None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

Dialectic Convergence To Synthesis

What is obtained by the dialectic process? If the presence of the dialectic balance requires that all absolute views be taken off the table and may not return as a fact in the discussion after it moves on, where are we going with the process other than to throw out all fact?

What is in view is the compromise of facts for a group consensus. Diminishing the strength of facts is the proper setting of the dialectic method: In not disputing the facts themselves but simply taking them off the table to find consensus in other related matters is the trick behind resolving conflicts in the dialectic process. The two that disagree with each other disagree on the status of a "fact" - that what follows from the fact is either true or false - the thesis vs. the antithesis.

In removing the disputed absolute fact from the table and examining what is held in common, we find the "wine" as opposed to the disputed "oil". The oil" is the absolute to both parties yet interpreted differently, but what is in dispute to the dialectic practitioner is not what is disagreed upon, but the stance that people take on an absolute viewpoint.

The dialectic does not decide what is true and what is false - that is, it does not rewrite absolutes. It instead takes the differences in opinion of what that absolute entails for the participants,. (not logical inference, but only the differences in opinion, feelings etc) And without the facts for them to disagree upon, the dialectic 'works' to bring those two together in a manner where the facts appear to be part of the process as "agreed upon by all present" but it is actually no longer in dispute - what results is the remainder of the two viewpoints is synthesized in stages of repeated dialectics towards compromise on either of the extreme stances upon the logical or fixed absolute. That extremity of stance is what is rewritten by the dialectic - and without discussion of the 'conceded' facts.

The result is "an agreement to disagree" or a compromise on stance on the facts after repeated application; The result is casting our pearls before swine, and we are all guilty of it. We have all been processed.

The convergence then of the synthesis, is based upon the principle that two opposites are resolved in a synthesis which becomes a new thesis opposed by another antithesis which produces another synthesis etc,.. the result being a beating down of the extreme stance on facts and a gradual compromise towards consensus whilst the relationship with the group is maintained.

The convergence of the synthesis is then truly found in the commonality of the group, the senses and the background of the environment to interpret the facts - without the background of absolute fixed positions of the individual rather than of the facts. The facts left the room the moment the process came in and the group participated: The process would ideally have been countered with a fact, and thrown out as faulty.

One last comment remains; that leaving the group to be excluded is also to become subject to the will of the group. In the areas of government, finance and employment we have little choice: but one must never mix this in with the gospel or religion. The dialectic has become the "secular religion" of our age; not to be brought into the temple of God.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page


'