> Back in the '40s some scientist (I believe a biochemist) was quoted in
> Time (a vague memory from long ago) as saying that one can never do
> just
> one thing. That is, every act has numerous results beyond the control
> (or even knowledge) of the agent. Would this not lead to actions that
> are self-negating, and does not self-negation bear a resemblance to
> the
> contradictions of formal logic?
"Contradiction" as a characteristic of reality as conceived in the ontologies of Hegel and Marx is an aspect of "internal relations." In their ontologies there is an objective ideal which is internally related to and can be more or less consistent with the actual. In so far as there is inconsistency, the existing process as constituted by internal relations (including the internal relation between what "is" and what "ought to be") will be self-contradictory in the sense that it will generate its own "grave diggers."
In the case of Marx's account of the internal relations that define the capitalist labour process, this has these relations constituting the proletariat as individuals who will become, through the developmental consequences of the relations, individuals with the powers and will required to imagine and create the penultimate social form as a set of relations from which all barriers to full human development have been eliminated.
Such a process can't be represented by an axiomatic deductive system where its developmental consequences change identities in a way that invalidate this method of representation (such changes will invalidate the axioms). Among other things, Marx's falling rate of profit argument neglects this implication of his own ontology.
Psychoanalysis provides an explanation of the aggressive hostility characteristic of those who misidentify "reason" with axiomatic deductive reasoning. The misidentification is an obsessional symptom, i.e. it is a sign of unmastered instinctive sadism. This also explains the inability of "remorseless" logicians to understand the points I've just made, including the point about internal relations limiting the applicability of axiomatic deductive reasoning.
Ted