‘A is A, and yet A is not A; therefore A is A’.1 This common inference within the logic of soku is based on the dialectical form ‘A soku not-A’, variously translated as ‘A sive not-A’, ‘A qua not-A’, and ‘A and yet not-A’, and is hereafter referred to as the soku dialectic. Nishida Kitarō, Tanabe Hajime, and Nishitani Keiji, the central philosophers of the Kyoto school, grant the legitimacy of ...