"In a nutshell, the theory works great with this illustration:

    The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

    Example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave. "

           Another triumph of mis-understanding, if only a better knowledge of the function of meconnaissance was had a biting critique could ensure, but a simple sense of the logic will do to bring articulated clarity.

A (thesis) verses B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis) is a wrong formulation. Since A is first in the alphabet aswellas in this formulation let's begin with it:

A (thesis).

           The relational term 'verses' is not the most appropriate because it leaves open the possibility of a conflict between two contrary forces, which on its own is correct, but making possible setting against A the term B is wrong. If we take thesis to = A then the term anti-thesis, in-itself, says not-A and although B may be a case of not-A it is not not-A. The denial or negation of the thesis, A, is not a determinate statement. i.e., it is not B. The negation of A is an indeterminate statement, i.e. not-A. To borrow a wonderful analogy by Michael Kosak; if asked, “Where are you going?” and you respond: “I am not going to the theatre,” this is a reference to the theatre in the mode of rejection. Not going to the theatre is not saying that one is going to the protest; it is saying nothing other than not-A. From this we can again reformulate the logic:

A (thesis) is Negated by itself

A (thesis) is negated by not-A(anti-thesis).

           That these two terms in this relation 'equal' something is a strange formulation at best. It may be better to say that the two terms in this relation in-form each other in the sense that they co-determine each other. We can formulate this thus:

A is negated by not-A yielding A/not-A.

          The end of such a line of logic then would be a contradiction if not understood to be not the pairing of the two original terms but their simultaneous negation and assertion. This should thus be read that A is present insofar as not-A is present and vice-versa, not-A is present insofar as A is present. Both being co-dependently present in 'A/not-A' "ambiguity in some form must be present because no final distinction into separable compartments such as A not-A, 'true' and 'false,' or present and absent can be achieved."

       Perhaps a better phrasing of this example that is not distracted by utilitarian purposes would be:

(A) I have an idea of freedom, (not-A) What is that idea of freedom?, (A/not-A) That it is Self-determined.