Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question

Expand Messages
  • Beat Greuter
    ... I did not claim that the development of the World-Spitit in pure thought is untouched by the biographies of the thinkers. Quite the reverse. Only the
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 15, 2010
      Stephen Theron writes:

      >Thank you Beat for offering us this passage from Hegel´s Lectures on Hist. Phil.
      >However I cannot see there any ground for this critical dismissal of an interest in the personal development of and biography of Georg W.F. Hegel as "a fruitless longing", even if one should lay down that the development of the World-Spirit is untouched by such things, which of course implies that everything, the invention of printing, the development of the German or other languages, the Ice Age, in so far as these things were/are real at all, were somehow necessary, and maybe they were/are.
      >

      I did not claim that the development of the World-Spitit in pure thought
      is untouched by the biographies of the thinkers. Quite the reverse. Only
      the biographies of the individual thinkers do represent the development
      of the World-Spirit in pure thought. Without those thinkers it would not
      exist. In this respect Hegel was an Aristotelian, not a Platonist. What
      I pointed to was the assumed analogical feature of the development of
      World-Spirit in pure thought (as Hegel describes it in my cited passage
      from the Lectures of the History of Philosophy) and the development of
      thought in an individual philosopher, especially Hegel. This analogy
      gives rise to challenge John's question "How did Hegel became Hegel?"
      because it implicates that there was a time when Hegel was not Hegel and
      a time when Hegel was Hegel. At least John's text does suggest this.
      However, the mole works in the dark and fragmentarily until the adequate
      shape has been found. With this I do not dismiss the interest and
      importance of a biography of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, quite the
      reverse. But, instead of finding the point where Hegel became Hegel such
      a biography should collect and systematically arrange all the elements
      which were necessary to achieve the adequate shape of the philosophy of
      Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

      >Besides which, maybe our correspondent has no "longng" at all, he simpler wonders and wonderment is the common root of both philosophy (latching on to the World Spirit) and poetry. So if one lacked that....
      >

      I agree, however, what did Kant ask for in his three Critiques?: What
      can I think, what can I will, what can I hope?

      >
      >Some of us, that is to say, retain an interest in ordinary phenomenal history, such as I understand Hegel possessed as well. So can't we compare notes on it sometimes, in between the BIG questions?
      >
      >Stephen.
      >

      The phenomenology belongs to the BIG questions. For Hegel there are no
      BIG questions without the phenomenology, otherwise for him it would be
      only abstract thinking.

      Regards,
      Beat Greuter

      >
      >
      >To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
      >From: greuterb@...
      >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:12:19 +0200
      >Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question
      >
      >John writes:
      >
      >>-- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>,
      >>eupraxis@... wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>>What were you hoping for?
      >>>
      >>>Wil
      >>>
      >> hate to say, Will. But to put it in very general terms, I was hoping
      >>to find out how Hegel became Hegel. Kaufmann, who said many ridicuous
      >>things about Hegel, said one thing that I think is true. Early on at
      >>Jena Hegel became Hegel. Before that...
      >>
      >>In content there is a very real continuity. The pre-Jena Hegel was
      >>interested in religion and political thought. He believed this was
      >>what he particularly had to add to what Schelling was doing. His time
      >>in Jena was largely spent with trying to get up to speed on what we
      >>call science. And, of course, all this content is reflected in the
      >>Phenomenology.
      >>
      >>But in particular, the pre-Jena Hegel had only a very "external"
      >>appreciation of Christianity. I haven't read the Difference essay yet,
      >>or the other essay. I think his mature appreciation is already
      >>reflected in one or both of these works. But it is certainly there in
      >>the Phenomenology. His Christian theology takes its form here. In the
      >>third volume of the Lectures on Religion, he just expands and
      >>articulates what he already says in the Phenomenology. So what
      >>happened? How did he suddenly arrive at a good understanding of
      >>Christianity?(--not that this question will necessarily offend you.
      >>After all Zizek has a very good understanding of and appreciation of
      >>Hegel's mature Christian theology.)
      >>
      >>Then there's also what might be called Hegel's syllogistic
      >>thinking--or just quite simply his triadic thinking. This is something
      >>I particularly identify with the so-called Hermetic Tradition. This is
      >>fully explicit in the Phenomenology--and then developed at great
      >>length in the SL. But I don't think it particularly characterized his
      >>earlier thinking on religion and social thought. So what happened? How
      >>did Hegel become Hegel?
      >>
      >>John
      >>
      >our question "how Hegel became Hegel" is a fruitless longing. You look
      >for a true beginning. But there is no such beginning as there is no
      >foundation in philosophy but only the movement of the concept. Please,
      >read the following passage from the Lectures on the History of
      >Philosophy. What Hegel does say here about philosophy as such is also
      >true for the development of an individual philosopher:
      >
      >"To this point the World-spirit has come, and each stage has its own
      >form in the true system of Philosophy; nothing is lost, all principles
      >are preserved, since Philosophy in its final aspect is the totality of
      >forms. This concrete idea is the result of the strivings of spirit
      >during almost twenty-five centuries of earnest work to become objective
      >to itself, to know itself:
      >
      >Tantæ molis erat, se ipsam cognoscere mentem.
      >
      >All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so
      >tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we
      >pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality
      >to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion
      >of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external
      >subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to
      >make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on,
      >because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten
      >and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working
      >ever forward as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, "Well said,
      >old mole! canst work i' the ground so fast" until grown strong in itself
      >it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its
      >Notion, so that the earth crumbles away. At such a time, when the
      >encircling crust, like a soulless decaying tenement, crumbles away, and
      >spirit displays itself arrayed in new youth, the seven league boots are
      >at length adopted. This work of the spirit to know itself, this activity
      >to find itself, is the life of the spirit and the spirit itself. Its
      >result is the Notion which it takes up of itself; the history of
      >philosophy is a revelation of what has been the aim of spirit throughout
      >its history; it is therefore the world's history in its innermost
      >signification. This work of the human spirit in the recesses of thought
      >is parallel with all the stages of reality; and therefore no philosophy
      >oversteps its own time. The importance which the determinations of
      >thought possessed is another matter, which does not belong to the
      >history of Philosophy. These Notions are the simplest revelation of the
      >World spirit: in their more concrete form they are history."
      >
      >(Lectures on the History of Philosophy, III Modern Philosophy, Third
      >Section: Recent German Philosophy, E. Final Result, translated by E S
      >Haldane)
      >
      >You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
      >base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
      >vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
      >the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
      >Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
      >thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
      >to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
      >
      >Regards,
      >Beat Greuter
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • stephen theron
      Dear Beat, Thank you for qualifications. I agree there is no in between really, just as outside is inside. As for when did Hegel become Hegel , the idiom
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 15, 2010
        Dear Beat,



        Thank you for qualifications. I agree there is no "in between" really, just as outside is inside. As for "when did Hegel become Hegel", the idiom here (not surely exclusively English) is clearly paradoxical in form, a shorthand figure of speech, that is. Or, it is shorthand merely for "become the Hegel we know" or some such. But then of course we don�t know him unless we know the whole Hegel, you will point out.

        I want to add to my intervention yesterday: about the syllogism and your surely very "categorical" (no joke intended) remarks, especially as referring to "The Doctrine of the Concept", even though it is true, as you say, that it is there that Syllogism is a moment in the Concept's advance to Objectivity. It seems also to be surely more than that, as is of course true of all such moments as also, Hegel tells us, of past "refuted" philosophers (otherwise Phil�s history would be saddening indeed, he says).

        For example he distinguishes between the syllogism of the understanding (no claim to be a form of rationality) and the syllogism of reason which, the text of Enc. 182, Zus., makes plain to the unprejudiced reader, has a claim "to be held as the embodiment of all reason." Thus he can even say that "everything is a syllogism", odd if it has "nothing to do" with his philosophy.

        Now this cannot be divorced from the syllogism�s resting on a law of triple identity which Hegel virtually quotes in his Quantitative syllogism (merging it with "equality", however), which is an Advance towards the self-deconstruction of the syllogism, so to say ("Two results follow... a circle of mediations... the individuality gets... the character of universality", 189). McTaggart and Findlay wrongly, therefore, in my view, regard this Syllogism as an optimal insertion not functioning dialectically. This holds, although we have still the syllogism of Reflection and Necessity ahead of us there.

        The syllogism of reason, as overcoming the either/or of "abstract thought", belongs with thinking of liberty as merged with necessity and finally too of that surely rather triadic notion (you wrote that Hegel�s philosophy has "nothing to do with" either syllogism or triadism), the Trinity, contrasted with the way Deism "thinks God". "Christianity, to which He is known as the Trinity, contains the rational notion of God." I note of course that he writes "contains" (if the original term means this), which one might see as less categorical, again, than "is", "has" etc., perhaps intentionally, the point being that the Absolute, however we represent it, must necessarily be taken as differentiated.



        Finally, it is interesting (to me)that he says, (at Enc. 183) that "Of course" the minor, subject term "has other characteristics besides individuality", the major, predicate term "has other characteristics than mere universality". I see here a direct continuity of the teaching of Aquinas, surely not a coincidence, that the subject-term signifies only quasi- materially (matter as principle of individuality), the predicate-term only quasi-formally or as "giving the form". Frege on the other hand, or many Fregeans, seems, at least at first sight ("Concept and Object") to depart from this sound caveat, reaching back to Aristotle, with whom Hegel has clearly a very real continuity, as has Aristotle of course with Plato (cf. 142, Zus.). You say he is Aristotelian, "not a Platonist". So the judgment-form can be used to say anything about anything, even if our positioning gives a material or a universal "tinge" respectively.



        The syllogism is surely not "the base" of Hegel�s thinking. You are right there. On the other hand I think Quine is quite wrong to describe syllogistic as a small and insignificant part of logic as a whole. The principle of triple identity on which it is based, that two "things" identical with a third are identical with each other, runs through all our thinking, e.g. about causality or the procedures of law, as Hegel himself urges (183, 184, Zusatsen), thinking chiefly of the syllogism of understanding of course, and hidden enthymemes abound. The metaphysics of this type of classical logic (logica docens) sit very deep in Hegel�s logic and, therefore, ontology and metaphysics, and cannot be ignored in, for example merely, any confrontation or accommodation with "analytical" Fregeans.



        Thank you for stimulating me to this. Best wishes,

        Stephen Theron.





        To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
        From: greuterb@...
        Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:18:08 +0200
        Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question






        Stephen Theron writes:

        >Thank you Beat for offering us this passage from Hegel�s Lectures on Hist. Phil.
        >However I cannot see there any ground for this critical dismissal of an interest in the personal development of and biography of Georg W.F. Hegel as "a fruitless longing", even if one should lay down that the development of the World-Spirit is untouched by such things, which of course implies that everything, the invention of printing, the development of the German or other languages, the Ice Age, in so far as these things were/are real at all, were somehow necessary, and maybe they were/are.
        >

        I did not claim that the development of the World-Spitit in pure thought
        is untouched by the biographies of the thinkers. Quite the reverse. Only
        the biographies of the individual thinkers do represent the development
        of the World-Spirit in pure thought. Without those thinkers it would not
        exist. In this respect Hegel was an Aristotelian, not a Platonist. What
        I pointed to was the assumed analogical feature of the development of
        World-Spirit in pure thought (as Hegel describes it in my cited passage
        from the Lectures of the History of Philosophy) and the development of
        thought in an individual philosopher, especially Hegel. This analogy
        gives rise to challenge John's question "How did Hegel became Hegel?"
        because it implicates that there was a time when Hegel was not Hegel and
        a time when Hegel was Hegel. At least John's text does suggest this.
        However, the mole works in the dark and fragmentarily until the adequate
        shape has been found. With this I do not dismiss the interest and
        importance of a biography of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, quite the
        reverse. But, instead of finding the point where Hegel became Hegel such
        a biography should collect and systematically arrange all the elements
        which were necessary to achieve the adequate shape of the philosophy of
        Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

        >Besides which, maybe our correspondent has no "longng" at all, he simpler wonders and wonderment is the common root of both philosophy (latching on to the World Spirit) and poetry. So if one lacked that....
        >

        I agree, however, what did Kant ask for in his three Critiques?: What
        can I think, what can I will, what can I hope?

        >
        >Some of us, that is to say, retain an interest in ordinary phenomenal history, such as I understand Hegel possessed as well. So can't we compare notes on it sometimes, in between the BIG questions?
        >
        >Stephen.
        >

        The phenomenology belongs to the BIG questions. For Hegel there are no
        BIG questions without the phenomenology, otherwise for him it would be
        only abstract thinking.

        Regards,
        Beat Greuter

        >
        >
        >To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
        >From: greuterb@...
        >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:12:19 +0200
        >Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question
        >
        >John writes:
        >
        >>-- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>,
        >>eupraxis@... wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >>>What were you hoping for?
        >>>
        >>>Wil
        >>>
        >> hate to say, Will. But to put it in very general terms, I was hoping
        >>to find out how Hegel became Hegel. Kaufmann, who said many ridicuous
        >>things about Hegel, said one thing that I think is true. Early on at
        >>Jena Hegel became Hegel. Before that...
        >>
        >>In content there is a very real continuity. The pre-Jena Hegel was
        >>interested in religion and political thought. He believed this was
        >>what he particularly had to add to what Schelling was doing. His time
        >>in Jena was largely spent with trying to get up to speed on what we
        >>call science. And, of course, all this content is reflected in the
        >>Phenomenology.
        >>
        >>But in particular, the pre-Jena Hegel had only a very "external"
        >>appreciation of Christianity. I haven't read the Difference essay yet,
        >>or the other essay. I think his mature appreciation is already
        >>reflected in one or both of these works. But it is certainly there in
        >>the Phenomenology. His Christian theology takes its form here. In the
        >>third volume of the Lectures on Religion, he just expands and
        >>articulates what he already says in the Phenomenology. So what
        >>happened? How did he suddenly arrive at a good understanding of
        >>Christianity?(--not that this question will necessarily offend you.
        >>After all Zizek has a very good understanding of and appreciation of
        >>Hegel's mature Christian theology.)
        >>
        >>Then there's also what might be called Hegel's syllogistic
        >>thinking--or just quite simply his triadic thinking. This is something
        >>I particularly identify with the so-called Hermetic Tradition. This is
        >>fully explicit in the Phenomenology--and then developed at great
        >>length in the SL. But I don't think it particularly characterized his
        >>earlier thinking on religion and social thought. So what happened? How
        >>did Hegel become Hegel?
        >>
        >>John
        >>
        >our question "how Hegel became Hegel" is a fruitless longing. You look
        >for a true beginning. But there is no such beginning as there is no
        >foundation in philosophy but only the movement of the concept. Please,
        >read the following passage from the Lectures on the History of
        >Philosophy. What Hegel does say here about philosophy as such is also
        >true for the development of an individual philosopher:
        >
        >"To this point the World-spirit has come, and each stage has its own
        >form in the true system of Philosophy; nothing is lost, all principles
        >are preserved, since Philosophy in its final aspect is the totality of
        >forms. This concrete idea is the result of the strivings of spirit
        >during almost twenty-five centuries of earnest work to become objective
        >to itself, to know itself:
        >
        >Tant� molis erat, se ipsam cognoscere mentem.
        >
        >All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so
        >tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we
        >pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality
        >to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion
        >of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external
        >subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to
        >make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on,
        >because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten
        >and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working
        >ever forward as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, "Well said,
        >old mole! canst work i' the ground so fast" until grown strong in itself
        >it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its
        >Notion, so that the earth crumbles away. At such a time, when the
        >encircling crust, like a soulless decaying tenement, crumbles away, and
        >spirit displays itself arrayed in new youth, the seven league boots are
        >at length adopted. This work of the spirit to know itself, this activity
        >to find itself, is the life of the spirit and the spirit itself. Its
        >result is the Notion which it takes up of itself; the history of
        >philosophy is a revelation of what has been the aim of spirit throughout
        >its history; it is therefore the world's history in its innermost
        >signification. This work of the human spirit in the recesses of thought
        >is parallel with all the stages of reality; and therefore no philosophy
        >oversteps its own time. The importance which the determinations of
        >thought possessed is another matter, which does not belong to the
        >history of Philosophy. These Notions are the simplest revelation of the
        >World spirit: in their more concrete form they are history."
        >
        >(Lectures on the History of Philosophy, III Modern Philosophy, Third
        >Section: Recent German Philosophy, E. Final Result, translated by E S
        >Haldane)
        >
        >You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
        >base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
        >vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
        >the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
        >Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
        >thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
        >to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
        >
        >Regards,
        >Beat Greuter
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        _________________________________________________________________
        Aprende los trucos de Windows 7 con la gente que ya lo han probado Windows 7.
        http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/index_windows7.html

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • john
        ... Dear Beat, I belive The Hegelian syllogism and the Hegelian dialectic are two separate things--both of equal importance. The situation is similar in the
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 17, 2010
          --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, Beat Greuter <greuterb@...> wrote:
          >

          >
          > You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
          > base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
          > vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
          > the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
          > Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
          > thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
          > to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
          >


          Dear Beat,

          I belive The Hegelian syllogism and the Hegelian dialectic are two separate things--both of equal importance.

          The situation is similar in the so-called Hermetic tradition where there are two basic laws: the Law of Three and the Law of Seven.

          Hegel states the Law of Three very well when he says that everything is a syllogism.

          But really there are no things, only processes. According to the Law of Seven every process is an octave. What particularly characterizes the octave--and I apologize to those who know something about music, as what I'm about to say may or may not be musically intelligible--but, anyway, what characterizes the octave is that there is a "gap" between the notes Mi and Fa. So you have:

          Do-Re-Mi "gap" Fa-Sol-La-Si.

          Without going further into details, just as there's a vast literature on the Law of Three, there's also a vast literature on the octave, and especially concerning this "gap" that constitutes all reality including even God Himself.

          In regard to Hegel, Zizek especially emphasizes this side of the matter. In his book, _Zizek's Ontology_ (2008), Adrian Johnston writes:

          "_The Ticklish Subject_ (1999) contains one of the most lucid instances of the general manner in which Zizek outlines the basic import of the shift from Kant to Hegel:

          'All Hegel does is, in a way, to supplement Kant's well-known motto of the transcendental constitution of reality ("the conditions of possibility of our knowledge are at the same time the conditions of possibility of the object of our knowledge") by its negative--the limitation of our knowledge (its failure to grasp the Whole of Being, the way our knowledge gets inexorably entangled in contradictions and inconsistencies) is simultaneously the limitation of the very object of our knowledge--that is, the gaps and voids in our knowledge of reality are simultaneously the gaps and voids in the "real" ontological edifice itself.' (page 63)

          "A few pages later, Zizek describes this gesture as 'Hegel's breathtaking achievement':

          'Far from regressing from Kant's criticism to pre-critical metaphysics expressing the rational structure of the cosmos, Hegel fully accepts (and draws the consequences from) the result of Kantian cosmological antinomies--there IS no "cosmos", the very notion of cosmos as the ontologically fully constituted positive totality is inconsistent.' (page 69)

          "Interestingly, Zizek chooses to italicize "is" (rather than "no") when he proclaims that, with Hegel's ontologization of Kant (specifically, the projection of the rational contradictions delineated in Kant's "Dialectic of Pure Being" into being itself), "there IS no cosmos". This is no accident, since Zizekian ontology (as elanborated via Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Lacan) portrays the Real of being as a groundless ground shot through with tensions and scissions. Being 'is' this very acosmos, this unstable absence of a cohesive, unifying One-All...

          "Kant clings to the assumption that, beyond the contradiction-ridden confines of the experiential reality in which the subject is imprisoned, there subsists an inaccessible substratum of being unperturbed by these contradictions:

          'We fail to grasp the Absolute precisely in so far as we continue to presuppose that, above and beyond the domain of our finite reflected reasoning, there is an Absolute to be grasped--we actually overcome the limitation of external reflection by simply becoming aware of how this external reflection is inherent to the Absolute itself. This is Hegel's fundamental criticism of Kant: not that Kant fails to overcome the external reflection of Understanding, but that he still thinks there is some Beyond which eludes its grasp. What Kant does not see is that his Critique of Pure Reason, as the critical "prolegomena" to a future metaphysics, already is the only possible metaphysics.' (page 96)

          "According to Zizekian Hegelianism, the Absolute is the absolutely finite. Reaching the vantage point of the Absolute amounts to realizing that there is no seamless transcendent Elsewhere in which the snags and tears in the fabric of experiential reality are magically mended."

          (pages 130-132)

          And this is a big deal for Lacan as well. For instance there's the barred subject. The sign for the subject is S. The barred subject is an S with a line crossed through it resembling a dollar sign. So there's a "gap" at the heart of the subject. And there's the barred Real, etc., etc...

          John
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          John, This is an interesting post which deserves a second reading from me. In the meantime, though, when you say gap (between do-re-mi and fa-sol-la-ti),
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 17, 2010
            John,

            This is an interesting post which deserves a second reading from me. In the meantime, though, when you say "gap" (between do-re-mi and fa-sol-la-ti), don't you really want to say a lack of gap? Each of the tones of the scale (I use a C major scale here) have a note between them (c [c#] d [d#] e ...), except for the third and fourth step (the mi and fa, or e and f) and seventh and octave (ti and do, or b and c).

            Interestingly enough, this Major tonality has all but vanished from contemporary music, although without anyone really noticing it. What most people (and musicians today) call a Major key is a Mixolydian variation that flats the seventh, thus making the 1/2-step (the lack of gap) between the sixth and seventh degrees. It is exceedingly rare to find anyone singing the conventional leading tone (ti to do) any more. The conventional tones are usually only used in the accompanying harmony when exploiting a standard cadence, V chord to I chord, but the leading tone (ti to do) is rarely sung, it sounding rather 'corny' to today's ears.

            This has aesthetic significance, in my opinion. The Mixolydian scale is quite beautiful, of course (I use it all of the time when playing everything from blues to 'folk-country-billy'), the beauty comes from the modal sound of the flatted seventh, giving the otherwise Major tonality a slight minor twinge, just a tad of 'darkness' or modal depth. Is this not an indication of a shift in aesthetic comportment?

            Just an idea.

            Wil




            -----Original Message-----
            From: john <jgbardis@...>
            To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sat, Apr 17, 2010 8:42 am
            Subject: [hegel] The Hermetic Tradition--Zizek







            --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, Beat Greuter <greuterb@...> wrote:
            >

            >
            > You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
            > base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
            > vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
            > the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
            > Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
            > thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
            > to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
            >

            Dear Beat,

            I belive The Hegelian syllogism and the Hegelian dialectic are two separate things--both of equal importance.

            The situation is similar in the so-called Hermetic tradition where there are two basic laws: the Law of Three and the Law of Seven.

            Hegel states the Law of Three very well when he says that everything is a syllogism.

            But really there are no things, only processes. According to the Law of Seven every process is an octave. What particularly characterizes the octave--and I apologize to those who know something about music, as what I'm about to say may or may not be musically intelligible--but, anyway, what characterizes the octave is that there is a "gap" between the notes Mi and Fa. So you have:

            Do-Re-Mi "gap" Fa-Sol-La-Si.

            Without going further into details, just as there's a vast literature on the Law of Three, there's also a vast literature on the octave, and especially concerning this "gap" that constitutes all reality including even God Himself.

            In regard to Hegel, Zizek especially emphasizes this side of the matter. In his book, _Zizek's Ontology_ (2008), Adrian Johnston writes:

            "_The Ticklish Subject_ (1999) contains one of the most lucid instances of the general manner in which Zizek outlines the basic import of the shift from Kant to Hegel:

            'All Hegel does is, in a way, to supplement Kant's well-known motto of the transcendental constitution of reality ("the conditions of possibility of our knowledge are at the same time the conditions of possibility of the object of our knowledge") by its negative--the limitation of our knowledge (its failure to grasp the Whole of Being, the way our knowledge gets inexorably entangled in contradictions and inconsistencies) is simultaneously the limitation of the very object of our knowledge--that is, the gaps and voids in our knowledge of reality are simultaneously the gaps and voids in the "real" ontological edifice itself.' (page 63)

            "A few pages later, Zizek describes this gesture as 'Hegel's breathtaking achievement':

            'Far from regressing from Kant's criticism to pre-critical metaphysics expressing the rational structure of the cosmos, Hegel fully accepts (and draws the consequences from) the result of Kantian cosmological antinomies--there IS no "cosmos", the very notion of cosmos as the ontologically fully constituted positive totality is inconsistent.' (page 69)

            "Interestingly, Zizek chooses to italicize "is" (rather than "no") when he proclaims that, with Hegel's ontologization of Kant (specifically, the projection of the rational contradictions delineated in Kant's "Dialectic of Pure Being" into being itself), "there IS no cosmos". This is no accident, since Zizekian ontology (as elanborated via Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Lacan) portrays the Real of being as a groundless ground shot through with tensions and scissions. Being 'is' this very acosmos, this unstable absence of a cohesive, unifying One-All...

            "Kant clings to the assumption that, beyond the contradiction-ridden confines of the experiential reality in which the subject is imprisoned, there subsists an inaccessible substratum of being unperturbed by these contradictions:

            'We fail to grasp the Absolute precisely in so far as we continue to presuppose that, above and beyond the domain of our finite reflected reasoning, there is an Absolute to be grasped--we actually overcome the limitation of external reflection by simply becoming aware of how this external reflection is inherent to the Absolute itself. This is Hegel's fundamental criticism of Kant: not that Kant fails to overcome the external reflection of Understanding, but that he still thinks there is some Beyond which eludes its grasp. What Kant does not see is that his Critique of Pure Reason, as the critical "prolegomena" to a future metaphysics, already is the only possible metaphysics.' (page 96)

            "According to Zizekian Hegelianism, the Absolute is the absolutely finite. Reaching the vantage point of the Absolute amounts to realizing that there is no seamless transcendent Elsewhere in which the snags and tears in the fabric of experiential reality are magically mended."

            (pages 130-132)

            And this is a big deal for Lacan as well. For instance there's the barred subject. The sign for the subject is S. The barred subject is an S with a line crossed through it resembling a dollar sign. So there's a "gap" at the heart of the subject. And there's the barred Real, etc., etc...

            John







            =


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • stephen theron
            Dear John, Thank you for your reply. I have to confess that despite a lifetime of reading Aquinas I know nothing about his being a master of the Hermetic arts
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 17, 2010
              Dear John,

              Thank you for your reply. I have to confess that despite a lifetime of reading Aquinas I know nothing about his being a master of the Hermetic arts (or what they are really, though I have read articles by people claiming that they form Hegel�s starting-point etc. (I forget the name, but O�Callaghan, is it?, also goes into that quite a bit, in The Unorthodox Hegel. But I read a good refutation of the other article (by the author whose name I forget).

              Nonetheless I was quite fascinated by your letter of today the 17th. Between E and F is only a semitone. What do they (you) mean? that it�s the end of the three or something?

              Stephen



              To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
              From: jgbardis@...
              Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:02:47 +0000
              Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question







              --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, stephen theron <stephentheron@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > John,
              >
              >
              >
              > If you could supply even a tentative answer to the two main questions you raise here I would be very interested to read it.
              >
              > Re the syllogistic thinking, isn�t it at least merely in line with Aristotle and scholasticism, even of the Leibnizian or Wolffian kind (not of course what he does with it or, rather, how he underpins it: that might be Hermetic as you say)?
              > Stephen
              >

              Dear Stephen,

              One thing about the so-called Hermetic tradition is that it is very closely related to ancient Greek thought. Of course both Thomas and his master--Albert, was it? I'm not sure--but they were both, especially the latter, great masters of the Hermetic arts. And I believe that is also the case with Leibniz--I don't know about Wolff.

              Goethe was certainly a great master in this art. It is odd how Hegel agrees with everything Goethe says in regard to his philosophy of nature. Everyone else Hegel disagrees with. But Goethe--even his theory of clouds--is like the Word of God for Hegel. That, of course, is only proper etiquette in regard to the Master.

              I'll post something later from Zizek about how Hegel became Hegel.

              John





              _________________________________________________________________
              �Buscas trabajo? Publica tu oferta de empleo y comienza a recibir solicitudes hoy mismo.
              http://msn.careerbuilder.es/ES/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobResults.aspx?siteID=int_esmsn_HPLink

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • stephen theron
              Wil, This is very interesting to me though I can´r comment on it much, my instrument being the gramophone merely, though I like to mess about on the piano
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 17, 2010
                Wil,

                This is very interesting to me though I can�r comment on it much, my instrument being the gramophone merely, though I like to "mess about" on the piano when I can get at one. Could one interpret you as saying there are two variants of the Major scale just as there are, aren�t there, two vatiants of the minor scale (and is one of them "Mixolydian" too?).

                I sang Gregorian for a couple of years so am familiar with the idea of more than two scales, plus of course the semitone and wholetone scales and the Chinese thing (is it only the 5 black notes?). For colours there is the spectrum. Is each scale a different "spectrum"?

                Stephen.



                To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                From: eupraxis@...
                Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:08:06 -0400
                Subject: Re: [hegel] The Hermetic Tradition--Zizek






                John,

                This is an interesting post which deserves a second reading from me. In the meantime, though, when you say "gap" (between do-re-mi and fa-sol-la-ti), don't you really want to say a lack of gap? Each of the tones of the scale (I use a C major scale here) have a note between them (c [c#] d [d#] e ...), except for the third and fourth step (the mi and fa, or e and f) and seventh and octave (ti and do, or b and c).

                Interestingly enough, this Major tonality has all but vanished from contemporary music, although without anyone really noticing it. What most people (and musicians today) call a Major key is a Mixolydian variation that flats the seventh, thus making the 1/2-step (the lack of gap) between the sixth and seventh degrees. It is exceedingly rare to find anyone singing the conventional leading tone (ti to do) any more. The conventional tones are usually only used in the accompanying harmony when exploiting a standard cadence, V chord to I chord, but the leading tone (ti to do) is rarely sung, it sounding rather 'corny' to today's ears.

                This has aesthetic significance, in my opinion. The Mixolydian scale is quite beautiful, of course (I use it all of the time when playing everything from blues to 'folk-country-billy'), the beauty comes from the modal sound of the flatted seventh, giving the otherwise Major tonality a slight minor twinge, just a tad of 'darkness' or modal depth. Is this not an indication of a shift in aesthetic comportment?

                Just an idea.

                Wil

                -----Original Message-----
                From: john <jgbardis@...>
                To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sat, Apr 17, 2010 8:42 am
                Subject: [hegel] The Hermetic Tradition--Zizek

                --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, Beat Greuter <greuterb@...> wrote:
                >

                >
                > You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
                > base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
                > vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
                > the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
                > Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
                > thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
                > to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
                >

                Dear Beat,

                I belive The Hegelian syllogism and the Hegelian dialectic are two separate things--both of equal importance.

                The situation is similar in the so-called Hermetic tradition where there are two basic laws: the Law of Three and the Law of Seven.

                Hegel states the Law of Three very well when he says that everything is a syllogism.

                But really there are no things, only processes. According to the Law of Seven every process is an octave. What particularly characterizes the octave--and I apologize to those who know something about music, as what I'm about to say may or may not be musically intelligible--but, anyway, what characterizes the octave is that there is a "gap" between the notes Mi and Fa. So you have:

                Do-Re-Mi "gap" Fa-Sol-La-Si.

                Without going further into details, just as there's a vast literature on the Law of Three, there's also a vast literature on the octave, and especially concerning this "gap" that constitutes all reality including even God Himself.

                In regard to Hegel, Zizek especially emphasizes this side of the matter. In his book, _Zizek's Ontology_ (2008), Adrian Johnston writes:

                "_The Ticklish Subject_ (1999) contains one of the most lucid instances of the general manner in which Zizek outlines the basic import of the shift from Kant to Hegel:

                'All Hegel does is, in a way, to supplement Kant's well-known motto of the transcendental constitution of reality ("the conditions of possibility of our knowledge are at the same time the conditions of possibility of the object of our knowledge") by its negative--the limitation of our knowledge (its failure to grasp the Whole of Being, the way our knowledge gets inexorably entangled in contradictions and inconsistencies) is simultaneously the limitation of the very object of our knowledge--that is, the gaps and voids in our knowledge of reality are simultaneously the gaps and voids in the "real" ontological edifice itself.' (page 63)

                "A few pages later, Zizek describes this gesture as 'Hegel's breathtaking achievement':

                'Far from regressing from Kant's criticism to pre-critical metaphysics expressing the rational structure of the cosmos, Hegel fully accepts (and draws the consequences from) the result of Kantian cosmological antinomies--there IS no "cosmos", the very notion of cosmos as the ontologically fully constituted positive totality is inconsistent.' (page 69)

                "Interestingly, Zizek chooses to italicize "is" (rather than "no") when he proclaims that, with Hegel's ontologization of Kant (specifically, the projection of the rational contradictions delineated in Kant's "Dialectic of Pure Being" into being itself), "there IS no cosmos". This is no accident, since Zizekian ontology (as elanborated via Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Lacan) portrays the Real of being as a groundless ground shot through with tensions and scissions. Being 'is' this very acosmos, this unstable absence of a cohesive, unifying One-All...

                "Kant clings to the assumption that, beyond the contradiction-ridden confines of the experiential reality in which the subject is imprisoned, there subsists an inaccessible substratum of being unperturbed by these contradictions:

                'We fail to grasp the Absolute precisely in so far as we continue to presuppose that, above and beyond the domain of our finite reflected reasoning, there is an Absolute to be grasped--we actually overcome the limitation of external reflection by simply becoming aware of how this external reflection is inherent to the Absolute itself. This is Hegel's fundamental criticism of Kant: not that Kant fails to overcome the external reflection of Understanding, but that he still thinks there is some Beyond which eludes its grasp. What Kant does not see is that his Critique of Pure Reason, as the critical "prolegomena" to a future metaphysics, already is the only possible metaphysics.' (page 96)

                "According to Zizekian Hegelianism, the Absolute is the absolutely finite. Reaching the vantage point of the Absolute amounts to realizing that there is no seamless transcendent Elsewhere in which the snags and tears in the fabric of experiential reality are magically mended."

                (pages 130-132)

                And this is a big deal for Lacan as well. For instance there's the barred subject. The sign for the subject is S. The barred subject is an S with a line crossed through it resembling a dollar sign. So there's a "gap" at the heart of the subject. And there's the barred Real, etc., etc...

                John

                =

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                _________________________________________________________________
                �Buscas trabajo? Publica tu oferta de empleo y comienza a recibir solicitudes hoy mismo.
                http://msn.careerbuilder.es/ES/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobResults.aspx?siteID=int_esmsn_HPLink

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Beat Greuter
                ... You are highly sophisticated in your argumentation trying to prove your point with help of an inversion of Hegel s argument in the Zusatz of para 182 of
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 18, 2010
                  Stephen Theron wites:

                  >Dear Beat,
                  >
                  >Thank you for qualifications. I agree there is no "in between" really, just as outside is inside. As for "when did Hegel become Hegel", the idiom here (not surely exclusively English) is clearly paradoxical in form, a shorthand figure of speech, that is. Or, it is shorthand merely for "become the Hegel we know" or some such. But then of course we don´t know him unless we know the whole Hegel, you will point out.
                  >
                  >I want to add to my intervention yesterday: about the syllogism and your surely very "categorical" (no joke intended) remarks, especially as referring to "The Doctrine of the Concept", even though it is true, as you say, that it is there that Syllogism is a moment in the Concept's advance to Objectivity. It seems also to be surely more than that, as is of course true of all such moments as also, Hegel tells us, of past "refuted" philosophers (otherwise Phil´s history would be saddening indeed, he says).
                  >
                  >For example he distinguishes between the syllogism of the understanding (no claim to be a form of rationality) and the syllogism of reason which, the text of Enc. 182, Zus., makes plain to the unprejudiced reader, has a claim "to be held as the embodiment of all reason." Thus he can even say that "everything is a syllogism", odd if it has "nothing to do" with his philosophy.
                  >

                  You are highly sophisticated in your argumentation trying to prove your
                  point with help of an inversion of Hegel's argument in the Zusatz of
                  para 182 of the Encyclopaedia where he writes:

                  "On the above mentioned theory of syllogism, as the rational form par
                  excellence, reason has been defined as the faculty of syllogising, while
                  understanding is defined as the faculty of forming notions. We might
                  object to the conception on which this depends, and according to which
                  the mind is merely a sum of forces or faculties existing side by side.
                  But apart from that objection, we may observe in regard to the
                  parallelism of understanding with the notion, as well as of reason with
                  syllogism, that the notion is as little a mere category of the
                  understanding as the syllogism is without qualification definable as
                  rational. For, in the first place, what the formal logic usually
                  examines in its theory of syllogism, is really nothing but the mere
                  syllogism of understanding, which has no claim to the honour of being
                  made a form of rationality, still less to be held as the embodiment of
                  all reason. The notion, in the second place, so far from being a form of
                  understanding, owed its degradation to such a place entirely to the
                  influence of that abstract mode of thought. And it is not unusual to
                  draw such a distinction between a notion of understanding and a notion
                  of reason. The distinction however does not mean that notions are of two
                  kinds. It means that our own action often stops short at the mere
                  negative and abstract form of the notion, when we might also have
                  proceeded to apprehend the notion in its true nature, as at once
                  positive and concrete. It is for example the mere understanding which
                  thinks freedom to be the abstract contrary of necessity, whereas the
                  adequate rational notion of freedom requires the element of necessity to
                  be merged in it. Similarly the definition of God, given by what is
                  called Deism, is merely the mode in which the understanding thinks God:
                  whereas Christianity, to which he is known as the Trinity, contains the
                  rational notion of God."

                  You seem to claim that because Hegel writes that "the notion is as
                  little a mere category of the understanding as the syllogism is without
                  qualification definable as rational" for him (and 'the unprejudiced
                  reader') the syllogisms of reason must be in reverse "held as the
                  embodiment of all reason". However, I cannot find anything like this in
                  Hegel's text, sorry, but perhaps I am not an 'unprejudiced reader'.

                  Much more important for me is what Hegel writes in this passage about
                  the concept itself, that it is not a mere abstraction. With this we are
                  required to look for the movement of the concept which makes it
                  concrete. This movement, I said, cannot be taken as triadic, otherwise
                  we risk to miss Hegel's philosophical point entirely, though Hegel
                  himself misleads his readers to doing this (i.e. the triadic order of
                  his tables of contents, Christian Trinity). In contrast, I take Hegel's
                  philosopy as dyadic (not dualistic!): In the movement of the concept
                  there are analytical and synthetical parts which are constantly related
                  to each other in a way that the synthetical part is never fully
                  determined by the analytical part but indicates a new beginning having
                  included the (critical) results of the previous analytical part. This
                  means that the movement of the concept has integrated a non-rational or
                  unconsious moment. If you take the movement triadic then you run the
                  risk of blurring the non-rational moment and you get a rationliziation
                  of the irrational, and from this there is only a short way to suspect
                  Hegel's philosophy being pan-logical. I am not sure if I could make
                  clear what I mean. However, it is important to distinguish Hegel from
                  those philosophers who state extra-conceptual truths or absolutes,
                  either as something irrational (Bataille, Derrida etc.) or as something
                  rational (Analytical philosophy). Both do attack Hegel: the irrational
                  philosophers because he did not think the absolute negation, the
                  rational one because he wrote a mystical logic with no formal
                  stringency. Both do look for an absolute which they cannot find in
                  Hegel's thought.

                  Regards,
                  Beat Greuter

                  >Now this cannot be divorced from the syllogism´s resting on a law of triple identity which Hegel virtually quotes in his Quantitative syllogism (merging it with "equality", however), which is an Advance towards the self-deconstruction of the syllogism, so to say ("Two results follow... a circle of mediations... the individuality gets... the character of universality", 189). McTaggart and Findlay wrongly, therefore, in my view, regard this Syllogism as an optimal insertion not functioning dialectically. This holds, although we have still the syllogism of Reflection and Necessity ahead of us there.
                  >
                  >The syllogism of reason, as overcoming the either/or of "abstract thought", belongs with thinking of liberty as merged with necessity and finally too of that surely rather triadic notion (you wrote that Hegel´s philosophy has "nothing to do with" either syllogism or triadism), the Trinity, contrasted with the way Deism "thinks God". "Christianity, to which He is known as the Trinity, contains the rational notion of God." I note of course that he writes "contains" (if the original term means this), which one might see as less categorical, again, than "is", "has" etc., perhaps intentionally, the point being that the Absolute, however we represent it, must necessarily be taken as differentiated.
                  >
                  >Finally, it is interesting (to me)that he says, (at Enc. 183) that "Of course" the minor, subject term "has other characteristics besides individuality", the major, predicate term "has other characteristics than mere universality". I see here a direct continuity of the teaching of Aquinas, surely not a coincidence, that the subject-term signifies only quasi- materially (matter as principle of individuality), the predicate-term only quasi-formally or as "giving the form". Frege on the other hand, or many Fregeans, seems, at least at first sight ("Concept and Object") to depart from this sound caveat, reaching back to Aristotle, with whom Hegel has clearly a very real continuity, as has Aristotle of course with Plato (cf. 142, Zus.). You say he is Aristotelian, "not a Platonist". So the judgment-form can be used to say anything about anything, even if our positioning gives a material or a universal "tinge" respectively.
                  >
                  >The syllogism is surely not "the base" of Hegel´s thinking. You are right there. On the other hand I think Quine is quite wrong to describe syllogistic as a small and insignificant part of logic as a whole. The principle of triple identity on which it is based, that two "things" identical with a third are identical with each other, runs through all our thinking, e.g. about causality or the procedures of law, as Hegel himself urges (183, 184, Zusatsen), thinking chiefly of the syllogism of understanding of course, and hidden enthymemes abound. The metaphysics of this type of classical logic (logica docens) sit very deep in Hegel´s logic and, therefore, ontology and metaphysics, and cannot be ignored in, for example merely, any confrontation or accommodation with "analytical" Fregeans.
                  >
                  >Thank you for stimulating me to this. Best wishes,
                  >
                  >Stephen Theron.
                  >
                  >
                  >To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                  >From: greuterb@...
                  >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:18:08 +0200
                  >Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question
                  >
                  >
                  >Stephen Theron writes:
                  >
                  >>Thank you Beat for offering us this passage from Hegel´s Lectures on Hist. Phil.
                  >>However I cannot see there any ground for this critical dismissal of an interest in the personal development of and biography of Georg W.F. Hegel as "a fruitless longing", even if one should lay down that the development of the World-Spirit is untouched by such things, which of course implies that everything, the invention of printing, the development of the German or other languages, the Ice Age, in so far as these things were/are real at all, were somehow necessary, and maybe they were/are.
                  >>
                  >
                  >I did not claim that the development of the World-Spitit in pure thought
                  >is untouched by the biographies of the thinkers. Quite the reverse. Only
                  >the biographies of the individual thinkers do represent the development
                  >of the World-Spirit in pure thought. Without those thinkers it would not
                  >exist. In this respect Hegel was an Aristotelian, not a Platonist. What
                  >I pointed to was the assumed analogical feature of the development of
                  >World-Spirit in pure thought (as Hegel describes it in my cited passage
                  >from the Lectures of the History of Philosophy) and the development of
                  >thought in an individual philosopher, especially Hegel. This analogy
                  >gives rise to challenge John's question "How did Hegel became Hegel?"
                  >because it implicates that there was a time when Hegel was not Hegel and
                  >a time when Hegel was Hegel. At least John's text does suggest this.
                  >However, the mole works in the dark and fragmentarily until the adequate
                  >shape has been found. With this I do not dismiss the interest and
                  >importance of a biography of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, quite the
                  >reverse. But, instead of finding the point where Hegel became Hegel such
                  >a biography should collect and systematically arrange all the elements
                  >which were necessary to achieve the adequate shape of the philosophy of
                  >Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Besides which, maybe our correspondent has no "longng" at all, he simpler wonders and wonderment is the common root of both philosophy (latching on to the World Spirit) and poetry. So if one lacked that....
                  >>
                  >
                  >I agree, however, what did Kant ask for in his three Critiques?: What
                  >can I think, what can I will, what can I hope?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Some of us, that is to say, retain an interest in ordinary phenomenal history, such as I understand Hegel possessed as well. So can't we compare notes on it sometimes, in between the BIG questions?
                  >>
                  >>Stephen.
                  >>
                  >
                  >The phenomenology belongs to the BIG questions. For Hegel there are no
                  >BIG questions without the phenomenology, otherwise for him it would be
                  >only abstract thinking.
                  >
                  >Regards,
                  >Beat Greuter
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                  >>From: greuterb@...
                  >>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:12:19 +0200
                  >>Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question
                  >>
                  >>John writes:
                  >>
                  >>>-- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>,
                  >>>eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>>What were you hoping for?
                  >>>>
                  >>>>Wil
                  >>>>
                  >>>hate to say, Will. But to put it in very general terms, I was hoping
                  >>>to find out how Hegel became Hegel. Kaufmann, who said many ridicuous
                  >>>things about Hegel, said one thing that I think is true. Early on at
                  >>>Jena Hegel became Hegel. Before that...
                  >>>
                  >>>In content there is a very real continuity. The pre-Jena Hegel was
                  >>>interested in religion and political thought. He believed this was
                  >>>what he particularly had to add to what Schelling was doing. His time
                  >>>in Jena was largely spent with trying to get up to speed on what we
                  >>>call science. And, of course, all this content is reflected in the
                  >>>Phenomenology.
                  >>>
                  >>>But in particular, the pre-Jena Hegel had only a very "external"
                  >>>appreciation of Christianity. I haven't read the Difference essay yet,
                  >>>or the other essay. I think his mature appreciation is already
                  >>>reflected in one or both of these works. But it is certainly there in
                  >>>the Phenomenology. His Christian theology takes its form here. In the
                  >>>third volume of the Lectures on Religion, he just expands and
                  >>>articulates what he already says in the Phenomenology. So what
                  >>>happened? How did he suddenly arrive at a good understanding of
                  >>>Christianity?(--not that this question will necessarily offend you.
                  >>>After all Zizek has a very good understanding of and appreciation of
                  >>>Hegel's mature Christian theology.)
                  >>>
                  >>>Then there's also what might be called Hegel's syllogistic
                  >>>thinking--or just quite simply his triadic thinking. This is something
                  >>>I particularly identify with the so-called Hermetic Tradition. This is
                  >>>fully explicit in the Phenomenology--and then developed at great
                  >>>length in the SL. But I don't think it particularly characterized his
                  >>>earlier thinking on religion and social thought. So what happened? How
                  >>>did Hegel become Hegel?
                  >>>
                  >>>John
                  >>>
                  >>our question "how Hegel became Hegel" is a fruitless longing. You look
                  >>for a true beginning. But there is no such beginning as there is no
                  >>foundation in philosophy but only the movement of the concept. Please,
                  >>read the following passage from the Lectures on the History of
                  >>Philosophy. What Hegel does say here about philosophy as such is also
                  >>true for the development of an individual philosopher:
                  >>
                  >>"To this point the World-spirit has come, and each stage has its own
                  >>form in the true system of Philosophy; nothing is lost, all principles
                  >>are preserved, since Philosophy in its final aspect is the totality of
                  >>forms. This concrete idea is the result of the strivings of spirit
                  >>during almost twenty-five centuries of earnest work to become objective
                  >>to itself, to know itself:
                  >>
                  >>Tantæ molis erat, se ipsam cognoscere mentem.
                  >>
                  >>All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so
                  >>tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we
                  >>pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality
                  >>to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion
                  >>of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external
                  >>subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to
                  >>make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on,
                  >>because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten
                  >>and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working
                  >>ever forward as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, "Well said,
                  >>old mole! canst work i' the ground so fast" until grown strong in itself
                  >>it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its
                  >>Notion, so that the earth crumbles away. At such a time, when the
                  >>encircling crust, like a soulless decaying tenement, crumbles away, and
                  >>spirit displays itself arrayed in new youth, the seven league boots are
                  >>at length adopted. This work of the spirit to know itself, this activity
                  >>to find itself, is the life of the spirit and the spirit itself. Its
                  >>result is the Notion which it takes up of itself; the history of
                  >>philosophy is a revelation of what has been the aim of spirit throughout
                  >>its history; it is therefore the world's history in its innermost
                  >>signification. This work of the human spirit in the recesses of thought
                  >>is parallel with all the stages of reality; and therefore no philosophy
                  >>oversteps its own time. The importance which the determinations of
                  >>thought possessed is another matter, which does not belong to the
                  >>history of Philosophy. These Notions are the simplest revelation of the
                  >>World spirit: in their more concrete form they are history."
                  >>
                  >>(Lectures on the History of Philosophy, III Modern Philosophy, Third
                  >>Section: Recent German Philosophy, E. Final Result, translated by E S
                  >>Haldane)
                  >>
                  >>You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
                  >>base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
                  >>vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
                  >>the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
                  >>Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
                  >>thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
                  >>to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
                  >>
                  >>Regards,
                  >>Beat Greuter
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • stephen theron
                  I can see that I might be wrong about this particular text though I think he does go on to claim effectively that the (rational) syllogism is the embodiment
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 18, 2010
                    I can see that I might be wrong about this particular text though I think he does go on to claim effectively that the (rational) syllogism "is the embodiment of all reason", that everything is a syllogism as it is also rational (and as the rational is everything, the real etc.), that the syllogism returns us from the division which is judgment to the unity which is the notion, but now grounded or medi-ated.

                    My point was that in view of this and related texts it seems odd, mystifying, to say the syllogism "has nothing to do with his philosophy". One can refer to Bob Wallace�s explanation of the role of syllogism in chapter 5 (5.7-9 I think) of his book, of course as a moment in the dialectic as you say, but that is true of everything. Hegel says the forms of logic, and these are pre-eminently the syllogism, are the very stuff of reality, equivalently (in the Encyclopaedia text, as you probably recall).

                    But I can see you are wanting to make a larger point, re dyadic and triadic. This is rather lost on me so far, i regret to say, as I would wish to understand you better. What would be an example of an extra-conceptual truth stated as something rational, for instance? Couldn�t Hegel�s thought have both dyadic and triadic aspects?

                    Well, there is clearly something triple about the syllogism (I am not going in for any quasi-mystical triadicity here, even if some others here maybe do this), triple identity, and one can hardly avoid seeing that Hegel at least associates this with a Trinitarian notion of God as more "rational". Oof course he might mean this more as an unspecified instance of differentiation (of the Absolute) in general rather than stressing threeness specifically, but then why relate it to the syllogism, as in the paragraph you quote at its full length, apparently all in order to neutralise my not so very powerful point about the "still less"?

                    This is an immediate rejoinder "out of the top of my head".

                    Regards, Stephen.





                    To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                    From: greuterb@...
                    Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:07:26 +0200
                    Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question






                    Stephen Theron wites:

                    >Dear Beat,
                    >
                    >Thank you for qualifications. I agree there is no "in between" really, just as outside is inside. As for "when did Hegel become Hegel", the idiom here (not surely exclusively English) is clearly paradoxical in form, a shorthand figure of speech, that is. Or, it is shorthand merely for "become the Hegel we know" or some such. But then of course we don�t know him unless we know the whole Hegel, you will point out.
                    >
                    >I want to add to my intervention yesterday: about the syllogism and your surely very "categorical" (no joke intended) remarks, especially as referring to "The Doctrine of the Concept", even though it is true, as you say, that it is there that Syllogism is a moment in the Concept's advance to Objectivity. It seems also to be surely more than that, as is of course true of all such moments as also, Hegel tells us, of past "refuted" philosophers (otherwise Phil�s history would be saddening indeed, he says).
                    >
                    >For example he distinguishes between the syllogism of the understanding (no claim to be a form of rationality) and the syllogism of reason which, the text of Enc. 182, Zus., makes plain to the unprejudiced reader, has a claim "to be held as the embodiment of all reason." Thus he can even say that "everything is a syllogism", odd if it has "nothing to do" with his philosophy.
                    >

                    You are highly sophisticated in your argumentation trying to prove your
                    point with help of an inversion of Hegel's argument in the Zusatz of
                    para 182 of the Encyclopaedia where he writes:

                    "On the above mentioned theory of syllogism, as the rational form par
                    excellence, reason has been defined as the faculty of syllogising, while
                    understanding is defined as the faculty of forming notions. We might
                    object to the conception on which this depends, and according to which
                    the mind is merely a sum of forces or faculties existing side by side.
                    But apart from that objection, we may observe in regard to the
                    parallelism of understanding with the notion, as well as of reason with
                    syllogism, that the notion is as little a mere category of the
                    understanding as the syllogism is without qualification definable as
                    rational. For, in the first place, what the formal logic usually
                    examines in its theory of syllogism, is really nothing but the mere
                    syllogism of understanding, which has no claim to the honour of being
                    made a form of rationality, still less to be held as the embodiment of
                    all reason. The notion, in the second place, so far from being a form of
                    understanding, owed its degradation to such a place entirely to the
                    influence of that abstract mode of thought. And it is not unusual to
                    draw such a distinction between a notion of understanding and a notion
                    of reason. The distinction however does not mean that notions are of two
                    kinds. It means that our own action often stops short at the mere
                    negative and abstract form of the notion, when we might also have
                    proceeded to apprehend the notion in its true nature, as at once
                    positive and concrete. It is for example the mere understanding which
                    thinks freedom to be the abstract contrary of necessity, whereas the
                    adequate rational notion of freedom requires the element of necessity to
                    be merged in it. Similarly the definition of God, given by what is
                    called Deism, is merely the mode in which the understanding thinks God:
                    whereas Christianity, to which he is known as the Trinity, contains the
                    rational notion of God."

                    You seem to claim that because Hegel writes that "the notion is as
                    little a mere category of the understanding as the syllogism is without
                    qualification definable as rational" for him (and 'the unprejudiced
                    reader') the syllogisms of reason must be in reverse "held as the
                    embodiment of all reason". However, I cannot find anything like this in
                    Hegel's text, sorry, but perhaps I am not an 'unprejudiced reader'.

                    Much more important for me is what Hegel writes in this passage about
                    the concept itself, that it is not a mere abstraction. With this we are
                    required to look for the movement of the concept which makes it
                    concrete. This movement, I said, cannot be taken as triadic, otherwise
                    we risk to miss Hegel's philosophical point entirely, though Hegel
                    himself misleads his readers to doing this (i.e. the triadic order of
                    his tables of contents, Christian Trinity). In contrast, I take Hegel's
                    philosopy as dyadic (not dualistic!): In the movement of the concept
                    there are analytical and synthetical parts which are constantly related
                    to each other in a way that the synthetical part is never fully
                    determined by the analytical part but indicates a new beginning having
                    included the (critical) results of the previous analytical part. This
                    means that the movement of the concept has integrated a non-rational or
                    unconsious moment. If you take the movement triadic then you run the
                    risk of blurring the non-rational moment and you get a rationliziation
                    of the irrational, and from this there is only a short way to suspect
                    Hegel's philosophy being pan-logical. I am not sure if I could make
                    clear what I mean. However, it is important to distinguish Hegel from
                    those philosophers who state extra-conceptual truths or absolutes,
                    either as something irrational (Bataille, Derrida etc.) or as something
                    rational (Analytical philosophy). Both do attack Hegel: the irrational
                    philosophers because he did not think the absolute negation, the
                    rational one because he wrote a mystical logic with no formal
                    stringency. Both do look for an absolute which they cannot find in
                    Hegel's thought.

                    Regards,
                    Beat Greuter

                    >Now this cannot be divorced from the syllogism�s resting on a law of triple identity which Hegel virtually quotes in his Quantitative syllogism (merging it with "equality", however), which is an Advance towards the self-deconstruction of the syllogism, so to say ("Two results follow... a circle of mediations... the individuality gets... the character of universality", 189). McTaggart and Findlay wrongly, therefore, in my view, regard this Syllogism as an optimal insertion not functioning dialectically. This holds, although we have still the syllogism of Reflection and Necessity ahead of us there.
                    >
                    >The syllogism of reason, as overcoming the either/or of "abstract thought", belongs with thinking of liberty as merged with necessity and finally too of that surely rather triadic notion (you wrote that Hegel�s philosophy has "nothing to do with" either syllogism or triadism), the Trinity, contrasted with the way Deism "thinks God". "Christianity, to which He is known as the Trinity, contains the rational notion of God." I note of course that he writes "contains" (if the original term means this), which one might see as less categorical, again, than "is", "has" etc., perhaps intentionally, the point being that the Absolute, however we represent it, must necessarily be taken as differentiated.
                    >
                    >Finally, it is interesting (to me)that he says, (at Enc. 183) that "Of course" the minor, subject term "has other characteristics besides individuality", the major, predicate term "has other characteristics than mere universality". I see here a direct continuity of the teaching of Aquinas, surely not a coincidence, that the subject-term signifies only quasi- materially (matter as principle of individuality), the predicate-term only quasi-formally or as "giving the form". Frege on the other hand, or many Fregeans, seems, at least at first sight ("Concept and Object") to depart from this sound caveat, reaching back to Aristotle, with whom Hegel has clearly a very real continuity, as has Aristotle of course with Plato (cf. 142, Zus.). You say he is Aristotelian, "not a Platonist". So the judgment-form can be used to say anything about anything, even if our positioning gives a material or a universal "tinge" respectively.
                    >
                    >The syllogism is surely not "the base" of Hegel�s thinking. You are right there. On the other hand I think Quine is quite wrong to describe syllogistic as a small and insignificant part of logic as a whole. The principle of triple identity on which it is based, that two "things" identical with a third are identical with each other, runs through all our thinking, e.g. about causality or the procedures of law, as Hegel himself urges (183, 184, Zusatsen), thinking chiefly of the syllogism of understanding of course, and hidden enthymemes abound. The metaphysics of this type of classical logic (logica docens) sit very deep in Hegel�s logic and, therefore, ontology and metaphysics, and cannot be ignored in, for example merely, any confrontation or accommodation with "analytical" Fregeans.
                    >
                    >Thank you for stimulating me to this. Best wishes,
                    >
                    >Stephen Theron.
                    >
                    >
                    >To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                    >From: greuterb@...
                    >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:18:08 +0200
                    >Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question
                    >
                    >
                    >Stephen Theron writes:
                    >
                    >>Thank you Beat for offering us this passage from Hegel�s Lectures on Hist. Phil.
                    >>However I cannot see there any ground for this critical dismissal of an interest in the personal development of and biography of Georg W.F. Hegel as "a fruitless longing", even if one should lay down that the development of the World-Spirit is untouched by such things, which of course implies that everything, the invention of printing, the development of the German or other languages, the Ice Age, in so far as these things were/are real at all, were somehow necessary, and maybe they were/are.
                    >>
                    >
                    >I did not claim that the development of the World-Spitit in pure thought
                    >is untouched by the biographies of the thinkers. Quite the reverse. Only
                    >the biographies of the individual thinkers do represent the development
                    >of the World-Spirit in pure thought. Without those thinkers it would not
                    >exist. In this respect Hegel was an Aristotelian, not a Platonist. What
                    >I pointed to was the assumed analogical feature of the development of
                    >World-Spirit in pure thought (as Hegel describes it in my cited passage
                    >from the Lectures of the History of Philosophy) and the development of
                    >thought in an individual philosopher, especially Hegel. This analogy
                    >gives rise to challenge John's question "How did Hegel became Hegel?"
                    >because it implicates that there was a time when Hegel was not Hegel and
                    >a time when Hegel was Hegel. At least John's text does suggest this.
                    >However, the mole works in the dark and fragmentarily until the adequate
                    >shape has been found. With this I do not dismiss the interest and
                    >importance of a biography of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, quite the
                    >reverse. But, instead of finding the point where Hegel became Hegel such
                    >a biography should collect and systematically arrange all the elements
                    >which were necessary to achieve the adequate shape of the philosophy of
                    >Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >>Besides which, maybe our correspondent has no "longng" at all, he simpler wonders and wonderment is the common root of both philosophy (latching on to the World Spirit) and poetry. So if one lacked that....
                    >>
                    >
                    >I agree, however, what did Kant ask for in his three Critiques?: What
                    >can I think, what can I will, what can I hope?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >>Some of us, that is to say, retain an interest in ordinary phenomenal history, such as I understand Hegel possessed as well. So can't we compare notes on it sometimes, in between the BIG questions?
                    >>
                    >>Stephen.
                    >>
                    >
                    >The phenomenology belongs to the BIG questions. For Hegel there are no
                    >BIG questions without the phenomenology, otherwise for him it would be
                    >only abstract thinking.
                    >
                    >Regards,
                    >Beat Greuter
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >>To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
                    >>From: greuterb@...
                    >>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:12:19 +0200
                    >>Subject: Re: : [hegel] Horst Althaus question
                    >>
                    >>John writes:
                    >>
                    >>>-- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>,
                    >>>eupraxis@... wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>>>What were you hoping for?
                    >>>>
                    >>>>Wil
                    >>>>
                    >>>hate to say, Will. But to put it in very general terms, I was hoping
                    >>>to find out how Hegel became Hegel. Kaufmann, who said many ridicuous
                    >>>things about Hegel, said one thing that I think is true. Early on at
                    >>>Jena Hegel became Hegel. Before that...
                    >>>
                    >>>In content there is a very real continuity. The pre-Jena Hegel was
                    >>>interested in religion and political thought. He believed this was
                    >>>what he particularly had to add to what Schelling was doing. His time
                    >>>in Jena was largely spent with trying to get up to speed on what we
                    >>>call science. And, of course, all this content is reflected in the
                    >>>Phenomenology.
                    >>>
                    >>>But in particular, the pre-Jena Hegel had only a very "external"
                    >>>appreciation of Christianity. I haven't read the Difference essay yet,
                    >>>or the other essay. I think his mature appreciation is already
                    >>>reflected in one or both of these works. But it is certainly there in
                    >>>the Phenomenology. His Christian theology takes its form here. In the
                    >>>third volume of the Lectures on Religion, he just expands and
                    >>>articulates what he already says in the Phenomenology. So what
                    >>>happened? How did he suddenly arrive at a good understanding of
                    >>>Christianity?(--not that this question will necessarily offend you.
                    >>>After all Zizek has a very good understanding of and appreciation of
                    >>>Hegel's mature Christian theology.)
                    >>>
                    >>>Then there's also what might be called Hegel's syllogistic
                    >>>thinking--or just quite simply his triadic thinking. This is something
                    >>>I particularly identify with the so-called Hermetic Tradition. This is
                    >>>fully explicit in the Phenomenology--and then developed at great
                    >>>length in the SL. But I don't think it particularly characterized his
                    >>>earlier thinking on religion and social thought. So what happened? How
                    >>>did Hegel become Hegel?
                    >>>
                    >>>John
                    >>>
                    >>our question "how Hegel became Hegel" is a fruitless longing. You look
                    >>for a true beginning. But there is no such beginning as there is no
                    >>foundation in philosophy but only the movement of the concept. Please,
                    >>read the following passage from the Lectures on the History of
                    >>Philosophy. What Hegel does say here about philosophy as such is also
                    >>true for the development of an individual philosopher:
                    >>
                    >>"To this point the World-spirit has come, and each stage has its own
                    >>form in the true system of Philosophy; nothing is lost, all principles
                    >>are preserved, since Philosophy in its final aspect is the totality of
                    >>forms. This concrete idea is the result of the strivings of spirit
                    >>during almost twenty-five centuries of earnest work to become objective
                    >>to itself, to know itself:
                    >>
                    >>Tant� molis erat, se ipsam cognoscere mentem.
                    >>
                    >>All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so
                    >>tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we
                    >>pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality
                    >>to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion
                    >>of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external
                    >>subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to
                    >>make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on,
                    >>because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten
                    >>and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working
                    >>ever forward as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, "Well said,
                    >>old mole! canst work i' the ground so fast" until grown strong in itself
                    >>it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its
                    >>Notion, so that the earth crumbles away. At such a time, when the
                    >>encircling crust, like a soulless decaying tenement, crumbles away, and
                    >>spirit displays itself arrayed in new youth, the seven league boots are
                    >>at length adopted. This work of the spirit to know itself, this activity
                    >>to find itself, is the life of the spirit and the spirit itself. Its
                    >>result is the Notion which it takes up of itself; the history of
                    >>philosophy is a revelation of what has been the aim of spirit throughout
                    >>its history; it is therefore the world's history in its innermost
                    >>signification. This work of the human spirit in the recesses of thought
                    >>is parallel with all the stages of reality; and therefore no philosophy
                    >>oversteps its own time. The importance which the determinations of
                    >>thought possessed is another matter, which does not belong to the
                    >>history of Philosophy. These Notions are the simplest revelation of the
                    >>World spirit: in their more concrete form they are history."
                    >>
                    >>(Lectures on the History of Philosophy, III Modern Philosophy, Third
                    >>Section: Recent German Philosophy, E. Final Result, translated by E S
                    >>Haldane)
                    >>
                    >>You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
                    >>base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
                    >>vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
                    >>the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
                    >>Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or triadic
                    >>thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
                    >>to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
                    >>
                    >>Regards,
                    >>Beat Greuter
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    _________________________________________________________________
                    �Citas! �Ligues! �Salimos? �C�mo es tu pareja ideal? B�scala en el sitio n�1� �Reg�strate ya!
                    http://contactos.es.msn.com/?mtcmk=015352

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Beat Greuter
                    ... This is very interesting. There are different interpretations of Kant s thing in itself. One interpretation is that it is the affecting initial cause for
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 19, 2010
                      John writes:

                      >
                      >
                      > --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>, Beat
                      > Greuter <greuterb@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > You also seem to claim that the syllogistic or triadic thinking is the
                      > > base of Hegel's philosophical thinking. But he himself did once
                      > > vehemently reject this (unfortunately at the moment I cannot remember
                      > > the exact passage), also against Aristotles' analytic philosophy.
                      > > Hegel's dialectic thinking has nothing to do with syllogistic or
                      > triadic
                      > > thinking though of course it is a moment of the movement of the concept
                      > > to objectivity (see "The Doctrine of the Concept" in the Logic).
                      > >
                      >
                      > Dear Beat,
                      >
                      > I belive The Hegelian syllogism and the Hegelian dialectic are two
                      > separate things--both of equal importance.
                      >
                      > The situation is similar in the so-called Hermetic tradition where
                      > there are two basic laws: the Law of Three and the Law of Seven.
                      >
                      > Hegel states the Law of Three very well when he says that everything
                      > is a syllogism.
                      >
                      > But really there are no things, only processes. According to the Law
                      > of Seven every process is an octave. What particularly characterizes
                      > the octave--and I apologize to those who know something about music,
                      > as what I'm about to say may or may not be musically
                      > intelligible--but, anyway, what characterizes the octave is that there
                      > is a "gap" between the notes Mi and Fa. So you have:
                      >
                      > Do-Re-Mi "gap" Fa-Sol-La-Si.
                      >
                      > Without going further into details, just as there's a vast literature
                      > on the Law of Three, there's also a vast literature on the octave, and
                      > especially concerning this "gap" that constitutes all reality
                      > including even God Himself.
                      >
                      > In regard to Hegel, Zizek especially emphasizes this side of the
                      > matter. In his book, _Zizek's Ontology_ (2008), Adrian Johnston writes:
                      >
                      > "_The Ticklish Subject_ (1999) contains one of the most lucid
                      > instances of the general manner in which Zizek outlines the basic
                      > import of the shift from Kant to Hegel:
                      >
                      > 'All Hegel does is, in a way, to supplement Kant's well-known motto of
                      > the transcendental constitution of reality ("the conditions of
                      > possibility of our knowledge are at the same time the conditions of
                      > possibility of the object of our knowledge") by its negative--the
                      > limitation of our knowledge (its failure to grasp the Whole of Being,
                      > the way our knowledge gets inexorably entangled in contradictions and
                      > inconsistencies) is simultaneously the limitation of the very object
                      > of our knowledge--that is, the gaps and voids in our knowledge of
                      > reality are simultaneously the gaps and voids in the "real"
                      > ontological edifice itself.' (page 63)
                      >
                      > "A few pages later, Zizek describes this gesture as 'Hegel's
                      > breathtaking achievement':
                      >
                      > 'Far from regressing from Kant's criticism to pre-critical metaphysics
                      > expressing the rational structure of the cosmos, Hegel fully accepts
                      > (and draws the consequences from) the result of Kantian cosmological
                      > antinomies--there IS no "cosmos", the very notion of cosmos as the
                      > ontologically fully constituted positive totality is inconsistent.'
                      > (page 69)
                      >
                      > "Interestingly, Zizek chooses to italicize "is" (rather than "no")
                      > when he proclaims that, with Hegel's ontologization of Kant
                      > (specifically, the projection of the rational contradictions
                      > delineated in Kant's "Dialectic of Pure Being" into being itself),
                      > "there IS no cosmos". This is no accident, since Zizekian ontology (as
                      > elanborated via Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Lacan) portrays the Real
                      > of being as a groundless ground shot through with tensions and
                      > scissions. Being 'is' this very acosmos, this unstable absence of a
                      > cohesive, unifying One-All...
                      >
                      > "Kant clings to the assumption that, beyond the contradiction-ridden
                      > confines of the experiential reality in which the subject is
                      > imprisoned, there subsists an inaccessible substratum of being
                      > unperturbed by these contradictions:
                      >
                      > 'We fail to grasp the Absolute precisely in so far as we continue to
                      > presuppose that, above and beyond the domain of our finite reflected
                      > reasoning, there is an Absolute to be grasped--we actually overcome
                      > the limitation of external reflection by simply becoming aware of how
                      > this external reflection is inherent to the Absolute itself. This is
                      > Hegel's fundamental criticism of Kant: not that Kant fails to overcome
                      > the external reflection of Understanding, but that he still thinks
                      > there is some Beyond which eludes its grasp. What Kant does not see is
                      > that his Critique of Pure Reason, as the critical "prolegomena" to a
                      > future metaphysics, already is the only possible metaphysics.' (page 96)
                      >
                      > "According to Zizekian Hegelianism, the Absolute is the absolutely
                      > finite. Reaching the vantage point of the Absolute amounts to
                      > realizing that there is no seamless transcendent Elsewhere in which
                      > the snags and tears in the fabric of experiential reality are
                      > magically mended."
                      >
                      > (pages 130-132)
                      >

                      This is very interesting. There are different interpretations of Kant's
                      thing in itself. One interpretation is that it is the affecting initial
                      cause for our feeling and thinking which by contrast are autonomous in
                      their reaction. So, the thing in itself is only the gap. With this
                      Kant's view is near Leibniz's monadology without its psychological
                      burden and therefore a rescue attempt of autonomy against Hume's mere
                      outer causality. If this is true then Kant's and Hegel's approach are
                      near together. The most important difference between the two is that
                      with Hegel the conceptual moment belongs always to and is developed
                      within experience and cannot be put independent of experience though it
                      can be sifted out in its pure shape (form and content).


                      > And this is a big deal for Lacan as well. For instance there's the
                      > barred subject. The sign for the subject is S. The barred subject is
                      > an S with a line crossed through it resembling a dollar sign. So
                      > there's a "gap" at the heart of the subject. And there's the barred
                      > Real, etc., etc...
                      >
                      > John
                      >

                      For me this is difficult to understand.

                      Regards,
                      Beat Greuter



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • john
                      ... Dear Wil, I wish I knew something about music! But maybe it really is a lack of gap . The great cosmic octave that comes from the Middle Ages is
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 20, 2010
                        --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > John,
                        >
                        > This is an interesting post which deserves a second reading from me. In the meantime, though, when you say "gap" (between do-re-mi and fa-sol-la-ti), don't you really want to say a lack of gap? Each of the tones of the scale (I use a C major scale here) have a note between them (c [c#] d [d#] e ...), except for the third and fourth step (the mi and fa, or e and f) and seventh and octave (ti and do, or b and c).
                        >


                        Dear Wil,

                        I wish I knew something about music!

                        But maybe it really is a "lack of gap". The great cosmic octave that comes from the Middle Ages is (unfortunately I don't know Latin either--but something like:)

                        Do - Dominus
                        Si - Sidreal (all stars)
                        La - Lacta (Milky Way)
                        Sol -Sol (the sun)
                        Fa - Fata (the planets)
                        ["lack of gap"]
                        Mi - microcosmos (the earth)
                        Re - Regina (the queen of heaven, or the moon)
                        Do - Dominus

                        And really the earth is a planet. So there is a lack of gap there. But the earth is very different from the moon or the sun, etc.

                        Or the sort of thing they do might be the octave of reading, for instance, Adorno. The Do is to somehow or another become interested in reading Adorno. The stronger the Do, the better chance the octave has to succeed. The Re is getting started--so one might get some books by and about Adorno, and one might start a yahoogroup or whatever. The Mi is the realiztion of difficulties. So one starts reading and finds it absolutely incomprehensible. So then you hit the "lack of gap". But if you can get past this "lack of gap" then you have fairly smooth sailing for quite a while (Fa, Sol, La, Si). In other words, once you get into Adorno he turns out to be pretty interesting. So there really is something like a "lack of gap" here, in that there's only a small difference between reading Adorno and finding him incomprehensible, and reading Adorno and finding him interesting. But then there is the next gap, as you mention.

                        As to whether this has anything to do with what its like to play the guitar, I certainly don't know.

                        But, anyway, for them, getting past this "lack of gap" is pretty much what makes the world go round.

                        How ever you call it, there's the idea that there's an ontological, and not just an epistemological, F*ck up (excuse my language) in everything--very similar to what Zizek was saying.

                        And there's a whole lot more about all this. In reading Hegel I'm always trying to find evidence that he might have some scheme like this in mind as the model providing the structure. So far I've found a few pretty interesting possibilities, but no "smoking gun".

                        John
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.