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

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.

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF REALITY

Although the scriptures warn us of the "traditions of elders," it does not ask us to abandon what traditional thinking longs for and depends upon, the belief in lasting facts or truths. To the Christian, man's longing and dependence must be upon God and His Word and not upon the things or comforts of this world. To a Christian, facts or truths are based upon the words of the Creator, His revelation about things external to the creation and beyond human-reasoning.

Facts or truths of nature, evidenced in its design and motion, can be discovered through human-reasoning, but its purpose remains cosmic-bound—unknown—without God's Word. God's Word does not deny the facts or truths found within nature, known as the laws of nature, but only affirms that He created them and can supersede them at anytime, at His own choosing. This is something those under the influence of diaprax can never accept nor understand.

Therefore the key element in traditionalism is a dependence upon an external, overt, unchanging authority or the dependence upon lasting facts and truths which apply to all times and places—God's Word, the laws of nature. It is up to that authority or that truth to either reveal Himself to man (God), or to be discovered by man (the laws of nature). The laws of nature are discovered through "hard" science and requires evidence (sight) before being understood and accepted as fact: "I know therefore I believe." The Word of God requires trust and faith in the words of a higher authority because the evidence is unseen at the time and understanding comes only after trust is applied: "I believe therefore I know."

Traditionalism therefore bases its definition of reality upon the foundation of knowing and obeying revealed facts and truths (cognitive domain), whether it be by sight, through science and the laws of nature, or by faith in God's Word. It should be noted that the laws of nature have never changed, and socio-psychologists use this argument to justify relativity because only man's awareness of them has changed. We may change in our knowledge of nature, but the truths behind nature have always been there. Man's understanding of the laws of nature may change, due to his ignorance or errors in evaluation, but the laws have always remained the same from the day that God established them.

It has likewise been the case down through the ages, that any time men use human-reasoning in an attempt to justify God's Word, they have only ended up twisting God's Word to conform to their human-reasoning. Because nature is material, our reasoning can be evaluated and any errors corrected; but because God is spirit, any attempt to use human-reasoning skills to understand or know Him is vain. One must simply trust and obey God and His Word and allow His Spirit to reveal His truth and communicate His spiritual nature—which is beyond the capability of human-reasoning, surpasses understanding, and is unspeakable; His love, peace, and joy.

TRANSITIONAL VIEW OF REALITY

Transitionalism, on the other hand, bases its definition of reality upon the foundation of feelings—personal feelings for self and for others (affective domain). Feelings, not facts, become the determinant factor for whether something or someone has meaning in life. Feelings can appear as real at times as facts: "If I don't get to go out with them, I'll just die." Here is where the traditions learned and accepted as facts come into conflict as one desires to build relationship with someone else who has a different tradition.

Unity can only take place between the two parties when they are willing to compromise their traditions or their facts. The draw of feelings for one another will bring them into a condition where one or both will have to consider abandonment of prior traditions or a working out of differences of opinions by reasoning if conflict is not to eventually lead to hostility and separation. The former requires no "higher-order thinking skills" and will leave one free to drift according to their feelings, whereas the latter is the condition that the transformationalists hope to develop in all mankind.

TRANSFORMATIONAL VIEW OF REALITY

Transformationalism cornerstones its definition of reality upon the reasoning skills used for resolving differences between others. I place the transformational way of thinking under the "psychomotor domain" because socio-psychologists require the repeating group experiences of diaprax (remediation), where the participants will be so immersed in higher-order thinking skills exercises eventually they will automatically use it in any situation without really thinking about what they are doing, producing a self-induced "natural born instinct" some call "feedforward". This is like a musician practicing until he does not have to think about what he is doing, except in this case the practice is done in and with a group of people, everyone being the instrument.

               The old fixed values of right and wrong must give way to a new maturity that
    implied qualities of adaptability and compromise, Chisholm stated. The responsibility of
    training society in new directions belonged to psychiatry, Chisholm thought: "If the race
    is to be freed from its crippling burdon of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who
    take the original responsibility." p.268.

                     The WHO [WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION] defines health as "a state of
    complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of
    disease or infirmity." p.274.

G.B. Chishom, M.D., Executive Secretary of the Interim Commission of the WHO
Source Harry Stack Sullivan, MD The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science

Transformation cannot take place, according to socio-psychologists, without proceeding through the first two phases of facts and feelings, without which common ground cannot be found. With common ground or consensus, socio-psychologists seek to resolve the belief/action dichotomy they see in life. This dichotomy results when we declare that we believe one thing and act differently. Our facts and our feelings are not always in harmony. Even though we say a certain rule "is" right does not mean that we cannot feel "it ought to be" different. We have all behaved according to our feelings, following after what ought to be instead of what we know is right. When it comes to God's law, this behavior is known as sin.

Because socio-psychologists ignore or despise the fact that Jesus came to pay for the difference, they believe they can resolve this dilemma through higher-order thinking skills. By helping to show mankind how to make facts or beliefs adaptable or changeable according to personal-social relationship needs, personal-social relationship needs become subject to practical, social "facts." These social facts are determined by the socio-psychologists who gather the information and evaluate the personal-social relationship needs of society. This means that facts and truths must be changeable along with feelings for the sake of social harmony (quality). The only way this can take place is when one defines "facts as hypothesis." Because to them all facts are changeable, they can conclude that "hypothesis equals fact." Reasoning seeks for reconciliation between facts and feelings; trusting and obeying does not.

Thus, according to diaprax, lasting truth is only found within the reasoning mind and is not external to it. This makes truth change as the perception of the mind changes. If facts therefore must become flexible to the satisfaction of personal-social relationship needs, then the deduction of this logic is that reality is found within the felt needs of society, not in an external overt authority (God), nor in any one individual, his family, his community, or his nation. According to this logic, there is no such things as inalienable rights. All rights are based upon the felt needs of society as determined by socio-psychologists.

THE DIALECTIC QUEST FOR COSMIC ONENESS
"THEE ART THOU, THOU ART THEE"

In some weird way, this "logic" implies that god and man are actually one. As men unite under a common cause, according to this process, god is being manifested. Therefore god is "becoming" as man consolidates himself into one mind (monadism) through consensus building techniques (compromise). Because this is all done through the use of higher-order thinking skills, then god is man's collective mind working together on a cosmic cause (cosmic oneness).

This is Hegel's dialectic which Karl Marx took and "turned on its head" by materializing god, replacing the concept of god with society (Hegel + Feurbach = Marx). This is called dialectic materialism (traditional Marxism) or historical materialism (transformational Marxism).

It is the latter strain we concern ourselves with in this work. Although both forms end up doing the same amount of damage, only the former is more overt about it, providing a clearer picture of the desired outcome up front (communism) and giving you a better chance of knowing your fate before it happens. Some might be surprised that famous socio-psychologist Abraham Maslow (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) wrote about his desire to "humanize Marxism." Georg Lukacs, and Antonio Gramsci had the same desire. So does OBE, TQM, and STW.

DIAPRAX: OVERT COVERT AUTHORITY:
ALTHOUGH
"YOU HAVE TO SERVE SOMEBODY"
"YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS"

When one considers patterns of thought, there is a close correlation between THESIS and traditionalism, ANTITHESIS and transitionalism, and SYNTHESIS and transformationalism. Because God requires faith in things beyond human-reasoning or understanding, all three forms of thought are inadequate. They can never reveal man's true condition—his condemnation, the coming judgment, and his only means of escape. Yet God's authority structure is represented within the THESIS structure; unquestioning obedience to a higher authority—only in this case it is spiritual authority and not carnal. Rejecting God, transformationalists can only see the carnal structure and identify those in it as fascist or "potentially" fascist. Their SYNTHESIS structure of thought not only allows them to reject God, but justifies open hostility toward His authority. Whereas both sides of the tradition-transformation spectrum seek authority, one seeks it overtly, the other covertly.

WHEN SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGISTS CONTROL DISTRIBUTION-EXCHANGE THEY CONTROL SOCIETY

Distribution-exchange is the relationship (transition) between producer-consumer and involves not only movement of product but also the expression of feelings. When the producer is free to determine who he will distribute-exchange with, he is in control (Capitalism: producer-driven society). When socio-psychologists determine (facilitate) distribution-exchange neither the producer (private) nor the consumer (public) are in control (Socialism: consumer-driven society).

The "win-win" situation of these socio-psychologists is really a lose-lose situation to the producer and consumer. It is not even a win-win situation for socio-psychologists in a transformational society, because we all lose in the end under the influence of diaprax.

Diaprax is the dialectic imagination of transformational Marxists. I cannot separate transformational Marxism and transformational OBE, TQM, and STW. They are all diaprax based.

THE BIG PRINT GIVETH AND
THE SMALL PRINT TAKETH AWAY

Without realizing it, parents, community and state leaders, and even ministers have been losing their Constitutional, inalienable, self evident rights. Because of the mind games socio-psychologists have been using on elected officials in all level of government, our laws are being changed without our full understanding of what those changes really mean. All across America, contracts are being signed that have not been clearly defined. The big print, what one wants out of the deal (affective), can often overshadow the small print, what one gives up in the deal (cognitive) when one signs a contract without thinking it through. Many laws are being passed in haste, with leaders under pressure to "expedite" crisis management (potential disasters), engineered by transformationalists.

Without a clear definition of terms and a clear explanation of the small print, we are falling, along with other nations around the world, into a skillfully laid trap designed by "experts" (socio-psychologists).

Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms;
loosely defined rules which produces
unpredictable law, and spontaneous
changes in rules to best suit the state
[the nation, or the UN].
R.W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology
and Soviet Criminal Law, p. 161.

Although traditional-minded folks perceive experts as professional and honest and assume that they seek a clear understanding of terms between differing parties, they need to realize transformational-minded socio-psychologists do not have that intention. Transformationalists do not desire to clearly define their terms so traditional minds can realize their agenda. The big print, to them, must be ambiguous enough to be redefined in changing times, and the small print must be limited to only those terms that guarantee submission by the traditional-minded to the the future process of diaprax (socialism)—all "legally" agreed upon by both parties, of course.

This method of deceit and manipulation, used by transformationalists, is not only in politics (STW), but is likewise in education (OBE) and business (TQM) in America today. It appears few are aware of it happening or even care. Since parents and communities find watching their children play T-ball more important than finding out what is happening to their world, I often think of titling my presentations "Freedom canceled due to lack of interest."

Socio-psychologists are removing our freedoms, our inalienable rights, so quickly and successfully it is often hard for me to believe we will ever be able to stop them. Few have caught on to the fact that the paradigm shift (a change in the way people think) really means the

replacing of our democratic-republic form of government with socialism. And even if some have noticed the changes, it does not appear they care to understand the significance of that change or even care to get involved to stop it.

THE LOST GENERATION

These transformationalists used to come to us as liberal politicians or professors. Today they come to us as our own spouse, our friends, our teachers, and our minister. Even our own children come home questioning the role of the traditional family in a "rapidly changing society." It should eventually sink into our heads that somewhere along the line, reading, writing, and arithmetic have been substituted with Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Traditionalists evaluate the world according to their knowledge of hard and fast truths (absolutes), like those in the hard sciences but transformationalists do not.

Most of our problems are really due to our lack of knowledge of truths or our rebellion against them. Transformationalists, on the other hand, question all truths (relativity). When crossing a bridge, which method used to build it would make you feel most secure: absolutes, 2 + 2 always equals 4 or relativity, 2 + 2 might equal 4, maybe it equals 5. Those promoting and using OBE, TQM, and STW are all building transformational bridges and airplanes and "reinventing them while in flight." I call this the Chernobyl syndrome, with facilitators at the controls. They are gaining control over our children, our spouse, our friends, our community, our nation, and even the church. That is why moral decay (fallout) is multiplying all around us.

[I]n order to effect rapid change, [one] must mount a vigorous
attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children to insulate the latter in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas...if one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior... One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant...one must become child-centered and democratic in one's familial policies. ...any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent...[and] once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future...the authoritarian family is moribund.
Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society p.45