The Dialectic & Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages
by Dean Gotcher    deangotcher@gmail.com
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.

Vol. 1   No. 1      1996 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.  Prov.3:5-6 (KJV)     Institution for Authority Research              THE DIALECTIC & PRAXIS:             DIAPRAX AND THE END OF THE AGES                                             by                                 DEAN GOTCHER                                                      For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.            For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.            For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy , murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:16-32 (KJV)

THE DIALECTIC & PRAXIS:

DIAPRAX AND THE END OF THE AGES

by

Dean Gotcher

© 1996 

           Because of the many meetings I have been speaking at during the past couple of years where a number of people have left with a feeling of loss as to what was covered, or wondering what was said that was "practical," it has become necessary for me to put down on paper what, for me, is not only a grievous issue but a difficult process to explain. If anybody wanted to accuse me of being mad, they certainly will have an opportunity to do so now. For the subject I will be covering in this small work is, to me, just that—madness. Foolish might be a better word, especially in regard to those who have spent their lives devising and implementing a process like this upon the human race. How can you explain something that appears "wise" but in reality is insanity, especially to people who only relate to those things that make sense. I might expect to hear from some of those I share this information with: "Excuse me, I have some dishes to wash!" Any such response would do. We all have better things to do with our lives than have to deal with this madness. But here we are, and if we do nothing, madness will run the day.

           This is a hurried project, not only because the time to respond appears to be running out, but also because I personally have had enough of it and at times desparately want out. "Get a life!" often crosses my mind. It appears that the pilgrims were the ones with that opportunity. I don't think there is any place to run from this process these days. My refuge is a true and sure one, though. Despite my outward complaining, God has always proven Himself faithful. Something I cannot say in regard to myself or my fellow man.

           I share in all of my presentations that "the most important event that has ever taken place in my life was when I gave my life to the Lord Jesus Christ." It was and still is only in Him that I receive the joy and peace and love that sustains me in this perverse generation. Realizing that this generation includes me, it is all the more amazing that He forgives me even when I fail Him again and again. This is something socio-psychologists will never be able to accept, because my salvation does not lie in the gray zone of human reasoning, where facts become ambiguous, feelings become ambivolent, and justification becomes automatic. My salvation does not reside in "higher-order thinking skills" or in "cosmic oneness," but in the "practical" words "It is written." and "It is Finished!" and the one who declared it so almost 2,000 years ago. He has given me His rest, not the cognitive dissonance, chaotic, coping, conflict-management stress promoted by socio-psychologists today.

           The so-called wise men of today may seek to control our schools, our business, and our politics, but they will some day realize they do not control eternity. With their glib "That's your opinion!" in response to "It is written and finished!" all I can say is "On the day of judgment, whose point of view will be most important, yours, mine, or God's?" I take refuge in the fact that God has only told us to put on His armor and occupy until His return, to trust and obey in His Word, and not to seek our own cosmic-bound unity-salvation, which seems to be so prevalent not only in the world but even in the Church today.

           The following information is not about God's armor per se, but about the scheme by which the great deceiver plans to remove our awareness of its availability and power. To my dismay, many Christians are participating in armor removal for the sake of world harmony. They are deceived and are taking pleasure in deceiving others. Let us be wise and return to the Lord and His Word. After all is said and done it is only in Him we find the true and lasting purpose for life. John 14:6 says, "He is the way, the truth, and the life," and anyone who attempts to lead those who are His, in other way, is nothing more than a thief (John 10:1), including ministers.

           One need only read II Peter 2:1-22 to understand God's contempt for those who use another way in the Church. The following pages tell how another way is being used not only in the world, but in His Church today. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:13-14). Woe be to the man who uses the bride of Christ for his own gain.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

           Although this research paper is not the result of a committee, there are many who contributed to its production. I have to admit that much of the following material was the result of having read more than 600 socio-psychology books, written by more than 250 different authors. I did do my homework. But the real understanding came after the 8 to 10 hours of reading each day. Often I woke up at two or three o'clock in the morning with a new understanding or a phrase such as "whoever defines terms for you controls your life." Without that input from the Lord I would be no further ahead in understanding than I was six years ago when I began the serious search for what was really going on around me in education, business, politics, and religion. The answers to my questions came from God's Word, in fact, this work is nothing more than a confirmation of that Word. His Word clearly reveals the process being used today to remove our desire to trust and obey Him and His Word.

           I thank my wife, Karen, and my children, Rosanna, Kenneth, and Elizabeth, for putting up with me while I struggled to find the cause behind my near loss of faith in the Lord. This happened to me while I was pursuing a teachers degree at a "Christian" college some 25 years ago. I thank my mother, Mabel Gotcher, my oldest sister, Mary Richard; my son-in-law, Jason Ward; and my minister, Bill Yeakey , for their support in prayer and personal encouragement. This work would not be as clean as it is if it were not for the discerning eyes of Renee Gotcher and Jack Phillips. I thank you immensely; you know how to make a guy look good.

           Without Dr. David Poteet's teaching's on European History, which laid a sure historical and spiritual foundation for me to work from, I would not have been able to clearly evaluate the events taking place in society today. After four years of lonely research, often thinking I was the only one seeing what was going on (which could make anyone question their sanity), Phil Ring called and revealed to me that I was not alone, that he saw the same thing, substantiating that I was sane. He is the only one I can call today who truly understands what I'm talking about. Jack Phillips, although not related in blood, is like a father to me. His solid business sense, his wise council, and his mature outlook on life would be enough to be thankful for, but it is his compassion to do what is right, not only for his family but also for his community, that makes me want to spend time around him. We all need such friends like these.

           It is not always smart to acknowledge those who helped you along the way on any journey, especially when there are many, because you always leave someone out. Some may not even want to be mentioned after reading the following work, considering the response I might receive. In light of the times we are in, when there are those who collect lists of people to focus attack upon (remediation), I will leave my list in my heart. You know who you are.

           I tell folks that I like the company I keep. There is a remnant out there. There are those who are on the battle lines who are not fleeing from it, who are refusing to take off the armor of God. I am the privileged one to have met them and am humbled by their faith and their courage, and often secretly admit to myself that I could never do what they do. I pray this work may be an encouragement to them and others like them. It would be an honor to gather them all in one place so we could all get to know one another. I will have to leave that up to the Lord, because I know he has such a gathering planned—all expenses paid.

           I thank all of you who are risking your reputations, who have the courage to set up speaking engagements for me, who put me up for the night, send research material to me, contact me for information, and encourage me to continue sharing this information, without leaving The Lord Jesus Christ out. Thank You!

CONTENTS

THE DIALECTIC & PRAXIS 
 

DIAPRAX AND THE END OF THE AGES

           There is a major move to change the way Americans think. Some call it "the reculturing of America," others call it "reinventing government," and still others refer to it as "being competitive in a global economy." This scheme that socio-psychologists have designed for American education, business, and politics consists of the three phases: 1) "social-class" consciousness; 2) sustainable "social mobility," and 3) perpetual "equality of opportunity." The reason behind the quest of these socio-psychologists is simply the resentment of having anyone in authority tell them what they must do. It is rebellion against authority. It is rebellion against God—Intellectualized.

           This attitude goes back beyond the garden experience of Adam and Eve and, as you will see, "justifies" itself according to a particular "scientific" way of thinking. This work is about this New Age way of thinking, the dialectic, and its environment of deceit and manipulation, called praxis. This way of thinking is currently being used in education, business, and politics around the world. The answer to the world's problems, according to those who worship this process, is not found in maturity, but is instead found in adolescence—not found in what "is," nor found in what "ought to be," but is instead found in the combination of the two: "potential."

           This "new" way of thinking is taking control of America, as well as the rest of the world, through its use in education, business, politics, and religion. Whether promoted by organizations such as the NEA, the local Chamber of Commerce, the United Nations, United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO), or through grant programs such as Goals 2000 and School To Work this process is having a direct effect upon all our lives. Researchers across America are now warning us about the danger of these programs. This paper is about the process behind these programs. If you ask "What is it?" "What will it do to me?" or "What can I do about it?" these next pages are for you.

1

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGISTS AND THE AMERICAN DREAM 
 

           Socio-psychologist James Coleman, who has had a major influence on the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in his book, The Adolescent Society; the Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education (p. 313, following emphasis added):                                                  

"The family must be prepared to deal with [the adolescent's] early social sophistication. Mass media, and an ever-increasing range of personal experiences, gives an adolescent social sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family."

If the family could resolve this situation (the artificially produced generation gap), Coleman believed it would get in the way of "Equality of Opportunity." He continued:

"Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power."

           He revealed his socio-psychological dream for America: "Equality of Opportunity." His dream for America cannot be fulfilled if Americans continue to retain their dreams of having a traditional family, structured around an authority figure. Coleman added:

"Thus the strategy of strengthening the family to draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some questions about its desirability."

"The other possible strategy is just the reverse of this: to take the adolescent society as given, and then use it to further the ends of adolescent education.  Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood.  In order to do this, one must know how adolescent societies function, and beyond that, how their directions may be changed."

2

           Richard Paul, another influential socio-psychologist wrote in his book, Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs To Survive In A Rapidly Changing World (p.100):

"Children can and should learn to make up their own minds thoughtfully and reflectively, but they will do so only if parents and teachers recognize the problem created by belief inculcation. How can we teach dialectic reasoning and pave the way for human emancipation?"

"The classroom environment should be structured so that students feel encouraged to decide for themselves . . . teachers should shield their students from the pressure to conform to peers or the community [parents, ministers, police, etc.]." (p.113)

"Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in the dialogical and dialectic settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend [teachers, parents, etc.] concepts.  We must learn . . . to identify not with the content of our beliefs but with the process by which we arrived at them.  We must come to define ourselves . . . as people who reason their way into, and can be reasoned out of, beliefs.  To do this we must learn how to reason dialogically and dialectically." (p.211, emphasis added)

           In the traditional way of looking at things, quality is used in describing how well something, such as a car or a doll, is built.  In the transformational way of thinking, quality always incorporates the total environment of the item - the relationships of all the people designing, making, shipping, selling, servicing, and using an item, including you (wholistic).

3

           America's need to realize that Life-Long Learning is not dealing with how much people know (the traditional way of getting ahead)—through the evaluation and manipulation of things (quantity).  Life-Long Learning is dealing with how people think (the transformational way of getting ahead)—through the evaluation and manipulation of people (quality).

           In the spring issue of Education Record (1994), Bill Clinton stated: "For life-long learning to become a reality, a whole new ethic will have to grip the American imagination."

This new ethic is based upon the dialectic way of thinking, experienced in praxis.  This new ethic is even being used to unite the Church, changing the Church's focus and convincing it that if it is to help save the world in the 21st century, it will have to overcome the obstacle of Christ's second coming - God's judgment upon man's quest for cosmic oneness and sin.  Erik Fromm and other socio-psychologists with this same new ethical mindset see Satan, not Christ, as the deliverer of mankind, saving man by giving him an opportunity to be equal with the creator (equality of opportunity) and allowing him to free himself by questioning the "authoritarian"—"That's the way it is," "Do what I say," "Because I said so," Creator who promotes a lower order, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it"—way of thinking. They see Lucifer as the one who gave Adam and Eve the right "to be their own person" and the right "to discover their full potential." I kid you not when I tell you this is the final agenda for the "reculturing of America."

           These so-called experts then dialectic this information they have collected on you so they can predict or estimate the "best" way they can "help" you resolve your own personal-social relationship needs. They believe that through the use of dialectic interpersonal/intrapersonal behavior-modification techniques, every human being will eventually be better equipped to relate to a "rapidly changing world."

           These personal-social relationship needs are more than our physical needs and knowing needs, more than what one knows (quantity). The personal-social relationship needs being evaluated, according to the dialectic process, must also include emotional or relationship needs—how one relates (quality). Those who use the dialectic are therefore concerned mostly with "felt needs." Throughout this work it should be understood that personal-social relationship needs always implies felt needs, not just physical needs (survival or safety) and knowing needs (information or awareness).

           The dialectic way of thinking is more commonly referred to as Higher-Order Thinking Skills or HOTS for short by some people.

It occupied the minds of only a small and limited segment of our society before the turn of the 20th century. It was not until praxis was implemented in the late 1930s that the dialectic process moved outside the inner circle of philosophers, radical professors, liberal theologians, and socialist politicians into the public arena.

           When praxis became a part of the intellectuals' dialectic toy, major social changes began to appear within our nation. The combined process of the dialectic and praxis made it possible for socialist-minded intellectuals to directly impact not only the university, but also the public and private school, corporations as well as small business, local as well as state and national government, the church, and even the home.

           This combined process of dialectic and praxis is a highly speculative way of behaving, thinking, and acting. It depends on an attitude of compromise by all participants on a general social issue producing tolerance toward ambiguity. It seeks a collaborative effort in overcoming differences in an effort to find agreement on personal-social relationship needs (group consensus). It regards the resolution of personal-social relationship needs through the use of human-reasoning skills, or HOTS, as most important. It helps in determining what is the "best" or "most rational" solution to personal-social relationship needs.This does not mean that the solution agreed upon should be "fact" or "truth" (absolute), only that it is acceptable to all as a possible solution that could or should be tried relative feelings toward ambiguous facts.

5

           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.

6

THE NEW AGE MENTAL DISEASE OF 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.

           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.

7

TRANSFORMATIONAL OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION (OBE), TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT (TQM), AND SCHOOL TO WORK (STW) ARE ALL
FOUNDED UPON DIAPRAX

           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.

8

           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 feel 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.

9

           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?

10

           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

11

           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?"

12

           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

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.

13

           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. 

14

           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.

           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.

15

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.

16

HOW DIAPRAX IS STRUCTURED

           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." 

HOW DIAPRAX VIEWS REALITY

           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.

17

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.

18

           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.

           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.

19

           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.

           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).

20

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 Lukács, and Antonio Gramsci had the same desire.  So does OBE, TQM, and STW.

           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.

           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.

21

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).

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

22

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.

           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.

23

THE THREE PHASES OF THE "GLOBAL VILLAGE"

           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.

              thesis—position—stating one's belief such as a thesis or position paper.
              antithesis—definition—interpreting what one means to others with differing views.
              synthesis—self-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).

24

              thesis—negation of negation—the right to say no to preset rules and standards.
              antithesis—conflict—the environment where obverse values are experienced.
              synthesis—mediation—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. 

              thesis—determination—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.
              antithesis—necessitation—always probing another person's definition to expose
                    their lack of self-determination and to "help" them think for themselves.
              synthesis—causation—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.

25

           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.

26

          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.

           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.

27

           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).

28

           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).

           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.

29

           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.

30

           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.

           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.

31

DIAPRAX AND FACTS

           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).

IDENTIFYING RESISTERS TO FACTS

           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

32

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.

33

           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.

34

DIAPRAX AND FEELINGS

           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.

35

 DIAPRAXED HUMILITY

           True evaluation never takes place as it does in hard sciences.  This is why, even when they recognize the pattern of failure coming from their process, they refuse to recognize the error of their way.  They are possessed by the sense that they are able to understand where they are, that they have all things in control, and therefore must deny that they cannot get out of the process on their own.  Pride prevents them from admitting it and asking for help from the only one who can help, a "lower order," facts-based, traditional-minded person who believes in higher authority—God.  True humility is not a trait of "intellectuals."  They only diaprax humility to satisfy their egos.  They only seek self exaltation (Self Actualization).

           Because those under the influence of diaprax reflect the self-exalting, "I will," attitude of Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-16) and not the self-humbling, "Thy will," attitude of Jesus Christ (Mark 14:36), any act of humility from them is only self-serving.  Their rebellion against the authority of God and His Word prevent them from expressing or experiencing true humility, even when they attempt to express it in connection with their intent of satisfying the personal-social needs of others (read Matthew 7:21-23 and Luke 13:24-28 in relation with Matthew 25:31-46).  "Humble yourself under the mighty hand of God, and he will exalt you at the proper time" (I Peter 5:6).

           When friends come back from three-day retreats of TQM, OBE, STW training they often respond as described above.  When you confront them with questions that demand facts, they demonstrate much discomfort, and become evasive.  They may even disassociate from you if you persist.  They are in grave danger, and they do not know it and will most likely refuse to recognize it or even admit it.  If enough people in leadership positions go to these meetings, you, your family, and your community are in grave danger.  No one should participate in diaprax.  To do so is to risk everything one believes in.

           The final phase of the process, SYNTHESIS, consists of a singular intent of uniting facts and feelings for the sake of world peace—cosmic oneness.  This is done to alleviate the differences found in life regarding believed facts that get in the way of human relationships, such as the felt need to be accepted by others.  As one proceeds through diaprax, it is the objective of the process, to make meaning out of life.  Because facts and feelings conflict in life, then reasoning is seen as the only means whereby harmony or peace can be achieved.  Although those who push this method of reasoning call it "scientific," it is only scientific in structure when applied to nature or hard science.  When applied to socio-psychology it becomes "soft" science or so-called science.

36

           Behavior has never been accurately categorized, despite all the attempts to do so.  Therefore socio-psychologists have taken it upon themselves to use a method they see applied in the real sciences, and apply it on mankind.  The logical deduction is that they have classified man as material.  Since he is more, the process is inadequate as a tool of evaluation.  One must realize first of all, that the "scientific" process of diaprax is nothing more than a fraudulent means to redefine mankind as nothing more than a cosmic beast.  With that as its goal, this process, as it is being applied, will turn man into just that—beasts.  Except in this case it will be a thinking beast who can justify the means it uses to satisfy its personal-social relationship needs in its cosmic-bound enclosure.

           Those who succumb to diaprax end up worshiping their ability to reason their way out of personal accountability because, in their mind, they can "rationally" blame anyone in an authority position for any or all of their personal troubles and failures.  They worship equality of opportunity because, in the mind, they feel they can be anybody (God) when they really cannot (virtual reality).  They worship social class because, in the mind, they can justify their accusation of anyone (God) who gets in their way as being an oppressor.  And they worship social mobility because, in the mind, they believe that they are the way, the truth, and the life (God).  They worship their own wisdom, their Gnostic matriarch Sophia, their mother earth, because in their minds, they believe that America and the rest of the world might turn to the authority of God and His Word for the answers to life, if they do not do something about it first.  This reasoning is diaprax; this is the spirit of Antichrist.

           This is all about the fear of alienation, man's resentment toward the one in authority who causes it.  When one fears alienation with man, God will always become the object of resentment.  This is due to our resentment toward those things (God's law, His demand for faith and obedience, and His unchanging position on sin) which get in the way of relationship building with those we like or want to get to know, who hold an obverse point of view.

           When alienation with God is removed in Christ, one receives His Spirit of power, love, and a sound mind.  At the time one's alienation with God is resolved, his alienation with the world begins.  One must choose between God or man.  There is no other choice.  When human relationship building becomes the center piece of any ministry, that ministry is no longer serving God.

37

DIAPRAX IN SESSION
(refer to chart inside of back cover)

           Using the dialectic process with its THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS, phases and their three sub-phases (nine phases in all), we can follow the series of questions that are used to produce the diaprax, New Age, cosmic-bound mind.

Phase one: THE THESIS INTERROGATION.  "Why do you feel the way you do?"

Sub-phase one: POSITION STATEMENT.  The beginning of the "interrogation" process.  The change agent becoming aware of your position regarding a social issue.

"What do you think about...?"  (Cognitive)
"How do you feel about...?"   (Affective)

           After the facilitator gives a brief "friendly" introduction and engages the members of the group in some "warm" and "casual" dialogue he begins the process of "interrogating" with "drawing out" type questions.  When a facilitator says to you, "Don't worry about what you might say.  This is just an exercise, so just open up and participate.  No one is here to hurt you, we are all here to help one another.  This exercise is not being recorded."  Do not believe them.  It is being recorded.  Someone somewhere is keeping notes on you.  Information on your behavior is being recorded by a selected recorder, whether you know it or not.  Your behavior is being kept track of, if not on tape, at least in notes or in someone's head, to be written down later.  In a separate change agent or group leadership meeting this information will be used to analyze your behavior in the group exercise.  In a diaprax society everyone is always being analyzed, even the facilitator.

Sub-phase two: DEFINING YOUR POSITION.  The change agent begins with questions such as:

"Could you explain that further?"
"What do you mean by...?"
 

38

Using a controlled environment to develop group interest on a social issue, the facilitator must first develop connection with each individual.  He does this by first asking each individual to more clearly define their terms so he can better understand their position.  He uses this phase to activate the desire for respect each individual desires from the facilitator as well a the respect desired from fellow peers regarding their position.  Once this happens one's position is in jeopardy.

Sub-phase three: REALIZATION OF SELF and "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS."  The beginning of the "I have my rights" attitude.  Liberation from those those who establish socially restraining rules, who limit equality of opportunity.  The oppressed-oppressor syndrome is now being developed.

"How do you think you arrived at that view?"
"Why do you think you feel that way?"

This is the sub-phase where the individual realizes the source for his discomfort when he desires to be a part of a new group of people.  That discomfort being the fear of rejection by the new group if he does not adequately justify the restraints and rules placed upon him by parents, laws, God, etc.  The purpose of diaprax is to encourage him to "think for himself" to realize that he has the right to question rules or standards that stand in the way of new social experiences.

Phase two: THE ENVIRONMENT FOR GROUP RELATIONSHIP BUILDING.  "Have you considered the alternatives?"

Sub-phase four: NEGATION OF THE NEGATIONS.  The change agent must begin the process of group-think or relationship building with questions that help free the participants so they can experience change and diversity among themselves.  This is done with questions such as:

"How might this be approached in another way?"
"What are the alternatives to your position?"
 

39

 Every participant must feel it their "right" to say NO to all the "cannot," "must not," "will not" commands or standards established by parents, God, or prior experience.  For everyone to feel free enough to participate in the experience of group life and be willing to experience "diversity in unity" learning to "agree to disagree" for the sake of social harmony, they must be willing to set aside any rule that might restrict or restrain dialogue.  The Ten Commandments will definitely be redefined (humanized) or left out because they are intolerant of diaprax—unrighteous human behavior.

Sub-phase five: CONFLICT.  The analysis of the consequences of alternatives begins with questions such as:

"What might be the result if...?"
"What effect might that have upon...?"
"What are the consequences?

Conflict is the result of definition and redefinition taking place within and between each individual and the group while attempting to maintain respect in the eyes of the group and enhance group cohesion.  The quest for developing the common ground necessary for group consensus keeps all participants moving forward in this time of cognitive dissonance, where differing opinions or beliefs are shared and participated in by everyone, while overcoming the residue of conviction for having questioned the original position.  Cope therefore becomes a word central to the life process of each individual as he or she sets out to satisfy personal needs while at the same time serving social needs.  This is the heart of the personal-social relationship needs dependence phase of diaprax.

Sub-phase six: MEDIATION or CONFLICT RESOLUTION.  A sub-phase closely following from sub-phase five with questions such as:

"Which is best, right, most desirable, or most functional?"
"Why?"

Developing mediation or conflict-resolution skills is the reason for this whole exercise in "group dynamics."  Therefore absolutes must be sacrificed for the 

 40

sake of social harmony.  According to diaprax, the only absolute is change, the only thing relative is truth.  This is where the paradigm shift of the New Age really kicks in because there is no "going back to basics" in this process, that means no going back to parents' or God's preset standards regarding right and wrong.

Phase three—SYNTHESIS: "LIFE-LONG LEARNING."  Becoming a life-long change agent.

Sub-phase seven: DETERMINATION TO CONTINUE DIAPRAX.  Each group-think individual now sets out to help bring others into the group-think process.  By drawing others in the diaprax environment they are able to help them become aware of their own personal-social relationship needs.  Group-think individuals, at this sub-phase are able to help facilitate the process with questions such as:

"What do you think about...?"
"How do you feel about...?"

At this sub-phase the "group-think" or "transformation-minded" individual is determined to activate the process of diaprax upon other individuals or groups who "still have" a "traditional" or "transitional" mindset.  They are determined to produce more higher-order thinkers for the cause of world harmony and peace.   Remedation has resulted in the habitualization of the process.

Sub-phase eight: NECESSITATION.  For everyone to develop a "low intolerance to ambiguity" and adapt to a life lived in the "gray zone," all for the sake of society, they must learn to accept chaos, change, and coping with stress as a way of life.

The individual change agent, convinced of the necessity for change, now believes it is necessary for everyone to learn to cope with stress in an environment of chaos.  Because the "transition" phase requires group conflict, if individual respect is to be maintained and group cohesion is to be developed, then it will be necessary for everyone to learn to cope with the chaos of change.

41

Sub-phase nine: CAUSATION IS THE RESULT OF EFFECT.   "The cart before the horse syndrome."  " Diaprax: The dialectic driving for unity through the controlled used of cognitive dissonance, in the environment of praxis."  (Translations: "Brainwashing by socio-psychologists: The science of developing and utilizing the anxiety of alienation, naturally found in people, to synthesize them through the use of antithesis or confusion, in a technological designed 'real world' laboratory or New World Order: The socio-psychological use of fear to herd people together for the purpose of Global domination.")

According to Hegel "what is rational is real, and what is real is rational."  It is therefore the real environment that produces or develops rational minds, and it is the rational mind that is willing to recognize the real world.  Diaprax rejects a cause and effect world, which determines outcomes up front, such as "You must always do this, if you want that to always happen."

According to those who use diaprax, cause and effect is irrational.  Cause and effect requires faith in a preestablished world order and in outcomes set prior to human experience, that cannot be justified in a world out of order.  According to diaprax, the rational mind and the real world must be seen as effect and cause.  They believe the effect of presenting a real world situation for people to learn to relate within (environment/climate control) will cause rational behavior (the desired outcome), providing it is properly facilitated.  Consequently they believe the effect of teaching people to trust in and obey an unreal worldview, will only cause irrational behavior.

According to diaprax, to effect a real world-view (diversity) is to cause a rational mind (the quest for unity).  The result of this kind of mindset is the belief that cosmic oneness is the goal of life, the most rational and most real way to live.  According to those promoting diaprax, any one not seeking solutions to the world's problems with higher-order thinking skills is considered irrational and should never be allowed to occupy a position of influence where they can "contaminate" the next generation with their traditional, "lower order" way of thinking.

Therefore, according to diaprax, since the real world is changing, the rational mind must also be adaptable to change.  This is cyclical reasoning to a Christian, since the solution to the world's problem, according to this process, can only be resolved by worldly thinking; and it is worldly thinking, according to

42

this process, that recognizes worldly problems.  Therefore any thinking that is not worldly cannot be rational because, according to this process, only that which is worldly can be real.  All is cosmic-bound.

The individual can now justify their conduct according to the ambiguous rules and standards they design through diaprax.  They believe they are able to solve both personal and social problems, "because" they know how to think for themselves in a way that will not hurt the rest of mankind, but instead will assist it in achieving world unity.  Their definitions will always be directed toward satisfying social needs, group think, not the needs of some absolute-minded authority, be it God or man.  The cause for life now becomes mankind rationally getting along with himself, not mankind obeying God, parents, etc. because He or they say we must.

           Unearned self esteem can never satisfy a person like

earned self esteem.  To receive compliments you have not earned is an insult.  Diaprax insults every person it dialogues with.

           Those in the world of diaprax refuse to accept personal accountability to those in the traditional world, the real world.  Anyone in the real world, sensing problems coming from OBE, TQM, and STW, who tries to get answers by dialoguing with those in the land of diaprax, will soon realize that, despite all the compliments being bestowed upon them, the "I think it is wonderful that you have come to find out what is going on.  You are one of the few who really seems to care enough to get involved and help us make a difference," kind of self esteem put off, they are being insulted.

           Diaprax succeeds because it gives anyone under its influence the sense that they are in control.  They do not realize that it is controlling them.  Diaprax is like an addictive substance, except it works with words, with language and thought.  While saying one thing it accomplishes another.  It "gives" you something that makes you feel good, but if you really stop to think it through, you will realize it gives you little or nothing at all.  What you are giving up is control over your life and the right to use it in the real world.  Diaprax just forgets to tell you that you are giving up your right to control your life, you have to figure that out on your own.  Just like any addictive substance, that is hard to do while you are under its influence.

43

           Empowerment is just another diaprax word for duped.  When people realize they have been "had" by the process they soon discover they cannot warn others because others still believe they control their own lives.  Nobody can fight the system while in it.  It does not provide adequate footing for resistance from within.  Those who think so are only fooling themselves.

           Much of my research lead me into the study of "conscious-subconscious" behavior.  Some call this spectrum "false consciousness-consciousness," others "deep structure-surface structure."  (This is also the area of research that socio-psychologists concentrate upon in their effort to understand how to use hypnosis.)  A psychological assumption held by socio-psychologists is that when a person's spontaneity (deep structure, subconscious desire or emotional "need") is thwarted (restrained or suppressed) by rules or commands (surface structure) they build up hidden feelings of resentment that will eventually result in some form of hostility toward themselves or others.  When these feelings are finally given an opportunity to be vented they become the dynamo behind prejudice.

           Because the authority figure, who sets the rules and demands obedience and respect, will not permit himself to be used as an outlet for any pent up anger, especially from any one under his authority, the one under submission will most likely project his anger at any "outsider" the authority figure resents, thus not only getting rid of the internal tension caused by submission, but also gaining favor with the authority figure as well.  Socio-psychologists believe this is where all prejudice comes from.

           What is missing here is the recognition of benevolent authority, something socio-psychologists discuss, but refuse to accept as an answer, since the issue for them is not really love and forgiveness, but the freedom to question established authority.  They seek to control society, without personal accountability.  Kurt Lewin and others recognize that benevolent authority could produce a healthy community, but, because it still demanded obedience to a higher authority which they could not control, they could not accept it as an option.  This is why OBE, TQM, and STW are not teaching obedience, but respect for one another, as much as is possible.  Those who do not deserve respect, according to socio-psychologists, are those who continue to believe in absolutes and resist change.

           God expects us to respect Him and obey His laws, yet He knows about our sinful nature that resents being told what to do.  In Christ he has provided forgiveness for our resentment and disobedience and with His Holy Spirit has given us the power to overcome it.  God has made possible what man cannot do.  This is why socio-psychologist refuse to recognize benevolent authority.  To do so would force them to recognize their sinful nature and to admit their need for God.  What they do not want to recognize is that He is their Creator as well.

44

           The socio-psychologist, Piaget, stated that any time someone tells a child what to do or teaches a child, they prevent the child from discovering for himself and thereby end up damaging the child.  What he and others like him mean is that spontaneity must become as important a part of education as the gathering of information.  Absolute rules, especially transcendent rules, stand in the way of spontaneity, since they cannot be discovered through spontaneity.

           In diaprax everyone is given a chance to role play, to become spontaneous, to be freed from the stagnating rules of "Do this," "Don't do that," inculcated by parents, teachers, preachers, bosses, government, etc.  This is why, according to socio-psychologists, didactic, rote learning must give way to dialectic, higher-order thinking.  When Piaget insisted that children should not be given rules until they are seven, because they cannot understand rules until then, he said it because it fit the pattern of the dialectic process.  What he and men such as him have to overcome is the fact that their process is in error.  If rules are not set by the age of seven one most likely will have an unruly child.  This is foolishness, as even they sometimes admit.

           But socio-psychologists are intoxicated with diaprax, possessed with the process, and cannot for some reason see the "pattern of failure" that Abraham Maslow did momentarily recognize.  If they should ever truly recognize the error of their way and therefore end up rejecting diaprax, they have no where else to turn, except to God and His Word.  That is why Maslow was in such conflict in the end, he didn't want to turn that way.  That is also why Lawrence Kohlberg, of the "life raft dilemma" fame, ended up committing suicide.  Just think of it, almost every child in both public and private school is learning or has participate in at least one of suicidal Lawrence Kohlberg's dilemma questions.  There is no true and lasting hope in intellectually rebellious diaprax.  Only hopelessness and defiant despair if not self-destruction in the end.

           But to those addicted to diaprax the process is always right; they believe that they just need some more time and more subjects to experiment with, to work out the kinks.  One thing to remember about experiments, the experimenter is never held responsible for the results, even if the experiment fails, as longs as he follows the procedures he set out to do and the experiment was approved by those participating.  Just be aware that in this experiment you may be blamed for any failure because you did not do your part (did not participate in parents as teachers, management training, etc.) and you may be charged for any damages done to society (drop outs or refusal to participate, in some socialist countries these people are referred to as parasites.)

45

           If your child is in this experiment, take comfort that you might get them back—damaged, but that should be no problem since you authorized the experiment to begin with.  You supported it through the laws you allowed to be passed.  You donated to it through participating in its voluntary social activities.  You approved of it by sending your child into it.  In the end you are the only one to blame.  In diaprax that's the way it works.

           When it comes to one's position on God's Word the Christian cannot go through the definition sub-phase of diaprax using "I think," or "I feel," without weakening or destroying their faith.  The use of "It is written" during this sub-phase may well cost the Christian the respect of those in the group, but it is the only way the Christian can stay loyal to his belief and his position in God and His Word.

           To move into the realm of "I think" or "I feel" on matters of "It is written" is folly.  Many Christians have fallen prey.  While numerous scriptures come to mind, one in particular applies directly to diaprax—I Timothy 6:20-21.  The Apostle Paul warned Timothy not to participate in "oppositions" (actual Greek word used is antithesis) "of so called science whereby many have lost their faith" ("so called science" is Paul's reference to the dialectic process).  It doesn't get any clearer than that.  One cannot participate in diaprax and keep their faith in God.

           If you reject God as the "First Cause" or the purpose for your life, you are doomed to the life of diaprax.  You have based the cause for your existence upon your own wisdom and are bound to the cosmos and its impending judgment.  You are worshiping the created rather than the Creator and are bound to Life-Long Learning without any hope of coming to true understanding of what life is really all about.

46

           In diaprax, you are trapped within the corrupting love of pleasure, and cannot know the true love of God.  All you can hope to achieve in diaprax is a hollow existence, full of motion.  You will never find the rest that the Creator of all things has provided for you in His son but you will instead be destined for eternal damnation, according to His preset standards, as found in His Word.  With God there is no gray zone, only black and white, only the choice between life or death.  This is the only choice there is.  He has left the choice up to you.

           In diaprax, you can only turn to the cosmos and its cosmic-bound gurus (socio-psychologists) for the questions to the answers to satisfy personal-social relationship needs.  This is the only choice you have if you refuse to recognizing your resentment toward the authority of God and your sins as a result.  To find the true and lasting answer to your real need—the remission of your sins and a restored relationship with your creator—you need to believe upon Jesus Christ of Nazareth, you need to be baptized, and you need to purpose within your heart to serve Him as Lord and Master of your life.  If you refuse, you can only turn to the "wisdom" of fallen men for the questions to their answers.  You will only find there the destructive satanic process of diaprax, the science and technology of the New Age (dialectic and praxis).

                     If you are in the grips of the "New Age" process or are simply submitting to its allure, now is the time to turn to the only one who can rescue you, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"  (Acts 4:12).

47

Adorno, Theodor.  The Authoritarian Personality.  New York: Harper&Row, 1950.
Allport, Gordon W.  The Nature of Prejudice.  Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1954
Asch, Solomon E.  Social Psychology.  New York: Prentice Hall, 1952
Astin, Alexander W.  Four Critical Years:  Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978.
Astin, Alexander W.  The Power of Protest.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1975
Bandler, Richard.  Changing With Families:  A Book About Further Education For Being Human.  Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, 1976.
Barker, Roger Garlock., T. Dembo, and K. Lewis.  Frustration and Regression:  An Experiment with Young Children.  Vol. 18, No. 1.  Iowa City, Iowa:  University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 1941.  (Article can be found in Human Relations in Curriculum Change, below)
Barton, Allen H., Bogdan Denitch, and Charles Kadushin, eds.  Opinion-Making Elites in Yugoslavia.  New York:  Praeger Publishers, 1973.
Benne, Kenneth D. And Bozidar Muntyan.  Human Relations in Curriculum Change.  New York:  The Dryden Press, 1951.
Bennis, Warren.  The Planning of Change.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.
Bennis, Warren.  The Planning of Change:  Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961.
Bennis, Warren.  The Temporary Society.  New York:  Harper and Row, 1969.
Berg, Robert L., M. Roy Brooks, Jr., and Miomir Savicevic.  Health Care in Yugoslavia and the United States.  Bethesda, MD:  National Institute of Health, 1976.
Blanchard, Kenneth.  Management of Organizational Behavior:  Utilizing Human Resources.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Blanchard, Kenneth.  The One Minute Manager.  New York:  Morrow, 1982.
Block, James H. and Lorin Anderson.  Mastery Learning in Classroom Instruction.  New York:  MacMillan Publishing, 1975.
Bloom, Benjamin S., David R. Krathwohl, and Bertram B. Masia.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:  The Classification of Educational Goals.  Cognitive Domain.  New York:  Longman, 1956.
Brown, B. Frank, Director.  Education for Responsible Citizenship:  The Report of The National Task Force on Citizenship Education.  New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1977.
Bruner, Jerome S.  The Process of Education.  Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1977.
Cantril, Hadley and Gordon W. Allport.  The Psychology of Radio.  New York:  Arno Press, 1971.
Carroll, John B.  Language and Thought.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall, 1964.
Coleman, James.  The Adolescent Society; the Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education.  New York:  Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.
Coleman, James.  Community Conflict.  Glencoe, IL:  Free Press, 1957
Coleman, James.  Public and Private High Schools:  The Impact of Communities.  New York:  Basic Books, 1987.
Djilas, Milovan.  The Unperfect Society, Beyond the New Class.  New York:  Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969.  (Yugoslavia)
Dressel, Paul Leroy.  General Education:  Explorations in Evaluation.  Washington: American Council on Education, 1954.
Erikson, Erik H.  Childhood and Society.  New York:  Norton, 1963.
Fenton, Edwin.  Teaching the New Social Studies in Secondary Schools; an Inductive Approach.  New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966.

*Bold names and books represent material used by Benjamin Bloom et al in his taxonomies.
Bold names only represent authors Bloom uses for his taxonomies, but books sited here are not a part of his books.

48

Festinger, Leon.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.  Stanford:  Stanford University Press, 1962.
Friedrich, Carl J. (Ed.).  The Philosophy of Hegel.  New York:  The Modern Library, 1954.
Fromm, Erich.  Escape From Freedom.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1941.
Fromm, Erich.  Man for Himself, An Inquiry Into the Psychology of Ethics.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1947.
Fromm, Erich.  You Shall Be As Gods:  A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and its Tradition.  New York:  Fawcett Premier, 1966.
Furst, Edward J.  Constructing Evaluation Instruments.  New York:  David McKay, 1958.
Garbin, Margery, ed.  Assessing Educational Outcomes Third National Conference on Measurement and Evaluation in Nursing.  New York:  National League for Nursing Press, 1991.
Gardner, Howard.  Frames of Mind:  The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  New York:  Basic Books, 1983.
Gerlach, Ronald A. and Lynn W. Lamprecht.  Teaching About the Law.  Cincinnati:  W.H. Anderson Co., 1975.
Glaser, Edward M., Harold H. Abelson and Kathalee N. Garrison.  Putting Knowledge to Use:  Facilitating the Diffusion of Knowledge and the Implementation of Planned Change;  Jossey-Bass Publications, San Francisco, 1983.
Gramsci, Antonio.  Letters from Prison.  Translated by Lynne Lawner.  New York:  Noonday Press, 1973.
Gramsci, Antonio.  Selections from Cultural Writings.  Edited by David Forgacs and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, Translated by William Boelhower.  Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1985.
Gramsci, Antonio.  Selections from the Prison Notebooks.  Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Smith.  New York:  International Publishers, 1971.
Gruenwald, Oskar.  The Yugoslav Search for Man:  Marxist Humanism in Contemporary Yugoslavia.  South Hadley, MA:  J.F. Bergin, 1982.
Habermas, Jurgen.  Toward a Rational Society:  Student Protest, Science, and Politics.  Boston:  Beacon Press, 1971.
Havighurst, Robert J. and W. Lloyd Warner and Martin Loeb.  Who Shall Be Educated?  New York:  Harper & Brothers, 1944.
Havighurst, Robert J.  Adolescent Character and Personality.  New York:  Wiley, 1949.
Havighurst, Robert J.  The Educational Mission of the Church.  Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1965.
Havighurst, Robert J. and Daniel Levine.  Society and Education.  7th ed. Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1989.
Havelock, Ronald G.  The Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education;  Educational Technology Productions, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975.
Heider, Fritz.  The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.  New York:  Wiley, 1958.
Horkheimer, Max.  Eclipse of Reason.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1947.
Jacob, Philip E.  Changing Values in College.  New York:  Harper, 1957.
Jacobi, Maryann.  College Student Outcomes Assessment:  A Talent Development Perspective.  College Station, TX:  Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1987.
Jay, Martin.  The Dialectical Imagination:  A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950.  Boston:  Little, Brown, 1973.
Johnson, David W. and Roger T. Johnson.  Circles of Learning:  Cooperation in the Classroom.  Alexandria, VA:  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984.
Johnson, David W. and Roger T. Johnson.  Joining Together:  Group Theory and Group Skills.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Johnson, David W. and Roger T. Johnson.  Reaching Out:  Interpersonal Effectiveness and Self-Actualization.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Johnson, David W. and Johnson, Roger T.  Learning Together and Alone:  Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning.  Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:  Prentice-Hall, 1987.
Johnson, Donald McEwen.  The Psychology of Thought and Judgment.  New York:  Harper, 1955.
Joyce, Bruce R., Richard Hersh, and Michael McKibbon.  The Structure of School Improvement.  New York:  Longeman, 1983
Keller, Suzanne Infield.  Beyond the Ruling Class:  Strategic Elites in Modern Society.  New York:  Random House, 1963.

49

Kohlberg, Lawrence.  The Philosophy of Moral Development:  Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice.  San Francisco:  Harper & Row, 1981
Kohlberg, Lawrence.  The Psychology of Moral Development:  The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages.  San Francisco:  Harper & Row, 1984
Krathwohl, David, Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.  The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 2:  Affective Domain.  New York:  Longman, 1964.
Kuhmerker, Lisa.  The Kohlberg Legacy for Helping Professions.  Birmingham:  R.E.P. Books, 1991.
Kuhn, Thomas S.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Lagemann, Ellen C.  Private Power for the Public Good:  A History of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.  Middletown, CT:  Wesleyan University Press, 1983.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F.  The People's Choice.  New York:  Columbia University Press, 1948.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F.  Views From the Socially Sensitive Seventies.  New York:  AT&T, 1973
Levine, Norman.  Dialogue Within the Dialectic.  London:  George Allen & Unwin, 1984
Lewin, Kurt.  A Dynamic Theory of Personality.  New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1935.
Lewin, Kurt.  Resolving Social Conflicts, Selected Papers on Group Dynamics.  New York:  Harper, 1948.
Lippitt, Ronald.  The Dynamics of Planned Change; A Comparative Study of Principles and Techniques.  New York:  Harcourt, Brace, 1958.
Lowry, Richard J. ed.  The Journals of Abraham Maslow.  Lexington:  Lewis Publishing Co., 1982.
Lukacs, Georg.  The Process of Democratization,  Edited by Norman Levine, State University of New York Press, 1991.
Marcuse, Herbert.  One Dimensional Man; Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society.  Boston:  Beacon Press, 1964.
Marcuse, Herbert.  Reason and Revolution.  New York:  Humanities Press, 1963.
Marcuse, Herbert.  Negations; Essays in Critical Theory.  Boston:  Beacon Press, 1968.
Marrow, Alfred F.  The Practical Theorist:  The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin.  New York:  Basic Books, Inc., 1969.
Maslow, Abraham H.  Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences.  Columbus:  Ohio State University Press, 1964.
Maslow, Abraham H.  Toward A Psychology of Being.  Princeton:  Van Nostrand, 1968.
Mastain, Richard.  The NASDTEC Manual:  Manual on Certification and Preparation of Educational Personnel in the United States.  Sacramento:  National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 1984.
Mayer, Martin.  The Schools.  New York:  Harper, 1961.
Mayhew, Lewis B.  Arrogance on Campus.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1970.
Mayhew, Lewis B.  Changing the Curriculum.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1971.
Mayhew, Lewis B.  The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1973.
Mayhew, Lewis B and Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.  Graduate and Professional Education, 1980; A Survey of Institutional Plans.  New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Mayhew, Lewis B.  Legacy of the Seventies.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Mayhew, Lewis B.  Surviving the Eighties:  Strategies and Procedures for Solving Fiscal and Enrollment Problems.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1979.
Moos, Elizabeth.  Soviet Education:  Achievements and Goals.  New York:  National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, 1967.
Moreno, J.L.  Who Shall Survive?  Foundations of Sociometry Group Psychotherapy and Sociodrama.  Beacon, NY:  Beacon House, 1953.
Morrison, J. Cayce.  The Puerto Rican Study, 1953-1957.  New York; Board of Education, 1958.
Murphy, Gardner; Lois Murphy; and Theodore M. Newcomb.  Experimental Social Psychology; An Interpretation of Research Upon the Socialization of the Individual.  Westport:  Greenwood Press, 1970.
Naisbitt, John.   Reinventing the Corporation:  Transforming Your Job and Your Company for the New Information Society.  New York:  Warner books, 1985.
Naisbitt, John.  Megatrends 2000:  Ten New Directions for the 1990's.  New York:  Morrow, 1990.

50

Neuman, Lois H.  Educational Outcomes, Assessment of Quality--A Compendium of Measurement Tools for Baccalaureate Nursing Programs.  New York:  National League of Nursing, 1988.
Neuman, Lois H.  Educational Outcomes, Assessment of Quality--A Compendium of Measurement Tools for Diploma Nursing Programs.  New York:  National League for Nursing, 1988.
Newcomb, Theodore M.  Personality & Social Change; Attitude Formation in a Student Community.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1943.
Newcomb, Theodore M.  Social Psychology; The Study of Human Interaction.  New York:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.
Nicholas, Mary W.  Change in the Context of Group Therapy.  New York:  Brunner/Mazel, 1984.
Pace, C. Robert.  Evaluating Learning and Teaching.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1973.
Paul, Richard.  Critical Thinking:  What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World.  Rohnert Park, CA:  Sonoma State University, 1990.
Peck, Robert F., and Havighurst, Roibert J.  The Psychology of Character Development.  NY:  Wiley, 1960.
Peters, Thomas.  Thriving on Chaos:  Handbook for a Management Revolution.  New York:  Harper Perennial, 1991.
Piaget, Jean.  Main Trends in Psychology.  New York:  Harper and Row, 1970.
Piers, Maria W., ed. Play and Development.  A Symposium with Contributions by Jean Piaget, Peter H. Wolff, Rene Spitz, Konrad Lorenz, Lois Murphy, and Erik Erikson.  New York:  W. W. Norton & Co., 1972.
Read, Donald A.  Health Education:  The Search for Values.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Reich, Wilhelm.  The Sexual Revolution; Toward a Self-Regulating Character Structure.  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1974.
Rich, John Martin.  Innovations in Education Reformers and Their Critics.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978.
Riesman, David.  The Lonely Crowd.  New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1950.
Riesman, David.  On Higher Education:  The Academic Enterprise in an Era of Rising Student Consumerism.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Riesman, David. and Grant, Gerald.  The Perpetual Dream: Reform and Experiment in the American College.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Rogers, Carl.  Freedom to Learn; A View of What Education Might Become.  Columbus:  C.E. Merrill Pub. Co., 1969.
Rogers, Carl.  Freedom to Learn for the 80's.  Columbus:  C.E. Merrill Pub. Co., 1983.
Rokeach, Milton.  Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values; A Theory of Organization and Change.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1968.
Rokeach, Milton.  The Open and Closed Mind; Investigation into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems.  New York:  Basic Books, 1960.
Rokeach, Milton.  The Three Christs of Ypsilanti; A Psychological Study.  New York:  Knopf, 1964.
 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS; And even as they did not like to retain [acknowledge] God in their knowledge, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND [void of judgment, corrupt], to do those things which are not convenient [unjust, improper];                                                                                                     Romans 1:18, 28 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come A FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition [one bound for hell].                                              II Thessalonians 2:3

51

Rosen, Seymour Michael. Higher Education in the USSR: Curriculum, Schools, and Statistics. Washington: U.S. Dept. of HEW, 1963. 
Rothman, Jack. Social R & D: Research and Development in the Human Services. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. 
Rothman, Jack, John L. Erlich, and Joseph G. Teresa. Changing Organizations and Community Programs. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981. 
Rudman, Herbert Charles. The School and State in the USSR. New York: MacMillan, 1967.
Rumelhart, David E. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.
Russell, Bertrand.  Why I Am Not A Christian.  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1957.
Ryan, Kevin and James M. Cooper.  Those Who Can, Teach.  Boston:  Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
Schaar, John H.  Escape from Authority, the Perspectives of Erich Fromm.  New York:  Basic Books, 1961.
Schlechty, Phillip. Schools for the Twenty-First Century:  Leadership Imperatives for Educational Reform.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Sergiovanni, Thomas.  Handbook for Effective Department Leadership:  Concepts and Practices in Today's Secondary Schools. Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1984.
Slaughter, Sheila.  The Higher Learning and High Technology.  Albany:  SUNY Press, 1990.
Slavin, Robert E.  Cooperative Learning.  New York:  Longman, 1983.
Slavin, Robert E.  Student Team Learning:  An Overview and Practical Guide.  Washington, DC:  National Education Association, 1988.
Sovient Psychology.  (A Symposium).  New York:  Philosophical Library, Inc., 1961.
Stern, George C., Morris I. Stein, and Benjamin S. Bloom.  Methods in Personality Assessment.  Glencoe, IL:  Free Press of Glencoe, 1956.
Sullivan, Harry Stack.  The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science.  New York:  Norton & Co., 1964.
Super, Donald Edwin.  Appraising Vocational Fitness by Means of Psychological Tests.  New York:  Harper, 1962.
Taba, Hilda.  Adolescent Character and Personality.  Committee on Human Development, University of Chicago.  New York:  Wiley, 1949, 1963.
 Taba, Hilda, Elizabeth Brady, John Robinson, and William Vickery.  Diagnosing Human Relations Needs.  Washington:  American Council on Education, 1951.
Towle, Charlotte.  Common Human Needs.  New York:  National Association of Social Workers, 1957.
Towle, Charlotte.  The Learner in Education for the Profession, as Seen in Education for Social Work.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Tyler, Ralph W.  Prospects for Research and Development in Education.  Berkeley:  McCutchan, 1976.
Tyler, Ralph W.  Educational Evaluation:  New Roles, New Means.  Chicago:  NSSE, 1969.
Vernon, Philip E.  Personality Assessment.  London:  Methuen, 1964.
Vygotsky, L.S.  Mind in Society:  The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.  Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1978.
Vygotsky, L.S.  Thought and Language.  Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press, 1962.
Waltz, Carolyn Feher.  Educational Outcomes, Assessment of Quality--A Prototype for Student Outcome Measurement in Nursing Programs.  New York:  National League for Nursing, 1988.
Waltz, Carolyn Feher.  Measurement of Nursing Outcomes.  New York:  Springer Pub. Co., 1988.
Werner, Harold D.  Cognitive Therapy:  A Humanistic Approach.  New York:  Free Press, 1982.
Wertheimer, Max.  Productive Thinking.  New York:  Harper, 1959.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee.  Language, Thought, and Reality.  Cambridge:  MIT, 1956.
Wolff, Robert Paul, Herbert Marcuse, and Barrington Moore.  A Critique of Pure Tolerance.  Boston:  Beacon Press, 1965.

Note by author: A larger work will include endnotes sighting the sources for my observations on diaprax.  The bibliography above is only a partial listing of the works I have read on this subject.  And finally, I agree with Luther who wrote "It is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard.  Who does not see how the universities read the Bible?  It has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth."  LW. V. 32, p. 259.

52

© 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.