Considering Dialectics

I’ve been asked by one reader to speak more simply. At first I balked at the request, and told him, “You get what you pay for.” Meaning, in this case, not that the blog was free, but that the harder we work at ideas that are difficult the more we get out of them. I’m ready now to give up on that notion, and speak plainly, and seek ideas that speak plainly to me.

            Right now I’m fascinated by the idea of dialectics – which, in the way I mean, could also mean I’m fascinated with the way dualisms move in the progression of one’s thought. Many take a single idea and then see opposing tensions inherent within that idea. From this they build a hopefully productive back-and-forth between the poles of tension. Others take oppositions/dualisms and seek to unify, to find the synthesis of the tensions, as a forward movement in one’s thought. Recently I’ve come across this interesting little quip from Dewey:

           I can see that I have always been interpreting dialectic wrong end up, the unity as the reconciliation of opposites, instead of the opposites as the unity in its growth, and thus translated the physical tension into a moral thing... I don't know as I give the reality of this at all,... it seems so natural & commonplace now, but I never had anything take hold of me so.

           I like this quote because it makes me imagine the silhouette and growth pattern of a tree. I imagine something like the multiple bifurcations of branching as a fractal pattern of growth. And I think finally it makes sense to me that no theory, no philosophy will today describe all situations, or be everywhere applicable. There is no universal theory and every passing moment it becomes less possible. The relativist believes the world is full of truth…