Hegel’s Notion of Absolute Beginning as Being

Hegel’s Notion of the beginning of Absolute as Being

Dr. Abdul Lathief

http://lathief1.tripod.com

One of the fundamental and basic differerence of Hegel and all others, whether they are Idealistic Philosophers ,Mystics or Religious minds is the notion of Hegel about the Absolute in its first immediacy or Beginning. While all others start with self conscious being or notional being Hegel starts with Being(unconscious being) as pure being or abstract being which becomes notional being.

“Accordingly, logic is to be understood as the system of pure reason, as the realm of pure thought. This realm is truth as it is without veil and in its own absolute nature. It can therefore be said that this content is the exposition of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and a finite mind”.-($53- science of Logic)

So according to Hegel the Absolute is pure ,mere or abstract being in the beginning. It is only implicitly notion, explicitly only unconscious being. It becomes conscious of itself or notional being only in the last stage. For this the category “becoming” is an important category in Hegel’s system which makes this abstract being determinate being and later life and notion.

"Even Becoming however, taken at its best on its own ground, is an

extremely poor term: it needs to grow in depth and weight of meaning.

Such deepened force we find e.g. in Life. Life is a Becoming but that is not

enough to exhaust the notion of life. A still higher form is found in Mind.

Here too is Becoming, but richer and more intensive than mere logical

Becoming".( § 88n-Logic-Encyclopedia)

All the other philosophers and mystics are unanimous in their agreement that the Absolute is self conscious being from the beginning, if there is a beginning at all. The notion of God means self conscious being. Thought as Thinker or Subject. It may even look sacrilegious for the religious mind to conceive God as mere being, becoming or developing in to notional being. According to them He is as He was from the beginning. In the beginning or in his immediacy He is self conscious being. In mediation He is aware of his predicates as his contents. According to mystics this self conscious being or thinker or subject is the beginning. Absolute in his immediacy or God absorbed in himself.

Again the mediation is this self conscious being becoming aware of his predicates.In immediacy he is absorbed in himself and in mediation he is aware of his contents.So this is I am being or I am life or I am idea .So in every state or stages Self consciousness(I) precede the predicates .so it is not like the Hegel’s becoming where it is mere unconscious being, then life and lastly becoming self conscious being.

The Absolute is as subject and with all his predicates eternally or from the beginning.What I mean here eternal or beginning is not in relation to time but logical beginning.Logically there is not a prior state of Absolute as Being and then becoming Notional Being .Logical beginning itself is Absolute as subject and with all his predicates,not implicitly but explicitly.The only thing is in its immediacy he is only conscious of self and in mediation he is conscious of his predicates one by one.Becoming conscious of predicates is not same as unconscious becoming and only becoming subject at the last stage.

This immediate knowledge as self conscious being and mediated knowledge of the predicates are not a defect of the absolute. This is the limit of logic or thought it self.The nature of knowledge is such that immediacy always precede mediation. This is the limitation of thought.We can only have mediated knowledge after immediate knowledge.So when our notion of absolute is as thought ,self conscious being or subject precede the knowledge of predicates.but this logical priority is not a real priority at all. The absolute is self conscious being with all his predicates from eternity or logical beginning.

Now why Hegel starts the absolute with mere being.

“It is possible to define being as 'I = I', as 'Absolute Indifference' or Identity, and so on. Where it is felt necessary to begin either with what is absolutely certain, i.e. certainty of oneself, or with a definition or intuition of the absolute truth, these and other forms of the kind may be looked on as if they must be the first. But each of these forms contains a mediation, and hence cannot be the real first: for all mediation implies advance made from a first on to a second, and proceeding from something different. If I = I, or even the intellectual intuition, are really taken to mean no more than the first, they are in this mere immediacy identical with being: while conversely, pure being, if abstract no longer, but including in it mediation, is pure thought or intuition.($86-Logic-Encyclopedia)).

As we can see from the above lines Hegel is forming the notion of the absolute from his experience of the finite human mind. It is true that human thought has a begininig.if we take nature and finite mind self conscious human being is preceded by life and plants .it is preceded by being.I=I contain a mediation in the finite realm.but this is because finite beings are implicitly the absolute idea and it becomes explict in human being as self consiousness.

Now if we look at all these categories of Hegel like Being ,Essence and Notion and its subcategories we can see that all these categories are really the forms of nature and human mind.Nature begins with being ,unconscious being.The notion as absolute idea is only implicit in nature.Being becming life ,life becoming self conscious being.So all these categories are the forms of nature and finite mind.Hegel makes all these categories the categories of the Absolute merely saying they are infinite. But Absolute is never mere being in the beginning like nature. Absolute neither merely becomes life or notion from being like nature. Absolute is from the beginning explicitly notional being with life,knowledge,will etc… As we told earlier due to the limitation of logic it self ,by the nature of knowledge it self Absolute in his immediacy as self conscious being is followed by mediated knowledge of becoming aware of the contents of this knowledge one by one like I am being ,I am life I am idea where the subject or the self is prior to all these predicates.These categories reveal one by one because of the nature of logic or thought it self which can only reveal in succession.

Hegel is substituting this concept of the finite realm in to the absolute realm also.But in the absolute there no such state or stage where notion is implicit and preceded by pure being.The notion Absolute means notional being.Even in human beings perfect self awareness is immediate.Only reflections reveal that it is mediated by being and later by life by development.

What really happen here is Hegel is doing here what he accuse of all other philosophers and metaphysicians are doing before.Substituting conceptions and experiences derived from the finite realm to the realm of the Absolute and calling it speculative reason .

Any one who experienced(experience in the same sense as that of Hegel “what ever is in consciousness is experience “ and not in the empirical sense) perfect self awareness will know that this awareness is immediate and no organic movement of its own will lead to pure being.Self awareness even in human being does not lead to pure being because this self consciousness is the ultimate,it is the beginning and also the end.The only difference is in the case of human beings this self awareness is finite while in the realm the Absolute this is infinite which include and transcend the human finite awareness.Only reflection will show that this awareness is derived and preceeded by life and being and other categories in nature and finite mind where it was implicit as absolute idea.

This self consciousness which is even immediate in human being is the eternal state of the Absolute.He is eternally notional being. There is no logical precedence of abstract being as absolute.From beginning itself or in his immediacy he is notional being, self conscious being.The mediated knowledge is about his predicates or contents.As when the self awareness of a man shifts he is aware of the contents of his consciousness mediated knowledge of the Absolute subject is about his predicates,But there is no need of mediation for awareness of himself.

After all why he is called Absolute or God is because he is different from us ,finite mind and nature.If his nature is also just like the finite ,if he is also just mere,abstract being in the beginning there is only identity between God and Man ,no difference.the so called difference as infinite abstract unconscious being and finite abstract unconscious being is no real difference at all.

The irony of it all is later came a man as intelligent as Hegel ,Marx.He saw this absurdity.If the so called Absolute is mere abstract being in the beginning just like nature and finite mind and if he is mere becoming into life and self consciousness like finite nature,Marx was intelligent enough to see that all these categories of logic which Hegel claims the nature of the absolute is really the categories of the finite nature in its evolution from lifeless selfless being to life and self conscious man.What Hegel calls the being as the beginning of the Absolute is really the beginning of the relative.If the development of these categories really explains the evolutionary forms and stages of the nature and if the word Absolute is all that separates the beginning as notion less being from that of beginning of nature as notion less being and if notion is only implicit even in the Absolute as Being Marx so no need of this impotent Absolute and he was wise enough to see this dead lifeless Absolute as a useless addition and hence gave birth to the dialectical materialism.The finite being ,nature which implicitly contain the notion.

The End

Appendix

1-Dr. Mike Marchetti's Post-hegel-religion-yahoo groups

Dear Dr Latheif,

Thank you for posting your very interesting article. True to the
Marxian tradition that you seem to honor, however, you have a
tendency to transpose Hegel's philosophy into an upside-down
posture. In his "Science of Logic," Hegel nowhere writes that the
Absolute begins from Being, and certainly not that it evolves from
abstract Being. Rather, what he does state is that Science
(specifically the Science of Logic) begins with Being. Insofar as
Science or the comprehensive knowledge of the Absolute is identical
with the Absolute, we can interpret the Logic as the Absolute's self-
knowledge of itself - or since the Absolute is self-conscious or
God - it is God's rational comprehension of Himself. But the
systematic comprehension of God either by Himself or
the "Spekultive" philosopher, is not to be confused with any actual
development of God from abstract Being. Also we must always keep in
mind that Hegel's philosophy is circular in nature. It begins and
ends in Being, and it can also begin and end at any other point as
well, and yield the same result. Any serious student of Hegel should
know this, and therefore any attempt to invert Hegel is like trying
to invert a circle. It must fail, if you truly understand the
circular nature of the Concept.

As you rightly state that God is self-conscious for all eternity, it
still remains that a systematic comprehension or systematic thinking
may start at one point and continue onward until it has thought
through to its own entirety. This is what the Logic represents -
God's systematic thinking of Himself, which is also the same as
the "Spekulative" philosopher's scientific thinking of God or the
Absolute.

You will surely agree that being is consitutive of God. Is it a
finite category when we say that God IS, or that God knows that He
is. God has qualities such as might, goodness, mercy, beauty, etc.
Do you think that God may not know His own strength, beauty,
goodness, etc.? If He is self-conscious, how can these qualities be
unknown to Him? In this way it seems to me that all the categories
can be known by God, or Man, as being within Himself without
decreasing His infinity in the least.

[Side Note: We keep referring to "Him" to indicate the self-
conscious Absolute, God. This is due to the Judeo, Islamic,
Christian influence that guides so much of modern thought about God,
while both male and female forms of species are found in nature,
especially in the human form, which Hegel identifies as the highest
spiritual form reflecting the form of God. So why do we refer to God
as "Him?" In other profoundly developed spiritual and religious
traditions we find the Divinity represented as both male and female,
such as Sita-Rama, Lakshmi-Narayan, Radha-Krishna. In these
religions monotheism is still adhered to, but not as mere or
abstract monotheism. Rather I think these represent a more
concretely developed monotheism. The male-and-female forms of God
represent the identity and difference of Shakti and Shaktimam, or
Energy and Possessor of Energy (or energetic source). Hegel never
studied these forms in their absolute essence. In my opinion this
remains a fertile area for future Hegelian studies.]

The so-called finite categories that you mentioned, are expressly
described by Hegel as 'unrealities' in the sense that they are truly
grasped only as transcending themselves, i.e. as idealities or
infinities in their truth. So the Absolute never grasps itself in
terms of finite categories, but idealities, which is why Hegel calls
all true philosophy absolute idealism.

I think if you take a more sympathetic view of what Hegel is trying
to present you may realize more of the logical soundness of his
system. Surely there are factual errors based upon the limited
knowledge of his times, or his own limited knowledge of, for
instance, various religions. But methodologically his system seems
to be quite sound - there has not been a valid refutation of it in
almost 200 years, and it claims to follow the same logic as
Aristotle, but more systematically.

Kind regards,
Mike Marchetti

My Reply

Dear Dr.Mike Marchetti,

As both you and Paul Trejo's main point is that Hegel does not start from either from abstract being or being let me include the reply to Paul .(please refer Appendix-2-My Reply)

Now I will try to reply some of your points,

>In his "Science of Logic," Hegel nowhere writes that the
>Absolute begins from Being, and certainly not that it >evolves from abstract Being.

Now as you seem interested more in the science of logic and not in encyclopedia so in case the above quotes which shows being and abstract being is the beginning here are some from the science of logic.

"This simple immediacy, therefore, in its true expression is pure being. Just as pure knowing is to mean knowing as such, quite abstractly, so too pure being is to mean nothing but being in general: being, and nothing else, without any further specification and filling-Science of Logic 97

"Here the beginning is made with being which is represented as having come to be through mediation, a mediation which is also a sublating of itself; and there is presupposed pure knowing as the outcome of finite knowing, of consciousness. But if no presupposition is to be made and the beginning itself is taken immediately, then its only determination is that it is to be the beginning of logic, of thought as such. All that is present is simply the resolve, which can also be regarded as arbitrary, that we propose to consider thought as such."- S L98

"Thus the beginning must be an absolute, or what is synonymous here, an abstract beginning; and so it may not suppose anything, must not be mediated by anything nor have a ground; rather it is to be itself the ground of the entire science. Consequently, it must be purely and simply an immediacy, or rather merely immediacy itself. Just as it cannot possess any determination relatively to anything else, so too it cannot contain within itself any determination, any content; for any such would be a distinguishing and an inter-relationship of distinct moments, and consequently a mediation. The beginning therefore is pure being"- S L$ 99

"The said beginning is neither an arbitrary and merely provisional assumption, nor is it something which appears to be arbitrarily and tentatively presupposed, but which is subsequently shown to have been properly made the beginning"-S L106

"Thus the ground, the reason, why the beginning is made with pure being in the pure science [of logic] is directly given in the science itself. This pure being is the unity into which pure knowing withdraws, or, if this itself is still to be distinguished as form from its unity, then being is also the content of pure knowing. It is when taken in this way that this pure being, this absolute immediacy has equally the character of something absolutely mediated. But it is equally essential that it be taken only in the one-sided character in which it is pure immediacy, precisely because here it is the beginning. If it were not this pure indeterminateness, if it were determinate, it would have been taken as something mediated, something already carried a stage further: what is determinate implies an other to a first. Therefore, it lies in the very nature of a beginning that it must be being and nothing else"- S L107

"We cannot really extract any further determination or positive content for the beginning from the fact that it is the beginning of philosophy. For here at the start, where the subject matter itself is not yet to hand, philosophy is an empty word or some assumed, unjustified conception. Pure knowing yields only this negative determination, that the beginning is to be abstract. If pure being is taken as the content of pure knowing, then the latter must stand back from its content, allowing it to have free play and not determining it further. Or again, if pure being is to be considered as the unity into which knowing has collapsed at the extreme point of its union with the object, then knowing itself has vanished in that unity, leaving behind no difference from the unity and hence nothing by which the latter could be determined. Nor is there anything else present, any content which could be used to make the beginning more determinate".-S L108

"The analysis of the beginning would thus yield the notion of the unity of being and nothing — or, in a more reflected form, the unity of differentiatedness and non-differentiatedness, or the identity of identity and non-identity. This concept could be regarded as the first, purest, that is, most abstract definition of the absolute — as it would in fact be if we were at all concerned with the form of definitions and with the name of the absolute. In this sense, that abstract concept would be the first definition of this absolute and all further determinations and developments only more specific and richer definitions of it. But let those who are dissatisfied with being as a beginning because it passes over into nothing and so gives rise to the unity of being and nothing, let them see whether they find this beginning which begins with the general idea of a beginning and with its analysis (which, though of course correct, likewise leads to the unity of being and nothing), more satisfactory than the beginning with being".-S L112

"But what, at the beginning of the science, is actually present of intellectual intuition-or of the eternal, the divine, the absolute, if its object be so named-cannot be anything else than a first, immediate, simple determination. Whatever richer name be given to it than is expressed by mere being, the consideration of such absolute must be restricted solely to the way in which it enters into our knowing as thought and is enunciated as such".-S L120

"If, therefore, in the expression of the absolute, or eternal, or God (and God has the absolutely undisputed right that the beginning be made with him) — if in the intuition or thought of these there is implied more than pure being — then this more must make its appearance in our knowing only as something thought, not as something imagined or figurately conceived; let what is present in intuition or figurate conception be as rich as it may, the determination which first emerges in knowing is simple, for only in what is simple is there nothing more than the pure beginning; only the immediate is simple, for only in the immediate has no advance yet been made from a one to an other. Consequently, whatever is intended to be expressed or implied beyond being, in the richer forms of representing the absolute or God, this is in the beginning only an empty word and only being; this simple determination which has no other meaning of any kind, this emptiness, is therefore simply as such the beginning of philosophy".-S L121

>however, you have a tendency to transpose >Hegel'sphilosophy >into an upside-downposture.

Is Hegel's moments of logic notion-essence-being?Start with notion and ends with being.?

>Rather, what he does state is that Science(specifically >the Science of Logic) begins with Being. Insofar as >Science or the comprehensive knowledge of the Absolute is >identical
>with the Absolute, we can interpret the Logic as the >Absolute's self-knowledge of itself - or since the >Absolute is self-conscious orGod - it is God's rational >comprehension of Himself.

Yes, it is true and I already told in my post that all the mystics agree that the self conscious being or notional being comprehending his predicates.but if Hegel is also saying the same thing how is notion only implicit? if subject or self is in the beginning how notion is substance self-realised? how "which contemplates its contents as its own self. It is its own content, in so far as it ideally distinguishes itself from itself, and the one of the two things distinguished is a self-identity"-$237 This self or subject only comes at the last stage of notion.

>Also we must always keep inmind that Hegel's philosophy is >circular in nature. It begins andends in Being, and it can >also begin and end at any other point aswell, and yield >the same result. Any serious student of Hegel shouldknow >this, and therefore any attempt to invert Hegel is like >tryingto invert a circle. It must fail, if you truly >understand thecircular nature of the Concept.

Hegel is not saying the absolute is circular in nature but the speculative philosophers knowledge is circular because when he arrives at notion he comprehends that notion is at the beginning.but about the absolute what he says is

"Through this progress, then, the beginning loses the one-sidedness which attaches to it as something simply immediate and abstract; it becomes something mediated, and hence the line of the scientific advance BECOMES a circle. It also follows that because that which forms the beginning is still undeveloped, devoid of content, it is not truly known in the beginning; it is the science of logic in its whole compass which first constitutes the completed knowledge of it with its developed content and first truly grounds that knowledge".- S L104

"that the advance is a retreat into the ground, to what is primary and true, on which depends and, in fact, from which originates, that with which the beginning is made. Thus consciousness on its onward path from the immediacy with which it began is led back to absolute knowledge as its innermost truth. This last, the ground, is then also that from which the first proceeds, that which at first appeared as an immediacy"-S L 102

"We see therefore that, on the other hand, it is equally necessary to consider as result that into which the movement returns as into its ground. In this respect the first is equally the ground, and the last a derivative; since the movement starts from the first and by correct inferences arrives at the last as the ground, this latter is a result. Further, the progress from that which forms the beginning is to be regarded as only a further determination of it, hence that which forms the starting point of the development remains at the base of all that follows and does not vanish from it. The progress does not consist merely in the derivation of an other, or in the effected transition into a genuine other; and in so far as this transition does occur it is equally sublated again. Thus the beginning of philosophy is the foundation which is present and preserved throughout the entire subsequent development, remaining completely immanent in its further determinations".-S L 103

So according to Hegel in the case of absolute the nature is not a circle from the beginning but it BECOMES a circle at the end when substance self realised(notion).it is through progress to notion it becomes a circle.Being depends on notion . Self is realised only when self is distinguished from predicates.Thought as being becomes thought as thinker only at the stage of notion.At that stage thinker and his thoughts.So with Hegel it begins with pure being and ends with notional being.So the circle has a beginning,progress and a result.So you cannot begin from any thing or from anywhere of absolute according to Hegel.

>This is what the Logic represents -God's systematic >thinking of Himself, which is also the same as
>the "Spekulative" philosopher's scientific thinking of God >or the Absolute.

Both are not same.God's systematic thinking or in the speculative philosophers scientific thinking about God.In no state of absolute, being precede thinker.Thinker comes first.the absolute subject.Even when he is thinking he is pure being thinker is there as explicit notion.so being is thoughts of the thinker not thinker himself.

yes it is different with finite speculative philosophers or other human beings because there is a state when he was not thought but pure being.so he can think he was or thought in its immediacy is being.Substituting this into the absolute realm ,or to say god is also thinking like that is nothing less of sacrilegious.

>You will surely agree that being is consitutive of God. Is >it afinite category when we say that God IS, or that God >knows that Heis. God has qualities such as might, >goodness, mercy, beauty, etc.Do you think that God may not >know His own strength, beauty,goodness, etc.? If He is >self conscious, how can these qualities beunknown to Him? >In this way it seems to me that all the categories
>can be known by God, or Man, as being within Himself >withoutdecreasing His infinity in the least.

I think I have already explained this in my article,here it is

"The Absolute is as subject and with all his predicates eternally or from the beginning.What I mean here eternal or beginning is not in relation to time but logical beginning.Logically there is not a prior state of Absolute as Being and then becoming Notional Being .Logical beginning itself is Absolute as subject and with all his predicates,not implicitly but explicitly.The only thing is in its immediacy he is only conscious of self and in mediation he is conscious of his predicates one by one.Becoming conscious of predicates is not same as unconscious becoming and only becoming subject at the last stage.

>So why do we refer to God as "Him?"

This is because even though absolute has two aspects or forms one overlaps and include the other.

Subject includes predicates,Purusa or Siva include prakriti Maya or sakti,Being includes nothing,One includes Other,Identity include difference,masculine includes feminine,infinite includes finite,Notion includes being etc

>The so-called finite categories that you mentioned, are >expressly described by Hegel as 'unrealities'

I Don't think Hegel says finite categories unrealities.(by the way I thought from your earlier e-mails you are the proponent of Qualified monism of Ramanuja and not a mayawadi).

according to logic of encyclopedia "contingency" is a category" of the absolute.Actuality(i-possibility-ii-contingency-iii-real possibility).Like that limit and finititude are also categories.

"Although contingency, as it has thus been shown, is only one aspect in the
whole of actuality, and therefore not to be mistaken for the whole of
actuality, and therefore not to be mistaken for actuality itself, it has no less
than the rest of the forms of the idea its due office in the world of objects"-145n-logic Encyclopedia.

So it is part of the Absolute or Real.What Hegel expressly states is that it is not that finite is unreal but the finite has no independent existence apart from the infinite.(materialism,dialectical materialism&some elements in dvaita philosophy of Madava.).The finite is derived or dependent on the infinite for their existence. I fully agree with Hegel on this. The infinite both include and transcend the finite,but never negate it.

>This is what the Logic represents -God's systematic >thinking of Himself

Dear Dr.Mike,The absolute is infinite as subject and his predicates are also infinite.It is true that man contains all the categories of absolute and his form is the perfect physical form of spirit and his language is still higher the perfect expression of spirit.But man as subject and also his predicates are limited.As I told earlier the infinite include and transcend this finite subjectivity and predicates.The Absolutes infinite subjectivity and predicates can manifest as infinite forms.All these categories and self consciousness can manifest as infinite forms which we human beings can never reach even in our imagination.All the knowledge,whether that of speculative philosophers like Hegel or mystics are limited to our solar system.Mystics agree that in our solar system only earth is inhabited by physical self conscious human beings and the 7 higher spheres(represented by moon,mercury,Venus,mars,Jupiter,Saturn,Uranus)is inhabited by only subtle material beings and the three higher spheres(Neptune,Pluto,sun)inhabited by higher non material beings.

Beyond this there are other solar systems in our milky way galaxy and other groups galaxies like milky way galaxy in our universe.there may be finite material self conscious beings and other beings can be in this universe.The same infinite subjectivity and predicates like self consciousness,being,matter or all these categories can take infinite forms unknowable to us.So what is the point of talking a mere speculative philosopher with his limited self consciousness and predicates talking about "God's systematic thinking of Himself" and also beginning this Eternal Thinker not as Thought but as pure Being like we finite self conscious beings and saying He Himself like us only becomes Subject or Thinker at the last stage of Notion.

regards

lathief.

Dr.Mike Marchetti's Reply

Thank you for your very thorough response to my comments.

There is no need to make so many references to the fact that Hegel
starts the Logic with Being - everyone knows that already. The
question you are raising is whether Hegel is CONSTRUCTING the
Absolute out of abstract Being, or merely explicating the STRUCTURE
of the Absolute as Rational (logical). Hegel's intention is the
latter - to articulate Logic of the Absolute, which is epistemo-
ontological in nature because it is self-reflective.

If it were a CONSTRUCTIVE process that Hegel intended then the
dialectical development that is at the foundation of the method of
Logic would not be available to him. Abstract Being, on its own,
would never be able develop further. It is only because the
philosopher is a thinking self-consciousness that dialectical
development is possible. Dialectic refers to the thinking activity
that underlies concept formation. The whole concept of abstract
Being, since it is an abstraction - is already a product of thought.
So thought is there right from the very beginning - there can never
be merely an abstract Being without thought. The essential point for
Hegel is that abstract Being is immediate, or the beginning of
thought's own logical structure.

The circularity of philosophical knowledge is certainly a becoming
or a result, but it is a result that establishes what it already was
at the beginning, even if not explicitly articulated. This is
clearly stated by the quote that you, yourself, provided:

"... the advance is a retreat into the ground, to what is primary
and true, on which depends and, in fact, from which originates, that
with which the beginning is made. Thus consciousness on its onward
path from the immediacy with which it began is led back to absolute
knowledge as its innermost truth. This last, the ground, is then
also that from which the first proceeds, that which at first
appeared as an immediacy."- (SL 102).

Here it is explained that the beginning is originated out of what is
primary and true - "the ground, is then also that from which the
first proceeds." Even if we say that the Absolute only becomes
conscious of this at the end, it still implies that there was no
actual evolution of the Absolute our of abstract Being, because the
complete Absolute was there in full from the beginning. Furthermore,
how can the Absolute begin and proceed from that which is not
absolute?

Another fundamental issue that you completely ignore in your
presentation is that if the nature of the Absolute were not rational
to begin with, then the Logic as such would not be possible.
Rational being must first be present in order to know that Being
forms the first beginning of Logic. Because one cannot think "Being"
as the beginning of philosophy without first being a self-
consciousness, Hegel actually starts his system with the
presupposition of the self-consciousness Absolute established by the
preliminary work of the Phenomenology. The Phenomenology is the
presupposition of the Science of Logic. So this establishes the
Logic merely as a sphere of the Absolute - a feature of its totality
as the Absolute, which is also Absolute even though it is a feature,
but nonetheless is a feature that must be considered in relation to
the whole Absolute as not only Logical but also Real (as Nature and
Spirit).

In all of this discussion, the most important thing that may be
understood is that the Infinite, for Hegel, is not the unlimited,
but the self-limited - the self-determined Absolute. The unlimited
is the bad (schlecht) infinite. God is not unlimited, for that is
only the God of abstract understanding - not God in His Truth. God
is self-limited - He can limit Himself and then negate that limit.
Thus God does have both form and content, but is not limited by them
since He can negate whatever limits or determinations He establishes
for Himself.

Next, when I asked

>So why do we refer to God as "Him?"

You replied:

>
This is because even though absolute has two aspects or forms one
overlaps and include the other.
>

Therefore, "Him" is an incomplete expression for God. The Other
is 'included' in "Him" but it is not explicitly put forth, and
therefore the conception of "Him" is really an abstract
representation of the concrete Truth of God - and even the
term "God" bears this same abstract nature. The Concept includes the
three moments of Universality, Particularity and Individuality and
their dynamic relationship. So the most conceptually accurate
reference to the Absolute would be the "Divine Trinity." For
philosophy we use the term Concept, implying that one knows what the
Concept is in its scientific completeness.

The divine conception of the Other of God, is not only Man or the
world, as may be conceived from the study of Hegel's philosophy. The
Other of God as Him is Her, and this is found in the religions of
certain vaisnava traditions, as well as in the Shaivaite traditions
of Shiva and Parvati, and in the other extreme as the worship of
purely female forms found in the worship of Kali, etc.

The Self and Other is the complete comprehension of the Absolute,
and these two, while Identical, are also Different. The true
understanding of the Absolute principle is that it is essentially
identical in its difference from itself, and differentiated in its
identity with itself. Thus the complete Whole Absolute Truth may not
be represented merely as "Him."

A good example to clarify this principle is to compare the Sun and
the sunshine. Certainly the sunshine is not independent of the Sun,
and the Sun includes the sunshine. But does the sunshine include the
Sun? I think anyone can understand that if there is sunshine, the
Sun is automatically assumed to be there. In this sense we can say
the sunshine includes the Sun. Yet Sun and sunshine are different.
The Sun planet is distinct from the radiation (sunshine) it gives
off. If the sunshine is in your room, and you say, "The sun is in my
room" it does not mean the Sun planet is there. We distinguish the
Sun from its energy. Thus Energy and Energetic source are
distinguished. In general, therefore, Shakti (Energy) and Shaktiman
(Energetic source or literally possessor of Energy) must be
distinguished. So it is more concrete to affirm the Divine as Shakti-
Shaktimam, to indicate that identity and difference both apply
equally to the Absolute. If one wants to go beyond Hegel, I think
that this is the direction that one may want to apply their efforts.
It is not that the sound principles of Hegelian philosophy are to be
irrationally discarded, but they may be extended to include those
areas that he may not have studied or comprehended in their entirety.

Next, when I wrote:

>The so-called finite categories that you mentioned are expressly
>described by Hegel as 'unrealities'

You replied:

>
I don't think Hegel says finite categories unrealities. (by the way
I
thought from your earlier e-mails you are the proponent of Qualified
monism of Ramanuja and not a mayawadi)....What Hegel expressly
states is
that it is not that finite is unreal but the finite has no
independent existence apart from the infinite.
>

The problem here is that you are quoting me out of context. My
complete statement was:

>
The so-called finite categories that you mentioned, are expressly
described by Hegel as 'unrealities' in the sense that they are truly
grasped only as transcending themselves, i.e. as idealities or
infinities in their truth.
>

In other words, they are unrealities *in the sense that* (which is
the essential qualifier here) their truth is that they transcend
themselves or are infinite. The finite is real, but not in the same
sense that the Absolute is real. The finite has no independent
reality (as you also rightly state). This is the point I am making.
Indeed the Mayavad philosophy, which states "Brahma satyam jagat
mithyam" - that only Brahman is real, while the world is unreal - is
not embraced by Hegel, or Ramanuja, or Madhva, and many others of
the non-Shankarite schools of Vedanta. But the truth of the finite
is that it vanishes - it dies - it is temporary or non-eternal. Into
what does it vanish and from what does it arise? Both birth and
death characterize the finite - it comes into being and ceases to
be, and thus finite being is part of a process, which is becoming. A
study of Hegel's Science of Logic shows how being transcends itself
and is sublated in the concept of Becoming. Later in the same book
he shows how the finite transcends itself, such transcending being
the movement of the Infinite becoming itself.

The details of this idea require a separate study. I am only
presenting a few brief comments here. The actual in-depth study of
these things requires a careful development as found in the Science
of Logic, a study that our Science of Logic list is undertaking, if
anyone is interested.

Kind regards,
Mike Marchetti

P.S. Let us try to resolve your difficulties one at a time. You can
post other opinions after we clear up some of the basic
misunderstandings that are presented here in your first post.

My Reply

Dear Dr.Mike Marchetti,

Thanks for the reply.

let me first clear two points from your earlier post.

>Insofar as Science or the comprehensive knowledge of the Absolute is identical with the Absolute, we can interpret the Logic as the Absolute's self-knowledge of itself - or since the Absolute is self-conscious or
God - it is God's rational comprehension of Himself. But the
systematic comprehension of God either by Himself or
the "Spekultive" philosopher, is not to be confused with any actual
>development of God from abstract Being.

if as you say knowledge of absolute is identical with the absolute and logic is Absolute's self knowledge of himself how is logic or systematic comprehension of God himself is not actual development of God from abstract being since this logic begins with abstract being.This means there is contradiction in absolute's knowledge of himself about himself which is impossible.Now as He is Absolute there cannot be any contradiction as you say between his knowledge and actual fact or truth.if we leave aside this contradiction there are only two possibilities.one as you say the self conscious god comprehending himself as beginning from pure being which is also his actual development.the absolute subject or thought as thinker comprehending a state as beginning where thought was not as subject or as thinker but as pure being and the present state of subject only implicit at that state of pure being.Now as I told The knowledge of god must be identical with actuality Absolute Begins from pure being.

leaving aside this first contradiction of god's knowledge and his actual state another contradiction is that even if this knowledge of absolute is not his actual development as you say, as self conscious being from eternity or without beginning even this systematic self knowledge is absurd and unnecessary.There is no need for the self conscious being to think that this state of thinker or subject has a beginning as pure being and subject as implicit,then I become substance ,then I become life then self realised notion and now at my present state of subject and predicates.As I told earlier The basic problem here is like the problem of making the pure being before knowledge,notion,subject thinker etc the beginning and making subject only implicit at that stage .Here also making BECOMING a prior category and making knowledge and notion develops from these notionless(notion implicit)categories by becoming.Even in his systematic knowledge of himself ,even without considering your earlier contradiction of this knowledge is not actual development,this is unnecessary and an impossibility.The eternal ,without beginning Knower or subject comprehending himself as becoming this comprehending subject which is also a contradiction.

That is why I in my earlier post told that all the mystics are unanimous that self conscious being or Absolute subject is the beginning if there is a beginning at all and all these categories are his predicates only which he becomes aware one by one in succession.so when he thinks I am being or I am substance or I am life the I or subject or the knowledge of the knower is prior to all these predicates and not like Hegel say becoming is prior to his knowledge or as you say the state of becoming is prior to knower even in the comprehension of self knowledge of himself.

Now I know even my this saying that from the beginning or awareness of predicates one by one is in relation to logic or thought.this is the limitation of logic itself and not a defect or limit of the absolute.it is the nature of thought that immediacy is prior to mediation and no moment include both because there is a need for movement.so we say subject or thinker or self conscious being is prior because self consciousness is immediate and self absorption need no special attention.that is why as Hegel says in all our activities I is present.so we say the two states of Absolute is (1)self absorbed into himself as subject or thinker and (2)awareness of his predicates.

Now if you reflect on these contradiction some thing will become clear to you.Here what Hegel doing is what he accuses all the earlier metaphyscion are doing.beginning his logic with the conceptions and experiences derived from nature and finite mind.That is why he begins with abstract being. Finite beings including self conscious human beings have a beginning as abstract being(abstract object-space and abstract subject-time).this is the beginning of finite beings and notion or absolute mind is implicit in this being only become explicit in self conscious humans.so there is also a BECOMING in finite beings where the implicit notion as absolute idea and the implicit subject becomes explicit self conscious being becoming life (plants)cognition(animals) etc.so after all what Hegel describe through logic is the development of finite beings and not "the nature of absolute as he is in himself"

This lead us to my second point.Dr. Mike what is the rationale or why you make such a big claim that "we can interpret the Logic as the Absolute's self-knowledge of itself - or since the Absolute is self-conscious or God - it is God's rational comprehension of Himself ".Of course it is not God who says that logic is "I am thinking about myself" but when Dr. Mike or rather Hegel thinking himself speculatively he himself says that it is God's knowledge of himself or it is God who is thinking himself.when we trace this rather unusual and also very profound claim we can see that it is the essence of Hegel's philosophy.

According to Hegel thought in its un adulterated form or as speculative reason unlike other thought forms like imagination,concepts which are finite forms,is infinite,absolute and universal.Hence the science of logic of the speculative philosopher is the knowledge of God about himself.It is true that unlike any other categories or unlike any other thought forms like images ,representation,concepts pure thought or speculative thought is universal and infinite.but there are two points of confusion here.one is total identity of this speculative reason with Absolute Knowledge.That is a one sided view.there is not only identity but also difference between the two.Even though in comparison with other categories speculative reason is infinite , universal and absolute comparing with knowledge of God or Absolute human speculative reason is finite and limited.unlike other limit and finititude which are quantitative this is qualitative limit and finititude.even a little reflection or in your terminology speculative reason itself shows that there cannot be total identity between self conscious human being and absolute subject or in other words thought as human subject and thought as Absolute Subject. like wise there is no total identity between knowledge of Absolute as Absolute idea and speculative knowledge of man as absolute mind.Human beings can never over come their determination as humans or manifestation of human mind.

This takes us to my second point the difference between absolute idea and absolute mind.Mystical traditions differentiate between absolute idea and absolute mind.even though both are eternal absolute idea is transcendental and absolute mind is the immanent aspect of god.both are different planes .absolute as absolute idea include and transcend the absolute mind.so there is not only identity but also difference.this is because while absolute idea is god absorbed in himself as absolute subject and absorbed in his predicates absolute mind is absorbed in creation or manifestations.Although man include all the categories of absolute so there is a limited knowledge of god as Absolute Idea, as manifestation of Absolute mind his specific ideas are limited to our solar system.So man is a generic name and there may be gross material self conscious being in other solar system or other galaxies.as I told earlier the same predicates can take unimaginable forms else where.so the absolute mind of we humans are related to our earth.as objective mind its universal history,as absolute mind the artistic mind(the forms revealed in this earth&solar system),religious mind and philosophic mind is connected with this solar system.Still The Absolute as Absolute Idea include but also transcend all these worlds of absolute mind.

but even at this plane of Absolute mind ,as absolute mind notion comes first ,it is the beginning.when the speculative philosopher thinks as it is the absolute mind which thinks in that plane notion is the beginning.it is only on the plane of manifestation as abstract object(space) and abstract subject(Time) being is the beginning and notion as absolute mind is implicit.

so if we agree that it is not god who says logic is the systematic self knowledge of myself and also leave the contradiction that systematic self knowledge of god is not his actual development we come to the conclusion that it is the speculative philosopher who says when he thinks speculatively it is god who is thinking himself.but here also as speculative reason it is the absolute mind and not absolute idea which thinks himself.but even as absolute mind notion is the beginning.so when the beginning is abstract being in the logic it is the thought of finite human beings derived from conceptions and experiences and beginning with space ,notion absolute mind implicit and becoming explicit in self conscious human beings.So only in this case is the subject is implicit in being,substance,life etc.

>Surely there are factual errors based upon the limited
>knowledge of his times, or his own limited knowledge of, for
>instance, various religions.

yes it is true that the absolute mind is limited by history and manifest generally the knowledge appropriate to the time.but to say that absolute mind cannot know the knowledge of the existing religions only means it is not the absolute mind as speculative reason but finite reason which is ignorant of the religious mind of the time.Speculative reason as Absolute mind is the final development of philosophic mind and should include and transcend the objective mind(universal history) and absolute mind as artistic mind,religious mind etc.

now we will discuss your other points of this post

>There is no need to make so many references to the fact that Hegel
>starts the Logic with Being - everyone knows that already.The
question you are raising is whether Hegel is CONSTRUCTING the
Absolute out of abstract Being, or merely explicating the STRUCTURE
of the Absolute as Rational (logical)

Yes that is better.At last we can have sound beginning.Although in my references I clearly shown the evolution of absolute as only implicit subject in being,substance as the stage of non realised self and notion and particularly the stage of absolute idea as where absolute only distinguishes himself from himself so that one of the distinguished is self or subject and the other contents or predicates.the absolute as thinking thought or as thinker or subject at last at the stage of absolute idea.

>Abstract Being, on its own,would never be able develop further.It is only >because the philosopher is a thinking self-consciousness that dialectical development is possible. Dialectic refers to the thinking >activity that underlies concept formation.

yes it would be Dr.Mike,because it is implicit notion or absolute mind.dialectics is not only explicit thinking activity.it is a one sided view so this argument never stand scrutiny .on the contrary in nature dialectics works not due to the thinking activity of philosopher but from the beginning notion is implicit in abstract being.so abstract being on its own develop further. here is Hegel himself.

Dialectic is the very nature and essence of everything predicated by mere understanding - the law of things and of the finite as a whole.-(ency-logic-81)

But when we look more closely, we find that the limitations of the finite do
not merely come from without; that its own nature is the cause of its
abrogation-81n

Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an
instance of Dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being
stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly
what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as
implicitly other than what it is, forced beyond its own immediate or
natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite.81n

>of philosophical knowledge is certainly a becoming
>or a result, but it is a result that establishes what it already was
>at the beginning, even if not explicitly articulated. This is
>clearly stated by the quote that you, yourself, provided:

"... the advance is a retreat into the ground, to what is primary
and true, on which depends and, in fact, from which originates, that
with which the beginning is made. Thus consciousness on its onward
path from the immediacy with which it began is led back to absolute
knowledge as its innermost truth. This last, the ground, is then
also that from which the first proceeds, that which at first
appeared as an immediacy."- (SL 102)

>Rational being must first be present in order to know that Being
>forms the first beginning of Logic. Because one cannot think "Being"
as the beginning of philosophy without first being a self-
consciousness, Hegel actually starts his system with the
presupposition of the self-consciousness Absolute established by the
>preliminary work of the Phenomenology. The Phenomenology is the
>presupposition of the Science of Logic.

yes it is true that notion is the ground if begins from phenomenology.because then self conscious human being is presupposed.so notion is presupposed as the below quotes from SL shows

"The Notion of pure science and its deduction is therefore presupposed in the present work in so far as the Phenomenology of Spirit is nothing other than the deduction of it." 51 SL

but here Hegel is speaking of the third syllogism where mind is presupposed and the self judging of logical idea into its two appearances.only from that view the result is the ground.This is also clearly stated.

§ 574 This notion of philosophy is the self-thinking Idea, the truth aware of itself (§ 236) - the logical system, but with the signification that it is universality approved and certified in concrete content as in its actuality. In this way the science has gone back to its beginning: its result is the logical system but as a spiritual principle: out of the presupposing judgment, in which the notion was only implicit and the beginning an immediate - and thus out of the appearance which it had there - it has risen into its pure principle and thus also into its proper medium.(ency-phil of mind)

so this is not pure logical system,but as a spiritual principle,because it starts from the self conscious human beings with speculative reason or as absolute mind.

again see below,

§ 577 The third syllogism is the Idea of philosophy, which has self- knowing reason, the absolutely universal, for its middle term: a middle, which divides itself into Mind and Nature, making the former its presupposition, as process of the Idea's subjective activity, and the latter its universal extreme, as process of the objectively and implicitly existing Idea. The self-judging of the Idea into its two appearances (§§ 575, 576) characterizes both as its (the self-knowing reason's) manifestations: and in it there is a unification of the two aspects: - it is the nature of the fact, the notion, which causes the movement and development, yet this same movement is equally the action of cognition. The eternal Idea, in full fruition of its essence, eternally sets itself to work, engenders and enjoys itself as absolute Mind.(phil of mind)

so only in the spirtualised logical system mind is presupposed.the self conscious being as absolute mind beginning the logic with being.This is because the notion as absolute mind is deduced in phenomenology.but this not the actual logical system as absolute is in himself where phenomenology only comes after nature so there is no presupposition of notion.so the actual beginning is not with notion presupposed as the above Para shows and logic itself shows and the below first syllogism shows.

§ 575 It is this appearing which originally gives the motive of the further development. The first appearance is formed by the syllogism, which is based on the Logical system as starting-point, with Nature for the middle term which couples the Mind with it. The Logical principle turns to Nature and Nature to Mind. Nature, standing between the Mind and its essence, sunders itself, not indeed to extremes of finite abstraction, nor itself to something away from them and independent - which, as other than they, only serves as a link between them: for the syllogism is in the Idea and Nature is essentially defined as a transition-point and negative factor, and as implicitly the Idea. Still the mediation of the notion has the external form of transition, and the science of Nature presents itself as the course of necessity, so that it is only in the one extreme that the liberty of the notion is explicit as a self-amalgamation.

here phenomenology comes only after nature at the stage of consciousness.

SECTION I. MIND SUBJECTIVE

SUB-SECTION B. PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS
(a) Consciousness proper
   (a) Sensuous Consciousness
   (b) Sense-perception
   (c) The Intellect
(b) Self-consciousness
   (a) Appetite
   (b) Self-consciousness Recognitive
   (c) Universal Self-consciousness
(c) Reason.

So the spiritualised logic of the speculative philosopher and the beginning of logic as "Absolute is in himself in his nature" is not same. it is only in the former the result becomes the ground but in actual logic First or abstract being is the ground .and in this case the next Para of what you quoted and many others show clearly that beginning is the real ground and notion is the result.

and many other quotes I have already given you from SL(97,98,104,106,107,108,112,120,121,

>Hegel actually starts his system with the
>presupposition of the self-consciousness Absolute established by the
>preliminary work of the Phenomenology.

so you can see that the spiritualised logic is not the presupposition of self conscious absolute as absolute subject but the presupposition of absolute mind as speculative reason of the philosopher or self conscious human beings and this comes only after the stage of nature in logic.

>In all of this discussion, the most important thing that may be
>understood is that the Infinite, for Hegel, is not the unlimited,
but the self-limited - the self-determined Absolute. The unlimited
is the bad (schlecht) infinite. God is not unlimited, for that is
only the God of abstract understanding - not God in His Truth. God
is self-limited - He can limit Himself and then negate that limit.
>Thus God does have both form and content, but is not limited by them
>since He can negate whatever limits or determinations He establishes
>for Himself

That is the mere play of words Dr.Mike.when I say the infinite and the unlimited include and transcend the finite and limited and your say he can limit and negate it the idea is same.these are all the different planes of the one and the same absolute.And it is a one sided view which define the absolute only as self limited or self determined unless of course you mean by self limit the first plane of absolute subject and his predicates-the absolute idea,the transcendental aspect.but when you say "He can limit Himself and then negate that limit" you mean the finite limit,so these definition of self limited and transcending this limit is not his real nature.and there is no negation of this limit also.these are different planes.the one and the same absolute as unlimited and self limited and the unlimited including and transcending the limited.God in his truth contain both these elements. each plane has the reality according to its plane and as it is the same absolute who forms these different planes.contingency is a category of the absolute .as categories are predicates they are real.it is true that from a higher plane lower looks less real or unreal it is in this sense that we can say finite is negated and in the sense of nullity.but in their own plane they are as real as the higher plane in its own level.when a less aware person give much reality to external appearance when becoming aware of ego give less importance to appearance and more to fame and power and again more awareness give more reality to philosophical knowledge and less to power and fame.like this nothing is negated.the most perfect knowledge gives everything its share of reality.and in one sense it is more to correct to say that both limited and unlimited because the speculative reason can know only absolute mind. the absolute idea is the transcendental aspect so cannot be known in its full.yes even this absolute idea can be called self determined or self limited but in that case there is no transcendence of this limit .in that case we regress in to false infinity.

>Therefore, "Him" is an incomplete expression for God. The Other
is 'included' in "Him" but it is not explicitly put forth, and
therefore the conception of "Him" is really an abstract
>representation of the concrete Truth of God

>The divine conception of the Other of God, is not only Man or the
>world, as may be conceived from the study of Hegel's philosophy

>But does the sunshine include theSun? I think anyone can understand that if there is sunshine, theSun is automatically assumed to be there. In this sense we can saythe sunshine includes the Sun. Yet Sun and sunshine >are different.

All the above quotes shows that you have not understood me correctly.so I will try to explain.I never told the other is man or man only nor predicates include the subject(sun shine including sun).

Absolute is absolute subject.subject implies predicates.predicates are him,but not him.predicates have no independent existence apart from the subject.predicates are immanent in the subject.subject is more than the predicates.absolute subject include and transcend the predicates.predicates include the subject only by implication.so there is not only identity but also difference.

now these subject and predicates are what Plato calls One and other,what samkya calls purusa and prakrti,what kasmir saivism calls Siva and sakti(parvati) what shankara calls brahman and Maya.Subject is the masculine and predicates are the feminine aspect.now you may understand that the definition of all great mystics of this Subject by "He" is an adequate expression.unless of course you consider the definition of Sun as in adequate and want to replace it with sun-sunshine or something like that.so if WE understand the immense notion of He it is the most concrete definition of Absolute.

>The Concept includes the three moments of Universality, Particularity >and Individuality and
their dynamic relationship. So the most conceptually accurate reference >to the Absolute would be the "Divine Trinity.

>If one wants to go beyond Hegel, I think that this is the direction that >one may want to apply their efforts.

I think it is ones theological bent of mind making these statements.yes the religious minds are attempting to make the trinity concept higher than the philosophic concept.but as I told elsewhere religious mind is a lower stage than the philosophic mind of the absolute mind.the greatest mystics (like ibn arabi) and the greatest philosophers(like Hegel) concept of absolute is as dual nature and not as trinity as so many now try to prove.it is so obvious in their system. Actually the universality,particularity and individuality as categories forms only a minor category in Hegel's system.C-Notion-a-Subjective Notion-i-notion as notion-universality,particularity,individuality.but as you can see these are contained in the notion of Absolute.

the dual concept of Hegel and other great mystics are as absolute idea(what ibn arabi calls the divinity or the absolute or the Essence) and absolute mind(ibn arabi'splane of divine Names).these are the eternal two planes.absolute idea as eternal transcendental aspect and absolute mind as the eternal immanent aspect.Now as we discussed above the plane of absolute idea has two states or aspects.one the subject absorbed in himself(absolute subject),what ibn arabi calls the indeterminate essence or essence absorbed in himself).this is universality. the second state is subject aware of its predicates.what Hegel describes at the stage of absolute idea subject making the all preceding categories its content and distinguishing himself from himself.what ibn arabi calls the state of essential determination or personal essence.This is particularity.

The second plane is that of Absolute mind.the eternal immanent plane.what ibn arabi calls the plane of divine names.absolute idea manifesting as absolute mind through nature and finite mind.This is individuality .the universal I or absolute mind manifesting as individual beings.

below this are only the planes of manifestations whether mental imaginary or material planes.this Two or dual concept of the absolute is so obvious in Hegel's system not to miss it and try to make a triadic concept.

In Hindu samkya philosophy the first plane is(purusha&prkrti) and the second is Mahat.

now most of the mystics whether due to historical necessity or due to religious bend of mind considered the two state of the first plane as two planes.so there are three planes in their system.so there is Trimurti in Hindu system(Siva,Vishnu,Brahma-creator),three logi in Neo-Platonism,triad of Pythagoreans,higher triad of kabala.so as you can see the concept of trinity is not a new one but older than Christianity.

so no one can go beyond Hegel in his dual concept Dr. Mike. now if some one go to trinity they are not going forward but it is retrogression.It is the religious mind which still try to cling on to this trinity while this dual nature is a better and more adequate definition of a philosophic mind.

if you look at Hegel's writings of the religious mind from speculative reason or with philosophic mind,not only omitting immediate knowledge and sensuous shape and also finite represaentalism and the Christian dogmatism ,in short if you view this from pure speculative reason you can see the trinity in the philosophical aspect of the absolute in the lower planes .Here the universality" self centered eternal content,The Absolute Mind as implicit and the inner reality of the phenomenon-the particularity-the distinction of subject from predicates and manifestation of the predicates as phenomenon where subject is implicit and individuality-the full development as philosophic mind the explicit manifestation of Absolute Mind in speculative reason of the philosopher,manifestation of absolute mind and return to itself.

§ 565 When the immediacy and sensuousness of shape and knowledge is superseded, God is, in point of content, the essential and actual spirit of nature and spirit, while in point of form he is, first of all, presented to consciousness as a mental representation. This quasi-pictorial representation gives to the elements of his content, on one hand, a separate being, making them presuppositions towards each other, and phenomena which succeed each other; their relationship it makes a series of events according to finite reflective categories. But, on the other hand, such a form of finite representationalism is also overcome and superseded in the faith which realizes one spirit and in the devotion of worship.

§ 566 In this separating, the form parts from the content: and in the form the different functions of the notion part off into special spheres or media, in each of which the absolute spirit exhibits itself; (a) as eternal content, abiding self-centred, even in its manifestation; (b) as distinction of the eternal essence from its manifestation, which by this difference becomes the phenomenal world into which the content enters; (c) as infinite return, and reconciliation with the eternal being, of the world it gave away - the withdrawal of the eternal from the phenomenal into the unity of its fullness.

In other words, they are unrealities *in the sense that* (which is
the essential qualifier here) their truth is that they transcend
themselves or are infinite. .

>But the truth of the finites that it vanishes - it dies - it is temporary or non-eternal. Intowhat does it vanish and from what does it arise? Both birth and
death characterize the finite - it comes into being and ceases to
be, and thus finite being is part of a process, which is becoming.

You are confusing different planes both The absolute and the relative or both the infinite and the finite are real in their own planes.the reality of this problem is infinite include and transcend the finite and the reality of the finite is derived from the infinite."Contingency"is a categories of the absolute.it is real.birth and decay are the nature of finite in its own plane.That is the reality of nature.perhaps you are using the term real only for the absolute plane.But all the planes are that of the absolute.and he is real in every plane according to the nature of that plane.yes it is true from an higher plane the lower looks unreal because the higher include and transcend the lower one.Now take the case of finite as nature and finite mind.now both are implicitly absolute mind.Now this nature and finite mind have reality on their own plane.when absolute mind manifest as speculative mind or philosophic mind neither the material body of the philosopher is negated nor the finite mind.it is true that from speculative reason(as absolute mind)the finite mind and body looks unreal that is because the higher include and transcend the lower.

>In other words, they are unrealities *in the sense that* (which is
the essential qualifier here) their truth is that they transcend
>themselves or are infinite

The finite never transcend it self neither is the finite infinite or become infinite(you reminds me of the Christian dogma of the resurrection of Jesus and his second coming with the old body intact from heaven just before dooms day).Nature has its own law and that is its reality and it is the absolute himself in that plane.

>Astudy of Hegel's Science of Logic shows how being transcends itself
and is sublated in the concept of Becoming. Later in the same book
>he shows how the finite transcends itself, such transcending being
>the movement of the Infinite becoming itself.

sublated is not as negation.you can see that all these sublated categories becomes the predicates or content of the Subject at the end.it never ceases.every thing has its proper reality in its own plane.

>Indeed the Mayavad philosophy, which states "Brahma satyam jagat
mithyam" - that only Brahman is real, while the world is unreal - is
not embraced by Hegel, or Ramanuja, or Madhva, and many others of
>the non-Shankarite schools of Vedanta

You cannot ignore Shankara as a mere Maya vat Dr.Mike.Shankara is as difficult to understand as Hegel if not more.it is those who have not grasped his sublime philosophy who makes him a mere mayawad.a little reflection will show that it is not as world unreal but from the plane of absolute it is nothing but absolute itself as a single quotes from viveka chudamani shows.

"339. To realise the whole universe as the Self is the means of getting rid of bondage. There is nothing higher than identifying the universe with the Self. One realises this state by excluding the objective world through steadfastness in the eternal Atman"

A good example to clarify this principle is to compare the Sun and
the sunshine.......... , "The sun is in my
room" it does not mean the Sun planet is there. We distinguish the
Sun from its energy. Thus Energy and Energetic source are
distinguished

sorry to say Dr.Mike but this detailed illustration looks so silly to me.I know the relation of the absolute subject and his predicates and absorbed it long back and heard the analogy of sun and shine,ocean and its drops long long back.but there is nothing wrong in you thinking the others are not as spiritually developed and comprehended the absolute science as you are.

>It is not that the sound principles of Hegelian philosophy are to be
irrationally discarded

>a study that our Science of Logic list is undertaking, if
anyone is interested.

>Let us try to resolve your difficulties one at a time

>after we clear up some of the basic misunderstandings that are presented here in your first post.

your analogy of sun and shine and the words in the above quotes like irrational.you trying to resolve my difficulties,you clearing up my basic misunderstandings, are really so irritating and looks like the words of a preacher from the ivory tower.May be that is because I am not used to it or may be I am not expected it from a persons who claims to be on the spiritual path and on the process of sublimation of the unreal ego.may be in a discourse I expect to learn together .of course there is nothing wrong for you take the role of a preacher and consider yourself so spiritually advanced and absorbed Hegel correctly and the other ignorant of these knowledge.but I am not convinced Dr. Mike.so for the time being I am not interested to secondary material of science of logic or any other Hegel lists but rather depend on primary sources itself.And to tell you the truth I have experiences from those lists that every one is trying to add their dogmas and conceptions into Hegel and calling it Hegelian system.so I fear I not only gain anything but infact harm myself by such lists unless it is unmoderated and not one way traffic.

your explanation for not posting my "speculative reason versus mysticism " after so many days and without informing me is so insulting .It doesn't matter any more .My self respect and human dignity is not allowing me to continue in your group.so as you dictated to post my "speculative reason" only after "clear up some of the basic misunderstandings that are presented" in this post I request you to limit the discussion to only connected with the beginning of absolute as being since I intent to leave your group as soon as the present discussion is over.About infinity,trinity ,subject predicates I discussed in detail only because you started it.we may discuss it later. as you can see from this post that I have replied all your points concerned with Being and still convinced that Hegel begins the Absolute with being you may further illuminate me with your points and try to clear my irrational ,difficulties,basic misunderstanding and ignorance.

regards

lathief.

(Mr.Mike's Reply which he posted after banning me from the list so that I was neither able to see the post nor able to reply to it.)

Dear Dr. Lathief,

Trusting that your last post was a continuation of our objective
discussion, I was unaware that it contained personal barbs that
would be grounds for immediate rejection of that message without
explanation. Because that is not up to the principles of this list,
your message has been deleted from our archives. My apologies to the members of the group for my inattentiveness in this matter.

Since you maintain an intuitive notion of the Absolute, a method
that Hegel characterizes as merely grasping "clouds of error
instead of the heaven of truth," - such errors remain unconscious to
the intuitive mind. Therefore, we can only communicate at cross
purposes. Furthermore, you are unwilling to subject your own
thinking to the discipline of science since you are "not interested
to (sic) secondary material of science of logic or any other Hegel
lists but rather depend on primary sources itself," viz. your own
private intuitive knowledge.

Therefore, you have effectively put an end to this discussion. Since
you intend "to leave your[this] group as soon as the present
discussion is over" I take it as your permission to unsubscribe you
and save you the trouble.

Good luck to you.

Kind regards,
Mike Marchetti

(Mr Stephen Cowley's response to Mike's reply in "hegel-dialognet yahoo group"

ear Group,

I'm forwarding the message below apparently advising a member of the HegelNet hegel-religion group that he is being involuntarily unsubscribed. I have to say the reasons given - personal barbs and an "intuitive notion of the absolute" - strike me as inadequate. I can see that personal remarks can be irritating, but we all have rhetorical defences against them.

And surely an "intuitive notion of the absolute" is a legitimate subject of philosophical inquiry, rather than grounds for dismissal from the court of reason. Even Hegel argues against intuitionism - in various forms, e.g. in his attack on Jacobi in the Encyclopaedia, or on Krug in the early Critical Journal. The latter in particular was hardly without personal barbs, and I have always thought it susceptible of rational refutation on the grounds that every argument requires premisses, so we cannot in the end get beyond intuition, though we can certainly analyse and perhaps even acquire new elements of intuitive knowledge through rational debate...

Anyway, the unsubscribing policy strikes me as a bit over the top...

All the best

Stephen Cowley

2-.Post of Mr.John Bardis from Hegel Groups..

Thank you, Abdul, that was interesting.

One could, for instance, call God Father. This seemingly is an
analogy. By using something we understand from everyday life, we try
to understand God.

But according to EPHESIANS 3:14f, "I bow my knees before the Father,
from whom every father in heaven and on earth takes his name."

In other words, the reason there is fatherhood here on earth is
because it is the reflection of God's original Fatherhood.

And the same argument can be made about all the 99 names of God.

I have the feeling that Hegel was aware of this. But I can't really
argue the case at the moment.

John

My reply to Mr.John.

Dear John,

Yes, you are right.In his Universality we can call the Absolute, Father as the source and origin of everything.But the notion of Father itself implies self conscious being or notional being and not as Hegel begins his logic as notionless being which becomes notional being only in the last stage after substance(notion is substance self realised-Hegel).

Yes it is also true that all the limited and finite self conscious beings in heaven and earth is included and transcended by this limitless and infinite self conscious being as I already mentioned in my earlier post.Here also the name earthly and heavenly fathers contain the notion of self conscious beings and not unconscious,lifeless beings.

Yes it is also true that all the predicates(99 names) of these heavenly and earthly fathers&nature are a reflection or limited and finite aspect of the limitless and infinite predicates of the Absolute self conscious being .so they are the predicates,not the subject.The Absolute Subject is prior to all these predicates and not like what Hegel says Absolute becomes a Subject only at the last stage as notional being and absolute idea.by Becoming Being(notionless) into essence &essence into Notion(becoming life,then becoming knowledge,then absolute idea).What I try to say is He is Absolute Subject,self conscious being,notional being from the beginning and not Being(notionless,only notion implicit) from the beginning.

Lathief

Second post of Mr.John

Well, certainly, Dr. Lathief, I agree with you.

But I have to suppose that Hegel also agrees with you. In the dialectic abstract/negative/concrete - or thesis/antithesis/synthesis - obviously, although the concrete comes last in our thinking, the concrete is what is actual, and so it must precede the abstract in actuality.

Below the line is something I happen to be reading at the moment that describes the priority of the synthesis, although perhaps in somewhat colorful language. The following is from FRENCH HEGEL (2003) by Bruce Baugh, pages 19f.

John

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The origins of this re-interpretation can be traced as far back as Victor Delbos' Sorbonne lectures in 1909, which argued that in Hegel, the initial or immediate moment (the thesis) is conditioned by the resulting synthesis, which thus 'mediates' and precedes the origin, and is thereby 'doubled' into both the origin of the 'original' thesis and its result.

What most struck Delbos about the moment of 'synthesis' is that it is both the origin and the result of a dialectical progression, and it is this feature that would lead Delbos to identify the moment of synthesis with Hegel's Begriff, and the latter with an Absolute Subject.

Delbos' most important insight is that the synthesis - the whole - is prior to its parts, and prior to the opposing terms from which it only apparently emerges as a resolution. he Hegelian synthesis is not implicit in the thesis and antithesis, but is genuinely creative; it is the reason for the moments it subordinates and comprises, in the sense of being both their cause and their goal.

The chief interest in this interpretation is the implication that the synthesis precedes and doubles itself. Since the synthesis is the condition of the thesis and antithesis, and yet results from the union of these, it is its own condition of possibility, and in that sense, prior to itself. Since the synthesis is also the end towards which thesis and antithesis tend, the end (synthesis) is a beginning prior to the 'immediate' beginning (thesis).

As Delbos points out, this is merely an instance of Hegel's general rule that 'the higher is the reason for the lower'.

Because the Begriff is a synthesis that conditions itself through its own ends, and is in that sense the cause of itself, it must, says Delbos, be thought of as an Absolute Subject.

The Hegelian synthesis is both the conditioned and the conditioning, but understood temporally (as the conditioning of the past by a future end) and subjectively (as a subject simultaneously affecting and determining itself). Only in this way could the Begriff partake of the autonomy and self-sufficiency of Reason itself.

The implications of Delbos' emphasis on the temporal structure of the Begriff would not be brought out for nearly two decades, when Koyre related it to Heidegger's notion of 'temporality', which holds that the future is 'prior' to the past. Not until much later, in Derrida's philosophy, would French thought work out the implications of the idea that the synthesis is a prior condition of the first term (thesis), an origin of the origin, but one that is not 'given' or 'present', but rather always a result, and so subsequent to itself.

The question is how Derrida may lay claim to a conception of 'origin' bearing the marks of Hegelian synthesis, while at the same time denying the possibility of such a synthesis.

The short answer is that doubling without synthesis fractures and sets adrift all terms and concepts.

MY REPLY

Dear Mr.John,

The concrete which comes in our thinking is spiritualised logic where notion is presupposed.so it comes after phenomenology,the absolute mind thinking as the philosophic mind-the philosophers speculative reason.it forms the third syllogism.But phenomenology comes after logic and nature in first syllogism.So in this logic there is no presupposition of notion.in other words it is non-spiritualised notion according to Hegel(see encyclopedia-phil-of-mind-my last reply to Mr.Paul)

yes the concrete Absolute Subject must precede abstract being.but it is not in Hegel's system where this notion is only implicit.

Thanks for the Quotes and it is really interesting.

>The Hegelian synthesis is not implicit in the thesis and
.antithesis, but is genuinely creative;
>Since the synthesis is also
the end towards which thesis and antithesis tend, the end (synthesis) is a
>beginning prior to the 'immediate' beginning (thesis

Yes It should be like that.I fully agree with that.But in Hegel's system this Implicit notion(synthesis) only comes at the end as absolute idea or Absolute subject.

regards

lathief

3-Post of Mr.Paul Trejo from Hegel Groups.

In response to the Fri30Apr04 post by Dr. Abdul Lathief:

> ...The irony of it all is later came a man as intelligent
> as Hegel, Marx. He saw this absurdity. If the so called
> Absolute is mere abstract being in the beginning just like
> nature and finite mind and if he is mere becoming into life
> and self consciousness like finite nature, Marx was intelligent
> enough to see that all these categories of logic which Hegel
> claims the nature of the absolute is really the categories of
> the finite nature in its evolution from lifeless selfless
> being to life and self conscious man...

There is much to criticize in your narrative, Dr. Lathief:

1. Hegel does not say that the Absolute is abstract being.
He does not even say that the Absolute is abstract being in
the beginning. Hegel's System begins with the category of
abstract being in order to struggle to find a place to begin
to speak about something so lofty as the Absolute Truth. But
Hegel never says that the Absolute is abstract being. Never.

2. Marx is not the equal of Hegel in philosophy. While
political economists have suggested that Marx is superior
to Hegel as a political economist, no philosopher (worth
his salt) has ever suggested that Marx was superior or
equal to Hegel as a philosopher. This is because Marx
actively *renounced* philosophy in favor of political
economy, and it is ridiculous to promote a philosopher
who renounces philosophy.

3. The materialism of Marx is famous. The atheism of Marx
is also famous. Now, I gather from your own narrative,
Dr. Lathief, that you claim to be a theologian. Why, then,
do you cite an atheist as an authority in your work?

4. If you do nothing more than agree with Marx's materialism
in order to criticize Hegel, then you, like every communist
in the 20th century, have failed to read Hegel carefully.
Hegel's deduction of the Absolute is far more complex than
the exceedingly abstract sketch that you have presented.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

My reply

In response to the post by Mr.Paul Trejo,

>Hegel does not say that the Absolute is abstract being.
>He does not even say that the Absolute is abstract being >in the >beginning.

I Will repeat the Hegel quote from science of logic once again.

I hope the above quote is enough and no need of saying again and again logic and its stages are the exposition of God as He is in his eternal essence and his own absolute nature.

Now just a mere scanning of either the science of logic or logic in encyclopedia will show to any one that the stages of logic are Being,Essence and Notion.

"Logic is subdivided into three parts:
I. The Doctrine of Being.
II. The Doctrine of Essence.
III. The Doctrine of Notion and Idea.
That is, the Theory of Thought in:
I. its immediacy, the notion implicit and in germ,
II its reflection and mediation, the being-for-self and show of the
notion,
III. its return into self, and its developed abiding by itself - the notion
in and for itself".(§SL83-This and all other quotes below are form Logic-Encyclopedia )

The sub categories of Being are quality,quantity and measure.The sub categories of quality are Abstract being,Determinate being and Being for self.The first subcategory is abstract being and its moments are abstract being,nothing and becoming.

Being is the beginning and its first category is abstract being.Being is not notional being but notion less being.notion is only implicit in being.

"The several steps or stages of the Speculative Method are, first of all, (a)
the Beginning, which is Being or Immediacy: self-subsistent, for the simple
reason that it is the beginning".-238

"Being is the notion implicit only":-84

Pure Being makes the beginning: because it is on the one hand pure thought
, and on the other immediacy itself, simple and indeterminate; and the first
beginning cannot be mediated by anything, or be further determined.-86

The quality,the sub category of Being is mainly the category of unconscious,notionless being,and not the category of self conscious being.

"The three forms of being here mentioned, just because they are the first, are
also the poorest, i.e. the most abstract. Immediate (sensible) consciousness,
in so far as it simultaneously includes an intellectual element, is especially
restricted to the abstract categories of quality and quantity.
The sensuous consciousness is in ordinary estimation the most concrete and thus also the richest; but
that is true only as regards materials, whereas, in reference to the thought it contains, it is really the
poorest and most abstract".-85n

"Quality, moreover, is completely a category only of the finite, and for that
reason too it has its proper place in Nature, not in the world of the Mind.
Thus, for example, in Nature what are styled elementary bodies, oxygen,
nitrogen, etc., should be regarded as existing qualities. But in the sphere of
mind, Quality appears in a subordinate way only, and not as if its
qualitativeness could exhaust any specific aspect of mind".-90n

Because this is the beginning the definition of the absolute in the beginning is also that of notionless being and not self conscious being.

"If we enunciate Being as a predicate of the Absolute, we get the first
definition of the latter. The Absolute is Being. This is (in thought) the
absolutely initial definition, the most abstract and stinted".-86

"Being itself and the special sub-categories of it which follow, as well as
those of logic in general, may be looked upon as definitions of the Absolute
, or metaphysical definitions of God:

For a metaphysical definition of God is the
expression of his nature in thoughts as such: and logic embraces all
thoughts so long as they continue in the thought-form".-85

Not only the beginning but notion comes only after essence,after substance.Notion is substance self realised(Hegel).

"The Notion is the principle of freedom, the power of substance self-
realised".-160

So what should be at the beginning theologically,mystically religiously the self conscious absolute subject,notional being Becomes conscious of himself only at the last stage of logic.what all the mystical and religioions say self conscious being or the absolute subject aware of His predicates one by one like first being ,then life,will etc in Hegel system, like Nature and finite mind Absolute becomes aware of himself or becomes self conscious being like human beings only later.and that also like nature and human beings:]; Being becoming essence and then life then knowledge and self conscious being and not like religion and mystics say He is becoming aware of his predicates like I am being,I am life ,I am knowledge where the I or Subject or self conscious being is prior to all these predicates.

"Transition into something else is the dialectical process within the range of
Being:"-161

"The abstract form of the advance is, in Being, an other and transition into
an other";-240

In Hegel 's system in the beginning no subject apart from being.being is implicit subject,like that essence,substance,life are implicit subject. the subject or self conscious being or notional being only comes at the last stage.

"Seeing that there is in it no transition, or presupposition, and in general no
specific character other than what is fluid and transparent, the Absolute
Idea is for itself the pure form of the notion, which contemplates its
contents as its own self. It is its own content, in so far as it ideally
distinguishes itself from itself, and the one of the two things distinguished
is a self-identity in which however is contained the totality of the form as
the system of terms describing its content".-237

First ,in the beginning thought is only unconscious being only at the last stage thought becomes thinker or self conscious being.

"This unity is consequently the absolute and all
truth, the Idea which thinks itself - and here at last as a thinking or
Logical Idea."-236

>3. The materialism of Marx is famous. The atheism of Marx
>is also famous. Now, I gather from your own narrative,
>Dr. Lathief, that you claim to be a theologian. Why, then,
>do you cite an atheist as an authority in your work?

I am least bothered about comparing Marx and Hegel.In fact I consider Hegel as one of the greatest philosopher and there is extractions from his encyclopedia at my website along with other masters.I am not dogmatic so I am able to criticize when I see some disagreement.And whether I am a theologian or materialist is also not the point. I am stating some objective facts.the beginning of Absolute as notion less being like the beginning of nature and finite mind is inherently contains the seeds of dialectical materialism,the evolution of being with implicit notion .so after Hegel Marxism was a historical necessity.

>4. If you do nothing more than agree with Marx's materialism
>in order to criticize Hegel, then you, like every communist
>in the 20th century, have failed to read Hegel carefully.
>Hegel's deduction of the Absolute is far more complex than
>the exceedingly abstract sketch that you have presented.

I am not saying Marx is right .but I am saying Hegel is wrong to begin the absolute with being.Except this beginning and some other points many of the notion of Hegel like Absolute idea and absolute mind and the development of categories I consider the works of a genius.as I told I am not dogmatic enough to accept every thing blindly.

As whether I or you who read Hegel carefully and understand him correctly let the members make their own judgment by reading this posts.

lathief

Paul Trejo's Reply to my Post

> I Will repeat the Hegel quote from science of logic once
> again...I hope the above quote is enough and no need of
> saying again and again logic and its stages are "the
> exposition of God as He is in his eternal essence" and
> his own absolute nature.

That was not the charge, Dr. Lathief. I charged you with
the error of saying that Hegel equated the Absolute with
abstract being. Since Hegel never does that, you could
not produce any text by him to prove your point. So you
changed the topic. That is inadequate.

As I said, Hegel begins his SCIENCE OF LOGIC (1812) with
the category of Pure Being merely in order to struggle
for a place to begin. Hegel says,

"Being, the indeterminate immediate, is
in fact Nothing, and neither more nor
less than Nothing." (Hegel, SL, trans.
Miller, p. 82)

And also,

"This emptiness is therefore simply as
such the beginning of Philosophy."
(Hegel, SL, p. 78)

Notice that Hegel does not say that this Being/Nothing
dyad is the beginning of the Absolute, of God, but only
the beginning of PHILOSOPHY. That is the critical
point that Hegel's critics always evade. Hegel says,

"These preliminary, external reflections
about the Beginning were not so much
intended to lead up to it as rather to
eliminate all preliminaries." (Hegel,
SL, p. 78)

Hegel does not say that God is some finite creature
who starts as an abstract Being which slowly evolves
until it obtains a Self-consciousness. That is folly.
That has nothing to do with Hegel. Hegel says,

"If, therefore, in the expression of
the Absolute, or Eternal, or God (and
God has the absolutely undisputed right
that the beginning should be made with
God) -- if in the intuition or thought
of these there is implied *more* than
Pure Being, then this *more* must make
its appearance in our Knowing only as
something Thought, not as something
Imagined or Figurative, however rich."
(Hegel, SL, p. 78)

That is the problem with only reading a few sentences
of Hegel's SCIENCE OF LOGIC here and there. Heidegger
also made this same error. It allows the reader to
take ideas out of context. Yet since Hegel's sentences
are always a part of their context, they can only be
grasped as a part of that context. That is why I
emphasize that only a full reading of Hegel's System
can yield a correct result.

> ...So what should be at the beginning theologically,
> mystically religiously the self-conscious absolute
> subject, notional being Becomes conscious of himself
> only at the last stage of logic.

You presume much with this statement, Dr. Lathief.
For one thing, you presume that Hegel describes the
evolution of the Absolute from abstract to concrete.
That is not correct. Hegel does not do that. (Perhaps
countless people have made this error, though, so you
are not alone in it.) Hegel however *is* saying that
human LOGIC does indeed progress from the abstract
to the concrete. That is precisely the methodology
of Speculative Logic.

The amazing thing -- Hegel's breakthrough -- comes
when we realize that we *have* indeed attained the
result, the Absolute, the Eternal, the Divine, using
this human mode of Speculative Logic! That is Hegel's
message.

Whether anybody agrees with this or not is beside the
point. It is not presented as a Dogma. It is presented
in the context of Western philosophy, which means that
it is open to debate by anybody who wishes to engage
in the rules of analytic and synthetic logic.

Hegel *knows* that there are many who stand *outside*
this tradition who do not wish to debate it, but simply
wish to deny it. Many of these are theologians. Many
others are atheists. Many, again, are modernists.

> In Hegel's system in the beginning no subject apart
> from being. Being is implicit subject, like that
> essence, substance, life are implicit subject.

While some of that rings true, Dr. Lathief, I find your
error in your presumption that Hegel identifies these
mere beginning strains of his method with the Absolute
Truth. He does not.

> The subject or self conscious being or notional being
> only comes at the last stage.

Again, Dr. Lathief, it comes at the last stage of
Hegel's methodology, and God is not a product or a
result of Hegel's logic. It would be ridiculous to
accuse Hegel of being so dull.

If Logic can finally grasp the Absolute, then that
is a scientific breakthrough of epoch-making proportions
for human beings. But was the Absolute as such affected?
No, nor did Hegel presume that his breakthrough in Logic
provided the human being's first glimpse at the Absolute
Truth. He knew very well that Mystics and Religious
figures from all over the world, from all epochs in
history, also tried to share this vision with humanity.
Hegel says,

"Religion is precisely the true Content
but in the Form of Representation, and
Philosophy is not the first to offer the
substantive Truth. Humanity has not had
to await Philosophy in order to receive
for the first time the consciousness or
cognition of the Truth." (Hegel, LPR,
vol. 1, p. 251)

So Hegel is quite clear about what he is doing, what he
is proposing, and the place all this holds in history.

> ...I am not saying Marx is right, but I am saying
> Hegel is wrong to begin the absolute with being.

Then that is a complex of errors, Dr. Lathief. First,
if you are not saying Marx is right, then it is better
not to cite him as your authority in this debate.

Second, you are mistaken when you say that Hegel begins
the Absolute with Being. Hegel begins the development
of human LOGIC with Being, and he does so knowing that
he is only beginning, and also that Pure Being is so
empty and abstract that it is equal to Pure Nothing.
Hegel is not so crass as to consider that God is only
Nothing. We should not insult Hegel in that way.

> ...As whether I or you who read Hegel carefully and
> understand him correctly let the members make their
> own judgment by reading this posts.
>
> lathief

Fair enough, Dr. Lathief. Fair enough.

Regards

My Reply

>Hegel begins the development of human LOGIC with Being.

>Hegel however *is* saying that human LOGIC does indeed progress from the >abstract to the concrete.

>There are other errors also in your message.

More in yours Mr.Paul.Your basic error is you are confusing Logic with human Logic.when again and again hegel says "logic and its stages are the exposition of God as He is in his eternal essence and his own absolute nature"(53 SL).Any one who read hegel knows very well that there are no 2 logic .one divine and another human.Logic is Thought in its purest form and science of logic is knowledge of this Thought.Thought as speculative reason is Absolute ,Universal and Infinite according to hegel.So when the speculative philosopher is thinking about the nature of God ,God is thinking about Himself.And when the speculative philosopher make an initital definition of God as "Absolute is pure Being" it is the initial nature of Absolute Himself.All over science of logic and encyclopedia hegel speaks about the absolute,universal and infinite nature of logic or thought. still you come up with a human logic.so i will say if you understand this basic error of calling this Logic which is absolute,universal and infinite as HUMAN LOGIC the rest is easy ,the begining of logic with being and ending with notion.

Logic is not a mere form or method as you say,it is also the content.whatever other forms are there they are also nothing but thought in its developmental moments.

An what i repeatedly say is Hegel"conceptions derived from finite experience that thouhgt in finite human beings developed from abstract being(space-abstact object and time -abstract subject) substituted to the absolute realm.

The essence of hegel 's Philosophy is the nature of Absolute as Thought .So pure thought or logicf or speculative reason as absolute,universal and infinite unlike other thoght forms like imaginations,conceptions etc.So i think there is no need to quote many from his books to convince you this.

Another error is you are also confusing pure being with nothing. pure being is not only "nothig" but also "not nothing".In other words there is not only identity but also difference.That is why the movement leads to Becoming.your one sided view is that of understanding Mr, paul not speculative reason and you conveniently omitted that quotes of hegel which shows the difference.

Mr. Paul ,no one except you will say that when i say "the seeds of the dialectical materialism of marxism is inherently contained in the Logic of Hegel and so Marxism was a historical necessity"as an objective fact I should not have cited that and it is a complex of errors and that mean i am marxian and such and such.....

>That is the problem with only reading a few sentences of Hegel's SCIENCE >OF LOGIC here and there. Heidegger also made this same error.

Greater error is reading so many times with mere understanding Mr. Paul as you have shown in the mere identity of being and nothing.

"That was not the charge, Dr. Lathief. I charged you with
the error of saying that Hegel equated the Absolute with
abstract being. Since Hegel never does that, you could
not produce any text by him to prove your point. So you
changed the topic. That is inadequate"

what is this play of words Mr.Paul.this "charging" and "error" and "changing the topic".the old method of substituting counter arguments for triples to make the opponent seem fleeing before the listeners.

Again and again I say all my quotes are about logic ,logic as the exposition of god in himself and the speculative philosopher's thinking of the absolute as himself and Hegel describes these stages as being-essence and notion.

.Here are some more quotes from science of logic to show absolute begins with being and in notion.

If according to Hegel Absolute is self conscious being from the beginning how is notion only implicit? if subject or self is in the beginning how notion is substance self-realised? how "which contemplates its contents as its own self. It is its own content, in so far as it ideally distinguishes itself from itself, and the one of the two things distinguished is a self-identity"-$237 This self or subject only comes at the last stage of notion.and remember logic is not mere methodology as you say but as absolute,universal and infinite the speculative philosopher is describing as God is in Himself.

lathief

Paul Trejo's Reply

> Your basic error is you are confusing Logic with human
> Logic.

Actually, it is your own error, Dr. Lathief. Hegel
explicitly says that Speculative Logic, which can attain
the heights of Divinity, is nevertheless a HUMAN attainment.
It is only the dualist who continues to deny this. It is
only the dualist who continues to make TWO LOGICS, one for
humans, and one for Divinity.

> When again and again Hegel says "Logic and its stages
> are the exposition of God as He is in his eternal essence
> and his own absolute nature"(53 SL). Anyone who reads
> Hegel knows very well that there are not 2 logics, one
> divine and another human.

Then you should abandon your own dualism, Dr. Lathief.
Hegel's advance in LOGIC (which is both Divine and Human)
is that he has gone beyond Aristotle and Kant and has
supplemented the ordinary Analytical Logic with a new
Synthetic Logic. It is both HUMAN and DIVINE because
by means of it the human being can contact the Divine
Creator of the Universe. It is ONE LOGIC.

> Thought as speculative reason is Absolute, Universal
> and Infinite according to Hegel. So when the
> speculative philosopher is thinking about the
> nature of God, God is thinking about Himself.

That overstates the case, Dr. Lathief, and it seems
somewhat dangerous to speak like that in front of
students, since some may misunderstand and then behave
insanely, walking around like some drunken monk,
claiming to be God. Hegel does not claim to be God.

Hegel only claims to be a *creature* of God, but yet
a *special* creature, a human with this power of Logic.
With is breakthrough in Logic, Hegel can see the
Ontological Truth -- God exists everywhere, including
INSIDE the world, and inside each and every one of us.

That is why, as Jalaluddin Rumi sang, Hallaj could say,
'I am God,' but did not lie, because Hallaj directly
contacted the Creator within himself and had expressed
his vision in a Spiritual Love which reconciles all
opposites. Hallaj meant that he was a *part* of God,
as are we all. Hallaj did not mean that he had become
the Ruler of the Cosmos and that all men and women were
his Slaves. (Though some mad monks still thought that.)
Nevertheless, Dr. Lathief, this is a Yahoo List about
Hegel, and about Western Philosophy, and not about
Eastern Religion EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT DIRECTLY
PERTAINS TO HEGEL'S WESTERN PHILOSOPHY.

> And when the speculative philosopher makes an initital
> definition of God as "Absolute is pure Being" it is the
> initial nature of Absolute Himself.

That is incorrect, Dr. Lathief, going by Hegel's words.
Pure Being is, as Hegel says repeatedly, *just nothing*.
It is indiscriminate. It is utterly abstract. It has
no definition. It is nothing. It is not the Absolute,
and you have made a serious error in your interpretation
of Hegel.

How many times must I supply these quotations? I have
supplied them month after month, but people still do
not take them to heart. Here they are again. Hegel
says,

"The being in determinate being, which
is supposed to express the concept of
God, is nothing else than abstract
being, which is the same as Nothing."
(Hegel, SCIENCE OF LOGIC, 1812, trans.
Miller, p. 113)

And also,

"But this Pure Being is the pure
abstraction, and hence it is
absolutely negative, which, when
taken immediately, is absolutely
Nothing." (Hegel, ENC LOGIC,
trans. Geraets, para. 87)

And also

"Being, the indeterminate immediate,
is in fact Nothing, and neither
more nor less than Nothing."
(Hegel, SL, trans. Miller, p. 82)

And also,

"Being is nothing more than the
inexpressible or the conceptless;
it is not the Concrete, which the
Concept is, but is wholly and only
the *abstraction* of self-relation."
(Hegel, LPR, ed. Hodgson, 1827,
U. of California Press, p. 185)

It is crystal clear to anybody who reads Hegel without
prejudice that Pure Being is so abstract that it is
plainly equal to Pure Nothingness, which is itself
equal to Pure Being, and this thesis-antithesis gets
nowhere until it resolves in the synthesis of Pure
Becoming.

> All over the science of logic and encyclopedia Hegel
> speaks about the absolute, universal and infinite
> nature of logic or thought. Still you come up with
> a human logic.

Your dualism is the root of your error, Dr. Lathief.
Hegel's Logic is indeed Absolute -- but it is human.
It is both in one -- and that is why Hegel is attacked
so much in the West. It is not ordinary common sense.
It is beyond dualism.

> So I will say if you understand this basic error of
> calling this Logic which is absolute, universal and
> infinite as HUMAN LOGIC the rest is easy, the
> beginning of logic with being and ending with
> notion.

The error belongs to you, Dr. Lathief. You presume
that I have confused two opposite entities. Yet, in
fact, the two are ONE. You have not grasped Hegel
correctly, either, but you continue to interpret
his writings in a one-sided and dualistic manner.

> Logic is not a mere form or method as you say, it
> is also the content.

You did not pay attention to what I said, Dr. Lathief.
I have repeatedly -- for years -- said that Hegel's
Logic unites the Form and the Content. But you
evidently do not pay close attention.

> ...And what I repeatedly say is Hegel's conceptions
> derived from finite experience that thought in
> finite human beings developed from abstract being
> (space - abstract object, and time - abstract subject)
> substituted to the absolute realm.

Your narrative is dualist, Dr. Lathief. You separate
the finite from the infinite in the dualist manner,
and you evidently do not know how to articulate their
reconciliation in Hegelian terms. You have not traced
Hegel's Ontological Proof of the Existence of God.
I posted this Proof for many months last year and most
readers, including you, failed to grasp it.

> The essence of Hegel's Philosophy is the nature of
> Absolute as Thought. So pure thought or logic or
> speculative reason as absolute, universal and
> infinite unlike other thought forms like
> imaginations, conceptions etc.

There is your error. Hegel distinguishes between
thought-forms, too, but he ranks Conception (the
Concept) as the highest of all. You do not, Dr.
Lathief, because of your dualism. You cannot see
how human logic can grasp Divine logic and still
remain human logic. But Hegel shows that it can.
That is why you continue to attack Hegel in your
posts.

> Another error is you are also confusing pure
> being with nothing.

Perhaps you do not read carefully, Dr. Lathief,
when I post quotes by Hegel. But with this post
I have shown that Hegel himself equates pure being
with Nothing -- Pure Being is *not* God and is *not*
the Absolute, in any way, shape or form. Period.
If you don't know that, then you don't know Hegel.
That is quite obvious.

> Pure being is not only "nothing" but also "not
> nothing".

Yes, I have already shown that before. The tension
resolves in Pure Becoming. That is the ABC of Hegel.

> In other words there is not only identity but
> also difference.

Yes, everybody knows that, Dr. Lathief. That is
old hat by now.

> That is why the movement leads to Becoming. Your
> one-sided view is that of Understanding Mr. Paul,
> not speculative reason.

You have not demonstrated your points, Dr. Lathief,
you simply (a) repeat them; (b) add authoritarian
references; and (c) copy my arguments and send them
back to me. That is a most inadequate method of
proceeding in Western Philosophy.

> You conveniently omitted that quotes of Hegel which
> shows the difference.

On the contrary, Dr. Lathief, I have produced more
quotes from Hegel on this List than anybody -- perhaps
more than all others combined. You yourself supply
quotes that I have previously supplied. So, again,
you are simply evading a logical argument. You claim
to use logic, but when it comes to perform, you evade it.

> Again and again I say all my quotes are about logic,
> logic as the exposition of God in Himself and the
> speculative philosopher's thinking of the Absolute
> as Himself and Hegel describes these stages as
> being-essence and notion.

But your idea of 'logic' Dr. Lathief, is clearly
nothing more than Religious bias masquerading as
Philosophy. Your unscientific attitude has nothing
to do with debate, reason, logic or Philosophy. You
are mainly preaching Eastern Religion to us.

> Here are some more quotes from science of logic to
> show absolute begins with being and in notion...

Dr. Lathief, you quoted lots of sentences from Hegel's
SCIENCE OF LOGIC (including those I already quoted for
you) all of which confirm my point and refute your own!
Hegel says again and again that the category of abstract
being is merely the beginning of his narrative, and is
*not* the result, *not* the Absolute, *not* God.

> If according to Hegel Absolute is Self-conscious
> being from the beginning how is notion only
> implicit?

Notion can be implicit, Dr. Lathief, in the beginning
of the study of Logic, as I clearly stated already.

> If subject or self is in the beginning how is notion
> substance self-realised?

Because of your dualism, Dr. Lathief, you cannot see
the timeless aspect of this same Notion, which Hegel
clearly describes in his PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT.
Your dualism locks you into the logic of the Pure
Understanding, and thus you cannot see the true logic
of Speculative Reasoning. Instead, you push your
Guru in the place of Hegel, and call it done!

But that is impatient, Dr. Lathief. And Hegel has
directly addressed this sort of impatience. Hegel
says,

"The impatience that insists merely on
getting beyond the Determinate (whether
called the beginning, object, the finite,
or whatever other form it be taken) and
finding itself immediately in the Absolute,
has before it as cognition nothing but the
empty negative, the abstract infinite.
In other words, a *presumed* absolute;
presumed, not grasped; it can only be
grasped through the Mediation of Cognition,
of which the universal and immediate is a
*moment*. But the Truth itself resides
only in the extended course of the Process
and in the *conclusion*." (Hegel, SCIENCE
OF LOGIC, p. 842)

That is a beautiful way of putting it. Hegel truly has
the Absolute Truth.

> This self or subject only comes at the last stage
> of notion. And remember, logic not as mere methodology
> as you say, but as absolute, universal and infinite the
> speculative philosopher is describing as God is in
> Himself.
>
> lathief

Your error, again, Dr. Lathief, is that you fail to
see that for Hegel, Absolute Logic must be a SYSTEM.
It must be a METHOD. It must be HUMAN as well as
DIVINE.

But because of your dualism, you cannot see it. In
the end, your objection to Hegel's SYSTEM is the same
as the objection we hear from the Kantians and the
neo-Kantians here. You deny that the Absolute can be
known in INTELLECTUAL COGNITION. But Hegel says,

"I wanted to make this cognitive knowledge of
God and the object of my lectures because I
believe it has never been so important and so
necessary that this cognition should be taken
seriously once more. For the doctrine that
we can know nothing of God, that we cannot
cognitively apprehend God, has become in our
time a universally acknowledged truth, a
settled thing, a kind of prejudice. And
anyone who grasps the thought, or tries to,
of entering upon the cognition of God, of
comprehending God's nature in thought, can
therefore expect that no one will pay any
attention at all; that such a thought is
regarded as a long-refuted error, deserving
no further attention." (Hegel, 1831,
LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGON,
ed. Hodgson, vol. 1, p. 86, Introduction)

Hegel explains not only how, but why God allows Divinity
to shine through in human beings who sincerely seek after
this Truth. Hegel says,

"If God is all-sufficient and lacks nothing,
why does God disclose God in a sheer Other
of God? The divine Idea is just this: to
disclose itself, to posit this Other outside
itself and to take it back again into itself,
in order to be subjectivity and Spirit. The
Philosophy of Nature itself belongs to this
path of return; for it is that which overcomes
the division between Nature and Spirit and
assures to Spirit the knowledge of its essence
in Nature." (Hegel, PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE,
trans. Miller, p. 14, para. 247, Zusatz.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

P.S. One more thing, Dr. Lathief. You presumed
that I am unfamiliar with the works of Shankara,
whom you cited as "the greatest master of ADVATA."
But I know a lot about Shankara. Also, you continue
to make authoritarian arguments to evade a debate.
I should tell you, then, that Shankara is not
universally recognized within Hinduism as authoritative.
Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, for example, is
only one of many critics of Shankara. Nevertheless,
I must repeat that this is a Hegel List, a List
dedicated to Western Philosophy, and I am not here
to spend my time talking about Eastern Religion.

My Reply

That was very clever of you Mr.Paul,changing the original post and replying in "speculative reason " the subject matter of Hegel's beginning post.Any way you have still not answered your ignorance of phenomenology as shown in the other post.so here it is again.

((>Hegel *proves* that one can, and his
>System proves his claim. Hegel speaks of the very *joy* of
>this *experienced* transformation, saying:
>"The joy of beholding itself in Absolute
>Being enters self-consciousness and seizes
>the whole world; for it is Spirit. It is
>the simple movement of those pure moments
>which expresses just this: that only when
>Absolute Being is beheld as an immediate
>Self-consciousness is it known as Spirit."
(Hegel, PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT, 1807,
trans. Miller, 1977, para. 761)

Yes,it is true MR.Paul,But you have conveniently forgotten that it is not the speculative philosopher hegel's experience but the immediate experience of god is as i already told and which hegel describe in chapter of "revealed religion"and below is the next para which you might have missed

"This conception of spirit knowing itself to be spirit, is still the immediate notion; it is not yet developed. The ultimate Being is spirit; in other words, it has appeared, it is revealed. This first revelation is itself immediate; but the immediacy is likewise thought, [762] or pure mediation, and must therefore exhibit and set forth this moment in the sphere of immediacy as such."-Phenomenology-revealed religion-762.

>The trouble comes when people do not bother to read Hegel'sfull System,

>The only proper way to understand Hegel is to read Hegel's System.

yes,you are absolutely right Mr. Paul,as the above example shows.

>I will leave you with Hegel's words again:

>"The joy of beholding itself in Absolute
>Being enters Self-consciousness and
>seizes the whole world; for it is Spirit."
>(Hegel, PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT, 1807,
>trans. Miller, 1977, para. 761)
Good Mr.Paul,but as I already shown in the beginning now you know these are only mere words of Hegel not about himself but about the mystics and revealed religion as the next para shows(para762)))

>Hegelexplicitly says that Speculative Logic, which can attain
>the heights of Divinity, is nevertheless a HUMAN attainment

Yes human attainment but Logic is not human logic Mr.Paul as you say.you are the dualist Mr.Paul and if you read your own message once more and my reply you can see it is not I but you are making this distinction .when clearly I stated ".Any one who read Hegel knows very well that there are no 2 logic .one divine and another human.Logic"you accuse me of your own error.

Again when I say the speculative reason of the philosopher is the manifestation of absolute mind you again deny that.any one who studied Hegel will know philosophic mind is absolute mind in all its glory.

>It is crystal clear to anybody who reads Hegel without
prejudice that Pure Being is so abstract that it is
plainly equal to Pure Nothingness, which is itself
equal to Pure Being, and this thesis-antithesis gets
>nowhere until it resolves in the synthesis of Pure
>Becoming.

As I already told in my post there is no total identity with nothing.if so there can be no dialectical movement and becoming.Abstract being is implicitly notion that is why the dialectics gives becoming.And also when again and again you say it is nothing ,nothing you again forget it is implicit notion and both nature and finite mind begins with it and develops from it by dialectical movement and culminate in the Absolute mind as philosophic mind.

>Hegel's Logic is indeed Absolute -- but it is human.
>It is both in one --

>Yet, in fact, the two are ONE

You cannot see
how human logic can grasp Divine logic and still
remain human logic

Again you make the same mistake .when the philosopher think speculatively this thought is infinite so it is not the thought of finite human being.logic is infinite thought so there is no two in one or both in one .

There is your error. Hegel distinguishes between
thought-forms, too, but he ranks Conception (the
Concept) as the highest of all.

This again shows your ignorance. it is not concept but notion which is the highest.

The fault in conception lies deeper. These ideas, though implicitly possessing the organic unity of mind, stand isolated here and there on the broad ground of conception, with its inward and abstract generality-(ency-logic-20)

Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, for example, is
only one of many critics of Shankara.

your this baktivedanta's criticism deserve no comment. it is just like the criticism of Dr. Paul Trejo about Kant"s philosophy.And also many later philosophers like,Heidegger,habermus, and all the great philosophers whom you say never understood Hegel fully like you did.

your other comments like you are dualist,repeating again and again as if to make it true ,and self inflating statements I already did this ,more than any member and like statements like "copy my arguments and send them" don't deserve any reply.

your quoting of phenomenology-PARA-761as hegel's experience and when I pointed out the next para to show it is not and your further attempt in all succeeding post to cover that blunder,and even in this post instead of Notion saying conception is the highest of all will show any one who is really ignorant of Hegel.

once again I say in logic Hegel's beginning of the absolute is being. "the timeless aspect of this same Notion, which Hegel clearly describes in his PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT"is because there the notion is already deduced.Phenomenology is in the "philosophy of mind" in hegel's system. so in phenomenolgy as his first book there Absolute as subject is pre supposed.phenomenolgy ends with the notn as absolute mind asnd as the speculative reason of the philosophuic mind.so the Logic coming from this speculative reason is what hegel calls "spiritualised logic".because it is the logic of absolute spirit as philosophic mind.so notion os presupposed. even this will show that non spiritualised logic begins with absolute as abstract being.

"The Notion of pure science and its deduction is therefore presupposed in the present work in so far as the Phenomenology of Spirit is nothing other than the deduction of it." 51 SL

and the logic which starts from phenomenology is spiritualized logic.

again

and it is in this sense that the result is really the ground.

"... the advance is a retreat into the ground, to what is primary
and true, on which depends and, in fact, from which originates, that
with which the beginning is made.SL-102.

But if we consider the logic(notspiritualised) in Hegel's system where phenomenology comes later the beginning is the ground as quoted below

but in Hegel's system this phenomenology and this self conscious being comes only in the third stage'logic-phil of nature-philos-of mind(subjective mind i-soul ii-consciousness(phenomenology of mind)-iii-mind

lathief

PAUL TREJO’S POST TO BOB HAUGE:

> ...About Mr. Lathief and his replies - What i am
> referring to is the doctrine of being of the SCIENCE
> OF LOGIC, p.67-78. This many-faceted discussion is
> about how to start logic and philosophy. Hegel
> finally decides on abstract pure being containing
> nothing as being most respectful to God. A mediated
> start would be incomplete -- at least that's my take
> on it -- but what I found central and what Mr. Lathief
> quotes is the following from Hegel on p.71-72:
>
> "We see therefore that on the other hand,
> it is equally necessary to consider as a
> result that into which the movement returns
> as into its ground." (Hegel, SL, p. 71)

That's a good quote, Bob. Let's see if you grasp it
as Hegel intended.

> This circular movement starts with its ground pure being
> and through the movement returns as result into its ground
> [pure being.]

No, you missed the point, Bob. You, like Lathief, have
*presumed* that Hegel means that the GROUND is Pure Being.
That is not what Hegel said. That is a prejudice, however,
that goes very deep into Eastern Religion. It is very
difficult to change anybody's mind on this point, since it
is a religious dogma, and many are actually unwilling to
debate it, even though they pretend to debate it. Their
actual goal is to make converts, and not to practice
philosophy.

> "In this respect the first is equally the
> ground, and the last a derivative, since
> the movement starts from the first and by
> correct inferences arrives at the last as
> the Ground; this latter is a result."
> (Hegel, SL)

There is Hegel's idea: the GROUND is found as the RESULT of
the logical operation. The GROUND is not the abstract idea
at the beginning of the logical operation, although one may
argue that the beginning operation leads up to the GROUND.

> This is self-explanatory emphasizing the circularity that
> ends in the same place = result ground.

No, Bob, I disagree because we did *not* end in the same place.
The Beginning is not the same as the Result. Pure Being is
the Beginning, but Pure Being is *not* the Result. That is
the common error that so many continue to make. Pure Being
is the abstract beginning -- a place to start with logic --
but the RESULT is the concrete, thinking Spirit. It now
exudes the Subjective. Pure Being fails that criterion.
That is *precisely* why the Negative moment is required.

> "Further, the progress from that which forms the
> beginning is to be regarded as only a further
> determination of it, 'hence that which forms
> the beginning is to be regarded as only a
> further determination of it, hence that which
> forms the starting point of the development
> remains at the base of all that follows and
> does not vanish from it." (Hegel, SL)
>
> This says that pure being does not vanish through the moments
> but remains as the base.

Not exactly, Bob. Your implication is obvious -- that Pure Being
is the GROUND, that is, the concrete, thinking Spirit that is at
the Ground of the entire Universe. The Spirit is the Ground
because the Spirit alone is in-itself-for-itself, self-referent,
self-justifying, self-grounded, all-inclusive and able to absorb
the full force of the Negative.

But Hegel only says that Pure Being does not vanish. Naturally.
He calls it the 'base,' yet you presumed this 'base' is the GROUND.
It isn't. The base is the starting point. It is not the RESULT.
The RESULT, Hegel says repeatedly, is the GROUND.

> The progress does not consist merely in the derivation of an Other,
> or in the effected transition into a genuine Other; and insofar
> as this transition does occur is sublated again.

Yes, Bob, that's right, because Hegel does not just go over to the
other one-sided extreme and say that the Subjective, the Negative,
all by itself, is the Absolute. No. The Absolute reconciles the
Negative with the Positive. It is Two-In-One. That conquest of
dualism is just what is so hard for moderns (and for Eastern
thinkers) to comprehend. (Paradoxically, Christian theologians
have been teaching this for centuries in the doctrine of the
Trinity.)

> This emphasizes that pure being remains equally intact through
> the sublations.

Well, Bob, it remains 'intact,' but your implication is that
pure, abstract being, is itself the RESULT, the GROUND.
That is a misunderstanding of Hegel's purport. Hegel is
clearly making a different point.

> "Thus the beginning of philosophy is the
> foundation which is present and preserved
> throughout the entire subsequent development,
> remaining completely immanent in its further
> determinations." (Hegel, SL)

Of course Pure Being remains intact. Of course it remains. Of
course it does not vanish. One of Spirit's properties is EXISTENCE.
Spirit is REAL. But to presume that Pure Being is the last word
is to fall into abstraction and the merely Void. (This was the
problem with Shankara, said Swami Bhaktivendanta Prabhupada, who
called Shankara's doctrine a 'crypto-Buddhism'.)

Hegel says something entirely different there, Bob. Hegel says
that Pure Being remains to the very end -- but he does *not* say
that it is the RESULT. It is *part* of the RESULT. It is a
*necessary part* of the RESULT. But it is not the GROUND. The
RESULT alone is the GROUND.

(I would point out, just as an aside, that Swami Bhaktivendanta
Prabhupada agrees with Hegel on the topic of the RESULT and the
final heights of the Absolute in *Personality*. The Absolute
Spirit takes its highest point in the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, as Hegel says toward the end of his SCIENCE OF LOGIC):

"The richest is therefore the most concrete
and most Subjective...The highest, most
complicated point is the Pure Personality
which, solely through the absolute dialectic
which is its nature, no less *embraces and
holds everything within itself* because it
makes itself the Supremely Free -- the
simplicity which is the first immediacy
and universality." (Hegel, SCIENCE OF LOGIC,
1812, trans. Miller, p. 841)

This is in direct conflict with the doctrine that God is nothing
but Abstract Being. Such a Void is a neo-Kantian confusion.

> "Through this progress then, the beginning
> loses the one-sidedness which attaches to
> it as something simply immediate and abstract;
> it becomes something mediated, and hence the
> line becomes a circle." (Hegel, SL)

See, Bob, the profound transformation that Hegel describes
there! MEDIATION. BECOMINGNESS. PROGRESS. And Hegel speaks
of LOSS, too. What is lost? Pure Being itself loses its
'one-sidedness' as Hegel says. It loses its abstract character
when it is MEDIATED, and made into part of the BECOMINGNESS
and the PROGRESS of the GROUND.

> Thus it must be seen as Hegel further says,
>
> "...It is when taken in this way that
> pure being this absolute immediacy has
> equally the character of something
> absolutely mediated. But it is equally
> essential that it be taken only in this
> pure immediacy, precisely because here
> it is the beginning...Therefore it lies
> in the very nature of a beginning that
> it must be being and nothing else"
> (Hegel, SL)

Yes, Hegel eloquently explains why the Beginning of Logic
must be Pure Being. His Doctrine of Being is precise and
scientific in that regard. But the Beginning, Bob, is just
that -- the Beginning. Later, as we progress, Hegel will
show how this Immediate, Pure Being become MEDIATED. That
is the difference. So, Pure Being will become MEDIATED, but
at the *same time* it will remain IMMEDIATE and the starting
point, the base, the beginning. That is the Two-In-One that
Hegel asks us to grasp.

> Hegel goes on to reaffirm this in various ways -

Goes on to re-affirm what, Bob? That Pure Being is the
final RESULT? No, not at all. I suggest that you have
misunderstood Hegel's careful narrative. I invite you to
read it again more carefully in the light of these discussions.

> However this is not dualism. It is seeing various aspects
> of the same whole Everything becomes included

Hegel's view is not dualism, Bob. That much is correct.
But the view that you have articulated -- that Pure Being,
without any Change, may be taken for the RESULT and the GROUND
-- such a view is dualism because you have continued to keep
apart the two halves of Immediacy and Mediacy. You did not
(as Hegel carefully did) show their intimate union. You have
jumped to a facile conclusion.

> - I think there are some semantic misunderstandings with
> Mr. Lathief that may be mediated.
>
> Best regards Bob

No, Bob, there are no semantic misunderstandings. This debate
is many centuries old. Lathief has already mentioned Shankara
in this regard, as the so-called undisputed Guru of Monism.

So we know exactly what the issues are. There is no mistake.
My point is clear: the Monism of Shankara is still undeveloped
compared with the Dialectical Monism of Hegel.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

MY POST

No where in any of my posts i said both ground and result is pure being.Wat i repeatedly said is in spiritualised logic(where notion is pre supposed,because in phenominology at the end this is deduced by showing the absolute mind as the philosophic mind)so the logic starting from the speculative reason of the philosopher(thied syllogism)both ground and result is Notional being.But in pure logic(Logic-nature-Mind),first syllogism,Ground is pure being result notional being.

Any one familiar with Sankara knows his definition of Absolute(Brahman)is Sat-Chit-Ananda(Being-Consiousness-Bliss)and not abstract Being.This is the same as Absolute idea of Hegel as Absolute Subject.

As existing in an individual form, this liberation is called I: as
developed to its totality, it is free Spirit; as feeling, it is Love; and as
enjoyment, it is Blessed- ness.(Encyclo-Logic-159)

152. To remove his bondage the wise man should discriminate between the Self and the non-Self. By that alone he comes to know his own Self as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute and becomes happy.(viveka chudamani)

263. That beyond which there is nothing; which shines even above Maya, which again is superior to its effect, the universe; the inmost Self of all, free from differentiation; the Real Self, the Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute; infinite and immutable – that Brahman art thou, meditate on this in thy mind.(viveka chudamani)

290. Transferring the identification now rooted in the body to the Atman, the Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute, and discarding the subtle body, be thou ever alone, independent(vivekachudamani)

lathief

PAUL TREJO’S POST

> ...What I repeatedly said is, in spiritualised logic
> (where notion is presupposed, because in phenomenology
> at the end this is deduced by showing the absolute
> mind as the philosophic mind) so the logic starting
> from the speculative reason of the philosopher (third
> syllogism) both Ground and Result is Notional being.

There are many points to critize in that sentence,
Dr. Lathief. I presume you come here to learn about
Hegel's System, and that you present your ideas here
for criticism, as is the Western way. So I will
criticize.

1. The Notion is the dialectical idea of God, and Hegel
does *not* presuppose this at the beginning of his Logic.

2. The Logic does not follow the Phenomenology in Hegel's
Encyclopedic System. Logic precedes Phenomenology, which
comes last. (The circular model should be considered more
of a spiral insorar as Hegel's System begins with the Logic.)

3. The only things Hegel must presuppose before the beginning
of his Logic are these: (a) minds exist; (b) logic is possible;
(c) it is worthwhile to communicate logical studies mind to mind.

4. When Hegel actually begins his Science of Logic narrative,
he makes no presuppositions, not even for his starting point.
He shows very carefully how and why he chooses to start with
Pure Being, the most abstract and empty of all concepts.

5. Hegel does *not* presuppose God at the beginning of his
Logic. He *deduces* God at the end, as the RESULT of his
Logic. (Nor was this predetermined at the start, despite the
sneers of the atheists.) Furthermore, Hegel *deduces* that
God is One but also Personal. God is *not* merely the 'I'
in the sense of the human, finite ego. God, the Absolute
Idea, is Objective as well as Subjective. That is vital.

6. Logic does not *start* with the Ground or with the
Absolute Idea, Dr. Lathief. That is your error. Logic
starts with the abstract concept of Pure Being. Period.
Nothing else. From this extremely poor beginning, Hegel
will LOGICALLY deduce the entirety of all basic scientific
concepts, including those of theology. That is his miracle.

> But in pure logic (Logic-nature-Mind), first syllogism,
> Ground is pure being result notional being.

No, Dr. Lathief, that is not what Hegel says. Not at all.
Ground is the RESULT of his syllogisms, and does not appear
in the beginning in the first syllogism. Hegel says this
repeatedly.

GROUND comes *later* in the Science of Logic. That does not
mean that GROUND does not exist until Hegel thinks it. It
only means that his Science of Logic proceeds carefully and
scientifically, and does not presuppose anything, as a
Western science should.

By contrast with theology -- Theology must necessarily
presuppose God. That is the *starting point* for theology,
religion and most forms of ymsticism. Theology is for
everybody, and Scientific Logic is for the few who are
literate enough to read Western Philosophy -- a minority.

It is not the central purpose of theology to prove that God
exists. Theology begins by presupposing God exists. However,
Hegel's SCIENCE OF LOGIC is not a Theology, although it will
eventually push itself into the realm of Theology when it
realizes that Human Logic is at the bottom, Divine, and that
it has the power to scientifically (in the Western sense)
prove that God is real. But that is a RESULT and it is
in no way a presupposition for Hegel.

Let the Theologians presuppose God. That is their business.
But it has little to do with Philosophy. Philosophy is a
Western Science with a logic that presupposes nothing at all.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

(continued

PAUL TREJO’S POST

> Anyone familiar with Sankara knows his definition of Absolute
> (Brahman) is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consiousness-Bliss) and
> not abstract Being. This is the same as Absolute idea of
> Hegel as Absolute Subject.

You say it is the same, Dr. Lathief, and perhaps it is, but
you have not demonstrated it in detail. For example, is
this Bliss Personal or Impersonal? That is an ancient
question, but it has a direct relevance to the philosophy
of Hegel.

For your part, Dr. Lathief, you have quoted from Hegel's
ENC LOGIC in order to compare this with some typical quotes
from Shankara. You quoted:

> "As existing in an individual form, this
> liberation is called I: as developed to
> its totality, it is free Spirit; as
> feeling it is Love; and as enjoyment,
> it is Blessedness."
> (Hegel, ENCY LOGIC, para. 159)
> ...
> lathief

That is an excellent citation from Hegel, Dr. Lathief. It
highlights the theological aspect of Hegel's Science of Logic,
and I have for many years shared the theological aspect of
Hegel's System with this List and many other Hegel Lists.
It is a very important part of Hegel's System.

However, whether it harmonizes with Shankara is another
question. Instead of comparing that with the few quotes
that you shared from Shankara, however, I would refer directly
to Hegel himself by reading his own words on this topic. I
will quote from the second volume of Hegel's LECTURES ON
THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (1818-1831).

Now, one might argue that Sat-Chit-Ananda is dialectical
insofar as Sat (Being) is an abstract-thesis, and Chit
(Consciousness) is a negative-antithesis, and Ananda
(Bliss) is the concrete-synthesis of these two opposites.

But Shankara himself does not explain it that way. That
is most important. Whoever explains Shankara dialectically
is doing something new in history. Shankara himself does not
do this explicitly, and the theorist must then try to show
in detail how Shankara does this implicitly.

But before we attempt anything so radical, let us go to
directly to Hegel himself for insight on this matter.
Hegel (1830) spent more time reading authoritative books
on Hinduism than on any other world religion in his
fascinating lectures on comparative religion (1818-1831).

Let's concentrate on Brahman, Dr. Lathief. You, following
Shankara, have said that the Absolute is Brahman. Here is
what Hegel says:

"If we ask a Hindu whether he reveres, prays
and sacrifices to Brahman as Supreme Being,
he will say, 'Never! We bring him no sacrifices.'
If we then ask him what is the silent veneration
and meditation that is practiced so widely, he
will reply: 'When I direct my prayer to any of
the gods, when I seat myself on the ground, tuck
in and cross my legs, fold my arms, look up to
heaven, collect my spirit and my thoughts without
moving my tongue, I say within myself, 'I *am*
Brahman, the supreme being.'" (Hegel, LPR,
vol. 2, p. 337)

This is what we would expect from our many readings of
the Vedanta school, where the famous statement about the
Absolute, "THAT ART THOU," is so often mistaken by youngsters
to mean that they themselves are already God (as Strauss and
Feuerbach also taught in their own Christian heterodoxy)
without any further development or discipline.

(I might point out here that not all Hindus agree with
Shankara or this version of Brahman. For example, A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada rejects Shankara openly,
saying that Shankara's view leads to *Impersonalism*
because the Absolute is made to be Subjective but not
Objective. It remains dualist because its idea of
monism is a simple one-sided denial of the other side.)

Getting back to Hegel, what was Hegel's response to his
typical Hindu who defined Brahman as 'I myself'? Hegel
says,

"If we compare this with other configurations
about God, for example, with the Jewish God,
He too is the One, the Universal, a completely
super-sensible Substance, which has being
solely for thought, not for sensory intution,
but for representation only to the extent it
partakes of thought. Here, too, objectivity
is defined in terms of objective thought,
*however* this pure, self-identical
substantiality is not yet the inwardly
concrete, which is Spirit." (Hegel, LPR,
vol. 2, p. 338)

Hegel evokes his Judeo-criticism here along with his critique
of the doctrine of Brahman. They are the same, in his view,
insofar as they are both transcendental. But there is a
difference. While the Jewish God has Personal features,
the idea of Brahman does not. Hegel continues:

"Thus Brahman and the Jewish God are defined
in the same way, but they also differ in
that the Hindu God, being God from the
standpoint of consciousness, is just the
One, just neuter, and not a Personal One."
(Hegel, LPR, vol. 2, p. 339)

Now, Hegel is quite aware of the distinction between Brahman
and 'Brahma,' the personal god of the Hindu Trimurti, of
Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva (Creator-Preserver-Destroyer; often
called the Hindu Trinity, Hegel carefully points out that
this cycle of action, start-change-stop, is the main feature
of finite objects, but it does not amount to a dialectical
movement.) Hegel says,

"Brahma, defined as personal subject, is
determined as one of the three persons of
the Hindu Trimurti, whereas Brahman as such
-- of whom the Hindu says, 'I am Brahman' --
is not yet defined as a personal subject.
On the other hand, the God of Judaism is
defined as a Personal One, exclusive of
others, as subjective, who will have no
other gods beside him." (Hegel, LPR,
vol. 2, p. 339)

It is the objectivity of the subjectivity of the Jewish God
that Hegel values so highly. Hegel then exclaims,

"This is a quite essential difference,
residing solely in the free, pure,
differentiating power of thought."
(Hegel, LPR, vol. 2, p. 339)

Hegel then drives toward his conclusion of his many
observations on Hinduism (for we have only touched on a
very few points in this thread). Hegel says,

"Brahman is only the in-itself. Brahman
does not exist as being-for-itself...
Bhraman is what is abstract (not subjectivity)
which achieves subjective existence only in
the *human* self-consciousness." (Hegel,
LPR, vol. 2, p. 339)

For Hegel, Brahman is the subjectivity in humanity, but it
does not have its own objectivity. By contrast, the TRUE
Absolute Spirit is in-and-for-itself, and therefore does
not have any need of finite spirits, people, in order to
exist. That is God.

This is where Hegel sharply disagrees with many thinkers,
including David Strauss and Ludwig Feuerbach in the Western
tradition.

There is, of course, more, but I believe I have gone far
in showing the difficulties in simply equating Hegel with
Shankara and his doctrine of Brahman.

Again, I heartily recommend reading Hegel's words directly,
and I have no wish to debate Eastern Religion on this list,
except insofar as it *directly* pertains to Hegel's words.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

MY REPLY

"You say it is the same, Dr. Lathief, and perhaps it is"

For example, A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada rejects Shankara openly,
saying that Shankara's view leads to *Impersonalism*
because the Absolute is made to be Subjective but not
Objective.

For Hegel, Brahman is the subjectivity in humanity, but it
does not have its own objectivity.

That is better Dr Paul at least you have made a great leap from the earlier void and abstract being to subjective.here is you earlier one.

But to presume that Pure Being is the last word
is to fall into abstraction and the merely Void. (This was the
problem with Shankara, said Swami Bhaktivendanta Prabhupada, who
called Shankara's doctrine a 'crypto-Buddhism'.)

perhaps even more than subjectivity

Now, one might argue that Sat-Chit-Ananda is dialectical
insofar as Sat (Being) is an abstract-thesis, and Chit
(Consciousness) is a negative-antithesis, and Ananda
(Bliss) is the concrete-synthesis of these two opposites.

now about your criticism that Brahman is only subjective and not objective so not absolute spirit.Let us see whether I can make you to a greater leap to absolute idea with the following quotes

520. The universe is an unbroken series of perceptions of Brahman; hence it is in all respects nothing but Brahman(VIVEKA CUDAMANI)

512. I am verily that Brahman, the One without a second, which is the support of all, which illumines all things, which has infinite forms, is omnipresent, devoid of multiplicity, eternal, pure, unmoved and absolute.

495. I alone reside as knowledge in all beings, being their internal and external support. I myself am the experiencer and all that is experienced – whatever I looked upon as "this" or the not-Self previously.

394. What is the use of dilating on this subject ? The Jiva is no other than Brahman; this whole extended universe is Brahman Itself;

390. As the wave, the foam, the whirlpool, the bubble, etc., are all in essence but water, similarly the Chit (Knowledge Absolute) is all this, from the body up to egoism. Everything is verily the Chit, homogeneous and pure.

391. All this universe known through speech and mind is nothing but Brahman; there is nothing besides Brahman, which exists beyond the utmost range of the Prakriti. Are the pitcher, jug, jar, etc., known to be distinct from the clay of which they are composed ? It is the deluded man who talks of "thou" and "I", as an effect of the wine of Maya.

338. He is free who, knowing through his mind the Self in moving and unmoving objects and observing It as their substratum, gives up all superimpositions and remains as the Absolute and the infinite Self.

So what you said a pure subjectivity is also objective.here is the sublation of subjective notion and object into absolute idea.the Brahman as Absolute subject ,the absolute idea which transcend and include the objective.

I can quote so many from shankara to the effect but I refrain from it due to the following reasons.

1.The above and my earlier quotes like "Being-consciousness-Bliss" is enough to make you understand the Brahman is neither abstract Being nor mere subjective but is Absolute Subject.

2.If I start writing more you start reminding me "this is an Hegelian forum and not eastern religion".Any one can see that I just mentioned one sentence in earliest post(shankara demonstrating discrimination as speculative thought by its capacity to distinguish the real from the unreal).But your all posts contain paras of shankara,baktivedananda,Hallaj,Rumi,Brahma" and others.but when others again start criticizing your view on that you start reminding about Hegel forum.

3-I am neither interested in shankara nor in your Guru Hegel exclusively.I am a seeker after Truth.As a traveler I know this are all vehicles and I know in this arduous and difficult journey of self discovery I have to travel with and with out vehicles.so these are all means to me ,not the end.Yes the end include the means but also transcend them.

"Again, I heartily recommend reading Hegel's words directly,"

I too,Mr. Paul.why don't you hear the words of shankara from shankara's mouth itself instead of from the mouth of Hegel or your baktivedananda.

and that remainds me the Quote of Bertrand Russell about Hegel's criticism of china and it's civilization that "all Hegel knows about china is that such a country exist in the world" or some thing to that effect.

lathief

Mr.PAUL’S REPLY

> ...Mr. Paul, why don't you hear the words of shankara from
> shankara's mouth itself instead of from the mouth of Hegel
> or your baktivedananda?

For one thing, Mr. Lathief, this is a Hegel List, and not a
place to post endless quotes from Shankara or anybody else
for that matter. Shankara is a Guru, that is, an authoritarian
in logic. His followers believe him or they are not his
followers.

Hegel is not a Guru. Hegel has no followers in that sense.
Hegel does not *want* any followers in that sense. Hegel is
proud of the tradition of Western Philosophy and its free
thought.

> And that remainds me the Quote of Bertrand Russell about
> Hegel's criticism of china and it's civilization that
> "All Hegel knows about china is that such a country
> exist in the world" or something to that effect.
>
> lathief

Perhaps you think you made a point, Mr. Lathief, but if so,
it is entirely unclear.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A

MY POST

>I presume you come here to learn about
Hegel's System, and that you present your ideas here
>for criticism

Learn togther Mr. paul,and also to point out and criticise the false notions of others about hegel.that is why i criticised your words like "coneption is the highest" instead of notion .

>5. Hegel does *not* presuppose God at the beginning of his
Logic. He *deduces* God at the end, as the RESULT of his
>Logic.

>"The Notion is the dialectical idea of God, and Hegeldoes *not* presuppose this at the beginning of his Logic."

>4. When Hegel actually begins his Science of Logic narrative,
>he makes no presuppositions

That is you error Mr.Paul,He does if you start logic after phenomenology,the third syllogism.

Out of the three suyllogism as we are concerned here i will once again explain the two syllogism.

In third syllogism is spiritualised logic.so begins with pure being with notion presupposed.system Mind-Logic- Nature.Science of Logic itself mean knowledge of logic Mr.Paul .Knowledge presupposes Knower.

Here are some quotes,

§ 574 This notion of philosophy is the self-thinking Idea, the truth aware of itself (§ 236) - the logical system, but with the signification that it is universality approved and certified in concrete content as in its actuality. In this way the science has gone back to its beginning: its result is the logical system but as a spiritual principle: out of the presupposing judgement, in which the notion was only implicit and the beginning an immediate - and thus out of the appearance which it had there - it has risen into its pure principle and thus also into its proper medium.(ency-phil-of-mind)

and again below are the quotes to show third syllogism presupposes notion.

In the foregoing there is indicated the relation of the science which I call the Phenomenology of Spirit, to logic. As regards the external relation, it was intended that the first part of the System of Science which contains the Phenomenology should be followed by a second part containing logic and the two concrete [realen] sciences, the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of Spirit, which would complete the System of Philosophy(SL 11)

and again

The Notion of pure science and its deduction is therefore presupposed in the present work in so far as the Phenomenology of Spirit is nothing other than the deduction of it. Absolute knowing is the truth of every mode of consciousness because, as the course of the Phenomenology showed, it is only in absolute knowing that separation of the object from the certainty of itself is completely eliminated: truth is now equated with certainty and this certainty with truth-SL51

Thus pure science presupposes liberation from the opposition of consciousness. It contains thought in so far as this is just as much the object in its own self, or the object in its own self in so far as it is equally pure thought. As science, truth is pure self-consciousness in its self-development and has the shape of the self, so that the absolute truth of being is the known Notion and the Notion as such is the absolute truth of being.SL52

That which enables the Notion to advance itself is the already mentioned negative which it possesses within itself; it is this which constitutes the genuine dialectical momentSL67

We must therefore point out at the start that we are presupposing that the division must be connected with the Notion, or rather must be implicit in the Notion itself. The Notion is not indeterminate but is in its own self determinate; the division, however, expresses this its determinateness as developed; it is the judgement of the Notion, not a judgement about some object or other picked up from outside, but the judging, that is, determining, of the Notion in its own self. SL75

But in the Introduction, the Notion of logic was itself stated to be the result of a preceding science, and so here, too, it is a presupposition SL77

In the Introduction it was remarked that the phenomenology of spirit is the science of consciousness, the exposition of it, and that consciousness has for result the Notion of science, i.e. pure knowing. Logic, then, has for its presupposition the science of manifested spirit, which contains and demonstrates the necessity, and so the truth, of the standpoint occupied by pure knowing and of its mediation-SL93

Here the beginning is made with being which is represented as having come to be through mediation, a mediation which is also a sublating of itself; and there is presupposed pure knowing as the outcome of finite knowing, of consciousness.

>1. The Logic does not follow the Phenomenology in Hegel's
>Encyclopedic System.

Yes in pure logic phenomenolgy follws logicand nature.I have quoted this again and again.

In frist syllogism Pure logic begins with absract being and the system is logic -nature-mind.

You ar confusing pure logic with spiritualised logic or science of logic.

below the quotes

>No, Dr. Lathief, that is not what Hegel says. Not at all.
>Ground is the RESULT of his syllogisms

>GROUND comes *later* in the Science of Logi

>6. Logic does not *start* with the Ground or with the
>Absolute Idea, Dr. Lathief. That is your error.

It is your error,Mr.Paul.As the quotes below shows Ground is used in the sence of primary or base of beginning and not absolute idea.In the first case where presupposition is made The ground and result is notional being Because eventhough it starts with pure being notion is presupposed as it is deduced from phenomenology.In the second quote whwn hegel says "In this respect the first is equally the ground, and the last a derivative"Here ground means not absolute idea or notion but as the base,the abstract being and derivative as notion or absolute being.

"It must be admitted that it is an important consideration — one which will be found in more detail in the logic itself — that the advance is a retreat into the ground, to what is primary and true, on which depends and, in fact, from which originates, that with which the beginning is made.SL102

The funniest thing abot this whole discussion is you are shooting back the same arrow i send you.you are forgetting that i started the whole discusion with hegel's beginning of absolute as being and ends with notion.when you pointed out there is presupposed notion and absolute never begins as abstract being i explained the spiritualised logic or science of logic,third syllogism where the notion is already deduced from phenomenolgy so when science of logic starts with pure being there is presuppositon of notion.

now in one post you are saying i start with pure being and end with pure being and in this post saying"Logic does not *start* with the Ground or with the Absolute Idea".again you forgetting all my arguments that hegel does not start with absolute idea.

PAUL TREJO’S POST

> Paul Trejo wrote:
> > 4. When Hegel actually begins his Science of Logic
> > narrative, he makes no presuppositions
>
> That is your error Mr. Paul, He does if you start logic
> after phenomenology, the third syllogism.

If, if, if, Mr. Lathief. Hegel's Encyclopedia starts with
the Logic, not the Phenomenology. His Encyclopedia *is* a
circle, and so we can then move back to the Logic after
Phenomenology, yet that places us on a higher level -- a
spiral rather than a simple circle. That should be clear
to everybody.

> In third syllogism is spiritualised logic. So begins with
> pure being with notion presupposed. System Mind-Logic-Nature.
> Science of Logic itself mean knowledge of logic Mr. Paul.
> Knowledge presupposes Knower.

Yes, I already said that, Lathief. Hegel must presuppose
that he is alive, that he is a writer, that other people
are alive, and that some of them will read his writings.
That is given, and Hegel does briefly note that -- not
that it is anything new or profound.

> Here are some quotes,
>
> "In the Introduction it was remarked that
> the PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT is the science
> of consciousness, the exposition of it, and
> that consciousness has for result the Notion
> of science, i.e. pure knowing. Logic, then,
> has for its presupposition the science of
> manifested spirit, which contains and
> demonstrates the necessity, and so the
> truth, of the standpoint occupied by pure
> knowing and of its mediation." (Hegel, SL93)

Yes, I also noted that, Mr. Lathief. Before Hegel starts
writing a SCIENCE OF LOGIC, he must make some minimal
assumptions, including the fact that Minds Exist.
Otherwise, why bother writing a science of logic? The
reader should be careful to avoid projecting his own
favorite theories onto Hegel's simple beginnings.

> Here the beginning is made with being which is
> represented as having come to be through mediation,
> a mediation which is also a sublating of itself; and
> there is presupposed pure knowing as the outcome of
> finite knowing, of consciousness.

That is your error, Mr. Lathief, and you keep making it,
despite my many reproofs.

When Hegel starts his Science of Logic with the category
of Pure Being, it is Pure Being, purely. It is solely
and only Pure Being. That is precisely why it is so
abstract. If you can't see that, then you will be blind
to all his operations that follow.

Your view of it is theological, Mr. Lathief. You seem
to wish to hurry to the end, to God, and to interpolate
your Guru in the place of Hegel as quick as you can.
Carefully reviewing Hegel's LOGIC is not your true goal.

> Paul Trejo wrote:
> > 6. Logic does not *start* with the Ground or with the
> > Absolute Idea, Dr. Lathief. That is your error.
>
> It is your error, Mr.Paul. As the quotes below shows
> Ground is used in the sence of primary or base of
> beginning and not absolute idea...
>
> "We see therefore that, on the other hand,
> it is equally necessary to consider as RESULT
> that into which the movement returns as into
> its Ground. In this respect the first is
> equally the Ground, and the last a derivative;
> since the movement starts from the first and by
> correct inferences arrives at the last as the
> Ground, this latter is a RESULT." (Hegel, SL103)

Mr. Lathief, if you believe this quote from Hegel proves
your point, then your mind is already closed. Bob Hauge
has already grasped this concept -- Pure Being is not the
Ground, but Pure Being participates in the Ground. The
Ground is the RESULT. Pure Being does not vanish (as we
have said over and over again) but neither does it simply
take first place as the GROUND. It is too abstract. It
is simply Nothing. I am now tired of posting Hegel's
quotes to you on this point, because you don't read them.
Your mind is closed, and your fealty to your Guru is your
first concern. Western Philosophy is a clearly a secondary
goal with you.

> The funniest thing abot this whole discussion is you
> are shooting back the same arrow I send you. You are
> forgetting that I started the whole discusion with
> Hegel's beginning of absolute as being and ends
> with notion...
>
> lathief

How could I forget your first post, Mr. Lathief, since
it is riddled with errors? I had to point them out to
you -- and you still have not reviewed your many errors.

> When you pointed out there is presupposed notion and
> absolute never begins as abstract being I explained
> the spiritualized logic or science of logic, third
> syllogism where the notion is already deduced from
> phenomenolgy so when science of logic starts with
> pure being there is presuppositon of notion.

And you continue to be mistaken, Mr. Lathief. You
simply cannot see Hegel's operation because you have
a bias from your Guru.

Hegel's SCIENCE OF LOGIC only supposes that a Mind
exists that can be Logical. Otherwise, why bother
writing a science of logic?

Yet you have falsely claimed that Hegel forces the
Absolute Spirit (at the end of the PHENOMENOLOGY)
into the empty, abstract concept of Pure Being at
the start of his Logic. That is false! That is a
gross error! That is a gross misunderstanding! I
have posted Hegel's proof texts so often for you that
I am now tired of it. Here is the last one that I
will provide for your comment. If you fail to
comment on it, then forget it -- your mind is too
closed to have an open discussion. Hegel says,

"The being in determinate being, which
is supposed to express the concept of
God, is nothing else than abstract being,
which is the same as nothing." (Hegel,
SCIENCE OF LOGIC, 1812, trans. Miller,
p. 113)

Your Guru, Mr. Lathief, wishes you to force the
Absolute Spirit into the concept of Pure Being at the
start of Hegel's LOGIC, but Hegel's own words refuse
that operation.

You contradict yourself, Mr. Lathief, because sometimes
you admit that Hegel does not does not start his LOGIC
with the absolute idea, and sometimes, as directly above,
you claim that Hegel's Notion (Absolute Spirit) which is
already deduced from the PHENOMENOLOGY is the presupposition
for Hegel's idea of Pure Being in his SCIENCE OF LOGIC.

You have misunderstood Hegel, Mr. Lathief. Pure Being
is simply and purely Pure Nothing. Without this equation
there is no motor force in Hegel's SCIENCE OF LOGIC. You
have jumped ahead -- impatiently -- to the end of Hegel's
SCIENCE OF LOGIC to see if you can find your Guru there.

But in fact your Guru (Shankara) and his doctrine of
Brahman has already been criticized by Hegel in his
LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (1818-1831). So
you should let this hobby-horse of yours go, Mr. Lathief,
and simply let Hegel be Hegel.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

MY REPLY

Before Hegel starts
writing a SCIENCE OF LOGIC, he must make some minimal
assumptions, including the fact that Minds Exist.

Here is one of your basic error,Mr.Paul.The notion presupposed at the starting of spiritualised logic-that deduced from phenomenology is not finite minds,but ABSOLUTE MIND.The speculative reason,the philosopic mind of the speculative philosopher.

And your another error is forgetting always that according to hegel this pure being is implicit notion.

And again and again i remind you that it is the view from spiritualised logic and not from pure logic in order not to shoot back at me the same asking then why you say hegel begins with being.

(a) the Beginning, which is Being or Immediacy: self-subsistent, for the simple reason that it is the beginning. But looked at from the speculative idea,
Being is its self-specialising act, which as the absolute negativity or
movement of the notion makes a judgement and puts itself as its own
negative. Being, which to the beginning as beginning seems mere abstract
affirmation, is thus rather negation, dependency, derivation, and
presupposition. But it is the notion of which Being is the negation: and the
notion is completely self-identical in its otherness, and is the certainty of
itself. Being therefore is the notion implicit, before it has been explicitly
put as a notion. (encyc-logic-238)

The
immediate universal, as the notion implicit, is the dialectical force which
on its own part deposes its immediacy and universality to the level of a
mere stage or 'moment'. Thus is put the negative of the beginning, its
specific character:(239)

In the advance of the idea, the beginning exhibits itself as what it is
implicitly. It is seen to be mediated and derivative, and neither to have
proper being nor proper immediacy.(239n)

It is consequently the unity in which both of these Firsts, the immediate and
the real First, are made constituent stages in thought, merged, and at the
same time preserved in the unity. The notion, which from its implicitness
thus comes by means of its differentiation and the merging of that
differentiation to close with itself, is the realised notion - the notion
which contains the relativity or dependence of its special features in its
own independence. It is the idea which, as absolutely first (in the method),
regards this terminus as merely the disappearance of the show or
semblance, which made the beginning appear immediate, and made itself
seem a result.(242)

"We see therefore that, on the other hand,
> it is equally necessary to consider as RESULT
> that into which the movement returns as into
> its Ground. In this respect the first is
> equally the Ground, and the last a derivative;
> since the movement starts from the first and by
> correct inferences arrives at the last as the
> Ground, this latter is a RESULT." (Hegel, SL103)

Pure Being is not the
Ground, but Pure Being participates in the Ground. The
Ground is the RESULT.

when clearly hegel says here pure being is the ground and notin is a derivative from the point of pure logic why participate Dr.Paul.It is from the view of Absolute Mind(again not finite minds)the RESULT or DERIVATIVE (notion)that into which the movements returns as into its GROUND or arrives at the last as GROUND.

I am now tired of posting Hegel's
quotes to you on this point, because you don't read them.
Your mind is closed.

Here is the last one that I
will provide for your comment. If you fail to
comment on it, then forget it -- your mind is too
closed to have an open discussion

I am more tired than you Mr.Paul.You cling too close to your Guru Hegel and dont want to view things objectively.I have the same words to you Mr.Paul.Here is the last one that I
will provide for your comment. If you fail to
comment on it, then forget it -- your mind is too
closed to have an open discussion.

lathief

PAYL TREJO’S REPLY

> Here is one of your basic errors, Mr.Paul...
> The notion presupposed at the starting of
> spiritualised logic - that deduced from phenomenology -
> is not finite minds, but ABSOLUTE MIND. The speculative
> reason,the philosopic mind of the speculative philosopher.

Your dualism is showing, Mr. Lathief. For Hegel there is
no sharp division between Absolute Mind and Finite Mind,
because in Hegel's Ontology and they are not *opposed*,
rather, the Finite exists *inside* the Absolute.

Also, because of Hegel's doctrine of Divine Immanence, each
individual, finite mind is actually a part of the Absolute
Mind. This is shown in Hegel's Ontological Proof for the
Existence of God. Hegel says,

"The Finite is therefore an essential
moment of the Infinite in the nature of
God. It may consequently be said that
God is the very being who finitizes God,
who posits determinations within God."
(Hegel, LPR, vol. 1, p. 307)

So when Hegel arrives at the concept of the Absolute Spirit
(God) at the end of his PHENOMENOLOGY (1807), he also deduces
the relation of Human History to the Immanent Spirit. That
fact is rarely recognized by dualists, including materialists
and the modern neo-Kantians.

It is Mind that is deduced at the end of the PHENOMENOLOGY.
Spirit itself is Mind. But then, your own mind is already
made up, Mr. Lathief. You really are not interested in
Hegel at all. You only want to promote your Guru here.
(But you must know that Shankara has innumerable web sites,
and Hegel has only these few. Why bother us here? If we
want to learn about Shankara, we know where we can visit.)

> And your another error is forgetting always that
> according to hegel this PURE BEING is IMPLICIT NOTION.

I don't forget that at all -- I only insist that the
IMPLICIT NOTION is not the same as the EXPLICIT NOTION.
But that seems too subtle for you, Mr. Lathief.

> And again and again i remind you that it is the view from
> spiritualised logic and as a method and not from pure logic
> in order not to shoot back at me the same asking then why
> you say hegel begins with being.

Your words are confused, Mr. Lathief. You are not listening
and now you are just rambling on. At least you quote Hegel.
Let's see if you actually read him carefully:

> "Being, which to the beginning as beginning
> seems mere abstract affirmation, is thus
> rather negation, dependency, derivation,
> and presupposition. But it is the NOTION
> of which Being is the negation: and the
> NOTION is completely self-identical in its
> otherness, and is the certainty of itself.
> Being therefore is the NOTION implicit,
> before it has been explicitly put as a
> NOTION." (encyc-logic-238)

Hegel is so brilliant. Being as beginning is only *abstract*.
Hegel repeats this yet again. Also, this abstraction implies
Pure Nothing, Negation, Change and Contingency. This is the
realm that Jean-Paul Sartre called, 'the negatite.' It
involves every subtle nuance of negation one can ever imagine.

Hegel says it again, Mr. Lathief, yet your eyes are shut to
it: Being is the negative of the Subjective, yet the NOTION
is not merely Being nor merely Subjective, rather, the NOTION
is the dialectical Unity of Being and Nothingness. This
dialectical synthesis in Becoming is the first concrete
idea of Hegel's Logic. Implicit NOTION, Hegel emphasizes,
is not Explicit NOTION. It is so clear.

But you missed that point, Mr. Lathief. Consequently, all of
the other quotes you supplied by Hegel had the same message,
and you missed it every time.

> ...When clearly Hegel says here pure being is the
> ground...

Wrong, Mr. Lathief. Hegel *never* says that Pure Being is
the GROUND. Pure Being *participates* in the GROUND, but
Hegel explicitly says that the Ground is the RESULT of
the operation, not the beginning!

> ...It is from the view of Absolute Mind (again not
> finite minds)...

There is your dualism again, Mr. Lathief. You must really
try to learn Hegel's Dialectic, so that you might one day
see beyond your basic dualistic errors.

> ...I am more tired than you Mr.Paul. You cling too close
> to your Guru Hegel and dont want to view things objectively...
>
> lathief

Hegel is not a Guru, Mr. Lathief, as I have repeatedly said.
Hegel is a Scientist who offers his theory for scientific
discussion.

In any case, this is a Hegel List, and the purpose of this
List is to clarify what Hegel said, first and foremost (since
there is still wide disagreement on basic interpretations),
and secondly, to discuss what Hegel said.

Your view, Mr. Lathief, continues to stress Shankara your
Guru (who is admittedly a Guru), and you hope to compare
Hegel with Shankara in some way or other. That is your
business. I have already shown that Hegel criticizes the
doctrine of Brahman (saying it is merely the in-itself and
not the in-itself-for-itself), so I suspect that an orthodox
Hindu would no longer wish to tarry with Hegel anyway.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

MY REPLY

>For Hegel there isno sharp division between Absolute Mind and Finite >Mind

You are accusing me of the thing I countless time explained in this post Mr.Paul.there is identity between finite mind and absolute mind but there is also difference and you are not seeing the difference. .Absolute mind is more than finite mind or in other words Absolute mind include and transcend the finite mind.so the Notion presupposed and deduced from phenomenology is not as you say finite minds but Absolute mind.I know you wont be able to see the difference but other members will be.

>Implicit NOTION, Hegel emphasizes,is not Explicit NOTION.

How many times I repeated that Hegel begins the absolute as pure being as implicit notion and become explicit only in the end.then why you are trying to teach the same thing to me Mr.Paul.If you have nothing more than to say than repeating me why don't you stop posting reply.

>Why bother us here.

I am not bothering you Mr. Paul. infact I don't care about you reply now.I know in advance those will be the old hats again and again.

"Your words are confused,you are just rambling on."

I am asking you the same you asked me in your personal e-mail"Why would a person with a M.A. stoop to
such pedestrian language?"

>"so I suspect that an orthodoxHindu would no longer wish to tarry with >Hegel anyway."

Your reason is extra ordinary Mr.Paul.or I would rather say defective understanding.your one sided view is not only about Hegel but about everything.

when I talk about shankara you think I am Hindu .when I talk about Marx to you I am Marxist.When I talk about Islam you reason I am Muslim.It is not reason Mr. Paul but mere understanding.

As a last attempt in the futile hope of making you understand I quote the last part of logic.

"We began with Being, abstract Being: where we now are we also have the Idea as Being: but this Idea which has Being is Nature."(encyclo-logic -244n).

it is clear from the above Quote that the beginning of logic is Absolute idea as abstract being and the idea which has being only comes at the last stage where absolute idea differentiate it self from itself so that one of the differentiated is self or absolute subject and the other predicates or contents and also later in nature.

And in order not you to repeat your earlier words again and again let me remind you that as I quoted else where from science of logic "this logic is the absolute as he is in his eternal essence and absolute nature" and before nature and finite mind so before the presupposition of notion deduced from phenomenology.

lathief

PAUL TREJO’S POST

> ...Mr. Paul, there is identity between finite mind
> and absolute mind but there is also difference and
> you are not seeing the difference.

I see the difference quite well, Mr. Lathief.

> Absolute mind is more than finite mind or in other
> words Absolute mind include and transcend the finite
> mind.

That is a fair way of puttin it.

> So the Notion presupposed and deduced from
> phenomenology is not as you say finite minds but
> Absolute mind.

Your view is one-sided, Mr. Lathief. First, the Notion is
not presupposed, but deduced. Second, the Absolute Mind
is very obviously *not* in any way presupposed in the
first triad of Hegel's Science of Logic that begins with
Pure Being. You are simply projecting your theology there
where you wish.

Hegel does not say what you claim he says, Mr. Lathief. I
realize you have religious reasons for insisting on your
position, but that has little to do with Philosophy. You
should read more carefully, and not hope to jump to any
conclusions, stooping to put words into Hegel's mouth the
way the communists did for the past 150 years.

(For example, the communists have for 150 years suppressed
the fact that Hegel was a Christian writer. Last year you
came to this Hegel List and boldly insisted that Hegel
could not be a Christian writer, but that I was projecting
my own ideas onto Hegel. This year you realize that I was
telling the truth, and the communists had lied to you.)

> Paul Trejo wrote:
> > ..."so I suspect that an orthodox Hindu would no longer
> > wish to tarry with Hegel anyway."
>
> Your reason is extraordinary Mr. Paul...When I talk about
> shankara you think I am Hindu. when I talk about Marx to
> you I am Marxist. When I talk about Islam you reason I am
> Muslim. It is not reason Mr. Paul but mere understanding.

No, Mr. Lathief, you presume too much, as usual. My words
there about orthodox Hindus was not a reference to yourself.
I am aware that we have perhaps hundreds of readers on this
Hegel List, students from all over the world. When I reply
to *anybody* here, I do so with these students in mind.

The main reason I reply to you at all, Mr. Lathief, despite
your rude manners, is that I am aware that many students are
familiar with Shankara and Hindu thought, and they see clearly
that there are overlapping ideas between *all* religion and
Hegel's Great System. So it is to them that I add these
clarifications.

> As a last attempt in the futile hope of making you
> understand I quote the last part of Hegel's logic.
>
>     "We began with Being, abstract Being: where
>      we now are, we also have the Idea as Being:
>      but this Idea which has Being is Nature."
>      (encyclo-logic -244n).

And your point is what, Mr. Lathief?

> It is clear from the above Quote that the beginning of
> logic is Absolute idea as abstract being and the idea
> which has being only comes at the last stage where
> absolute idea differentiate it self from itself so
> that one of the differentiated is self or absolute
> subject and the other predicates or contents and also
> later in nature.

You are only half-right, Mr. Lathief. Rather, you are
getting warmer.   In fact, nowhere does that quote imply
that the beginning of Logic is the Absolute Idea. The
fact that it is transformed into the Absolute Idea (with
Being) occurs only at the end of the operation, as a RESULT.
You get the second part, but you still have trouble with
the first part. You need to read Hegel's section on the
Doctrine of Being in his SCIENCE OF LOGIC (1812).

In that section he clearly says -- and repeats -- that Pure
Being is simply Pure Nothingness. That is exactly WHY it
is the start of his Science of Logic, which must begin
without any presupposed premise (aside from the obvious
fact that finite minds exist and are trying to figure out
where to begin with this new science of logic).

You refuse to read it. Why? Because you think you know it
all already, having read Shankara. That is the reason.

> Let me remind you that as I quoted else where from science
> of logic "this logic is the absolute as he is in his eternal
> essence and absolute nature" and before nature and finite
> mind so before the presupposition of notion deduced from
> phenomenology.
>
> lathief

You have taken that quotation out of context, Mr. Lathief.
That is part of your continuing error.

Hegel's SCIENCE OF LOGIC (1812) is indeed the exposition of
Divine Logic and the Divine Mind -- but that is not given at
the *beginning* of Hegel's logical deduction.

Your belief is very much mistaken. The only reason I bother
repeating these corrections is because I want students
worldwide to see these distinctions very clearly. Many of
them, I feel sure, become confused when you stubbornly refuse
to read Hegel, but continue to insist that Shankara is right,
no matter what.

So I feel obliged to help them out.

The essential flaw in your logic, Mr. Lathief, is that you
are prone to arguments from authority. You want to quote a
Guru and let that be a privileged statement.

But that has nothing to do with Western Philosophy. We demand
proofs for everything. There are no presuppositions in Hegel's
Logic. Because you are an authoritarian in logic you cannot
even believe that such a thing is possible.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A

MY REPLY

>Your view is one-sided, Mr. Lathief. First, the Notion is
>not presupposed, but deduced. Second, the Absolute Mind
is very obviously *not* in any way presupposed in the
>first triad of Hegel's Science of Logic that begins with
>Pure Being

countless times I quoted and since this is the last time I repeat them again.notion is presupposed in the beginning of spiritualized logic, or third syllogism.and first triad of science(knowledge) of logic not beginning with logic.Logic is the middle term and Notion as ABSOLUTE MIND is presupposed.so it is Mind-Logic-nature(see below $577)

"The Notion of pure science and its deduction is therefore presupposed in the present work in so far as the Phenomenology of Spirit is nothing other than the deduction of it." 51 SL

Thus pure science presupposes liberation from the opposition of consciousness. It contains thought in so far as this is just as much the object in its own self, or the object in its own self in so far as it is equally pure thought. As science, truth is pure self-consciousness in its self-development and has the shape of the self, so that the absolute truth of being is the known Notion and the Notion as such is the absolute truth of being.SL52

But in the Introduction, the Notion of logic was itself stated to be the result of a preceding science, and so here, too, it is a presupposition SL77

>Last year you
>came to this Hegel List and boldly insisted that Hegel
could not be a Christian writer, but that I was projecting
>my own ideas onto Hegel. This year you realize that I was
>telling the truth, and the communists had lied to you

What communist,what Christian writer Dr.Paul.if his mind is really a philosophic mind no one who knows his philosophy doubt that religious mind is an inferior category than philosophic mind and he must be above all organized religious dogmas.some of his writings are leaned towards Christianity because of various reasons,he a Christian by birth,he was most familiar with Christian dogmas because he was a theologian before becoming philosopher.the church was still powerful in his time in the state and as we know from his biography he was very careful to serve and not to antagonize the powerful.still you can see his attitude to religion in his later writing and philosophic mind as the highest expression of Absolute mind.

"But even religion, as it grows and expands, lets other aspects of the Idea of humanity grow and expand also (§§ 566 seqq.). As it left therefore behind, in its first immediate, and so also one-sided phase, Religion may, or rather must, appear in its existence degraded to sensuous externality, and thus in the sequel become an influence to oppress liberty of spirit and to deprave political life. Still the principle has in it the infinite 'elasticity' of the 'absolute' form', so as to overcome this depraving of the form-determination (and the content by these means), and to bring about the reconciliation of the spirit in itself(encycl-phil of mind-552)

Any way I don't like to begin another discussion with you on this as I am least interested in it now.

("We began with Being, abstract Being: where
      we now are, we also have the Idea as Being:
      but this Idea which has Being is Nature."
      (encyclo-logic -244n).

    It is clear from the above Quote that the beginning of
logic is Absolute idea as abstract being and the idea )

>In fact, nowhere does that quote imply
>that the beginning of Logic is the Absolute Idea

what are you talking Dr.Paul. neither in the above quotes nor in any of my post I am saying BEGINNING OF LOGIC IS THE ABSOLUTE IDEA.subject matter of all my post itself is beginning is abstract being(I don't know why you edited my earlier posts and put the subject under speculative reason verses mysticism,any way I am correcting that).In your arguments you are making every thing upside down Mr. Paul to confuse the readers.

Any way I am too tired and don't want to play these type of tricks.So I am closing this discussion from my side and won,t be replying to you any more.

lathief

PAUL TREJO'S POST

> Hegel says,
>
> "In the Introduction it was remarked that
> the phenomenology of spirit is the science
> of consciousness, the exposition of it, and
> that consciousness has for result the Notion
> of science, i.e. pure knowing. Logic, then,
> has for its presupposition the science of
> manifested spirit, which contains and
> demonstrates the necessity, and so the truth,
> of the standpoint occupied by pure knowing
> and of its mediation." (Hegel, SL93)
>
> Here the beginning is made with being which is represented
> as having come to be through mediation, a mediation which
> is also a sublating of itself...

That is a confusing way of saying it, Mr. Lathief, so I must
conclude you are still unclear on the topic.

> ...and there is presupposed pure knowing as the outcome
> of finite knowing, of consciousness.

No, not at that step, Mr. Lathief. The PHENOMENOLOGY was
indeed the deduction of the Notion of Science and Pure
Knowing. But that comes at the *end* of the Encyclopedia,
and not at the beginning. You continue to miss that point.

Hegel's Logic only presupposes that Mind exists, and does
not presuppose the content or method at the beginning.
If it did, it would not be science, but dogma.

In Hegel's introduction to his Logic, he is offering a
summary of the entire book. That was common in his day.
He is not starting his operation in Logic with his
introduction to his book. That is probably the root
of your error, Mr. Lathief.

The Absolute Spirit was deduced at the end of Hegel's
PHENOMENOLOGY, and also as the RESULT of his SCIENCE OF
LOGIC. But not at the beginning. His logical operation,
when it formally begins, makes no other presupposition than
Pure Being, which he repeatedly says is so empty and void a
term that it is equal to Pure Nothing. I have shown this
with many direct quotes from Hegel, Mr. Lathief, but you
keep evading the fact.

> "We began with Being, abstract Being: where
> we now are, we also have the Idea as Being:
> but this Idea which has Being is Nature."
> (Hegel, encyclo-logic -244n).
>
> It is clear from the above Quote that the beginning of
> logic is Absolute idea as abstract being and the idea.

That is not at all clear, Mr. Lathief. I suspect that you
are projecting your religious beliefs onto Hegel's words.

> ...Anyway I am too tired and don't want to play these type
> of tricks. So I am closing this discussion from my side
> and won't be replying to you any more.
>
> lathief

Do yourself a favor, Mr. Lathief, as you did last year, and
review my many comments to you when you are more receptive
to new ideas. Just like last year, I feel sure, you will
come to realize that I am explaining plain facts to you (as
patiently as possible), despite your fixed ideas.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

MY REPLY

Yes,Dr.Paul
I already put all our post including this one in my web site.So i
will be sure that some posts like "conception is the highest",and
quoting "mystcal experience of religious mind as hegel's" wont be
deleted.I advice you the same " to review my many comments to you
when you are more receptive to new ideas. Just like last year, I
feel sure, you will come to realize that I am explaining plain facts
to you (as patiently as possible), despite your fixed ideas" and it
has the added advantage of all can read the whole and assess
themselves" whose explanation is more reasonable to the hegelian
texts. please go to
https://lathief1.tripod.com/being.htm
https://lathief1.tripod.com/mysticism.htm
regards
lathief