Hello Alan and John,

I enjoyed Alan's comments on Carlson's book. For sure the breadth of Alan's knowledge of Hegel secondary literature brings a great wealth of contemporary issues into play and undoubtedly Alan provides us with an added dimension to the list.

I am more focused on providing a straight forward commentary of Hegel. The only three secondary sources that I have relied on have been Winfield, Pippin, and Heidegger. Other than that, I have been focused directly on Hegel's text for the last 6 years.

So, I benifit from Alan's objections and I am sure Winfield does as well.

I would be spreading myself too thin if I entered into your discussion at this time, but I did some significant work on the opening chapters of the SL two or three years ago. It needs some re-formulation, but I would appreciate any comments and would be open to objections, criticism, etc.

Have a look. My suggestion is to read the summery section first and then read the link at the top, and then move to the next section:

--------------------------

I. PURE BEING, NOTHING, AND BECOMING:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/721

A. BEING

1. Recall that the affirmative immediacy of PURE BEING was
demonstrated to be a pure SELF-RELATION.

a. i.e. as an indeterminate immediacy, PURE BEING was not in any way
in a relationship to an other.

(1)If it were in a relationship to an other, it would have already
been mediated or determined in some way

(2)However, because BEING was devoid of all determination
whatsoever, it was NOT the affirmation which it had purported itself
to be; i.e. it was not being but NOTHING.


B. `PURE NOTHING'

1. PURE NOTHING is the absence of all determination and content

a. NOTHING is an indeterminate simplicity. This NOTHING, which is
supposed to be only nothing, is an affirmative NOTHING that is
granted an existence in thought, imagination, and speech.

(1) Thus PURE NOTHING as the *affirmation* of an indeterminate
simplicity immediately collapses into PURE BEING.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[NOTE] PURE LIGHT and PURE DARKNESS

[A] Hegel uses the analogy of "pure light" and "pure darkness" to
help illuminate the above relationship between PURE BEING and PURE
NOTHING .

[1] From the perspective of "seeing" we can relate the phenomena
of "pure light" with PURE BEING .

[a] `BEING' --which is usually associated with "affirmativeness"--
is of course identified with the illuminating quality of light.
Light has the power to surround "everything", and "illuminate"
everything in its articulated outline.

[b] As part of the 5 fold human sensorium, "Seeing" is
a "distantial grasping" of determinate things. "Seeing"
is "distantial" in the sense that it requires an "optimal nearness"
to illuminate what is percieved.

[c] In contrast, in the absence of light, all determinate things
are "extinguished" for the human eye. Consequently, the human eye
sees "NOTHING" in the absence of light .

[2] However, in the total brilliance of "pure light", all
determinate distinctions are also extinguished.

[a] Thus the human eye "sees" just as much in "pure light" as it
does in "pure darkness".

[b] From the above analogy of `Pure Light' and `Pure Darkness', we
can "see" how the affirmativeness of PURE BEING collapses into PURE
NOTHING

[3] Furthermore, using this same analogy with the human phenomenon
of "seeing", we can also indicate how PURE NOTHING is like PURE
BEING.

[a] It is true that the human eye "sees" nothing determinate
in "pure darkness", yet it is also true that the human eye
still "sees" the "open darkness".

[b] Therefore, even in absolute darkness, there is still
the "seeing" of the open and affirmative darkness (i.e. the open
possibility of seeing something).

[c] And so through the above analogy we can "see" how the
indeterminacy of `NOTHING' slips into the affirmativeness of PURE
BEING.

[B] Taking into consideration the utility of the above analogy, we
should at the same time make it crystal clear that `PURE BEING'
cannot be "seen" as a form of subjective representation.

[1] i.e. `PURE BEING' *cannot* be grasped from viewpoint of "natural
consciousness" .

[a] `PURE BEING' only came into "view" because the distance between
the "perceiving subject" and the "object percieved" had been
overcome (i.e. during the course of the Phenomenology of Spirit).

[b] The "distance" between `Subject' and `Object' was overcome when
the thinking subject became "self-consciouss" .

[c] This PURE SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS constituted an overcoming of
the "distance" between the `Subject' and the `Object'.

[2] Thus, `PURE BEING' can not be grasped as an external object
from the "distantial" perspective of a `Subject' (i.e. natural
consciousness), instead the `Subject' and `Object' have at the
moment of `PURE BEING' collapsed into one another, and we
have "entered into" a non-distantial realm (i.e. the realm of a
PURE SELF-RELATION).

[a] Or we have "entered into" the logical SELF-RELATION of the
ABSOLUTE SUBJECT.

[3] Here with the mention of an "Absolute Subject" we must recall
what we learned about a `Subject' in general from Kant:

[a] Kant suggested that in order for a Subject to have
representational experience at all, a subject must be in a logical
SELF-RELATION to the rules that actively unify the
externally "given" sensory data.

[b] These "rules" or "functions" which were necessarily used by the
subject to actively unify representations were considered to be a
priori or "transcendentally prior" to representational experience.


[c] Hegel agreed with Kant that there could be no consciousness
without "SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS" (i.e. there could be no
representational experience without a prior "logical SELF-RELATION"
to the rules that actively unified those representations)


[but]

[d] Hegel suggested that for Kant, the "rules" that he outlined that
a `Subject' was necessarily in relation to (in order to have
determinate experience in the first place) were simply dogmatic
adaptations of the laws of logic that had been handed down from the
annals of traditional logic.


[4] Thus Hegel required that we first "enter into" this abstract
(and non-distantial) logical SELF-RELATION, and secondly he demanded
that we allow the rules (that a subject was necessarily in a self-
relation with) to autonomously self-develop.

[a] Once we enter into PURE BEING, there is no longer
any "distance" between subject and object. We have entered into a
pure SELF-RELATION.


[b] PURE BEING is not unequal relatively to an other; it has no
diversity
within itself nor any with a reference outwards.

[c] Conseqently, when we enter into PURE BEING our analogy
of "seeing" necessarily breaks down because "seeing" is necessarily
distantial (i.e. distance requires "relationship").

[d] An open question is whether there are other non-distantial
human sensory analogies availible to help concretise the moment
prior to the first speculative step. For example a non-
distantial "touching on" may be appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------


C. BECOMING

1. So the truth was neither `BEING' nor `NOTHING', but that `PURE
BEING' —did not pass over but had [already] passed over —
into `NOTHING', and vice versa.


a. i.e. `PURE BEING' immediately collapsed into `NOTHING' and vice
versa.

(1) An incessant dialectical transposition then ensued.

(a) `BEING' and `NOTHING' held-together in their movement into one
another constituted `BECOMING'.

II. Determinate Being:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/747

A. DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH

1. `DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH' first issued forth from `BECOMING'
as a qualitative "oneness" (i.e. in the simple form of being) .

a. `DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH' was immediate (i.e. it was without
a "posited" relation to an other);

(1) As a qualitative "oneness", `DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH' was in
the affirmativeness of BEING,

[yet as mediated by `BECOMING']

(2) `DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH' also included *within* itself NON-
BEING

(a) Thus DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH was *not* the PURE SELF-RELATION
of the prior sphere of indeterminate BEING.

[instead]

(b) DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH was the immediacy of *DETERMINATE*
being.

(b) DETERMINATE BEING is of course a being that is necessarily in a
RELATION to another DETERMINATE BEING

[Yet]

(3) DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH (as it had initially issued forth
from `BECOMING') was merely immediate (i.e. it was without a posited
relation to an other).

(a) DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH had to reveal its concealed negative
element, or it would have merely slipped into the prior sphere of
PURE BEING.

(b) Thus DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH preserved itself from falling
into the indeterminacy of PURE BEING by collapsing into NEGATION

(c) With the `NEGATION', DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH was no longer
immediate, it was now in relation to an `OTHER'.

B. THE `NEGATION'

1. The `NEGATION' was immediately demonstrated to be a `DETERMINATE
BEING' itself.

a. `NEGATION' was necessarily a `DETERMINATE BEING' of course
because of its *relation* to `DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH'

(1) Recall that *only* a `DETERMINATE BEING' can be in a relation to
another `DETERMINATE BEING'.

(2) Thus the self-collapse of `DETERMINATE BEING AS SUCH'
into `NEGATION' resulted in the determinate opposition between:

(a) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE BEING (i.e. formerly `DETERMINATE BEING
AS SUCH')

[and]

(b) NEGATIVE DETERMINATE BEING (i.e. formerly `NEGATION').

(3) Insofar as AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE BEING had "preserved" itself
in its relation to the external `NEGATION', it was determined as
a `BEING-FOR-OTHER'.

b. `BEING-FOR-OTHER'

(1) Determined as `BEING-FOR-OTHER' the `AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE
BEING' and the `NEGATIVE DETERMINATE BEING' *essentially* referred
to one another

[OR in other words]

(a) As merely externally related, the `AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE
BEING' and the `NEGATIVE DETERMINATE BEING' were demonstrated to be
inextricably adjoined with each other.

(b) That is, as a `BEING-FOR-OTHER', the determinancy of
the `AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE BEING' necessarily slipped into
its `NEGATIVE DETERMINATE BEING' (i.e. its external `OTHER').

[And]

(c) In this way, in so far as the `AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE BEING'
was merely determined (or "preserved") in its relation to an
external `OTHER' (i.e. in so far as it was determined as a `BEING-
FOR-OTHER'), the `AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATE BEING' of course lacked an
integral being of its own.


C. the `NEGATION OF THE NEGATION':

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/749


1. NEGATION OF THE NEGATION: the simple restoration of DETERMINATE
BEING with itself

a. `BEING-IN-ITSELF'

(1) With the `NEGATION OF THE NEGATION', the `AFFIRMATIVE
DETERMINATE BEING' was deterimined to be: SELF-EQUAL IN OPPOSITION
TO ITS INEQUALITY.


[HOWEVER]


(a) Determined as such (i.e. "self-equal in opposition to its
inequality"), the `AFFIRMATIVE DETEMINATE BEING' (i.e.
the `SOMETHING') again proved itself to be indistinquishible from
its `NEGATIVE DETERMINATE BEING' (i.e. its `OTHER').

(b) Consequently an external dialectical transposition
between `SOMETHING' and the `OTHER' ensued.

(c) Thus the `SOMETHING' and its `OTHER' mutually slipped into one
another.

(2) This fluid "ALTERATION" between `SOMETHING' and its `OTHER'
represented a `BECOMING'.

[And the result of this *concrete* `BECOMING' was that]

(a) The `SOMETHING' was revealed to be the unity of `BEING-FOR-
OTHER' and `BEING-IN-ITSELF'.


[and]

(b) The `OTHER' was [also] revealed to be the unity of `BEING-IN-
ITSELF' and `BEING-FOR-OTHER'.

(3) At their point of contact, the `SOMETHING' and the `OTHER' were
reflected into themselves (i.e. into the moments of their own
immanent self-development).

(a) Each moment (i.e. `BEING-FOR-OTHER' and `BEING-IN-ITSELF') of
the `SOMETHING' necessarily *contained* the other moment in the
sense that each moment was either a "transition from" or a "pointing
to" the other moment.

(b) Again a dialectical transposition (i.e. a `BECOMING') ensued,
but this time it was a dialectical transposition that occurred
*WITHIN* the determinate being of the `SOMETHING' itself.

(c) This alteration of `BEING-IN-ITSELF' and `BEING-FOR-OTHER'
then "issued forth" into the qualitative "oneness" of the
affirmative `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF'.

III. THE `SOMETHING':

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/753

A. `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF'

1. The affirmative `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF' was demonstrated to be
the simple "oneness" (i.e. `BEING-IN-ITSELF') that was "filled" with
what was necessarily present in it (i.e. `BEING-FOR-OTHER').

a. The `BEING-FOR-OTHER' ( that was immanently present in
the "oneness" ) of course had to `POSIT' itself, or this "oneness"
of the affirmative `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF' would [again] fall into
the indeterminacy of the sphere long since past, i.e. the sphere
of `PURE BEING'

(1) This `BEING-FOR-OTHER' then posited itself as the *immanent*
negative called `CONSTITUTION'.

[At this point..]

(2) The affirmative `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF' had then divided
itself into:

(a) `DETERMINATION' (i.e. the "oneness" of the affirmative
determinate `in-itself')

[and]

(b) `CONSTITUTION' (the articulation of the `otherness-within-
itself')


(c) The above two moments then fell into alteration (i.e. the
movement thus enters into BECOMING).

(3) The "oneness" of the affirmative `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF'
alternated into its own immanent `BEING-FOR-OTHER' .

(a) Yet now when the affirmative `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF' collapsed
into its negative element (i.e. its BEING-FOR-OTHER), it at the same
time remained identical with itself because that which it altered
into was the `OTHERNESS-WITHIN-ITSELF'.

(b) `CONSTITUTION' is the negative moment (i.e. BEING-WITHIN-
ITSELF'), but it is now clear that it is no longer the `BEING-FOR-
OTHER' of the prior sphere (i.e. the `being-for-other' that proved
itself to be the mere community with its `OTHER').

(c) Instead, as currently developed, `CONSTITUTION' is now the
unfolding of the `BEING-WITHIN-ITSELF' that is the AFFIRMATIVE
COMMUNITY WITH ITSELF (i.e. or the `DETERMINATE SELF-RELATION')

B. SELF-RELATED DETERMINATE BEING

1. The `SOMETHING' as an affirmative `DETERMINATE SELF-RELATION' is
the COINCIDENCE of its SELF-RELATION with the immanent unfolding of
its `BEING-FOR-OTHER'

a. The coincidence of the `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF' with the unfolding
of the immanent `OTHERNESS-WITHIN-ITSELF' represents the SUBLATION
of the difference between the above two moments.

(1) Moreover, the SUBLATION of the `DETERMINATE IN-ITSELF'
and `CONSTITUTION' represents the positing of the `SOMETHING' in
general.

(a) The `SOMETHING' as a `DETERMINATE SELF-RELATION' is for the
first time an affirmative *stable* being.

(b) As an affirmative stable being the `SOMETHING' is itself the
qualitative `NEGATION' of its `OTHER'.

(c) Or as the affirmative and stable `DETERMINATE SELF-
RELATION', the `SOMETHING' is itself the ceasing of all external
otherness in it.

(2) Consequently the stable and affirmative `SOMETHING', as an
immediate, `SELF-RELATED DETERMINATE BEING' is first and foremost
the *LIMIT* for the an external `OTHER' (or it is the non-being of
the `OTHER').

------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------


also see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/789

Best,

Randall