Blurts & Spasms

Thanks for the question.

I tend to agree with the premise of dialetheism, which is that a given conception or expression can be inconsistent or contradictory without being incoherent or trivial. Paradoxical propositions can contain meaningful truths. I think anyone who successfully navigates a robust dialectical process would readily agree that dialetheic efficacy is somewhat obvious, and not merely semantic. The question then becomes one of specificity and granularity: is there some concrete “formula” for precise dialethic analysis, or is this more a matter of nuance, abstraction, and “holding truths lightly”…? This is where I tend to unfetter analytical rigor in order to invite other input streams. I suspect this isn’t a black-and-white situation, but instead that dialetheism plots across a spectrum: some conditions are “more” contradictory than others, and the paraconsistency of any such contradictions may be more fluid and conditional than rigid and absolute. In other words, it’s not likely that math is going to capture this level of subtlety.

That said, I’ll offer a “multidialethical” (or what I call multidialectical) construction that I believe has merit: “Dialethism, the law of non-contradiction, and the principle of explosion are all valid, and should be part of any rigorous evaluation.”

To appreciate why I find this approach compelling, I recommend reading this: Sector Theory 1.0 – Todd's Take on Epistemology

My 2 cents.