And another thing I would appreciate your thoughts on, which somewhat relates to the topic of disagreement, only internal disagreement, rather than disagreement between two people.
Specifically, a mode of writing that involves constantly breaking from your own line of reasoning, in the interest of exploring parallel theses, theses that inevitably collide or contradict. Instead of basing a text around a central, and consistent, set of axioms, you constantly redefine these axioms, such that you are effectively arguing against your previous assertions. Thing is, each time you recapitulate the thesis, you are still holding true to whatever it is you are trying to express, but unburdening yourself from the pressures of consistency and cohesiveness.
@luka hit this vein either yesterday or today, in the talk of wearing multiple masks in poetry.
The point of this kind of parallel thesis approach would be "parafiguration", which amounts to the superposition of different theses about a topic, in the interest of revealing what lies between the given subjectivities at play in each thesis. It wouldn't be clean or crisp. By constantly uprooting and replanting yourself in terms of values and positions, one may be able to break the invisible habit of searching for the one (the one answer, the optimal synthesis, etc.).
I had tried to write this out as a series of "strings" that each sought to recapitulate a thesis on a given chapter. I sort of visualized it as a decision tree, wherein our deeply learned method has us search for the best answer, and then discount all other answers. That is, any honest and substantial backtracking of logic if forbidden, forcing us to persist, linearly.
The approach I have in mind would consist of forking probes into comparative theses - without subordinating them, as speculations, to a central/master thesis. In other words, it would be a radically noncommital expression of a sort of meta-thesis, an expression that risks dawdling into oblivion in the interest of illuminating something in the crossfire of conflicting theses. The intersection of this crossfire would be the point of disagreement, but disagreement between theses issued from the same author.
By attempting to hold a consistent position throughout the text, you see things from that one position, that point (or some narrow margin around that point). The method I'm describing would consist of moving the position you take, which would entail both contradiction and redundancy, seeing as you would be reporting on largely the same topics just from a different angle. Well, seeing the same thing from different angles lets you see more than one side of it, no?
I had considered "strings" as durations of consistency of thesis, the string "ending" when the thesis is transvaluated. Potentially, one could mobilize a variety of strings and form/weave a "fabric" of collisions, a lattice of disagreement points.