On Hegel's 'Science of Logic' : A Realm of Shadows - part twenty.

'Through these pale cold days'

by Isaac Rosenberg (1890 – 1918)

Through these pale cold days

What dark faces burn

Out of three thousand years,

And their wild eyes yearn,

While underneath their brows

Like waifs their spirits grope

For the pools of Hebron again---

For Lebanon's summer slope.

They leave these blond still days

In dust behind their tread

They see with living eyes

How long they have been dead.

'The Old Bedford', Walter Sickert, (1860 – 1942)?

Listen.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich?Hegel?, (1770 - 1831), 'The Science of Logic'.

The Becoming of Essence.

Measure posits a substrate beyond itself, but we are not yet finished with the realm of Being. There remains the short third chapter of Measure, (this chapter is omitted entirely from the 'Encyclopedia Logic'), which previews the 'Doctrine of Essence'. Real Measure ended with Measure external to the Substrate; the point now is to show that externality is equally internal. According to another summary of this chapter: 'everything manifests itself externally, it being of its very essence to do so. Its indifference to this external self-manifestation is, therefore, only opposed in a relative manner to its identity with it. The distinction of quantity and quality constitutes a relative opposition which expresses an absolute identity. Louis Fleischhacker, (1936 - ).

Absolute Indifference. The Understanding contemplates the Infinite For Itself in Infinite For Itself and proclaims its principle to be Absolute Indifference (Indifferenz). Rinaldi claims this category is 'nothing else than an analysis and critique - of unexcelled profundity, lucidity and rigor - of the ultimate foundations of Schellingian metaphysics'. Giacomo Rinaldi. Absolute Indifference is the indifference which, through the negation of every determinateness of being, that is, of quality, quantity, and measure, is a process of self-mediation resulting in a simple unity.

'Being is abstract indifference, and when this trait is to be thought by itself as being, the abstract expression 'indifferentness' has been used – in which there is not supposed to be as yet any kind of determinateness. Pure quantity is this indifference in the sense of being open to any determinations, provided that these are external to it and that quantity itself does not have any link with them originating in it. The indifference which can be called absolute, however, is one which, through the negation of every determinateness of being, of quality and quantity and of their at first immediate unity, that is, of measure, mediates itself with itself to form a simple unity. Determinateness is in it still only a state, that is, something qualitative and external which has the indifference as a substrate'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

[Translator's Note: Indifferenz. 'Indifferentness' is recognized in the OED. I use it here because '-ness' is the normal way of creating abstract nouns in English, and in this passage Hegel stresses the abstractness of the term. I shall revert to the more common 'indifference'. - George Di?Giovanni].

It stands for the proposition that the Substrate and its Nodal Line are in perfect unity. By now the Substrate is posited as immune from externally imposed change. Its external manifestation is merely its state, something qualitative and external which has the indifference for a substrate.

The state of the Substrate is qualitative, external, and a vanishing determinateness. But that which has thus been determined as qualitative and external is only a vanishing something; as thus external with respect to being, the qualitative sphere is the opposite of itself and, as such, only the sublating of itself. In this way, determinateness is still only posited in the substrate as an empty differentiation. But it is precisely this empty differentiation which is the indifference itself as result. And this indifference is indeed concrete, in the sense that it is self-mediated through the negation of all the determinations of being. As such a mediation, it contains negation and relation, and what was called 'state' is a differentiation which is immanent to it and self-referring. It is precisely this externality and its vanishing which make the unity of being into an indifference: consequently, they are inside this indifference, which thereby ceases to be only a substrate and, within, only abstract'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

Heretofore, Quality has been the integrity of the Specifying Measure against quantitative manipulation. But now Quality has been externalized. An externalized internality is a contradiction. Quality as thus external to being is the opposite of itself and as such is only the sublation of itself. Outward determinateness or state is now posited as an empty differentiation. The inner life is the true thing. Nevertheless the inner is nothing without the outer. Therefore, each of the two sides is posited as having to be itself in principle this whole.

'Consequently, the difference present in it is at first essentially one which is only quantitative and external; there simply are two different quanta of one and the same substrate which would thus be their sum, itself posited as a quantum. But the indifference is this fixed measure, the implicitly existent absolute limit which, as connected to those differences, would not itself be in itself a quantum, and would not in any way enter into opposition with others, whether as sum or also as exponent, be those others sums or indifferences. It is only the abstract determinateness which falls into the indifference; the two quanta, in order that they may be posited in it as moments, are alterable, indifferent, greater or smaller relative to one another. However, inasmuch as they are restricted by the fixed limit of their sum, they are at the same time related to each other not externally, but negatively, and this is now the qualitative determination in which they stand to each other. Accordingly, they stand in inverse ratio to each other. This relation differs from the earlier formal inverted ratio inasmuch as the limit is here a real substrate, and each of the two sides is posited as having to be in itself the whole'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

Absolute Indifference is concrete, a mediation-with-self through the negation of every determination of being. Concrete, we know, implies a mediation between being and nothing. It is the opposite of abstract, which implies no indwelling Spirit. Now, mediation between being and nothing (Quality and Quantity) is entirely within the selfhood of the Substrate. Externalities wreak no effect on the thing. The Substrate is beginning to taste freedom. As this mediation [the Substrate] contains negation and relation, and what was called state is its immanent, self-related differentiation. Contains here must be read in the double sense of having it within and preventing it from escaping. The external is not truly external but is the very manifestation of the Substrate. Because of this containment, the Substrate ceases to be only a substrate and in its own self only abstract.

'The Road', 1911, Isaac Rosenberg

'Returning we hear the larks'

by Isaac Rosenberg (1890 – 1918)

Sombre the night is.

And though we have our lives, we know

What sinister threat lurks there.

?

Dragging these anguished limbs, we only know

This poison-blasted track opens on our camp --

On a little safe sleep.

?

But hark! joy-joy-strange joy.

Lo! heights of night ringing with unseen larks

Music showering on our upturned list'ning faces.

?

Death could drop from the dark

As easily as song --

But song only dropped,

Like a blind man's dreams on the sand

By dangerous tides,

Like a girl's dark hair for she dreams no ruin lies there,

Or her kisses where a serpent hides.

Indifference as Inverse Ratio of Its Factors. Dialectical Reason reminds the Understanding of its history. The Understanding emphasized the immediate sameness between Substrate and Measure; Dialectical Reason emphasizes the difference of the two sides. It concedes the relation of Measure and Substrate a, b, but it asserts that Measure c is also different from Substrate. c is said to be fixed measure. It represents the limit to the Substrate. By this Hegel means that all Measure relations are now conceptually present to define the thing. Since it is metonymic, Substrate is finally manifested only when every Measure relation is accountedfor. Of course, this is empirically impossible, but this is just to say that empirical knowledge of things is always partial. If we are really to understand the Substrate, all its measures must be present and accounted for.

Absolute Indifference

And if all these Measures are present, the Substrate has gained an immunity from the will of the Measurer. Since the measurer has nothing to add, the role of external reflection is over. A determination of indifference is posited within the indifference itself and the latter is therewith posited as being for itself.

'We now have to see how this determination of indifference is posited in the indifference itself and the latter is posited, therefore, as existing for itself. 1. The reduction of at first independently accepted measure-relations establishes their one substrate; this substrate is their continuing into one another and is, therefore, the one indivisible independent measure which is wholly present in its differentiation. Present for this differentiation are the two determinations contained in the measure, quality and quantity, and everything depends on how these two are posited in it. But this is in turn determined by the fact that the substrate is at first posited as result and, though in itself mediation, this mediation is not yet posited as such in it; for this reason, it is in the first instance substrate and, with respect to determinateness, indifference'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

Hegel names the inverse Ratio of the complete totality of Measures the Inverse Ratio of Its Factors (umgekehrtes Verh?ltnis ihres Factoren).

Inverse Ratio is a term from chapter six. In xy = 16, an increase in x led to a decrease in y. The variables x and y were open to external manipulation by the mathematician. But there was a limit to the mathematician's power over x and y; she couldn't make x or y equal to 16. This resistance helped re-establish Quality in Quantum. In Inverse Ratio, the exponent 16 stayed fixed, through the will of the mathematician. Now, fixed measure c has become limit, which implies immunity from the will of a measurer. Hegel describes the difference between the primitive and more advanced Inverse Ratios as follows: here the whole is a real substrate and each of the two sides is posited as having to be itself in principle [an sich] this whole.

The point is ultimately simple. Measure is fixed. The entire series of Measures the indivisible self-subsistent measure which is wholly present. Each side - Measure and Substrate -purports to be the whole thing and its organizing other. Recall that Quantity stands for openness to external determination. So if the Inverse Ratio of the Factors is the whole thing, a measurer can only add an extra measure by subtracting from the whole a comparable Quality and Quantity. This is why the Factors are in an Inverse relation. Something new is added only at the expense of something old. This implies that external determination has been canceled. According to Michael Baur:

'Thought finds itself condemned to a perennial and arbitrary interplay of qualitative and quantitative alterations which lack any stable substance or truth of their own. In order to overcome this bad infinite regress, one cannot appeal to yet another kind of external determination, for the mere appeal to another determination as such can only perpetuate the infinite regress. The problem can be overcome only when one succeeds in articulating a kind of relation which is not a relation to Other at all, but rather a kind of self-relation. That is, once the sphere of Being has shown itself in its nullity, one must enter a sphere where all transition is no transition at all'.

- Michael Baur, 'Sublating Kant and the Old Metaphysics: A Reading of the Transition from Being to Essence in Hegel's Logic'

Inverse Ratio of the Factors

Hegel at first presents the Inverse Ratio of the Factors as a quantitative ratio, but we are not to think that the Substrate is therefore the sum of these quanta. Quantity here stands for the perfect continuity of c with b, in such a manner that it c] would not be a quantum or opposed in any way, either as a sum or even as an exponent, to other quanta. Quantum stands for openness to externality of the Ratio of Measures [b, whose abstract determinateness falls into indifference. We are beyond that now.

The sides of the Inverse Ratio of the Factors are quantitative and continuous, but they are still presented as different; each is a Quality. Suppose one side is put forth as a Quality. Hegel suggests that the other side must surrender its Quality and be merely quantitative. Two Qualities cannot meet each other as mere oppugnancies in Shakespearean terms?(oppugnant: combative, antagonistic, or?contrary). Ulysses. (1564 – 1616).

Take but degree away, untune that string,

And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets

In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters

Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores

And make a sop of all this solid globe:

Strength should be lord of imbecility,

And the rude son should strike his father dead:

Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,

Between whose endless jar justice resides,

Should lose their names, and so should justice too.

- 'Troilus and Cressida', Act 1, Sc. 3

One must strike the other down. Thus, of the two Qualities, Hegel says that one of them is sublated by the other.

'According to the qualitative determinacy just stated, the difference is present, further, in the form of two qualities, each of which is sublated by the other and yet, since the two are held together in the one unity which they constitute, is inseparable from it. The substrate itself, as the indifference, is in itself likewise the unity of the two qualities; consequently, each of the sides of the relation equally contains both sides within itself and is distinguished from the other by a more of one quality and a less of the other, or conversely. The one quality, through its quantum, only predominates on the one side, as does the other quality on the other side'. - 'The Science of Logic'

But they are unified in a ratio nevertheless. And, Hegel further says, neither is separable from the other. So the assertion of one Quality at the expense of the other is a useless endeavor. Externality by now is defeated, and everything is in everything else. Therefore each side of the relation, too, contains both sides within itself and is distinguished from the other side only by a more of the one quality and a less of the other, and vice versa!. Yet, in spite of universal interpenetration, the two sides are thus at the same time posited as self-subsistent relatively to each other.

'Thus each side is in it an inverted relation which, as formal, recurs in the two distinguished sides. The sides themselves thus continue into each other also according to their qualitative determinations; each of the qualities relates itself in the other to itself and is present in each of the two sides, only in a different quantum. Their quantitative difference is that indifference in accordance with which they continue into each other, and this continuation is the self-sameness of the qualities in each of the two unities. – The sides, however, each containing the whole of the determinations and consequently the indifference itself, are thus at the same time posited as self-subsistent vis-a-vis each other'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

This self-subsistence of the sides is a fault that cannot carry over into the Doctrine of Essence. So far the Substrate is not expressly the unity that holds together external appearances. The moments of the ratio are not yet explicitly self-determined, i.e. are not yet determined as sublating themselves into a unity within themselves and through one another.

'2. As this indifference, being is now the determinateness of measure no longer in its immediacy but in the developed manner just indicated; it is indifference because it is in itself the whole of the determinations of being now resolved into this unity; and it is existence as well, as a totality of the posited realization, in which the moments themselves are the totality of the indifference existing in itself, sustained by the latter as their unity. But because the unity is held fast only as indifference and consequently only implicitly in itself, and the moments are not yet determined as existing for themselves, that is, are not yet determined as sublating themselves into unity internally and through each other, what is here present is therefore simply the indifference of the unity itself towards itself as a developed determinateness'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

The indifference of the unity is also indifference to self. We must now also see posited an indifference toward indifference - a negation of the negation. Of the pre-essence stages of Absolute Indifference and Inverse Ratio, Hegel speaks of three deficiencies. First, the determinate being of the Substrate is groundlessly emerging in it.

'This thus indivisible independent measure is now to be more closely examined. It is immanent in all its determinations and in them it remains in unity with itself and undisturbed by them. But, (a) since the determinacies sublated in it implicitly remain the totality, they emerge in it groundlessly. The implicit being of indifference and its existence are thus unconnected; the determinacies show up in the indifference in an immediate manner and the indifference is in each of them entirely the same. The difference between them is thus posited at first as sublated, hence as quantitative – for this reason, therefore, not as a self-repelling; and the indifference not as self-determining, but as having and becoming the determinate being that it has only externally. (b) The two moments are in inverse quantitative relation – a fluctuating on the scale of magnitude which is not however determined by the indifference, which is precisely the indifference of the fluctuation, but only externally. For the determining appeal is made to an other which lies outside the indifference. The absolute, as indifference, has in this respect the second defect of quantitative form, namely that the determinateness of the difference is not determined by the absolute itself, just as it has the first defect in that the differences emerge in it only in general, that is, the positing of them is something immediate, not a self-mediation. (c) The quantitative determinateness of the moments which are now sides of the relation constitutes the mode of their subsistence; their existence is by virtue of this indifference withdrawn from the transitoriness of quality. But they do have a subsistence of their own in themselves, one that differs from this quantitative existence, for they are in themselves the indifference itself, each the unity itself of the two qualities into which the qualitative moment splits itself. The difference of the two moments is restricted by the fact that the one quality is posited on the one side with a more and in the other with a less, and the other is posited in inverse order accordingly. Each side is thus in it the totality of the indifference. – Each of the two qualities taken singly for itself likewise remains the same sum which the indifference is; it continues from one side into the other without being restricted by the quantitative limit which is thereby posited in it. At this, the determinations come into immediate opposition, an opposition which develops into contradiction, as we must now see'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

The Substrate still displays a moment of logical unconnectedness to its Nodal Line. No self-repulsion is on yet display. This is the qualitative fault.

Second, external reflection can assign to the Substrate the role of quality or quantity, in which case the other is quantity or quality respectively. Difference between the sides is imposed externally, whereas essence must be in and for itself. This is the quantitative fault; each side can be determined as quality or quantity.

Third, since the sides can be assigned a qualitative or quantitative role, the sides are themselves in an inverse relationship. One side is indifferently Quality or Quantity. This implies that each side is inherently already both Quality and Quantity. Hence each side is in its own self the totality of the indifference. Each side therefore contains an opposition. This is the speculative fault of the pre-essence stages. Because each side is the totality, neither can go outside itself. To go into other is only to go into self. The pre-essence stages now pass beyond Quantity, which by definition always goes beyond itself. Going into the beyond (transition) has now gone into the beyond. Yet if there is no transition and hence no Quantity, there can be no Quality. Quality isolated is Pure Being. Pure Being is Pure Nothing, and so Quality too sublates itself.

In the penultimate paragraph of this section, Hegel tries for a very subtle point. The determinateness of the factors (in their zero-sum mode) requires a distinct difference between Quality and Quantity. The complete interpenetration suggests that the determinateness of the factors vanishes. This point presupposes his Remark on centripetal and centrifugal force. It is best to defer analysis pending Hegel's critique of these countervailing forces. Hegel concludes by saying that the dialectic opposition in Inverse Ratio of the Factors is a contradiction in every respect. Inverse Ratio of the Factors therefore has to be posited as sublating this its contradictory nature and acquiring the character of a self-determined, self-subsistent being which has for its result and truth not the unity which is merely indifferent, but that immanently negative and absolute unity which is called essence.

'This unity thus posited as the totality of the process of determining, itself determined in this process as indifference, is a contradiction all around. It must therefore be posited as this self-sublating contradiction, and be determined as subsistence existing for itself, one which no longer has a merely indifferent unity for result but a unity immanently negative and absolute. This is essence'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

Centripetal and Centrifugal Force. The last section described the relationship of a whole which is supposed to have its determinateness in the quantitative difference of two factors determined qualitatively against each other. This relation is exhibited by the movement of the planets. According to the pre-Newtonian theory, centripetal force draws the planets toward the center. Centrifugal force drives the planets away from the center. Their equilibrium is an elliptical orbit.

These forces, Hegel implies, are not an example of Inverse Ratio of the Factors. Such a ratio is constituted by Specified Measures which are complete unto themselves, indifferent to each other, yet diffused with Substrate. Instead, Hegel says, centripetal and centrifugal force are only two qualities in inverse relation to each other.

'The relation of a whole whose determinateness is to be had in the difference in magnitude of factors qualitatively determined against each other is used in the case of the elliptical movement of the celestial bodies. This example displays throughout only two qualities in inverse relation to each other, not two sides each of which would be itself the unity of the two and their inverse relation. The bare fact on which the theory is based is solid enough. But because of this solidity the consequence to which the theory leads is overlooked, namely the wrecking of the bare fact itself on which it is based or, if this is held on to (as it ought), the trivialization of the theory vis-`a-vis it. By ignoring the consequence, the fact and the theory contradicting it are left to rest untroubled side by side. – The bare fact is that in the elliptical movement of the celestial bodies their velocity accelerates as they approach perihelion and decreases as they approach aphelion. The quantitative side of this fact has been accurately established by the untiring diligence of observation and, further, it has been reduced to its simple law and formula. All that is legitimately required of a theory has thus been provided. But it did not seem sufficient to the reflection of the understanding. For the purpose of a so-called explanation of the phenomenon and its law, a centripetal and a centrifugal force have been assumed as the qualitative moments of movement along a curved line. Qualitatively, their difference lies in the contrariety of their direction; quantitatively, granted that the two are unequally determined, in that as one increases, the other is supposed to decrease, and vice-versa; and also, in that the relation between the two is suddenly reversed again, for after the centripetal force has been increasing for a length of time and the centrifugal force has decreased accordingly, a point is reached at which the centripetal force decreases and the centrifugal increases. But what contradicts this way of imagining things is the reciprocal relation of the essentially qualitative determinateness of the two forces which will simply not allow their being taken apart. For each force has meaning only with respect to the other; and to the extent, therefore, that the one had an excess over the other, to that extent it would have no connection with this other and would not be. – If it is assumed that one of them is at one time greater than the other and stood in relation to the smaller precisely as greater, then what was said above applies, namely that the greater would gain absolute predominance and the smaller would vanish; it is as something vanishing, lacking support, that the latter is being posited, and nothing is altered in this determination by supposing that the vanishing happens only gradually, or that it decreases only as much as the other increases, for the one force that increases is destroyed together with the other that decreases, since it is what it is only to the extent that the other is what it is. It takes but little consideration to see that if, for example, a body’s centripetal force increases as it approaches perihelion, as it is claimed, while the centrifugal force decreases in the same proportion, the latter force would no longer be able to pull the body away from the former and steer it again at a distance from the central body. On the contrary, since the one force has gained the upper hand, the other is overpowered, and the body will be driven with accelerated velocity to its central body. And conversely, if the centrifugal force gains the upper hand when infinitely near to aphelion, it is contradictory that now, right in aphelion, it would be overpowered by the weaker force. – Further, it is evident that it is an alien force which would produce this turnabout, and this means that the sometimes accelerating, sometimes decelerating, velocity of the movement cannot be ascertained or, as it is said, explained from the assumed determination of the very factors which were assumed precisely for the sake of explaining this difference. The logical consequence of the vanishing of the force in either direction and thus of elliptical movement in general is ignored and obscured because of the undeniable fact that this motion does endure, shifting from accelerating to decelerating velocity. The assumption of the sudden conversion in aphelion of the weakness of the centripetal force into the predominating strength of the centrifugal force, and of the converse in perihelion, implies for one thing our earlier result, namely that each of the two sides of the inverse relation is in it the whole inverse relation. For the side of the motion from aphelion to perihelion, that is, the side where the centripetal force is taken to predominate, is still supposed to contain the centrifugal force, though in decreasing proportion as the other increases; and, on the side of the retarded motion, the predominant and ever more predominating centrifugal force is supposed to be present in an exact inverse relation to the centripetal; so that on neither side does one of the two forces ever vanish but only becomes smaller up to the moment of its sudden conversion into the predominant force. All that thus transpires on each side is the defect typical of an inverse relation, in this case namely, that either each force is taken to be self-subsistent for itself (but then the two forces merely join in a movement externally, as in the parallelogram of forces, and the unity of the concept, the nature of the thing itself, is consequently done away with), or, since each relates to the other qualitatively by virtue of the concept, neither can attain in face of the other the indifferent independent subsistence which a more supposedly imparts to it. The form of intensity, the so-called dynamic factor, changes nothing, because it too has its determinateness in quantum and hence can express force (that is, has concrete existence) only to the extent that it is confronted by an opposing force. But this same sudden conversion of a predominating force into its opposite also implies the alternation of the qualitative determination of positive and negative, the increase of the one being just as much the loss of the other. But the theory breaks up the indivisible qualitative bond of this qualitative opposition into a temporal succession and consequently begs the explanation of the qualitative alternation and, most of all, of the breaking up itself. There is no trace left here of the semblance of unity which is still to be found in the increase of the one side accompanied by the corresponding decrease of the other; all that we have is a merely external succession which contradicts what the bond between the two entails, namely that as one predominates, the other must disappear'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

The inverse relation of centripetal and centrifugal force, Hegel claims, destroys the basic facts of astronomy. Or if as is proper the fact is retained it escapes notice that the theory proves to be meaningless in face of the fact.

'Landscape with Flowering Trees', Isaac Rosenberg (1890 – 1918)

'On?receiving?news?of?the?war'

by Isaac Rosenberg (1890 – 1918)

Snow is a strange white word.

No ice or frost

Has asked of bud or bird

For Winter's cost.

?

Yet ice and frost and snow

From earth to sky

This Summer land doth know.

No man knows why.

?

In all men's hearts it is.

Some spirit old

Hath turned with malign kiss

Our lives to mould.

?

Red fangs have torn His face.

God's blood is shed.

He mourns from His lone place

His children dead.

?

O! ancient crimson curse!

Corrode, consume.

Give back this universe

Its pristine bloom.

According to Johannes Kepler's,?(1571 – 1630), second law, planets in elliptical orbit sweep equal areas with every increment of time. Accordingly, velocity is accelerated as [planets] approach perihelion and retarded as they approach aphelion. Perihelion is the closest distance from the sun. Aphelion is the farthest.This fact, Hegel explains, has been accurately ascertained by the untiring diligence of observation, and further, it has been reduced to its simple law and formula. Hence all that can properly be required of a theory has been accomplished. But for Hegel this is insufficient. The theory assumes the forces are qualitatively opposed moments. Quantitatively, however, one increases and the other decreases, as the planets, in their evil mixture, pursue their orbits. At some point, the forces reverse in dominance, until the next tipping point is reached. Separation of centripetal and centrifugal force is untenable, however.

Each force only has meaning in relation to the other. Neither can exist on its own. This recalls Hegel's critique of calculus, where δy or δx were qualitative and meaningless outside the ratio δy/δx. To say, then, that one of the forces preponderates is to say that the preponderant force is out of relation with its fellow to the extent of the surplus. But this is to say that the surplus does not exist. It requires but little consideration to see that if, for example, as is alleged, the body's centripetal force increases as it approaches perihelion, while the centrifugal force is supposed to decrease proportionately, the [centrifugal force] would no longer be able to tear the body away from the former and to set it again at a distance from its central body; on the contrary, for once the former has gained the preponderance, the other is overpowered and the body is carried towards its central body with accelerated velocity.

Only an alien force could save centrifugal force from being overwhelmed. And this is tantamount to saying that the force that guides the planets sans check cannot be explained. The alternation of the forces implies that each side of the inverse relation is in its own self the whole inverse relation. The predominant force implies its opposite, servient force. The servient force never vanishes. All that recurs then on either side is the defect characteristic of this inverse relation.Either each force is wrongly attributed a self-identical existence free and clear of the other, the pair being merely externally associated in a motion (as in the parallelogram of forces). The parallelogram of forces describes the phenomenon that if two forces exist as vectors, their average vector forms a parallelogram with the original vectors, provided one of the original vectors is multiplied by the imaginary number, √ - l.

Or neither side can achieve an indifferent, independent subsistence in the face of the other, a subsistence supposedly imparted to it by a more.

Vanishing. Prior to his remarks on centripetal and centrifugal force, Hegel makes a point that can now be more conveniently apprehended. Hegel has said that, if centripetal force were really predominant, it would sublate centrifugal force once and for all, causing the planet to fly mothlike into the sun. Hegel indicates in the prior section that, in Measure generally, this sublation must logically occur. The Inverse Ratio of Factors is immune from outside manipulation because it represents the entire world of outward appearance - all the Measures there are. Yet there are two sides - Substrate and the Measures by which Substrate manifests itself. Any attempt of external reflection to intervene in order to call one side or the other qualitative is like the astronomer who intervenes to break down orbit into constituent parts.

The Inverse Ratio of Factors, like the orbit, is now immune from outside intervention. Each of these hypothetical factors vanishes, whether it is supposed to be beyond or equal to the other. The mere isolation of these, in the face of a perfect equilibrium, implies their sublation in general. This self-abolition of Quality and Quantity constitutes itself as the sole self-subsistent quality. This argument, if valid, establishes b, c in Inverse Ratio of the Factors as an inherent incompatibility with itself, a repelling of itself from itself.

'But as so repelled, the determinations are not self-possessed – do not emerge as self-subsistent or external but are rather as moments: first, as belonging to the unity whose existence is still only implicit, they are not let go by it but are rather borne by it as their substrate and are filled by it alone; and, second, as determinations immanent to the unity as it exists for itself, they are only through their repulsion from themselves. Instead of some existent or other, as they are in the whole sphere of being, they now are simply and solely as posited, with the sole determination and significance of being referred to their unity and hence each to the other and to negation – marked by this their relativity'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

This self-repulsion is the step that Speculative Reason identifies. Is the argument valid? My conclusion is yes. At the point where the argument is hazarded, the Substrate was metonymic. It was a negative unity of all the Measure relations with all other Substrates in the world. Measure, being fixed, does not permit quantitative disequilibrium. The very attempt of any such surplus to manifest itself is self-destructive. Any such manifestation puts the surplus - a qualitative proposition - in a lethal isolation from the thing. This selfidentity is thus radically incommensurate with any other thing, including itself. Such an entity destroys itself by its very logic.

Transition into Essence. Absolute Indifference, Hegel says, is the final determination of being before it becomes essence. This must be read in a technical sense. The Understanding makes affirmative propositions. Absolute Indifference is the final attempt by the Understanding to state what is. In our conventional mode of depicting the official moves in the Logic, the Understanding Essence shifted the middle term over to the left side of Essence the diagram. This is the last such move. In the 'Doctrine of Essence' the Understanding shifts the middle term over to the right, to explain what is not. In effect, the Understanding becomes Dialectical Reason. Later, it will become speculative Reason (in the Subjective Logic).

Absolute Indifference is not yet Essence. An external reflection still distinguishes a Substrate from the complete set of Measures called the Inverse Ratio of Its Factors; it still contains difference as an external, quantitative determination; this is its determinate being. Absolute Indifference is only implicitly the absolute, not the absolute grasped as actuality.

'Absolute indifference is the final determination of being before the latter becomes essence; but it does not attain essence. It shows that it still belongs to the sphere of being because it is still determined as indifferent, and therefore difference is external to it, quantitative. This externality is its existence, by which it finds itself at the same time in the opposition of being determined over against it as existing in itself, not as being thought as the absolute that exists for itself. Or again, it is external reflection which insists that specific determinations, whether in themselves or in the absolute, are one and the same – that their difference is only an indifferent one, not a difference in itself. What is still missing here is that this reflection should sublate itself, that it would cease to be the external reflection of thought, of a subjective consciousness, but that it would be rather the very determination of the difference of that unity – a unity which would then prove itself to be the absolute negativity, the unity’s indifference towards itself, towards its own indifference no less than towards otherness'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

Actuality, Hegel says, requires that the differences be posited as indifferent. The further step that is needed is to grasp that the reflection of the differences into their unity is not merely the product of the external reflection of the subjective thinker, but that it is the very nature of the differences of this unity to sublate themselves. Speculative Reason always names the activity that unifies the sides. This unity is that the sides sublate themselves. Hegel therefore identifies the unity of the existential differences as absolute negativity. This negativity (Essence) is a truly radical indifference. It is an indifference to Being, which is therefore an indifference to itself, and even an indifference to its own indifference.

Essence

Essence is the repulsion of itself from itself. It is an active principle, in the nature of Pure Quantity. Indeed, at the beginning of Essence, Hegel confirms: In the whole of logic, Essence occupies the same place as quantity does in the sphere of being; absolute indifference to limit.

'Essence is in the whole what quality was in the sphere of being: absolute indifference with respect to limit. Quantity is instead this indifference in immediate determination, limit being in it an immediate external determinateness; quantity passes over into quantum; the external limit is necessary to it and exists in it. In essence, by contrast, the determinateness does not exist; it is posited only by the essence itself, not free but only with reference to the unity of the essence. – The negativity of essence is reflection, and the determinations are reflected – posited by the essence itself in which they remain as sublated'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

Essence is therefore a return to quantity, but in an enriched form - a form which never leaves itself as it repels itself from itself. Quantity, in contrast, had a definite beyond into which it continued. Quantity was in effect the announcement, I am whatever my radical Other says I am. Essence is the opposite. It announces, I am not my external being, my appearance. Essence is therefore a negative version of Quantity. It names the act of expelling its own Being. What is the fate of expelled Being? These dejecta do not emerge as self-subsistent or external determinations.

'But as so repelled, the determinations are not self-possessed – do not emerge as self-subsistent or external but are rather as moments: first, as belonging to the unity whose existence is still only implicit, they are not let go by it but are rather borne by it as their substrate and are filled by it alone; and, second, as determinations immanent to the unity as it exists for itself, they are only through their repulsion from themselves. Instead of some existent or other, as they are in the whole sphere of being, they now are simply and solely as posited, with the sole determination and significance of being referred to their unity and hence each to the other and to negation – marked by this their relativity'.

- 'The Science of Logic

As Hegel explains elsewhere, in the sphere of Essence one category does not pass into another, but refers to another merely. In Being, the form of reference is purely due to our reflection on what takes place: but it is the special and proper characteristic of Essence. In the sphere of Being, when something] becomes another, the something] has vanished. Not so in Essence: here there is no real other, but only diversity, reference of the one to its other. The transition of Essence is therefore at the same time no transition: for in the passage of different into different, the different does not vanish: the different terms remain in their relation.

'In Essence no passing-over takes place any more; instead, there is only relation. In Being, the relational form is only [due to] our reflection; in Essence, by contrast, the relation belongs to it as its own determination. When something becomes other (in the sphere of Being) the something has thereby vanished. Not so in Essence: here we do not have a genuine other, but only diversity, relation between the One and its other. Thus, in Essence passing-over is at the same time not passing-over. For in the passing of what is diverse into another diversity, the first one does not vanish; instead, both remain within this relation. For instance, if we say 'being' and 'nothing', then being is by itself and nothing is by itself too. The situation is not at all the same with the 'positive' and the 'negative'. Certainly, these contain the determination of being and nothing. But the positive makes no sense by itself; rather, it is strictly related to the negative. And the situation is the same with the negative. In the sphere of Being, relatedness is only implicit; in Essence, on the contrary, relatedness is posited. This then is in general what distinguishes the form of Being from that of Essence. In Being, everything is immediate; in Essence, by contrast, everything is relational'.

- 'The Science of Logic'

They are borne by and retained as ideal moments of the essential thing. Things are only through their repulsion of their Measures from themselves. Appearances are authentic to the Essence of the thing. But they are not what they are affirmatively. This is the now superseded error of the Understanding. Rather, these beings are sheer positedness. 'The great divide between the sphere of being, which we have now left behind, and the sphere of essence, is that in the latter, things are determinate only insofar as they are 'posited,' and thus only in relation to ... essence', explains Robert M.?Wallace.

A positedness, in Essence, is what determinateness was in the realm of Being. It is a relation between the affirmative and the negative, with the understanding that the affirmatives are really negations of negations. Being has now abolished itself which is to say in the manner of Romeo cut off its own head (well ok he did cut off his own head albeit indirectly) with a golden axe and exiled itself to a negative beyond.

FRIAR??

Here from Verona art thou banishèd.

Be patient, for the world is broad and wide.?

ROMEO??????

There is no world without Verona walls,

But purgatory, torture, hell itself:

Hence ‘banishèd’ is banished from the world,

And world’s exile is death; then ‘banishèd’

Is death mistermed. Calling death ‘banishèd’,

Thou cut’st my head off with a golden axe,

And smilest upon the stroke that murders me.

- 'Romeo and Juliet', Act 3, Scene 3

And in this self-banishment, the presupposition with which the entire Logic began has sublated itself. Being turns out to be only a moment of Essence's repelling.The self-identity for which Being strived so assiduously is only as the resulting coming together with itself. Being is now Essence, a simple Being-with-Self.

Conclusion. Hegel's theory of measure differs starkly from that which emanates from analytic philosophy, in that Hegel identifies Quality as a constituent part of Measure. According to one example: 'Most scientific theories - if one is willing to translate predicates into characteristic functions [i.e., universal truths] one could say all scientific theories - express relations among quantities. To test a theory or to apply it therefore requires measurement'. Henry E.?Kyburg?Jr. (1928–2007). In this account, there is no definitional work on what quantity is, let alone quality. Kyburg seems to equate quantity with Hegelian Measure. Thus there are 'kinds of quantities'. In general, the concept of quantity is treated as self-evident. Quantity at times seems to be nothing other than language stripped of its connotative penumbra. 'If it were the case that we could speak without a background fund of information and convention concerning the application of language, then it would be possible for us to develop notions of quantity analogous to those with which we actually operate'.

It concerns itself with a theory of error in order to describe the gap between observation and axiomatic truth and yet to put the problem in this way is to re-inscribe the dogma of axiomatic truth as the ultimate criterion after all and there can be no gap if there is no truth. For Hegel the gap between measure and background truth is constitutional for in the background is the very gap that analytic philosophy would subjectivise by attributing it to the observer and for Hegel measurement cannot possibly be accurate, because any thing is at its very heart Measureless and there is no possibility of amending once and for all the missteps of measurement.

'The Fountain', 1911, Isaac Rosenberg

'My Days'

by Isaac Rosenberg (1890 – 1918)

My days are but the tombs of buried hours ;

Which tombs are hidden in the piled years ;

But from the mounds there spring up many flowers,

Whose beauty well repays their cost of tears.

Time, like a sexton, pileth mould on mould,

Minutes on minutes till the tombs are high ;

But from the dust there fall some grains of gold,

And the dead corpse leaves what will never die-

It may be but a thought, the nursling seed

Of many thoughts, of many a high desire ;

Some little act that stirs a noble deed,

Like breath rekindling a smouldering fire :

They only live who have not lived in vain,

For in their works their life returns again.

THE END OF THE DOCTRINE OF BEING

Coming up next:

THE DOCTRINE OF ESSENCE

So, a third of the way through the Logic and onward into a different world. I am so grateful to the One, my muse who has got me this far and will take my hand and accompany through the realm of dark shadows that is the realm of Essence. This is how philosophy should be, a glorious great adventure, you can stick your logical positivism and logical positivists telling us you cannot talk meaningfully about this and you cannot talk meaningfully about that and who in their meetings would shout out 'M!' if they thought a member of their club had said something construed (by them) as metaphysical, thereby shutting down him or her (well, him actually, I was being inclusive there, but this really is typically male behaviour like strutting cocks by which I mean the male domestic fowl).

Now, I've heard there was a secret chord

That David played, and it pleased the Lord

But you don't really care for music, do ya?

It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth

The minor fall, the major lift

The baffled king composing Hallelujah

Hallelujah

Your faith was strong but you needed proof

You saw her bathing on the roof

Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew ya

She tied you to a kitchen chair

She broke your throne, and she cut your hair

And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Hallelujah

You say I took the name in vain

I don't even know the name

But if I did, well really, what's it to ya?

There's a blaze of light in every word

It doesn't matter which you heard

The holy or the broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah

I did my best, it wasn't much

I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch

I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool ya

And even though it all went wrong

I'll stand before the Lord of Song

With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

Hallelujah

'You don’t know the meaning of true love if you think it can be deliberately selected. You just love, that’s all. A natural force, irresistible'.

- Saul Bellow, (1915 – 2005), 'Henderson the Rain King'

Saul Bellow, great Jewish writer, who had an interest in Hegel. Maybe I will post an article on this fascinating writer sometime:

'With increasing frequency I dismiss as merely respectable opinions I have long held - or thought I held - and try to discern what I have really lived by, and what others live by. As for Hegel’s art freed from 'seriousness' and glowing on the margins, raising the soul above painful involvement in the limitations of reality through the serenity of form, that can exist nowhere now, during this struggle for survival. However, it is not as though the people who engaged in this struggle had only a rudimentary humanity, without culture, and knew nothing of art. Our very vices, our mutilations, show how rich we are in thought and culture. How much we know. How much we even feel. The struggle that convulses us makes us want to simplify, to reconsider, to eliminate the tragic weakness which prevented writers - and readers - from being at once simple and true'.

- Saul Bellow, 'Nobel Lecture', 1976

To be continued ...