Dialecticalisation

One masterly way to avoid that danger is by a cultural revolution, that dialecticalisation which has no yesterday, today or tomorrow and which avoids becoming static because it is an ongoing effort for change.

What ways, then, remain open to the will of knowledge? None, directly speaking. From the moment that truth and falsehood, good and evil, life and death are no longer confronting each other, it is no longer appropriate to speak of Umkehrung—even if one retains the word when one is considering its consequences alone—but of a Grundverschiebung. The deadly system of the will to truth is to be succeeded by a will to know whose system will not be a mere dialecticalisation of the former one.

Foucault argues that this synthesis of particularity into universality represents the end of the discourse of ‘politics as war’, at least in this instance. It is a ‘self-dialecticalisation of historical discourse’ that marks ‘the elimination of war’s function as an analyser of historico(-)political processes, or at least its strict curtailment’ (Foucault, 2003b: p. 236).

Bhaskar’s levels of rationality outline the types of knowledge which are necessary for the possibility of emancipation. These levels of rationality first appear in SRHE (Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation) before the dialecticalisation of CR.

The emerging insights we experienced in our dialectical struggles to learn in integrative ways that bring hope to the challenges of the day are reflected in how Bhaskar (The Philosophers’ Magazine, 2013, p. 3) notes that ‘the full implications traced through this dialecticalisation of ontology are very radical indeed, and presuppose a vision of how the good society viewed as implicit in every human action or remark.’