I am trying to understand how the Hegelian dialectic evolves over time. I will use tn (where n is a constant integer) informally, such that tn+2 - tn+1 is not necessarily the same duration as tn+1 - tn; instead, tn+1 merely denotes the first substantially different state of the dialectic chronologically following tn. Which of the following example(s) is correctly modeled?
Example 1) The initial state of affairs is the world just as it really is today. Then, a comprehensive, univocal, uncontroversial research paper demonstrates that wearing white clothing causes serious illness. Despite disagreement over details such as whether the problem should be addressed by public, private, or voluntary forces, there is widespread agreement that white clothing should no longer be worn. Later research proves that individuals with specific gene signatures are immune to this illness, so the consensus is partially reversed and now there is widespread agreement that white clothing should not be worn by individuals susceptible to the illness. Thus,
t1: status quo says that white clothing is okay, constituting the thesis
t2: status quo has shifted and now says that white clothing is not okay, constituting the antithesis
t3: status quo has shifted part of the way back and now says that white clothing is not okay for most people, constituting the synthesis of this cycle, and thus the thesis of a new cycle.
Example 2) The initial state of affairs is the world just as it really is today. Then, a persuasive yet controversial research paper provides good evidence that wearing white clothing causes serious illness. There is widespread disagreement over whether white clothing should continue to be worn. Eventually, whether contributed to by further research or because the marketplace of ideas simply achieves equilibrium, a consensus between the two extremes of the disagreeing voices is reached. Thus,
t0: status quo says that white clothing is okay; there is no dialectic yet, at least with regard to the cycle we're analyzing
t1: status quo says that white clothing is okay, constituting the thesis, while a substantial voice opposes the status quo saying that white clothing is not okay, constituting the antithesis
t2: a new status quo has emerged from the battle between the two voices and perhaps further research, constituting the synthesis of this cycle, and thus the thesis of a new cycle.
In short, is an antithesis always/ever constituted by a shift in the status quo (and thus begins at a time later than the thesis begins), or is it only a simultaneously emergent opposition to the status quo? Does the cycle have two or three time steps?
