Objects exhibit external relations
String theory’s reliance on first-dimensional objects is the synthesizing of two fundamental abstractions of substance: 1) the physical objects of nature exhibited for sense awareness portray external relations among themselves that arouse in the intellect of their apprehension recollections of internal relations that serve as the starting intimation of the investigation into the formation of such operations.
2) What it means for objects to possess internal relations is demonstrated by two aspects of the same previous point, first there are imperceptible activities governing perceptible quantities that when the activity is taken as the whole of these differentiated quantities, forms a quality unique and other than when each component of the relation. Each part is differentiate as its own intricate component of the whole activity. Second, there is among the components of the activity an undisclosed relation that is engaged in free activity of altering the formations of its relations according to logical determinations. For example, if we would zoom into the subatomic activities that compromise an object like our own human hand, we would see that the quality of a particular cells consists of millions of molecules separated by space but are held in time as a harmonious duration that form the function that gives the cell its particular nature.
Molecules individually are being continuously shed and revived, without any detrimental effect to the form achieved by the whole of their relations. How is it possible that individual parts are in the process of change while the whole they form remain constant relative to their change? Individual components are constantly changing by the function of time while in conjunction of maintaining a harmonious motion forming the quality that is the whole of their relations.
The reason why the individual components are constantly changing while simultaneously the whole they form remains intact is because there underlies the more fundamental undisclosed internal activity as the purpose for why the change takes place. The parts are revision of some ideal goal, which is the whole of relations they form perpetuating the evolutionary manifest of the quality to be consistently activated. Any group of particular components, like Molecules or atoms, operate together as a species to form a quality that is distinctly quantifiable, which constitutes the whole of their relations and the aim of their function.
(look to Peterson lecture maps 12-final the divinity of individual, in beginning) Contemporary science adopts the positivist method of understanding reality. In doing so, nature is described in physical and chemical formulae. However, what these formulae’s ultimately pertain to? This question is not fully answered.
Object/concept
The development of orangic matter goes through a process of natural selections first occurs In the universe or to inorganic matter, before to organic matter. The primitive photocell is the potietnal that is made into actuality in the process of natural selection between inorganic matter. The result is earth which is the right circumstances where the cell can flourish. It is not to harsh conditions, it is the means between extremes in nature.
• Our scientific inquiry must work backwards from the concept to the object. Modern scientific inquiry is inverted, it conceives the concept from the object. This way treats the concept and the object as separate entities, and the concept is no longer derived from the object. Ex, math. We have made the concept come out of the object but gave no concept of where the object came out of, so therefore we have to work backwards from the concept back to the object so that’s e can see how the object is derived from its concept. Reason is in the world whereas the Understanding is the mind. The latter conceives its logic from the former; which means that logic of the understanding is derived from logic in the world. Logic is then organic.
• From what it is, to what it actually is. This includes what it is not.
The ‘object’ predicates the ‘concept’, without the object there is no concept. However, the concept is inherent in the object, in that it makes the object. The Concept is the ‘inner’ necessity of the object that is the ‘outer’ actuality of itself. This is the process outside the concept, but conceived by the concept. Once conceived, it can be set forth as the concept. The word concept carries a dual meaning. The concept is actual in the object prior to it being conceptualized. Once conceptualized it becomes the concept in the formal sense, as we know of it as a “theory”.
This is the dialectical formula. It has a tripartite nature: first, ‘from the object’ means the nature outside the object, something that it is NOT the object. This is where the object comes from. Second, there is the object as it comes distinct as something in and of itself. This is what you see as a chair, table, man etc., and not the convulsion of everything. Third, it is the object as something other, or in other words, something other that is also an object. In this sense we have multiplicity of things being distinct from each other maintaining their own in and of themselves.
The degree in which this multiplicity of independently unique objects reaches an infinity, is the point of returning to the first condition of the dialectic, which is fundamentally a negative, what everything is not, is equal to what everything is. This ratio becomes something on its own, a concept in the negative sense, meaning that it is not a concept on its own, does not describe something in and of itself, does not describe a chair or a bird, but is based on a concept by being the conditions that it interact with that are not exactly identical with it, for example, if the bird is our concept, than the trees, the wind, a branch, are all negative concepts because they are abstractions derived from the experience of being a bird, which is the positive concept because it is the focal point of our thought. . Without the object there cannot be this negative concept, therefore without the object there cannot be a concept. But this concept is inherent in the object, it is what the object is and what it is based on.
The concept as the objects negates the negative of itself, this produces the final concept of the object, the positive concept. The latter is implicitly in the object as well. The positive concept is the object as it actually is, in that, it is the resolution of the contradiction between the object and the concept. The concept and the object are not immediately each other for the understanding and so they appear to be independent form each other, the object seems to involve an element of entropy, the source of its production is unknown, and that it’s physical constitution does not immediately present a rational function. For example with objects we are familiar with, like a knife, we see right away it’s rational function, but with objects less known to us, like the spiral of galaxies, we do not see the reason even though there is one discoverable by science.
The concept on the other hand is both general and abstract because it is not automatically pin point to a specific object, the concept of a knife is applicable to many different knifes which all vary in some shape or form. And also the concept does not present an element of sensation for the understanding, it is only tangible abstractly by logic and reason. It is a contradiction because both the object and the concept exists in their negative form, but both are negative for their positive form.
Negative is seen for the positive. The resolution is the concept unified with itself as the object. This is the object as the concept. There cannot be a contradiction prior to the resolution. We assume that there is first a problem, then a solution because the solution is not immediately present, but the contradiction is what is immediately present and from that the resolution is later found. However once we have the solution we realize it is exactly the contradiction but arranged differently.
The object merely endures this process. The process is the concept, the result is the object. The process is prior to the result. But the process is for the result. But the result is not explicitly obvious, as it could be a process for another result.
Dialectic formula ——————–Object= ( )Negative Concept= ( )-Positive Concept*= ( )+Resolution————-#1. #2. 1. ( ) 1. ( )2. ( )- 2. ( )-3. ( )+ 3. ( )+________ _______4. (+) 4. (-) 1. The object as it is. 2. The concept that is NOT the object. Anything but the object. this challenges the object to either be or not to be. If the latter is true, the object is not consistent with what it is NOT, and ceases to be. If the former is true, it results in 3. Whether the result, the object is there to endure. What is NOT the object is not outside the object but is in the object. Ex. Organic development.
3. The concept that is the object. Anything that is the object. The object is consistent with what it is NOT. This adaptation to what is NOT, makes it what it is.
4. The object becomes what it ACTUALLY is, it becomes consistent with what it is NOT, to become what it actually IS. THE OBJECT AS IT ACTUALLY IS MAKES OTHER OTHER OBJECTS AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE. You have to presuppose the result to determine the result. What is, to what actually is.
#2 cannot be true because the process would have stopped at 2. If the concept that is NOT the object is not consistent with the object as it is, they cannot BE. Therefore, it cannot be that (-) is true as that would mean that the concept and the object are consistent and would be (+). The object is always (+) otherwise there would be no object, just a negative concept. There is also no outer negativity as the object “is what it is” by itself. It’s outer positivity awaits, a return to the first equation.
This formula represents the organic process everything has with everything else to become what something is. What is includes what is not for the Is.
Logic is organic.
The logic to the organic must not be taken on its own independent from the organic. Hegel writes:
“Such reflections may facilitate a general view and thereby an understanding of the development, but they also have the disadvantage of appearing as unjustified assertions, grounds and foundations for what is to follow. They should therefore not be taken for more than they are supposed to be and should be distinguished from what is a moment in the development of the subject matter itself.”
The entire logical process in the organic development of the object is not the same in every object. The logic to the organic is the form of development, not the development itself in every object. Every particular development involves a different configuration of the form. The form always remains but not in size or quantity, but always remains as quality. The inquiry into the development of reason in the world is only abstract if only elucidated as an inquiry. This is the complexity into the task at hand. Even if the form of every object is itself a concept, when does the concept become the object? The becoming of the object from the concept is the process, that is, the evolution of the universal. Human history is the particular in this process.
This takes time differently conceived than time conceived in daily life. The time of this development is also universal and macroscopic in relation to the individual time. But this involves the individual as taking the time. For example, the process where the plant becomes the tree is conceived, likewise, the process where the baby becomes an adult is perceivable. The process where the “human being” becomes is not perceivable. The latter process is infinitely macroscopic in relation to the former process.
– the beginning is a dualism between the concept and the object. They are dualistic in each other, not outside of each other. This dualism is itself a unity, a simple unity. It is a unity that results in a contradiction; how are they together yet different? The advance is the challenge there difference assumes in relation to each other. They are a contradiction in each other. They ask: why are we different? This question begins to work out the difference. The working out of the difference is the resolution. In the resolution the object becomes the concept, they are no longer different in their unity, but one in the same unity. It is itself.
Every natural entity has this process as the actualization of the concept into the object. This process must be supposed after the outcome, the outcome is the task of science, which necessarily involves the process. The process is also supposed prior to the object, but for the other object. The object that is the every other object is towards itself. This is the logical of pattern in all objects.
–The philosophical method derives truth in the ontological sense, not just being in the ultimate sense, but the unity being has with itself towards the ultimate. There is a misconception that sees ontology as the study of being in the ultimate sense, but this presupposes every other being toward that end, evolving towards the ultimate because it is not given. This is speculative in the negative sense. Speculative in the postive sense involves assumption for truth. A set of suppositions much be accepted to deduce truth to it’s very basic form, then relate it to the highest possible truth of itself. All these suppositions are deductively progressive in the inverse sense, towards the very first principles of the object. We mistaken progressive to be always forward.
These suppositions are called speculative towards truth, not speculative in the literal sense. The ego must be left to the side when inquiring the truth. The ego must have already been first developed for the truth. The metaphysical task of “first principles” applies to all objects in the world, including the world as an object. Every object is not in the same process as every other object is in. They are all in a process, but that does not mean they are all equally a process. Each object that is the process differs in complexity from the other process.
Some processes are more sophisticated in development than others, this is by their very nature. For example, Everything is the atom but not the same way as the atom. This atom will than evolve life, at this stage, the questions of quantum physics will be answered. Finally the theory of relativity will be united with its quantum physics. The latter deals with logic that is not necessarily formal, but it deals with logic that is informal yet true, logic like Hegel’s “science of logic”. E.x. The concept of nothing is defined very differently than its common understanding. In Hegel’s logic and in the logic underpinning quantum mechanics, nothing is defined as very differently, that is, it necessary presupposes something, the latter predicates the former. Nothing is the opposite of something in that it is what that something is not.