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 12 to  17

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

           social needs of the many, and the truth of the many should consider the personal needs of the few or the one.  In this dialectic cycle, all is relative, changeable, and harmoniously deviant.  This is what socio-psychologists call heuristic, their word for change.

           For example, while you sit in a room with your mind, reasoning about your own personal concerns (THESIS - "my concerns"), others are sitting in the same room with their minds, reasoning about their own personal concerns (ANTITHESIS - "their concerns" or "not my concerns").  Therefore, if all the people in the room are to find social harmony (SYNTHESIS - "our concerns"), they must first be confronted with or be facilitated in finding some common issue or problem to focus on or attend to, then be guided in a rational or scientific (dialectic) group experience (praxis) where it can be solved by consensus (with feeling).


           When a natural or man-made disaster takes place in a divided community and all come together to help the less fortunate, three things are present that meet the requirements for this dialectic process.  First, there is the disaster—the cause for action, the catalyst on which to develop synthesis, the common social issue on which everyone can focus.  Then there are the helpless —  the cause for empathy, the catalyst to draw everyone into and through antithesis, the feelings of compassion for those who are unable to help themselves by those who were more fortunate.  And finally, there is the divided community in contact with itself—the cause for change, the catalyst from which to experience compromise, the need to be "rational" and put aside, at least temporarily, their differing "divisive" thesis, out of concern for the less fortunate.

           Socio-psychologists therefore ask: If a disaster can help people put aside their fighting for a short period of time, so they can help one another, then why can't this become a way of life short of the natural disaster or an "act of God?"  This is the reason socio-psychologists promote the awareness of our national crisis in education, our falling behind in the global market, and the need to unite the world in an effort of saving the environment, etc.  They have set themselves in a position of being potential disaster makers in our schools, our businesses, and our government.  However they intend to reshape men's mind while they help men solve their problems.  This will be accomplished in controlled or modeled environments where the physical and psychological risks, they believe, are reduced.  Actually the risks are only less noticeable for a time.

           To arouse disaster emotions or empathy, without having a real disaster will eventually produce a generation without a sense of reality—a generation controlled by fear and paranoia whether the problems are real or not (the "sky is falling" syndrome).  Remember the "we are running out of oil" paranoia in the 1970s?  Do you realize the effect it had on fuel prices, not to mention all the small mom and pop gas stations that went out of business at that time because of what the restructuring larger companies "were forced to do" to head off the "potential disaster?"


           I believe we are seeing potential disaster diaprax being used in the media today.  It is not unrealistic to think that some in the media may even be looking forward to disasters happening so they can exercise diaprax.  Man-made disasters do actually take place because of the attention given by the media to such events.  Members of the media have at times admitted to and discussed this problem, but I believe they do this more to clear their consciences than anything else.  It does not appear they have any intent of changing their diaprax ways, because they continue to focus mostly on social issues that go hand in hand with diaprax.

           It is not easy to get citizens to focus collectively on a particular issue without having a disaster or without directly telling them to.  Yet, accoridng to praxis, no one citizen in the community can tell the other citizens what social issue or potential disaster they must focus on or attend to.  Everyone, including yourself, must attend to and reason through a common social

[Studies by Kurt Lewin] show that after a group decision, there is more change
of behavior than after a persuasive lecture.

There is evidence in our data that once a change in behavior has occured, a
change in beliefs is likely to follow.

                       Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,  pp. 78, 121

issue or dilemma because of the interest collectively generated from within the community or group.  This, according to diaprax, will require the aid of a facilitator (covert influence) and not an order or command given by some higher authority (overt influence).  The media has taken an active role in doing this today.

           Praxis is thus the facilitated experience of a "spontaneous" uniting of minds upon a common social interest. What diaprax wants to create is a euphoric, spontaneous group mind-melt, or what socio-psychologist Abraham Maslow might refer to as a "peak-experience"—what I would rather call a group-think orgy. According to socio-psychologists, this can only happen with a facilitated group-feeling/group-reasoning experience, the outcome being group cohesiveness (SYNTHESIS). This is at the heart of OBE, TQM, and STW.

           Socio-psychologists relate these phases to individual, others, and society (subject, object, and absolute).  They see the uniting of the individual and others (subject and object) as the purpose of First Cause.  Thus a priori, to them, is a quest for absolute society.  Furthermore, they relate these phases to the knowing, feeling, and reasoning that correlate with the "taxonomies" or cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills.  When all three phases are properly engineered (with their "help," or course), they believe the result will be a "healthy" society.


           It is easy to remember these three phases as knowing, feeling, and reasoning.  Associate THESIS with "knowing the facts" or what you think about.  Associate ANTITHESIS with "feelings" or how you feel about yourself or others.  And associate SYNTHESIS with "reasoning" or how you think about yourself and others and how you "rationally" resolve differences with others.

           Bloom's Taxonomies are structured on this way of thinking.  The "cognitive domain" book, which deals with facts or knowledge, can be thought of as THESIS.  The "affective domain" book (with Krathwohl as leading editor), which deals with feelings or relationship, can be thought of as ANTITHESIS.  And R. H. Dave's "psychomotor domain" book of UN fame, which deals with reasoning skills, can be thought of as the SYNTHESIS.  Each book carries the dialectic structure within itself as well, something like circles in a circle.


           It was not until dialectic-minded sociologists united themselves with psychology that diaprax came into existence as a tool for social engineering.  Traditional Marxists scoffed at Transformational Marxists when they united socialism (Marx) with psychology (Freud).  The Traditional Marxists eventually kicked the Transformational Marxists out of the official Communist Party.  Yet universities around the world now consider the writings of these Transformational Marxists (Lukacs, Gramsci, and Korsch) as some of the most important reading a student can do if he is going to understand how the world is to function in the 21st century.

                COGNITIVE (KNOWING)
                            AFFECTIVE (FEELING),
                                       PSYCHOMOTOR (REASONING), AND
                                                   PRAXIS (GROUP-CONSENSUS EXPERIENCE),
                                                                          AND PRODUCES
                                                              COSMIC-BOUND (WORLDLY) BEHAVIOR.  
                            KRATHWOHL'S AFFECTIVE TAXONOMY,
                                       DAVE'S PSYCHOMOTOR TAXONOMY, AND
                                                   LUKACS'S, GRAMSCI'S PHILOSOPHY OF PRAXIS.
                                                                          AND PRODUCES
                                                              GLOBALISTIC HUMANISTIC SOCIALISM.  


           Early 20st century psychologists, such as Skinner and Pavlov, tried to understand human behavior within isolated settings (Stimulus/Response).  Later in the century, socio-psychologists such as Piaget and Vygotsky set out to understand human behavior within social settings.  Piaget focused on the internal genetic triggers, and Vygotsky, Piaget's soviet counterpart, focused on the external social triggers necessary for the activation of each phase of an individuals personal-social development.  Vygotsky is highly venerated for his works on language and thought by many of the professors leading the diaprax agenda in our universities today.


           It is assumed by socio-psychologists that everyone should develop through these three phases if they are to become healthy citizens of the 21st century.  They believe that only with facts, feelings, and reasoning skills can personal and social behavior (beliefs and values) be properly developed.  What they do not realize, or desire to accept, is that when God breathed His breath of life into the nostrils of man, man became something totally different from the rest of the creation.

           God made man a living soul, made in His likeness—a spiritual being.  Not spiritual in the cosmic sense of the word (what I call "cosmic bound"), as are all the other creatures (temporal), but spiritual in the transcendent meaning of the word (eternal).  Because of the original sin by Adam and Eve in the garden, our spirits will forever remain degenerate and lifeless unless we believe upon Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God.

           Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins with His own blood, which was an act of God's grace and not an act of human-reasoning.  The Holy Spirit comes and abides within the saved person, standing alongside their now regenerated spirit, revealing and confirming the truth of God's word.  The Word of truth, which is known (the cognitive domain), is no longer compromised by human-reasoning, with its dependence upon the feelings (affective domain) of the carnal man out to serve individual and social cosmic-bound lusts, but by the Spirit of God according to His Word.

God's watchmen at the gate must be neutralized if diaprax is to succeed.

           Rejecting or not understanding the true spiritual aspect of man, socio-psychologists not only incorrectly define mankind but are not willing to accept the impending judgment of God upon all that is bound within the cosmos.  In their refusal to recognize man's alienation from God, and in their effort to remove alienation between mankind by means of diaprax, they have guaranteed man's continual alienation between himself and his Creator, and thus guaranteed man's eternal damnation.


God's Word does three things that interfere with or prevent diaprax:

             1)  It presents truth external from all cultures, truth that could not be known without a
                           direct revelation from God.

             2)  It condemns the idolatry that all cultures practice.  We all have at one time or
                          another worshiped the works of our own hands and mind, and

             3)  It transforms that which is good in all cultures, such as giving a glass of water to
                          someone who is thirsty, but it is now done in the name of the creator and savior
                           of the world, Jesus Christ.

           It is not possible to serve God and diaprax at the same time.  The one who tries it ends up serving diaprax, not God.  This is why the Ten Commandments, prayer lead by an authority figure, and Bible reading were removed from the local schools across the nation.  God was declared "dangerous" by the highest court of our land because He stood in the way of global, New Age tolerance.  He had to be removed before "multicultural activities," "self-esteem," and "human-reasoning skills" could successfully be used to shape the minds of the next generation so they depend upon socio-psychologists as the high priest of the New Diaprax Age.


           Unfortunately many Christian institutions are using diaprax to develop human relations within the fellowship of believers.  The result is not an increasing focus, dependence upon, and respect for the Creator through faith and obedience, but an increasing focus, dependence upon, and respect for the creation (human-cosmos relationship building) through questioning and speculative reasoning or higher-order thinking skills (the Babylon syndrome).

           The structure being used to promote this satanic agenda within Christian institutions, even by ministers and youth leaders, is diaprax.  Deliberately covering up this use of "humanistic reasoning skills" with selected affective scriptures, which is being done, only makes it more seductive to the undiscerning Christian.

Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations
of men and who expect clarification from them!  This is frivolous and ungodly. 
The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is
necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds . . . let
us reject the word of man.
                 Martin Luther, Luthers Works, V.32,  p. 217



           Diaprax proceeds through a series of three phases and sub-phases.  There are three phases, with three sub-phases in each phase.  The main phase will be explained first.  The first phase, THESIS , can be identified as the traditional way of doing things.  Yet in diaprax, this phase becomes what I call "THE THESIS INTERROGATION."  The second phase, ANTITHESIS, is important transitional phase between the first and third phase, from tradition to transformation.  This second phase has to be successfully crossed if the process is to accomplish its purpose.  I call this second phase "CLIMATE or ENVIRONMENT CONTROL for the purpose of RELATIONSHIP BUILDING."  According to those who propagate this humanistic process, the transformational phase, SYNTHESIS, is the desired final outcome.  I call this final phase "LIFE-LONG LEARNING—THE DESIRED OUTCOME."


           These three phases represent the three different ways people think while determining how to solve life's problems  The three different ways of thinking when solving differences, according to diaprax, are traditional, transitional, and transformational, or thinking with facts, thinking with feelings, and thinking with reasoning skills.

           In the traditional way of thinking, reality is based upon external evidence or facts with knowledge being the accumulation of these facts (quantity) as well as respect for and obedience toward them.  In the transitional way of thinking, feelings determine reality.  And in the transformational way of thinking, only what can be reasoned is real.  Simply put, traditional thinking sees reality out there somewhere as facts, established for all times and places; transitional thinking sees reality in the heart, where facts can be overlooked in the pursuit of pleasure and where problems can be solved by simply going somewhere else that feels better; and transformational thinking sees reality in the mind, where facts and feelings are subject to harmonious change through higher-order thinking skills.


Pages 12 to  17

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.