How the dialectic process affects politicians, teachers, workers, scientists, ministers, parents, children, patriots, etc.
by
Dean Gotcher
"I must be about my Father's business." Luke 2:49
(last part of the verse presented in a statement form, instead of as a question as in the original.)
This is the statement every soul is to be saying and doing,
which those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "the children of disobedience" seek to negate.
In Romans 7:14-25 the Apostle Paul addressed the conflict we have daily between doing what is right (obeying God or, as children, obeying our parents) and our "natural" propensity to do that which our flesh lusts after (being at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'). While we might try to please God by obeying the law, we find that we can not (obey the law that is and therefore not be able to please Him by obeying it). Therefore being subject to our flesh, i.e. to our "human nature," i.e. to our propensity to approach pleasure (love of dopamine emancipation) and avoid pain (including the absence of items of gratification which engender dopamine emancipate—"the approval of men," i.e. being "positive," i.e. engendering pleasure, and "the rejection of men," i.e. being "negative," i.e. engendering pain, being a big one), making sensuousness ("sense experience," how we "feel" in the given 'moment') the standard whereby to evaluate and establish what is "good" and what is "evil," we sin. The effort to obey God without sin only reveals our pride of life, that we think we can do that which we can not, i.e. be like God, righteous in and of ourselves, controlling our lives according to our nature.
The law reveals that we are not righteous in and of ourselves, that by trying to 'justify' ourselves, 'justify' our "human nature," we not only deceive ourselves (thinking that we are "good" when we are not, for only God is good, our heart making us think that that which makes us "feel" good, i.e. even doing "good" for others, i.e. getting pleasure out of helping others, is the measure whereby to determine what is "good") but are wicked ("desperately wicked") as well (making ourselves God). "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 This is why, when I write about the dialectic process (of Hegel and Marx fame, and not so much, but increasingly of Freud fame as well), exposing it for what it is, i.e. abomination, I always end up referring to the following verses. "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 16:5 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6
"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 Using the dialectic process to resolve life's problems (tensions or crises), i.e. "directing our steps" without the Father, is the praxis of those who "willingly" participate in the "new" world order. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of "contemporary" thinking, see obedience to the Father, i.e. submission to God (without question His commands, i.e. without self reflection, i.e. without evaluating them in the "light" of life's experiences) as "authoritarian submission." Being 'driven' by their "lust" for the things of this world, their quest is to 'justify' "human nature," they therefore 'purpose' in their heart and in their actions the negating of any environmental condition which engenders "authoritarian submission," i.e. the Father's authority to "author" commands to His children (commands to be obeyed without question, i.e. without questioning or challenging them or his authority) and His authority to chasten them when they disobey Him (both of which are the conditions of righteousness). "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures―parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Our savior and Lord, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is therefore "authoritarian." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49 So are all who follow Him, doing the same: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 All the redeemed have this one thing in common, i.e. doing the Heavenly Father's will. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 It is what separates believers in and followers of Christ from the rest of the world. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 Those of dialectic 'reasoning' have, in thought and in action (in theory and practice), the same reaction Abraham Maslow had toward "authoritarians": "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
In Hebrews 12:5-11 we read that by rejecting the Father's chastening (and the need to repent) we would simply continue to do that which comes naturally, lusting after the things of this world, i.e. becoming "children of disobedience," and therefore cast out by the Father, subject to his wrath (being cast into eternal damnation). It is in the Father's command and threat of chastening that we become aware of His righteousness (who is above, i.e. setting the standards for right and wrong, good and evil according to His own nature, i.e. of Spirit, i.e. Holy) and our unrighteousness (who are below, i.e. who can only establish our own standards for right and wrong, good and evil according to our own flesh, i.e. according to our carnal desires), i.e. the reason righteousness has to be imputed by God to us, by our faith in Him alone. "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Romans 4:4-8 "He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Romans 4:20-25
In Genesis 3:1-6 we find a way of thinking and acting (the dialectic process) whereby man seeks to 'justify' himself ('justify' his "human nature" as being "normal," measuring and 'justifying' himself with himself instead of from the Father's commands, i.e. evaluating and judging the Father's commands from his own "feelings" and "thoughts" [making God subject to man, negating God] instead of evaluating and judging his "feeling" and "thoughts" according to the Father's commands [making himself subject to God, acknowledging, honoring, and worshiping God]), i.e. 'redeeming' himself from the conflict (the antithesis) he finds himself in, i.e. the conflict between the Father's commands and his natural propensity to disobey them when they inhibit his "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' his ability to use "human reasoning" to 'justify' his lust for the things of this world, 'reconciling' himself from the Father's will to the will of the world (from the will of the Father, from the Spirit of God, to the will of the world, to the flesh of man), so that he can "be himself" as he is, i.e. carnal. It is through dialectic 'reasoning' (self justification) that man finds a way that "seems to be right" in his own eyes, but is (in truth) the way of death, i.e. leaving him in his sins, subject to his carnal nature and the Father's wrath. Man, instead of evaluating himself, i.e. his thoughts and his actions according to God's word, "as given," evaluates God's word according to his own "human nature," i.e. according to his own "feelings" and "thoughts," "as given." "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 "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 16:5
While the verses in Romans and Hebrews reveal a system (if you can call it that) of the preaching and teaching of truth (obeying the Father's will), to be received and obeyed "as given," where righteousness, which requires faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, when we disobey (requiring repentance before the Father), is the right way of thinking and acting (known as a Patriarchal Paradigm with the Father ruling over His children, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God, the only begotten Son of God, who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, even unto death, a "top-down" system), the verses of Genesis reveals a system of the dialoguing of opinions, where 'righteousness,' self-'justification' (in man's eyes), which requires seduction (being draw, by our "feelings," to be at-one-with the world in the 'moment'), deception (convinced within ourselves that we will not get into trouble), and manipulation (using our reasoning to 'justify' to ourselves that our thoughts and actions are OK, with man working with man to make the world "right," i.e. a better place, in his own eyes) is the right way of thinking and acting (known as a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' with the children taking "control" over the world around them [actually the world taking "control" of them], an "equality" system of 'changingness,' where the children are ever 'changing' according to their ever 'changing' "felt" need, i.e. carnal need to 'change,' i.e. to keep up with the 'changing' world, i.e. a world of instability and uncertainty when it comes to "human nature," with man's continual lusting after the things of this world). "With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view, moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation." ""With the loss of its foundation in the religious promise of salvation, the meaning of normative obligation also changes." "The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence. 'Validity' [consensus] now signifies that moral norms could win the agreement of all concerned, on the condition that they jointly examine in practical discourse whether a corresponding practice is in the equal interest of all." (Jürgen Habermas, Communicative Ethics, The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory) It is in this setting that "the children of disobedience" 'purpose' within themselves the praxis of negating the Father and His authority. "It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort [the Father ruling over his children] who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes [divide the world between parents and children, owners of land and laborers, etc.], suppress justified interests [establish restraints upon man's carnal "human nature"], call forth the reactions of suppressed life [engender hate within the children against parental authority], and finally experience their just fate in revolution [are negated by "the children of disobedience"]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social)
As Freud believed, instead of the child submitting his will to the Father's will, striking out against His father's enemies, even to his own death, he is to instead strike out against His Father's will, even to his own death, for his own will's sake (this according to Freud was the purpose of the Ego, i.e. to defend and preserve his Id, i.e. "human nature" from the Father's restraints). Since the child is not strong enough to accomplish the deed on his own, fearful of dying, it is therefore imperative that adults (with children's brains, i.e. of dialectic 'reasoning," i.e. "the children of disobedience") come to his aid, either "converting" the Father (neutering him of his "top-down" way of thinking and acting), removing the child from his influence, or removing the Father (as Marx advocated, killing him). This is dialectic 'reasoning' in a nutshell. The tension between the Father's commands and the child's will can only be resolved in a social setting (the consensus process) 'purposed' in resolving the tension by negating the Father's commands through 'liberating' the child's will. Democracy, socialism, communism, and globalism all have this in common. It all depends upon how fast you want to get there. It is what "counseling" is all about these days.
"Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook) Those of dialectic 'reasoning' know that by 'changing' paradigms ('changing' the environment whereby we communication with one another) from a Patriarchal Paradigm to a Heresiarchal Paradigm (from the preaching and teaching of truth, i.e. truth to be accepted "as given," i.e. as in Jesus response to Satan in the wilderness, i.e. "It is written," i.e. with the Father's commands accepted by faith, believed and obeyed without question, to the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. the sharing of how we "feel" and what we "think" regarding a given situation, i.e. to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" with the world), those of the Patriarchal Paradigm (those who, even just for the 'moment,' put aside the shield of faith and participate in the process of 'change,' i.e. for the approval of men) become "heresiarchal" in their thoughts and actions, most without knowledge of what they are doing, i.e. fully understanding the consequences. The synthesis of the dialectic process is not a restoring of the relationship between the Father and the child, the child living according to the Father's will, but rather the "restoring" of the child, according to his carnal nature, to the world, freeing ("redeeming") the child from the Father's will, drawing ("reconciling") him back to the world so that he and his nature can become one again, as Adam was before God's first command and threat of judgment for disobedience (a Gnostic concept), thinking and acting without a "guilty conscience." The dialoguing of opinions 'liberates' man from a "guilty conscience."
Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) That being the case, i.e. "human nature," unhampered by parental authority, is the true meaning of life, i.e. is reality. It is the Father's authority (to be accepted by faith), his commands (to be believed and obeyed without question), and his right to chasten his children when they are disobedient, which must be negated if the child, and therefore man, is to become "normal" again. According to Karl Marx: "The life [the world] which he [the child] has given to the object [the Father, by obeying Him] sets itself [the world] against him [against his own "human nature"] as an alien and hostile force [as sin]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Marx believed that the home must become sinful again for man to become normal again. "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism ["questioning authority," i.e. the praxis of "theory and practice," i.e. man's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, 'justified' though "human reasoning" and united as one in social action or 'change'] must set up a sinful world in its own home." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) The child, not being strong enough to kill the Father (when he strikes out against the Father for preventing him from become at-one-with nature), it becomes societies duty to 'redeem' the child from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' him back to his own nature and the nature of society.
Without the child, in need of 'redemption' from the Father's authority, social action (praxis) has no 'drive' or 'purpose.' "The path of Critical Criticism's correspondent, a member of the Critical Mass, is not a rosy one. It is a difficult, thorny path, a Critical path. Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." "The correspondent can therefore be a subject only in appearance, can only seem to behave independently towards Critical Criticism, can only seemingly want to communicate something new and of his own to it. In reality he is Critical Criticism's own product, its perception of its own voice made for an instant objective and self-existing." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) In other words, the child, in rebellion against the Father, is only a manifestation of revolution, his individuality having no meaning or purpose other than his participation in the praxis (social action) of negating the Father's authority. The child, in the praxis of consensus with the world, ceases to exist as an individual, i.e. he has no value or worth in and of himself. Outside of his social action of negating the Father's authority ('liberating' himself and therefore society from the Father's authority, i.e. recognizing the Father's authority as being not only "irrational" but also responding to it as being "irrelevant") he is worthless.
The key to understanding dialectic 'reasoning' is that it perceives the earthly father's authority over the children as being the foundation of thought and action of religion, the Heavenly Father's authority over the people, i.e. an "opiate" of the people according to Marx, a "substitute gratification" according to Freud. "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Marx (as Hegel, Freud, etc.) saw this correlation between the child's obedience to his earthly father and man's obedience to His Heavenly Father. He therefore advocated the need to negate the authority of the earthly father in the thoughts and actions of the child (in the individual) if the Heavenly Father's authority was to negated in the thoughts and actions of society. "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) Freud, believed that the Father did not have to be killed, providing he no longer inhibited the child from becoming at-one-with his own nature and therefore the nature of the world (the praxis of incest and patricide). "'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)
Therefore the pattern or system of dialectic 'reasoning' (for which the "new" world order is based) is the praxis (social action) of negating the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions (belief-action dichotomy) of individual man (created by individual man being created by and accountable to an individual, i.e. a singular God or Father), supplanting it with men's opinions (a diversity of opinions) united (through dialogue) into consensus (where individual man finds commonality with others of similar feeling and thoughts of dissatisfaction towards "top-down" authority―"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest) and putting that way of thinking and acting (commonality AKA common-ism AKA communism) into social action (theory and practice) negating righteousness (negating the Father's will over individual's) from the face of the earth. "Protestantism [the priesthood of all believers, each one subject to the will of the Father] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung) In other words, the "masses" would continue to "blindly" follow leadership, albeit secular leadership, and not experience within themselves the spirit of the masses, that spirit which "hurls itself ruthlessly" against the traditional behaving, didactic thinking, deductive reasoning, Patriarchal Paradigm of the Father's authority.
"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 dialectic 'reasoning,' without changing the environment in which a persons learns to think and act, he will forever remain subject to the "old" way of thinking and acting, i.e. remain accountable to a higher authority than that which he has in common with all men, i.e. his "human nature." "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organize the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle) "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him." (Paul Tillich in Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)
The problem was that "freedom from," without "freedom to," only leaves man in a non-social way of thinking and acting. Without re-attaching man to society, his individual identity 'driven' by "human nature," would become lost in a wasteland of 'purposelessness.' "Freedom becomes anchored in the subject. Nevertheless, what this means remains open to question. Freedom is now content to contest power and thus forgets that power is necessary to constrain its arbitrary exercise. The ethical and practical function of freedom is lost. Indeed, since subjective freedom is a social phenomenon, maintaining sanity depends upon the ability of the individual to fill a social role and affirm his or her fullest potential." (Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without showing man how to initiate and sustain the "new" environment, the conditions which "redeem" him from the "old" way of thinking and acting, he would return to the "old" ("top-down") way of thinking and acting from which he was "redeemed." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [the "new" way of thinking and acting] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "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 "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of 'communitarian socialism.'" (Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) "It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education) "God's work is a source of corruptions in individuals." (John Dewey, Democracy and Education) "Personal relations between men have this character of alienation. Hegel and Marx have laid the foundations for the understanding of the problem of alienation." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation . . ." "Alienation will continue so long as the subject engages in an externalization (Entausserung) of his or her subjectivity." (Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' instead of sin being the estrangement of man from God, "Sin is the estrangement of man from man." (Paul Tillich in Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)
"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 2:17
The bottom line regarding the affect of dialectic 'reasoning' upon a person is that they no longer regard their sinful thoughts and sinful actions against God (the Father) as being relevant other than as a vehicle whereby to build relationship with man (identifying what they have in common with others, from which to dialogue about, identify with, i.e. tolerate, i.e. unite and build upon). No longer perceiving himself as being accountable to one who is above "human nature" (who is not of, nor subject to "human nature" i.e. God, i.e. the Father, i.e. who is Holy and perfect—demanding that all men be perfect, which no man can accomplish in and of himself, and who is therefore unapproachable, except according to His terms, i.e. righteousness), man, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' has only his own "human nature" (to approach pleasure and avoid pain) from which to judge "good" and "evil" from. Perceiving himself as being accountable to society (to the many below, who are approachable according to their common carnal "human nature"), man no longer has a need for a "guilty conscience" before God, i.e. the Father, i.e. his need to be saved from God's judgment upon him for his sins). Sin is therefore no longer an issue of concern regarding his daily thoughts and actions. The concern for pleasing man (regarding sensuousness, where "human nature," i.e. "the approval of man," i.e. a "feeling" of "love"—affirmation—for self and others, becomes the basis for defining "God," making man, i.e. his "feelings" and his "thoughts" united in social action, God) negates his concern for pleasing God (regarding His righteousness). Therefore only through uniting with man (as being the measure of "good" and "evil") can "human nature" become 'justified' in his thoughts and actions, negating his need to be 'redeemed' from his "human nature" (by the shed blood of the only begotten Son of God, obedient to His Heavenly Father, even unto death) and 'reconciled' to His Heavenly Father. In short God, who is righteous in and of Himself, is now mankind, united as one, perceiving himself (collectively) as being 'righteous' in and of himself, according to that which all men have in common, i.e. "human nature" along with their desire for approval from others in "doing their own thing, i.e. following after their "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' according to the "laws" of "human nature," sin. "Demonism concerns man's attitude toward others. Estrangement describes the condition of man which results from the Demonism of his fellow man. Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God." (Paul Tillich in Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) Man's concern over sin is swallowed up in the dialoguing of his opinion (his "feelings" and "thoughts" in the light of other's "feelings" and "thoughts) regarding his (and other's) personal and social "felt" needs. Saving souls for the "church" (for the many, united as "one," below) has supplanted saving souls for God (for the one above).
God's word reveals to us His order for our lives: "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:7-12
The following shows how the process of 'change' affects all who participate in its diabolical way:
(To be finished as time permits. But with some thinking, you can figure this out on your own.)
"My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." Proverbs 3:4
Making policy through consensus negates the voice of the constituents. It negates the office of "re-presentation." Karl Marx believed that the major problem within society, i.e. in government, was Christianity (where a man is personally accountable before God for his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions). "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society [where every man is personally accountable before God, i.e. living according to the conditions established by God, i.e. by faith in God, living in His righteousness, weighting his thoughts and action according to God's will, thereby becoming subject to a "guilty conscience" when he disobeys] but from the nature of human society [where man is accountable to mankind (socialist ideology) first and foremost, i.e. living according to the conditions of "human nature," i.e. augmenting pleasure (initiating and sustaining the system of sensuousness) while attenuation pain (negating the conditions which engender man's need for righteousness—commands to be obeyed without question, i.e. the ideals of the constituents who put the politician in office to 're-present' them, i.e. re-presenting their commands for them, and chastening, i.e. removing him from office when he disobeys, when he presents his own or another position which goes counter to, i.e. is over and against theirs, for his own or others gain)]." (Joseph O'Malley, ed., Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
The consensus process 'changes' the politicians paradigm from a patriarchal paradigm of absolutes to a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change.' When he addresses his constituents he will attempt to seduce, deceive, and manipulate them (as he has been seduced, deceived, and manipulated, asking them how they "feel" and what they "thing"), drawing them into participation in the process, i.e. getting them to 'justify' their "need" to 'change' ('change' their paradigm).
The answers are in the questions. Ask knowing (right or wrong type) questions and you get knowing (this is right and that is wrong) type answers. Ask "feeling" and "thinking" questions and you get "I feeling" and "I thinking" answers. The former leaves you with your values (your property, your family, your nation, your conscience, and your inalienable rights). The latter 'changes' your values (negates your property, your family, your nation, your conscience, your inalienable rights, supplanting them with "human rights," where your property becomes everyone's property, you family becomes everyone's family, your conscience, i.e. the voice of the one above, i.e. the Father, becomes the "super-ego," i.e. the voice of the "village," i.e. the voice of the many united as "one" below, your nation becomes all the nations nation).
This is the power of the consensus process (the "feeling" of "oneness" in the praxis of compromise for the "common good"), negating a nation based upon moral and religious principles, supplanting it with a nation based upon the augmentation of abomination. It is why we are in such debt, with those of dialectic 'reasoning' living off the peoples compassions, creating laws to "help" the "needy" in society, while financially "helping" themselves, and their socialist programs, in the process. When the government creates laws of "compassion" it must use force (which government is) against those citizens who do not support, participate in, or resist its laws of "compassion." Empathy becomes the ruling or driving force. Reality is found in feelings and therefore one's accountability is always to one's feelings or someone else's feelings.
This is the thinking and the 'justification' of materialists, where all our senses directly correlate to something in the earthly environment and have no bearing with any environment outside of the temporal, i.e. of the heavenly. When empathy supersedes God's will, it is self seeking, and is the work of iniquity. While individuals have empathy, groups can not. Group "empathy" then must oppress the individual who does not work with and for the group, i.e. the common, i.e. the communist cause. Government must then use it's "cosmic" empathy to justify its abusive actions toward the individual and the traditional family. For the Father to have empathy with the child's rebellion, i.e. rebellion against his office of authority, when his empathy is enforced by law, he must accept his child's resentment towards the office of authority as being valid, thereby negating himself and his own office of authority. The same can be said for the citizens and the laws that their government passes.
Without the citizens "weal"-ing its lawmakers (George Washington farewell address) when they make laws of oppression, under the cover of "compassion," you only have a government of tyranny. The emotion of empathy, when 'justified' over morals and principles, removes man from a paradigm of right and wrong and places him in a paradigm of sensuousness (of self-social 'justification') only, making him subject to 'change,' i.e. seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by facilitators of 'change.' The use of empathy in 'changing' government is effective because empathy transcends borders and thus can be used―by those of dialectic 'reasoning' who envy what those who have borders have (after all it is all about money, socialism only fails when it runs out of other peoples, i.e. the children can not do what they want to do when they run out of their Father's money, their inheritance, so they have to look elsewhere, at some one else's inheritance to keep up their way of thinking and acting, "lusting" after what those, who have principles, have (where interest swallows up principle, leaving the person with nothing in the end, i.e. how far are we into debt?)―to negate borders, i.e. to negate righteousness, i.e. the hedge of protection for the soul. Social empathy is actually envy against the Father for what he has, what the children want, without the Father's principles restraining them. It is to late to save the chicks (the next generation) when the vulture's already in the nest.
Those of social empathy are not servants of the Lord but are instead servants of their own flesh ('driven' by human empathy rather than being directed by Godly restraint, i.e. righteousness), no longer concerned about doing God's will. It is not that we are not to have empathy but that empathy in and of itself is not righteousness. While, as individuals, we have empathy upon others who are suffering, responding to their "needs" according to our abilities, also according to our knowledge of what lead them into suffering, reproving or correcting or rebuking them for their actions which lead up to it, if and when necessary, government, in and of itself, can not have empathy (other than upon those who don't moralize, i.e. preaching and teaching righteousness, exposing its tyrannical ways). Government can only have empathy in appearance, deceiving and eventually oppressing the citizens who allow it to "have" it, i.e. supporting sensuousness (the flesh) at the expense of righteousness (the spirit), basing its use of empathy upon the persons ability to support its socialist cause (why you have to fill out so many forms, "selling the farm," and your soul, in the process). While on the surface it may appear to be an act of love, caring for the citizens health, etc., in the end it manifests itself as an act of hate, oppressing the individual citizen who preaches and teaches righteousness in the act of giving and caring. Make sure that the love in you is not hate, i.e. love of sensuousness (love of the flesh, loving "the approval of men") engendering hate of righteousness (hating the Father and His office of authority, rejecting "the approval of God," i.e. even Jesus declared that if you don't honor your father and mother you can not worship God, both requiring the same system of thinking and acting, i.e. of the same paradigm, patriarchal in structure—crying). "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." Proverbs 19:18 "Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee." Deuteronomy 8:5 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 3:19 While we might hate the chastening it is for our eternal good. If we hate the system of chastening (from God) then there is not hope of eternal life—"if ye be without chastisement ... then are ye bastards." Hebrews 12:5-11
In and of itself empathy negates righteousness, i.e. the Father's right to give commands, superseding the approaching of pleasure and the avoidance of pain of "human nature, i.e. man's (and child's) "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' and use chastening (pain) in establishing and sustaining his commands as well as his office of authority, an office given to him by God, i.e. establishing righteousness (the Father's will) above sensuousness (the child's urges and impulsiveness), i.e. establishing God above man, in the thoughts and actions of not only the present generation but the next generation (the "posterity") as well, i.e. sustaining liberty not only for those of today but also for those of the future as well. Those of tyranny seek to use empathy, through the use of the consensus process, to 'change' the citizens (including the students in the classroom, i.e. the next citizens) as well as the government, to usurp the inalienable rights of the citizens ("top-down" in structure), replacing them with "human rights" ("equality" in structure, with some "more equal" than others), i.e. the rights of the tyrant, supporting his program of tyranny and 'change.'
Ervin Laszlo defined the 'drive' and 'purpose' of the "new" world order ("the peoples government") in this way: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion [how people "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' freed from patriarchal authority and accountability] into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests [group interest] and ultimately to world interests [worldly interests].... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)
What we find in the word of God applies not only to the individual but to government as well. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:5-8) Those of lawlessness work to pass laws which exonerate the flesh over the spirit, man over God, the king (the antichrist) over the laws which restrain carnality, i.e. restraining "human nature," sensuousness over and against righteousness (it can't be just over righteousness or the "guilty conscience" would remain in place), the children over the Father, etc.
The lawless, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' seek to have only laws of the flesh, laws only of "human nature'" i.e. laws 'justifying' sin, establishing it as being "normal human behavior,' initiating and sustaining abomination within and over your neighborhood (the "community"), over the nation, as well as the nations of the world, all in the name of a "new" world order. As Hegel put it: 'purposiveness without purpose' and 'lawfulness without law'—where any 'law' which is not carnal in nature (is not of the laws of the flesh, i.e. i.e. of "lust," translated from the German to English as "enjoyment," i.e. of sin) and any 'purpose' that is not carnal in purpose is to be removed from the citizens thoughts and actions, i.e. negating righteousness as an issue of concern in the thoughts and actions of the citizens, affirmation (the approval of the flesh, abomination) thereafter taken its place, i.e. the individual citizen having no worth or value other than his participation in the process of 'change,' in his "tolerating of ambiguity," i.e. in his augmenting of abomination. Any resistance would be perceived as being "hatful." Any action taken to restrain unrighteousness ("human nature") would 'justify,' in the mind of the dialectic 'reasoning' citizen and "lawmaker," laws being created by and for the government of tyranny, oppressing the righteous, outlawing their preaching and teaching of righteousness and God's judgment upon the unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions of men, not only in the public arena but in the private as well (what public-private partnership is all about), calling it a "hate crime."
"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 "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 [is "toleration of ambiguity," i.e. is tolerant of abomination]." Psalms 36:1-4
"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated. The changing of circumstances and of self can only be grasped and rationally understood as revolutionary practice." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) As one of John Dewey's doctoral candidates, Kenneth Benne, put it, "Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) While the child might rebel against the Father's authority, he still retains a sense of "guilt" for his actions. It is only through dialectic 'reasoning,' the 'justification of "human nature" over and against the Father's authority to give commands and enforce them, which restraints "human nature," that the child can overthrow the Father's authority, with no "guilty conscience." "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) By simply 'changing' the classroom "environment" from a "top-down" system, where the teacher imparts (preaches and teaches) facts to be memorized and put into practice (without question)—with the use of chastening to initiate and sustain their "top-down" system of authority (engendering a "guilty conscience" in the child when he is thinking of, being, or has been disobedient, i.e. "Doing his own thing," i.e. being "human")—to a classroom "environment" where the teachers and students become "partners" in the process of 'discovering' "'changing facts" (transforming society) through their joint participation in an experiential praxis (the dialoging of opinions, i.e. sharing personal "feelings" and "thoughts" regarding their life experiences in an "open-ended," "non-directed" environment, to a consensus , i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," and putting it into social action) which 'liberates' them from the Father's "ridged" "top-down" system of authority (negating the "guilty conscience" through the use of "How did or do you feel when ... ?" and "What did or do you think when ... ?" type questions which elicit "I felt or feel ...." and "I thought or think ...." type answers which frees the child of the Father's authority system—"One of the primary functions of these [matter‑of‑fact] questions [how do you feel or what do you think] was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety." Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality).
The dialectic 'reasoning' being, by 'changing' the classroom curriculum from a Patriarchal Paradigm of absolutes (with one right answer, i.e. the Father's) to a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'changingness' (with many right answers becoming one, the children's'—"When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener; Karl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) "Freud saw that in the id [in the child's unrestrained nature to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'] there is no negation, only affirmation and eternity. The instinctual reality is Dionysian drunkenness 'We can come nearer to the id with images, and call it a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement'" Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) both teachers and students (along with parents who participate) would be 'changed' in their way they think and act (from capitalism to socialism, i.e. from being under the authority of one, to being united with the many, as "one," working for 'change,' negating the one, in thought and in practice). "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas. If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) The change in culture required a change in how the child perceived his parents. "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws [the Father] to destroy us physically [to kill the child] than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will [submitting to Him, vindicating His system of authority]." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)
It is through the child's (and the teacher's) "willful" participation in the classroom "environment" which 'changes' his way of thinking and acting. "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from status to process." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." (Carl Rogers, On becoming a person) The idea of "willful" participation must be tempered with the understanding that for the child to challenge the group process would have immediate consequence. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [belief in God or in their Father] in the face of apparent group unanimity [social rejection];" (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"Bloom's Taxonomies," the books from which all "certified" teachers and "accredited" schools must develop curriculum, point out the objective of "contemporary" education as dividing the children from the parents, i.e. 'liberating' the children from their Father's system of authority. "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [the child's own "feelings" and "thoughts" regarding his Father's commands and authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain) Bloom admits when educators use his "affective domain" based curriculum it is the same as their opening of "Pandora's box" (a "box" full of evils, which, once opened, can not be closed), not only changing the individual student (and teacher) but also the nation as well. For more on the "Taxonomies" read the articles A "précis" of the Taxonomy, Concerning Bloom's Taxonomies, and Benjamin Bloom and his Taxonomies compared to Karl Marx
The bottom line is that teachers who are exposed to the "Taxonomies" may have a negative attitude toward the Father's authority, regarding it as not only being "irrational" but also as being "irrelevant" in the light of "changing" times, i.e. when it comes to His principles restraining the teachers influence upon His children, whose agenda it is to 'liberate' the Father's children from His "old fashioned" way of thinking and acting.
"If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science [behavior science, i.e. "human nature," i.e. "humanism," materialism] and religion [the Father's authority over His children], it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." (Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education)
To "tolerate ambiguity," i.e. to negate "neurosis" in the workplace, is to tolerate immorality (abomination) in the workplace. "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, as quoted in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) "Every neurosis is an example of dynamic adaptation; it is essentially an adaptation to such external conditions as are in themselves irrational and, generally speaking, unfavorable to the growth of the child." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom ) "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." " Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Eros is the foundation of morality." Therefore "psychoanalysis must treat religion [obeying our Heavenly Father, i.e. carrying out His commands without question, i.e.. commands which restrain our "human nature" of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, and accepting His chastening of us when we disobey] as a neurosis." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Marx defines the essence of man as labor [mankind working together for common cause] and traces the dialectic of labor in history till labor abolishes itself." "Freud suggests that beyond labor at the end of history is love [Eros, man's "lust" for pleasure derived from being at-one-with the world]." "Love has always been there from the beginning . . . the hidden force supplying the energy devoted to labor and to making history." "Repressed Eros is the energy of history [the Father's authority engendering the process of 'change,' the desire to not work under his conditions of restraint, but to work instead for self and others in common cause, i.e. for the augmentation of pleasure] and labor must be seen as sublimated Eros." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Therefore religion, i.e. obedience to higher authority (without questioning his commands or his authority to chasten those under their authority when they disobey, i.e. the preaching and teaching of facts and truth to be accepted and obeyed "as given," whether inhibiting or blocking pleasure, i.e. self gratification, or engendering pain, i.e. not being able to enjoy the pleasures of the world), must be removed from the workplace (replaced with the dialoging of men's opinions to a common-ist consensus—there is no Father's authority to chasten in an opinion) if man is to become "normal" again, i.e. loving the world as he loves himself, i.e. loves himself and others according to the urges and impulses of "human nature." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
Freud is suggesting, as I see it, that manual labor, when related to sexual immorality, is "healthy," while manual labor, divorced from sexual immorality, is "neurotic." Neurosis, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is simply "human nature" seeking liberty from the "guilty conscience" which was engendered by the Father's authority over the child, i.e. the landlord's authority over the laborer. "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile [accepting of capitulation], but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced [yet unable to find 'liberation' from the restraints of authority, so that he can think and act according to his "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'], and therefore neurotic." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) As Satan did to man in the garden in Eden, facilitators seek to 'redeem' man from the Father's authority and 'reconcile' them back to the world in pleasure in the 'moment.' This is the quest those of dialectic thinking, i.e. facilitators of 'change,' seek to achieve, i.e. the negation of righteousness (man's capitulation to the Father's will) through the 'liberation' and augmentation of sensuousness, i.e. through the augmentation of "human nature."
Abraham Maslow wrote on the effects the Father's authority has on the workplace ("neurosis," the laborers fear of failing the boss, i.e. questioning the boss and his authority or being immoral, i.e. according to his boss's standards, in the workplace, i.e. doing his own thing in the workplace instead of carrying out the boss's will, and therefore being fired, i.e. the fear of failing the Father, i.e. questioning Him and His authority or being immoral, i.e. according to his Father's standards, i.e. doing his own thing instead of carrying out the Father's will, and therefore being chastened): "A good deal of the evidence upon which Douglas McGregor [Theory X] bases his conclusions comes from my researches and my papers on motivations." "My work on motivations come from the clinic, from a study of neurotic people." "This carry-over from the study of neurosis to the study of labor in factories is legitimate." "Work is not about paying the rent anymore [satisfying the Father, the boss, the landlord, etc]—it is about self-fulfillment [pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust," "human nature" being 'justified' and 'satisfied' through sensual-social relationships]." "Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation." "Partnership is the same as synergy." "The United States is changing into a managerial society." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole [which is a Gnostic concept]." "Tax credits would be given to the company [and church] that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals [through the use of the consensus process of 'change']." "The goals of democratic education can be nothing else but development toward psychological health [socialist health, negating the "neurosis" of the Patriarchal Paradigm]." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
"[Business] and the not-for-profits [including churches] have a much greater role to play in shaping the good [humanist based] society than any institution I can think of." (George McCown quoted in Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
Wilhelm Reich laid down the dialectic 'reason' for bringing abomination into the workplace (negating the effects of the Father's restraint upon the children not only in the home but also in the workplace and therefore society—the environment or structure of the workplace, just as the environment or structure of the classroom, affects those working or learning in it, who then tend to carry the system they are under back into their homes and into the social relationships they have outside of home, i.e. in the workplace, in the classroom, in the government, in the church, etc.). "The more gratifying one's sexual life is, the more fulfilling and pleasurable is one's work." "It is necessary to establish not only the best external conditions of work, but also to create the inner biologic preconditions to allow the fullest unfolding of the biologic urge for activity." "Hence, the safeguarding of a completely satisfying sexual life for the working masses is the most important precondition of pleasurable work." "Sex-economy sociology was born from the effort to harmonize Freud's depth psychology with Marx's economic theory." "Since work and sexuality (in both the strict and broad senses of the word) are intermately interwoven, man's relationship to work is also a question of the sex-economy of masses of people." "Every effort must be made and all means employed to guard future generations against the influence of the biologic rigidity of the old generation." "The principle weapon on the arsenal of freedom is each new generation's tremendous urge to be free. The possibility of social freedom rests essentially upon this weapon and not upon anything else." "Every physician, educator, and social worker etc., who is to deal with children and adolescents will have to prove that he himself or she herself is healthy from a sex-economic point of view and that he or she has acquired exact knowledge on human sexuality between the ages of one and about eighteen." "… the education of the educators in sex-economy must be made mandatory." "Work and sexuality derive from the same biologic energy." "Psychoanalysis is the mother, sociology the father, of sex-economy." "The child's and adolescent's natural love of life must be protected by clearly defined laws." "Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality." "It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved." "Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being." "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology." "the right of the woman to her own body." "The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the meaning of the family, whose task it precisely the education of the coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family." "The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter of social feeling; . . the large family is preserved because national morality and national culture find their strongest support in it." (Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism)
Maslow wrote in his journals: "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it." "... nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow's Journals)
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is in "labour" (in innovation―in 'change') that man finds his common (common-ist AKA communist) identity with himself and society (with the creation), it is where morality and society become united as one (in abomination). Therefore the individual believer, doing his best to the glory of God, doing the Father's will, becomes an enemy of the state. "…the dialectic of the moral life is linked to the development of the system of social labour." "Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself until the materialist spell that is cast upon the reproduction of social life, the Biblical curse of necessary labour, is broken technologically." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) emphasis added "Only when the process of production is organized on a socialist basis, ... can there be true economic democracy, equality of management and labor, and a high national standard of living." "Events of early childhood are of prime importance for the happiness and work-potential of the adult." "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) emphasis added As a patriarchal, i.e. top-down (capitalist) work environment needs a patriarch-ally educated workforce, so a heresiarchal, i.e. equality (socialist) work environment needs a heresiarch-ally educated workforce. "Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood [changing the workers of the future by separating the 12 to 18 year old from the Father's authority (who inculcates his morals in the workplace and therefore in their thoughts and actions) so that they can become "humanized," 'liberalized' to be "themselves," i.e. carnal in the workplace, liberating the work environment from a "top-down" system of righteousness, i.e. doing the Father's will without question, despite the absence of pleasure and presence of pain, and creating an "equality" system of unrighteousness, i.e. man doing his own thing, i.e. being carnal in a carnal, hedonistic, abomination, workplace]." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The ‘natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them [sustaining a "top-down," anti-democratic AKA anti-socialist AKA ant-communist AKA anti-abomination world]." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) emphasis added The work (education) environment directly affects (influences) the home environment. Whoever controls the work (education) environment influences (controls) the home environment. Without the home environment controlling the work (education) environment, the home environment is subject to negation, i.e. annihilation. "... the function possessed by so-called irrational institutions such as the family, ... in so-called rational bourgeois [patriarchal] society ... is in reality irrational." "... the survival of irrational 'moments' of society ... can only survive through irrational institutions like the family, through a kind of work in which the workers do no receive their full return for their labour, but are exploited once again within their closest associates, ... called the germ-cell of society... the irrational conditions of society can only be maintained through the survival of these irrational functions ... of the family." (Theodor Adorno, Introduction to Sociology) "[A] more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [middle class-traditional family system of Righteousness], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... gigantic problems of re-educating ..." "... eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions...." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, …" "... in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois [traditional family] habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. ...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and non-authoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 2 Affective Domain) In the 'change' of the work (education), from a family based (top-down) to a socialist based (equality) environment, civilization is 'changed.' The emphasis upon righteousness ("obedience") is replaced with an emphasis upon sensuousness ("permissiveness"). Worldly pleasures ("lust," sensuousness) becomes the 'purpose' of work (labor) rather than pleasing God ("denying self," "righteousness"). The carryover from one (lust for the things of the world, i.e. sensuousness, or denying self before God, i.e. righteousness) directly affects the other (the individual, the home, the workplace, civilization, and even the church).
With God, the work (which is of righteousness, of the Lord himself, and not of sensuousness, of man) is already done, before the world was created. "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," 2 Timothy 1:9 While man "glories" in his own works, which are temporal, i.e. ever 'changing,' i.e. sensual, God glories in His, which are eternal, i.e. 'unchanging,' i.e. spiritual. God's grace (which the world can not provide) is receiving that which you do not deserve, i.e. eternal life, peace, joy ("which is given [you] in Christ Jesus"). You do not 'deserve' righteousness and its fruit of peace. It is a gift given by God to only those who, having faith in the Lord, placing their trust in Him alone, i.e. their faith not being in an ideology, a method, a paradigm, a system, or works, etc, but in a person, in Jesus Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and life (any 'works' done are engendered by, i.e. as a result, i.e. a byproduct of faith in Him). "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3
"Kuhn states 'If a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied . . . (which eventuates in) an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances (whereupon) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
Dietrich Bonheoffer is an example of what is happening to ministers and the "church" today. He, explaining his socialist twist (perversion) of the gospel message wrote: "The more this investigation has considered the significance of the sociological category for theology, the more clearly has emerged the social intention of all the basic Christian concepts. 'Person,' 'primal state,' 'sin,' and 'revelation' can be fully comprehended only in reference to socialite [gemeinschaft]." "God does not desire a history of individual human beings, but the history of the human community [gemeinschaft]. However, God does not want a community that absorbs the individual into itself, but a community of human beings. In God's eyes, community and individual exist in the same moment and rest in one another." (Dietrich Bonheoffer, Sanctorum Communio. 13, SC-E 21 ,51, SC-E 80)
Bonheoffer's use of gemeinschaft instead of gesellschaft rests upon his reliance upon "human nature" (trying to find a way to be at one with the world, i.e. for man to have peace with himself and the world as "one") rather than upon the Word of God and the Holy Spirit (dying to the world). While he might have used scriptures, his use of gemeinschaft as a platform to work from exposes his dialectic 'reasoning,' his socialist agenda. As the children of Israel were called out from Egypt to worship God alone, so are believers called out from the world (out from the world system based upon the approval of men) to worship God alone. "Faith" in God to create peace and harmony in the world is only a socialist and a worldly agenda to deceive men into following man's way of thinking and acting, no matter how many times you use the word "Christian" in relationship with it. Thus all he has to work with is man's nature to approach pleasure and avoid pain to bring peace upon the world (twisting scripture to fit with "human nature," "fixing" man through social interaction with one another—Democracy in America by Tocqueville was based upon the same error in thought, i.e. that the churches in America reflected a social agenda, when they were instead based upon doctrine, i.e. divided amongst themselves because of their differing interpretations of the Word of God). Being educated in dialectic 'reasoning' has this affect upon man, what Karl Marx called the "either of the brain," seeing everything though social cause and effect.
Therefore, in regard to the pain of life (including alienation), he must deal with the instinctual solution of "fight or flight" (man's natural inclination to avoid or negate the condition of pain or potential pain so he can retain or hope to gain pleasure—which, when done through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' negates the "pain" of righteousness, obeying the Father's commands unto death, by supplanting it with the pleasure of "oneness" with man). According to "human reasoning," for natural man (unregenerate man, i.e. a man not redeemed and filled with the Holy Spirit) when "fight or flight" does not seem to be an option the brain becomes confused, is inhibited, and remains in a state of compliance toward the source of the pain (frozen, i.e. subject to tradition). According to humanism, God, parent, laws, etc. are the inhibitors of man's self seeking pleasure (union) with the environment (preventing man from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' i.e. uniting upon the sensation of "oneness"). This condition is of interest to the dialectician (who must reject the work of the Cross and the Holy Spirit in changing a man's heart because they must reject sin as the issue of life (sin now only being man alienating himself from man) in order to 'justify' "human nature," using "human reasoning," dialectic 'reasoning' to arrive at their conclusion) because "fight or flight" are hard-wired responses, for the purpose of self or social preservation, which leads to war between people and societies or leads to alienation between people and thus displaced societies, whereas inhibition is the brain frustrated, yet looking for a "rational" understanding of the environment in its effort to produce a "practical," i.e. peaceful (dopamine―homeostasis) solution.
Without man becoming frustrated (dissatisfied with the way things are, yet unable to resort to "fight or flight" to resolve the problem) he will not resort to "thinking" his way out of the way things are (out of the "fight" or "flight" way of doing things). Therefore it is in the condition of man's "frustration" (dissatisfaction) with the way things are that dialectic 'reasoning' gains its foothold for the purpose of 'change.' While with the believer, standing means to stand in the armor of God, to those of dialectic 'reasoning' standing means to stand with mankind, united in removing "individualism," i.e. removing those standing in the armor of God, isolating themselves from the "community of 'change.'" Peace, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' must always include frustration (dissatisfaction) if the process of 'change' is to sustained. People can not be allowed to escape the process or it will not be able to accomplish its intended goal of brining all the world under its control. Hegel wrote of America regarding how he saw it through the "light" of dialectic 'reasoning.' "Concerning politics in North America the need of a firm cohesion is not yet present..." "For a state [or society, according to Karl Marx] to become a state [society] it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating [he can not fight so he flees], but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions [the idea being "it takes a 'village'" to make the man]. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty become very large and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way." "But America does not yet approach this tension . . .[it has arrived at this "tension" today]" (G. F. W. Hegel as quoted in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
The process is not successful until no one can escape. But, as stated above, the process of 'change' can not sustain itself without the continual use of "tension." In this case it is not resolved through "fighting" for the Father, which represses the tension, only diverting it to the Father's will, but through "fighting" for society against the Father, liberating "human nature," not for individual use, but for social 'purpose.' "The feeling of some group leaders that it is undesirable to get closure at the end of the group meeting seems justified—insofar as failure to get closure leaves in the individual a tension to act further. It seems clear that the group meeting should go to the precise point at which each individual has maximum impetus to carry through activity which leads to completion of the group-set task." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
This is the difference between Verstand (understanding by command, doing what the Father commands without question, despite the absence of pleasure or presence of pain, i.e. the rejection of men, where two or more can come together on a common issue but are not bound to one another because of their desire for "oneness" with one another, therefore, while having "feelings" for one another they can divide over doctrine, being lead by the one above rather than the many below) and Vernunft (understanding by "reasoning," according to one's own life experiences, i.e. based upon sensuousness, seeking after pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. desiring the approval of men, seeking to initiate and sustain consensus with one another for the sensation of "oneness"). "'Vernunft' [the human experience of seeking pleasure, i.e. oneness with man and the world] must regain the field from which it had been driven by the triumph of 'Verstand [obeying the Father's commands at all cost, though it might cause you stand alone].'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination)
This is also associated with the difference between '''gemeinschaft' and 'gesellschaft,' the difference between neighborhood (found in the Scriptures) and community or society (not found in the scriptures): "the very existence of Gemeinschaft rests in the consciousness of belonging together and the affirmation of the condition of mutual dependence" and Gesellschaft "reference is only to the objective fact of a unity based on common traits and activities and other external phenomena." (Tonnies 1925: 69, 67). As Jane Howard put it in her book, Please Touch (written about Esalen, located at Big Sur, California, i.e. the center for T-Group, i.e. the encounter movement), "groups provide the right 'gemeinschaft' for the 'angsts' of our 'zeitgeist [socialism is the solution to the anxiety of our times, i.e. the fear of being alone, i.e. of being left out].'" (Jane Howard, Please Touch) The message of the cross and the resurrection, i.e. 'redemption' from the Father's wrath upon sin (for disobedience against the Father's will) and 'reconciliation' to the Father, is negated in Bonheoffer's use of Gesellschaft, filtering the scriptures through socialist cause, why his writings have become so popular in the "community church" today.
"Few parents can be expected to persist for long in educating their children for a society that does not exist, or even in orienting themselves toward goals which they share only with a minority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
"Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, ... leads to neurosis." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation." Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
"Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents' behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
"What The Authoritarian Personality was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian society ─ fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional parental authority was under fire." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Adorno wrote: "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." "An attitude of complete submissiveness toward 'supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of 'many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures―parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "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)
patriots (the prejudiced, i.e. nationalists, i.e. "Fascists"):
"Can the attitude that 'women's place is in the home' be considered a prejudice? It would appear that it is so.... Subjects who profess to some religious affiliation express more prejudice than those who do not.... people who reject organized religion are less prejudiced than those who accept it.... It is a well‑known hypothesis [Note: a theory proven false] that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle‑class phenomenon, ... those who conform the most to this culture [the traditional home] will be the most prejudiced.... Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth ["lower order thinking skills"], have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account.... Prejudiced subjects tend to report a relatively harsh and more threatening type of home discipline which was experienced as arbitrary by the child.... The status‑anxiety so often found in families of prejudiced subjects is reflected in the adoption of a rigid and externalized set of values:...[this project seeks] to explain prejudice in order to eradicate it. Eradication means re-education." "Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class." [Yet note Adorno's paranoia about the traditional home and its potential effect upon society.] " . . . a 'cure' of one manifestation is likely to be followed by a breaking out in some other way. . . . so great is the over-all fascist potential that any front might make it even more difficult . . ." ". . . as the present study has shown, we are dealing with a structure within the person it seems that we should consider, first, psychological techniques for changing personality." "The problem is one which requires the efforts of all social scientists . . . the councils or round tables . . . psychologists should have a voice." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Gordon Allport wrote: "Prejudice tends to be a personality trait." "We note that this form of the California Ethnocentrism [prejudice against socialism AKA communism] Scale [Theodor Adorno. The Authoritarian Personality] has four subscales, 1. Jews, 2. Negroes, 3. Other minorities, and 4. Patriotism."
"'Patriotism' as tested by these particular items obviously does not refer to loyalty to the American creed. It has rather a flavor of 'isolationism'" "The California research found further, as we might now expect, a tendency for these 'safety-islanders' [patriots] to be vigorously loyal to their churches, sororities, families, and other in-groups." "All who live outside the ethnocentric circle of safety are viewed with suspicion." "The same restrictiveness is seen in correlations between ethnocentrism and social and political 'conservatism—pseudoconservative' or selective traditionalists.'"
"Tolerant children, it seems, are likely to come from homes with a permissive atmosphere." "Early training is an important agent in slanting a child toward tolerance." "Tolerance [is] the result of several forces pressing in the same direction. The greater the number of forces that press in this one direction (temperament, family atmosphere, specific parental teaching, diversified experience, school and community influences), the more tolerant the developed personality will be." "Character-conditioned tolerance is set in a positive worldview."
"Some tolerant people are fighters. . . they are intolerant of intolerance." "Sometimes they form a group (e.g., Committee on Racial Equality) to test restaurants, hotels, and public conveyances, to see whether discrimination is practiced." "They make themselves into spies to study and eventually expose agitators and intolerant profascist organizations." "Whether the tolerant person is militant or pacifistic, he is very likely to be liberal in his political views."
"Prejudiced individuals are more often conservatives." "The fact that liberalism and radicalism both correlate positively with ethnic tolerance places a strong weapon in the hands of bigots (who are likely to be political conservatives)." "Tolerant people are more accurate in their judgments of personality." "Perhaps the best single phrase is that suggested by Else Frenkel-Brunswick, 'tolerance for ambiguity.'" "There is a tolerant pattern, not merely a tolerant attitude." "A pattern is a synthesis or 'total style.'"
"Self-love is compatible with love of others." "This disposition grows naturally out of the early dependent relationship of mother and child, of earth and creature." "Affiliation is the source of all happiness." "Only when life is free from intolerable threats, can one be at ease with all sorts and conditions of men." (Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice)
Some quick flow charts used by "Change Agents" for the 'purpose' of changing groups.
Source: Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change (PDF file; size 1.4 MB)
"... the further the group "grows" along these four dimensions, the more "mature" a group it is."
(1) How well is this group as a group progressing towards some production or action goal it has set for itself?
(2) How well is this group fitting its immediate goals into the broader framework of our democratic society?
(3) How well is this group utilizing the potentialities of its members to contribute towards its work goals?
(4) How well is this group "growing" its members, how well is it helping them become even better contributors, to assume a ‘vider variety of essential group roles, than their present potentialities allow them? The assumption being made is that
A group can gauge its growth by noting whether it is moving from the "no" to the "yes" end of the scale in each respect.
1. Does every member make contributions to the discussion?
2. Is every member Intensely involved in the discussion at all stages?
3. Does the discussion move toward common agreements in terms of the solution of the problem being discussed? Do all members of the group understand and accept as important the problem being discussed?
4. Is the discussion oriented toward decision and action at all times?
5. Does the group accept and understand the conflicts encountered and move toward their resolution?
6. Does the group recognize its need for information? Does it know how to go about getting such information?
7. Does the group use resource persons or resource material as an aid to its own thinking, not as giving the final action-solution of its problem?
8. Is the group unduly dependent upon its leader or on some of its members? Does the group use its leadership as an aid to common solutions, not as a source of final solutions?
9. Is the leader accepted as a member of the group, with special functions to perform?
10. Is there an atmosphere of friendly cooperation in the group at all times particularly when conflicts of Ideas and points of view are encountered?
11. Does the group resent attempts at domination by its leader, one of its members, a clique of its members or by a visiting expert?
12. Is there a feeling of progress toward common goals?
13. Is the group "realistic" in its choice of problems and in setting its goals?
14. Does the discussion move readily toward decision when decision is required?
15. Does the group find it possible to dispense with the creaking machinery of parliamentary procedure?
Five basic democratic norms can be identified.
1. The engineering of change and the meeting of pressures on a group or organization toward change must be collaborative.
2. The engineering of change must be educational for the participants.
3. The engineering of change must be experimental.
4. The engineering of change must be task-oriented, that is, controlled by the requirements of the problem confronted and its effective solution, rather than oriented to the maintenance or extension of the prestige or power of those who originate contributions.
5. The engineering of change must be anti-individualistic, yet provide for the establishment of appropriate areas of privacy and for the development of persons as creative units of influence in our society.
What counseling is really all about:
"Without exception, patients enter group therapy with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group--their primary family." (Irwin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
". . . 'to expose the patient, under more favorable circumstances, to emotional situations which he could not handle in the past. ... undergo a corrective emotional experience suitable to repair the traumatic influence of pervious experience.' Franz Alexander, 1946 in Ibid., p. 25.
"Through the therapist's continued willingness to verbalize and to confront the calamity calmly, patients gradually realize the irrationality of the feared calamity." Ibid., p. 183
"In the group not only must the individual strive for autonomy but the leader must be willing to allow him to do so. … an individual's behavior cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of his environmental press. …one member's behavior is not understandable out of context of the entire group. …there is no more important issue than the interrelationship of the group members. … few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority. One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial. The ‘third force' in psychology … which emphasized a holistic, humanistic concept of the person, provided impetus and form to the encounter group … The patient reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy 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. The therapist assists the patient to clarify the nature of the imagined danger and then … to detoxify, to disconfirm the reality of this danger. By shifting the group's attention from ‘then-and-there' to ‘here-and-now' material, he performs a service to the group … focusing the group upon itself. Members must develop a feeling of mutual trust and respect and must come to value the group as an important means of meeting their personal needs. Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself. Patients should be encouraged to take risks in the group; such behavior change results in positive feedback and reinforcement and encourages further risk-taking. Members learn about the impact of their behavior on the feelings of other members. …a patient might, with further change, outgrow [divorce]… his spouse … unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"The theme underlying much of the research is that once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unity of society ABOVE the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, et al., The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing )
Carl Rogers On becoming a person"Walden Two: 'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn't' ... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises."
(emphasis in original as italics.)
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015