Dialectical (non Hegalian) eastern logic

An overview of Asian dialectical analysis

It may be kept in mind that depiction of eastern dialectical analysis is at times said to be propositional logic. Much of this has started 3,000 or so years ago.

The tendency with this is to examine a claim or object to determine first if it is supported by its components or whatever comprises it before proceeding to postulate or posit anything. This is considered a more thorough going analysis toward the possibility of establishing a claim or fact. In the analysis technique, it is not uncommon that a statement to be examined may be accepted provisionally before being tested on its integrity of continuity.

One significant part is cognition. If something is to be cognized. How does that come about? Can it be done totally on its own or does cognition come about by relying on other factors, e.g. a background? If it relies on other factors, are they in turn solitarily reliable or not. Do other things impact or change what is cognized? What then to say about something that has limited or incomplete input? Example, our senses do not detect or give us natural information of complete spectrums of sound, radiation, odor and hence we assume only with partial information to tell us what we encounter. Senses are not reliable for totality. Hence, cognition, which is analyzed to be dependent on other factors, is not considered to be a sole, reliable and immutable source upon which to make a claim or explanation (In the ancient day, a claim or claim on an object, assumed the object was treated as a whole unto itself, and permanent as encountered. The concept of phases of the assumed object was not included as part of its description. Hence, certain types of analysis could be used to break down such a claim, among other things, e.g. reductio, etc. )

Again, perception. How is something perceived? How does it come about? By itself or are there other factors that together bring about something to be detected? How reliable and error free are factors that bring about detection of something? Likewise, this also is extended toward consciousness, do some things contribute to consciousness? Can there be comprehension in totality or just partial?

This can apply toward perception of something whether if it is the self or an other. Thusly, objects perceived as monolithic can be broken down (factorized) into manageable factors.

Another topic of interest could be the sky. Is it an entity of its own? Does is exist independently or not? What gives it color and is it constant or changes? Does it, or any other item, have any background it is dependent upon to support it? If so, then it does not exist independently.

In other words, if something cannot be substantiated as self sustaining or have its own intrinsic presence, then it will not be considered a whole unto itself but rather dependent upon factors which alludes to partition, and even a further conclusion of incomprehensibility of everything. This way comes ultimately to this since it analyzed cause, among other factors, and found cause cannot be substantiated and in no way established when dialectical analysis and logic are applied. Hence, there is no basis upon which to substantiate or establish conclusively anything, positive, neutral or negative, whether existent or non existent.

This in turn reflects in the expressions or literature. It may be found that asian sentences may have double or triple negatives. Then, like a process of elimination, an expression may be regarded positive. This, along with other approaches, may give the eastern expression the impression of being open with little or no constraint or binding. Nevertheless, any expression under this analysis is rendered ultimately and accordingly incomplete and incomprehensible. Hence, the ultimate realization is found inexpressible  from beginning to end.

By extension, this system may be also found influencing mathematics. Using whole integers, does 2+2=4?

If 2+2=5, then, yes 2+2=4. 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1=1, 1+1+1=0. Looks somewhat like relativity?