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 30 to  35

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, THESIS, deals with how the individual settles differences with others in a group setting.  I call this phase "THE THESIS INTERROGATION."  This phase is nothing more than an interrogation of a persons position regarding a social issue.  This is done to help the facilitator in selecting those questions which will most effectively break down the persons confidence in his position.


           The three rows under the first column, THESIS, represent the first three sub-phases of diaprax.  The first row, thesis, represents a person's POSITION concerning the social issue being discussed by the group.  The second row, antithesis, represents the DEFINITION one gives of their position.  And the third row, synthesis, represents the person's SELF-REALIZATION that since they cannot clearly define their position it must not be theirs but someone else's position forced upon them.  This prepares them for the next phase that will help them build relationships with others of differing positions or viewpoints.


           I consider this phase "CLIMATE OR ENVIRONMENT CONTROL for the purpose of RELATIONSHIP BUILDING."  This is where major changes within the person as well as the group will take place.  This is where group dynamics comes into play, a condition that makes one feel it necessary to compromise established rules or standards (position readjustment) if one wishes to maintain group acceptance and build group cohesion.


           The three rows under the second column, ANTITHESIS, represent the next three sub-phases of diaprax.  The first row, thesis, represents each individual's NEGATION OF NEGATIONS.  This is the right given to each person to say no to the "thou shalt nots" put upon them by others.  This helps the person, now unconstrained by preset standards of right and wrong, to freely listen to other group members' positions.  The second row, antithesis, represents the CONFLICT sub-phase of the process that develops when people attempt to define and clarify (compromise) their position amongst one another. And the third row,synthesis, represents the MEDIATION or CONFLICT RESOLUTION that must take place if there is to be group consensus regarding the possible solution to the social issue being dialogued.



           I consider this phase "THE DESIRED OUTCOME" of diaprax, which is "LIFE-LONG LEARNING."  Any participant in diaprax, at this phase is a change agent, a facilitator propagating the process into everyone they meet, to help free them from the bondage of "thou shalt nots," from Godly restraints, to help them become change agents themselves and continue the process of change.  This is the desired outcome for transformational OBE, TQM, STW, and the UN.  This is "Life-Long Learning."


           The three rows under the third column, SYNTHESIS, represent the last three sub-phases of diaprax.  The first row, thesis, represents each person, now infected with diaprax, DETERMINED to live for the group-think process and continue its expansion by engaging others in it.  The second row, antithesis, represents each person who accepts conflict as a NECESSARY part of life.  At this sub-phase one is actually willing to cope with personal and social problems as a way of life.  Instead of accepting a black and white world, with its absolute right and wrong answers, they now pursue a gray world where change becomes absolute, truth becomes relative, and deviancy becomes the norm.  According to the process, if mankind is to get along, then it will be necessary that everyone develop this same attitude or way of thinking.

           Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts:
and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to
our God, for he will abundantly pardon.  FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT
THE LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways
higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

                                                                                                                                             Isaiah 55:7-9

           In the last row, and final sub-phase, synthesis, each person must come to realize that the CAUSE for his or her being is the reasoning process.  That it is by higher-order thinking skills, experienced in diaprax, that the quest for world harmony and peace is to be realized.  The higher-order thinker should then be able to acknowledge his purpose for being: that of saving man from his divisive, "hateful," preset, lower order way of thinking.  He will know how to do this through the process of facilitation and diaprax, being able to lead others to their self-actualization—their freedom.  At this final phase the once obedient, facts-based, traditional-structured individual becomes a facilitator or change agent determined to "help" others come to the realization that "the experience of life is compromise," that only through cosmic unity can peace eventually be established.



           There appears to be a correlation between the meaningfulness of facts, how much a person believes in or depends upon facts, and one's position within the process.  As one moves away from his original position, where facts are absolute (faith), toward the other end of the spectrum, facts become relative.  As the process moves a person from his 1) original position, where facts are most important, THESIS/thesis, into a condition where he 2) feels resentment toward them, since they get in his way of being accepted and making new friends, ANTITHESIS/antithesis, to the point where he is 3) able to justify the changing of them, through "reasoning skills," when they do not fit in or do not help improve human relationships, SYNTHESIS/synthesis, facts become trivial.  Anyone at this phase, transformationalism, sees the person who defends their position with facts, traditionalism, as either ignorant, narrow-minded, irrational, offensive, or outright hateful, depending upon their persistence in the use of facts.

           Facts become less important as one moves from his original position THESIS/thesis, down the chart to where one realizes that facts cause anxiety when they stand in the way of acceptance and respect by others, THESIS/synthesis.  Facts lose their importance even more as

one moves from their original position, THESIS/thesis, across the chart to where one is now determined to focus on facts only to practice questioning skills, SYNTHESIS/thesis.  And finally as one arrives at the farthermost corner of the chart (the lower right corner) SYNTHESIS/synthesis, facts become relative, always open to question, changeable, unstable, and are not to be trusted.  At this point anybody who totally trusts in facts are looked upon as someone who needs major help, since they cannot adapt or refuse to adjust in a "rapidly changing world."  If they will not change (can't be helped), then they must not be allowed to occupy a position of influence in the community, or possibly even in the home (This is where the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child" comes into use).


           This should give one an awareness of the resistance level transformationalists have toward facts.  Resistance toward facts directly relates to resistance toward being told what to do, since being told what to do is having to obey a fact, whether one feels like it or not.  One can give facts to anyone in the traditional phase of thinking and with some ability of expression persuade them of the validity of the fact.  Those who promote evolution refuse to look at the


facts that directly refute theory and therefore, to avoid reality, use dialectic reasoning.  They end up relying on drawn pictures (hand or computer generated) to promote and defend their cause because real pictures or evidence does not exist.  What evolutionist do with facts is justified according to their dialectical way of thinking.  If facts, according to the process, are not reliable, then they are not necessary in supporting one's position.


           Those who take part in diaprax training and are in the transition phase of the process will tend to "glass over" when confronted with facts.  Remember they are in the phase where fear of loss of respect is directly tied to how hard one holds on to facts.  Therefore, any new facts cause stress, especially when presented with clear and logical persuasion or authority, and therefore, as a defense mechanism, the resister to facts tends to shut down from within.  The only way to get facts to them is to restore their confidence that they will be supported or backed for holding to a position based upon facts.  This will be difficult to do as long as they are still being exposed to the brainwashing environment of diaprax, where their subconscious fear of alienation is being fed.


           By the time someone enters the transformational phase of the process, they have grown to the point where they can calmly dialogue facts with a traditional-minded person, except they will not continue this for long if the traditional person persists on his position.  Their only intent is to find kinks in one's arguments, and then chip away at their confidence.  If they cannot shake the traditional persons confidence in their facts, and the traditional person continues to present facts, the transformational person will either temporarily leave the meeting he is facilitating, and come back when the facts have all been presented and the one presenting them has "run their course" or else he will close the meeting, seeing he has lost control of the environment favorable to diaprax.

           The sure sign that a transformationalist is irritated is when they state, "Well, we are all entitled to our opinion."  What they are trying to do is lower your position down to theirs (neutralize it) and raise their ego by controlling the end of the discussion.  Christians need to realize that God's position is not an opinion, it is a fact.  As diaprax reveals, all man has is opinions when he does not accept God's Word as his position.  Satan is opinion, God "Is" (position).  Opinions are structured on feelings and therefore are relative; positions are structured on facts and therefore are absolute.  Transformationalists do not have a true and lasting position; they just have opinions which can be "tossed to and fro" (Ephesians 4:14).  When Christians treat God's position, they claim is theirs, as an opinion that can be dialogued, they deny their own faith.


           Another favorite response used by transformationalists to gain control is, "Well let's just agree to disagree."  The phrase "agreeing to disagree," like the phrase "diversity in unity" is just another definition of the dialectic.  If you accept either of them, you have fallen into diaprax.  You have agreed with them that the dialectic is your structure of thought.  God does not accept any of these phrases.  He will demonstrate his contempt for diaprax and its phrases on the day of Armageddon and again on the day of judgment.

           Transformationalists cannot stand being around absolute facts for long.  This is why scriptures tell us to:

           1)submit to God (be facts based, in this case through faith in God's Word),
           2) resist the devil (continue to stand on the facts, unmoved, refusing to dialogue and
               compromise.  "Put on the whole armor of God and stand."  Eph. 6:11), and 
           3) he will flee (the devil hates facts for he is " the father of lies" John 8:44, such as
               opinions, cosmic-bound-viewpoints, James 4:7-8).

           Remember he will only leave for a time, but he will leave.  The only problem with this is that if he has complete control over the person's environment who is under interrogation, that person is in for a POW experience—the fate of everyone under OBE, TQM, or STW.

           Edgar Schien along with Warren Bennis researched how the Communists brainwashed American solders.  These men and others like them did this so they could figure out how to "more humanely" use this process on American students.  Environment control is the key to its success.  As long as there is an element in the community who hold to traditional values you can have some hope in resistance, providing they come to your support.  If not then all is lost, in this world at least.

           Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and
no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of
my reproof;  I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear
cometh; when your fear cometh as a desolation, and your destruction cometh as
a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

           Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me
early, but they shall not find me; FOR THAT THEY HATED KNOWLEDGE,
counsel: they despised all my reproof.  Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their
own way, and be filled with their devices.    
         Proverbs 1:24-31



           When one follows the "cross" of the ANTITHESIS they find a life controlled and manipulate by feeling, even at the higher-order thinking skills level of diaprax.  From the top to bottom of the ANTITHESIS phase the person is first caught in a personal internal conflict with feelings, then a group encounter of external expression of those feelings, and finally a sense of relief that the tension is removed through compromise (remediation).  As described above this is the most painful and the most behavioral modification afflicting phase of diaprax.  No one can stay in this phase long without either succumbing  to the compromise it demands, or leaving.  The emotional pain is too great (cognitive dissonance).

           If one follows the antithesis sub-phase of the process across each phase, one finds the first phase THESIS to be a somewhat uncomfortable experience, but the next phase of ANTITHESIS to be outright traumatic, especially if they are refusing to let go of their original position.  By the SYNTHESIS phase, there is nothing to hold onto, to defend as fact, so emotions are flattened out, ambivalence reigns.  You just cannot be at this phase and depend on an absolute position at the same time, except maybe the process of diaprax, and even then most socio-psychologists, out of the need to worship change, state there are new and higher processes to come that they have not yet discovered.  They believe the evolution of change itself must go on; or as Nietzsche said, "There is absolutely no absolute."

           Brainwashing is a big part of the last two phases.  In Bloom's first "taxonomy" (cognitive) he stresses evaluation as the final phase for each cycle of the process.  What he fails to realize is that being truly objective at final phase is not possible.  Everyone going through the process has to go through the heart of it, valuing in the case of his "affective domain" book, where they have to experience the fear of rejection by others to "willingly" seek mediation.  Therefore any outcome is skewed, all facts are twisted to maintain human relationships in the process (subconscious fear, the spirit of fear).  God has not given us this spirit of fear (2 Timothy 1:7).

           These socio-psychologists may imagine they are able to evaluate wherever they are, but in reality they cannot.  The emotion of having to admit they are wrong, when a fact is present that refutes the process itself, causes them to treat it as a hypothesis, to redefine it so it is no longer a fact.  They use the dialectic process to transform every fact that comes before them.  This is the only way they can deal with facts.


Pages 30 to  35

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.