Hi John,

I'm replying belatedly to your post of 7/23.

Isn't this also a the triad of the Encyclopedia: Logic, Nature, Spirit?

As such, doesn't this make the triad of Logic, Nature, Spirit the
highest, the most all-encompassing for Hegel, given that the
Encyclopedia is a Totality?

Thanks also for setting out the triadic structures of the unhappy
consciousness, and the beautiful soul.

Bruce

On 7/23/18, John Bardis jgbardis@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Paul,
>
> At any rate, it is important to understand how this triad works. It is the
> fundamental triad of Hegelian philosophy.
>
> It is pretty much the same as the triad that makes up the second volume of
> the SL. This is concept/object/idea. The concept is fully transcendent. The
> object is fully immanent. And the idea is the union of the two--the
> substance which is subject.
>
> It is universal/particular/individual, with the individual being the union
> or synthesis of universal and particular.
>
> It is the same as the triad that concludes the Understanding chapter, which
> is: inverted world/true infinity/"I" of Reason.
>
> It is the same as the triad in the Doctrine of Being which is: infinity/true
> infinity/being-for-self.
>
> Essentially, it is transcendence/immanence/the union of the two, which is
> the "I" of reason.
>
> So in the first form of unhappy consciousness, God is completely
> transcendent. In the second form God is completely immanent. In the third
> form the priest, as mediator between God and man, becomes the "I" of
> reason.
>
> As for the history, there is no monastery in the first form. It is simply
> the lone anchorite longing for God. The second form really does have to do
> with the monastery as the place where God is immanent in all thoughts, words
> and deeds. The third form, again, has nothing to do with the monastery. It
> has to do with the simple confession of sins and their forgiveness. It
> happens even today, every day, perhaps, or whenever.
>
> But both you and Stephen should read the book. I know you have that essay
> that you wrote, which shows a good knowledge of the Phenomenology, a good
> first reading of the book. But that essay is, what? 20 years old?
>
> And I know it is standard "Hegel scholarship" to reduce the Unhappy
> Consciousness to its first form, as you did in your original post, and then
> to equate this form with Christianity, which you didn't quite do. But this
> certainly shows a great ignorance both of Hegel and of Christianity (and
> even of Wahl, for that matter) on the part of "Hegel scholarship".
>
> In regard to the question of Judaism, it is a long while for me too since I
> have read this, a year or two perhaps, so I can't be quite sure. But I think
> Hegel does equate the first form of Unhappy Consciousness with both the
> Judaism of the time and with the pagan Hellenism of the time. Christianity,
> then, is seen as a way of getting past this situation, as Christianity (and
> not simply in its monastic form) becomes the more or less explicit subject
> of the second and third forms. At any rate, the three forms of Unhappy
> Consciousness span the time, as I said, from Rome to before the
> Renaissance.
>
> John