The Dialectic & Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages
by Dean Gotcher
The Institution for Authority Research website.

© Institution For Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1996-2015

Permission is granted to copy and use/quote portions
of this work provided that the author, Dean Gotcher, is credited each time,
and that no changes are made to any text. Please,
order booklets if you wish
to have your own hard copy.  Thank you.

Pages 6 to  11

Cover Page | Title Page to page 5 |  Pages 6 to 11 |  Pages 12 to 17 |  Pages 18 to 23 |  Pages 24 to 29 |
Pages 30 to 35 |  Pages 36 to 41 |  Pages 42 to 47 |  Pages 48 to 52 | Back Cover

           Because of the experience of dialectic thinking combined with praxis, not only adults but even preschool children are now able to use higher-order thinking skills to determine for themselves what behavior is "best" or "most rational," able to use higher-order thinking skills to discover and help in the development of their own human potential, and able to use higher-order thinking skills to "master" the mediation of life's conflicts.  While those who use and promote this process see it as a way to better the world, as a Bible-believing Christian, I see it as rebellion against God and His Word.

[To] "purge [man] of sin" with all the aids of the dialectics,
therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny.

                      Rene Fulop-Miller,  The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits, p.468.


           The fundamental structure of the dialectic, as we know it today, was first developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by philosophers such as Johann Fichte and Georg Wilhelm Friedreich Hegel. Praxis was later developed in the early 20th century by socio-psychologists (Transformational Marxists) such as Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, and Antonio Gramsci. Others preceded theses men with similar thought, but these men modified and crystallized their predecessors ideas and manifested "new ways" of looking at things.

           Kurt Lewin from Berlin, J.L. Moreno from Wien, and members of the Institute for Social Research from Frankfurt (Theodor Adorno, Erik Fromm, Max Horkheimer, etc.), along with others from Europe, brought this way of thinking to America in the early 1930s. It has now become the "new basic" way of thinking in education, business, and politics—replacing the traditional way of doing things refered to as a paradigm shift. This is not to imply that men such as John Dewey or Max Weber did not think this way—they did. In the case of Dewey, he knew of dialectic reasoning and praxis experience from his contact with men of such mind while studying and traveling in Europe. However, he was only able to lay the groundwork for the socio-psychologists (change agents) who would follow, such as Kenneth Benne, Warren Bennis, Ronald Havelock, Edward Glaser, Richard Bandler, Carl Rogers, and Abraham Maslow.

           These socio-psychologists believed that man and society would only find unity through a collective intellectual experience grounded on dialectic "scientific" thinking.  They believed that social harmony and world peace would only come with the uniting (synthesis) of opposites such as the private and the public sector, the individual and the group, the thinker and the worker, the learner and the facilitator, and the immature and the mature. They believed this would only be possible with the facilitation of dialectic thinking in a self-created group activity I call diaprax.



           I call this liberal, New Age, socialist, mental disease diaprax(dialectic + praxis). The dialectic requires everyone using it to willingly question any absolute, prior established fact, or position. Praxis requires everyone to personally experience dialectic behavior in a facilitated, group-think environment where everyone must participate. Using diapraxleads to the abandonment of faith in overt authority (God, parent, teacher, nation, etc.), resulting in defiance against such authority. Using diaprax blinds the user of his dependence on covert authority, resulting in an addiction to covert authority rather than faith in overt authority. Covert authority is only concerned about usurping overt authority's position of influencing others.

           Diapraxcauses impairment of judgment and moral numbness.  While some might see those using diapraxas simply being "morally challenged," I see them as sinners in defiance of God's authority.  Diapraxor higher-order thinking skills is simply the artcraft of justifying sin.  Diapraxjustifies rebellion against overt authority and frustrates choosing between right and wrong (right and wrong that is established, evident, known, closed, and subject to the will of overt authority).  Diapraxjustifies submitting to covert authority and encourages the choosing of potentials only— Potentials that are to be discovered, potentials that are ambiguous, unknown, open-ended, and subject to deceit and manipulation by covert authority.  Therefore sovereignty, jurisdiction, and inalienable rights, all requiring overt authority, cease to be an issue of interest within the experience of diaprax, except to be mocked or ridiculed.

When it comes to practical matters circumstances compel us to compromise.
                                                                      John Dewey, Experience & Education, p.17

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point,
however, is to change it.

                                                                      Karl Marx, Thesis on Feurbach: 11th thesis

A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing (if necessary)
the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new
                                                             Kurt Lewin, Human Relations, p.34

[S]ocial relations includes the idea of becoming, (man changes continuously
with the changing of social relations).
        Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, p.355

           Whereas "it is impossible to please God without faith," it is impossible to please diaprax without doubt. John Dewey called it "honest doubt." When we (or our children) are facilitated on how to question authority, preset standards, truths, or facts producing doubt, we are learning how to question God and not have faith in Him. We should recognize the author of diaprax and for whom it was designed to help man serve: Satan.



           All contemporary methods of education, business, and politics (public and private) are using diaprax.  "Bloom's Taxonomies," for example, are two books that were developed on diaprax.  Yet both books, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain and Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Affective Domain, are used for foundational training in teaching, management, and government.  In the first book, Bloom writes "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 all places" (p.32)

           Bloom et al. admits that the purpose of their work is to show how to "challenge students' fixed beliefs."  In the second book they acknowledge that they are


"opening up Pandora's Box," that they are not sure that what they are doing is a good thing, and that is going to become a source of controversy.  Have you had any administrator, manager, or politician who is promoting the diaprax system in OBE, TQM, and STW admit what they are really doing?  Most, I believe, do not know or care to know — and if they did, they wouldn't tell you.

           I refer to Bloom's Taxonomies as secularized satanism and intellectualized witchcraft.  These works require everyone who uses them to do exactly what Adam and Eve did in the garden: question "First Cause" (God).  For everyone to discover "their own person" or "full potential," these books require participation in diaprax with the assistance of an expert facilitator (Satan).  Anyone who honestly studies and truly understands Bloom's books will come to the same conclusion.  It appears that many Christians in high positions of influence, such as ministers, administrators, counselors, etc., have not bothered to fully check out what they are using to further their calling.

           After reading hundreds of socio-psychology books by men such as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Kurt Lewin, Warren Bennis, Antonio Gramsci, Lawrence Kohlberg, Ronald Havelock, Richard Bandler, and Ronald Lippitt the evidence is abundant and the intent is clear as to their use for this process.  While some may naively refer to this process as the "reculturing of America," I recognize it as a deliberate plan by socio-psychologists to eliminate absolute faith in and obedience to God.


           Yet despite the evidence, Christian administrators and professors are not only willfully training their teachers and administrators on how to think, feel, and behave according to these books, they are also training them how to implement diaprax in all educational settings, both public and private.  If these schools say they are not, it is most likely that they are either ignorant of how the process works, denying its presence, or simply lying.


           In their quest for financial security and their desire to gain or retain the respect of men, Christian institutions are embracing diaprax — implementing it as it comes to them through the accreditation process.  Without fully realizing what they are doing (I hope it is just their lack of knowledge) they are abdicating their God-given authority over to this humanistic diaprax.

           By being deceived into using the structure of diaprax to "help" them promote the cause of Christianity, Christian leadership is simply covering this diabolic process with the content of scripture.  This not only allows diaprax to continue its work of deceit and manipulation!  It also allows it to grow beyond the point where it can be stopped by Christian leadership when they realize the error of their ways.

           Diaprax deceives not only the innocent but also the "wise" and establishes them all on its godless structure.  Major Christian ministries are being seduced as they incorporate new management techniques based on diaprax to help them market their ministry.  Anyone who complains when they see this happening is identified as a "resistor to change."  The "watchman at the gate" must be neutralized if diaprax is to remain undetected.

           There are many discerning Christians who are troubled and grieved when they come under ministries that facilitate and dialogue God's Word instead of preach it.  They hear the Word of God (content) but sense something drastically wrong with how it is being presented or applied in ministry (structure).  Because content always builds upon structure, when the content of God's Word is built upon the structure of diaprax, eventually only those scriptures that promote and sustain human relationship building will be accentuated, and those verses that might get in the way of ministry "growth" will be either overlooked, trivialized, or reinterpreted.

           Instead of instructing us to know, trust, and obey the Word of God, today there is an emphasis on thinking and feeling about how we can modify or redefine the Word of God to further human relationships.  Sunday School material is using diaprax to help Christians relate with themselves and the world, asking students to focus on what they think about or how they fell about God's Word.  This is something Jesus Christ Himself never did nor asked anyone else to do, but something Satan always does and asks everyone to do.



           Hegel's dialectic was the cause for two world wars and many wars between and since.  One historian recently stated that, during this century, all governments that used this process combined have been responsible for the killing of more than 250,000,000 of their own citizens.  Abortion, like the Holocaust, could not have become legal without the aid of dialectic reasoning.  Wherever this process has gone, it has brought death and despair while promising life and prosperity.

           Somewhere within the process there lies a switch that confuses men's minds, numbs their feelings, and freezes their responses.  Aware that something is gaining control over them and not able to explain or define what it is, they are unable to develop any response that will stop the process.  This trigger shuts off man's awareness of impending danger (past history or depth history; depth perception) and freezes his ability to resist the process (indecision).  The numbness one experiences comes from the fear of potential alienation and loss of respect because of the inability to explain the differences between what one says he believes (black and white) and what he does or desires to do (gray zone).  This produces feelings that are not based on God's Word, but that are instead based upon the fear of losing respect in the eyes of others.  This kind of fear prevents one from making an immediate or effective response.  This fear is not from God, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."  (2 Tim 1:7).

           No one who has boarded this train has found brakes on it.  History has shown us that once this train gets rolling, there is no stopping to get off.  Rescue can only come from someone outside, at much cost to all.  We had  to rescue Europe from this train twice, by wrecking it.  If we get on board, who will rescue us?  And at what cost?

           It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary,
it destroys him.  Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and
individuality are made realities.

                                              John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx,  p. 56.

           Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society.

           Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children,
to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of
socialist society.

                                              Articles 14 and 66 of former USSR Constitution.



           It was decided by philosophers that the most common denominator in society is the mind (Descartes: "I think therefore I am.").  Therefore the medium through with diaprax must work, according to them, is reasoning (Vernunft) or "Higher-Order Thinking Skills" and not simply knowing (Verstehen) or learning through traditional means such as rote memorization or didactic teaching.  According to socio-psychologists if a group of individuals or a community (Gemeinshaft) memorizing and obeying preset standards or rules (Verstehen) are to become a part of the bigger global society (Gesellshaft), with everyone able to relate reasonably (Vernunft), then diaprax must be experienced and habitualized by everyone.

           Although Hegel did not openly refer to the phases of the dialectic as Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis in his works, there is not dispute among scholars as to the position and relationship of these phases within his process.  These three phases which make up the structure of the process can catagorize (taxonomies) many different things depending upon the subject being discussed (content) such as individual, community, organization, government, society, and the way to think, feel, or behave, etc.

           The structure of the dialectic, with its THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS phases, is used by socio-psychologists to represent different facets of society (traditional, transitional, transformational; or capitalist, anarchist, socialist).  The structure can also represent how we respond or think when dealing with problems in our lives (thesis: obey rules and trust in facts; antithesis: follow feelings; or synthesis: justify behavior through reasoning skills).

           THESIS can represent your original position on any issue — to obey facts, to believe "it is always wrong to lie."  ANTITHESIS is then an obverse or different position on the same issue — to follow feelings, to believe that "It is all right to lie to get out of a bad situation."  SYNTHESIS thus represents a compromise, the finding of unity despite diverse positions to resolve a common issue — to rationally justify behavior, to believe "It is ok to lie providing it is justifiable in light of the situation, beneficial to others, and doesn't hurt anybody."


           While sitting in a room with other people, you can classify yourself, first person or "me," as THESIS, everyone else, not first person or "not me," as ANTITHESIS, and what everyone has in common, including yourself, first person and not first person "us," as SYNTHESIS.  Therefore THESIS is what you believe is true for yourself.  ANTITHESIS is what everyone else believes is true for themselves. And SYNTHESIS is what you and others can rationally come to agree upon that is generally true for everyone.  This is how socialists or Marxists get their "one for all and all for one" slogan and agenda, where individual truth is relative to the


Pages 6 to  11

Cover Page | Title Page to page 5 |  Pages 6 to 11 |  Pages 12 to 17 |  Pages 18 to 23 |  Pages 24 to 29 |
Pages 30 to 35 |  Pages 36 to 41 |  Pages 42 to 47 |  Pages 48 to 52 | Back Cover

© Institution For Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1996-2015

Permission is granted to copy and use/quote portions
of this work provided that the author, Dean Gotcher, is credited each time,
and that no changes are made to any text. Please,
order booklets if you wish
to have your own hard copy.  Thank you.