The Form of Dialectics vs. the Form of Formal Logic.

 

The Form of Dialectics vs. the Form of Formal Logic. 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

Dialectics – dialectical logic – diachronic and »synchronic alike, historical dialectics and systematic dialectics alike, each have a general form which can be abstracted, and both together even have a general form in common at a sufficiently high degree/level of abstraction.

 

However, this dialectic form is not the same as the “form” of formal logic.  

 

Formal logic projects and imposes – upon human natural language, in formal logic’s attempted, “rectified”, representations of that natural language – a radical duality between syntax and semantics, radically dirempting the syntactic form of specific sentences from their specific semantic or meaning content, and codifying the abstract syntactic forms, that “hold truth-value” by virtue of their syntactic form alone, regardless of their semantic content.

 

On the contrary, dialectics are ‘contental’, nor “formal” in the sense of “formal” logic. 

 

Dialectics cannot abstract from the semantic content of its ontological categories and still remain dialectical.

 

In abstracting the form of dialectics, meaning-content must be preserved and maintained, albeit as a more diluted, or more rarefied, meaning-content, per the very nature of abstraction or of generalization itself.

 

Thus, the form of dialectic is still ‘contental’, is still semantic.  But the specificity of the meaning-content of individual instances of dialectic – their particularity, even their uniqueness – is removed from view by such generalization.

 

The relation of the content of plural, specific brands of dialectic, to their generalization is a taxonomic relation of multiple species of dialectic to their singular «genos» of dialectic.  That «genos» of dialectic encompasses and embraces all of its species, by bracketing from view their «differentia specifica», and concentrating, instead, on the semantic features which they all share in common.

 

The ‘contentality’ of specific dialectics has the greater specificity, relative to their common «genos».  The general form, the form-in-common, that unites all of those species of dialectic, by the commonality that can be abstracted from the multitude of specific dialectics, is thereby, of course, less specific, more generic. 

This is precisely because their «differentia specifica» are, at their «genos» level/scale, out of sight, in the, finitary, ‘qualo-fractal’, ‘content-structure’ of dialectical, ontological-categorial taxonomy.

 

However, semantic content, qualitative content, relieved of that degree of detail, of determinateness, that distinguishes the content of one species of dialectic from another, still remains. 

 

The, «aufheben», essence of dialectic is conserved in such, «aufheben», generalization or abstraction, which elevates the content upon which it operates in [‘qualo-fractal’] level/scale, and negates some of its specificity, but conserves its core reality.

 

Dialectical form is just a more determinations-rarefied dialectical content.

 

The voluminous species of dialectic converge into their singular «genos» of dialectic, their differences vanishing, by abstraction, into what they all have in common.  So also do the multitudinous «monads» or units of dialectic – the individual dialectics – merge into their species of dialectic. 

 

Those species make explicit only that which all of their «monads» each also exhibit individually.

 

Those species of dialectic abstract from the “individual differences” that make each individual dialectic distinguishable from – not identical to – every other individual dialectic.  

Even so, every individual dialectic is similar to – is of the same kind, or ontic quality, as – every other; all sharing and exhibiting the same essence of dialectic; each a “variation” on the “theme” of dialectic.       

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding the Seldonian insights, please see –

www.dialectics.info

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights – specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see:

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are hereby cordially invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!