Composition of consciousness
Section 57 (last updated 03.15.2021)
(use inversion geometry)
What is consciousness? The inquiry into the nature of consciousness has been a difficult question in the course of science not only because the subject matter is in and in itself difficult but also because modern science start to look for an answer in the wrong place.
(Add form separate from matter- form of feces)
This lack of guidance ordinating modern science is the influential remanence of the monotheistic idea that sees the human being as alien from god. The idea that the human being is a lost consciousness whose aim is to find god, is not by its own merit wrong. It does for instance point to the process of enlightenment the human consciousness undergoes throughout life. That is, the human being begins, as it seems, ignorant and through the intercourse of life develops knowledge of the divine who’s purpose seems more profound and clear at the end than when it was first sought out at the beginning. This idea, however errs in formulating a scientific understanding of consciousness because it asserts that the human mind is in its own inherent nature detached from God without providing an adequate explanation to why this is the case, nor does it even outline a proper definition of “God” which is the position that it is detached from. For example, the story of Adam and Eve and the snake, provides metaphorical significations representing certain truths about human nature, but it fails to enter into the language of logic to provide direct demonstration of that truth- it only explains human nature indirectly not directly, although this assumption might not be true either.
Adam and Eve used the motive of an “Apple” to be the object wherein truth is disclosed within. The truth that the Apple is meant to signify is a moral principle in all monotheistic religion; that is, knowledge begins with knowing wrong. When the human mind develops consciousness of categorizing some actions as “wrong” and some actions as “right”, the mind must have developed detachment from the observation being interactively played out for it. Human beings developed the aspect in consciousness which divides them from the animals, and that is, humans are not fully consumed and subsumed in the total number of events within their moment of observation. An animal is one with the events of the moment such that they directly act on every impulse and determination as if their conception is identical with it. There is no me and something other, like another object or a moment in time disclosing those objects.
The animal is fully reactive to every thing life throws at him. The human being, does in part, shares in this nature where consciousness is fully consumed with the specification of what the organs of sensation pick out as the moment. Sometimes for example we “get lost in time” as if it feels like month and months pass by and suddenly we realize that a certain amount of time has passed without being fully consumed in every moment making it up. As if the human consciousness developed “autopilot” observation of life throughout a longer term process in time and not a notice of every short abruptions of time called “events”.
Adam and Eve as the first humans are fully consumed in their every moment directly perceived at the present, they have no general notion of time beyond the present moment, in other words, they have no concept of future. They supposedly eat some kind of fruit, we say apple because that is most familiar object in every modern person, they all can identify the object of an apple as a piece of food which can provide some nutrients for the body. However this However Another interpretation is that if we replace the apple with another object doing a similar function but not exactly the same. Then we have to consider that Historically man is only known as bearing the kind of activity shared by man up until 600 BC. Before that time, man is not considered having history, by our current standard of what it means to be a “human being”. Over certain amount of time, the idea of man seems to “expire” and no longer associated with what we take to be the definition of man at this particular time in history, which is that, man is a “rational animal” meaning that they can reason about their actions before acting them, which is also what it means to have some foresight of the near future, thinking about something not directly present. Man on some level can predicate the future. But this feature of predication if it is to be taken as the true definition of man, would include prehistoric people that we do not consider “human beings” because they do not have a recorded history, and their cut off in that continuity is assumed by modern evolutionary theory to mean that they are possessing of the same mental development as we are. Yet we have to assume at the same time if we make this latter claim, that that there is an obvious continuity in history between people we take to be recorded human beings and the “prehistoric” people having no written history, and this continuity is the fact that there has been an upwards trend in the overall development of life generally if we take the human being to be at a more developed “end” of a long process of life.
When humans took the “apple” which is a symbol for when a prehistoric man ingested an object that does not only feed the body, like an apple can only feed the body, they say “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”; but the prehistoric man found objects that can feed the mind. Ancient people at the time the story of adam and Eve is meant to hint at, i.e., the “first” man, ingested what we today call “drugs” but ultimately are passages of nature for the mind. Let us link two points; first, the idea that there is a missing link to understanding the continuity between modern human beings and ancient prehistoric people, we know of them as “caveman” but this image is far from a true description of ancient man. It is a complete disassociation of early time because it is the far reached limit of what we know to be existing. It is too far in time for us so we associate the earliest with something familiar that happens early in every individual lifetime, which is humans grow out of baby form into adult form.
The association of ancient man as if they are an overdeveloped baby or an underdeveloped man, that they are autistic in the mind, is one of a poor abstraction of Placing our own underdeveloped childhood state with that of past people, and they had group like shelters called tribes and they ventured the forest and settled in the most adventitious positions in nature, e.g., in Babylon history, the first city of civilizations was between the two rivers, this today is the land covered by the current country Iraq. Today Iraq which is in one of the most disadvantageous positions in the world, was not long time ago a British colony, and before that into the earlier 1600 hundredths, when Europe was undergoing its “dark ages”, the Islamic tradition was at the highest height of its development. They translated and preserved the biggest library in the world, and the extent of their civilization spans from the outer exteriors of Turkey and even into the southern parts of Russia, into eastern parts of India and parts of Asia, are dominantly captured by the Islamic tradition. That part of the world is very interesting part of the world that is forgotten in contributing to history the transition of power from the Islamic time to the present day modern tradition which Christianity adapted and thrived within.
The Mongolian regime was ruling the entire part of the world starting from China and ending even in some parts of west India. The Mongolians where making their way form the other most outer crust of the east, and entering from the north where Russia Siberia and underneath that meet until the north of Turkey. In this intersection point, that area, the Mongolians are planning to enter into the Islamic tradition and take over the culture and traditions. There is records to suggest that the biggest library in the world preserved in what is today modern day Iraq, was burned entirely by the Mongolians, they tried to erase and change history and write their own. But the Islamic tradition maintained a few hindered year resistance, until both opposing and conflicting cultures exhausted their self on each other, until another culture swoops in, this is the modern day Catholic Church. The Islamic tradition exhausted itself and exhausted the Mongolian region until the crusades developed and went in to finish off the job, ending the Mongolians. They invaded that rest part of the world, changing it and depilating it until the end of China. even in today’s modern catholic tradition, the Pope visits the country of iraq to “pay his dues” per say, to pay respect to that part of the beginning of their history.
It is only in today’s recent times that China is coming back as an economic and political power in the world. Only less than a hundred years ago they were but only a developing country, like the middle eastern cultures have become, although not as bad as the true totally “developing” countries reaching from Africa all the way till Indian ending in the lower parts of Asian. These latter parts are considered at this point “developing”, future tense, while modern middle eastern countries are “under crisis”. This record of history is in fact but the conception of an ancient people.
Time in history works very strangely different than how time behaves directly at the observational level during any given present moment. At the particle state, which is the level where there is a sense of individuality, an object separates from other objects to be a single and distinct unified principle , and this discrete measure of abruptions instantaneously happen after another, in this level of energy, the connections between moments does not seem obvious, every millisecond happens too faster after another millisecond such that it is impossible to see what happens to lead one from the other. But in higher dimensions of time, I.e., longer durations of time, such as “light years” which are the years measured by the lifespan of stars. Stars fill time differently and therefore fill space differently as well.
From one point of view, objects that are significantly far away from each other if one would arrive at them linearly, like actually moving from one place to another, where one object is to the place of the other, and going outside into an innumerable number of years large space wherein between an infinite number of other events may potentially be happening, and than arriving at the position where the other second object is. Like tacking off with a spaceship, cover a few years, and arriving at a different planet. From This linear distance, because it is linear since one object is diagonally external from the other. One object being diagonally outside another object is the longest possible distance for two objects to arrive to each other, as the position of each is at the last point on the circumference furthest away from the position of the one at the centre, I.e, Pi circle. But from a first person point of view, where larger objects appear smaller, their magnitude of energy is lighter and thinner, and their energy blends with other object closer to the observer by promotional to the size distance mass etc., that each objects are maintained away from each other. Like when someone takes paychasldics, the border lines that normally separates objects from each other for the ordinary observation blends to each other forming the same continuity known as an event. Objects are thrown in relation to each other at extreme quantitive measures to to formulate time itself.
Region
From a mental dimension, future moments in time may perhaps be the conceptions of previous people in time. And events from a linear point of view that are separated by vast spaces between them, from the first person point of view, overlap on each other constituting the same space, as we see when someone looks out into the sun over horizon where some trees are, these objects, the trees and the sun, and separated by vast space, but from the conception, they come together within the same reference frame occupying the same dimension in space.
The line of common simultaneity is the reference frame of the observer.
Religion language
The language of religion indirectly depicts the truth by using objects of sensation immediately familiar to us to conceptualize fundamental principles of the world. The language of logic on the other hand attempts to directly outline fundamental principles by representing them with modes of thought. Even though the language of religion does not, the idea of religion does recognize the modes of thought as inherent principles in the objects.
There remains an unsolved question in monotheistic religions, mainly, how is the world detached from its creator? It is in one sense true that the creator and the creation remain distinct, as in the case of a peice of art that is a distinct object from the artist who brought it into existence. Yet to say that the creator and the creation are distinct does not explain their relation. If they are different what is their relation as different things? Moreover the fundamental problem of evil remains in religion, because if evil is an element distinct from god, what is the source of the creation of evil? If evil is any form of divergence from god, then god is this source form which the divergence occurs. And if evil does not have any affect on god, what effect does does god have that keeps evilness astray as something which has no affect? This latter question assumes that if evil has no effect on god, then god must have an effect on evil, at least the effect to not be effected by it.
In the Christian religion specifically, the human being is born sinful and only through the acceptance of Christ the individual is “saved” into the “Holy Spirit of the lord and father”. From this doctrine the human being, being the creation of god, fell into sin, and so indirectly evilness has an indirect affect on god, through affecting his creation. There is something deep about the idea that humans are “born sinful” or rather the ”original sin”, which is that any divergence away from god is itself a sin, and therefore that aspect of
Modern science makes the considerable achievement of formulating the modes of thought into the understanding of physical objects. Yet the following question still remains unsolved; what is the essential relation between thought and objects that makes them distinct and related? In other words, how is thought material? The scientific ontology of understanding the physical nature of thought begins by necessarily adopting the principle of consciousness as a universal element in the universe. This is not only because it is a phenomena for objective study but also because any evidence of it exhibits shared conceptions between peoples and epochs.
Contemporary science however makes the same error in the adaption of this claim that religion does when ascertaining the relationship between god and man. When contemporary science sees consciousness as a universal principle, it views it detached from all particular things, that is, consciousness is the observer of particular phenomena. This is asserted for the sake of achieving objectivity in the method of empirical study, to achieve universality by ridding any subjective biases that may obscure analysis. This property of fallibilism however does nothing to explain how consciousness is a universal function of matter. Put simply, it is made to maintain the universality of consciousness but does not explain the universality of consciousness. What use is fallibilism without first the aspiration for truth?
Contemporary science focuses so much on not making a mistake, makes the first mistake; failing to offer substantial claims about the essential substance which all empirical facts are meant to elucidate. In this way, infallablism ignores to satisfy an essential definition of universality, that it cannot be classified in the same way particular objects are. Something universal is not one object and one object only, it is rather the single activity with the capacity to produce an infinity of unique individual objects. This is why we say universality equally underlies each and every object no matter of their difference, because it is their common ground. On the other hand consciousness as a universal principle is different from particular things in that it is not limited in the same way as particular things are. First, we have to ask what is the limitation of consciousness, even if its very limitation is that it is unlimited? Second, what effect does it have on particular things? If its effect on them is that it is not limited by any one of them yet it limits each and every one of them, then consciousness is something distinct from a particular thing yet is inside of it. In what sense is consciousness internally in each thing while remaining external? This claim may perhaps sound difficult to understand but the logic that something can be separate inside a thing is evident in all physical objects we identify as composite.
The very nature of physical reality is that composition is generally understood as the constituents, the way in which a whole is made up. In physics, composition is the process of resultant number of forces. If we empirically examine composite things microscopically, we see that any particular object contains inside of it distinct parts that in relation form a whole that constitute the particular object, yet each particular thing that make up the whole is its own particular containing the sum relations of other particular parts making up a whole. The whole constitutes the particular in that it is the relations between particulars implicit, and it is the whole of the relations that make it the kind of specific thing it is, yet that very whole is also present in each constituent part of the relation.
(Put here the contradiction between whole and part from thesis)
Consciousness is external from the object in that it is the examination of it, yet for that same reason consciousness is internal in the object in that it conceives it, or that the object is the expression of it. In the compository sense, the object contains consciousness because it expresses it while at the same time consciousness examines the object inside out. Consciousness vicariously lives through the object to examine its function, which is its expression. The evidence for this is demonstrated by the mere perception and understanding of the object. When we look at an object and identify it as the kind of thing that it is, we base the identity of the object on its function. When we see an object we first see its function. We come to understand a chair made out of wood with four legs because we recognize its function- to be sat on, and it’s form, the shape and content to support the role. Whereas if one was thrown into an amazon forest, perception of the numerous types of wooden trees would confuse and cause fear into the individual, unless if the individual is a native to the forest which in that case such an individual would see the function of the tree (to eat from it for example) in the same way a modern person would see the function of a chair to sit on. And so it is the function of the object in the initial sense that develops the understanding of the details making it up. We see first function, then its material up.
We have to stop thinking of consciousness as something detached, it is in fact the most famailer concept to us because it is always there. Yet the difficulty is that how can something so famailer be so difficult to comprehend?
The ultimate experience of mind is the knowledge of itself- the consciousness of consciousness or self-consciousness. This on its own seems superfluous and an empty claim. When we think of knowledge of self, we feel that we always possess such knowledge in the sense that we identify particular forms and we say these compose the self. We are to a degree aware of our bodies, our thoughts, and other objects and we call the union between of our mind and body our self. It is true that in one sense knowledge of our thoughts, bodies, and objects constitute some identity of a consciousness capable of conceiving these things. Yet the knowledge of all these things and the being capable of this knowledge is not essentially the same claim. We take the knowledge derived from what we perceive as the evidence for the self that is perceiving. And in some sense this is true because we only identify some thing as our selfs, we do not say that all bodies constitute the identity of self, but only the one most approximate to our consciousness, and the same with all objects, you do not say that you identify with objects you do not know exist, but only the ones you know to exist by directly or indirectly perceiving them. Beyond this basic sense of identity we cannot really say we have knowledge of the self but only the knowledge that our conceptions constitute the self. It still remains unanswered what is this self, the consciousness that intuitively derives knowledge in the first place. Even knowledge of the body containing the thought about it (add Spinoza here 1:53:09) is already determined before the awareness of this fact. During childhood for example, the child derives knowledge of their own body from acquaints with other bodies. Even the senses (Find here where you say induction naturally follows from the senses, knowledge of one individual object involves the knowledge of other objects within the approximate scope. the knowledge of many objects invigorates the knowledge of the individual object.)
This difference between my self and every other self, this object and all other objects, is so apparent to us yet it indicates a very essential nature of the essential substance constituting the reality where these distinctions happens to be so apparent.
As Socrates questioned the goodness of God in the euythparo, is god what goodness is or is goodness made by god. In one sense this can be reiterated as: is god what is rational or is what is rational determined by god? In the former case, if god is what is rational than there is no distinct feature or character that is god as distinct from his reason, while in the latter, if what is rational is made by god, than god is some character that decides and produces what is deemed as rational, and there is a separation, what is rational is made arbitrary from an external point.
(Put here definition of composite body)
2:01:00
A compound body is a fixed determination- or a consistent state of energy. A compound body is defined as any given determination of inverse magnitudes compelled by an inverse determination of the inverse magnitudes to remain in the same rate of motion so that their mutual movements preserve a certain fixed relation. An individual body is therefore distinguished from other bodies by the fact of this union. This on its own is a dense definition requiring dissection.
(1) First, a “determination of inverse magnitudes” means that the fundamental state of energy is an action of causation. The nature of any cause logically presupposes that any action is signified only in effort against an opposite action. This is why even in physics “energy” is defined as the property of matter that manifest the capacity to perform work, as in the case of molecules interaction. In other words energy is the power applied towards activity, and an activity involves the exertion of actions against each other, one object exerting itself on the other. . The inverse properties of a determination points to the necessity for its action to require the energy to perform the activity. If we take for example the determination of locomotion to go upwards, the energy required to go upwards is based on the effort against going downwards, and so the very action of going upwards leaves behind a downwards motion. In this way going upwards is only an activity insofar as to presuppose the inverse action of going downwards. (2) second, the inversion is what defines a determination, which means that the two parts inverse to each other, each is not their own determination, but that their exertion against each other is one and the same determination.
Going upwards is not its own determination, but only so in that going downwards is presupposed, and their tensions against each other constitute them opposite actions of the same activity. There is no such thing as a determination on its own abstracted from its inverse determination, this is the law of composition. If the composition of a determination be that of inverse forces, then how can a determination perform one action over another? If one adopts the logically erroneous argument that the union of inverse forces cancel each other out to produce a null relation whereby both are inoperative, then a determination by definition will cease to be the exertion of energy towards the performing of activity. Included in the definition of determination is the freedom to alternative between forms of energy usage. A determination is also the production of something, or that the energy of determination itself takes on a form producing what is conceived as physical objects. (2:03:00 Spinoza)
in the same way how the first determination is only a cause insofar as being the effort of inverse forces, this determinations which we say is its own energy is only so because it is compelled by an inverse determination of the inverse magnitudes. This means that there is a second determination on its own with magnitudes inverse against the first determination. For example if we say that the first determination be the energy whereby the upwards and downwards actions constitute each other as inverse magnitudes, the second determination would be constituted by the action of going left against going right. These inverse magnitudes belonging to the second determination compel the first determination to remain as the actions of upwards and downwards. The energy required for one relation to involve inverse actions against each other leaves available the energy for the other relation to involve the opposite inverse actions.
(3) the energy required for one determination leaves room the necessary energy for the other determination, and this taken together maintains a fixed relation with a certain rate of motion. In the case of our example, the up down left right form a fixed relation where every possible action is performed making use of all the possible energy. This fixed relation involves qualities. Something hard for example occurs when in the fixed relation the inverse determinations expand away from each other, because that then requires the energy to be between them to be greater, and we say that the composition of the fixed relation be soft if the determinations move in closer to each other, because that requires their energy to be less extensive.
In proportion of the fact of an individual or compound body in contact of a greater or less. Those bodies who’s contact is in large superficies we call hard bodies, those who are in contact over small superficies are called soft, those who’s motion are among one another are called liquid.
The reason why determination involves inverse properties is based on the nature of consciousness itself- consciousness itself is the substance that is a determination of inverse properties- being and non-being etc.
The relation between the universal and the particular outline the essential magnitudes of consciousness that go into the knowledge of the self encompassing such inverse magnitudes. Consciousness on the one hand is the knowledge of itself as capable of producing knowledge of itself, and second the knowledge that is the constitution of consciousness itself. Form verses content. The ultimate paradox between the particular and the universal constitute the totality of the nature of consciousness. The universal magnitude of consciousness creates the knowledge of itself, it produces itself as objects that identify and portray operations of its thinking that gave rise to these objects. Yet this side of consciousness, the universal side, is necessarily alienated from its objects because it cannot directly perceive them but only create them.
The universal side of consciousness produces the object without ever having knowledge of it, otherwise, knowledge of its object would portray knowledge of itself that gave rise to such objects as the objects exhibit the knowledge of self, yet this knowledge will only portray to consciousness the uncertainty of its being for it shows it in the first place that it exists without the knowledge of itself. This defeats the purpose to why in the first place consciousness sets out to produce the objects that exhibit the knowledge of itself. Consciousness in the universal sense must therefore forsaken the utmost essential knowledge of itself to maintain itself, and gives the ability to possess this essential knowledge, to the object of its knowledge, the objects it created that represents its knowledge. Consciousness therefore retreats into the particular magnitudes that constitute all the objects representing the knowledge of itself.
From this point of view particular objects each representing a particular nature of universal consciousness directly come in contact with each other and their mutual contact achieves the knowledge of both variables who are in contact. Yet from the view of each particular, direct knowledge is only limited because the knowledge of one object is the knowledge of the other object to that object, and knowledge of the underlying nature of both remains indirectly achieved because it stands behind the knowledge of the immediate object that is other. When both particular objects achieve knowledge of their mutual relation that is the indirect knowledge of their underlying nature, yet such a nature is only derived by means of one object perceiving the other, it still remains as the universal side of consciousness that produces the object without ever itself, being the same as its object, derives the knowledge of itself as the creator of the object.
Yet it is the union between the universal and the particular that constitute consciousness as the being deriving knowledge of itself. For it is the union- the universal side which creates the object for knowledge, and the particular side which situates in the objects to portray the knowledge- that constitute the nature of consciousness as living being. Yet they continuously contradict each other, keeping each other in place, and challenging the other side to remain its nature, because this leads to the development of what they both could be.
Inversion geometry is the internal relations of the development of the atom.
Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens and exhibit wave interference with itself, and it can behave as a particle with definite and finite measurable position and momentum. The photon’s wave and quanta qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon, and cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light, which assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy, is not possible. The quanta in a light wave cannot be spatially localized. Some defined physical parameters of a photon are listed.
This means that the wave property interconnects with itself to become a particle. A particle is simply a spherical due to the wave interference and and energy due to that spherical wave form.
Quantization is pretty much the categorization of the form energy takes. In physics, a field is a physical quantity, typically a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time. field quantization, as in the “quantization of the electromagnetic field”, where one refers to photons as field “quanta” (for instance as light quanta). This procedure is basic to theories of particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and quantum optics. Quantization converts classical fields into operators acting on quantum states of the field theory. The lowest energy state is called the vacuum state. The reason for quantizing a theory is to deduce properties of materials, objects or particles through the computation of quantum amplitudes, which may be very complicated.
———
——–
——————(seen may.24.19)
In the post modern tradition, our contemporary age, truth is obscured in the following way:
when writing research, the thinker must explain the truth of there philosophy as if it is independent of all other philosophies, and yet at the same time, as if it is equally true to all other philosophies. That is the post modern paradox, he must show how his truth is unique yet the same, but in showing that it is unique, most thinkers conclude that therefore there is no universal continuity and the so called standard of “truth” halts here. Yet others by showing that their truth is the same across all other truths, conclude that there is no uniqueness and everything said has already been said.
This type of style obscures direct and objective facts. This is exemplified in all contemporary universities, were an essay is not a form of scientific truth, but as rhetoric.
———————
The aim of the essay is to see how history as a vast dialogue is the dialectic.
The development of human thought first was a simple unity than became a complex diversity, and ultimately will be a complex unity.
Human truth became a simple unity, is becoming a complex diversity, and will become a complex unity.
Aristotle and Hegel are checkpoints in history
From the time of Aristotle to Hegel (they are historical checkpoints that concluded all the ideas that went before), philosophy and religion constituted human thought, answering the most general questions about reality. Among the answers, some were mistaken, religion is the negative dialectic as it brought about contradictory answers about reality resulting in a stalemate about the truth. The positive dialectic is found in the philosophies of their time like those of Aristotle and Hegel who provided a comprehensive and general understanding of reality, yet this lacked empirical facts as there period of time in human history did not allow for such facts.
After the period of Hegel, the term science became defined by the narrow definition of the natural sciences. During this time period, science became divided, but in doing so a specific deeper understanding developed about facts concerning physics, biology , and chemistry. The development of the natural science is the positive dialectic. The negative dialectic took form in the post modern tradition and scientific materialism that developed along side the natural science. Such a tradition developed absurd notions about truth that results in a stalemate, e.g.
All truth is equal or truth is ultimately subjective or all reality is ultimately material. The next historical stage of human thought is that of synthesis between the fundamental truths of metaphysics found in Aristotle and Hegel philosophy of history (which incorporates Aristotle metaphysics in concrete history), and the information developed by the natural sciences to support metaphysical concerns. It is time for our inquiry to synthesis between metaphysics and science. Hegel’s idea of reason governing the world can be further supported by facts about the universe gathered today, facts such as dark matter and energy. Dark matter will be embodied by dark energy, the missing link is fully developed rational beings, this is the complete work of REASON.
Sublation
The word “sublation” is very important for Hegel, it means to begin a new and to cease away. This occurs in two ways in the dialectic: first the positive dialectic develops on each pervious one, second, the negative dialectic provides a negation, which is itself as something other, and is resolved, re-sublates that into the same identity of itself. Each developing positive dialectic becomes self sufficient and no longer needs the negative to define what it is not. The negative dialectic, now independent from the positive dialectic becomes anew, thus negating new qualities, and this process continues. However, This is a developmental process, and in the ultimate sense, the end point of this process is to be absolute positive dialectic, i.e. absolute quality. Since, negative dialectic is negation to quality, there can no longer be negation to absolute quality, otherwise, it would no longer be absolute, by definition. This logic is the true reality of nature in the ultimate sense. The resolution than must be absolute quality, and this is the culminating sublation between pervious qualities that have proceeded through negation. This is the evolution of human thought, of conscious Reason. Like every mammal evolves physically through thousands of years, acquiring new traits to grantee it’s further survival. Humans as a species, the Mind of the human species must also have the same process. Except it is even more developmental, since it precedes survival to grasp ultimate Being.
Audio min 42 explains the dialectic to support the idea that the second age is that of the particular, while the first is the universal, the last the resolution. The last stage is the union between the individual and the universal, I.e. Science proving god. The individual here is universal, the “I” is species.
The end of the historical dialogue is the full development of the human being as individuals, and each individual being representative or every other individual forming the whole. The content becomes the form of the whole.
History moves in a straight line ( in a bigger circle as this represents all reality). towers progress of the human being, the gaol is the progress of human perfectibility as freedom. It is filled with events and development.
The negative dialectic explain the negative aspects to sprite, Hegel did not overlook this reality. As the positive dialectic is evolving toward actualizing human perfectibility, the majority of history is constituted by negative aspects. Because this is the struggle spirit has with it’s self, it has to progress with all the negative aspects as part of it, but this is necessary since the positive aspects are defined by what they are not, I.e. the negative. They are positive because they are not negative And they stand alone and single as positive irrespective of the negative. This logical negation is not just logic imposed by the thinker but the the concert force or energy for development. As the positive dialectic is progressing toward it’s goal or telos, the negative aspects produce contradictions that cancel themselves out. This is the move from the real to the actual, were ultimately, the actual becomes the real. And the reason why both the negative and the positive dialectic become each other is because they are defined their opposite, I.e. They are each defined by what they are not. And because this is so, in the ultimate sense, what is not is actually what is. Being and nothing are opposites yet they are the same thing, this contradiction is solved by sublation, which is becoming.
Below is a demonstration of how human history develops to constitute the Whole of reality.
Human history is like a circle existing in the Whole, I.e. reality or the universe. The direction of this circle is evolving foreword in time, meaning never repeating, but inward in space, meaning always self disclosed. Inside the circle, there are two smaller circles, the first one constitutes a small part, while the other is the majority. The smaller circle is developing by means of it’s own conflicting elements (opposing philosophies building on each other), while the major aspect has it’s own conflicting aspect , however, both circles also conflict with each other. Each circle is what it is because it is not the other, this conflict produces progress in the smaller circle as it is retaining what it is.
The inner conflict in the major aspect affects the smaller aspect as they are both a part of the same reality, however, the smaller aspect is becoming actuality through development, while the major aspect remains reality, and ultimately will become actual. As human consciousness develops, the smaller circle begins to grow and overwhelm the once major circle, and this is because consciousness is developed because of the smaller aspect. The final stage of the circle is for the smaller aspect in the circle to be the whole. The smaller aspect is the positive dialectic, while the major is the negative. This is the nature of the circle in it’s premature state, in it’s mature stage, the positive dialectic will constitute the whole of the circle, I,e, human history, and once this becomes, the circle constitutes the Whole of the Whole, i.e, all of reality. The Whole without the circle is unconscious rational laws, the whole as the circle is rational laws acctuilzed by means of consciousness. This is evident from the early stages of human history.
In Ancient Greek philosophy, the truth develops, in the work of Socrates, plato and, the conclusion of all the truth that went before, in Aristotle. This development of the truth occurs in the background, as the majority of humankind struggles with mistaken ideologies about reality that carry concrete negative consequences, e.g. religious war. This also occurs in the second stage in human history, after the philosophy of Hegel, but not as violent as the pervious stage, as humans evolved due to the achievements of the positive dialectic in the pervious stage.
Human history has three stages. The first is the foundation to truth, largely Aristotle and Hegel (Hegel sublates a Aristotle and it fully completes it’s task) The second stage, is that of analysis to the truth, however, with such analysis comes mistaken conclusions and true ones, this is largely the scientific age today. The third stage is that of synthesis, of resolution. This is going to be science proving metaphysics, science proving God. The type of thought in each historical stage is also the type of consciousness the society is at large. At first, ancient Greeks were only social, they did not have an aspect of individuality, their desires were in harmony with their reason, but this was a simple harmony as there was no sense of self. In Protestant Europe, it was only individuality, as seen in the rise of the French Revolution. At the last stage, there will be no distinction between individuality and society, they will be one for the other, both in harmony. This is going to be the necessary condition were metaphysics and science will be in full union, thus the full attainment of the Idea. However this is not achieved without struggle. The union of individuality with society means control of individuals by individuals before the notion of society is sublated internally within each individual.
God is the unity of the individual with the universal. While this is any human beings potentiality, it is a fully developed beings actuality, and this is the actuality of the whole.
At the End of the book logic. There is three steps in Hegel’s dialectic: a beginning, an advance and a resolution. What was implicit in the beginning becomes explicit at the resolution, the advance is the driving power of this. This elaborates Aristotle distinction between natures potential becoming actual.
The beginning in the dialectic is “being”, I.e. The concept implicit, possess two sides; first, it’s the immediate content of sense experience, while the implicit is the rationality behind it.
Human history is the ultimate being, ultimate existence.
Aristotle a ideas on nature was the start of natural science, thus it must make a return, with its new developed doctrines.
Aristotle’s explanations of first principles is the most basic knowledge that everything is build on. This is the nature of knowledge with or without Aristotle, his explanation is a conscious affirmation to the truth.