Homeostasis by Dean Gotcher

Homeostasis.

by
Dean Gotcher

"The philosophers [those who are dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to authority (as a child is subject to the father's authority, as man is to God's), thinking about how the world "ought" to be, i.e., satisfying their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [therefore establishing, i.e., preaching and teaching their "opinion" as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking others from enjoying the carnal pleasures ("lusts") of the 'moment' which they desire], the objective however, is change [dialogue]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)

"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

We hear the phrase "comfort zone." Homeostasis is simply our "comfort zone" where we have juxtaposed our position (established commands, rules, facts, and truth which we, under pressure from above, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, have capitulated to, i.e., have accepted as being right and not wrong) and our carnal desire(s) of the 'moment' (our "self interest," i.e., our natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' dopamine emancipation, which the world, i.e., the situation stimulates, and our hate of restraint) to where they are not in outright (open) conflict with one another. It is here that the difference between discussion and dialogue are important to understand. Discussion (talking to our "self" about doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) ties us to the father's/Father's authority. Dialogue (talking to our "self" about what we want) ties us to our "self," i.e., to our desire to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and the world which stimulates them. It is in dialogue (with our "self" and with others) that our heart's desires are made manifest.

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to set aside pleasure, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth], and desperately wicked [hating the father's/Father's authority which "gets in the way," i.e. which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which the world stimulates]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 You, dialoguing with your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your love of pleasure can not see your hatred toward the father/Father as being evil because your love of "self," i.e., your love of ("lust" for) pleasure—which the world stimulates—is "in the way," blinding you to the truth of the deceitfulness and wickedness of your heart.

Dialogue in and of itself is not evil. It is simply us talking to our "self" (and sharing with others) what we want to do, i.e., our desires or preferences of the 'moment'—what we want to eat, what color we want to paint the room, etc. But when we use dialogue to determine right and wrong (making pleasure the standard for being "right" and pain, i.e., missing out on pleasure the standard for being "wrong") "self preservation," i.e., "self actualization," i.e., "self" 'justification' becomes our agenda. In doing so we negate the father's/Father's authority in our thoughts and actions, making our "self" god, i.e., the source from which to determine right and wrong—making our "sense experience" ("pride of life") the medium from which we determine right and wrong, i.e., from which we make decisions regarding our life and the life of others (called dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from/through our "feelings," negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process).

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:5-7

As long as we dialogue with our "self" ('reason' from/through our "feelings," 'justifying' our desires of the 'moment) and the guilty conscience (fear of judgment for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) does not appear—preventing, i.e.,inhibiting or blocking dialogue—we are able to maintain a state of homeostasis where we can imagine (think about, i.e., role-play in our mind) a world as it "ought" to be, i.e., a world where we can do what we want, when we want without restraint, i.e., a world without established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority "getting in the way." This makes us potentially adaptable to 'change' when given the "right" opportunity (condition). Kurt Lewin's chart, which he used in his classes to explain how 'change' can be initiated and sustained, shows the internal condition ("safe zone") we have within our "self," which we use to maintain homeostatic between doing the father's/Father's will and doing "our own thing," with "doing our own thing" winning out if given the right condition (opportunity), i.e., an opportunity to dialogue with others—where everyone can 'discover' and 'justify' their common "self interests"—in a non-judgmental environment, i.e., in an environment void of the father's/Father's authority (thereby silencing the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks dialogue, i.e., 'change').

"Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated, i.e., negated] in theory and in practice [in the children's personal thoughts and social actions—no longer having fellowship with one another based upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (customs, traditions, doctrine) but, through dialogue, "building relationship" with one another based upon common "'self interests'" (their carnal desires of the 'moment') instead]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

"It is not individualism [the child having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him [makes him "neurotic"[. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., building relationship with others based upon the child's carnal desires, i.e., finding one's identity, i.e., "self" in "the group," i.e., in society through dialogue] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to be "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

Caught between having to capitulate, i.e., humble, deny, die to, control, discipline our "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth and our desire to "actualize" our "self," i.e., satisfy our desire ("lust") to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, we 'create' in our mind (our imagination) a world of our own making ('liking'), where we "push the envelope" to where we can do what we want, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience. Once, in our conversation with our "self" the guilty conscience kicks in (in other words, we have gone to far) we tend to either re-arrange the scenario (juxtaposition, i.e., redefine the established commands, rules, facts, and truth) in our mind to where we can do what we want, as much as is possible, i.e., without having a guilty conscience or move to something else to think about. We tend to, in this way, balance our discussion with our "self," making our "self" accountable to doing what is right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (the way the world "is") and our dialogue with our "self," where we focus upon what we want in the 'moment,' which is being stimulated by the world (situation) around us, i.e., where we imagine or 'create' in our mind a world of our own 'liking,' satisfying our carnal desires of the 'moment' ('creating' in our mind the way the world "ought" to be).

"The dialectical method [dialogue] was overthrown [by the father's/Father's authority, i.e., by the children's fear of judgment, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning]—the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group," i.e., within society]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

It is the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience, i.e., fear of judgment which it engenders that prevents dialogue, i.e., that prevents "self" from becoming "actualized." Remove the father's/Father's authority, i.e., fear of judgment (from the classroom for example) and the guilty conscience (the "negative valence") for "lusting" after the things of the world disappears—"It's the plan."

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

Want becomes "lust" only when it conflicts with the father's/Father's authority. It is this internal conflict between doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth and desiring to please ("actualize") "self" that those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., that those who desire 'change' are most interested.

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

"The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic ... thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

"What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the child's dialogue with his "self," thus 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [getting them to openly question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth with one another, i.e., do what they are already doing in their imagination, i.e., in their dialogue with their "self" in private] and getting them to discuss issues [evaluating personal-social issues from their "feelings," i.e., from their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including their desire for approval, i.e., affirmation from one another, i.e., from "the group," and their dissatisfaction with authority, i.e., their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain) "Bloom's Taxonomies."

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

For 'change' to take place our "comfort zone," i.e., homeostasis must be disturbed (upset). By simply placing children in a classroom where they can "discuss" personal-social "issues," i.e., dialogue with one another, i.e., 'discover,' through dialogue their common "self interest," 'change' is initiated and sustained, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth are questioned, challenged, defied, disregarded, attacked, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, and the guilty conscience which it engenders, is negated. It is all that the master facilitator of 'change' wanted to accomplish in the garden in Eden, using dialogue to 'liberate' the woman (with Adam following) from God's authority (Genesis 3:1-6).

"What better way to help the patient [the student, your child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment] toward parents [traditional authority] in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator of 'change']? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [if his classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

By bringing the child's dialogue with his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint out into the open, 'justifying' it with the "help," i.e., affirmation of other children, the child is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, allowing him to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack the father's/Father's authority with impunity. It has become the role of education today, i.e., that of 'liberating' children (the next generation of voting citizens) from the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so all "citizens" can do wrong, disobey, sin (question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority) with impunity.

"[We] must develop persons [citizens] who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding onto the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations [in the facilitated, consensus meeting] as a vice rather than a virtue [as being "negative," i.e., "the problem" instead of "positive," i.e., contributing to the solution]." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Rejecting the father's/Father's authority, those of dialectic 'reasoning' use dialogue ('reasoning' from/through "feelings") to "help" 'liberate' their "self" from Godly restraint, negating the guilty conscience which it engenders in the process, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. In the praxis of dialogue, i.e., 'creating' a world based upon common "self interest," hegemony ("authority") is re-created in the image of the child's carnal nature, with those in "authority" being able to do unconscionable things with impunity.

"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

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