> Formal systems (thus far; Ian will bring us up to date, perhaps, w.r.t
> newer developments such as paraconsistent logic -- but note that I am
> not talking about bivalence, here, but specifically contradiction --
> and perhaps I should say contradiction and not "pain of
> contradiction") are particularly sensitive to (and intolerant of)
> contradiction since they exclude it (or equivalently, rely on it)
> axiomatically. Permitting a contradiction will yield proofs of all
> results.
----------------
Not necessarily; that is to say that paraconsistentists do not see contradiction as explosive or fatal to theories. Theorists of vagueness, most of whom embrace bivalence, are begrudgingly coming to except that some contradictions are non-fatal; there are limits to strategies of de-paradoxicalization.
A few years back I sent former lobster Thomas Seay a link to research done on formalizing/computer modeling of Hegel's Logic. I'll see if I still have the link, but I have to warn you....it may take a while :-)
Ian
Ian