Foreword

To understand the nature of what follows requires recalling the Dialectic concept – Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis – in the light of Carnap and Tarsky’s Language Levels Theory derived from Russell’s Logical Levels Theory and first presented to the non-specialist reader by Paul Watzlawick in ‘Pragmatic of Human Communication,’ W.W.Norton &Co., N.Y. 1967.

Accordingly, I maintain that in the dialectic process, Thesis and Antithesis belong to the same logical level LL1, whereas Synthesis belongs to the next, LL2.  The same distinction of logical levels will also be found in the relation between the spoken language, i.e. oral communication, and private cognition.  As the above-mentioned authors demonstrate, such differences must be identified so as to spot contradistinctions between logical levels that can arise in human communication.  Such contradistinctions should be carefully noted, because confusing logical levels leads to cognitive dissonance and paradoxes.

This essay wants to offer axioms by which to avoid the social results of such dissonances and paradoxes, basing them on a minimal analysis of the overall structure of communication relationships.

 

The Dialectic Communication Context

Every communicative action includes the “to Give” role of the actor-addressor (one or more) expressing the message, and the “to Have” role of the addressee-recipient receiving it.  Between addressor and addressee there is thus a hierarchy “to Give/to Have”, involving the distinction between a logical level  “Answer” (to Give) and a logical level “Demand” (to Have), related to what is communicated – as shown by the vertical axis in the Dialectic Communication scheme of page 2.  Here, the function of the horizontal axis refers to the LL1 discussion context.  What has to be clear here, it is that the dialectical discussion does unavoidably involve confrontation.  This context is therefore optional (since the discussants in this level can avoid confrontation and perform systemic agreement exclusively) and it is just this option that we must pay attention in.

Further, the speaking addressor(s) can deliver the message to an addressee endowed with either an autonomous and critical, flexible mind-frame, or a rigid, gregarious one, hence depending on a higher authority for belief and behaviour.

Finally, the “truth” of the message i.e. its adherence to objective reality, must be considered.  Such adherence to objective reality varies between the ends of a continuum.  For convenience we shall call the end with most adherence to objective reality “positive”, and the part with least adherence “negative”. This classification applies to the speaker as well as to the listener.

 

Aims and functions of Communication

The success of every dialectic communication depends on the speaker’s power to convince and the addressee’s extent to which he can be convinced.  As mentioned above, this power depends both on the degree of adherence to reality by the speaker and the degree of cognitive autonomy, or receptivity, by the listener.

Where the degree of gullibility is highest, the degree of adherence to objective reality by the addressor becomes less important.  In other words it is easier to persuade a gullible person of anything, a strict regard for the reality of the objective world being not too necessary towards persuading.  This fact is especially evident for messages where adherence to objective reality cannot be verified in the short term: mostly those with a political or social content.

The connection between the truth-content of a message and its power to convince is particularly relevant when the message is designed to modify the conventional collective beliefs and public opinion.  In such case the message appears to be different, or to some extent new, as regards what had been already stated in the given social context and had been already accepted as common knowledge by the collectivity.  Such instances typically parallel that of the Thesis-Antithesis relationship in Dialectics.

There is evidence that if the addressee of the “new” has a mindframe heavily dependent on the acceptance of “theses” coming from, and supported by, the collective societal authorities, he or she will very likely reject any antithetic proposals coming from another source, even if the latter’s adherence to objective reality were highest.  Conversely, if an addressee with an autonomous and flexible mindframe, receives such a message, he or she will be able to take into full account the “new” contents and ramifications, even if its source did not enjoy social authority or recognition.

 

Logical Variants of Communication

Let us now consider the two different functions of communication:

(1) The first concerns the truth content of a message, i.e. its adherence to objective reality;

(2) The second, always inherent in any communicative context, has to do with the development of a more flexible mind-frame in the recipient of a message.  A modern and more evolved – in one word, flexible – mind-frame allows its owner to get involved in a given social context with the benefit of a critical, and creative, self-consciousness, perhaps one of the noblest goals of human communication. 

Each of these two functions comes into effect on a separate logical level.  Therefore, we can identify four logical variants in the communication of any message, as in the following diagram:

 

Legend + =  positive adherence to reality, "truth" -  =  negative adherence to reality, "non-truth" I  =  hierarchic- demagogic dependence, gullibility II = autonomous critical ability, flexibility v =  the arrow points out the direction of the communication issue, in a to Give – to Have relationship as regards the delivery of the issued thing (good or message).

The horizontal axis of the diagram divides the general context of communication into two parts.

The upper part corresponds to the logical level in which the different messages are delivered.  According with the barebone structure of Dialectics, this is the logical level of Thesis-Antithesis (LL1).

The lower part corresponds to the logical level where the different messages are considered for their positive or negative adherence to the known reality, and their comprehension by the recipient. According with the barebone structure of Dialectics, this is the logical level of Synthesis (LL2).

Let us therefore agree that before being rendered as spoken communication, a Synthesis must be thought of (LL2).  Once delivered into the logical level of the spoken language, it becomes the thesis or the antithesis of a new LL1 dialectical communication context – otherwise the cognition process would be static.  That is why the two logical levels LL1 e LL2 have been defined in the Foreword.

We have therefore four possible logical variants:

1.       +/I in the first variant, the message contains "positive truth" because it adheres to reality.  The persuasive power of the message is ensured for being a function of the demagogic demand that marks the dependent-gullible mind-frame of the receiver (I).

2.       -/I  in the second variant, the message contains "negative truth" because it does not adhere to reality. The persuasive power of the message is equally guaranteed as a function of the demagogic demand that marks the dependent-gullible mind-frame of the recipient (I).

3.       +/II  in the third variant, the message recipient or addressee confronts the message reflexively, comparing and contrasting its (+) with its antithetical contrary (-), thereby triggering off an autonomous process of dialectical reflection directed towards synthesizing the option with most adherence to objective reality.

4.       -/II in the fourth variant, the message recipient or addressee confronts the message reflexively, comparing and contrasting its (-) with its antithetical contrary (+), thereby triggering off an autonomous process of dialectical reflection directed towards synthesizing the option with most adherence to objective reality.

 

Please note that the +/II third variant and the -/II fourth variant are eventually the same (see below) because, even if the starting points are different (opposite), the resulting goal is equal.

 

Let’s now weigh the most efficient and productive communicative practice by someone desiring to persuade the collectivity about the need for a substantial change in the political arrangement of their social system:

a – Do we want to reinforce and augment the existing information within the system, on the basis that the contents of the truth within the political context have become inadequate, thus passing from (-) to (+) in the diagram above?  For this, the communication variant +/I could be the best option:  (the authoritative addressor delivers the message in “positive”, immediate terms and directly, with an attitude of total conviction which the recipients fully trust and accept). 

But such a practice, based on the systematic use of the “positive only”, i.e. utterly truthful, language by the speaking social authority, is plainly slated to be the best practice in the short time only.  Indeed, the recipient gets used to abandoning critical thinking, autonomous synthesizing and personal responsibility.  Hence the demagogic communication relationship will be reinforced and made socially steady in the long term, to the detriment of the recipient’s awareness and critical ability.  In such a social or political collectivity, the natural defences against a demagogue whose messages has no adherence to objective reality would eventually vanish.

b – Instead of this, do we want to stop the recipient’s uncritical and gullible acceptance of demagogic messages?  Ought we to believe that the demagogic relationship today permeating the socio-political context has become inadequate, thus requiring passing from I to II in the barebone structure? This would require a greater  critical and reflexive (flexible) thinking capacity by the receiver. But in this case, to say the "truth" (+) or its contrary (-) is not relevant any more, as shown above, given the eventual identity of the two logical variants +/II and -/II.  Subsequently, any success in public persuasion which relies on policies of greater adherence to reality and the exclusive reliance on “positive only” language, i.e. the mandatory adherence to the reality of the messages, becomes illogical.  The reason is, as shown above, that the communication of both a “positive” truth regarding the reality (third variant, +/II) and that of a “negative” truth regarding the same reality (fourth variant, -/II) allows the recipient with an autonomous flexible mind-frame an equal opportunity to reflect on either +/- or -/+, the identical results of which will permit discerning a synthesis with a greater adherence to objective reality. 

Hence the title of this article: “Dialectic Synthesis Speaks Negative Language”, because, in the absence of the latter, no autonomous synthesis is possible.

 

The Dialectical Family

To conclude, it is sufficient to take as the ideal instance the more basic communication context where the neuro-psychical mind-frame of the recipient begins to attain its eventual arrangement: either dependent on, and dominated by an external authority, or autonomous and flexible.  This basic context is the Family, where the child opening to life and communication can learn – or alternatively exclude, depending upon the nature of the imprinted conditioning – the use of negative language towards the synthesis of his/her own belief and behaviour.

Obviously, the best condition for the child is to develop a flexible mind-frame, suitable for reflexive thinking and for an autonomous synthesis as the solution of conflicts between opposite opinions, on the basis of a considered, autonomous acceptance and responsible choice.

A flexible mind-frame is the product of the critical faculties and an increase in the amount of nervous connections between the rigid nervous circuits of the brain in the area of conservative memory and “positive” thinking, and the logical simulating circuits that are the domain of “negative” language.  The prospect and potential for a more balanced mind-frame in our children goes together with the parents’ deliberately adopting a well-defined, regulated model of educational family communication, called Dialectic Education. [2] Such a progressive attitude towards the young, characterized by an open, dialectical, peer-to-peer encounter between the “positive” thesis of one parent, and the possibly “negative” antithesis of the other, provides an equally good and necessary dualistic benison to offer any recipient  – particularly children – the gift of creative space and a synthetic opportunity for mental growth .

On the other hand, what else is human creativity but a reliance on the brain to derive a synthesis from the dialectical clash between positive and negative thoughts and language?  As we hesitantly cross the threshold into the Third Millennium and enter a world of accelerated change, it is not so important to take the first step with either our right or left foot, from either the positive or the negative use of words.  The best way forward is to be flexible on the highway into the unknown.

 

Antonio Rossin

mailto:rossin@tin.it 

web site: www.flexible-learning.org