I.3.3. The Becoming of Essence

Being is abstract equivalence—which we will call Indifference, since for itself it must be thought of as Being—having, as yet, no kind of determinateness; pure Quantity is Indifference, as being capable of every determination, but in such a manner that determinations are external to it and it has no connexion with them immanent in itself; while that Indifference which may be called Absolute is that which mediates itself with itself into simple unity by the negation of every determinateness of Being, of Quality, Quantity, and their unity, Measure, which, so far, is immediate. Of this Indifference, determinateness is no more than a state, that is, a qualitative externality having Indifference for substratum.

Now this entity which has thus been determined to be a qualitative externality, is only a vanishing entity; and, as being thus external to Being, the Qualitative, as its own opposite, just transcends itself. In this manner determinateness is posited of the substratum only as an empty differentiation. But this empty differentiation is Indifference itself as result. And this Indifference is thus Concrete, or that which is mediated in itself through the negation of every determination of Being. Since it is this mediation it contains negation and relation; and that which we called state is its immanent and self-relating differentiation; it is, precisely, externality and its disappearance which make the unity of Being to be Indifference; they are therefore within Indifference, which now ceases to be abstract and to be substratum, and only applied to itself.

We must now see how this determination of Indifference is posited in itself, and the latter therewith as being for itself.

1. The reduction of Measure-Relations, which so far are accounted stable, is based upon one common substratum; this substratum is their continuation into one another, and so that indivisible stability the totality of which exists in its differentiations. For this differentiation there are present the determinations of Quality and Quantity which it contains, and nothing matters except how these are posited in it. This, however, is determined by the fact that so far the substratum is result, and mediation in itself, while at the same time mediation is not yet posited in it as such; this fact makes it, first, substratum, and, with regard to determinateness, Indifference.

Hence differentiation is in it essentially so far merely quantitative and external: we have two different Quanta of one and the same substratum, which thus is their sum, and therefore is itself determined as Quantum. But Indifference is this fixed Measure and self-existent absolute limit only in relation to these differentiations, and that in such a manner that it is not Quantum in itself, and is not in any manner opposed as sum or exponent to other entities, whether sums or Indifferences. Indifference contains only abstract determinateness; and the two Quanta, in order that they may be posited as moments of it, are related as variable, indifferent, and greater or less. But being confined within the fixed limit of their sum they also are not external to each other, but negative;—and this is the qualitative determination which relates them. They are accordingly in Inverse Relation to each other. This Relation differs from the previous, formal Inverse Ratio, because the whole is here a real substratum, and it is posited of each of the two sides that in itself it is to be this whole.

According to the qualitative determinateness which was mentioned there is, further, a distinction of two Qualities of which one is cancelled by the other, although, since both are in and constitute a unity, each is inseparable from the other. The substratum itself, as Indifference, is also in itself the unity of the two Qualities: thus each of the sides of the relation contains both, and is differentiated only by a more of one Quality and a less of the other, and conversely; the one Quality is just preponderant by virtue of its Quantum in the one side, and the other Quality in the other side.

Thus each side is in itself an Inverse Relation: this Relation recurs, as formal, in the sides which are differentiated. Thus these sides themselves also continue themselves into each other according to their qualitative determinations: each Quality is related to itself in the other, and is in each of the two sides just in a different Quantum. Their quantitative difference is that Indifference according to which they continue themselves into each other, and this continuation, as homogeneity of the Qualities, is in each of the two unities.—Meanwhile the sides (of which each contains the totality of the determinations, and hence the Indifference itself) are thus also posited as stable relatively to each other.

2. Being now, as this Indifference, is the determinateness of Measure, no longer in its immediacy, but in the developed manner which has just been set forth. It is Indifference, since in itself it is the totality of the determinations of Being which have been dissolved into this unity; and also Determinate Being, as totality of posited realization in which the moments themselves are the self-existent totality of Indifference, supported by it as their unity. But unity has here been fixed only as Indifference and, therefore, only as in itself, and the moments are not yet determined as being for themselves, that is, as cancelling each other in and through themselves into unity; and so we have the indifference of these to themselves, as developed determinateness.

This stability, which has thus turned out inseparable, must now be further considered. It is immanent in all its determinations, and in them remains in unity with itself and undisturbed by them; but (α) since it is totality in itself, every determinateness which is cancelled in it persists in it, but only as arising in it baselessly. There is no connexion between the “in-itself” of Indifference and this its Determinate Being; every determinateness shows itself immediately in it, and in each one it is in its totality; thus the differentiation between all is at first posited as transcended, that is, as quantitative, and for that very reason as no self-repulsion; they are not posited as self-determining, but only as being, and as becoming, determinate externally. (β) The two moments are in inverse quantitative relation—an oscillation along magnitude which is not determined by Indifference (which is, precisely, the indifference of this oscillation), but hereby is determined only externally. There is here reference to an Other which lies beyond and contains the determining. In this aspect the absolute as Indifference has the second deficiency of the quantitative form, which is that the determinateness of the differentiation is not determined by it; and it has the first deficiency, too, in the fact that the differentiations only emerge in it,—that is, its positing is immediate and not its own self-mediation.

(γ) The quantitative determinateness of the moments which now are sides of the relation, constitutes this manner of their persistence; their Determinate Being is saved from the transition of the Qualitative by this indifference. They have a persistence, however, which is different from this their Determinate Being, and is in itself, in the fact that they are the Indifference in themselves, and that each is the unity of the two Qualities into which the qualitative moment splits itself. The difference of the two sides reduces itself to this, that the one Quality is posited in the one side with a more and in the other with a less, and the other correspondingly and conversely. Thus each side is in itself the totality of Indifference.—Each of the two Qualities being taken individually remains that sum which the Indifference is: it continues itself from one side into the other, and is not restricted by the quantitative limit which is posited of it in this process. Here the determinations come into immediate opposition which develops itself into contradiction, as must now be shown.

3. For each Quality enters into relation with the other within each side, and that in such a manner that this relation is to be only a quantitative difference: this determination has already been reached. If both the Qualities are stable-—as when, for instance, they are taken as independent sensible substances—then the whole determinateness of Indifference collapses; their unity and totality would be empty names. But in fact they are also determined in such a manner that they are comprehended within one unity; they are inseparable, and each has meaning and reality only in this one qualitative relation to the other. And now each extends as far only as the other, just because their quantitativity is of this qualitative nature. If they were different as Quanta, then one would by so much fail to coincide with the other, and in this overplus it would have an indifferent existence lacking to the other. But in their qualitative relation each is only in so far as the other is.—From this it follows that they are in equipoise, that one would increase or decrease by as much as the other did, and that it would increase or decrease in the same proportion.

Hence neither Quality can achieve a “more,” and no quantitative difference can arise, from the basis of their qualitative relation. The “more” by which one of the related moments exceeded the other would be a foundationless determination, that is, this “more” would only again be the other itself; but both being thus equal both would have vanished, since their existence was to be based only upon the inequality of their Quantum.—Two factors are desiderated, and each vanishes when it is supposed to exceed the other as much as when it is supposed to be equal to it. This disappearance manifests itself thus: a disturbance of the equilibrium emanates from the quantitative point of view, and one factor is taken to be greater than the other; thus the cancellation of the Quality of the other, and its foundationlessness, are posited; the first becomes preponderant, so that the other decreases with accelerated speed and is overwhelmed by it. The first thus becomes the sole stable entity: but now we no longer have two specific entities and two factors, but only the one whole.

This unity, thus posited as the totality of determination, which totality is itself here determined as Indifference, is universal contradiction. It must, therefore, be posited as being determined as stability which is for self, just because it is this self-cancelling contradiction. This stability has for result and as its truth unity which no longer is merely indifferent, but immanent in itself, negative and absolute. This is Essence.

The relation of a whole which is supposed to have its determinateness in the magnitudinal difference between factors which are qualitatively determined relatively to one another, is used in the elliptical movement of the celestial bodies. In the first instance this example shows only two Qualities in inverse relation to each other, not two sides, of which each is the unity of both and its inverse relation. And since the empirical basis is so firm, the consequence is overlooked to which the theory applied to it leads, which is, to destroy the basic fact or else (if, as is proper, it is retained) to demonstrate the emptiness of the theory as against it. But this consequence is ignored, which permits the fact and the theory which contradicts it quietly to subsist side by side.—The simple fact is that in the elliptic movement of the celestial bodies their velocity increases as they approach their perihelion, and decreases as they approach their aphelion. The quantitative part of this fact has been determined exactly by untiring diligence of observation; it has further been reduced to its simple law and formula, and thus every demand which could legitimately be made of theory has been met. But to reflective understanding this did not seem enough. In order that the phenomenon and its law may have a so-called explanation, a centripetal and a centrifugal force are assumed, as qualitative moments of movement along the curved line. Their qualitative difference consists in opposition of direction, and their quantitative difference in the fact that they are determined as unequal and that one is to increase as the other decreases, and conversely, and, further, their relation suddenly is reversed: after centripetal force has been waxing and centrifugal waning for a time, a point arises where centripetal force wanes while centrifugal force waxes. But this idea is contradicted by the relation to each other of their respective determinatenesses. These are essentially qualitative, and make it quite impossible to separate the forces: each has meaning only with respect to the other; therefore, in so far as one exceeded the other, in so far also it would have no relation to it, and would be non-existent.—When the assumption is made that one is definitely greater than the other when it is related to it as greater to less, then what was said above comes about: it gains absolute preponderance, and the other vanishes; the latter is posited as that which vanishes and is unfounded; and the fact that the disappearance is gradual, and that what it loses in magnitude accrues to the other, does not alter this determination. One perishes with the other, since what it is is only in so far as the other is. And here is a very simple consideration: if, for example, as is asserted, the centripetal force of the body as it approaches the perihelion is to increase, and its centrifugal force to decrease proportionally, then the latter would no longer be able to save it from the former and to remove it from the attracting body; on the contrary, since the centripetal is supposed to be preponderant, the centrifugal is overcome, and the body approaches the attracting body with accelerated velocity. And, conversely, if centrifugal force dominates at infinite proximity to the aphelion, it is equally contradictory that it should now be overcome at the aphelion by the weaker force.—Further it is clear that the cause of this inversion must be a foreign force; which means that the velocity of movement, at times accelerated and at times retarded, cannot be understood nor, as it is called, explained from the determination of these factors which is here assumed, although these were assumed for the very purpose of explaining this difference. The conclusion which follows from the disappearance of one or the other direction, and hence of elliptical movement altogether, is ignored and concealed for the sake of the established fact that this movement persists and passes from accelerated into retarded velocity. When it is assumed that a weaker centripetal force is transmuted at the aphelion into a force which preponderates against centrifugal force, and when a converse assumption is made for the perihelion, then this assumption partly contains what was developed above, that each of the sides of the inverse relation is in itself the whole inverse relation; for the side of movement from aphelion to perihelion (where centripetal force is supposed to be preponderant) is supposed also to contain centrifugal force, though decreasing as the other increases; and the same inverse relation is supposed to subsist, in the side of retarded movement, between an increasingly preponderating centrifugal force, and centripetal force, so that neither has vanished on either side, but each merely decreases progressively until the time arrives when the reversal occurs and it begins to preponderate over the other. Consequently what recurs on each side is nothing but the flaw in this inverse relation, namely that either each force is taken independently by itself, so that, as in the parallelogram of forces, the unity of the concept and the nature of the fact is transcended in the merely external co-operation of the forces in one movement, or else, each being qualitatively related to the other through the concept, neither can attain indifferent and independent persistence as against the other,—this was to be the contribution of the “overplus.” The intensive (or so-called dynamic) form does not change anything, since it itself has its determinateness in Quantum, and so can manifest only as much force as is opposed to it by the opposite force; and this is the measure of its existence. But partly this transmutation of preponderance into its opposite contains the alternation of positive and negative, which are qualitative determinations: the increase of one is balanced by a loss of the other. The inseparable qualitative connexion of this qualitative opposition is disjointed into chronological succession by the theory; but the theory still fails thereby to furnish the explanation of this alternation, and also, above all, of this method of disjointing. Here the illusion of unity, which was present while one increased as the other decreased, wholly vanishes: a merely external succession is proclaimed, which contradicts only the consequence of this connexion, by which, when one has established preponderance, the other must vanish.

This same relation has been applied to Attractive and Repulsive Force in order to render intelligible the varying density of bodies; and the inverse ratio of sensibility and irritability too has been drawn upon to explain from the inequality of these factors of life the various determinations of the whole, of health, as also the variety of living species. But the confusion and the absurdity in which this explanation—designed to become a natural philosophical basis for physiology, nosology, and finally zoology—became involved through an uncritical use of these conceptual determinations, led here to the result that this formalism was quickly renounced, though it is still continued to its full extent in the science, especially, of physical astronomy.

Absolute Indifference may appear to be the fundamental determination of Spinoza’s Substance; and in this regard we may here observe that it is so in fact in this respect that, in both, all determinations of Being, as in general all further concrete differentiation of Thought and Extension and so forth, are posited as having vanished. Indeed it is indifferent, if, we are not to proceed beyond abstraction, what was the appearance, while it existed, of that which has perished in this abyss. But Substance, as Indifference, is partly connected with the need of determining and with a respect to this process; it is not supposed to remain the Substance of Spinoza, whose one determination is that negation which claims that everything is absorbed in it. With Spinoza differentiation—the attributes, Thought and Extension, the modes too, the affections, and all other determinations—is introduced quite empirically; and it is understanding—itself a mode—in which this differentiation takes place. The attributes in relation to Substance and to each other have this sole determinateness, that they wholly express Substance, and that their content—the order of things as extended, and as thoughts—is the same. But when Substance is determined as Indifference, reflection arrives at differentiation; the latter is now posited as that which, with Spinoza, it is in itself, namely, as external and therefore, more precisely, as quantitative. Thus, in differentiation, Indifference remains immanent in itself like Substance,—but abstractly and only in itself; differentiation is not immanent for it, but, on the contrary, being quantitative, it is the opposite of Immanence, and quantitative Indifference is rather the self-externality of Unity. Here then differentiation is not taken as qualitative, and Substance is not determined as the self-differentiating, as Subject. What follows next, with regard to the category of Indifference itself, is that in it the distinction between quantitative and qualitative determination falls asunder, as appeared in the development of Indifference: it is the dissolution of Measure, in which both moments were posited immediately as one.

Absolute Indifference is the last determination of Being before it becomes Essence; but it does not attain to Essence. Indifference shows itself as still belonging to the sphere of Being, for, being determined as indifferent, it has differentiation as quantitative and external. This is its Determinate Being; and now it is in this contradictory state, that it is determined as against its Determinate Being only as that which is in itself and is not thought of as the Absolute which is for itself. Or again it is external reflection, which does not progress beyond the position where the specific entities in themselves or in the Absolute are one and the same, and their difference is indifferent and not a difference in itself. What here is lacking is this, that this reflection is not the external reflection -of thinking and subjective consciousness, but is the determination of the differentiations themselves of this unity to transcend themselves; which unity then turns out to be absolute negativity and indifference to itself and to its own indifference as much as to other-being.

But this self-cancellation of the determination of Indifference has already been reached: this determination has shown itself in the development of its positedness in every direction as contradiction. It is in itself that totality in which every determination of Being is transcended and contained;; thus it is the basis, but so far is only in the one-sided determination of Being-in-Self, which implies that differentiations, quantitative difference, and the inverse relation of factors are external to it. It is the contradiction of itself and of its determinateness, of its determination as it is in itself and of its posited determinateness; it is, accordingly, negative totality, of which every determinateness has transcended itself of itself, and has thereby transcended this its fundamental onesidedness, its Being-in-Self. It is now posited as that which Indifference in fact is, and is simple and infinite negative self-relation, self-incompatibility and self-repulsion. Determining and being determined are here neither a transition, nor external variation, nor an emergence of external determinations in it, but the self-relation of Indifference, which is the negativity of itself and of its Being-in-Self.

The determinations, being thus repelled somethings, are not masters of themselves and do not emerge in independence or externality, but, as moments, belong first to unity which is in itself and have not been dismissed from it but have in it their supporting substratum and sole filling;—and next are those determinations which are immanent in unity which is for itself, and have being only by virtue of its self-repulsion. They are not existents (as in the whole sphere of Being), but are henceforth only that which is posited; they have just this determination and meaning, that they are referred to their unity, and hence each to its other and to negation;—and as such they bear the mark of this their relativity.

And now Being in general, and the being or immediacy which belongs to each differentiated determinateness, has vanished together with Being-in-Self; and the unity is Being, immediate and presupposed totality, and is this simple self-relation only through the mediation of the transcending of this presupposition, while this presupposedness and immediate Being itself is only a moment of its repulsion; the original independence and self-identity exist only as the resulting infinite coincidence with itself.—Being is thus determined to be Essence;—Being, as through transcendence of Being simple Being with itself.