So what I hear you saying, Potemkin, is that dialectics is about how every idea gets taken too far? Sounds almost Aristotelian.
The main difference is, as Cookie pointed out, the importance of
motion - each dialectical opposite rises and falls. As Lao Tzu said, "Reversion is the nature of the Dao". Everything first rises to dominance and then reverts to its dialectical opposite, and this cycle repeats itself. The taiqi symbol of Daoism is usually portrayed as being static, but in fact it must be thought of as constantly
rotating (the shapes of the yin and yang strongly suggest that they are in constant
motion). First yang is on top and yin is underneath, but then yang gives way to yin, and then yin gives way to yang, and so on. Night follows day and day follows night, winter follows summer and summer follow winter. Reversion is the nature of the Dao. Every development contains the seeds of its own destruction, every negation contains its
own negation. Aristotle's 'moderation' is essentially
static in its conception, and is therefore non-dialectical.
In a sense, therefore, every idea
should be taken "too far"; how else will it revert into its own negation?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)