The Dialectic Attack on Passion
Hijacking Death, Resurrection, and Rebirth to Control the Mind
The Structure of Internal Change
Human beings are born with free will.
It does not come from governments or institutions.
It is not a social construct; it is innate — an essential feature of human nature.
Free will enables action, refusal, and reflection.
Most importantly, it allows us to change our minds.
That internal process, when oriented toward the good, toward God, Natural Law, or truth, follows a specific structure.
A belief that no longer aligns with reality must die.
In its place, a new belief takes form.
The old ends.
What replaces it is resurrected and reborn by free choice, through internal recognition and moral clarity.
This structure is manifest. It mirrors Jesus' Passion: death, resurrection, and rebirth, where logos (λόγος) is put on the cross of discernment (krises, κρίσις). These reflect the architecture of our internal transformation.
This pattern unfolds within the limits defined by our consciousness (moral co-awareness, συνείδησις, syneídēsis), the shared internal discernment of what is right. The definition of moral co-awareness in consciousness describes what governs a person's perceptions and their ability to believe, speak, or act.
Consciousness anchors freedom in responsibility.
The Christian Passion, understood as a structure of change, is framed by this internal consciousness.
This model identifies a process that operates with or without theological belief, a pattern that every person faces: recognizing falsehood, letting it die, and choosing with discernment what comes next.
To manipulate us, the empire creates counterfeit experiences.
Thanks to my readers' generosity, all my articles are free to access. Independent journalism, however, requires time and investment. If you found value in this article or any others, please consider sharing or even becoming a paid subscriber, who benefits by joining the conversation in the comments. I want you to know that your support is always gratefully received and will never be forgotten. Please buy me a coffee or as many as you wish.
Consciousness as Moral Co-Awareness
The word we now call consciousness was originally expressed in Greek as συνείδησις (syneídēsis) — a compound of σύν (sýn, “with”) and εἴδησις (eídēsis, “knowing” or “awareness”). It means knowing-with, or shared internal discernment. This awareness occurs within the individual. It links the parts of oneself that judge, act, and remember. It governs what a person allows themselves to do, say, or believe.
This structure of consciousness is concrete and moral. It refers to a person’s ability to recognize when a belief or action is wrong—and to stop. It functions as the internal mechanism that makes hypocrisy unbearable. Συνείδησις (syneídēsis) draws a line between what a person can justify to themselves and what must be rejected. It defines the boundary between internal awareness and external behavior and holds them accountable to truth. It is also the ability to see your own frame — to recognize the structure that shapes how you interpret meaning and decide what to believe.
In modern usage, the meaning of consciousness has been hollowed out. It has been replaced by ideas that are either too abstract to act on or too reductive to support moral agency. The original function of συνείδησις (syneídēsis) — to guide moral decisions through internal discernment — has been obscured. Without consciousness in its original sense — συνείδησις — choice becomes reflex. People react to engineered stimuli, unaware that the space for moral reflection has been removed.
This modern shift in meaning is evidence of epistemological warfare. It redefines what consciousness is and severs it from its moral function. The original form — συνείδησις (syneídēsis), moral co-awareness—tied knowledge directly to responsibility. To know was to become answerable.
The modern definition treats consciousness as either a state to be observed or a process to be optimized. These definitions treat the mind as passive or mechanical. Neither sustains moral agency. Once συνείδησις is obscured, conscience becomes inaccessible. In that vacuum, intermediaries emerge — experts, interpreters, and authorized voices — who insert themselves between the person and the meaning. Access to truth becomes gated, credentialed, and transactional. The result is a population fluent in the language of awareness, but unable to act from internal discernment.
Structural Mimicry and Control
The “Hegelian” dialectic mimics the internal pattern of belief change, disguising its operation.
The familiar sequence — problem, reaction, solution — follows the same pattern of death, resurrection, and rebirth, but the resemblance is intentional. The outcome is a sleight-of-mind substitution for critical thinking.
A problem is staged as a kind of death: a threat to safety, order, identity, or meaning.
The resulting reaction creates the illusion of resurrection. It produces conflict, attention, urgency, and a renewed sense of collective purpose.
The solution completes the pattern. It offers a new belief, policy, or behavior, but is delivered from above.
The sequence is completed before internal discernment can occur.
This pattern overrides consciousness as moral co-awareness (συνείδησις, syneídēsis).
The individual is not encouraged to reflect, evaluate, or decide. The movement is often timed to suppress reflection. Each step builds momentum toward acceptance.
By the time a person might pause to question what has changed within them, the change is complete. The new belief has taken hold without examination, building like a house of cards.
The pattern of control is common: one is internal and based on free will, while the other is external and serves as a means of totalitarian control.
The external sequence replaces the internal process while imitating its progression. The movement of change is preserved, but its origin is displaced.
Change no longer emerges from within us through the application of logos (λόγος) and discernment (κρίσις); rather, it is inserted from without.
Restoring the Internal Frame
The first step in resisting external control is to restore our frame in which real transformation occurs. That frame is our consciousness in its original meaning — συνείδησις (syneídēsis), moral co-awareness.
This frame does not produce change by force or persuasion.
Consciousness, in its original meaning, allows change to occur through recognition, alignment, and volitional correction. It holds a space for belief to die and be reborn without coercion. It includes the ability to see your own frame — the structure that shapes how you interpret meaning and decide what to believe.
To restore this internal pattern, the individual must reclaim responsibility for their belief.
This requires attentive understanding — the ability to listen and understand before reacting.
It requires the active use of logos (λόγος), the faculty of speech and reasoning.
It requires discernment (krísis, κρίσις), the capacity for reasoned judgment.
These tools form the process by which a false belief is exposed, and new understanding is brought into alignment with truth.
The pattern remains the same: death, resurrection, rebirth.
The difference is that the process must be internally managed, not externally orchestrated.
Changing our mind can be the most painful experience we can endure if those beliefs are held tightly enough.
Military recruiters count on the idea that people are willing to die for their beliefs, whether true or not.
Consciousness, when understood as συνείδησις (syneídēsis, moral co-awareness), protects against the substitution of external cues for internal clarity. It refutes the timing of the dialectic, resists the engineered sequence, and restores the conditions under which free will becomes visible again as moral direction.
The internal frame does not depend on permission.
It does not require a vote.
It does not wait for consensus.
It begins in silence, where belief meets awareness and either survives or dies on the cross.
Practicing Internal Resistance
Internal resistance begins with attention. Slow down when presented with a strong claim, a crisis narrative, or a demand for urgent action. Refuse to react on cue. Ask questions that restore your internal frame and then re-engage, applying your consciousness as συνείδησις (syneídēsis, moral co-awareness).
Use these questions to reopen space for reflection:
How do you know that’s true?
What makes you believe that?
Who told you that, and how do they benefit?
What happens if you don’t react right away?
What belief is this asking me to adopt?
If I accept that, what else does it imply?
Can I live with myself if I act on that?
You can also speak in ways that invite others to reflect without resistance.
These are linguistic openings — phrases that bypass defensiveness and create room for internal processing:
“That’s interesting. I wonder what would happen if we looked at it a different way.”
“Take your time with this — something deeper might be underneath it.”
“You don’t have to decide yet. You can just let it sit and notice what stands out later.”
“When you think about that, what part feels solid — and what part feels borrowed?”
“Something about that doesn’t track. I’m just watching how it lands.”
These are not counter-arguments. They are pattern interrupts — small linguistic interventions that slow the imposed sequence and allow internal discernment to return. The goal is not to win. The goal is to reawaken the process: death, resurrection, and rebirth of belief, governed by attention, logos (λόγος), and discernment (krísis, κρίσις).
If you’ve found ways to break the pattern — questions that open space, phrases that invite reflection — share them. What do you say when someone is locked into a narrative? What questions help people stop and think? If you’ve developed techniques that help others access their own discernment, I want to hear them. Send your examples. The goal is not to persuade. The goal is to restore the conditions where real thinking can happen.
Best ever. As a card carrying member of Team FreeWill, your post acknowledges that Free Will is the first, the most important and perhaps the only gift given to humanity - our environment being a creation that remains under the possession of the creator, but we may even use our free will to deny the creator, for better or worse.
Best of all, this discussion completely eviscerates the idea of "artificial intelligence", if it had any life at all. It isn't processing power or storage capacity that makes us conscious beings - it is the ability to "change our minds", to know that "something is wrong" without having a measurement for that belief. Machines can learn logic, but they cannot perceive, and as your post mentions, the very foundations of "AI" is to eliminate our own consciousness and reason for an "artificial", yet totally created by humans bent on domination, "intelligence" that is entirely bereft of the ability to perceive.
Excellent Peter. Free will and a free mind/consciousness is the way to openly see/hear/know perception deception. It is constantly attacking us and can be tiring. I always find a walk in the countryside with my dog away from all information and influence clears the mind. Almost everything I see and hear in the controlled/programmed world presents itself in my mind as psychological programming. I sometimes laugh as it’s so obvious. They may think themselves clever, but I see arrogance and stupidity (albeit dangerous)!