Logic, whether it is formal or dialectical, are products of certain moments of history, certain cultural-civilizational milieu, certain power-knowledge nexus. There is nothing universal, transhistorical about it.
^^^^^^ CB: But how do we move from one , certain cultural-civilizational milieu and power-knowledge nexus to another one ? Humans have interpreted the world in a number of ways; how do they change from one way of interpreting to another ? How do they get from one historical period to a new one ?
The concept of identity - a is a - is transhistorical . It is the first principle of formal logic.
The various discursive-communicative contexts in different moments of history that you refer to all have the internal logics you refer to. What all the logics have in common is the law of identity. Otherwise , you couldn't say they have "internal logics" and be referring to the same thing. They all follow sets of rules.
The sets of rules don't have "rules" for changing the set of rules. That occurs when the rules are applied in practice and contradiction arise, requiring a change in the system of rules itself. Thereby practice changes consciousness, or the logical system of that particular historical moment.
Systems of rules don't change by thinking them. They change by practicing them.
One , certain culutural-civilizational milieu and power-knowledge nexus changes to another one when ,in the _practice_ of the milieu-nexus, contradictions arise in the internal logics of the milieu-nexus , not by just _thinking_ about the milieu-nexus.