> [WS:] Contradiction is a state of mind, not a state of reality. There is
> nothing contradictory in reality - only material existence of objects. Some
> of those objects may be annihilated by other objects under certain
> circumstances - but that is not "contradiction" between these two kinds of
> objects, but merely a transformation of material forms in accordance with
> the laws of nature.
>
> "Contradiction" enters the scene only when the human mind imbues the
> material reality with the products of it sown imagination i.e. an idea
> (mental product) that acts as the material cause i.e. force producing
> material transformation. Only then we can say that there is "contradiction"
> in what materially exists i.e. inconsistency between certain material forms
> and the idea that is believed to "cause" them. But this is just a metaphor
> used to describe the world - it means nothing more than the ideas that we us
> to describe the world are not logically consistent with one another.
>
> Stated differently, "contradiction: is an indicator of a fault in our
> thinking about reality rather than a fault in the reality itself.
> Consequently, if we encounter a "contradiction" we ought to change our
> thinking rather than expect reality to change as a result of that
> contradiction. It is quite delusional to believe that the material world
> revolves around the products of human mind.
>
> Wojtek
================
The issue RB brings up is more related to the fallacies of composition problems that spring up in macroeconomics/macrosociology than the psychology of individuals with bounded rationality and cognitive dissonance. Leibniz' notion of [in]compossibility when he deployed the tools of the differential calculus to metaphysics is the 'modern' origin of the issue as near as I've been able to determine from my own research. See the richly detailed essay by Joseph McCarney in "Analyzing Marx" [ed. by Kai Neilsen] for more if you're interested.
Ian