This is how we do it.
three forms of dialectic
The first is structured so that when you cross out two “contradictory” ideas there is something “whole” left standing (things old).
The second is …an impasse is resolved with something “new” towards a “whole” (things new).
The third is: the starting/ending point that was always whole. It describes the whole. (This is only after/when you recognize the fractal.)
parable of the scribe / storehouse master Matthew 13:52 “And he replied, ‘Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.’” (New American Bible)
see also:
“The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure.” (Berean Standard Bible)
what all kinds of crossing out happening in math? there is probably a complement in dialectic… and you can pull apart the reductions of math and dialectic better (& identify the mathematizations) if you understand how they are complementary to each other
this is going to have a physics application when you’re talking about constructive and destructive interference, etc
Once you’re really good at this you’re going to know whether your thoughts are making progress or devolving.
And if you’re a big jerk, you can mess with people who don’t know how to do this. But if you do that to the vulnerable without love, someone that is the most expert at it is going to gaslight the hell out of you—you think you’re untouchable? Use with caution/recognition.