The eyes are stronger than the ears.
(The ears go first.)
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
We either reason through what we see (what we "sense experience," i.e. experience for ourselves—inductive reasoning) or through what we hear (what we are told by others—deductive reasoning). The first requires tangibility, i.e. depends upon that which we see ("sense perceive" for ourselves) from the environment, the second requires faith, i.e. depends upon that which we do not see (have not experienced for ourselves) but have only heard from someone else and accepted as truth by faith. While preaching and teaching truth requires faith,( faith in the teacher, belief in what he is teaching, i.e. accepting it as truth, obedience in memorizing what they are teaching, and the acceptance of chastening when we do not learn it, i.e. retain it and apply it correctly as given or else—doing right and not doing wrong is established by the one speaking, who we are hearing from), the dialoguing of men's opinions requires sight (requires "sense experience"), i.e. where we can manipulate or adapt what we have learned in the past in the "light" of the immediate environment, i.e. adapt to the 'changing' times for the 'purpose' of augmenting (attaining, increasing, sustaining, or increasing) pleasure and attenuating (decreasing) pain, controlling that which is of sensuousness. While God persuades men through the preaching and teaching of His Word, which requires faith on the part of man, man manipulates man through his control of the environment, through the other person's perception of the environment, regarding what it offers him in pleasure (or in pain) in the 'moment' (or even in the future).
Therefore, whoever controls the environment of man's perception controls man's natural inclination, that is, unless that man is established upon the preaching and teaching, i.e. behaves according to the hearing of God's Word (is living by faith). Apart from faith, man is subject to the person or thing which controls the environment which controls him (like natural resource, he must be manipulatable, i.e. adaptable to 'change,' influenceable according to the 'changing' environment, i.e. subject to the one doing the manipulating or he becomes worthless in the eyes of the one doing or attempting to do the manipulating). By 'changing' the condition or requirements of the environment, from the doing of right and not doing wrong (the condition of righteousness) to the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain (the condition of sensuousness), how a person reason's is 'changed.' He, along with his reasoning, is 'changed' from looking outside himself (and the world) to a higher authority than nature for the answers to life's problems to where he is looking within himself (and the world), i.e. to nature itself, for the answers to life's problems instead. In other words, he is materializes.
Karl Marx knew this. He wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [who depends upon faith, i.e. hearing the Word of God and believing what he hears, responding to it as given, doing right and not doing wrong according to the Lord's commands] also recognizes sensuality ["sense experience," i.e. that which is of sight, 'changing' with the 'changing' times, according to the natural inclination of approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain] as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Yet he also knew that science needed that which was tangible (of sight only, i.e. it has to be "sense experienced") to be true science. It needed to be observable (of sight) and repeatable (establishable, i.e. consistent) for what it 'discovers' to become accepted as a law. "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) His trickery was to substitute "sensuous need" ("human nature," i.e. the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain) for "repeatability" (established laws of nature, i.e. doing right and not doing wrong according to known laws) to make that which is of sight, of "sense perception" of the 'moment' the only basis from which to clarify morals and ethics ("sensuous need," i.e. meaning and purpose, i.e. to answer the question: "Why am I here?"), i.e. making the 'changeable' world (the spectrum of the approaching pleasure and the avoiding of pain) the foundation for socialist thought and socialist action (beauty and freedom, pleasure and justice, enjoyment and equality), making the meaning and purpose of life based only upon man's carnal "sensuous 'needs,'" i.e. subject to Maslow's hierarchy of "felt" needs only—at least first and foremost).
By elevating this "reasoning," the 'reasoning' of sensuousness, making it "equal" with the reasoning of faith, i.e. of "true reason, i.e., of faith," faith becomes negated, i.e. faith becomes relegated to the level of "lower order thinking skills" in a "higher order thinking skills" (materialist) environment, i.e. "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. the will of the carnal child, i.e. man, establishes himself over and against righteousness, that which is of faith, the will of the Father, i.e. God. By making that which is subject to hearing (of the "past" truth learned, of faith) subject to that which is of sight (to the "present" feelings), that which is of hearing (of faith) is negated. The 'reasoning' of "seems to" (perception) supersedes" the reasoning of what "is" declared (faith) when what "is" declared (faith) is made subject to sensuousness (what is perceived), and negated when it does not make sense (is unperceivable). As Carl Rogers wrote: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) The scriptures warn us: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
As you will come to understand, he, along with all who 'reason' dialectically, who 'reason' to 'justify' "human nature," i.e. to 'justify' the heart of man, left off the last and most important reason for science, the knowing of established truth, of the laws of nature, whereby we can have certainty and consistency in life and thereby become accountability to the law giver, i.e. accountable for our thoughts and our actions. They thereby, for example, negate the purpose for the Declaration of Independence, i.e. where those in government must recognize "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if they are to govern well (be restrained from "despotism"). In this way, hearing (the threat of judgment, accountability to established laws of right and wrong, good and evil, not from nature itself alone) prevents seeing (a man's lust to control all that he sees, convincing himself that he is "good" by doing "good," i.e. by doing "good" for all, good being tied only to the sensation of the sensuousness of the pleasures of the world) from taking over the world.
The difference is also understood between Verstand (understanding by command, by hearing) and Vernunft (understanding by reasoning through "sense experience," by sight, by seeing or experiencing for oneself, making man subject to the world only). The dialectic agenda is to create a world of Vernunft negating Verstand (reasoning from sight negating reasoning from faith as a means to knowing the truth). "'Vernunft' must regain the field from which it had been driven by the triumph of 'Verstand.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) Karl Marx wrote of the education of his day, that it was still dominated by Christian principles (Verstand), not allowing hedonism and carnality, i.e. "human nature" ("Vernunft") a place of "equality." He wrote: "Education as yet is unable and unwilling to bring all estates and distinctions into its circle. Only Christianity and morality are able to found universal kingdoms on earth." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) He knew that the educator himself had to be educated if this (the "universal kingdom" of "human nature" only, the world ruled by and controlled by sight only) was to become 'reality,' i.e. the world was to be 'changed.' He wrote: "that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #3) For Marx, society must be socialized, united by sight, i.e. through "sense experience," i.e. "the standpoint of the new is human society, or socialized humanity" (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #10) or it would remain individualized, divided by the hearing of the Word of God, i.e. the children remaining subject to their Fathers, doing their Father's will, i.e. restraining "human nature," preventing the creation of a "socialized humanity."
This conflict between the eyes and the ears, between sight and faith, is also associated with the difference between '''gemeinschaft' and 'gesellschaft,' the difference between the community (man united by a feeling of inter-dependency) and the neighborhood (man associated by "common traits and activities," commands inculcated by patents and teachers regarding proper conduct in public); "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) The fellowship of believers is not the same as either one of them (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft), in that, it not only is the byproduct of believers coming together as individuals in Christ, with Him in their midst, but also is the result of those who have the Holy Spirit (in each individual), bearing witness to the Works and/or Word of Christ in their personal lives, being shared by word (testimony) amongst themselves (as His bride), which the world does not have, nor can understand, i.e. only being able to perceive it as a socialist setting , i.e. subject to the "feelings," the carnal needs and opinions of men finding unity in common interest (that which is of sight). Tocqueville, who wrote Democracy in America, could only see the "social" (the carnal, the temporal, that which is of the eyes) when he saw the many churches in America, thinking that it was the "socialist church" that was blessing America, when it was man's faith in the Lord alone, humbling themselves before Him, crying out to Him for help, and God's providential hand resting upon them, answering their prayers.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Even George Washington knew of the heart of man, it's lust for power in government, i.e. its lust for control over what it sees, i.e. over the citizens and their lives for their personal or socialist dreams. He wrote: "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes." (George Washington's Farewell Speech)
Considering their own hearts as being "good," no longer hearing God's Word (preached and taught as given), exposing man's heart as being "wicked" (being controlled by sight), few understand this kind of reasoning today (that is, limiting the power of government, preventing it from "supplying" their "felt" needs). Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of sight only, believe that "the workers' council" [the consensus process, where man's heart (the imagination of the heart, that of man's perception) is united as "one" in socialist cause, i.e. united in the cause of "good," as man perceives "good"] is the only way "the people" will be able to "eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration, and judiciary ["eliminate" the testimony and propensity of man's wicked heart—which is now being trusted, therefore, taking over everything in sight]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Carl Rogers manifested in his writings Washington's concerns (regarding the power that a man can have over other man through his use of "sense perception," through his controlling of the environment of perception, if allowed). Only in his case he intended to use it for socialist "good," of course. Rogers wrote: "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard) "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." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
"Behavior science" has only one function. The negation of faith, i.e. negating the hearing of or listening to authority, negating authority which is not of and for the sensuous 'moment,' negating authority which is not fulfilling temporal desires, i.e. which is not tangible and therefore not seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable to the facilitator of 'change's carnal (socialist-worldly) end. The "behavior scientist's," the facilitator of 'change's" definition of "listening skills" is not that of listening for truth which comes from outside of man's "sense experience," restraining "human nature," but rather listening for the "truths" which come from man's "sense experience" itself, i.e. 'liberating' "human nature," helping man to become "good"—with anything or anyone who inhibits or blocks the unifying of man with himself, with others, and with nature, i.e. with the world, as being evil. If you are going to make the world one, you must negate that which divides, i.e. the hearing to faith.
This required negating the repeatability of science. It required relativizing the law of science, replacing the word "repeatability" (the "rigidity" or "fixity" of law) with the word "describability" (definability, based upon the "sense perception" of the 'moment,' the 'changeability' of law—which is not 'changeable') instead. It required making man subject to the "sense experiences" of the ever 'changing' environment in which he finds himself in the 'moment.' It required him to become adaptable to 'change,' i.e. subject to his own "feelings" and the "feelings" of others, if he was to find "true" meaning or 'purpose' in his own life, as well as in the lives of others, i.e. find true meaning and 'purpose' in the life of the 'moment.' For example 20 bricks in a pile are 20 bricks (repeatable for ever) but when "feelings" are applied (sense perception is involved) they are not sensually "enjoyable," i.e. not "positive" to walk upon nor to view. Only when they are arranged in a particular pattern does a "positive" feeling come into being. Without the "describability" (the feelings, the eyes, the time factor) only the "repeatability" (the facts, the ears, the number) resides in the thoughts and actions of the person. You therefore take on relevance, not as an individual brick, but as you augment pleasure and attenuate pain in your relationship with other bricks. That spectrum of worth or value is "describable," and therefore only if you are 'changeable,' i.e. only if you are willing to move from the right-wrong way of thinking, i.e. from the rigidity of the established laws of true science (to be memorized as is), to the spectrum or continuum of the 'changeability' of feelings and thoughts, i.e. of "I feel" and "I think," i.e. the way of 'reasoning' which is subject to 'change,' do you become increasingly of worth or of value (or have the 'potential' of becoming of worth or value).
The idea of "theory and practice" is the same as the "space-time continuum," where time (practice, i.e. time to act, motion, i.e. the 'moment,' how objects are in relationship to one another, direction, distance, etc.) is needed to be able to reflect upon (theory, think upon one's own "feelings" and the "feelings" of others, environmental awareness), i.e. where a person's contemplation upon the immediate situation is essential if he is to understand himself and the universe he resides within—rather than to "meditate" upon the laws which the person has learned in the past (memorized) to help him respond to a given condition in the present. William Glasser wrote, regarding the 'purpose' of education: "Memory is not education, answers are not knowledge. Certainty and memory are the enemies of thinking, the destroyer of creativity and originality." (William Glasser, Schools Without Failure) The dialectic rhetoric is: you can not fail a student in the "education" system if his grade point is based upon his thinking about "feelings" (his own and others, which he has in common with all children) rather than upon his knowledge of facts learned or memorized only. Jean Piaget wrote, regarding the 'purpose' of education as well: "Any time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself," (Piaget) The truth is, you can fail a student if his feelings do not (his opinion does not) become the foundation upon which he determines facts or truth from. It he refuses to participate in the process of 'change,' which he can not function within without 'changing' facts into feelings (treating feelings as facts), i.e. treating beliefs as opinions so that he can find a common opinion with others in the 'moment,' so that all can work together for the 'purpose' of 'change,' he can flunk the test (what is happening in education today). Therefore, anything which can not become "known" within the "space-time," "theory-practice," "sense experience" continuum becomes an "illusion," i.e. "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," i.e. with faith, hearing, the Word of God no longer accepted as a means to solving personal and social problems, but rather a barrier.
Rod Paige, while secretary of education under president Bush Jr., made the following statement: "We must bring theory closer to practice." To better understand the reason for tying theory to practice (thinking about "feelings" to action), and the consequences of applying it, it is important to know that it is a key component to Marxism. "The goal of revolutionary activity was understood as the unifying of theory and praxis." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950) This only makes sense when you tie the "feelings" to the child and the facts to the Father, i.e. the child's thoughts (which are upon his "feelings," i.e. approaching pleasure with the world) restrained by the Father's facts (his authority) which is not understandable to the child (therefore "sense perceivable" as being only spiritual, i.e. not of his temporal world of the 'moment,' yet in it, restraining it). The child's thinking or reflecting upon his immediate "feelings," i.e. how the world "ought" to be, is therefore key to the 'liberation' of the child from the Father's authority, but without theory (his opinion) being put into action (into social action or praxis), it can not become 'realized,' his world can not be 'changed' into the world that "ought" to be. "'The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.' Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action." (Introduction to Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notes) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' truth is not to be found outside of praxis (outside of man's "sense experience") but from within it. "Truth is a moment in correct praxis." (ibid)
Karl Marx wrote, regarding praxis (theory and practice, man and the world united as one in thought and action, freed from accountability, from being answerable to any authority other than "human nature"): "Philosophy as theory . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis; it serves to distinguish it from religion, the wisdom of the other world." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') The Transformational Marxist, György Lukács wrote: "Praxis becomes the form of action appropriate to the isolated individual [fighting against his Father's authority, i.e. fighting against the establishment, freeing thought from the restraints of facts, freeing sight from the restraints of faith], it becomes his ethics." "Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
The following statements by Kenneth Benne regarding theory and practice, thought lengthy and "involved," are clear in explaining the "education" agenda of today, i.e. what contemporary education (Common Core, etc.) is all about. Benne, who was instrumental in changing Americas school curriculum, wrote (back in the late 40's): "... the need for collaboration across lines of divergent action interests in a given situation requiring change, individuals and groups must be helped to see that the task is to discover and construct a common interest out of the conflicting interests which they bring to the interpretation of the situation and to the direction of changes in it." "... collaboration required is across lines of 'theory' and 'practice'." "Neither of these modes of collaboration, between persons and groups with different interests in change and between 'theorists' and 'practitioners', comes 'naturally' to people." "Every change operation must, in this sense, be conceived as an educational enterprise. It is important that this educational requirement of democratic engineering be interpreted dynamically instead of statically." "... all who collaborate must be trained toward an experimental attitude and a 'research' approach toward social problems." "... all educational practitioners, children and laymen participating in educational change become experimental in their attitude toward relationship problems faced and 'research-minded' in their search for and evaluation of solutions ..." "... democratic change must be anti-authoritarian." "Democratic persons must become skilled in inhibiting their tendencies to defend and promote ideas which are in need of objective evaluation and reformulation. It is important that persons achieve sensitivity in assessing the sources of influence upon themselves and to differentiate between dependence upon status figures and dependence upon fact-oriented [facts now tied to feelings or "interests"] and task-oriented [tasks now tied to socialist] influences." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
Benjamin Bloom, applying Marxist ideology to education, wrote: "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form [universal behavior] have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals [particular behavior], observable and describable therefore classifiable." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1: Cognitive Domain) The only consistency would thereafter be the voiding (the negating) of established law, once known, once revealed, as the requirement for science (now tied to "human behavior"), replacing repeatability and consistency with man's "sense perception" (his opinions, his "feelings" and "thoughts") in the sensuous 'moment,' i.e. in the given environment of the 'moment,' thereby using the so called "scientific method" of vain speculation to free, i.e. seduce, deceive, and manipulate man, like some natural resource, from faith (from God, from the Father's authority, which restrains "human nature"). Bloom's "Taxonomies" have meant death to America(ns), i.e. death to this nation, physically and spiritually, yet I know of no one else who has exposed it (from the light of the Word of God) as the source for the 'change' that has taken over this country, i.e. taking it (and the nations around it) down the road we are now so rapidly traveling, to our destruction (to judgment) for our praxis of abomination (as Bloom called it opening up "Pandora's Box," which he purposely opened in the classrooms of America, beginning in the 50's).
This "method" is not only being used in the secular area but in the sacred as well. The scriptures warn of the so called "scientific method," used by facilitators of 'change,' to bring the "church" back into the world, i.e. "redeeming" the church from the Father, "reconciling" it back to the world (replacing the Word of God , i.e. faith by hearing, i.e. lead by the spirit, with the opinions of men, i.e. seeing or understanding through "sense experience," through human "feelings" or "thoughts," i.e. lead by the flesh—where men can speak of Christ, i.e. for show, for position of influence, yet present a message or program of "salvation" for the flesh): "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." "But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." Jude: 3-3-8, 10, 11
Faith warns us of the results of dialectic 'reasoning': "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21. Believers are to avoid the "oppositions" (antithesis) of so-called science―the antithesis of so-named gnosis (knowing "truth" through "sense perception" only—και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως)―whereby those who use this process ("human reasoning") loose their faith. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world [of sight], and not after Christ [of faith, through the hearing of the Word]." Colossians 2:8 "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Ephesians 4:17-19 "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4:1-6
Bloom admitted that he was receiving criticism from the scientific field for his use of the so called "scientific method." True science, which is used on rocks, plants, animals, and man's physical body becomes so called science when used on man's values, making the law of the flesh, i.e. "human nature" the only law from which to determine right and wrong, good and evil from. "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Forty years after the publication of his first Taxonomy, Bloom wrote: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect) So much for true science. The word "Taxonomy," as Bloom admitted, was only used as a language "tool" to bring the dialectic process (materialism, i.e. the so called "scientific method") into the classroom, i.e. for the 'purpose' of socialist 'change,' moving the classroom from an environment which engendered reasoning by faith (spirit, the Father's authority) to one which engendered 'reasoning' by sight (flesh, the child's "feelings"), i.e. creating an environment where the child could determine right from wrong, good from evil according to his own nature, i.e. according to that which he has in common with all children, i.e. "human nature."
Thomas Kuhn, a student of Ralph Tyler—who Bloom was a student of as well—had the same problem, i.e. trying to fit the so called "scientific method," which was used on man for the 'purpose' of 'change'—basing science (facts or truth) upon man's "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. upon theory, i.e. upon opinions—back into the scientific fields again, i.e. incorporating "human feelings" into the hard facts ("rigidity") of science, i.e. forcing "feelings" into the field of knowing. "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory [dialectic 'reasoning,' "human reasoning," so called science, treating opinions or theories as "truth" and acting upon them as though they were facts] yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) The cycle of error in dialectic 'reasoning,' is the idea that science can be applied to man, incorporating "feelings," i.e. reasoning 'justifying' feelings, into the field of science, making it so called science. By then reapply this 'reasoning,' dialectic 'reasoning,' back into the scientific world, true science is sacrificed at the alter of so called science, where "feelings" influence and control the scientific environment. Kuhn wrote: "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 (where upon ) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." "Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) By adding the language of "feelings" to the field of science, the scientist of facts is eventually replaced with the "scientist" of "feelings." "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ibid.
Sight, used to determine right and wrong, good and evil according to "human nature," can only lead to a spectrum, a plurality of placed "feelings," i.e. whether a child seeks to gratify only his Father (does what his Father wills, lives by faith only), gratify only himself (does whatever he wills yet has a "guilty conscience" for living according to sight instead of by faith, i.e. knowing that what he is doing is wrong), or only gratifies others of like mind, i.e. those of "human nature" (does what the socialist's, i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' i.e. the seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of men will, that all men would live according to "human nature," live by sight only, i.e. live freed from the Father's authority, i.e. freed from the "guilty conscience," willing to do their wicked deeds, for the "goodness" of mankind, with not second thought, i.e. with no "guilty conscience").
"Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20
Faith, used to determine right and wrong, good and evil from—established according to the Father's commands—can only lead to an antithesis condition, a duality between the spirit and the flesh, between the Father and the child, between the Father's will and the child's will (the child, subject to "human nature," following his "natural inclination" to become at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' in disobedience to his Father's will), between heaven and hell, between eternal life and eternal death. Faith limits a person to only one object to gratify, i.e. the Father. This is where Marx (sociology) and Freud (psychology) find common ground, i.e. the negation of the Father's authority over His children. "Freud speaks of religion [the child's unquestioned obedience to his Father] as a 'substitute-gratification'– the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people [the child's unwillingness to question his Father's commands, i.e. question his Father's authority].'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
A side note regarding the title of Brown's book. History, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is not the study of the past to help us retain knowledge on how to overcome present problems or prevent future ones. It is a study of the child's life history itself, whether he is still subject to his Father's authority only, thinking for himself only, or thinking about socialist issues only (his 'reasoning' is based upon the spectrum of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain rather than upon the duality of doing right and not wrong according to the Father's commands), i.e. he is thinking about how to make the world a better place for socialist to live in (so they don't having to think about sin, i.e. have a "guilty conscience" for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions).
Defying the Father's authority, the "children of disobedience" live to control the gratifying things of life (live to control the environment), when in truth the gratifying things of life control them (the environment controls them). They know that by controlling the gratifying things of life (by controlling the environment) they can control others (they can control the world), for their own gratification. "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-5 "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32
Filtering faith through the so called "scientific method," i.e. reasoning through sensuousness, through "feelings," through sight, negates faith. Hegel summed it up this way: 'lawfulness without law,' where the law of the flesh (ever 'changing' according to the situation, i.e. subject to the ever 'changing' environment) negates the law of faith—which, like the laws of nature, is established for all times, in all places (Romans 7:14-25). Herbart Marcuse, explaining Hegel's phrase, wrote: "In the aesthetic imagination [in the imagination of the heart, man's escape from law, from "rigidity"], sensuousness generates universally valid principles for an objective order [a "new" world order of the spirit of the flesh, i.e. of man united as "one," in consensus, according to "human nature," voiding the "old" world order of the Father's authority, of the spirit of God restraining the flesh]. The two main categories defining this order are 'purposiveness without purpose' — i.e. beauty, 'lawfulness without law' — i.e. freedom. 'Zweckmässigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmässigkeit ohne Gesetz'" "Whatever the object may be (thing or flower, animal or man), it is represented and judged not in terms of its usefulness, not according to any purpose it may possibly serve, and also not in view of its 'internal' finality and completeness." (George Hegel as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) In other words law and purpose (why I am here) is not established outside the person's own "sense experience" with the world but is only found within the world of "sense experience," within "human nature" (within mans carnal pleasure and his desire for freedom to be carnal) being the only foundation. "Philosophy [man's opinion on how the world "ought" to be] is not outside the world; it simply has a different kind of presence in the world. The world is its ground; it is the spiritual quintessence of its age. The world is the object of its enquiry and concern; it is the wisdom of the world." (Joseph O'Malley translator of Karl Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)
Hegel's "Notion," i.e. man caught between "being" and "nothing" (not being), can only be know, i.e. can only come to know itself in the process of "becoming," i.e. in overcoming the Father's authority. It is the Father's authority which made "human nature," the child knowing himself through his relationship with the world, i.e. "being," "nothing." By the Father making "being," i.e. by the Father making the child's nature subject to that which is not of this world, subject to the Father's will, i.e. according to Hegel, subject to "nothing" the child was therefore unable to know himself as he is. Only by the child's overcoming of (his negating of) his Father's authority (the authority which requires faith, obeying words spoken "as given," without question) can the child come to know (become) himself as he is, i.e. "human," of the world only, of sight only. This required the negating (the annihilating) of the Father's authority in all the world, if mankind was to be himself, i.e. only "human," as Marx said, only "proceed[ing] from Nature."
Karl Marx hated established law (the will of the Father) because it restrained "human nature," i.e. the will of "the people." He made this clear in his reaction against God's judgment upon the wickedness of man's heart, i.e. God's wrath upon "the children of disobedience," i.e. his wrath upon those justifying themselves through their use of the so called "scientific method." Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." "The critique of religion [the child's unquestioned obedience to his Father] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being." "Criticism proceeds on to praxis." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, ed. Joseph O'Malley) Correlating "religion" (where the child, by faith, accepts his Father's words as truth, submitting his will to His Father's will) to "repression" and "alienation" (alienating himself from his own nature and therefore alienating himself from that which he has in common with all children of the world, preventing him from 'discovering' and 'creating' unity with the world) Marx's only solution was to negate the foundation of "religion," i.e. negate the child's faith in the Father's words, i.e. negate the Father's authority to give commands to his children, i.e. commands to be obeyed without question, along with negating his right to chasten them when they disobey them. What Marx meant by his last comment was that dialectic 'reasoning,' which always challenges what "is" (questions established laws which inhibit or block what "ought" to be, i.e. criticizing laws which prevent "enjoyment" and freedom to be carnal), must be put into social action (put into practice) negating established law (negating the Father's authority, which requires faith on the part of the child) so that the children of the world can become one, according to "human nature," according to sight.
According to Karl Marx, it is not enough to think about doing it, negate the Father's authority, i.e. negate established law, negate any condition which inhibits "human nature," i.e. negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (Hegel), you must do it (Marx), thereby 'liberating' the law of the flesh (which was waiting all the time to be 'liberated') so that man can be himself again, as he was, as a child before his Father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience. Herbart Marcuse, in his book The Future of an Illusion, wrote that Freud "praised science and scientific reason as the great liberating antagonist of religion." "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there [within his "human nature"], in the repressed unconscious ["human nature" repressed by the demands and conditions of the Father's will, with the child subject of the system of righteousness]; the foundation has to be recovered [the child has to be 'liberated' from his Father's authority so that he can be himself again, i.e. carnal, of the world only]."
Hidden within Hegel's reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning') is that the object which produces pleasure does not have value in and of itself. It is only pleasure that has value. The object is therefore expendable if and when it no longer produces value, i.e. it no longer produces (or no longer has the potential for producing) enjoyment or pleasure. You are expendable if you no longer produce pleasure (produce value or worth) or no longer have the potential of producing pleasure in others. In psychology this is done by replacing the conscience (the voice of the Father, the fear of judgment from the Father, for doing wrong, in the mind of the child), with the super-ego (the voice of "the village," laws subject to 'changing moment,' subject to "human nature," subject to "feeling"), which is based upon the value of pleasure, i.e. the sensuousness of the 'moment,' which can only be based upon sight (to the immediate or imagined future environment). Faith, which requires a person not to turn to pleasure or avoid pain if it turns him away from doing his Father's will, is through dialectic 'reasoning,' turned into sight, where a person nature of seeking after pleasure and avoiding pain is the measurement from which to determine the value or worth of life. Therefore absolutes must become relative, faith must become sight if a person is to become "reasonable," i.e. is to be perceived as being relevant. As Marx stated it: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) Bloom, recognizing Marx's world view as being key to education, key to the 'changing' of a persons life as well as of a nation, wrote: "But, as has been pointed out before, we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Bloom's statement would be true, in regards to man's continual learning of the laws of nature, but, as he noted, his Taxonomy was a "psychological classification system," based upon "human nature" only.
When a person rejects faith in God, all he has is dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of self, i.e. the 'justification' of "human nature," a process which was first put into practice in a garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6). ''And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16: 15 There is no synthesis (a world of "common-ism," a world united upon "human nature," a world united upon "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," which all men have in common). There is only a world of antithesis with God, who is thesis only. Synthesis, a Fatherless world, is a condition of deception. It is a world (a "new" world order) of "the children of disobedience" justifying themselves according to "human nature," blinding by their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. blinded by "human reasoning," therefore blind to God's judgment upon them for their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4 "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ["human nature," men's opinions, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks," in dialogue with himself and with others], is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17
"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God." Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 When it comes to right and wrong, good and evil don't let your eyes take you captive to the world. Instead, with your ears, listen to "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God," bringing "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ," who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things, even unto death. 2 Corinthians 10:5 For, without faith it is impossible to please your Heavenly Father. You must evaluate yourself and the world around you from God's Word or else you will evaluate God and His Word according to your "human nature," 'liberating' yourself from the Father, as two did in the garden in Eden, which leads to eternal death.
"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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 Our Heavenly Father sent His only begotten Son to 'redeem' us from His wrath upon us—for making sight not faith the basis from which to determine good and evil from. He raised Him from the grave to 'reconcile' us to Himself, so that we might partake in His holiness and know his glory throughout eternity. Both require faith. God will not have it any other way. Where you spend eternity depends upon whether you live by sight or by faith, i.e. whether you live by your eyes (by the world, by the flesh) or by your ears (by the Words of the Lord, by the spirit). One leads to eternal death, the other to eternal life. Choose eternal life. Choose faith. Choose the Father, only made possible through faith in His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2015