Are formal logical thought and dialectical thought equally valuable? Should we contrast or unite them?
One can agree on the "equal value" of these thoughts, and even on the fact that they don't have to be contrasted within certain boundaries.
But first, I'd like to explain why I still contrast them.
This will allow us to get acquainted with "dialectical logic" in practice and to establish "an example of thinking on the basis of dialectical logic".
Hence:
"An equal value". As I mentioned earlier, there are an infinite number of contexts. In half of them, two of any selected objects are "on the same side", i.e. "united", i.e. they are "identical" by some criterion, i.e. they have "the same value".
In the second half of the contexts, these very same objects are "on different sides", i.e. "contrasted", i.e. they are "different" and have "different values".
Choosing the context for consideration is the solution to the issue: "Is it the different or the same in front of us?»
This choice is quite non-algorithmic.
And since we are addressing a process or a phenomenon, this choice is of great importance. If one chooses a wrong context of consideration (non-algorithmic), then all the most complex mathematical models of the phenomenon (the algorithmic part), though still containing all the beauty and internal consistency, will give a false, inadequate result.
And this is the first, but not the primary reason of why "dialectical thought", which is the "thinking, based on the Second core logic of mind", should be distinguished and opposed to "formal logical thought", " based on the First core logic of mind".
As I stated previously: "The fundamental question of dialectical logic – is it the different or the same in front of us?»
It is the answer to this question that presupposes the definition of the "right" context, which is a non-algorithmic and complex philosophical task.
Since humanity does not know how to do this, it chooses the context "by eye". Further, through torment and "cutting" sharp corners, it corrects the average slow line of statistical historical development, i.e. the absolutely unconscious development, which is completely "natural-scientific, natural process", such as the growth of grass and the development of any natural ecosystem. The primary scientific credit of Marx is precisely for that he highlighted the "eco-like growth" of the fruits of human history. Before him, it was believed, that history is determined by the actions of kings and generals. In other words, Marx established a "materialistic understanding of the historical process", named "historical materialism".
It goes without saying, that in some context, formal and dialectical logic should not be contrasted.
In which one?
The most important context that "unites" these two logics is the requirement, that there are should be no "logical holes" in the process of reasoning. So that the laws of thought would not be violated.
As for formal logic, it is an exhaustive list of requirements. As for dialectical logic, this is the initial minimum of requirements.
Whereas in the frame of First (formal) logic the presence of "logical holes" (violations of logic) is easily detected, in dialectical logic, where "A = A and, simultaneously, A is not = A" it is much more difficult to detect them.
Therefore, the ability of mind to process without "logical holes" in the frame of the First, formal logic is the initial criterion for teaching dialectical logic and its further application. But again, this is only an initial, minimum requirement , a "necessary but not sufficient" condition.
It should be taken into account, that sometimes a phenomenon needs to be addressed simultaneously in several contexts, some of which will contradict one another. It is also important, that the consideration of contexts changes over time.
This is the requirement of dialectics to "address phenomena and processes in motion".
In a shifting system with conflicting and changing contexts, the requirement to "think without logical holes" becomes a true art, not only because verifying the results of thinking is non-algorithmic, but primarily because:
The requirement to "consider a phenomenon in motion" means that "first we discourse about one phenomena, and then about the other (the changed one)."
I. e. "we start about Peter, but we finish about John".
That is, we discourse about "A", and then put "non A" in its place.
Thus, we replace the object "A" with the object "non A" in the process of reasoning.
In all these cases, from the formal logic's perspective, we violate the fundamental logical "law of identity", which states:
"In the process of reasoning the object of reasoning remains unchanged", i.e. "A = A".
And thus we fulfill the" law of identity " for dialectical logic, which is:
"In the process of reasoning, A = A and, simultaneously, A is not = A (or A = non A)»
Let us resume the context selection in our example. "To contrast or to unite the two logics"?
In the current situation, taking into account "everything", i.e. "an infinite number of aspects of this phenomenon and an infinite number of contexts in which it is immersed", including taking into account our interests ("what we want to do", or our goals):
we can't bring the" unifying context " to the fore. As V. Lenin stated for the similar occasion (who was the carrier of the dialectical logic): "In order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation."
In conditions where:
• no one understands what "dialectical logic" is»;
• the vast majority of educated people believe that it does not exist;
• taking into account complexity of the subject of "dialectical logic" for the "average" mind, which has grown and conditioned by education system of technogenic civilization;
• taking into account the 100-year period of speculation on the topic of "dialectical logic" despite the fact that during this time there was no "medium of dialectical logic" ("non-speculative thinker»);
• the volume, and therefore the impact of accumulated wasted paper on the issue exceeds all reasonable boundaries;
• in the context of the infrastructure of both formal logic and all its derivatives that has been strengthened over the decades, on the one hand, and the infrastructure of false interpretation of "dialectical logic" in both academia and media, on the other hand;
• taking into account the complete "anti-scientific" interpretation of dialectical logic in the modern paradigm of science, as well as any non-algorithmized process or phenomenon (the inability to reproduce, violation of the principle of "reproducibility" of the experiment is a criterion for non-scientific results)
– in this situation, talking about "uniting two logics" means "not to understand the current situation around dialectical logic" and "to be its funeral agent".
Let me put it this way:
If a green sprout has appeared in an vast gray field, and no others are expected yet, then it should be protected in every possible way; its value should be emphasized, and one should not pretend that there is nothing special about it, that everything is as usual, and that it is "the same" as any other phenomena around us.
Therefore, we highlight it, emphasize and contrast it.
This is the main reason for me to contrast the First and Second logics.
They are, indeed, the core logics of the thinking mind. These are different logics, based on different, opposite to each other "laws of identity".
One is utilised for everyday life, as well as for mathematics and technology. The second one is designed for much more subtle issues, such as philosophy, strategy, complex processes management, complexity management, and the development management to name a few.
Without dialectical logic:
• So called "wicked problems" cannot be satisfactorily settled.
• There can be no system of "talent management" (for the "formal which is unformal"), that becomes the "main productive force" at this stage of society's development.
• It is not possible to create "process or phenomena ontologies" – ( such as: "design ontology", "education ontology") - without which, in the era of the" information boom", all accumulated knowledge turns into loose, poorly connected mountains of "data". "Phenomena ontologies", by definition, contain an infinite number of aspects of the phenomenon and the contexts in which it is immersed. Subject "ontologies" serve as the most effective "tool" for managing a process, phenomenon, as well as learning how to deal with it and it's most significant aspects and contexts, including the constant update of a body of knowledge as the phenomenon itself and ideas about it develop.
• It is impossible to develop education in "non-algorithmized fields" of knowledge and activity, which is vital, since specialists who are currently receiving education in "algorithmized zones" will be replaced by artificial intelligence in the coming years.
• It is impossible to stop a planetary environmental disaster and end the "global economic crisis", which is not a "disease of the economy", but the "final stage of development of the capitalist economy", which will lead civilization, in the end, either to death or to the transition to the next level.
Dialectical logic had been created by the greatest minds of mankind over the past 2500 years. The Eastern branch started from Buddha, followed through Chinese Chan and up to Japanese Zen; the Western branch - from Socrates and then in the XIX and early XX century - Hegel, Marx, Lenin.
Its time has come.
"Dialectical logic" is the "second core logic of thought", which is a fundamentally new operating environment of thought, that allows to solve problems of high complexity.
Alexander Klein
January 27, 2020