Concerning fathers:
Why the culture war of 'change' must negate the father's authority if it is to win.  It appears to be winning


Dean Gotcher

The dialectic process would not exist but for the father figure.  The whole intent of dialectic 'reasoning' is the negation of the father's authority to give commands to his children which restrain their "human nature" and chasten them when they disobey him, (instead of allowing the children to follow after their "natural inclination" to comply with their "human nature" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure).  Dialectic 'reasoning' is the "negation of negation."  In other words the negating (the getting rid of) the authority which prevents (which inhibits or blocks) man (in this case the children) from doing that which they "want" to do, i.e. that which is "natural."  It is the negation of that which is "negative."  "Positive" being that which is pleasing to "human nature."  "Negative" being that which inhibits or blocks that which is pleasing to "human nature."  "Human nature" being man's (or the child's) "natural inclination" to "approach pleasure and avoid pain," (which ties him to the world).

Pleasure is the sensation a person experiences as a result of encountering or imagining something in the environment which is gratifying to the body.  It is the result of dopamine emancipation (sometimes along with other chemicals the body naturally produces and releases into the nervous system, i.e. in the synaptic gap or into the body) which engenders the sensation of "want."  It triggers the reaction of looking into the environment to identity the gratifying object which stimulated it's emancipation and then moving in the direction of the gratifying object to relate with it (apprehend or control it) for more dopamine emancipation.  By controlling it or controlling the environment in which the gratifying object exists the person can continue or hope to continue the pleasure of dopamine emancipation.  All habitual drugs are tied to dopamine in some way, imitating it, liberating its emancipation, or preventing its reuptake or absorption by the body.  People will steal and even kill to initiate and sustain control over the gratifying object or the environment which contains the gratifying object that engenders the sensation of dopamine emancipation.

Pain is not only the sensation of discomfort but also the absence of pleasure.  Whether stepping on a nail or not being able to do that which you "want" to do, pain is engendered within the body (made aware of in the mind).

Therefore both pleasure and pain are not only physical in nature but also mental and social as well.  Pain being "negative" and pleasure "positive" our "human nature" is "naturally inclined" to approach that which is "positive" and avoid that which is "negative."  Therefore the objective of dialectic 'reasoning' (uniting man and nature as "one" in pleasure, in the 'moment') is not only to negate (get rid of) the object or condition in the environment which engenders pain, physically, but also negate the object or condition in the environment which engenders pain mentally and socially.

Chastening engenders pain not only physically but also mentally (fear of doing wrong, getting caught, and being punished or fear of missing out or no longer having, i.e. anxiety) and socially (alienation, i.e. separation from, as well as alienating that which is of the world, that which is gratifying to one's nature―whether consciously or unconsciously, i.e. whether being aware of it or not aware of it in the 'moment').

Therefore it is the condition or environment of the father's authority which is of most interest to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' whether they are aware of it or not.  The father's authority creates and sustains an environment of either-or, an environment of obey me or else.  In language form, a "Can or can not" and an "is."  The "can or can not" setting policy on what the child can or can not do in relationship with the environment (in regards to nature, i.e. his own and the world) and the "is" is the father's authority to set those standards, as in "No, you can not go out" and "Because I said so."  The first setting policy.  The second threatening to enforce it or enforcing it.  To the flesh, man's "human nature," this is all quite "negative."  The former command is only an opinion, as in "two plus two is four," but the second makes it rigid, absolute, unchanging, as in "and can not be any other number." 

The father's language of authority is the same language as of science, fixed laws, established for all times and places (man, or in this case the children only having the ability to know and apply them).  While in science, man has to 'discover' the laws, they have always existed, just not in his knowledge.  With the father giving commands it is not up to the child to 'discover' the laws but to know them, as the father imparts them, and apply them.  It is here that dialectic 'reasoning' sets it course toward the negation of the father's authority, rejecting revelation, the fathers' right to impart laws which the child can not 'discover' for himself, experientially, scientifically, but must accept by faith, believing and obey them without question.

The child's language of questioning is the language of science as well, changeable, in fact ever 'changing,' subject to his "sense experiences" of the 'moment,' in relation to the ever 'changing' environment in which he finds himself, subject to his "human nature" to "approach pleasure and avoid pain."  Therefore when the father's commands goes counter to his "human nature," the child's "natural inclination" is to ask the question "Why?"

It is here that dialectic 'reasoning' has its genesis.  The "Why?" of the child (in response to the father's command) being the precursor to the 'liberation' of the child from the father's authority ('liberating' the child from revelation, from the father's non-experiential, "non-sensual," not in the 'moment' with the world, truth).  The "Why?" is in favor of "human nature" (dopamine emancipation), questioning that which inhibits or blocks it from its fruition, i.e. finding unity ("oneness," peace and harmony) with the world in pleasure.

It is the father's response "Because I say so," which prevents theory, the dialoguing of opinions, the language of 'discovery,' the language of the 'scientific method.'  It is the father's language which, according to dialectic reasoning, inhibits or blocks the child from knowing himself as being one with the world in pleasure.  The father's authority therefore prevents 'change,' i.e. prevents the initiating and sustaining of a "new" world order of 'changingness' in the thoughts and actions of the next generation.  It in fact is the language of revelation, the precursor of the child having faith in, believing upon, obeying and accepting the chastening from God (for disobedience) even when being raised up by a worldly father.

While the father is not perfect (he may be a tyrant), his office is.  The father is to provide for, care, and love his children, protecting them from the evils of the world, directing and leading them in doing right, reproving them when they do wrong.  It is paramount that the husband-wife relationship be kept foremost, the husband ruling and the desire of the wife's heart being to her husband, both becoming one in their relationship over their children.  The husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:22-28; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11, 12; Titus 2:5; 1 Corinthians 7:4; 1 Corinthians 14:33-35).  The father-mother relationship over the children will suffer if this is not kept in order.  Yet, for all, for the husband and wife, the father, the mother, and the children, when the Heavenly Father comes into their lives, through Christ, the earthly father's authority becomes secondary to Him.  In fact we, in Christ, are to call no man father, on earth, having only one Father, in Heaven.  There can be only one, i.e. one father, biologically, mentally, and socially (without the one there is no conscience, explained later).  There is only one father, i.e. biologically, is clearly understood.  Mentally we are to think upon how we are to behave before him for his approval, i.e. to please him, and socially in that he shows his love in caring and providing for us in our relationship with him.  Hebrews 12:5-11 gives us the pattern or paradigm of the father.

Without the office of authority, giving commands to be obeyed without question and using chastening to initiate and sustain that office of authority, the patriarchal paradigm of God would not be known to the next generation, their "human nature" to relate with the world in pleasure being their only experience of life. That is the "hope" of dialectic 'reasoning.'  As in science the "problem" must first be identified before it can be solved (negated).

The Marxist Theodor Adorn identified the problem, i.e. the source of the barrier to 'change': "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "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."  "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Karl Marx identified the solution:  "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the thoughts of the individual and in his relationship with the community and in its relationship with him]."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)

Sigmund Freud put it this way:  "'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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)   In other words, as long as dad does not insist upon having things his way, he can "stick around."

George Hegel, most noted for dialectic 'reasoning' (sometimes sounding as Marxist, i.e. anti-Christ as Marx), defined the why and how: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality."  "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis ["top-down" authority] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one [it all goes back to money, i.e. stored upon dopamine emancipation]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical LifeHegel not only rejected revelation and the resurrection, he hated them since both deal with God's judgment upon the unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions of men.  Dialectic 'reasoning' is all about the negation of righteousness (the Father's authority) in the thoughts and actions of men.

By 'shifting' the focus from the father, respecting and honoring his office of authority, to the children (and the woman/wife/mother), focusing upon how they "feel" and what they "think," over and against the man/husband/father, a paradigm change is engendered.  A child (or women) centered culture negates the authority of the father, negates the patriarchal paradigm which restrains culture from its "natural inclination" to follow after "human nature," becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure. 

Child abuse is wrong.  God says the father is not to engender wrath. Yet today, the father's God given duty to chasten those he loves (those under his authority, under God) is under attack.  Child abuse, now being correlated with the father's chastening of his children (for righteousness sake), not only labels him as "abusing" his children physically, but also mentally and socially as well (Adorno, in his book, The Authoritarian Personality, correlating it with engendering "potential Fascism"). When psychology comes into the picture, spirit is redefined according to "human nature," "spirit" meaning social (the "feeling" of the many as "one") replacing spirit, meaning not walking right before God (according to the "truth" of the one), "spiritual abuse" (meaning divided or alienated from the "socialist" world) replaces "grieving the spirit" (meaning not walking according to the will of God, the Father).

 If righteousness (the Father's will) is out and sensuousness ("human nature") is in, then chastening is out.  God calls those who reject chastening bastards.  That is why we have the culture we have today, i.e. a culture intoxicated with the pleasures of this world, 'justifying' itself through its praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' negating the father's authority, which engenders "a peaceful fruit of righteousness," replacing it with "human nature," augmenting a culture at-one-with the world in pleasure, which engenders abomination.

The conscience (the voice of the father) is sacrificed in the development of the "super-ego" (the voice of "the village"), without it's 'change' (negation) there can be no 'change' in the world.  The facilitator of 'change' for the police force, Dr. Robert Trojanowicz wrote:  "The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated.  The family,... 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,  Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)   The Transformational Marxist, Norman O. Brown in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, one of the two bibles for the liberals in the 60's wrote:  "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)  By adding "feelings" ("the influences of the present") to the conscience it is 'changed' (seared) into the "super-ego," making the child from then on subject to the carnal voice of the world, subject to the "whims" of  his carnal "human nature.The Transformational Marxist Theodor Adorno, twisting things, said it this way: "It is a function of the ego [the child's "I will"] to make peace with conscience [the father's will], to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony.  When this synthesis is not achieved, the superego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality [the voice of the father], and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  Erick Fromm, the Transformational Marxist who make Marx lovable to the democratic party in the 60's (now also loved by many if not most in the republican party today, thou they might deny it, in ignorance) wrote:  "The most effective method for weakening the child's will is to arouse his sense of guilt [remind him of his father's authority]."  "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself [read: in the fight for socialism] is the guilty conscience."  (Erick Fromm, Escape from FreedomNegate the conscience and you 'liberate' man from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. you 'liberate' him to the praxis of abomination.

Without the negation of the father's authority there can be no 'change' in how the world does business.  Every speech made by those of dialectic 'reasoning' carries within it the language of negation, i.e. negation of the father's authority, even though they may speak of their "concern" about the family and the family business (how to negate the father's authority over his home and business without you catching on).  That is why today, in entertainment, in government, in education, in the workplace, even in the church (which splits up the family at the front door, coming between the father and his children), there is not respect for and honoring of the father and his authority (given lip serves to it at the most).  Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' know that the government's efforts to "preserve" the traditional family structure ends up negating it, and therefore set out to "assist" the family (circumventing the father's authority) in how it should function.  Warren Bennis, who's life long effort was to 'change' America into a global entity, wrote: "Any non-family-based collectivity [lead by social-psychologists, facilitators of 'change'] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship regardless of its intent." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

An abortion not only kills the unborn child but also instantly kills the father's authority, under God.  It instantly destroys the family, under God.  It is the worst form of child abuse (his right to life).  We have a culture with mother's and father's of dead children, justifying their death for the sake of being at-one-with-the-world in pleasure.  Like a drug addict, if you can kill an unborn child for the sake of pleasure (dopamine emancipation) you can do the same to the elderly or any other person who gets in your (or societies) way of attaining it (what government engendered "health care" is all about).

For those children who are allowed to live, the very language of "how do you feel" and "what do you think," the language of opinions in dialogue, negates the voice of the father.  It 'liberates' the children from father's preaching and teaching of restraint, liberating their language of "ought to be," their internal voice of rebellion against the father's "Because I said so," so that they can be again reconnected to their "natural inclination" to "approach pleasure and avoid pain" (before the father's first command and threat of chastening), thereby become intoxicated with the pleasures of dopamine emancipation.  By again becoming physically, mentally, and socially at-one-with their "human nature" to become at-one-with the world in pleasure they negate the pain of restraint, i.e. the authority of the father in their thoughts and in their actions, even doing so in the "church."  When you hear the word 'change' in the "church." The negation of the Father's authority, the negation of righteousness, is what it is all about.  That is the dialectic way.

"In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes."  "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  The question is:  "How can you hold 'incest, murder, and other crimes ... in check in a wholesome and constructive manner,' without incest, murder, and other crimes becoming the way of life?"   Without the conscience, i.e. without that which is "negative, i.e. without that which engenders 'neurosis' (the father, his commands and authority to chasten) the only option you have is a police state.  Of course it will be under the leadership (tutelage and facilitation) of the departments of psychology, sociology, anthropology, all under the influence of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. subject to the spirit of abomination.

Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' themselves, would say: "Confronted with the rigidity of the adult [the father figure] ... , one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individuals life, and since the earlier the influence the more profound it will be, attention becomes focused upon child training."  "According to the present theory, the effects of environmental forces in molding the personality are, in general, the more profound the earlier in the life history of the individual they are brought."   (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Once on the dialectic pathway (negating the father's restraint upon his children's "human nature" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure) what or who can stop them from the end, i.e. abomination, judgment, and death.  The issue is not how far down the path they have gone.  It is the path that they are on.  One step on the dialectic pathway, i.e. justifying the child's "human nature" (which, to "the human eye and the human ear" might "seems to be" cute and innocent in the beginning) over and against the father's authority to restraint it, mean's that they have already "stepped in it," that is, abomination  "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." Galatians 5:9

Without the Godly father, who loves, provides for, protects, and instructs his children in righteousness, that is all we have―abomination.  "Where have all the father's gone?  Off chasing dopamine every one.  When will they ever learn. When will they ever learn."   They have all become "the children of disobedience," those for whom the wrath of God is stored up for, i.e. being "lovers of pleasure [lovers of sensuous] more than lovers of God [lovers of righteousness]." 2 Timothy 3:4  Without the father and his authority to give commands to his children and to chasten them when they disobey, engendering a "guilty conscience," all the next generation has is their love of pleasure, i.e. "human nature," dialectic 'reasoning,' and a police state to "facilitate" them in the praxis of 'change,' in the praxis of abomination. Where we find ourselves today.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015