The title of this blog was chosen in reference to Franco Spisani's "productive logic," which is unique because it attempts to initiate a logic based on identity and difference rather than truth and falsehood. Attempts at mathematical formalization of dialectical thought interest me, but I'm not ready to endorse any of them as consistent (para- or otherwise) or sufficient at capturing the complexities of the 'self-sundering' and constant mobility of dialectics. I'm reminded of Faust's remark on the insufficiency of translating John 1:1 (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος) as "In beginning was the Word":

"It is written: 'In the beginning was the 'Word!'

I'm stopped already. Who will help me further?

I cannot possibly rate the Word so highly. 

I must translate it otherwise, 

if I am rightly enlightened by the spirit. 

It is written: "in the beginning was the Thought!'

Consider the first line well, 

lest the pen write too hastily. 

Is it the Thought that works and creates all?

Should it not be: 'In the beginning was the Power!'

Yet, even as I write it down, 

I feel I can not let that stand. 

The spirit helps me! Suddenly I have it, 

and confidently write: 'In the beginning was the Deed!'  

(MacIntyre translation, 82-3)

Geschrieben steht: "Im Anfang war das Wort!"
  Hier stock ich schon!  Wer hilft mir weiter fort?
  Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schätzen,
  Ich muß es anders übersetzen,
  Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin.
  Geschrieben steht: Im Anfang war der Sinn.
  Bedenke wohl die erste Zeile,
  Daß deine Feder sich nicht übereile!
  Ist es der Sinn, der alles wirkt und schafft?
  Es sollte stehn: Im Anfang war die Kraft!
  Doch, auch indem ich dieses niederschreibe,
  Schon warnt mich was, daß ich dabei nicht bleibe.
  Mir hilft der Geist!  Auf einmal seh ich Rat
  Und schreibe getrost: Im Anfang war die Tat!

What are we to make of this list: Word (Wort), Thought (Sinn), Power (Kraft), Deed (Tat)? Each word is a different way of translating Logos, but each of these words also has an individual signification that we would be unlikely to consider equivalent. When we combine them with the verb for being/truth in a kind of semiotic square, what are the results?

Words are Thoughts. True
Words are Power. True (sometimes?)
Words are Deeds. True
Thoughts are Power. True (sometimes?)
Thoughts are Deeds. True
Power is Deeds. True (sometimes?)

I immediately notice that contingency arises when power is involved. 

Are they not the elements required by a logic of Actuality (Wirklichkeit)?