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 24 to  29

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



           The first phase of the dialectic, THESIS, is "THE THESIS INTERROGATION."  It involves three sub-phases that lead each person within a diverse group setting from the initial sub-phase of 1) stating his position (thesis) to the compromising, feelings-laden effect of 2) defining the meaning of his position, aided by the facilitator, while trying not to offend others in the group (antithesis).  This sub-phase deliberately produces internal conflict, known as cognitive dissonance, which I consider micro-terrorism.  This internal tension is the natural response we have when we want to be accepted by others yet realize that our position, if strongly held to, will most likely stand in the way of that happening.  The pain induced by this sub-phase of anxiety forces us to 3) the self-realization (synthesis) that because we cannot properly define our position, comfortably change it, or rationally defend it, we are not its cause.

           Christians need to realize that they can never properly define, comfortably change, or rationally defend the word of God to the world's satisfaction, not even for the sake of relationship building.  We can only accept it as truth and preach it.  There is no room for dialogue such as "I think..." or "I feel..." in the hope of finding common ground with the world.  According to God's Word, to do so is to commit adultery with the world.

           THESIS"THESIS INTERROGATION" where the facilitator sets the individual up.

              thesisposition—stating one's belief such as a thesis or position paper.
              antithesisdefinition—interpreting what one means to others with differing views.
              synthesisself-realization—realizing the source of one's (limiting) position.


           The "Thesis Interrogation" leads into the second phase of the dialectic process, ANTITHESIS, what I call "CLIMATE or ENVIRONMENT CONTROL for the purpose of RELATIONSHIP BUILDING."  Most behavioral modification takes place in this phase.  It also involves three sub-phases that bring all participants into a group-think experience.  Beginning with the "right" to negate all or at least most prior "cannot," "should not," and "must not" rules and commands set by parents, teachers, government, or God—that interfere with relationship building—each individual is given an equal opportunity to explore and discover the beliefs and values held by others within the group.  This first sub-phase, "negation of negation," or saying no to restraining commands (thesis), leads into the second sub-phase of "conflict," or chaos (anti-thesis), that, with the help of the facilitator, is followed by the final sub-phase of "mediation," or conflict-resolution training (synthesis).



              thesisnegation of negation—the right to say no to preset rules and standards.
              antithesisconflict—the environment where obverse values are experienced.
              synthesismediation—all willing to seek "common ground" for group cohesion.
                           The feeling of the fear of rejection or alienation if one does not participate
                           in compromise, is so great, once cannot refuse to participate in it.


           The "Relationship Building Environment" phase, through repetition (remediation), eventually becomes the habitualized process of LIFE-LONG LEARNING.  This final phase (SYNTHESIS) contains the three sub-phases of "determination" (thesis), "necessitation" or necessity (antithesis), and "causation" (synthesis).  This final phase is referred to as "freedom" by John Dewey and "practicality" by the transformational Marxist Jurgen Habermas.


              thesisdetermination—to always live in the process and to propagate it where it
                    is not known or used, always looking of a new point of view in others.
              antithesisnecessitation—always probing another person's definition to expose
                    their lack of self-determination and to "help" them think for themselves.
              synthesiscausation—always helping others to be rational, to accept compromise
                    as a way of life and to be adaptable in a "rapidly changing world."


           1.  The group environment must be "open-ended," where established norms or preset
                standards are set aside
by the person or group so all participating can more easily
                explore and discover new experiences together.
           2.  It must be "non-directive," where rules and preset standards are not presented by
                the leader or encouraged by the group that might stand in the way of the person or
                group exploring and discovering new experiences together.
           3.  It must be "adverse to any closed philosophical viewpoint," where rules and pre
                set standards are not respected
by all participating when they prevent the person or
                group from exploring and discovering new experiences together.
           4.  The group environment must be social in nature
           5.  It must use a social issue that the group has differing opinions or viewpoints about.
           6.  It must use a social issue that all participants can come to consensus, or group-
                feeling about regarding a possible solution.




           What I call "First Cause" (God, parents, established rules and standards, norms, sovereignty, etc.), must temporarily be set aside if the process of diaprax is to successfully develop (abdication to the procedure).  The abdication of one's patriarchist, hierarchist position to the matriarchist, heresiarchist process of diaprax facilitates the establishment of a "non-hostile" or "risk-free" environment.  This gives each individual the feeling of security and acceptance needed so they might feel free enough to "take the risk" of confessing their personal feelings toward their own beliefs and values within the group setting.

           In other words, the fear of reprisal one might normally expect when expressing what one really thinks and how one really feels concerning the beliefs and values set by a higher authority must be alleviated.  Therefore, any higher authority that has previously set standards that hinder participation in group-think must either be absent from the environment or have succumbed—abdicated—to the process and become willing to participate in it themselves, taking part in consensus building.

           Socio-psychology has been a major cause for the breakdown of the traditional family over the last century in America.  When parents turn their children over to socio-psychologists (facilitators) in education, they abdicate their position of authority, they give up their constitutional right to define for themselves what being a parent means.  Socio-psychologists will from now on decide that definition and determine how the parent and the family should behave.

           Socio-psychologists are not only interested in the knowledge children receive, but also in how they received that knowledge and how they relate to it and the one giving it.  They have a major impact upon how the child perceives the role of the individual, the parent, and the family within society—a much different worldview toward authority than that held by the traditional parent.


           For the diaprax process to become a part of the individual's and the group's life, it is equally important that the leader of the discussion facilitate instead of teach.  The environment must be dialogical or dialectical in structure if everyone is to freely experience group life (communism) and develop group-think (socialism).  Facilitating in a diaprax setting requires the questioning of preset standards established by a higher authority, preferably with that authority figure participating in the questioning process themselves.


           If the environment is didactic in nature, the learner will simply be inculcated with some new facts (absolutes) to memorize or rules to obey.  In a didactic environment, according to socio-psychologists, the learner will never learn how to properly question preset standards that stand in the way of group experience because didactic, facts-based teaching does not allow for the questioning of higher authority (parents, teacher, or boss).  To create a diaprax world, the didactic method of teaching—once the norm in American education—has to be replaced with the dialogical and dialectical method of facilitation.

           Diaprax survives today because of its ability to stay hidden behind the activities of the moment.  The facilitator controls the agenda—environment—and thereby controls the direction all questions will be taking.  The facilitator's ability to control group feelings gives him the ability to shape the definition each person in the group gives for his or her position.  What is lost in the whole scheme of things is that someone is always influencing the definitions we give for our position and that apart from God and His Word, all positions are subject to change.  There is only a skewing of positions, shaped by our desire to gain or retain relationship with others.

           In dialogue all one can do is deviate from an original position.  This is why Jesus did not dialogue with Satan when tempted by him in the wilderness.  Instead He held to His position by quoting "First Cause," the scriptures (position sub-phase), with "It is written..." and did not respond with "I think..." or "I feel..." (definition sub-phase), Matthew 4:1-11.

These are dialectical phantasies or opinions, that man can without
the Holy Spirit love God above all things, that human nature is
untainted.  All these ideas come from ignorance of original sin.

                                    Martin Luther, Luthers Works,   Vol. 34,   p. 187.

           Therefore, if we believe that God's Word is true, all we can do is give His definition.  We thereby give Him control over our life.  If we deviate from it, we give the process of compromise (diaprax—Satan's scheme) control over us.  I speak in regards to values, beliefs, and morals, which is what this process concerns itself with.

           We never truly control the definitions, we simply submit to the one who gives them to us.  Because we are talking about structure of thought and not laws of nature, that source can only come from the Creator or from our human nature (higher-order thinking, compromise, or self-justification), which is cosmic bound and subject to the spirit of rebellion—Satan.


           It is evident that Christians with positions of influence in education, business, and politics are having a hard time deciding whose definitions to use.  Diaprax is making it easier for them to use the definitions most conducive to human relationship building and most likely, they believe, to help them gain or retain respect in the eyes of the community.  They believe this will put them in a better position to influence laws in the future.  If they have any doubt about where the Word of God stands on the issue, they should read Matthew 10:32-39.  He does not approve of this type of reasoning.

           If this compromise by Christian leadership continues there will be no place for the Bible-believing Christian in education, business, or politics.  The diaprax environment Christians are allowing themselves to be dialogued into and the diaprax based laws that they are allowing to be passed into government will not allow them to be in any position of influence in the future, whether in government, at work, or in the home.

           Whoever controls the agenda for deciding the questions that will be asked controls the answers as well.  In short "whoever controls the questions, controls the answers."  This is true whether one is participating in education, business, or government.  Socrates was said to have shown a slave owner that his slave had the truth of Pethagorem's theorem already within him, and through a series of questions was able to convince the owner that he did.  What Socrates was really doing was controlling the environment of thought, whereby the slave was able to be guided to the only logical conclusion to a presented question.  He simply supplied the correct answers to the skillfully laid-out sequence of questions. The answers were in the questions, not in the slave.  This questioning is not dealing with "science according to facts," but instead is "science according to Socrates" (Phil Ring).  This is not "hard" science but "soft" science where "hypothesis equals fact" (Tim Clem).  This is "so called science" (the Apostle Paul).

           We cannot apply the same principle to answer the questions "Who am I?" "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" or "Where am I going?" without accepting either God's Word as the source for the questions to be asked or human-reasoning.  God, in His Word, only occasionally asks questions to be answered and often those questions provide their own answers.  He instead gives us facts (answers) up front to be obeyed.  When we come to God and His Word with questions to be answered, it is up to us to search the scriptures, not to question them.

           When we question the scriptures, as diaprax does, we will simply come up with answers that justify our fallen human nature (personal-social relationship needs in religion is known as liberation theology).  Too many Christians today are questioning the Word of God, instead of letting it question them.  The former is higher-order thinking skills (human-reasoning), the latter is conviction (the work of the Holy Spirit).


           Man tends to ask questions to find the answers that will satisfy his feelings of doubt or wonder.  Allowing God, with his preestablished (overt) answers to question us will lead us in the path of righteousness—to eternal life.  Allowing man, with his preestablished (covert) questions to facilitate the answers he desires, will only lead us down the path of unrighteousness—to eternal death.  The only control we have is deciding from which source we will receive the questions.  "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

(Pandora's box)

           Since there are two sources for the questions to life's answers, the Creator and the created (Lucifer included in the created), we will use two boxes.  In a small box (since "Because I said so" does not take up much space, or much time as far as that goes) we will lay out God's position and answer to diaprax.  In a larger box, we will detail the sub-phases of the diapraxbrainwashing process.

           In the smaller box, drawn just to the left and above the larger box, write "FIRST CAUSE" and "Because I said so."  By marking out a "tic-tac-toe" pattern in the larger box we can partition the phases and the sub-phases of the dialectic and get an idea of how diaprax works.  Along the top of the larger box, above each column, write THESIS, ANTITHESIS, and SYNTHESIS.  These represent each phase of the dialectic process.  Along the left side of the larger box, from the top to bottom row, write thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  Note that phases are represented in caps and the sub-phases to each phase are represented in small letters.

(God, parent, nation,...)          conservative                                                                              liberal

                                           "Traditionalism"                    " Transitionalism"                  "Transformationalism"

"FIRST CAUSE"        "Thesis Interrogation"    "Environment Control for    "The Desired Outcome of 

"Because I say so"                                                   Relationship Building           Life-Long Learning"

                                                THESIS                          ANTITHESIS                    SYNTHESIS

         (facts) thesis               POSITION                         NEGATION                      DETERMINATION

     (feelings)  antithesis       DEFINITION                      CONFLICT                       NECESSITATION

  (reasoning)  synthesis       SELF-REALIZATION         RESOLUTION                  CAUSATION


Pages 24 to  29

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.