DST Science Header
dialectic science header1.png

by JR Richards   


The Essential Dialectic of Dialectic Science is:

{Phenomenon-Noumenon ⇆ Noumenon-Phenomenon ⇅ Phenomenon-Phenomenon} ↻ Noumenon-Noumenon

Dialectic Science is the Noumenal Science or Science of the Noumenal.

Dialectic Science is the Science of Sciences, or the Absolute Science, which is the ground, goal and sum of all Sciences.

  • Dialectic is any systematic reasoning, system of knowledge or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas in order to resolve their conflict and find the truth.
  • Science is knowledge, or a system of knowledge, covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Dialectic Science is a system of Noumenal Knowledge and Being covering contradictory general ideas, truths or laws as systematically reasoned and tested through scientific method.

Dialectic Science is the only Science which will save the world from humans and humanity by evolving them to noumenons and noumenity.



Dialectic Science recognizes and re-cognizes the Absolute as the Unconditioned Metaphysical ground, goal and sum of all Being, actual and potential.


The Intermediary Dialectic of Dialectic Science is:

{Hypothesis ⇆ Experiment ⇅ Observation} ↻ Theory



The Equivalency Dialectic of Dialectic Science is:

{Dialectics ⇆ Organon ⇅ Tractatus} ↻ Topics



“Method, especially in today’s modern scientific thought, is not a mere instrument serving the Sciences; rather, it has pressed the Sciences into its own service. Nietzsche was the first to recognize the situation, with all its vast implications, and to give it expression in the notes that follow. These notes are found in his literary remains, as numbers 466 and 469 of The Will to Power.” – Martin Heidegger


“The sciences which they have hitherto learned in fragments will now be brought into relation with each other and with true being; for the power of combining them is the test of speculative and dialectical ability.”-Plato Republic (pg. 82-84).

The genuine mystery appears when reason is driven beyond itself to its “ground and abyss,” to that which “precedes” reason, to the fact that “being is and nonbeing is not” (Parmenides), to the original fact (UrTatsache) that there is something and not nothing. We can call this the “negative side” of the mystery. This side of the mystery is present in all the functions of reason; it becomes manifest in subjective as well as in objective reason. The “stigma” of finitude which appears in all things in the whole of reality and the “shock” which grasps the mind when it encounters the threat of nonbeing reveal the negative side of the mystery, the abysmal element in the ground of being. This negative side is always potentially present, and it can be realized in cognitive as well as in communal experiences. It is a mystery. Without the “I am undone” of Isaiah in his vocational vision, God cannot be experienced (Isa. 6:5). Without the “dark night of the soul,” the mystic cannot experience the mystery of the ground.

The positive side of the mystery which includes the negative side becomes manifest in actual revelation. Here the mystery appears as ground and not only as abyss. It appears as the power of being, conquering nonbeing. It appears as our ultimate concern. And it expresses itself in symbols and myths which point to the depth of reason and its mystery.

Yet Tao could be the way the gives all ways, the very source of our power to think what reason, mind, meaning, logos properly means to say properly, by their proper nature. Perhaps the mystery of mysteries of thoughtful Saying conceals itself in the ‘way,’ Tao, if only we will let these names return to what they leave unspoken, if only we are capable of this, to allow them to do so.

Heidegger, Martin

The word ‘way’ probably is an ancient primary word that speaks to the reflective mind of man. The key word in Laotse’s poetic thinking is Tao, which ‘properly speaking’ means way. But because we are prone to think of ‘way’ superficially, as a stretch connecting two places, our word ‘way’ has all too rashly been considered unfit to name what Tao says. Tao is then translated as reason, mind, raison, meaning, logos.

Heidegger, Martin

Ground (principle) and Reason are translations of the Latin ratioa translation which also bifurcates the undifferentiated ratio into a two-fold sense of Reason and ground or cause. Ratio itself is the translation of Greek logos, containing within itself the implicit double sense of Being as presence and as ground, both together in their unity with speech.

Heidegger, Martin

Heidegger Identity and Difference pg 26 – 28
The literal meaning of the term Logos […] originally refers to Being and Ground in one without, however distinguishing between the two and hence without also an awareness of the unity which they form together. Because of this unity of Being and Ground, the conception of Being as Ground, remained implicit; later thought seeking to represent Ground, ‘displaced’ it to the essent [that which is], as belonging to that rather than to Being. Really speaking, it is to Being that ground and grounding belong; Being and Ground are the same in the sense of belonging together in a unity of essence, not fusing together in bare identity but held apart in their togetherness.

Mehta J.L. The Philosophy of Martin Heidegger pg 93

All grounding comes from Being and it is by virtue of its grounding character that beings always have a ground.

Heidegger: “Understanding is the faculty of concepts, of judging, of representing of something in general as the faculty of rules understanding as thinking which always unfolds as “I think.” But this “I think” is “I think unity,” or, as Kant says, “I think substance, causality, reciprocity, and so on.” I think the categories; or better formulated: I think categorically.

Categories are representations of unities which bind in advance the capacity of understanding to connect and to judge. I itself “I think” means to take a view toward the unity under whose guidance and regulation the act of connecting is carried out. Thus, the inner, essential interrelation of judgment and categories is indicated; and the essential ground for the inner unity of judgment and category is shown, as Kant put it in the Critique of Pure Reason.”

Mehta J.L. The Philosophy of Martin Heidegger pg 93

For Hegel, Reason is not another ‘higher’ capacity than that of ‘abstract’ Understanding; what defines Understanding is the very illusion that, beyond it, there is another domain (either the ineffable Mystical or Reason) which eludes its discursive grasp. In short, to get from Understanding to Reason, one does not have to add anything, but, on the contrary, to subtract something: what Hegel calls ‘Reason’ is Understanding itself, bereft of the illusion that there is something Beyond it. That is why, in the direct choice between Understanding and Reason, one has first to choose Understanding: not in order to play the stupid game of self-blinding (the absolute subject first has to alienate itself, to posit external reality as independent of itself, in order to supersede/sublate this alienation by way of recognizing in it its own product…), but for the simple reason that there is nothing outside or beyond Understanding. First, we choose Understanding; then, in the second move, we choose Understanding again, only without anything in addition to it (i.e., without the illusion that there is another, ‘higher’ capacity beyond or beneath it, even if this ‘higher’ capacity is called Reason) – and this Understanding, deprived of the illusion that there is something beyond it, is Reason.

The basic characteristic of reason is the will to unity. But everything turns on what this unity consists in. It is decisive for truth that the unity be seized upon as one, single, actual unity, and not as one that still has something outside it. In every premature and partial grasp of unity, one either never reaches or has already lost truth.

Heidegger Schelling’s Treatise pg 78

Hegel: “When the power of unification disappears from the life of men and opposites have lost their living relation and reciprocity and gain independence, then the need for philosophy originates. The first is the absolute itself; this is the goal that is sought. It is already there; how else could it be sought? Reason merely produces it by liberating consciousness from limitations; this sublimation of limitations is conditioned by the presupposed unconditionality.”

The understanding, which is glued to the finite, sees divine images only as idols that have eyes and do not see, and the sacred grove only as so much wood. Reason must seek to comprehend the infinite in the finite and the eternal in what is here and now.

Reason is often confused with the understanding because it cannot take a simple step without the understanding.  But within the impulse of intellectual cognition¾to the partial unities of the level on which cogent statements are valid¾there is concealed the impulse of reason to that deeper unity to which the unity of the understanding is only a means.  The thinking of the understanding is in itself not yet by any means the thinking of reason.

Reason seeks unity, but not just any unity simply for the sake of unity.  It seeks the One that contains all truth. [1]

The understanding determines, and holds the determinations fixed; reason is negative and dialectical, because it resolves the determinations of the understanding into nothing; it is positive because it generates the universal and comprehends the particular therein.   

The activity of dissolution is the power and work of the Understanding, the most astonishing and mightiest of powers, or rather the absolute power. – Hegel

[1]   -Karl Jaspers Philosophy of Existence p55

  1. The divine Plato and the marvelous Kant unite their mighty voices in recommending a rule, to serve as the method of all philosophizing as well as of all other science. Two laws, they tell us: the law of homogeneity and the law of specification should be equally observed, neither to the disadvantage of the other.[1]
  2. The law of homogeneity directs us to collect things together into kinds, by observing their resemblances and correspondences, to collect kinds again into species, species into genera, and so on, till at last we come to the highest of all comprehensive concepts. Now this law, being transcendental, i.e., essential to our Reason, takes for granted that Nature conforms with it: an assumption expressed by the ancient formula, entia prater necessitatem non esse multiplicanda.[2]

2.1.1 To recognize the identical in different phenomena, and difference in similar phenomena, is, as Plato so often remarks, a sine qua non of philosophy.  But till now it was not recognized that every force in nature which is in any striving and active is essentially identical with will, and hence the myriad phenomena which are only different species of the same genus were not seen as such, but were considered homogeneous. Consequently there could be no word to denote the concept of this genus. And so I name the genus after its most important species, the more easily accessible direct knowledge of all knowledge of which guides us to the indirect knowledge of all other species. But anyone who is incapable of extending the concept as required here, will be under a misapprehension: for by the word will he would persist in understanding only that one species of it which till now has been exclusively designated – the will which is guided by knowledge, and only in accordance with motives, and indeed only abstract motives, in short, the will as it shows itself when directed by reason – which, as we have said, is only the most obvious manifestation, which is known to us directly, we must now distinctly separate in thought and then transfer it to all the weaker, less obvious manifestations of the same nature, and thus we accomplish the required extension of the concept of will. From the opposite point of view I should be equally misunderstood by anyone who might think that it is all the same in the end whether we designate this inner nature of all phenomena as will or call it by any other name. This would be the case if that thing-in-itself were something whose existence we merely inferred, and thus knew only indirectly and only in the abstract. Then, indeed, we might call it what we pleased; the name would stand merely as the symbol of an unknown quantity.  But the word will, which, like a magic spell, is to reveal to us the essence of everything in nature, by no means designates an unknown quantity, something arrived at only by inference, but rather something that is in every way immediately recognized and so familiar to us that we know and understand what will is far better than anything else.  The concept of will has hitherto commonly been subordinated to that of force, but I do the very opposite, and desire that every force in nature should be thought of as will. It should not be supposed that this is merely quibbling, or of no consequence; rather, it is of the greatest significance and importance.  For the concept of force is, like all other concepts, based ultimately on perceptive knowledge of the objective world, that is to say, the phenomenon, the idea; and from this the concept is drawn.  It is an abstraction from the realm in which cause and effect reign, i.e., from ideas of perception, and means the causal nature of causes at the point at which this causal nature can be explained no further aetiologically [according to the alteration of forms], but is the necessary presupposition of all aetiological explanation. The concept will, on the other hand, is of all possible concepts the only one which has its source not in the phenomenal, not in the mere perceptive ideation, but comes from within, and arises in the most immediate consciousness of each of us.[3]

In the final and highest instance there is no other Being than willing.  Willing is primal Being, and to it willing alone all the predicates of the same primal Being apply: absence of conditions; eternity; independence from time, self-affirmation. All philosophy strives solely in order to find this supreme expression.[4]

As for the law of specification, Kant expresses it thus: entium varietates non timere esse minuendas. It requires namely, that we should clearly distinguish one from another the different genera collected under one comprehensive conception; likewise that we should not confound the higher and lower species comprised in each genus; that we should be careful not to overlap any, and never to classify inferior species, let alone individuals, immediately under the generic conception: each conception being susceptible of subdivision, and none even coming down to mere intuition.

[1]  Arthur Schopenhauer On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (1813) pg 1-2

[2]  Arthur Schopenhauer On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (1813) pg 1-2

[3]  Arthur Schopenhauer On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (1813) pg 1-2

[4]  Friedrich Schelling ????