdensome in terms.  Just understand that the system of righteousness (God and His Word) restrains the system of sensuousness (human nature) while the system of sensuousness, deceitfulness, and manipulation (human reasoning, i.e. human relationship 'justification' by consensus) must liberate the system of sensuousness (human nature) from the system of righteousness (fear of God, i.e. threat of punishment) if it is to be utilize for the 'purpose' of social change (praxis), which is the annihilation of the system of righteousness, the negation of Love of God and His Word (which are not sensuous based), or secularly the negation of non-sensual restraints upon children, workers, government―non-sensual restraints made possible by the freedom of the conscience of the citizens.
    Government (the group) must fear the citizen (the individual) who has a conscience, not the citizens (the individual) fear the government (the group) which can not have a conscience, if the citizen (the individual) is to have liberty, i.e. freedom of the conscience.  If the citizen or individual fears the group (goes along with the group for social approval, i.e. fears group rejection) within the consensus (socialist, democratic, common-ist) process, when the group annihilates (negates) a citizen or an individual in the consensus group setting and they are silent for fear of it happening to them, they will fear the consensus (socialist, democratic, common-ist) government when it annihilates a citizen or individual in the public setting and stand by in silence as well.  Silence and "cooperation" in the group setting guarantees silence and "cooperation" in the social setting.  Its called conditioning (common-ist conditioning).  That's why the "learning" environment is called a laboratory, where the fear of receiving pain (chastening) is replaced with the fear of losing out on pleasure (social rejection), where people are "reprogrammed" in a controlled environment.
    For example: preaching or teaching a message of righteousness (presenting good and evil as proclaimed from above when moved by God to do so) in an environment or system of sensuousness, yet 'willingly' putting aside your position (doctrine or belief) when asked to do so for the 'moment,' for the 'betterment' of all (doing so for the cause of  the 'good' of all, for the 'betterment' and approval of mankind), you do so for the fear of rejection by the group and the fear of losing what the group promises to offer you, the system of deception and manipulation is successful in teaching everyone present "the truth in unrighteousness."  Romans 1:18  By trusting in 'leadership' which promises 'a better life for all' if they 'trustingly' followed them (without weighing their thoughts and actions from the Word of God, taking their every thought "captive to the obedience of Christ"), people are deceived into participating in the system of sensuousness, and manipulated into putting aside absolutes, suspend the conscience, 'changing' the conscience into a super-ego.  The sensation of 'change,' for the sake of initiating and sustaining human relationships (fear of loosing out, fear of becoming an outcast, fear of alienation) therefore becomes the 'driving' force and 'purpose' for 'change.'  After this type of conditioning, having made truth subject to the system of sensuousness (human relationships and prosperity), some may 'momentarily' hear the truth you share with them (if you can get them past the 'glassed over look') but will not continue to grow in it, or, like the rocky and thorn infested soils of Mark 4:1-20, will abandon the truth for the things of this world when difficult times come upon them or old temptations reappear (they become fearful of losing the sensuousness which they are still holding onto or sensuousness entices them and they follow it).  This is where we find the 'church' today with its leadership trained in the system of deception and manipulation, i.e. church 'leaders' skilled in the use of the dialectical process to "grow" the church, i.e. 'growing' it upon the system of sensuousness.
    The two, sensuousness and righteousness (the system of sensuousness and the system of righteousness) can never become one since they are anathema toward one another. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."  Galatians 5:17 Diaprax is the system of sensuousness 'driven' with the 'purpose' of negating the system of righteousness by taking its place as 'righteousness,' (the dialectical error―Hegel's error―is to start with the premise that man is either basically good or neither good nor evil, i.e. that his environmental upbringing or influences, i.e. how he thinks and acts, helps determine a good or evil outcome, that law and purpose are not found in any particular object, i.e. God or parent, but are a quality, i.e. a "-ness," a sensation relevant to the 'moment'), having a form of 'righteousness' (perceiving himself or his way of thinking or acting as being 'good'), but denying its power (rejecting absolute dependence upon God above, who is the only source of good or righteousness) by depending upon sensuousness below to 'know' the truth (good from evil), therefore ever learning but never understanding, ever experiencing but unable to comprehend the truth since the person in Diaprax is looking for truth in the wrong places (in the creation, in the stars, in man, in angels, etc., in that which is sensuous), through the wrong thing (through man, i.e. by his reasoning through or yielding to that which is deceitful and wicked, i.e. reasoning through his unrepentant, unregenerate, sensuous 'driven' heart―reasoning for that which he falsely perceives as being good, thus categorizing the "heartless world" system, the system of righteousness, which "oppresses" it or has to "clean" it, as being evil or corrupt―as was espoused by Karl Marx.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."  Marx, Critique),  2 Timothy 3.

The following section is from Diaprax: A spiraling process of 'changingness.'

    The 'success' of Diaprax is in the 'changing' of environmental conditions from the system of righteousness (a thesis, "as given," position-"It is written" experience, which requires, faith, belief, and obedience in that which is not of the "immediate," sensuous, internal natural environment, a system restraining, i.e. inhibiting or blocking Dopamine emancipation via. chastening when necessary―dialectically "sense perceived" as being counter to, not in harmony with, or antithetical to nature, thus super-natural, above nature, Spiritual, transcending nature) to the system of sensuousness (which is of the "immediate," sensuous, internal-external natural environment, requiring little or no effort in stimulating Dopamine emancipation) by (with the help of, i.e. facilitated by) the system of reasoning: seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. 'purposed' in liberating Dopamine emancipation ('rationally' liberating the system of sensuousness, i.e. synthesizing that which is natural to man with the world and that which is natural to the world with man, i.e. 'changingness' based upon sensuousness) from the restraints of the system of righteousness (restraining man from that which is natural to and common between man and the world), liberating man from that which is not of, not in agreement with, and/or restrains natural behavior―physical, mentally, and socially (this is the formula for the common-ist "health care package").  While God changes man's heart (making it righteous), making it no longer at-one-with the world, Diaprax 'changes' the world (negating the system of righteousness), so that man's heart can no longer be trusting of God, so that man no longer fears God and loves his word.  The fear of judgment (accountability to the standards set by the system of righteousness upon the system of sensuousness, i.e. the parent's restraints upon, i.e. control over the child's natural spontaneous and sensuous behavior by the use of force or threat of force, i.e. through the use of chastening, i.e. pain or fear of pain, i.e. judgment or fear of judgment, i.e. restraining, i.e. "suppressing," i.e. "repressing" his natural impulses) inhibits or blocks the system of 'changingness' (prevents the system of sensuousness, i.e. Dopamine emancipation) from taking place (from being "liberated").  Thus, whoever 'controls' the environment controls man's perception of the environment, controls that which stimulates human impulse (man's, unrestrained, natural lust for Dopamine emancipation), ultimately controls man's behavior.  In Diaprax, while chastening, used to restraining sensuousness, 'justifies' righteousness, liberation from chastening 'justifies' sensuousness negating righteousness.

    Dopamine emancipation is not value neutral.  Whoever controls the environment which stimulates Dopamine emancipation, (affirms, liberates, emancipates, and/or augments) man's natural lust for the things of the world, i.e. worldliness, or restrains (inhibits or blocks) man's natural lust for the things of the world, controls human behavior "for good or for evil," based upon which system or paradigm (righteousness-reasoning or sensuousness-reasoning, i.e. reasoning from righteousness, i.e. deductive reasoning or reasoning from sensuousness, inductive reasoning) is in control of the environment. Thus the intended use of 'Bloom's Taxonomies' in education since the 50's is to produce a world of 'changingness,' i.e. where the augmentation of a persons natural lust for the world (where lust is used for the creation of a "new" order of the world order) is not sin, to be judged (preached and taught) as evil by a system of righteousness, but rather sin is a natural ('normal') behavior of all mankind (a product of the system of sensuousness) which must be liberated in an "open ended," "non-offensive," dialogic, dialectic environment and augmented (properly utilized) for/by the system of reasoning: seduction, deception, and manipulation, if the 'goodness' (common-ism) of all of mankind is to be actualized.  All who are made subject to Bloom's "Higher Order Thinking Skills" in morals and ethics (not a true taxonomy of rocks, plants, and animals but a 'psychological taxonomy,' i.e. a Transformational Marxist, i.e. Marx-Freud synthesis, i.e. social-psychology curriculum used in almost all classrooms today, Christian schools included) are programmed to evaluate 'truth' through their sensuous values (what brings pleasure to them in the 'light' of their perception of what brings pleasure to all of mankind) and are thus mentally, emotionally, and socially possessed with the justification of the system of sensuousness over and against the system of righteousness.  By making the cognitive domain (knowing, i.e. supporting the system of righteousness) subject to (or equal with) the affective domain (feeling, i.e. of the system of sensuousness) by the utilization of the psycho-motor domain (action or praxis) through role-playing (which liberates the person of the system of righteousness), the person is no longer capable to thinking past (outside of) feelings, i.e. sensuousness (their "sense experience" of Dopamine emancipation, i.e. their psychical and social environment) as a basis for 'discovering' and 'knowing' 'truth,' i.e. they are 'dumbed down' to where they can no longer think ('reason') outside of social-sensuous consciousness (what does the group or village think), and are now mentally, emotionally, and physically controlled by what Karl Marx called the "ether of the brain" (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Cognition (knowledge), Affection (feelings), and Psycho-motor (action) are thus based upon sensuousness.  In this way of thinking and acting, extrapolation, i.e. the use of inductive reasoning to select 'appropriate' information (reasoning: seduction, deception, and manipulation), guides interpretation, i.e. the use of opinions (sensuousness), in influencing translation, i.e. decoding the language of the 'good life' ('righteousness') negates the 'old' order of the world (of the system of righteousness) where translation (knowledge of the truth "as given" by God or parent), i.e. deductive reasoning, directs (guides and restraints) interpretation (feelings and opinions) in extrapolating proper thoughts and actions in the moment.  Thus all thoughts and actions are based upon 'discovering' and 'utilizing' common human sense experience and common human sense based reasoning in creating the 'new' order of the world.

The following section is from A Plus -A equals A

 "Democratization has encouraged people to participate, 'glasnost' has allowed them to articulate their feelings, and pluralism has legitimated the rights of groups to form on the basis of a consciousness of self-interest."  (David Lane, Soviet Society under Perestroika )

    Righteousness can not work "in harmony with" sensuousness nor can it be "added to" by (leavened with) sensuousness, i.e. be made subject to the "will" of sensuousnessSensuousness must always be subject to righteousness for righteousness to remain righteousness. Adding 'unity' (based upon sensuousness) to all human praxis 'justifies' the praxis of negating and annihilating the system of Righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chasten (in, to, and from a higher authority), in a person's life and in his 'community' ("in theory and in practice,"  i.e. "theoretically and practically"  Karl Marx).  For example: by "simply" adding the system of sensuousness to the church, to help "grow" the church in 'unity,' makes it an apostate church, makes it a church dedicated to ('driven' in) the praxis of negating and annihilating the system of Righteousness for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining community, i.e. common-unity which can only be 'rationally' built upon sensuousness.
    Systems used have consequences.  "Nations" of dialectical 'righteousness,' i.e. of 'changingness,' kill their own citizens (purifying, i.e. purging, the environment of the top-down system of righteousness, i.e. negating "ingroup-outgroup," i.e. righteousness-unrighteousness, i.e. saved-lost thinking, having negated, in the mind, i.e. in the "sense perception" of the individual citizen, and annihilated, in the mind of 'society,' i.e. in the 'collective mind' of the citizen, i.e. in man's "sense perception" of himself in "societies eyes," i.e. in "the ether of the brain," as Karl Marx defined it, the necessity for the sovereignty of the individual, home, the state, and the nation under God, i.e. its 'citizens' now 'driven' with the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining "human rights," i.e. common-unity rights, "social-ist rights," i.e. global-ist - environmental-ist rights, i.e. common-ist rights, negating 'inalienable rights' through the praxis of 'human-ist rights') while nations of the system of Righteousness 'serve and protect' (at least with a semblance) their individual citizens from all enemies "foreign and domestic" (serving, protecting, and defending their citizen from those who might seek to negate and annihilate their top-down system of righteousness, i.e. take away their "inalienable rights," i.e. usurp their individual rights, i.e. attack the patriarch family's rights, under God)While dialectical 'righteousness' is at first perceived as offering liberty and prosperity it always ends up in tyranny, i.e. the tyranny of the masses, i.e. the killing of its own citizens for 'righteousness' sake, i.e. for society sake.  Vanity, greed, and envy have always been the catalyst for 'change.'

    "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 16:25 
    "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.  And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain
['driven' by their own sensuousness]Therefore let no man glory in men." 1 Corinthians 3:18-21 bracketed information added.

The following section is from Introduction to Articles

    Truth, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is found in "sense experience" (through sensuousness) rather than in established laws and commands (in righteousness).  'Truth' must therefore be 'changeable' (must be 'rationally' relevant to the 'moment,' i.e. make 'sense' in the 'light' of the current situation, i.e. be only of nature) or it is not real.  (According to Marx, reality, the "absolute subject," can only come out of the "ether of the brain." Karl Marx, the Holy Family)  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' truth which is 'irrational' (not sensual, not carnal, not natural) is 'irrelevant' to the "big picture." The dialectic fear is, if righteousness is given power to rule over the affairs of man it will inhibit or block man's 'quest' to initiate and sustain social harmony and world peace ("self-actualize" unity in social praxis).  Therefore righteousness must be negated, not only in the thoughts of man but also in his social actions, if man is to know himself as he really is, i.e. carnal, i.e. natural, i.e. only of the world, i.e. working for a "new" world order, where only he (collectively) is god.  This is the only 'truth' which can be known, i.e. be acceptable to man, according to dialectic 'reasoning.'
    The truth is, it is only in righteousness, that which is only found in Christ (imputed by Him to men of faith in Him) that man can know the truth, i.e. know who he is, where he came from, and where he is going.  Apart from the truth which is in Christ (Christ is the truth) all that man has is his ability to 'justify' himself, i.e. 'justify' his carnal nature, i.e. 'justify' his lust for the things of this world, using his 'reasoning' abilities to glorify himself, glorify that which is created, rather than, through faith, glorifying God who created all things.   Man's heart being wicked (unregenerate), can only engender a world of wickedness (sustain a world of unrighteousness and lies).
    Carnal man, in and of himself, can not comprehend (understand) that which is Spiritual, that which is of God, that which is of righteousness, i.e. 'unchanging,' holy, sacred, pure, perfect, good.  His carnal nature, that which is of the world, of the earth, can only comprehend that which is temporal, that which is of sensuousness, that which is of unrighteousness, i.e. 'changing,' secular, impure, imperfect, perverse.  Spiritual, according to mans carnal nature and his 'reasoning' to justify it, can only be that force which unites (draws) man to nature itself, i.e. 'drives' him to be at one with himself and nature in a condition of peace, i.e. guaranteed sustenance (bread) and leisure ("enjoyment" or pleasure).  Without God revealing himself, i.e. his love, mercy, and grace, through His word, through His only begotten son Jesus Christ, man can not know of God's true nature, i.e. of His love, mercy, and grace.  Without the Holy Spirit, man can not know God's true nature, i.e. His love, mercy, and grace ('"joy unspeakable" and peace that "transcends understanding") whereby he is able to endure the tribulations which comes from the world against him, i.e. against righteousness.  It is only in the righteousness of Christ, imputed to men of faith in Him, that the nature of God is manifested in the hearts, minds, and actions of a man.  While man can know of God (know there is a god), recognizing the order of creation, they can not know Him, apart from his revealed word, i.e. in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015