the authority principle

7/30/2019 The Authority Principle

1/30

Last update:5/16/13


2/30

The Authoritarian Principle 2013

By Jeff RaderBiblical Counselor

& Hypnosis Researcherhttp://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JeffRaderhttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-rader/28/b0a/867https://www.facebook.com/millenniun.groupSkype: tardispilot.jr

Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer: This draft of my this presentation is currently available free for peer review and non-commercial personal use. Nothing presented here is specially copyrighted by others and was

complied from freely available sources. Use this information at your own discretion. No liability iseither implied nor expressed with this content.
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JeffRaderhttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-rader/28/b0a/867http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-rader/28/b0a/867https://www.facebook.com/millenniun.grouphttps://www.facebook.com/millenniun.grouphttps://www.facebook.com/millenniun.grouphttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-rader/28/b0a/867http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-rader/28/b0a/867http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-rader/28/b0a/867http://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JeffRader


3/30

On the inside


4/30

Subconscious

Mind

Conscious

Mind

Conscientious

mind

You

Inside Outside

When not everyone(inside) is on the same

page, we tend to look

confused

I need rest

Movienight

Golfchannel

confused

These models are for perspective purposes only

I'm #1 I'm #1

I'm #1


5/30

When not everyone inside is on-board, then this leads to internal conflict resulting in lookingconfused on the outside. What happens here is while you'll be thinking one thing (affecting youfacial expressions), your tone of voice won't sound right. The result is that what your saying anddoing will make you disagree with yourself.

What this means is that there are internal conflicts going on. Internal conflicts will lead to eventualneurological disorders, as natural neuroplasticisty continually makes changes to the brain, and

thus effecting both perception and response. The old adage of not frowning because eventually itwill get stuck that way is based on this principle.


6/30

Conscious

Mind

Conscientious

Mind

Inside Outside

Subconscious

Mind

Mets

Mets Mets


You

Mets

When everyone (inside)is on the same page, we

tend to look stress free

I'm #1

I'm #2 I'm #3

With i t l fli t ith h t d i it' t th t id l k l d ti l Thi i


7/30

With no internal conflicts, with each part doing it's part, the outside looks calm and rational. This ismake you completely congruent in everything you think, say and do.


8/30

On the outside

E lit i C l t i


9/30

Egalitarian(universal authority)+ 2 pages= eventual trouble

Complementarian(shared authority)+ 2 pages= eventual trouble

Lawless(no authority)

+ 2 pages= eventual trouble

Authoritarian(1 authority)

+ 2 pages= eventual trouble

Egalitarian Complementarian


10/30

Egalitarian (universal authority)+ same page= eventual trouble

Complementarian (shared authority)+ same page= eventual trouble

Lawless(no authority)

+ same page= eventual trouble

Authoritarian(1 authority)

+ same page= no trouble


11/30

BiblicalGod+ 1 authority

+ same page= no trouble

Works Best


12/30

2 authorities = 2 peers = 2 pages = eventual trouble.

Being on separate pages only makes things worse. Sharing followersserves to only worsen the problem.

?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!? ?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!?

Wi h b i h ( d h f h hi h h i ) i f


13/30

Without being on the same page (and on the same page of the same higher authority) a pair ofauthorities are (in all reality) no different than two peers. Authority means being in charge.There can be only one authority in a relationship. Why? Because authority cancels outauthority. Two people within a relationship can not have authority over each other. Thismeans authority can neither be universal nor shared. In a group of 2 or more individuals, theremust always either be a leader, or someone, to cast the deciding vote.

In order for peered leaders to work together, they must 1) not (on their own) see themselves ashaving authority over any others, 2) not (on their own) see any others as an authority over them,3) all have their own separate followers (if any), 4) all be on the same page with each other, 5)must be on the same page of the same higher authority, see each other as exactly equal, and 7)have an odd numbered group. Or, they must choose a leader (or peer) to cast the deciding vote.

M t t ti I'll d M t t ti I'll d


14/30

Common ground or not, with both

trying to lead, leaders tend to be

adverse to each other These models are for perspective purposes only

Meet my expectations, I'll dowhatever I want to do, and

never tell me what to do

Meet my expectations, I'll dowhatever I want to do, and

never tell me what to do

Egalitarian relationshipstend to go this way

When there is a contest of leadership, there will always be a contest of wills. Leaders expect to be


15/30

When there is a contest of leadership, there will always be a contest of wills. Leaders expect to be

followed. If a leader is not followed, they will likely leave the relationship. In a relationship with two

leaders, that relationship is functionally no different that 2 peers with individual points of view.

Only determination to stay being the leader keeps a person in that sort of relationship.

When a relationship has either two leaders or two followers, they are like roommates with both

names on the lease. Neither have the right to boss the other around. Likewise, both have the

same right to defy the other. Such a relationship will be deft of much intimacy. While either or bothmay try to hold such a relationship together with common interests, contests of wills will drive

them apart. It goes without saying that in any relationship, there is only room for one opinion.

Having a competing opinion is something that will put a wedge in that relationship.

If situation would have it where one leader, for a given reason, must follower a peer, then a lot of

care must be given not to disrespect each other. Neither should ever look at the other as being

anything less than a peer and consider the situation to be temporal. Such situations can throw a

huge monkey wrench into any relationship. A teacher may one day find themselves a student of a

student of theirs. Likewise, a teacher may find a student that knows here or she is more than

qualified to teach the class they are in themselves. There are also managers that require to be

situationally taught by their own employees. All of these situations must be handled delicately or

face major risks in damaging those relationships.

Meet my expectations I'll do Meet my expectations I'll do


16/30

Even with some common ground, with

each taking lead for a given role, leaders

still tend to be adverse to each otherThese models are for perspective purposes only

Meet my expectations, I'll dowhatever I want to do andnever tell me what to do

Meet my expectations, I'll dowhatever I want to do andnever tell me what to do

Complementarity relationshipstend to work out better, yet canend not all that much different


17/30

A bibli l l ti hi


18/30

Followers tend toseek leaders having

common groundThese models are for perspective purposes only

Common ground,cool!!!Common ground,

cool!!!

A biblical relationship:1 Leader plus 1+ followers

When two or more people group together in mutual respect and common ground, one person will


19/30

surface as the leader, leaving the other(s) as follower(s). Unless those others are willing to follow

that particular leader, there will they will either leave that relationship, protest the leader's

leadership status, or otherwise cause dissension among the racks.

A lot of work can be done with this sort of relationship. The is the normal and healthy

husband/wife, teacher/student, boss/employee, leader/follower relationship. In fact, problems

typically only arise when the leader gets tyrannical or abdicates, or the follower rebells orotherwise tries to take over.


20/30

Point of view 1 Point of view 2


I like whatI see over

there

At times, followers will

see what they like and

thus become a follower

Quite often when two peers get together where one peer expects equality yet finds out the other


21/30

peer has leadership ideas, the relationship will likely eventually break down. Peers expecting

equality are often not really looking for equality but rather they are often either looking looking to

the lead themselves, or they are looking to not be made a follower. Regardless, this sort of

relationship often leads to breakdowns in communication and eventual the relationship itself. It

takes a lot of patience, maturity and awaytime to endure such relationship long term.

Whether on the job, at home, or out and about, while in some ways we are all equals, There aretimes when we have to submit to a leader role, especially when we don't feel like it or see them as

a leader. Even when it's just a peer telling us for our own good to lose an attitude, we either

submit or face risking damage to the relationship. If this were a clinical setting, this sort of contest

of wills would be construed as a waste of time. If this is a marriage, these would cause serious

damage to the relationship.


22/30

A leader with interest in

being the follower of

another leader

Point of view 1


Point of view 2

I like whatI see over

there

When peers couple-up and both turn out to desire to be the leader, this typically will eventually

th l ti hi t b kd F kl th i f l l d ( l t d


23/30

cause the relationship to breakdown. Frankly, there is room for only one leader (or related

opinion) in any given relationship. If this were a counselor/client relationship, either the client will

leave or be asked to leave. If this were a teacher/student relationship, typically either the student

will leave on his or her own or will eventually be asked to leave. Those in set roles of authority do

not have time for contests of wills. It takes a lot of sacrifice to endure such relationships long term.

Regardless of the relationship, those in the position of leadership are highly unlikely to share theirposition.


24/30

Peers with no common ground

are averse to each other



I'm not all thatfound of hispoint of view

I'm not all thatfound of herpoint of view

In a peer= peer relationship there are no leaders, just followers. Neither gets to force their willon the other and at the same time both can defy the other's will In this relationship only civility


25/30

on the other, and at the same time, both can defy the other s will. In this relationship only civility

and willing cooperation keeps conflict at bay. Given that that both are allowed to have their own

separate points of view, conflict typically drives people away. What saves these relationships is

commonground. Without common ground there will likely at some point be some sort of contest

of wills.

Besides common ground, temporal mutual respect (mutual self-disrespect) is the only other thingholding such a pairing together for long. Common ground here is such things as both individuals

being into sports. As long as they are talking sports, they will get along just fine. That is, until one

discovers the other likes the wrong team or sport. That being said, the fact of division is also the

fact there is a place to put a wedge between them. The more divisions, the more places to put

wedges. Even the hint of disrespect will put a wedge into the relationship. Eventually the two will

split completely apart.

One way to so disrespect for a peer, thus driving a wedge into the relationship, is to become aself appointed authority. If the other is not prepared to accept the sudden and unexpected change

in status, they will likely leave the relationship on their own.


26/30

Peers having common ground

are attracted to each other



Common ground,cool!!!

Common ground,cool!!!

Peers that find themselves having common ground, and mutual respect, on the other hand andbarring other issues tend to be attracted to each other As long as they respect each other and


27/30

barring other issues, tend to be attracted to each other. As long as they respect each other and

meet each others expectations, they should get along just find. However, more likely than not, one

or the other will eventually rise to the top as the leader. As long as this causes no hard feelings,

and as long as the other is okay with this, then this in and of itself should cause no problems. This

is a healthy relationship in the making.

Conclusion


28/30

Co c us o

However, there are those that have been tricked or abused enough that cognitive dissonance hasthe opposite effect. Instead of staying submissive and dropping defenses, the conscious mind


29/30

the opposite effect. Instead of staying submissive and dropping defenses, the conscious mindgoes on the defensive and the Conscience goes on high alert, causing the development of hyper-vigilance. Those subjected to too much observation of, and being forced to conform to, knownaversive behavioral models can at times also develop hyper-vigilance.

Hyper-vigilant people are highly cautious of and resistant to external instruction, correction and

control. Instead they become rather reliant on idealized imprints. They are those that being on thealert is now a subconscious task. The subconscious here is no longer primarily submissive.Rather instead it becomes uncooperative, even to the point of asserting dominance.

So what is authority? The word authority comes from the word author. This word is synonymouswith creator. Unless trumped by a higher authority, creators own their creations. Those withauthority can delegate and allow for hierarchies of authority to representatives. The Biblerecognizes husbands, parents, teachers, employers, property owners, religious leaders, and

regional rulers, as well as their subsequent representatives, as all being representatives of God'sauthority model.

Not only are there defined set representatives of God's authority, there are also situational andvoluntary authorities. These are those people to whom situation requires submission or one mustvoluntarily submit in order for their authority over them to become made manifest. Examples ofthis are trustworthy peers, mentors, police officers, judges, leaders of volunteer groups, care

givers, instructors of elective education and hypnotists. As these authorities and their laws areencountered they become imprinted in the imagination for the mapping of appropriate andallowable behavior. Any behavior not matching previous mapped appropriate and allowablebehavior is automatically viewed as potentially inappropriate and disallowed behavior.

So, if there is a lot of danger in the use of authority to fix a human mind, then what can wetherapeutically do? For the most part, I would suggest limiting mental therapy to the likes of


30/30

p y p , gg g pydealing with fears, phobias, self control, weight loss, smoking cessation, goal attainment,motivation, simple behavioral modifications, social skills, self esteem, performance enhancement,concentration enhancement, memory and mental automations.

So what about using a volunteer's mind in an entertainment situation. This use of authority is what

I would call a gray-area. One one side it is a fun way to demonstrate, and teach us about, thegreat powers and abilities of the human mind. On the other side something can always go wrong.While a careful entertainer will always undo whatever they have modified, leaving that mind in thesame or better shape than prior to starting. The dangers are careless mistakes, safety issues,and unpredictable reactions. Even in the therapeutic sense, those dangers still exist.

the authority principle

Documents