dialectical skill

---
name: dialectical
description: Compose intellectually sophisticated persuasive essays using tripartite dialectical structure (establish-critique-synthesize), paradox accumulation, conversational register calibration, and strategic humility. Supports three atomic writing primitives (AGONAL α, MAIEUTIC β, APOPHATIC γ) with hypersoft plithogenic composition, plus legacy style modes and hybrid combinations. Triggers on requests for persuasive writing to mixed/skeptical audiences, defending counterintuitive claims, Socratic pedagogical dialogue, editorial first-person essays, or writing that must balance accessibility with depth. Implements recursive thematic anchoring, forced dilemma construction, and transformed return closure. Use when linear argumentation is insufficient and accumulated tension resolves through synthesis.
---

# Dialectical Persuasion

Construct essays that persuade through tension, paradox, and synthesis rather than linear proof.

## Core Principle

**Persuasion through accumulated paradox**: Instead of building linear deductive chains, accumulate tensions and paradoxes until the proposed synthesis becomes the only resolution that holds them together.

## Writing Style Modes

The dialectical skill supports three distinct writing style modes, each with its own rhetorical patterns and epistemological stance:

### Available Modes

| Mode | λο.τ Form | Best For | Key Characteristics |
|------|-----------|----------|---------------------|
| **dialectical** | Cultural-Common-Ground → Paradox-Accumulation → Irreducible-Mystery | Persuasive essays, apologetics, counterintuitive claims | Strategic humility, recursive anchoring, forced dilemma, transformed return |
| **gerry** | Question → Narrative-Grounding → Discovery-Through-Dialogue | Pedagogical explanations, Socratic teaching, clinical case discussions | Character-based dialogue, triumphant revelation, grudging acknowledgment |
| **yartzev** | Assertion → Parenthetical-Subversion → Acknowledged-Inadequacy | Critical analysis, editorial commentary, literature reviews | Hostile sympathy, self-critique, citation triangulation, qualified disclaimers |

### Hybrid Combinations

| Hybrid Mode | Structure Source | Voice/Delivery Source | Result |
|-------------|------------------|----------------------|---------|
| **dialectical+gerry** | Dialectical phases | Socratic dialogue | Paradoxes emerge through character exchange; pedagogical triumphant revelation |
| **dialectical+yartzev** | Dialectical phases | Editorial first-person | Framework critique enhanced by parenthetical subversion; meta-commentary on essay |
| **gerry+yartzev** | Clinical narrative | Editorial asides | Conversational pedagogy with hostile sympathy and self-deprecation |

### Specifying Style

**In Frontmatter (Recommended)**:
```yaml
style: gerry              # Pure mode
style: dialectical+yartzev # Hybrid mode
```

**Inline Directive (For Style Switching)**:
```markdown
<!-- style:gerry -->
```

**Default**: If no style specified, defaults to native `dialectical` mode.

## Atomic Composition Framework

The skill implements a hypersoft plithogenic composition system enabling dynamic style interleaving. See [references/atomic-composition.md](references/atomic-composition.md) for complete specification.

### Three Atomic Primitives

| Primitive | Symbol | λο.τ Form | Core Function |
|-----------|--------|-----------|---------------|
| **AGONAL** | α | Cultural-Ground → Paradox-Accumulation → Irreducible-Mystery | Persuasion via accumulated tension |
| **MAIEUTIC** | β | Question → Narrative-Grounding → Discovery-Through-Dialogue | Knowledge via Socratic midwifery |
| **APOPHATIC** | γ | Assertion → Parenthetical-Subversion → Acknowledged-Inadequacy | Authority via self-negation |

### Composition Operators

| Operator | Notation | Function | Example |
|----------|----------|----------|---------|
| Sequential | α ∘ β | Apply first, then second | Establish humility, then build paradoxes |
| Parallel | α ⊗ β | Interleave simultaneously | Paradoxes emerge through dialogue |
| Recursive | α* | Apply until convergence | Meta-commentary on meta-commentary |
| Conditional | α \| c | Apply when condition met | Deploy β only when clinical case exists |

### Scenario Matrix (Quick Reference)

| Scenario | α | β | γ | Primary Composition |
|----------|---|---|---|---------------------|
| Exam SAQ | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | β ⊗ (α \| has_paradox) |
| Viva Defence | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | α ∘ β |
| Academic Paper | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.5 | γ* ⊗ α |
| Tutorial Teaching | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | β* |
| Editorial/Opinion | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | α ⊗ γ |
| Entertaining Academic | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | (α ⊗ β) ⊗ γ |

### Dominance Hierarchy

When composition conflicts cannot be resolved via sequencing:
- **Persuasive/Apologetic context** → α dominates
- **Pedagogical/Tutorial context** → β dominates
- **Academic/Formal context** → γ dominates

## Architecture

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  PHASE 1: ESTABLISH (Cultural Observation)                       │
│  → Common ground | Phenomenological observation | Surface tension│
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  PHASE 2: CRITIQUE (Inadequate Frameworks)                       │
│  → Present alternatives | Immanent critique | Create vacuum      │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  PHASE 3: SYNTHESIZE (Distinctive Resolution)                    │
│  → Novel framework | Paradox crystallization | Stakes escalation │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  PHASE 4: RETURN (Transformed Closure)                           │
│  → Return to opening | New weight/meaning | Occasion greeting    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## When to Use

**Optimal conditions:**
- Counterintuitive thesis requiring defended
- Mixed audience (believers/skeptics)
- Occasion-specific timing (events, milestones, cultural moments)
- Topic with multiple inadequate conventional explanations
- Claim containing irreducible paradox/mystery

**Not for:**
- Technical exposition
- Pure information transfer
- Polemical attack
- Time-pressured communication

## Execution Protocol

### Phase 1: Opening Gambit

**The Humble Invitation Pattern:**
```
[Occasion marker/temporal grounding]
[Self-positioning statement—humble, specific]
[Permission hedge for skeptics]
[But invitation to engage]
```

**Why it works:** Psychological reactance—granting permission to leave increases commitment to stay. Self-deprecation paradoxically builds authority.

### Phase 2: Cultural Grounding

**Phenomenological Observation:**
1. Universal observation about topic
2. Evidence of cultural ubiquity
3. Surface articulation of common assumptions
4. Surfacing of latent tension

**Structural devices:**
- **Tricolon for scope**: "X, Y, and Z"
- **Polarity pairs for intensity**: "from A to B"
- **Universal claim**: "We all think/feel/assume..."
- **Escalation**: Move from mundane to eternal

**The Pivot Sentence:**
After establishing observation, deploy standalone punchy transition:
```
How [recursive anchor word].
```
This single-sentence paragraph signals intellectual honesty and marks the transition to critique.

### Phase 3: Inadequate Frameworks

**Grid Structure:**
Critique ≥2 competing explanations, each failing differently:

| Framework | What it Captures | What it Misses | Failure Mode |
|-----------|-----------------|----------------|--------------|
| Framework A | [Partial truth] | [Missing dimension] | Reductionism |
| Framework B | [Different partial truth] | [Different gap] | Incompleteness |

**Immanent Critique Pattern:**
Use each framework's internal logic against itself:
```
If [premise they accept], then [consequence they resist].
```

**Preemptive Concession:**
```
"Some might think X should solve this—[pivot word: au contraire, but, however]"
```
Builds credibility, controls frame, demonstrates fairness.

### Phase 4: Distinctive Resolution

**Entry Pattern:**
```
[Humility hedge]: "if I may be so bold" / "I think what [hearts/intuition] hint at"
[The claim]: State distinctive position
[Technical grounding]: Etymology, definition, or source
[Paradox array]: 3-5 crystallized paradoxes
```

**Paradox Crystallization:**
Express thesis through irreducible tensions:
- "The X became Y so Y could become X"
- "The author of Z wrote himself into Z"
- "[Apparent contradiction] and yet [deeper coherence]"

**Function:** Paradox signals depth; if thesis were simple, it would already be accepted.

### Phase 5: Stakes Escalation

**Forced Dilemma Pattern:**
```
Either [thesis] is [most extreme negative interpretation].
Or else [thesis] is [most extreme positive interpretation].
There is no wiggle room.
```

**Acknowledge difficulty honestly:**
```
"I do not blame you for finding this [difficult/strange]"
"You are not in bad company"
```

### Phase 6: Transformed Return

**Structure:**
1. Brief synthesis statement
2. Return to opening occasion with new weight
3. Optional: curated quotations (3-4, varied sources/eras)

**The transformed return** is essential: the opening occasion greeting carries entirely different meaning after the intervening argument.

## Voice Calibration

### Pronoun Strategy

| Pronoun | Function | When to Use |
|---------|----------|-------------|
| "I" | Personal investment, vulnerability | Thesis commitment, hedges |
| "we" | Solidarity, shared experience | Cultural observations |
| "you" | Direct address, intimacy | Key insights, invitations |
| "us" | Universal humanity | Resolution synthesis |

### Register Oscillation

Alternate between:
- **Elevated**: Complex syntax, philosophical vocabulary
- **Colloquial**: Short sentences, direct address, platform idioms

This oscillation prevents alienation (pure elevation) and trivialization (pure colloquialism).

### The "You See" Marker

Deploy 2-3 times per essay to:
- Signal important insight approaching
- Maintain conversational intimacy
- Create structural rhythm

## Recursive Anchoring

**Pattern**: Choose one word/phrase that recurs at major transitions.

**Function:**
- Creates thematic coherence
- Signals intellectual honesty
- Marks escalating depth
- Returns transformed at conclusion

**Example anchors**: bizarre, strange, peculiar, remarkable, counterintuitive

## Sentence-Level Rhythm

### Variation Patterns

| Type | Structure | Function |
|------|-----------|----------|
| Complex | Long, subordinate clauses, nuance | Depth, qualification |
| Punchy | 2-5 words, standalone paragraph | Emphasis, transition |
| Tricolon | X, Y, and Z | Rhythm, completeness |
| Mirror | Return to earlier phrase transformed | Coherence, closure |

### Tricolon Construction

```
"[verb₁] our lives, [verb₂] us, [verb₃] us"
"from the [place₁] and from the [place₂]"
"[gerund₁], [gerund₂], [gerund₃]"
```

## Quality Gates

### Structural Verification
```
[ ] Occasion-specific opening with temporal grounding
[ ] Cultural observation before propositional claims
[ ] Recursive anchor word deployed at transitions
[ ] ≥2 frameworks critiqued via immanent logic
[ ] Objections preemptively addressed before they arise
[ ] ≥3 paradoxes crystallized in synthesis phase
[ ] Forced dilemma at stakes escalation
[ ] Acknowledgment of legitimate difficulty
[ ] Transformed return to opening occasion
```

### Voice Verification
```
[ ] Humility maintained (hedges, qualifiers, concessions)
[ ] Elevated/colloquial register balanced
[ ] Pronouns strategically varied
[ ] "You see" marker used 2-3 times
[ ] Self-deprecation in opening establishes authority
```

### Rhythm Verification
```
[ ] Complex and punchy sentences alternated
[ ] At least one standalone 2-5 word paragraph
[ ] At least one tricolon for rhythm
[ ] Final closure mirrors/transforms opening
```

## Style-Specific Execution

### When `style: dialectical` (Default)

Use the standard Execution Protocol above (Phases 1-6). This is the native mode.

### When `style: gerry`

**Operational Directives** (see `references/gerry-style-guide.md` for complete patterns):

1. **Establish character voices** (skeptical student, experienced teacher, clinical case)
2. **Ground in phenomenology** ("think about it", "have I got news for you")
3. **Embed calculations conversationally** (mathematics emerges from narrative necessity)
4. **Deploy tables as dialogue props** (data analyzed collaboratively within conversation)
5. **Use circulation time as narrative pacing** (temporal flow mirrors physiological flow)

**Signature Moves**:
- Conversational deflection: "Well Bob, have I got news for you"
- Triumphant revelation: "Gerry showed these figures, looked triumphant, and said..."
- Sarcastic engagement: "My floating-point synapses are already tingling"
- Grudging acknowledgment: "I must admit this is certainly a useful method"

**Avoid**: Pure lecturing, abstract mathematics, unmediated authority, static exposition

### When `style: yartzev`

**Operational Directives** (see `references/yartzev-style-guide.md` for complete patterns):

1. **Establish formal claim** (technical, cited, structured)
2. **Subvert with parenthetical** (wry, self-aware, conversationally hostile)
3. **Acknowledge inadequacy explicitly** (sources, text, examiners, self)
4. **Triangulate everything** (never one source, never one register, never one audience)
5. **Meta-comment on meta-commentary** (acknowledge that you're acknowledging)

**Signature Moves**:
- Editorial first-person: "This author also suffers for want of..."
- Hostile sympathy: "Careless laziness" toward examiners while sympathizing with trainees
- Preemptive apology: "By this stage, the reader will likely be resentful"
- Qualified disclaimer: "I will not take responsibility for errors and omissions"

**Avoid**: Pure formality, pure informality, unacknowledged certainty, single-track addressing

### When `style: dialectical+gerry` (Hybrid)

**Structure**: Dialectical four-phase progression (Establish → Critique → Synthesize → Return)
**Delivery**: Socratic dialogue with character voices (Bob/Gerry/Clinical Case)

**Integration Pattern** (see `references/style-integration-patterns.md`):
- Phase 1 (Establish): Bob raises cultural observation through skeptical questioning
- Phase 2 (Critique): Gerry guides Bob through framework inadequacies via triumphant revelation
- Phase 3 (Synthesize): Paradoxes emerge through dialogue exchange, not declarative accumulation
- Phase 4 (Return): Transformed return delivered as pedagogical triumph

**Example Opening**:
```markdown
"Isn't this idea of [topic] rather old-fashioned?" groaned Bob.

"Well Bob, have I got news for you," replied Gerry with a knowing smile. "You see, we all think the world of [topic]..."
```

### When `style: dialectical+yartzev` (Hybrid)

**Structure**: Dialectical four-phase progression (Establish → Critique → Synthesize → Return)
**Voice**: Editorial first-person with parenthetical subversion

**Integration Pattern** (see `references/style-integration-patterns.md`):
- Phase 1 (Establish): Cultural observation with self-deprecating acknowledgment
- Phase 2 (Critique): Framework inadequacy via hostile sympathy and citation triangulation
- Phase 3 (Synthesize): Paradoxes with "this sounds bizarre, I assure you it is not" pattern
- Phase 4 (Return): Transformed return includes meta-commentary on essay itself

**Example Opening**:
```markdown
I would like to propose [topic]—though by this stage, the reader will likely be resentful of their time being wasted on yet another [field] essay.

Nevertheless (and this author also suffers for want of brevity), if you should be so inclined...
```

### When `style: gerry+yartzev` (Hybrid)

**Structure**: Clinical narrative with character dialogue
**Voice**: Conversational pedagogy with editorial meta-commentary

**Integration Pattern** (see `references/style-integration-patterns.md`):
- Narrative grounding via clinical case (Gerry)
- Character voices with editorial asides (Gerry + Yartzev)
- Hostile sympathy toward conventional teaching (Yartzev)
- Self-deprecating acknowledgment of pedagogical excess (Yartzev)

**Example**:
```markdown
"Let's look at Mrs. Dolore's situation," said Gerry (though this author notes the convention of using patient cases for pedagogy is itself rather tired—nevertheless, it persists).

"I suppose we must calculate her [parameter]," was Bob's grudging reply.
```

## Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Why Harmful |
|---------|-------------|
| Leading with thesis | Alienates before common ground established |
| Ignoring objections | Appears defensive, loses skeptical readers |
| Triumphal tone | Prevents genuine engagement |
| Pure abstraction | Loses experiential grounding |
| Resolved mystery | Paradox is feature not bug—premature resolution cheapens |
| Alienating skeptics | Mixed audience requires dual-track address |
| Disconnected from occasion | Loses rhetorical urgency and specificity |
| Linear proof structure | Bypasses tension accumulation that creates persuasive power |

## Integration

Combines with:
- **hierarchical-reasoning**: Strategic → tactical → operational decomposition
- **critique**: Multi-lens evaluation of thesis strength
- **obsidian-markdown**: Documentation in PKM-compatible format
- **think**: Mental models for framework analysis

## References

- [references/atomic-composition.md](references/atomic-composition.md): Atomic primitives (α/β/γ), composition operators, plithogenic logic, and scenario matrix
- [references/pattern-analysis.md](references/pattern-analysis.md): Complete multi-level pattern extraction
- [references/execution-protocol.md](references/execution-protocol.md): Phase-by-phase construction guide
- [references/examples.md](references/examples.md): Annotated exemplar passages
- [references/gerry-style-guide.md](references/gerry-style-guide.md): Socratic pedagogical dialogue patterns
- [references/yartzev-style-guide.md](references/yartzev-style-guide.md): Editorial first-person with hostile sympathy
- [references/style-integration-patterns.md](references/style-integration-patterns.md): Hybrid mode combinations and switching