We start from dualism to arrive at the dialectic. Vorrei sottolineare la difficoltà intrinseca che si incontra nel tentativo di superare il dualism. The mind dell’uomo lavora in modo duale. Così abbiamo esteso la nostra propensione anche agli elaboratori elettronici. L’informatics e l’electronics di oggi sono basate su una trasmissione dati di tipo dualistico. Therefore, we can use the dichotomy dualistic even to transmit information. in particular, la trasmissione binaria delle informazioni avviene secondo questa logic:
one and zero are only conventions, potremmo avere due securities qualsiasi (3 is -3, for example). The alternation between 1 is 0 (tra due securities) It allows you to transmit information. This
string 100011 rappresenta un “pezzo di informationʱ??. With a non-dual, cioè che accetta un solo value, not be able to transmit information. un solo value non significa tutti 1 or all zeros. Indeed, some would say "it is sufficient to transmit a 1 per rappresentare un tipo d’information, due 1 per rappresentare un altro “pezzo d’informationʱ??. However,, also in this case, I fall in dualism perché dovrei considerare due differenti securities, namely the one and the quantity of one transmitted. It is interesting to note that even the dialectic sfrutta proprio la struttura dicotomica del language per cercare di superarla. The structure of the dialectical discourse is as follows:
Affirmation = 1
Counter-statement = 0
Affirmation = 1
Counter-statement = 0
The dialectic It lies in the interaction of two opposing theses or principles, without letting one of the two prevails clearly on the other. This creates a continuous stream of affirmation / negation acting mysteriously, paving the way for a global vision and organic opposites.
Plato He is considered the father of dialectic. He believed that the dialectic was the principle that allows us to trace the unity and multiplicity of the unit back down to the multiplicity. Il dialettico dovrebbe be imparziale ed equanime perché non può escludere a priori nessuna tesi, but he remains suspended in a kind of limbo where we dialogue perennially.
the problem is Plato the same is then relapsed into dualism more extreme and polarized dialectic. The dialectic of Laws (l’ultimo scritto di Plato) It is a dialectic
that is no longer such: It is emptied of indeterminacy that should characterize and become a mere instrument to express a personal opinion extremely polarized. Unlike, about dialectic can be anche utilizzata per mettere alla luce la plausibilità di opinioni discordanti e può sfociare
even in the aporias. the term aporia It derives from the greek and, literally, It meant "a path impassable". In philosophy, and in particular in philosophy Socratic, identified
those arguments that led, starting from the same premises, two plausible conclusions, but among them incompatible. Plato, in some of these dialogues, shows how the
discussions Socrates, often, They would end in the identification of a 'aporia. Socrates, with his usual question “che cos’è?ʱ??(You're), watched, in the dialectical process, to come to a conclusion that it was a compromise between the initial hypothesis, oppure alla constatazione che il discorso si chiudeva in un’aporia.
In terms of non-duality, with the dialectic of opposites we can at least establish a supra-rational process that, mysteriously, He manages to glimpse the unity of opposites. But do not delude ourselves to be able to fully grasp and hold it as a concept. The dialectic not an ideology, no need to produce or promote an ideology: it is a tool, the instrument through which you choose from time to time, case per case. Nello svolgersi case per case, statement on counter-statement opens the way for a non-dual thinking, non-polar and non-dichotomous. In tal modo, the thought is always open to the establishment and its opposite, allowing you to grasp the unity in diversity.