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
