Immanuel Kant
"Lawfulness without law ... Purposiveness without purpose."

What Immanuel Kant means by "Lawfulness without law ... Purposiveness without purpose" (in Critique of Judgment) is: when the law of human nature and nature become at-one-with one another in the 'moment,' beauty, i.e., pleasure (without commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., without the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., without Godly restraint) becomes reality, i.e., becomes the basis of justice for all (all is well). The law of nature, without the law of God, means a society purposed in pleasure, without commands, rules, facts, and truth restraining or blocking that which is natural, internally and externally, i.e., that which is of nature only, with freedom in thought and in practice, i.e., in theory and practice, i.e., freedom from parental authority (freedom from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong) becoming the 'purpose' of life.  What is found in the imagination, how the world "ought" to be, when it is in agreement with nature, i.e., when it is in agreement (in affirmation or consensus) with the 'moment' in pleasure, becomes reality (can be) when it is given recognition and allowed expression. Therefore the "purpose" of life is the augmentation of pleasure (for all), without laws restraining pleasure (for all). It is the 'moment' in pleasure (for all) that reveals law and purpose, not that which stands outside the 'moment' of pleasure, restraining it, that law and purpose being foreign (hostile) to human nature and nature itself. Humanism and the so called "new" world order is based upon such "logic," manifesting laws of unrighteousness and abomination.

"In the aesthetic imagination, sensuousness generates universally valid principles for an objective order. 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 possible serve, and also not in view of it 'internal' finality and completeness."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

In man's quest to 'create' such a world, i.e., a "just" world, i.e., a world of consensus, the wickedness and deceitfulness of man's heart (that which is "good" in man's eyes, negating Godly restrain, i.e., God's love, mercy, and grace) makes itself known. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [i.e., to best suit those facilitating the consensus 'meeting' for the "good," i.e., for the pleasure of all "the people"]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)

"Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis' [people accepting a "top-down" (patriarchal) system of authority which is not in harmony with "human nature"] as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'"  (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)

As Carl Rogers confessed in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy: "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine."  "…our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups.  If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow."  "'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialoguing opinions, i.e. "feelings" and "thought's" to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" or sensation of "oneness," i.e. a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change', i.e. of revolution, circumventing parental authority, overcoming the affects of the "guilty conscience"], and why negative doesn't' [preaching and teaching truth to be accepted "as given," and chastening when it is rejected, i.e. a Patriarchal Paradigm of revelation, i.e. of "It is written ..." and "Because I said so," i.e. engendering a "guilty conscience" for disobedience] ... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design [negating American sovereignty, replacing it with "cosmic consciousness," i.e. globalism in the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the citizens].  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."  "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id [the child's impulses and urges of the 'moment'], man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes.  The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic."

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016, 2018