I am critical of marxist abuse of dialectic because the ‘real thing’ is close at and, but can’t be resolved by dialectical reasoning!
The ‘dyad’ that I pointed to, the issue of freedom/causality, is a good example of the way the ‘dialectic’ (pointing to a dyad) can pose a problem, but offer no solution to its duality. The risk of bullshit is great in this situation. The struggle to really understand a single case of such dyads is long and arduous. The historical model in Last and First Men has to skirt the duality at all points because ‘free agency’ and some kind of historical dynamic, causal or teleological, are matched in the realization of the action of ‘historical evolution’. We can’t resolve that set of contradictions with mud pies from Hegel.
The point here is that we can isolate ‘dialectical dyads’, but we can’t solve them with a formula. And this is far short of the purported higher logic of triads, a subject almost as confused by new agers as dialectic is by marsixts.
But if we can’t solve these problems we can still use chronicles to depict their counterpoint action in practice.