Eisenstein: It's All Montage

In his essay "The cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram," Eisenstein claims that montage is specifically the result of and characterized by the "collision" of two opposite pieces. We know this because he says, "By what, then, is montage characterized and, consequently, its cell-the shot? By collision." (37). So montage is conflict and as we discussed on Tuesday, art is conflict. If we are to believe the transitive property of equality (and I'm sure Eisenstein, a man of science does) the montage must equal art. So montage is art. It would be too simple to classify montage as strictly the physical editing of a film: the cuts, dissolves, tints, etc. but that is the literal definition of the word, so making that assumption wouldn't be totally out of line. Eisenstein clarifies (remember, montage is conflict), "the dynamics of montage serve as impulses driving forward the total film. Conflict within the frame." (38). What he is doing here is comparing montage to an engine in that they both push their devices (film and a tractor) forward. He then describes the numerous types of conflicts that take place within the frame in every single shot. So these shots are full of conflicts, whether they be literal conflicts in the dialogue, conflicts in lighting, conflicts in blocking of the actors and other aspects of the mis-en-scen, which to me would indicate that these shots, the conflicts within them and the meanings derived from it all are indeed montage. But Eisenstein started this whole spiel off by saying, Conflict within the shot is potential montage," (38) which seems to rebuff the claim I just made. So I'm wondering what the difference is? Wouldn't the moods, tones and emotions established by the culmination of the entire diegetic world have to be, by Eisenstein's logic, montage?