“Contradiction” is a Misleading Metaphor for Dialectical-Categorial Opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Contradiction”

 

is a

 

Misleading Metaphor

 

for

 

Dialectical-Categorial

 

Opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

The traditional use of the term “contradiction”, e.g., in the Hegelian and Marxian traditions, to describe or name, e.g.,  the dialectical opposition between a pair of ontological categories is often a uselessly misleading trope.

 

It tends to foster a confusion between formal-logical propositional contradiction/mutual formal negation, and/versus ontological, dialectical-categorial, qualitative polarity/mutual ‘supplementary opposition’, which involves ‘‘‘«aufheben» negation’’’.

 

Better terms for this relation of dialectical-ontological-categorial ‘supplementary opposition’ might include ‘intra-duality’, ‘self-duality’, ‘self-antithesis’, ‘internal duality’ or ‘endo-duality’, all of which still sound somewhat ‘statical’.

 

More exotic descriptions, some with more dynamical connotations, might include ‘intra-contra-kinesis’, ‘intra-dia-kinesis’, ‘endo-duo-kinesis’, ‘intra-contra-dynamis’, or, Marx’s, “internally self-ravaged ground”.

 

Of course, in certain cases, it might be useful to express the relation between two dialectical-ontological ‘contra-categories’ via a propositional contradiction, if the misleading potential of such expression can be explicitly warned-against.

 

Also, categorial oppositions can sometimes be well-‘‘‘translated’’’ by propositional contradictions.

 

Likewise, propositional contradictions can sometimes be well-‘‘‘translated’’’ by categorial oppositions, with gain of insight as to the resolution of the contradiction.

 

For example, the Kantian propositional antinomy of physical space, via two, mutually-negating, contradictory propositions, e.g. –

 

‘‘‘Space must be infinite and unbounded.’’’

 

versus

 

‘‘‘Space must be finite and bounded.’’’

 

– can lead, categorially, to Einstein’s, General-Relativistic solution of that antinomy, for “positively-curved” [re-contracting] and “negatively-curved” [continually-expanding] models of physical space alike, via the dialectical triad of categories –

 

finite & bounded space-models

~Å~

infinite & unbounded space-models

~Å~

finite & UNbounded curved-space models

 

 

– with the third category, the ‘uni-category’, of that triad representing the ‘dialectical synthesis category’ for the Kantian antinomy [propositional “ultra” contradiction] of our intuitive notions of physical space.

 

Conversely, for example, the ‘intra-duality’ of the industrial capital-relation as predominant social relation of social reproduction – i.e., capital as “self-expanding value” [Marx] versus capital as ‘self-contracting value’ [Seldon: due to capital’s self-driven – productive-force-growth-driven –technological obsolescence self-devaluation] can be expressed as a propositional contradiction –

 

 The capitalist system [only] EXPANDS capital-value.

 

versus

 

The capitalist system [only] CONTRACTS capital-value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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