Development is identical with generation. What we mean by something developing is the same as what is meant by generate-into-being. To generate into being does not come out from somewhere other than from some development. In other words, the process undergoing some kind of development itself takes on the abstraction of a characteristic or an idea of an “object”, which is a u. Generation is determined by change in some activity, these changes in an activity indicates whether new and novel features appear at one point in time as comparable to another point in time. The gradual emergence of changes that are not present at one point in time but are present at other points in time is identified as the generation of a thing being identical with its development. When a development occurs there are variables that were not at one point present, and the relation of these variables form something that altogether we say is generated.
-productivity relates to what whitehead calls creativity
The qualitative feature of time as passage (moving on) is productivity. Productivity is what creates possibilities. We often assume as much possibilities as the universe with qualifying this assumption. At the basic principles of being, the possibility of something is as much as its actuality. The possibility of nothing is being, but actuality of being is nothing. This is the logic for process because being comes out of nothing as a possibility and then it enters nothing again as the end point it returns to. It is because the world is already achieved in such complex manner that there are so many possibilities, but in the fundamental level the possibility is only as much as what is really achieved by actuality. We say that there is possibility of being ill only because there is a proper function to the biological organism that has the possibility of malfunctioning, but the latter possibility is based on the actuality of the body insofar as it is real.
Past and future are concepts of mind not in the sense of being abstract but they are what constitute the present because the present is a motion “moving on” towards some mental conception. Time for mind is not determined in some fixed way, the idea that I am going to an event is already set by the mind and for it has already occurred and will occur insofar as being set, is occurring insofar as the experience of the event, our physical understandings of time is simply the experience of what has been and what will happen of the mind. (reference Law of mind)
Mind gets better with time while body decays
The second law of thermodynamics Book 1,part 4″The case of mind is different; it seems to be an independent substance implanted within the soul and to be incapable of being destroyed. If it could be destroyed at all, it would be under the blunting influence of old age. What really happens in respect of mind in old age is, however, exactly parallel to what happens in the case of the sense organs; if the old man could recover the proper kind of eye, he would see just as well as the young man. The incapacity of old age is due to an affection not of the soul but of its vehicle, as occurs in drunkenness or disease. Thus it is that in old age the activity of mind or intellectual apprehension declines only through the decay of some other inward part; mind itself is impassible”With old age abstract thinking strengthens whereas the body as whole decays.”
This is meant to explain the incorruptibility of mind and it’s pure substance Audience
Ever notice that feeling, usually during childhood, that feels there is an audience watching your life? And you have this feeling as if you have to perform and act in a certain way to them? We see this most notably in the monotheistic understanding of god as a kind of eternal onlooker onto all things that conceives while being inconceivable. The idea of God historically has been the progress of the understanding achieving reason of the ideal principle, the ideal of man abstracted as a quality wherein man is only an aspect.
Once the understanding achieves reason of God, that level becomes equivalent to This understanding also dominates our ordinary psychological opinion about how we view consciousness. Our imagination views consciousness as if it is something above or outside our bodies always watching, and you are only sure to exist by that constant conception. A shared psychological nature among human beings across all cultures during childhood development of individuals and stays until adulthood paints an image where we have a kind of audience watching our life as a reality show. The religious think that their loved ones and all people who have died are above in heaven looking down and watching their every move.
Even if no body witnessed your actions, your own self-consciousness is witness. No experience escapes consciousness and indeed judgment because judgment is the understanding of consciousness. Consciousness as external onlooker confuses the concept by making the conceiver unexplainable. This is simply provable on the grounds that if something is taken to be absolutely external it is assumed to be non disclosed by the conception proposing its externality. Yet it is logically evident that anything external is contained within the juxtaposition from which it is externalized. The externality of an external entity is its internal substance because it is the disclosure from within it operates.
The disclosure within which things external from each other share the form of externality is the relation called “internal” such that Externality is distinguishable from something external within it on the grounds of one activity the other the rigidity. Externality is the internal form of the objects individuation.
The internal is non-external because it is non entity, which is the idea involving opposition itself of two things taken to be externally contrasting from each other, their internal relation is the reason for the interaction. Hegel explains as essence: (Science of logic, 810) “Cognition certainly cannot stop short at manifold determinate being, nor yet at being, pure being; the reflection that immediately forces itself on one is that this pure being, the negation of everything finite, presupposes an internalisation, a recollection [Erinnerung] and movement which has purified immediate, determinate being to pure being. Being is accordingly determined as essence, as a being in which everything determinate and finite is negated.” Pure being taken at the beginning of thought is empty of any determination, yet in this way being is exactly identical to nothing because nothing is still the being that is lack of being.
In the logical dialectic between the two principles being is distinguishable from nothing not by the fact of purity because being pure is their relation but by the fact that pure being is first determinate being whereas nothing is second determinate being. It is commonly held that being comes out of nothing therefore the nothing precedes being. But this misapplication is meant to order the principles in quantitive manner based on the redundancy of coming into existence. There is an element of redundancy, in evolution repeation, in the quality of generation and that is the quantitive property of having one body coming after another. like one in the other like (the Russian doll), one coming first in existence prior to the other, like your father before you and his grandfather before him etc. But continuity defining repteation is different than reptitation defining continuity because in the latter relation we simply have a series of the same element whereas in the former the repitation in order to be continsious means that there is a progression from one point to another and not mere relapse of the same thing back to itself over and over.
Being is first due to the logical quality of the determination. To be Pure being is a determination and therefore pure being invariably becomes determinate being or that pure being is at the same time determinate being by quality of being indeterminate. In pure being there is the contamination of the determinate being that makes it that particular determination. Pure being therefore involves the active return back to itself from the determinate being that is logically invariable for its quality. With this active loop return back to pure being escapes the limited particularity characteristic of determinate being. It is the infinite return to pure being from its determinate being that defines consciousness as the inconceivable element conceiving the particular nature of thought.
Nothing is the retained element , the result of the return from determinate being to pure being, and this is why the only determination of nothing is lack of determination because nothing cannot go back from the determination of itself as the something that is the nothing back to pure being some determinate thing, because than it would be some determinate being and therefore something and no thing, nothing therefore is the determination that remains void of any determination because the moment it acts otherwise than its void position becomes that particular determination. Its remaining non determination is still a determination but it is unlike the particular determination of pure being because it does not on its own act and therefore only negates the determinations of pure being going back from determinate being. Pure being is therefore negation of determinate being, and nothing is what is maintained for this activity. We often grant nothing with the power of negation yet we forget that this negating power is the determinate being of pure being for nothing cannot be anything not even negation. (Add here how in math -1 is not number just function of where 1 the number is not.
(Hegel p.828) “These two moments, namely the nothingness which yet is and the being which is only a moment, or the implicit negativity and the reflected immediacy that constitute the moments of illusory being, are thus the moments of essence itself. What we have here is not an illusory show of being in essence, or an illusory show of essence in being; the illusory being in essence is not the illusory being of an other, but is illusory being per se, the illusory being of essence itself”(Add to plurality and duality)For Hegel the logical nature of being is universal because it is the pure power of negation- that which cannot not exist, the definition of self evidence.
The idea in Buddhism is that being exists because it does not have to, so it just does because that is the same as if it did not exist, both exist because they just are. This is an interesting logic that is exactly the same as the philosophical one outlined above, the only difference is the attitude in approaching it. (Add to zen- Sunni sunya)
Consciousness involves an internal battle between fixities of determinations differing from each other, their contrast being their similarity is what maintains them as fixities of opposing determinations, yet because their similarity is their very difference, they contradict each other, that being their continuous relation, one determination imposes its difference against the other, both maintaining themselves as not the other, bring to light the one and same internal contradiction of which they play external parts within.
(Hegel 810) “We have already mentioned that if essence is defined as the sum total of all realities, then these realities likewise are subordinate to the nature of the determinateness and to the abstractive reflection and this sum total reduces to empty oneness. Essence is in this way only a product, an artefact.”
The external things are the product of essence.
The bud Hegel sums this up as follows: “The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone the life of the whole” (phenomenology of spirit 2)
Being/nothing is foundational to the elementary mathematical axioms that a negative and a positive equals a negative. The logic is as follows: if a positive involves a negative, then it is subtracted because the very nature of a positive is that it be an addition. The subtraction of a positive is not an elimination of it because then the negative would be a subtraction of itself, which is just an addition of something other than the negative, i.e, negative and a negative equals a positive. The reason for this is that the subtraction of a negative is a positive determination. The negation of a negative is a positive move. This leaves the relation between a positive and a positive equaling a positive.
The fundamental determination is a positive which just means that the very nature of a determination is a Being and the Nothing is the affirmation of a Being, the principle whereby a Being is a Being. If anything it would be more appropriate to classify Actuality (Being) as Firstness and potentiality (Nothing) is Secondness, but I remain hesitant of ever placing one principle before another simply because each are indistinguishable outside of formal analyzation. The principles of Reason are indivisible because the relation is more fundamental than the parts, that is to say, there is a Being, a nature, shared by differing parts. The universal and the particular constitute a relation whereby they both interact. This is called the self -dialectic.
The way generation works is as such, when the combination of two inverse parts takes on a unique form on its own, we have the difference, one this difference is established, generation is infinite. 1 + 1 = 2, the number 2 is now a distinct number that can be added respectively to each number 1. Once we have 2 that can be added to 1 giving a 3, and that 3 can now be added to a 1 to be 4 or to a 2 to be 5 or to itself to be a 6. The 6 can be added to a 1 to be 7 or to a 2 to be 8, or to a 3 to be a 9, or to a 4 to be a 10 and so on…
The whole is the relation that’s why it is prior to parts
There is no such thing as a particular in and of itself or a universal in and of itself, both these are states of substance. Substance coordinates between these states of being. This is what is meant by the claim that the relation, or the whole, is more fundamental than the parts. Consciousness is the active character of thought. And the nature of thought is reason, and reason is logic.
Consciousness = Thought Reason Logic The Copenhagen claim that the object is inseparable from the observation has an absolute meaning. In the more fundamental level, thought is the object. (Connect with this with the notion of the unmoved mover, because that notion just means that things exists simultaneously, that is, the relation) When we say that the relation is more fundamental than the parts, we are saying that there is, a self identical unity capable of a determination in one particular way or another, there is freedom. It is self identical simply because whatever the relation maybe, it holds any inverse parts together. Even if two parts are negative towards each other, their negation, or difference, is their self identical unity
Peirce’s three types of inferences, are the ethical conducts of mind: 1. Abduction (hypothesis): this ethically corresponds to the value of “infallible”- the importance of not making a mistake or checking for mistakes.Rule (if A — C)Result (C) .: case (.:A) In the relation (If antecedent then consequent)The result is (consequent) The case is therefore antecedent The explanation for this is simple: in any relation where the consequent is the result means that there must have been an antecedent, a predicate that constitutes the result. Bear in mind that antecedent is a cause to the consequent in a very special way, meaning that the antecedent does not bring to being the consequent, but rather it subsists it. This is why that if the result is a consequent (C), the case for it is always the antecedent (A). And this is why hypothesis is the ethical conduct of infallibility, because it means that there is always a subsistence whereby any result may fall back to.
In the realm of consciousness hypothesis is the logical principle that captures the relation between mind and body. the so-called famous dichotomy between mind and body, or reason and matter is a problem famously recognized by Descartes, but really what Descartes recognized was a logical principle of mind. The mind body relation aims to explain how each subsists the other. Descartes however was not entirely successful in explaining the relation between mind and body. He falsely explained the relation between mind and body by stating that the mind can somehow surpass the body, as if the mind can be unplugged from the body.
The same problem that underlies Plato’s explanation of the soul and its relation to the body. Aristotle says (find quote) it is absurd to imagine the soul outside the body if we understand by soul as that which is the essential idea of the body. In this way, Plato saw that the soul has a subsistence on its own without the body. In the same but inverse manner, Descartes saw the body as a property having its own subsistence that is unrelated to the mind. The mind was one thing and the body was another, and for Descrates they only bear an external relation whereby they are separate in each other. This conception begins to logically err when we ask, what is the nature of body that makes it have an external relation with mind? Extension cannot be the answer because the mind, according to Descartes, has no such thing. If extension is the nature of body that does not explain its relation with mind, is there a nature of the mind that explain the relation to the body? The answer to this, as Hegel says, is that there is surly one property of mind that is certainty constitutes the nature of any object, that is, there is a logical structure that all bodies possess.
Aristotle says, all material bodies possess form, which according to Hegel, is nothing else but the logical formula of the object. Logic therefore not only happens to be the essential nature of mind but also of bodies. It is therefore an erroneous assumption to say that the body has a subsistence that is other than mind. Even Descartes himself recognized that mind when compared to body is most essential, yet he did not make the connection that the body is actually derived from mind.
Descartes’ concern however remains: how can the body be out there and the mind in here and both able to influence each other? This is an Intuition that any individual is aware of if they too also wish to speak of it. That in my own consciousness, the “I think I am” which confirms my existence, seems to be a divide between a mind that only thinks in the abstract and a body that is active outside in the concrete. For example, in the abstract I can think both of moving by hand up or leaving it place, and in either case I can act on both ideas or refrain from doing any of them. Although the mind in the abstract thinks to move the hand, and indeed it does move, the abstract mind on its own cannot just simply think of a table and behold at the same time a table appears. And it seems that the lay understanding of the mind-body unity seems to assume that if there is such a unity, then anything the mind conjures up, it must at the same time by the mere thought of it, materialize into an object. This assumption, although most would say is unsubstantial, almost everyone at the same time must acknowledge that this is always a lingering thought. The question which aims to interrelate mind and matter asks: why isn’t it the case that the mind thinks and at the same time that thought becomes an object? Why does the mind actually have to produce its object externally from the outside of its body? The answer to this question has both an ethical explanation and a logical implication, both of which explain each other in the concept of hypothesis. The logical implication of abduction (hypothesis) indicates that in the relation between two principles whereby one is a consequent and the other is an antecedent, it follows that a consequent always presupposes an antecedent. If the body is a consequent of the mind, the mind is always presupposed by the body as its subsistence, and vice versa. The notion of hypothesis on its own however does not state what the nature of the consequent is and how it differs from the antecedent.
The ethical reason is related to the nature of consciousness ( how consciousness and unconscious relate)
What has been conceived as a divide between mind and body is in fact not a divide at all because the idea that the body is somehow unplugged from the body and is able to separate is a conception derived from the body itself and attributed as being a nature of mind- that bodies are divisible and are able to be taken a part into different peaces. The mind however is indivisible. This does not mean that the mind is in harmony with itself, but rather the very indivisibility of mind is grounded in its inherent contradiction, that is what makes mind a mind, that it contradicts itself, doubts itself, and that is the indivisible unity, otherwise it would cease to be anything other than itself.
The nature of mind explains the relationship of it towards the body. Unlike the ordinarily conception which claims that the nature of the body can be used to explain the relation with it to the mind. The so called separation of the mind from body is in fact the nature of the mind as self-contradictory. The mind inverses itself, and that is what we say as the object. When the body dies for example, the mind does not leave the body. The mind rather inverse the function of the body, making it operate in a manner whereby it dissipate as the particular composite structure that it is. A living body for example functions by breathing correctly, and consumes food, blood circulates correctly to heal the body and nourish it (white blood cells heal the body). A dieing body involves all such functions to operate in the opposite manner. The lungs do. It take a sufficient amount of oxygen, the stomach does not digest food for distribution of nutrients etc. When the body starts to die, it is the mind that begins to operate in an inverse manner.
The nature of mind is inversion because this relates to is subsistence. Hypothesis. The mind inverts itself, this means that it abstracts itself as a particular idea, and that idea portrays a conception of mind, a consequent. The idea becomes a body. The mind itself however remains the antecedent. The mind must always remains distinct from its idea, its object, otherwise the mind would be limited to that idea, it would be o let that idea and nothing else, and the particular idea by its nature is only a limited something that is not entirely what it is. The mind would cease to be that which produces ideas if it was limited to only one particular idea. 2. Induction: this ethically corresponds to “hope” or “necessity” and explains the interconnected and relations between things.Case (A)Result (C) .: Rule (.: if A — C)
Deduction: corresponds to the ethical value of “paying attention”, focus or result. Rule: (if A — C) Case: (A).:Result (.: C) The unconscious is not something distinct from the conscious, it is in fact the relation where the conscious interacts with itself. The unconscious is the meditating mechanism where the conscious passes an object away from itself, so that after dissipating that object away from awareness, only upon once again grasping it, can the conscious truly affirm itself as consciousness. And this is why we can logically say that the unconscious is the consequent of the conscious, and the conscious is the antecedent. The logical meaning of the concept antecedent simply means preceding in time, which is to say that the antecedent is a state to which another state refers. The consequent is the effect following as a result, and as a logical principle, the consequent is a continual proposition, whose truth is stated as conditional upon that of the antecedent. The consequent is the state to which the precedent refers to.
The question is: what part of the mind is the unconscious? The answer is that, the body is the part of the mind that is the unconscious. And by unconscious is meant that the body is the extension of the mind that is subject to habit, or as the Greeks called it— habitus. The body has a natural system of habits. The nervous system, the immune system, the cardio vascular system, the raspitory system and so on are all systems of habit. If we take the raspitory system for example we see that the process of breathing is one of the few biological habits that can be acted on unconsciously and consciously. On the exterior the process of inhaling air seems to be empirically obvious, that is, the air particles enter the nasal passages into the lungs.
The lungs then consists of the process of respiration wherein the intake of oxygen is met with the release of carbon dioxide. But there is however a difficulty, what if the individual develops bad breathing habits where the air particles do not enter the lungs? If the process of breathing is as mechanical as its empirical observation suggests, then what is that which is in control of breathing? Now unconsciously the body is accustomed to taking in air. But how? There is a part in the brain that is in control of breathing even when the individual is sleeping. The question is, how does this unconscious part of the brain control the process of breathing? The simple answer is, that part of the brain is always thinking about air. It is actually the thought of air that allows for breathing. This is why those with certain mental health issues such as anxiety develop a conscious effort of breathing, and they usually end up taking an inefficient amount of air resulting in hyperventilation. The reason is, those with anxiety do not think about the air itself but rather think about how their body takes in air, therefore they end up excluding the very substance the process is meant to process, which throws off the process of their breathing. The normal person does not even have to think about breathing because he or she has already cultivated an unconscious effort of continuously thinking about air. For the average person does not even have to think about the process of breathing because they have already developed an unconscious habit of thinking about the substance of air itself, and their process naturally follows. The substance of air is not something you have to recollect, find or search for. Air is present always with the body so the very thought of it is one with its presence. Water with all other substances on the other hand requires the memory of them, and the relocation of them.
The body itself is a system of memory for the mind, that is, physical memory. The reason why the entire body requires the lungs to take in air, is because the mind requires consistent consciousness of a fundamental principle such as air. The body is the system that reaffirms the culmination of knowledge derived from the conscious l of the entire infinitesimal process of the universe.
There is however a difficulty in the relation between the unconscious and conscious, a difficulty that subsists in the fundamental relation between form and matter — or rather, soul and body. In the Ancient Greek era, both Plato and Aristotle, in their respective ways, agree that the soul is more fundamental than the body. Plato’s reasoning is that the soul is external and characterizes the realm of the Forms, which is perfect, immutable and necessary.
Aristotle goes on to critique Plato, but really, he fixes his errors. Aristotle says that form is the substance of the matter that constitutes it’s essential nature. Nevertheless Aristotle sticks to the Platonic notion that form is the actuality and necessary nature of the sensible. (Reference thesis) for Plato the soul leaves the body but for Aristotle the body and soul are indivisible in coexistence to constitute the object… For Aristotle although the form is the actuality and necessary nature it does not make it unchangeable. The very nature of form for Aristotle is development. This means that’s substance is immutable yet it is also changeable, by that, he means it is developmental.
The body remains changeable, so when the particular body degenerates, it’s form still remains working itself out, taking on the nature of another particular body. The body is the effect of the form. This is affirmed in the concept of the efficient causation. A synonym for the term efficient is effective, and effective is the adjective of the word effect. The efficient cause is simply that which is the effect of the final, which is the form of a thing (reference thesis).
Induction finds the general conclusion for particular instances. Deduction as applied by the understanding, looks at the constituents of the general conclusion, finds there differences, in such a way where only the general conclusion is shared by all. (Add this to chapter one thesis)Consciousness is mind in motion and motion as reason. Self-conscoiunsess is the understanding of mind in motion. Understanding reason in its movement.