And I
take his point in appealing to a logic of exposition is exactly to show that if
we keep stumbling over surprises, as VFT finds in Capital, ch. 1, then we have
a problem. Or is that just with a logic that is linear? That
is, supposing a presentation that was dialectical, could we find the insufficiency
of each stage to comprehend its presuppositions a kind of surprise that drove
forward the immanent logic of the argument so that it constituted a move from
surprise to surprise, dialectically sublated, so to speak?
Howard what do you mean by a linear logic?
Do you mean the same thing as a monotonic logic?
I am skeptical that the Hegelian arguments are logical developments
from a given
starting point. Wherever you have surprise, you have new information.
This must have been introduced from outside as a hidden additional
premise.