Hegel 162

Hegel's Phenemenology of Spirit:

162.


ARGUMENT:


this simple infinity or the absolute Notion may be called the simple essence of life

this self identical essence is related only to itself

each sundered moment is a pure opposite and therefore each the opposite of itself -
therefore not an opposite at all - but rather a pure self-identical essence

philosophy cannot answer the question 'how from this pure essence does difference or
otherness issue forth?' - for the division into two moments has already taken place -
difference is excluded from the self-identical and set apart from it

what was supposed to be self-identical is already one of these two moments instead of
being the absolute essence

that the self-identical divides into two means that it supersedes itself as an otherness

the unity of which it is usual to say that difference cannot issue from it - is in fact one
of the two moments - it is the abstraction of the simplicity or unitary nature over
and against the difference

but in saying the unity is an abstraction - it is only one of the opposed moments - it is
already implied that it is the dividing of itself - for if the unity is a negative it is
opposed to something - then it is eo ipso posited as that which has an antithesis within
it

the different moments of self-sundering and of becoming self-identical are therefore
only this movement of self-suppression

for since the self-identical moment which becomes its opposite is an abstraction or is
already a self-sundering - its self-sundering is therefore a suppression of what it is and
therefore a suppression of its dividedness

its becoming self-identical is equally a self-sundering - what becomes identical with
itself thereby opposes itself to self-sundering - it puts itself on one side - it becomes
the sundered moment


COMMENTARY:


first up the term 'self-identical' is meaningless - the phrase suggests a relation where
none holds - a relation exists between different things - therefore a thing is not related
to itself - if it is related to anything - it is related to what is not itself

likewise 'self-sundering' makes no sense - if a thing is sundered - it is undered by
another thing

if 'self-identical' is the definition of essence - we can forget essence

alternatively we can simply recognize that the final nature of things is unknown

in saying that philosophy cannot answer the question 'how from pure essence does
difference issue forth? - Hegel is for a moment recognizing the truth of skepticism

that is he is acknowledging that we do not and cannot know the origin and nature of
reality

but this acknowledgment is short lived - it is in his terms 'sundered' and I think never
to be 'un-sundered'

really where Hegel shines is in his introduction of movement into the metaphysical
realm

and it is a useful concept in relation to the problem of unity and diversity

his idea in short is that the unity diversifies and that the diversification unifies
and that this movement is ongoing - that is it is of the nature of reality - reality is this
movement

his logic of opposites is the conceptual underpinning or description for this reality

and he can say that his logic expresses the movement of reality and that the movement
of reality is described or expressed in his logic

one cannot help but think that whatever else you might say against Hegel's argument -
there is no doubt his identification of reality as a movement is of lasting significance
and value

for Hegel - it is the movement - the fact of change that is unchanging -

and this for him is the essence of life

as to this movement - it is quite simply unknown -

Hegel devotes all his poer to describing it - 'explaining' it - but really all his efforts
finally point to the fact that the 'movement' is no more than a name for the unknown

to my mind his dialectical argument amounts to saying that the idea of stable
knowledge is an illusion

and I would go the one step further and say that therefore this account of knowledge
and reality - cannot itself be held outside of it own logic

that is to say that such a metaphysics - like what it describes is only a moment in an
ever changing reality

language fixes it to a page - therefore it has the appearance of being what it is not -
unchanging

in fact like everything else it is ephemeral

from an artistic perspective it is a moment of revelation - even a moment of delight

Hegel 161

Hegel's Phenemenology of Spirit:

161.


ARGUMENT:


we see that through infinity law completes itself into an immanent necessity - and all
the moments of the world of appearance are taken up into the inner world

that the simple character of law is infinity means - (a) that it is self-identical but is also
in itself different - (b) what is thus dirumpted - which constitutes the parts thought of
as in law - exhibits itself in a stable existence - and if the parts are considered without
the Notion of the inner difference - then space and time - or distance and velocity -
which appear as moments of gravity are just as indifferent and without a necessary
relation to one another as to gravity itself - (c) through the notion of inner difference -
these unlike and indifferent moments or space and time are a difference which is no
difference - or only a difference of what is selfsame and its essence is unity - as a
positive and negative they stimulate each other into activity and their being is rather to
posit themselves as not being and to suspend themselves in the unity - the two
distinguished moments both subsist - they are implicit and opposites in themselves


COMMENTARY:


the way I see it is like this -

the world we experience - the world of appearance is the first moment of awareness

reflection - which is an act or operation of consciousness divides the unity of
appearance into consciousness and non-consciousness

and so we understand appearance as the relation of consciousness and non-
consciousness -

the world as given - the world of appearance is initially unknown

the division of consciousness and non-consciousness - becomes for us the existential
reality and the analytical reality -

this is the second moment of awareness

and so we can say that the operational reality is a divided reality - in the sense that we
recognize that the unity has for us a conscious and non-conscious aspect

the understanding is that we can deal with the unity in terms of the relation of its
aspects

the world in the first moment prior to the reflection that gives us the awareness of the
conscious and non-conscious aspects is not a blank - but it is unknown

what is given in this first moment is analyzed in the second - so that what appears is
given characterization in consciousness

this is the beginning of the reflective process that gives us operational power

this power is the power of knowledge

this knowledge though is based on the unknown - it is consciousness' reflective
response to the unknown - and therefore it has no foundation other than operation

and the truth is we operate in mystery - in the sense that why the world just is the
way it is for us is never a matter we have - 'knowledge' of - but this understanding
actually makes no difference to how we deal with what we have to deal with

so for operational purposes the world of appearance - becomes that which is external
to consciousness

the inner world the world of thought is the resource we have to determine how to
proceed outside of thought

Hegel has it that all the moments of appearance are taken up into the inner world -

that which is outside of consciousness and is placed in the focus of a consciousness is
the world of appearance for that consciousness -

what this is for that consciousness is in the first place given in the very relation of
consciousness and the non-conscious - but what this means is always a reflective
possibility of the individual consciousness - and what it in fact means is shown in how
the person operates - which is just thought translated into action

it is not possible to ascertain the full meaning of any action - it is here that we are
faced with infinity - what in fact happens is we decide - that is cut-off the process and
determine - and in so doing we posit the finite - we make our actions and the world of
our action finite

infinity is the reality of the absence of knowledge

decision is the world made finite

Hegel 160

Hegel's Phenemenology of Spirit:

160.


ARGUMENT:


from the idea of inversion - which constitutes the essential nature of one aspect of the
supersensible world - we must eliminate the idea of fixing the differences in a
different sustaining element

and this absolute Notion of the difference must be represented and understood purely
as inner difference - a repulsion of the selfsame from itself and likeness of the unlike
as an unlike

we have to think contradiction

for in the difference which is an inner difference the opposite is not merely one of two
- if it were it would simply be without being an opposite - but it is the opposite of an
opposite - or the other is immediately present in it

certainly I put the 'opposite' here - and the other of which it is the opposite there

thus the supersensible world which is the inverted world has at the same time
overarched the other world and has it within it

it is for itself the inverted world - i.e. - the inversion of itself - it is itself and its
opposite in one unity

only thus is it difference as an inner difference - or difference in its own self - or
difference as an infinity


COMMENTARY:


the internality and externality of thing are its dimensions -

which is to say the formal characteristics of its structure

now Hegel describes the relation of the sensible to the supersensible as inversion

do we say the inside of an entity is the inversion of the outside?

this is to give the relation a definite characterization

the idea is neat in a logical sense - i.e. it does preserve the unity of the entity and yet
define the difference in terms of perspective

and it seems to acknowledge the inside-ness of consciousness

and yes we could just say the inside of a thing is the outside - inverted

why I resist this characterization is that it seems to carry with it much metaphysical
baggage - i.e. the sensible world is in a state of flux - the supersensible the home of
the universal -

this preserves the inversion but it is clear that the idea of inversion is not the simple
geometrical one - it is metaphysically loaded

I think this is a mistake

I think we can give a simple and elegant characterization of mind and body that can be
stated in terms that shows we do not need to fill it up with extraneous metaphysical
issues and properties

that is we can say an entity has an inside and an outside - and we understand this just
as stated - the notion of inversion is not necessary to the idea of inside - to the idea of
the relation of inside to outside

what do we say of this relation?

that one is the opposite of the other?

'opposite' is easy - but like 'inversion' it seems to imply more than just an essential
relation

internality and externality are essential qualities of a thing

these qualities are distinct - internality cannot be changed into externality or visa versa

the space of these qualities is distinct - they exist in different spaces

so I would argue it is not just a matter of a different perspective in the same space -
which is the inversion argument

mind and matter are different dimensions regardless of perspective

furthermore perspective is a function of internality - internality is not a function of
perspective

the internality of a thing is awareness

awareness is not the inversion of its absence

the absence of awareness is its non-existence

the non-existence of a thing cannot be inverted

there is nothing to invert

Hegel 159

Hegel's Phenemenology of Spirit:

159.


ARGUMENT:


superficially this inverted world is the opposite of the first in the sense that it has the
latter outside of it and repels that world from itself as an inverted actual world - that
the one is appearance and the other the in-itself - that the one is the world for another
whereas the other is the world as it is - what tastes sweet is really or inwardly sour

but such antitheses as inner and outer - of appearance and supersensible - as of two
different kinds of actuality - we no longer find here

the repelled differences are not shared between two substances - this would result in
the Understanding withdrawing from the inner world

the one side or substance would be the world of perception again in which one of the
two laws would be operative - and confronting it would be an inner world - just such a
sense world as the first - but in the imagination - it would be exhibited as a sense
world without its characteristics

but in fact if the one posited world is a perceived world - and its in-itself - as its
inversion is equally thought of as sensuous - the sourness would be the in itself of the
sweet thing - and it would thus be a sour thing


COMMENTARY:


Hegel introduces the idea of inversion

in the context of the consciousness and the non-conscious - it is an interesting idea

there is a neat logic to the idea that consciousness is the inversion of the non-
conscious - that what we 'see' is the inversion of what is -

while logically neat the idea has no content - what is inverted - is just what is (not
inverted) - in a different position - a different way of seeing - the same thing

the metaphor is geometrical

the relation of consciousness and non-consciousness can be seen as an issue of
position - but not in such a simplistic way - that is it is not just a matter of reversal

I have argued that consciousness is internality - the internal dimension of an entity
(that has an internal dimension) - and that this is a fundamentally different
philosophical position to the substance arguments of the Cartesians and the
materialists (brain-identity theorists)

I argue we understand a thing fundamentally in terms of its dimensions - that the
substance approach ought to be abandoned -

that is we can know a thing - whatever it is - dimensionally -

that consciousness recognizes itself as internal - and sees its body as external

and that the notion of the unity - as unity - is unknown

so yes my own argument about mind and body is meta-geometrical -

the issue is dimension not substance

dimensions do not interact - they are the formal characteristics of a thing -

and that which has two dimensions is a different kind of thing to that which does not -
or that which is one-dimensional is effectively non-dimensional

thus metaphysically speaking there are two dimensions - the entities that are so
constructed are those entities that have an inside and an outside

internality - the second dimension

we variously describe this internal dimension as 'mind' 'consciousness' 'spirit' - even
'soul'

the essential nature of such an entity as a unity of dimensions - is unknown

we describe the unity in either internal and external terms

there is no non-dimensional language - no way to approach the unity as unity

what we have here is the unknown manifested two dimensionally

this is where we begin

Hegel 158

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

158.


ARGUMENT:


according then to the law of this inverted world what is like in the first world is unlike
to itself and what is unlike in the first world is equally unlike to itself - or it becomes
like itself

expressed in determinate moments - this means that what is the law of the first world
is sweet - in this inverted is sour - what in the former is black in the other is white

what is the law of the first is the north pole of the magnet - in its other supersensible
in itself - in the earth - is the south pole

in another sphere revenge on an enemy is according to the immediate law to the
satisfaction of the injured party - this law forces me to confront him as a person
who does not treat me as such - and in fact bids me to destroy him as an individuality -
this law is turned around by the principle of the other world into its opposite - the
reinstatement of myself as a person through the destruction of the alien personality is
turned into self-destruction

if this inversion finds expression in the punishment of crime and made into a law -it's
only a law of one world - which is confronted by the inverted supersensible world
where what is despised in the former is honoured - and what in the former is honoured
meets with contempt

the punishment which in the first world disgraces and destroys a man is inverted into
the pardon which preserves his essential being and brings him to honour


COMMENTARY:


it is clear that the world of the unity of consciousness and non-consciousness - that
which appears -

presents our perception and that perceived - as a unity

so that we can quite naturally say - what is - is what is seen

this is the first moment of awareness

consciousness does not appear in this unity

the object 'in itself' does not appear in this unity

what appears is the unity of consciousness and non-consciousness

so appearance is a singular experience

however the singular experience as a singularity is without differentiation

consciousness divides

it separates itself out and its object is that which it is not

the separation is based on awareness - awareness of consciousness - as internal - and
thus its object as external

it is clear that the essential logical category of consciousness is negation

the operation of negation - is the operation that defines and differentiates
consciousness from its object

opposition is one form of characterization of this act of differentiation (the logic of
negation)

and inversion - one kind of opposition

anyway the point is consciousness acts in this way -

and it transfers this action to the unity - to the world of appearance -

consciousness acting on and in this unity differentiates

this fundamental action forms the logical or metaphysical basis for subsequent action

action in the world of appearance - the appearance that is unknown independently of
this action

what thus really appears is the appearance of knowledge


NB.


the action of consciousness that reveals consciousness - that results in self-
consciousness is reflection

in the initial state the appearance is unified -

consciousness reflects and thus reveals itself

and in this action distinguishes itself and posits its object

the point here is that consciousness is - in the initial state unknown

unknown to itself

its action - reflection reveals

there is nothing deeper to this

reflection is just what happens - what occurs

it is the revelation of internality

and consequently of externality

this is the first reflection

reflection on this initial reflection is not revelatory in a phenomenal sense

it is interpretive and thus theoretical

Hegel 157

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

157.


ARGUMENT:


through this pronciple the first supersensible world of laws - the immediate copy of
the perceived world is changed into its opposite

the law was like its differences - that which remains selfsame - now it is posited that
each of the two worlds is really opposite itself

the selfsame really repels itself from itself - and what is not the selfsame posits itself
as selfsame

here the like is unlike itself and the unlike like itself

the second supersensible world is in this way the inverted world - the inversion of the
first

for the supersensible world was only the immediate raising of the perceived into the
universal element

it had its necessary counterpart in this perceived world which still retained for itself
the principle of change and alteration

the first realm of laws lackedc that principle but obtains it in the inverted world


COMMENTARY:


to account for the relation that is consciousness in relation with the non-conscious -

to account that is for the world that appears - a world that presents but is unknown -

it is necessary to abstract from the phenomenal - the world of appearance - to its relata
- consciousness - and its object

this is done quite instinctively - in fact it generally takes argument for us to see that
what we have -

what we are presented with is the unity -

that is to say appearance here is the unity of the conscious and non-conscious

and therefore these categories - conscious and non-conscious - are steps back from the
unity

the fact is though - and this is reality - we have no way of comprehending or dealing
with the unity - unless these steps are taken

so in practice - the analytical position is the working position - what we call the real
position -

and this is the division of the unity - into consciousness and non-consciousness -

this is the working posit - or the position of human beings

what I am arguing here is that we do not begin with consciousness as Descartes
argued

but rather that we begin with the unknown as the given reality that is appearance -

and that this appearance can only be analyzed if we see it in terms of the conscious
and non-conscious

it is in so doing that we apprehend the reality of a dimensional existence -

we see - we recognize consciousness as the internal dimension and - the non-
conscious as that which is external

so the reality of consciousness in the world - I'm suggesting is the actual state of
affairs - but it is also an analytical response to the unknown unity

consciousness recognizes itself - and its object - in response to the unknown
the unknown is where we begin

I hasten to add - the unknown is also where we end - but in the process we make a
world - which is to say we give the unknown a working character - many characters

the greatness of Hegel's work is in the fact that he doesn't flinch on the attempt to
give a comprehensive account of reality - he takes it on

and at the basis of this quite heroic endeavour is the assumption that we can know

I don't think he ever seriously questions this assumption

it strikes me that he attempts to begin in the midst of it all - that he has in mind the
relation of consciousness and the non-conscious as his central focus

for Hegel you might say it is then something of a juggling act - he has the two balls in
his hands

and what he argues for - what his juggling results in is the universal

the way I see it we begin with the unity and separate out to the categories of conscious
and non-conscious

my unity though it is 'appearance' - is in an epistemological sense - the unknown

Hegel's unity - the universal - is he thinks the unity of all opposites - the unity that is
knowledge and substance

my argument here is just that his universal is really no more than the unknown -

I am quite happy to accept that beyond appearance - and I mean this in the broadest
sense - is not what does not appear - but what is unknown

Hegel in my terms wants to make the unknown - substantial - a substance - the
universal substance

even if we were to begin with such a view - as Spinoza does - still the question - can
we even say of this (universal) that it is a substance?

to my mind - the granting of substance - though it may seem rather harmless is
nevertheless - without rational basis

by all means let the imagination run wild

Hegel's theory of inversion here - that what is perceived becomes its opposite in
conception is really his attempt to give some logical justification for his metaphysics
as a solution to his account of immediate perception

he can say here the world of conception is the real world - just inverted

if this is so - it is more than just a way of seeing things - Hegel wants to say it is in
fact a truer reality -

OK - but you can always ask - why?

if one is the inversion of the other - what is the essential difference - surely just a
matter of how it is seen?

and if indeed you can see the world in one of two ways - why go with the second - or
why the first?

also you can ask what grounds do we have for this inversion?

that is why ditch the standard view that consciousness is not an inversion of the non-conscious world - or visa versa?

on what grounds do we base this idea of the reversal of position of the internal and external positions?

in is in - out is out - the relationship is essentially logical

you could say here - Hegel has solved nothing - that he has tried to create the opposite
to his theory of perception - by just inverting it - and is then presenting this as the
solution

logically neat - but where is the world in all this?

I have deeper concerns with his account here

as I see it the world of change and alteration is a conceptual world

what we perceive immediately is the unknown - the undefined - the undescribed

reflective consciousness gives this world character - and yes you can define it in terms
of selfsameness and its opposite -

and you can theorize further and argue to something like the opposite of this - Hegel's
universal

all this is well and good - but be clear what you are doing at every stage is theorizing
the unknown

Hegel 156

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

156.


ARGUMENT:


thus this change is not yet a change of the thing itself - but presents as pure change
because the contents of the moments remain the same

this change becomes for the Understanding the law of the inner world

the understanding thus learns it is a law of appearance itself - that differences arise
that are no differences and the self same repels itself

and differences cancel themselves - thus what is not selfsame is self attractive

thus a second law - difference which remains selfsame - this expresses that like
becomes unlike and visa versa

the second law posits the permanence of impermanence

consequently the difference exhibits itself as a difference in the thing in itself or as an absolute difference

and this difference of the thing is thus the selfsame that has repelled itself from itself
and posits an antithesis that is none


COMMENTARY:


the relation of the conscious and the non-conscious is the reality we face

thus for consciousness the object of consciousness does not appear as the thing itself

the thing itself for all intents and purposes is an abstraction - if anything
an abstraction from the appearance

so any change in the object is a change only in the appearance - the object as
appearance

the thing in itself - on a phenomenal level is irrelevant

as a reflective argument it has a function in consciousness - but this is a theoretical
function

the thing in itself cannot be known - so the issue of change does not arise

the object as an appearance is what?

well strictly we don't know

however the function of consciousness is to describe

so the object is consciousness' description

we know consciousness does not remain still

so descriptions change

in a logical sense the object of consciousness as an objective reality is the sum of
possible descriptions

and this does not presume some fixed point that all possible descriptions refer to

the point of descriptions is itself up for argument

these epistemological issues are never resolved qua epistemology

'resolution is only a decision to move or proceed in relation to a conception that provisionally stabilizes the object of consciousness

here it must be understood that issues of 'change' and 'sameness' are arguments that are
never settled qua argument

rather they are acted upon and the action is as close to resolution as is required

finally any action is - despite its apparent determinateness - an argument that can be
opened up

Hegel 155

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

155.


ARGUMENT:


in this tautological movement the Understanding sticks to the inert unity of its object -
and the movement falls only within the understanding

its an explanation that explains nothing - only repeats the same thing

in the Thing itself this movement gives rise to nothing new - it comes into
consideration as a movement of the understanding

in it we detect what is missing in the law - the absolute flux - for this movement is
directly opposite of itself - it posits a difference which is not only a difference for us -
but one which the movement cancels as a difference

this is the same flux as presented itself as the play of forces - soliciting and solicited
forces - but these distinctions were no distinctions - and immediately canceled out

what is present here is not merely a bare unity in which no difference would be
posited - but a movement in which the distinction is made - but canceled

this process of explaining the to and fro of change - which before was outside of the
inner world and present only in appearance - has now penetrated the supersensible
world itself

consciousness has passed over from the inner being as object - to the other side - into
the Understanding - and it experiences a change there


COMMENTARY


yes - the canceling out of the movement - if this is what happens it is a canceling out to
what?

if the movement is canceled - what do we say of it?

that it is an illusion -

for either it is a real movement - which presumes movement is possible - actually
occurs - or it is not -

and as to the status of such - if it is an illusion - what is this to mean?

if it is a comprehended movement - it has some reality

if you want to then say - well reality just doesn't support such a movement -

then it's pretty clear your theory of reality is what is out of whack

the focus of consciousness is like a template that is placed on all conscious experience

if you want to say time moves on - then this template moves with it

the focus of consciousness - of a consciousness - is the action of a particularity within
a non-particular context

consciousness moves with the movement and therefore its focus - while a focus - is
never still

the object in this movement is rendered unknown by the movement

reflective consciousness fixes the object as an argument

this is how the object is held in consciousness

reflective consciousness theorizes and describes the object

this action moves it from the phenomenal realm into the theoretical

this theoretical realm is no timeless form -

the act of description and particularly its expression in language - as it were holds the
moment - this is the idea of it anyway

for operational purposes we assume we are then dealing with a fixed form - and one
therefore we have some hope of dealing with and of manipulating

but really all we have done is create a descriptive event - which in its complexity is
an argument

also it is worth noting we only operate on this level - in these terms given the very real
fact of memory

and memory here I will put is clearly a necessary function for and of consciousness

and it is clear consciousness can only function in memory given a certain physical
state of it functional external - the body

so I am saying the fact of focus - focus in time is no metaphysical conundrum - it is
just the fact of it

reflectively we can say this is what happens

and yes we can try and explain it - and for a lot of reasons - this can be an important
thing to do - it can help us function better in the world

but this is all it is - explanation is simply a ground for function

Hegel 154

Hegel's Phenomenolgy of Spirit:

154.


ARGUMENT:


either the universal - Force - is indifferent to the division that is the law - or the
differences - the parts are indifferent to one another

the Understanding however has the Notion of this implicit difference just because the
law is on the one hand the implicit being - but is at the same time inwardly
differentiated

that this difference is an inner difference follows from the fact that the law is a simple
force - or is the Notion of the difference - and is therefore a difference belonging to
the Notion

but this inner difference still falls to begin with only within the Understanding - and is
not yet posited in the thing itself

it is therefore only its own necessity that is asserted by the Understanding - the
difference here is not a difference of the thing itself

this necessity which is merely verbal is thus a recital of the moments constituting the
cycle of the necessity

the moments are indeed distinguished but their difference is expressly said to be not a
difference of the thing itself - and consequently it is immediately canceled again - this
process is called explanation

a law is enunciated - from this its universal element or ground is distinguished as
Force - but this difference is no difference - the ground is constituted exactly the same
as the law

the single occurrence of lightning is apprehended as a universal - and this law is
enunciated as the law of electricity - the explanation then condenses the law in Force
as the essence of the law

this Force then is so constituted that when it is expressed - opposite electricities
appear - which disappear again into one another - that is Force is constituted exactly
the same as the law - there is no difference between them

Force and law have the same content


COMMENTARY:


a statement or law i.e 'all a's are b's' - strictly speaking can never be asserted in the
first place - we have no grounds for such a proposal

so we ask what is going on in the proposal of law?

it is simply this - universal statements give the appearance of certainty

they are in effect a simple denial of uncertainty

and I would put that they therefore function as platforms on which and from which we
deal with - the true reality of uncertainty

for purposes of action we need such illusions -

they are false platforms - created for the purpose of looking forward and proceeding

in such proposals as 'all a's are b's' - what we have is an argument of unity -

the differences are there 'a' is 'a' - 'b' is 'b' - the argument is that all a's are b's -
which is to dissolve the differences - the particularities - into what -?

clearly just the notion of singularity

and this is really the logic of the idea of singularity -

the argument that particularity dissolves -

dissolves into what?

well here the answer is Hegelian in a sense -

into the opposite of particularity

now it's not hard to see that this conclusion - has no content -

multiplicity is given - unity is posited as its opposite

but here the argument as much of Hegel's argument does - assumes there is always an
opposite - and that the opposite has reality

it is true we can always construct an opposite simply by applying the negation sign

the fact that we can perform this operation - may well be very useful at times

however it doesn't follow that in performing that operation we are pointing to an
actual state of affairs

Buddhism and other mystical traditions are based on the fallacy of negative content

the notion of singularity I am suggesting is without content -

clearly though - even as such it has function in our thinking

perhaps it gives us the idea of space

and in order to organize our actions such an idea is necessary

it is clear that when Hegel speaks of force and law as having the same content what
we are getting from him is alternative descriptions of the unknown

these descriptions are - in terms of the unknown - equivalent

their difference is a matter of function

Hegel 153

Hegel's Phenomenolgy of Spirit:

153.


ARGUMENT:


in the law of motion it is necessary that motion be split up into time and space or
again into distance and velocity

thus motion is only the relation of these factors - the universal - is certainly divided in
its own self

but these parts do not express themselves in a One

they are indifferent to one another - space is thought to be able to do without time -
time without space - distance without velocity - just as their magnitudes are
indifferent to one another - since they are not related to one another as positive to
negative - and are thus not related to one another in their essential nature

the necessity of the division is thus certainly here - but not the necessity of the parts
for one another

but its just for this reason that the first necessity is a sham - a false necessity

for motion itself is not thought of as something simple as a pure essence - but as
already divided - time and space are in themselves independent parts or essences -
distance and velocity - modes of being - ways of thinking

if it is thought of as simple essence motion is no doubt gravity - but this does not
contain these differences at all


COMMENTARY:


what you have with Hegel here is the placing of common sense and the science of the
day in a philosophical arrangement

his philosophy is designed to show that the conceptions of space and time distance
and velocity - can be further resolved into the broader categories of his metaphysics

in this way his philosophy is descriptive

he is proposing a description of the world

now I say this world is the relation between consciousness and the non-conscious -
between the internal and the external

the world is this relation

science is a form of description - an account of this relation

what is clear is that there is no one account of the world - of the relation

human belief systems are testament to this fact of consciousness

how are we to judge one system against another?

what is preferable?

there is no standard that is not a player in the game -

descriptive systems are non-commensurable

what Hegel does is create categories which resolve apparent non-commensurable
theories

but this in effect is just to further fill out his own vision - to show that it has 'universal
applicability' - it is really just what any theorist will attempt to do

even so his description as a complete picture is just one of a number of possible
complete pictures

and as there is no true objectivity in any of this - there is no objective standard to
appeal to

you can only work within your descriptive framework - or change it - or take up with
another

this is the artistry of living - of acting - it is what we do

possibility - this possibility of different views of the world - exists because
'knowledge' - in whatever form it is expressed - is finally only a stratagem for dealing
with the unknown

the unknown gives us the reality of possibility - the indeterminateness of description

consciousness is the awareness of indeterminacy -

consciousness creates possible descriptions

these possible descriptions become real through our actions in the face of the
unknown

Hegel 152

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

152.


ARGUMENT:


the law is present in a twofold manner - once as a law where the differences are
expressed as independent moments - and in a simple withdrawal into itself which can
be called Force in the sense of the Notion of Force - an abstraction which absorbs the
differences of what attracts and is attracted

simple electricity e.g. is Force - but the expression of difference falls within law - this
difference is positive and negative electricity

in the case of the motion of falling - Force is the simple factor of gravity - whose law
is that the magnitudes of the different moments of motion are related to one another as
root to square

electricity itself is not difference per se - not essentially the dual essence of positive
and negative electricity

it has the law of the mode of this being and it has the property of expressing itself this
way

the property is the essential property of this Force - it belongs to it necessarily

necessity is an empty word

Force must - just because it must duplicate this way

of course given positive electricity negative too is given in principle

but that electricity should divide itself in this way is not a necessity

electricity as a simple force is indifferent to its law

it's Notion is indifferent to its being

it merely has this property - which means the property is not necessary

definition does not contain the necessity of its essence - it either exists because we
find it or it exists by means of other Forces

that is its necessity is an external necessity

being through another is to relapse into a plurality of specific laws - which we left
behind in order to consider law as law

it is only with law as law that we are to compare its Notion as Notion - or its necessity

but in all these forms necessity has shown itself to be an empty word


COMMENTARY:


this law of attraction - that which attracts and that which is attracted - is a law that
cannot be put to the test - how could we devise a test to determine if the law does not
apply - in terms of this law - any state of affairs is either that which attracts or that
which is attracted?

it is simply a case of a universal statement - and as such - as it does not exclude
anything - it has no testable content - that is to say in principle it cannot be falsified

according to this law there cannot be anything that does not attract or is attracted

the only thing you can say for it is that it shapes focus - it directs our attention to the
subject of force -

in speaking of electricity as a force Hegel says it is not essentially positive and
negative - and it is not necessary that electricity should divide itself this way - that
electricity is a simple force indifferent to its law of positive and negative attributes

we can say here that any phenomena can be categorized and then described - and that
in essence this is the endeavour of science - levels of description

always we can say that the phenomenon in itself 'is indifferent to' its description

in describing consciousness places phenomena within more and more general
descriptive frameworks

this is the business of dealing with phenomena

outside of this dealing the phenomena is unknown

it is only 'known' in terms of the descriptive attributes given to it

I should point out - we never begin - in this descriptive process with a pristine state -
always we come to description - in the midst of a given description - it is in response
to this given description that we develop our theories - our stratagems for action

however at the same time we see that outside of description primary or secondary -
what is given is unknown

so yes 'definition does not contain the necessity of its essence' -

by the same token there is not I think any non-pragmatic value in retaining the notions
of essence and necessity

on necessity - to get right to it - we cannot know whether the world is necessary or
contingent - the world as it is - if such a concept makes any sense - is simply the world
undefined - which is to say unknown

contingency and necessity are best understood as tools - for dealing with what we face

they are concepts that have a role in certain activities and certain understandings

mathematics has used the notion of necessity as a concept fundamental to its
operations

and empirical science has done the same with contingency

Hegel 151

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

151.


ARGUMENT:


in contrast to specific law we have universal attraction - or the pure notion of law

this notion is seen as the essence - but the true inner being - the determinateness of the
specific law belongs to appearance

but the pure notion of law transcends not just specific law - but law itself

the determinateness is a vanishing moment - it is only the law that is true - not the
moment

the Notion of law as universal attraction must to get its true meaning - be grasped in
such a way - as what is absolutely simple and unitary

the differences in the law return to the inner world as a simple unity

this unity is the inner necessity of law


COMMENTARY:


the idea of the notion of law - of universal law is fair enough - it is just that - a notion

to define it so specifically as 'universal attraction' - is to give this notion - this
universal notion a particular characterization - and in so doing take away from the
universality of the notion

a universal notion - the idea of a universal law - may have some heuristic value - it
may - it may have some emotional value - but essentially the idea is the idea of what
we do not know

to say it is 'universal attraction' destroys the notion - and its value

it's really a case of trying to have it both ways - universality - and specific
characterization -

the idea of essence again may be a useful stratagem - but essence in the sense that
Hegel is putting - is - if it is anything - just what we don't know

I wouldn't say the essence is the unknown

but I would say essence is unknown

determinateness is strictly speaking an illusion and Hegel knows this - it's where he
began

what do we say of determinateness?

the best we can say is that it is the decision to act -

to say the notion of law transcends law as such - is just to do the Hegel thing - but
actually it is also to recognize that laws are made - and made for particular purposes -
and so there cannot be any universality - that is in our descriptions of reality

the notion of law is for Hegel - a necessary posit - it is almost for him it has to be -
even though we have no experience of it

he wants it to be the simple that underlies the complex of experience - the unity that
underlies the diversity

from a practical point of view I can see the utility of such

in practice we do use such a notion

however I would say the purest characterization of experience is to say it is unknown

for any other characterization i.e. as 'diversity' or 'unity' - is really an attempt to
establish a basis for use -

and it is here that contingency and necessity resolve into action


NB:


how are we to determine utility?

what is useful?

my view is that the issue is open

that in truth we don't know in any absolute sense what is useful

we face problems and we face the unknown

I think that which is useful is that which enables us to proceed in the face of the
unknown

now it could be said - well everyone proceeds anyway - no-one stops still -

there is always some action

but this is just to say from a logical point of view -

we have options and we will choose

yes

the question is what to choose?

and once the question is asked -

the state of skepticism is put on notice

so - the considered - the determined action - the chosen action - will be the act that
takes us out of a position of uncertainty

why choose one course of action and not another?

again there are no a priori answers here

we decide for our reasons

and we may find these reasons have no basis when reflected upon

but nevertheless they are the reasons for the moment

they are the reasons that enable - enable action -

they are the 'appearance' of reason

and this is what I mean by utility

- not just any action -

but a considered action

now why should this be a definition of utility - and not just a description of a certain
kind of action - i.e. - 'considered action'?

why that is - is 'considered action' - 'useful action'?

indeed - 'utility' is a philosophical classification

- no action is or is not useful in itself

to describe in this way is to place a framework on action

philosophically speaking there are any number of frameworks

action itself is - in itself - unknown

we give it characterization by framing it

there is no way of 'testing' philosophical frameworks - to decide - which is true

one's perspective here is an outcome of one's philosophical exploration

the argument is always - open

Hegel 150

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

150.


ARGUMENT:


this realm of laws is the truth for the Understanding - and the content of the truth is in
the law

this truth is only an initial truth and does not fill out the world of appearance

the law is present in appearance - but it is not the entire appearance

with every change of circumstance the law has a different actuality

thus appearance retains for itself an aspect that is not the inner world

there are indefinitely many laws

but this plurality contradicts the principle of the Understanding for which the True is
the implicitly universal unity

the many laws must collapse into one law

but when laws coincide they lose their specific character -

i.e. the unification of all laws in universal attraction expresses no other content than
just the mere Notion of Law itself - universal attraction merely asserts that everything
has a constant difference in relation to other things

the expression universal attraction is important in so far as it is directed against the
view that everything is contingent


COMMENTARY:


for the understanding truth is always an open question - we decide out of necessity -
but recognize that such a determination of truth is pragmatic

laws are descriptions of proposed regularities - they are formulations of reflective
analysis

the term 'law' has more to do with epistemological naiveté and vanity than anything
else

we understand a so called law holds if it holds at all only within the set of
circumstances it embraces or describes

any decision to use a law will involve the assumption that its content is true

a proposition is held to be true if we decide to proceed with it - that is - utilize it

a false proposition is a useless proposition

clearly a proposition regarded as true in one set of circumstances could be regarded as
false in another

it is true that our descriptions of the world - our proposals for order and regularity
cannot embrace the whole of appearance

however the 'whole of appearance' is nothing more than the unknown that has not
been characterized by consciousness

a law can be seen as the setting up of a domain of knowledge - in the totality of the
unknown

these domains - have currency so long as they effect action

we need to understand that at any time the great body of knowledge of the world is
essentially a proposal - or really a multitude of proposals for dealing with the
unknown

we can say that what is useful is good -

and this turns the light on utility - what is really useful to human beings?

it is clear that there is no universal answer to this question

my own view is that what is useful is what enables us to proceed

and that finally we all proceed or not in the unknown

Hegel thinks the true is the implicitly universal unity

this is rubbish

the true is what is useful

it is clear that this concept of utility implies multiplicity and flexibility

utility is the pure action of consciousness

'true' is the decision to proceed -

the basis of any such decision is another question -

it may be good or not

the decision is made -

the result will determine the wisdom of the action - or at least will be seen to - or held
to - so determine

yes the idea of a universal law - its value - collapses as soon as you come up with a
law of that kind -

any such law is without content

and it is so because by definition it excludes nothing

therefore there cannot be any particular content to it

nevertheless such 'laws' have value as myths - and out of myths come good stories -
and who's not up for a good story?

Hegel 149

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

149.


ARGUMENT:


the absolute flux of appearance becomes a simple difference through its relation with
the simplicity of the inner world - or the understanding

the inner being is an outcome of the flux or the flux is its essence

but it is a flux that is posited in the inner world as its truth

in other words negation is an essential moment of the universal - and negation is a
universal difference

this difference is expressed in the law - which is the stable image of unstable
appearance

consequently the supersensible world is an inert realm of ideas which though beyond
the perceived world - for this exhibits law only through incessant change - is equally
present in it and is its direct tranquil image


COMMENTARY:


consciousness is the inner world - the inner world is the internal dimension - its
characteristic is awareness

the relation between consciousness and the non-conscious - between the internal and
the external - is the unity of these two dimensions - this unity is appearance

the characteristic of appearance is uncertainty

this uncertainty is reflected in consciousness and in the external world

uncertainty is the essence of awareness

the inner dimension therefore is not an outcome of appearance - of the uncertainty

in a metaphysical sense it exists prior to appearance -

appearance though is what consciousness deals with

the uncertainty of appearance becomes the ground of consciousness - it becomes the
basis of consciousness

the positing of this uncertainty is consciousness' reflection on appearance

assertion and negation are the operational actions of uncertainty

law is the denial of uncertainty

law is not first and foremost a stable image - it is rather the expression of the decision
to act in the face of uncertainty

action is the denial of uncertainty

law is a reflective description of the ground for such action

any such ground is to be true - groundless - however we propose it as if it has
foundation

the assertion of law is purely pragmatic -

it is finally based only on the need to act and to act in a 'rational' fashion - which is to
say an ordered fashion

the tranquil image of law is a ruse

Hegel 148

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

148.


ARGUMENT:


the inner world has come into being for the understanding only as the universal - still
unfilled in itself

the play of Forces has the negative significance of being in itself nothing - its positive
significance is as a mediating agency - but this is outside of the understanding

the inner world through the mediation fills itself out for the understanding

what is immediate for the understanding is the play of Forces - but what is True for it
is the simple inner world

the movement of Force is therefore the True

what is present in the interplay of Forces - the soliciting and the solicited is the
immediate alternation of the determinateness that constitutes the sole content of what
appears - either a universal medium or a negative unity

it ceases immediately on its appearance in determinate form to be what it was on
appearing -

by appearing in a determinate form it solicits the other side to express itself - the latter
now what the first was supposed to be

but these two relations are again one in the same - and the difference of form is the
same as the difference of content

in this way there vanishes all distinction of mutually contrasted Forces - the
distinction between these Forces - soliciting and solicited - passive and negative -
collapses into one

there are no Forces - nor a determinateness of being - nor a stable medium and unity -
nor diverse antitheses

what there is in this absolute flux is only difference as a universal difference - or the
difference into which the many antitheses have been resolved

this difference as a universal difference - is the simple element in the play of Force
itself and what is true in it - it is the law of Force


COMMENTARY:


the inner world - is consciousness' reflection on its object -

its object is that which is to consciousness immediately unknown

the inner world - is just the characterizations given to the object by consciousness

and these characterizations or descriptions are decisions regarding how to operate with
the object

such operational decisions will always involve provisional definitions and strategies
for action

what is immediate for the understanding is the unknown -

which is to say consciousness' awareness that it cannot fix its object in a determinate
manner

and indeed the realization that it has no theory of what such a fix - such
determinateness amounts to

and further that any theory of determinateness even if provisional - is without
foundation or basis

this is to say the object despite its appearances is unknown

and further that the appearances themselves have no basis in knowledge

what Hegel calls the state of flux is just the fact of the unknown as a relation between
consciousness and the world

the relation is uncertain - appearance is uncertain

Hegel 147

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

147.


ARGUMENT:


the inner world or supersensible beyond has come into being - it comes from the
world of appearance which has mediated it - appearance is its essence and its filling

the supersensible is the sensuous and the perceived posited as it is in truth

the supersensible is appearance qua appearance

the supersensible is not immediate sense certainty and perception

the world of appearance - is not the world of sense-knowledge and perception - but the
world as posited as superseded - as the inner world

it is often said the supersensible is not appearance - what is here understood as
appearance is not appearance - but the sensuous world as itself - the actual


COMMENTARY:


appearance is the relation of consciousness and its object - consciousness and non-
consciousness -

the middle term is appearance

appearance that is - is the unity of the internal and the external

and this unity becomes - is - the actual ground of consciousness and the external
world

it is where we begin - though in truth it is not the beginning

Hegel's view here is very strange - appearance as the supersensible - as the inner world

it is not the inner world

and it is not supersensible

the inner world is consciousness -

appearance is a relation between consciousness and the non-conscious

there is no supersensibility involved here

sensibility is the relation between

the sensible world is a relation

what is given in this relation is in the first instance unknown

the relation itself though is necessary

reflection - the operation of consciousness is the creation of characterization

it is in reflection that we have 'knowledge of'

or to be precise the positing of knowledge

knowledge as that which gives us something to go on with

in itself it is nothing but a reflex -

a reflex of consciousness -

in principle no different to a reflex of the body

just the essential - natural - primitive action of the unity in action

Hegel 146

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

146.


ARGUMENT:


the inner world for consciousness is still - a pure beyond - because consciousness does
not yet find itself in it - it is empty - for it is merely the nothingness of appearance -
and the simple or unitary universal

this mode of inner being of things finds acceptance by those who say the inner being
of things is unknowable

we have no knowledge of this inner world as it is here in its immediacy - because in
the void nothing is known - or expressed from the other side

this inner world is the beyond of consciousness

if no further significance is attached to the inner world - there would be nothing to stop
us perceiving something as true that is not true

the void - the holy of holies - we must fill up with reveries appearances produced by
consciousness itself


COMMENTARY:


the inner world for consciousness just is consciousness - consciousness is internality -
and this is all consciousness is -

now what this is - this internality is not known - it is an unknown -

nevertheless it is recognized as a dimension - the internal dimension

consciousness may attempt - in fact does attempt at every move to define itself - to
'find itself' - but the reflective realization of consciousness is that the lack of definition
is the definition of consciousness

the external world is surface - it does not have the depth of consciousness - that is it does not have the dimension of consciousness

the surface is just that - the surface

appearance is strictly speaking a relation -

it is the relation that is the world experienced - that is the relation of the internal and
the external - it is the unity - given

Hegel has got it all wrong in my opinion

and his fundamental mistake is with the nature of consciousness

consciousness is internality

that which does not have consciousness has no internality

the external world - the outside of consciousness - the material world - is purely one dimensional

so there is no question of the inner being of external things

they do not have an inner being

unless that is they possess consciousness

and from what we can see such is an exception and not the rule

so the inner world is not beyond consciousness - the inner world just is consciousness

Hegel's imaginary inner world of things has nothing to do with the issue of truth

what appears (the external world) is what is true - and what does not appear
(consciousness) is what is true

and as to the void - there is no void -

Hegel 145

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

145.


ARGUMENT:


the object now has the extremes of the inner being of Things and the Understanding
and appearance as the middle term

the Understanding sees the inner world through the middle term and it learns about the
close linked unity of these terms


COMMENTARY:


the object has no inner being or understanding

inner being is consciousness

understanding is consciousness operating with and on the object which in itself is
unknown

yes appearance is the middle term - it is the basic relation of consciousness to its
object

the understanding is reflection on this - on this relation

consciousness - the understanding recognizes itself as internality and it recognizes
what it is not - that which is external to it

it operates reflectively with the relation given between itself and the external world

appearance is this relation

'knowledge' is reflection on this relation


NB:


consciousness expresses itself

the non-conscious does not express - there is no self to express

the expression is a function of consciousness' searching for foundation

the foundation does not exist - this fact does not alter the rationale of consciousness

the outside world is the means of consciousness' expression

the immediate outside - the body - is consciousness means of expression

the body enables consciousness to function

the body is consciousness' mechanism

consciousness is the internal dimension of a two dimensional entity

the two dimensional function

the body - the external dimension

the unity that is the action - can only be comprehended in terms of its expression

the unity - in itself - the person - is unknown

Hegel 144

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

144.


ARGUMENT:


the inner truth as the absolute universal - purged of the antithesis between the
universal and the individual is the object of understanding

there now opens up above the sensuous world the world of appearance - a
supersensible world which hence forth is the true world

above the vanishing present world there opens up a permanent beyond - an itself
which is the imperfect appearance of Reason - or the only pure element in which the
truth has essence


COMMENTARY:


for Hegel the inner truth is his conception - the universal - and it is clear that this
absolute universal - is just another reflective step back - or conceptual step back from
reality as given - from the unknown

it seems he wants to say this conceptual argument of the absolute universal is an
accurate description of how the world is - a true account - that the world is not only
understood as this - but is in fact - this

as a pragmatic argument about how to understand the world in order to operate in it -
in principle I have no objection - if it works it works

but clearly for Hegel it is meant to be more than this

the 'sensuous world' is a description of 'immediate experience' - is a description of
...... etc.

my point is that we never get to gold

every description is an attempt to grasp - and an attempt that in fact finally fails

for what it is that we are trying to grasp is the unknown

we are left to fall back on some syntax - on the structure of language

this becomes our foundation - even though we realize its inadequacy - it is all we have

so whatever the reality is that we immediately (whatever this means) come to - its
understanding or its knowledge - will of necessity be a step back

we don't need to posit a supersensible world

we just need to be realistic about the tools we have at our disposal

and we need to accept the uncertainty of our situation

positing alternative realities might be practically useful in specific contexts

however the ground is the ground - dirt is dirt

and all that is done by proposing super realities - is to move the issue of uncertainty
into another context

now you might be able to con someone that in so doing you have solved a problem -
give the impression that there is now an end to it

but in fact all such a move does is restate it

now I am not against doing this - and I think as matter of course this is just what we
do in life -

but let's do it in a clear headed fashion

understanding that what you are doing is re-conceptualizing a state of affairs that is
unknown

we have to deal with the unknown - such is the purpose and function of epistemology

Hegel 143

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

143.


ARGUMENT:


the true essence of things has the character of not being immediately for
consciousness

consciousness has a mediated relation to the inner being

consciousness looks through this mediating play of forces into the true background of
things

the middle term which unites the two extremes - the understanding and the inner
world - is appearance

for we call being that is directly and in its own self a surface show

the totality as totality or as the universal - is what constitutes the inner - the play of
forces as a reflection of the inner into itself

in the universal - the totality - things of perception are expressly present for
consciousness as they are in themselves - as moments that turn into their opposite

the universal is the object that in itself possesses being

the being of this object for consciousness is mediated by the movement of appearance
- in which the being of perception has a merely negative significance

consciousness reflects itself out of this movement back into itself as the true

consciousness converts this truth again into an objective inner - and distinguishes this
reflection of Things from its own reflection into itself - just as the movement of
mediation is likewise objective for it

this inner for consciousness is an extreme over and against it - but it is for consciousness the true - since in the inner as with the in-itself - consciousness possesses the certainty of itself - or the moment of its being for self

but it's not yet conscious of this ground as the being-for-self is a negative movement

this for consciousness is still the objective vanishing appearance

the inner for Consciousness is certainly Notion - but it does not yet know the nature of
the Notion




COMMENTARY:


the true essence of things for consciousness is uncertainty

the world of appearance as a mediated world is this uncertainty

when consciousness looks through this play of mediating forces what it sees is the
unknown

and the unknown is the explanation for - the reason for - uncertainty

consciousness in relation to that which external to it - this relation
is experience - is appearance

this is the middle term

the understanding just is a function of the inner world - and here I mean not the inner
nature of things - but internality - that is consciousness

consciousness is the inner world

and I too would say that being that is directly and in its own self is a surface show

the surface as in the external world

the totality -

the 'totality' - as I understand it is that which is undefined - so any word denoting it is
dummy word - a marker or a placement that signifies the absence of definition

the universal is on the other hand a definition of type - the universal is that which has
members - it signifies membership - so it is just a general classification

its nature has to do really with how we describe - that is how language is structured to
operate in the world

in a way the universal is best seen as an approximation of particularity - a pointing to
it -

we never of course get to it - for it is the unknown

consciousness operates with universald - the universal is its stock and trade - the
universal is form

universals are essentially without content - they are merely proposals of category or
organization

we use them to gather particulars - to make particulars in effect - but the particulars
are just decided contents for a specific purpose

reality is never at issue - everything is real

the question is definition is description - it is here that uncertainty reveals itself as the
essence of consciousness

so the universal is not the object that possess being

the universal is an operation of consciousness - the universal is an action

appearance is just appearance - there is really nothing else to say of it

and what I mean here is that whenever we reflect on it - we come a cropper

a good deal of Hegel's thinking is about how to make appearance not what it is - to
give it a basis that has no movement - or perhaps he would say - higher movement

appearance is just appearance - and what this amounts to is that appearance - as with
any purity - is unknown

that is essence or essences are unknown

reflection is the dissolution of essence -

reflection makes the essence into object

the object thereafter is unstable

yes consciousness does distinguish its reflection of things from its own reflection into
itself

consciousness distinguishes itself from what it is not

that is consciousness - in reflection - distinguishes internality (itself) from externality
(what it is not)

it couldn't be further from the truth to say that consciousness possesses certainty

the essence of consciousness is uncertainty

the self is a reflective construct of consciousness - we are best to understand in terms
of its function - what such a construct enables

consciousness is the inner - and consciousness reflects - its reflection of itself - the
construct of consciousness for consciousness - is indeed unknown -

Hegel 142

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

142.


ARGUMENT:


the first universal is the Understanding's Notion in which force is not yet for itself

the second is now Force's essence as it exhibits itself for and in itself

the first universal would be Force driven back into itself or Force as Substance

the second is the inner being of things qua inner - which is the same as the Notion of
Force qua Notion


COMMENTARY:


Hegel's method is to propose a general term i.e. 'force' - and to then argue that this
name applies to reality

granted we seek and need description of reality - without description we are simply
faced with the unknown - and while this may be a philosophically pure position - in
practice it is of no use -

language focuses and defines -

language is essentially a decision to act -

and for this to be the unknown is effectively disregarded

and to it - or onto it consciousness brings its frameworks

there is no one set of structures that can be applied here

the making of the known is a creative and ultimately baseless exercise

language is the assertion of coverage

so

indeed Hegel's method is essentially what does happen

where it falls down is that Hegel has not understood that the object of consciousness is
the unknown

and that whatever is proposed as its operational alternative - the unknown remains
untouched -

it is not transformed it is simply covered for practical purposes

therefore he is committed to holding that his argument is the truth

in philosophy this charge generally applies across the board

the best any of us can do is present a comprehensive and interesting perspective on
how the world is

what is in fact of most interest in a philosophical theory is ingenuity

what I say of my own view of things is that it's the best I have been able to come up
with so far - that it requires a lot more work - and as to its value in a public sense -
well that is finally a matter of sophistry and chicanery i.e. persuasion

but back to Hegel -

one other thing I would say here is that the idea of taking a term - and then showing or
arguing that it applies in all circumstances - that is the metaphysical argument - is
nothing from nothing

Hegel may well have used any term to have the function that 'force' has in his
argument

in the end he has simply resolved all description into one term

the result paradoxically is that the term has no content

the reason for this is that for a term to have content it must exclude

for this is what definition amounts to

you could ask well what meaning does language as whole have?

it has none

a statement has meaning relative to other statements

there is nothing that language as a whole is relative to

all the relations of language are internal

another thing to consider is the status of universals

here Hegel is speaking of the first and second universals

we must remember his universal argument was his solution to the problem of the
fleeting nature of experience - the problem of here and now

it strikes me that his multiplicity of universals simply is the same problem in different
terms - without his recognition of the problem -

what was the problem for him - now is the solution

it seems metaphysics is often just a matter of packaging

finally I want to say here that Hegel is quite confused about what is in and what is out

the 'inner being' of things is not the 'notion' of things

a notion is an idea had by a concious human being

if a thing has inner being it is a conscious thing

consciousness is internality

and the uncomfortable fact for metaphysicians is that not everything has an inner
being

non-conscious entities have only (relative to conscious entities) a surface dimension

that is they are pure externality

one's notions about things is consciousness' reflection

we make notions in order to effect action

our idea of a thing is simply a theoretical construction designed to facilitate action

the thing itself is mercifully free of our vanities

Hegel 141

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

141.


ARGUMENT:


the notion of Force becomes an actual through its duplication into two Forces

these two Forces exist as independent essences - but their movement is each towards
the other - such that their being is a being posited by the other - their being has the
significance of a pure vanishing

they do not exist as extremes that are fixed and substantial - transmitting to each other
in the middle term of their contact a merely external property - on the contrary they
are only in this middle term and in this contact

in this there is immediately present both the repression within itself of Force or its
being-for-self - as well as its expression - Force that solicits and Force that is solicited

their essence is solely through the other

thus they have no substances of their own that support and sustain them

the Notion of Force preserves itself as the essence in its very actuality

Force as actual exists in its expression

the truth of it remains only the thought of it -

the movements of its actuality - their substances and movements - collapse into an
undifferentiated unity

thus the realization of Force is at the same time the loss of reality - in that realization
it has become something quite different - viz. - this universality - which the
understanding knows at the outset to be its essence and which proves itself to be such
in the reality of Force - in the actual substances


COMMENTARY:


here consciousness and its object are instances of the one universality

the understanding consciousness has of the object - is the reality of the object

consciousness understands itself in terms of force and understands its object as force

this is if you like an account of the middle term - of the relation of consciousness and
its object

the relation is force expressed in consciousness - expressed in its object

'force' is the name of the universal

even so this force argument is post immediacy - post that is raw experience - it is a
reflective and indeed metaphysical account of the relation - of the experience

and yes it is true to say the relation is a relation of unity

the relation is the unity of consciousness and its object

we experience the unity

but the unity as experienced is unknown

consciousness reflects on this - on its unity with object and characterizes it - gives it
'substance' - or at least expression

Hegel's argument that the understanding knows immediately its essence and that this
essence is the actuality of the substances - is not correct

this 'knowledge' is not immediate at all -

it is a reflective argument - an explanation of the unity that presents - immediately -
without knowledge -

it is the ground of knowledge - it is what 'knowledge' rests on

in truth there is no explanation in the sense of a final account - just transitory
hypotheses - that function as explanation

Hegel's notion of force really just gives the unity - the unknown - a name

Hegel 140

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

140.


ARGUMENT:


the Notion of this movement exhibits a two fold difference - one a difference of
content - one extreme - the force reflected into itself - the other the medium of the -
'matters'

and as a difference of form - since one solicits and the other is solicited - the former
active the other passive

according to the difference of content they are distinguished for us -

but according to the difference of form they are independent - and in their relation
keep themselves separate and opposed to one another

these extremes are vanishing moments - the immediate transition of each into its
opposite

this truth becomes apparent to consciousness in its perception of the movement of
Force

but for us the differences are differences of form and content - vanished in themselves

on the side of form the essence of the active - soliciting was the same as that on the
side of content - Force driven back into itself


COMMENTARY:


consciousness in relation to its object - which we now understand as force -

we can only theoretically separate consciousness and its object

consciousness in itself is without object makes no sense - what is reflected in such
consciousness?

the object without consciousness is simply unknown - nothing can be said of it -

so we come to consciousness in the world - and consciousness in relation to it object

the key notion here is relation

consciousness and the object are the two terms of the relation

the relation is the unity of the object and consciousness

and the unity is what the object (the world outside of consciousness) is to
consciousness

and what the object becomes in its relation with consciousness

we can call the immediate relation experience

this experience is the connection between consciousness and its object

it is the unity

experience (the relation) is the ground on which consciousness operates

its operation is reflection

consciousness' reflection on this relation - on experience - is its 'knowledge'

the point is reflection is a reflection of the relation

not the object per se -

not consciousness per se

consciousness and the object really are abstractions out of the relation

the relation is in itself - an unknown - even though it comes into being as
consciousness in the world -

that is as the world as we know it - the world we operate in

we abstract from this to consciousness and its object

we abstract that is the internal dimension and the external dimension

but the real game is what is dead centre - the relation

that is the ground of being

now I think we can only approach this ground of being in terms of its dimensions - the
internal and the external

I don't think logically we can speak directly about the relation that is the unity

we can only speak logically in terms of its dimensions - with the understanding that
the real focus is what we don't know - the relation

nevertheless in fact in practice we do regard the object in terms of consciousness - and
we speak of consciousness as an object

what I think this shows is that we use the categories that we make as best we can
to cover the ground as best we can

reflection on this - which is what philosophy is - shows us very quickly that such
interchanging of subjective / internal categories and objective / external categories -
brakes down

and we are in analysis left point blank with what we do not know

this can lead to despair or creativity - the usual response though is to proceed as if
everything is in order - and to try and make something of it that satisfies our needs

most I think would admit that on reflection this approach is an illusion but a necessary
one

Hegel 139

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

139.


ARGUMENT:


the interplay of the two Forces thus consists in their being determined as mutually
opposed

the soliciting Force e.g. is posited as a universal medium and the one solicited on the
other hand - as Force driven back into itself

the first Force has its determinateness only through the other and solicits only in so far
as the other solicits it to be a soliciting force - and its determinateness passes over to
the other

the solicited Force gives the other its character as a universal medium - it gives
the soliciting Force this character because this determination is essential to it -
because this is its own self


COMMENTARY:


first up we have no explanation of force here -

what we have at best is simply an account of its 'logic' - its soliciting and its being
driven back into itself - there is an attempt to present a description of force as a
dynamic

this is all verbalism

in the first place Hegel just simply introduced force as a category and then did his
thing on it

his argument equally applies to 'x' - or any number of similar terms - i.e. 'essence'

OK - let's say Hegel just does want to introduce force - and say something about it -
because it is an important concept for him -

that is he is setting up his view - and force is in there

nothing wrong with this as such

the point is though we can read these paragraphs on force and really be none the wiser

yes we have various metaphors for its nature and action - but still it has no content

Hegel's description of force is a possible description of reality

that is a particular focus or slant on the workings of consciousness and the world

the term force has for us to begin with wide enough applicability -

from the seventeenth century at least the idea of force as a universal has been part of
the common understanding -

OK - what we need from Hegel is more than just the use of this concept - for it to have
(excuse the pun) 'force' - we need a compelling reason as to why such a notion is to
have a central importance - and a compelling reason is not just common parlance

as it stand all Hegel has done here is give the unknown - a name and some
characterization

there is nothing wrong with this - it is just what we do - but for the characterization to
be of value it needs to be operable - that is it needs to do work - to issue results

as it is with Hegel all we have at this stage is an empty name

this is not to say it might not amount to something - but at the present all we are
getting from Hegel is hot air - without force

Hegel 138

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit:

138.


ARGUMENT:


what appears as an 'other' and solicits Force - proves itself to be Force - for the 'other'
is as much a universal medium as the One - and each of these forms appears as a
vanishing moment

the notion of Force - in that it has an 'other' has gone from a unity to duality -

instead of the antithesis we have two independent forces

the second force solicits the retraction of Force into itself - through its being solicited
to do so

this distinction between solicited Force and soliciting Force is transformed into the
same reciprocal interchange of determinateness


COMMENTARY:


Hegel's argument is that underlying the relation of the conditioned universals (in the
unconditioned universal) is Force

and here he argues that to understand the action of Force we must posit two forces -
or two moments of Force

and Force proper is essentially the alteration of these two moments - i.e. the second
force solicits the retraction of Force into itself

so we have a dynamic in Force - that is the action of Force

the question is I think - do we need to posit force as the explanation of - as the action
behind the movement of consciousness

is not 'force' here just an attempt at explanation of 'movement' - a definition if you
like

a way of characterizing the 'action' of consciousness?

I think the answer is yes -

any explanation of consciousness will simply be consciousness reflecting on its own
action

which in effect is no more than just the very conscious event that is being explained -
for in the end consciousness is reflection

the real question is how do we explain reflection?

characterizing consciousness as a relation of moments - or as the action of forces
underlying these moments - might prove useful in the sense that it does seem to give
us some kind of handle on consciousness

all very well

however any such characterization is just - in the end a reflection - on what?

on reflection

and this you could say is just what self-consciousness is -

we perhaps might like to think that each reflection on reflection - in some way reveals
more - goes deeper into the nature of consciousness

but in the end I am afraid a reflection is just a reflection

and we can only ever account for reflection via reflection

what does this tells us?

it tells us consciousness is an action (reflection) - and that is as far as we can go with
any analysis

does reflection on reflection - reveal 'self-consciousness'?

I use to think so - these days as I just said I think of consciousness as a kind of action

as an internal action

if self makes any sense - in my view it is just internality

and thus consciousness' awareness of itself as inside

that is it is awareness of dimension

and the inside is just the inside

your inside and my inside - no difference per se