II.2.3. Essential Relation

The truth of Appearance is Essential Relation. Its content has immediate independence: immediacy which is, and reflected immediacy or self-identical Reflection. At the same time the content in this independence is a relative content, which is only as Reflection into its Other or as unity of the relation to its Other. In this unity the independent content is something posited, transcended; but this very unity constitutes its essentiality and independence: this Reflection into other is intro-Reflection. The Relation has sides because it is Reflection into other; it thus contains self-difference, and the sides are independent persistence, since in their indifferent variety as against each other they are inwardly refracted, so that equally the persistence of each has its significance only in the relation to the other or in their negative unity.

Essential Relation therefore is not the true third term for Essence and Existence; but it does already contain the definite union of the two. Essence in it is realized in such a manner that it has for its persistence entities having independent Existence; and these have passed back out of their indifference into their essential unity, so that they have only this for their consistence. The Reflection-determinations of positive and negative likewise are intro-reflected only as reflected each into its opposite; but they have no other determination except this their negative unity, whereas Essential Relation has for its sides terms that are posited as independent totalities. It is the same opposition as that of positive and negative, but at the same time as an inverted World. The side of Essential Relation is a totality, which however essentially has an opposite or Beyond; it is only Appearance; its own Existence is rather that not of itself but of its Other. It is therefore inwardly refracted; but this its transcendedness consists in this, that it is the unity of itself and of its Other, that is, a Whole; and for this very reason it has independent Existence and is essential intro-Reflection.

This is the concept of the Relation. But at this stage the identity which it contains is not yet complete; as yet the totality, which everything relative is in itself, is only internal; and the side of the Relation is posited in one of the determinations of the negative unity: the proper independence of each of the two sides is that which constitutes the form of the Relation. Its identity therefore is only a relation and its independence falls outside this relation, namely in the sides; the reflected unity of this identity and of the independent Existences has not yet arisen: there is not yet Substance.—Thus the concept of Relation has resulted, in the shape of unity of reflected and immediate independence. But, at first, this concept itself is still immediate; its moments consequently are immediate as against each other, and unity is their essential relation—a unity which then only is true, and corresponds to the concept, when and in so far as it realizes itself, that is, has posited itself as this unity through its movement.

Essential Relation is, therefore, immediately the Relation of Whole and Parts,—the relation of reflected and of immediate independence, where the two terms coexist only as reciprocally conditioning and presupposing.

In this Relation as yet neither of the sides is posited as moment of the other, and therefore their identity itself is one side; in other words, their identity is not their negative unity. Secondly, therefore, the Relation passes over into the state where one is moment of the other and is in it as in its Ground—the truly independent of the two terms:—the Relation of Force and its Manifestation.

There still remains an asymmetry in this relation. This, thirdly, transcends itself; and the last Relation is that of Inner and Outer.—This distinction has become wholly formal, and in it Relation itself perishes, and Substance or the Actual emerges, as the absolute unity of immediate and of reflected Existence.

1. Essential Relation contains, first, the intro-reflected independence of Existence; it is thus simple From, whose determinations are also Existences, but at the same time are posited—moments preserved in unity. This intro-reflected independence is also Reflection into its opposite, namely immediate independence, and its persistence is essentially its own independence no more than it is this identity with its opposite.—But precisely hereby—secondly—the other side too is immediately posited: immediate independence which, determined as the Other, is a multiple manifold within itself, but in such a manner that this manifold essentially also contains the relation to the other side, the unity of reflected independence. That one side—the Whole—is the independence which constituted the World which is in and for itself; the other side—the Parts—is that immediate Existence which was the Appearing World. In the Relation of Whole and Parts the two sides are these independences, but in such a manner that in each the other shows and each also is only as this identity of the two. Essential Relation is only first and immediate, and therefore negative unity and positive independence are connected by the “also”; although both sides are posited as moments, they are equally posited as existing independences.—The fact that both are posited as moments has hence the following components: first, the Whole, or reflected independence, is as Existent, and the other or immediate independence is in it as moment;—here the Whole constitutes the unity of the two sides or their foundation, and immediate Existence is as positedness.—Conversely on the other side—the side of the Parts—immediate Existence which is manifold in itself is the independent foundation; while the reflected unity, or the Whole, is only external relation.

2. Accordingly this relation contains the independence of the sides and equally their transcendedness, and it contains both in one relation. The Whole is the independent, and the Parts are only moments of this unity; but equally they too are the independent, and their reflected unity is only a moment; and each in its independence is just something relative to an Other. Thus this Relation is in itself immediate contradiction and cancels itself.

If this is more closely considered, the Whole is the reflected unity which has independent persistence for itself; but this its persistence is equally repelled from it; as negative unity, the Whole is negative relation to itself. It has thus externalized itself; it has its consistence in its opposite—manifold immediacy, or the Parts. Hence the Whole consists of the Parts, so that it is not something without them. Thus it is the whole Relation and the independent totality; but for this very reason it is only a relative term, for that which makes it a totality is precisely its Other, the Parts; and it has its consistence not in itself but in its Other.

Thus the Parts are also the whole Relation. They are immediate, as against reflected, independence, and they do not consist in the Whole, but are for themselves. Further, they have this Whole in themselves as their moment: it constitutes their relation, there being no Parts without a Whole. But, since they are the independent element, this relation is only an external moment, and against it they, in and for themselves, are indifferent. But at the same time the Parts as manifold Existence collapse into themselves, for such Existence is Reflection-less Being; they have their independence only in reflected unity, which is this unity and also is existent multiplicity; that is, they have independence only in the Whole, but the Whole is at the same time an other independence to the Parts.

The Whole and the Parts therefore condition each other; but the Relation here considered is at the same time higher than the relation between Condition and Conditioned as it had determined itself above. This relation here is realized; that is, it is posited that the Condition is the essential independence of the Conditioned in such a manner that it is presupposed by the latter. Condition as such is only the immediate, and is presupposed only in itself; whereas the Whole is the Condition of the Parts, but also itself immediately contains this, that it too is only in so far as it has the parts for presupposition. Thus the two sides of the Relation are posited as conditioning each other, and each therefore is an immediate independence in itself; but equally its independence is mediated or posited by the other. By virtue of this reciprocity the whole Relation is the return of Conditioning into itself: it is the non-relative, the Unconditioned.

Each side of the Relation now has its independence not in itself but in the other, and thus there is only one identity of both, in which both are only moments; but each is independent in itself, and thus they are two independent Existences which are indifferent to each other. According to the first respect—that of the essential identity of these sides—the Whole is equal to the Parts and the Parts to the Whole. There is nothing in the Whole which is not in the Parts, and nothing in the Parts which is not in the Whole. The Whole is not abstract unity, but the unity as of a various multiplicity; this unity, however, as that in which the manifold relates itself internally to itself, is the determinateness of the latter, by virtue of which it is Part. The Relation therefore has an inseparable identity and one independence only.

But further, although the Whole is equal to the Parts, it is not equal to them as Parts; the Whole is reflected unity, but the Parts constitute the determinate moment or otherness of the unity, and are the various manifold. The Whole is equal to them not as this independent various, but to them jointly. But this “jointly” is just their unity, or the Whole as such. The Whole therefore is equal only to itself in the Parts, and the equality of itself and the Parts expresses only the tautology that the Whole as Whole is equal not to the Parts but to the Whole.

Conversely the Parts are equal to the Whole. But, since they are the moment of otherness in themselves, they are not equal to it as the unity, but in such a manner that one of its manifold determinations is appropriated to the Part, or that they are equal to it as being a manifold; that is, they are equal to it as a partitioned Whole, that is, as the Parts. Thus we have here the same tautology: the Parts as Parts are equal not to the Whole as such, but, in it, to themselves, the Parts. In this manner the Whole and the Parts fall apart indifferent; each of these sides relates itself only to itself. But being thus held apart they destroy themselves. The whole which is indifferent to the Parts is abstract undifferentiated identity; the identity in question here is a Whole only as differentiated in itself, and differentiated in such a manner that these manifold determinations are reflected into themselves and have immediate independence. And the identity of Reflection has shown in its movement that it has for its truth this Reflection into its Other.—In the same manner the Parts, as indifferent to the unity of the Whole, are only the unrelated manifold, or that which is Other in itself, which, as such, is its own Other, cancelling itself and no more.—This self-relation of each of the two sides is their independence; but this their independence, which each has for itself, is rather self-negation. Accordingly each has its independence not in itself but in the other; this other, which constitutes the consistence, is its presupposed immediate, which is supposed to be First and its beginning; but this First of each is itself only such an entity as is not a First but has its beginning in the Other.

The truth of the Relation consists, then, in mediation; its Essence is negative unity, in which both reflected and being immediacy are transcended. The Relation is contradiction which passes back into its Ground, into unity which, as returning, is reflected unity; but, since this latter has equally posited itself as transcended, it is in a negative relation to itself, transcends itself, and constitutes itself being immediacy. But this its negative relation, in so far as it is a First and an immediate, is mediated only through its Other, and is equally posited. And equally this Other—being immediacy—is only as transcended; its independence is a First, but forthwith it vanishes, and has a Determinate Being which is posited and mediated.

In this determination the Relation is no longer one of Whole and Parts; the immediacy which belonged to its sides has passed over into positedness and mediation. Each is posited, in so far as it is immediate, as transcending itself and passing over into the other, and also, in so far as it is itself negative relation, as being conditioned by the other as by its positive term; and indeed its immediate transition equally is mediated, for it is a transcendence which is posited by the other.—Thus the Relation of Whole and Parts has passed over into the Relation of Force and its Manifestation,

The antinomy of the infinite divisibility of matter was considered above (Vol. I, pp. 204 sqq,) under the concept of Quantity. Quantity is the unity of continuity and discreteness; in the independent One it contains the completed fact of its amalgamation with others, and, in this uninterruptedly continuous self-identity, it also contains its negation. The immediate relation of these moments of Quantity is expressed as the Essential Relation of Whole and Parts (the One of Quantity being Part, and its continuity, Whole, which is composed of Parts), and the antinomy then consists in the contradiction which has been presented and resolved in the Relation of Whole and Parts.—For Whole and Parts are indifferent to each other and have independent persistence, but also they are essentially related and constitute only one identity. The Relation therefore is the antinomy that the one moment, in freeing itself from the other, immediately introduces the other.

The Existent, then, being determined as Whole, has Parts, and the Parts constitute its consistence; the unity of the Whole is only a posited relation, an external composition which does not concern the independent Existent. Now in so far as this Existent is Part, it is not Whole, nor composite, but simple. But the relation to a Whole is external to it, and therefore does not concern it; thus the independent entity is not Part even in itself, for it is Part only through this relation. But now, since it is not Part, it is Whole; for the only relation which is given is this Relation of Whole and Parts, and the independent entity is one of the two. But when it is Whole it is again composite; it again consists of Parts, and so to infinity.—This infinity consists just in the perpetual alternation of the two determinations of the Relation, in each of which the other immediately arises, so that the positedness of each is its own disappearance. Matter determined as Whole consists of Parts, and in these the Whole becomes an unessential relation and vanishes. But the Part too, thus isolated, is also not Part, but the Whole.—The antinomy of this conclusion being closely compressed is properly this: the Whole is not the independent entity, and therefore the Part is; but since the Part is independent only without the Whole, it is independent not as Part but rather as Whole. The infinity of the progress which results is the impossibility of combining the two ideas which the mediation contains, namely, that each of the two determinations passes over through its independence and separation from the other into dependence and into the other.

Force is the negative unity into which the contradiction of Whole and Parts has resolved itself; it is the truth of that first Relation. The Whole and Parts is the first Relation to which imagination has recourse, and it is without meaning for thought; objectively it is a dead and mechanical aggregation having form-determinations by which the multiplicity of its independent matter is related in one unity; but this unity is external to such matter.—But the Relation of Force is the higher return upon self, where the unity of the Whole, which constituted the relation of independent otherness, ceases to be external and indifferent to this multiplicity.

Essential Relation has now determined itself to be such that immediate and reflected independence are posited in it as transcended, or as moments—whereas in the preceding Relation they were sides persisting for themselves, or extremes. In this there is contained, first, that reflected unity and its immediate Determinate Being, in so far as both are first and immediate, transcend themselves and pass over each into its Other: the former—Force—passes over into its Manifestation, and the Manifest is something which disappears, and passes back into Force as into its Ground: it is only as supported and posited by Force. Secondly, this transition is not only a Becoming and disappearance, but also negative self-relation; or, that which changes its determination is here also intro-reflected and preserves itself: the movement of Force is not so much a transition as a self-transposition, where it remains what it is in this change which it posited itself.—Thirdly, this reflected and self-relating unity is itself also transcended and is moment; it is mediated by its Other and has it for Condition; its negative self-relation, which is First and begins the movement of its transition out of itself, has equally a presupposition by which it is solicited and an Other from which it begins.

Considered in its closer determinations Force is seen, first, to contain the moment of existent immediacy; it itself on the other hand is determined as negative unity. But this unity in the determination of immediate Being is an existing Something. This Something is negative unity as immediate entity, and therefore appears as First; Force on the other hand, because it is reflected, appears as positedness, and, in this respect, as belonging to the existing Thing or to a Matter. This does not mean that Force is the Form of this Thing, or that the Thing is determined by Force; the Thing as immediate is, rather, indifferent to it.—In this determination the Thing contains no Ground for possessing a Force; but Force, as the side of positedness, essentially has the Thing for its presupposition. When therefore it is asked how the Thing or Matter comes to have a Force, then the Force appears as connected with it externally, and impressed on the Thing by an alien power.

As this immediate persistence Force is a quiescent determinateness of the Thing in general; it is not self-manifesting, but is immediately manifest. Thus Force is also designated as Matter, and, instead of magnetic, electrical, and other Forces, magnetic, electrical, and other Matters are assumed, or, instead of the famous attractive Force, a subtle aether which holds together all things.—These are the Matters into which the inactive, forceless, and negative unity of the Thing resolves itself, and which were considered above.

But Force contains immediate Existence for moment—as moment which, though it is Condition, passes over and transcends itself, and not therefore as an existing Thing. It is not, further, negation as determinateness, but negative intro-reflective unity. The Thing in which Force was supposed to reside has therefore no significance here; rather, Force itself is the positing of the Manifestation which appears as Existence. It is therefore not merely a determinate Matter: such independence long ago passed over into positedness and Appearance.

Secondly, Force is the unity of reflected and immediate persistence; or, of formal unity and external independence. It is both in one; it is the contact of terms of which one is in so far as the other is not—self-identical positive, and negated, Reflection. Thus Force is self-repellent contradiction; it is active, or it is self-relating negative unity, in which reflected immediacy or essential Being-in-Self is posited as being only as transcended or as moment, that is, in so far as it distinguishes itself from immediate Existence, as passing over into this. Force, then, as the determination of the reflected unity of the Whole, is posited as becoming existent external multiplicity from out of itself.

But, thirdly, Force is as yet only self-existent and immediate activity; it is reflected unity and, equally essentially, it is its negation; in so far as it is different from this, and is only as the identity of itself and of its negation, it is essentially related to the latter as to an immediacy external to it, and has it for presupposition and Condition.

Now this presupposition is not a Thing which stands over against it; this indifferent independence is transcended in Force; as a Condition of Force the Thing is an independent entity which is other to it. Here, however, it is not Thing, but independent immediacy has here also determined itself as self-relating negative unity; and thus it too is Force.—The activity of Force is conditioned through itself as through that which is Other to itself, through a Force.

In this manner Force is Relation in which each side is that which the other is. There are Forces which stand in Relation and are, in fact, essentially related to each other.—Further, they are, at first, merely different in general; the unity of their Relation is at this stage only inner, self-existent unity. Thus Conditionedness by another Force is, in itself, the action of Force itself; or, Force is in this regard only presupposing, merely negatively self-relating, action; this other Force as yet lies beyond its positing activity, namely Reflection which, as it determines, immediately returns to itself.

Force is Conditioned because it contains a moment of immediate Existence which is only as something posited, but—since it is also immediate—is something presupposed, in which Force negates itself. Therefore the externality which is given in Force is its own presupposing activity, which, at first, is posited as another Force.

Further, this act of presupposing is reciprocal. Each of the two Forces contains intro-reflected unity as transcended, and therefore it presupposes; it posits itself as external; this moment of externality is its own. But equally it is intro-reflected unity, and therefore it posits this its externality not in itself but as another Force.

But the external as such is the self-transcending. Further, the self-intro-reflective activity is essentially related to this external as to its Other, but equally as to that which in itself is null and identical with it. Presupposing activity is equally intro-Reflection, and hence it is the transcendence of this its negation; it posits the latter as its own self or as that which is external to it. Thus Force, as conditioning, is, reciprocally, an Impulse for the other Force, against which it is active. Its attitude is not the passivity of being determined, which would introduce something foreign into it; the Impulse only solicits it. It is in itself its own negativity: its self-repulse is its self-positing. Its activity then consists in the transcendence of the external nature of this Impulse; it makes it into a mere Impulse, and posits it as its own self-repulse, as its own Manifestation.

Force which manifests itself is, therefore, that same entity which before was only presupposing activity,—that is, it externalizes itself; but Force, as manifesting itself, is, at the same time, an activity which negates externality and posits it as its own. Now in so far as in this consideration a beginning is made from Force as negative unity of itself, and, consequently, as presupposing Reflection, in so far this is the same as when a beginning is made, in the Manifestation of Force, from the soliciting Impulse. Thus in its concept Force is, first, determined as self-transcending identity; and, in its reality, one of the Forces is determined as soliciting and the other as being solicited. But the concept of Force in general is the identity of positing and presupposing Reflection, or of reflected and immediate unity; and each of these determinations is just a moment, in unity, and therefore is mediated through the other. But also there is nothing in either of the two reciprocally related Forces to determine which is to be soliciting and which solicited; or rather both form-determinations belong in the same manner to each. But this identity is not only an external identity of comparison, but is an essential unity of the two.

For one Force is here determined as soliciting and the other as being solicited; in this manner these form-determinations appear as immediate distinctions, given in themselves, between the two Forces. But they are essentially mediated. One of the Forces is solicited; this Impulse is a determination which is inserted into it from without. But Force itself is that which presupposes; essentially it reflects itself into itself and transcends the fact that the Impulse is external. Hence the fact that it is solicited is its own doing, or, it is determined through itself that the other Force is other and is the soliciting Force. The soliciting Force is negatively related to its other, and thus transcends its externality, and in this respect it posits; but it does so only by virtue of the presupposition that it has another Force opposite to it; that is, it itself solicits only in so far as it has in it an externality, and hence in so far as it is solicited. In other words, it solicits only in so far as it is solicited to solicit. Thus conversely the first Force is solicited only in so far as it itself solicits the other to solicit it (the first Force). Each of the two thus obtains its Impulse from the other; but the Impulse which it gives as active Force consists in receiving an Impulse from the other, while the Impulse which it receives was solicited by itself. Both the Impulse given and that received (or active manifestation and passive externality) are consequently not immediate, but mediated; and each of the two Forces is the determinateness which the other Force has as against it; it is mediated through the other; and this mediating other is, again, its own determinative positing.

When therefore an Impulse is exerted upon Force by another Force, and, in so far, Force is passive, but once more passes over from this passivity into activity,—then this is the regress of Force into itself. It manifests itself. The Manifestation is reaction in the sense that it posits externality as its own moment and thus transcends the fact that it was supposed to be solicited by another Force. Both therefore are one—the Manifestation of Force, by means of which it gives itself a Determinate Being-for-Other through its negative activity exerted upon itself,—and the infinite return upon self in this externality, so that in it it only relates itself to itself. Presupposing Reflection, to which belong both Conditionedness and Impulse, is therefore immediately also self-returning Reflection, and the activity is essentially reactive, directed against itself. The positing of the Impulse or of the external is itself the transcendence of this, and conversely the transcendence of the Impulse is the positing of externality.

Force is finite in so far as its moments still retain the form of immediacy; its presupposing and its self-relating Reflection are distinct in this determination; the former appears as a self-persisting external Force, and the other, in its relation to it, as passive. Force thus is conditioned with regard to form, and likewise restricted with regard to content; for a formal determinateness also contains a restrictedness of content. But the activity of Force consists in this, that it manifests itself; that is—as was seen—that it transcends externality and determines it as that in which it is identical with itself. Thus what Force in truth manifests is this, that its relation to other is its self-relation, and that its passivity consists in its own activity. The Impulse by which it is solicited into activity is its own soliciting, and the externality which affects it is not immediate, but mediated by it. Similarly its own essential self-identity is not immediate, but mediated by its negation; in other words, Force manifests the identity of its externality with its internality.

1. The Relation of Whole and Parts is an immediate relation; consequently both reflected and existent immediacy have in it each its own independence; but, since they are in Essential Relation, their independence is no more than their negative unity. Now this is posited in the Manifestation of Force; reflected unity is, essentially, other-becoming as translation of itself into externality; but the latter equally is immediately withdrawn into the former; the distinction between the independent Forces cancels itself; the Manifestation of Force is only a self-mediation of reflected unity. All that is given is an empty and transparent distinction—Show—, but this Show is the mediation which is independent persistence itself. Not only are these opposite determinations, which together cancel each other, and not only is their movement a transition; but partly the immediacy from which the beginning was made and the transition took place into otherness is itself only as posited, and partly for this reason each of the determinations in its immediacy is already the unity with its other, whence the transition is equally just self-positing return to self.

Inner, as the Form of reflected immediacy or of Essence, is determined, in opposition to Outer, as the Form of Being; but both are but one identity.—This identity is, first, the solid unity of both; it is a foundation full of content; or it is the absolute Fact, wherein both determinations are indifferent and external moments. In this respect it is content and that totality which is the Inner that equally becomes external, but in spite of this remains self-equal and has completed no process either of Becoming or of transition. According to this determination Outer is not only equal to Inner in content, but both are but one Fact.—But this Fact as simple self-identity is distinct from its form-determinations: these are external to it; and in so far it is itself an Inner which is distinct from their externality. Now this externality consists in this, that it is constituted out of the two determinations themselves of Inner and Outer. But the Fact is itself nothing but the unity of these two. Thus the two sides are again the same with respect to content. In the Fact however they are as interpenetrating identity, or foundation full of content. But in externality, as Forms of the Fact, they are indifferent to this identity and therefore to each other.

2. In this manner they are the different form-determinations which have an identical foundation not in themselves but in an Other,—Reflection-determinations which are for themselves, Inner as the form of intro-Reflection or essentiality, and Outer as the form of immediacy reflected into other, or unessentiality. But the nature of the Relation has shown that these determinations simply constitute one identity. Force in its Manifestation is this, that the acts of presupposing and of self-returning determining are one and the same. In so far therefore as Inner and Outer are considered as form-determinations, they are, first, only simple Form itself; and, secondly, (since here they are also determined as opposites) their unity is pure abstract mediation, in which one is, immediately, the other, and is this because it is itself. Thus Inner is immediately only Outer, and it is the determinateness of externality because it is Inner; conversely Outer is only Inner because it is only Outer.—For this unity of form contains the determinations of both as opposite, and therefore their identity is no more than this transition, and in this act is only the Other of both and not their identity full of content. Or, this retention of form is, in general, the side of determinateness. According to this it is not the real totality of the whole which is posited; what is posited is the totality or the Fact itself only in the determinateness of form; form is the unity of the two opposite determinations as a mere bundle; consequently when one of these is taken first—and it is indifferent which is taken—we may say of the foundation or Fact that it is essentially in the other determinateness, but also only in it, for this very reason, just as it was said before that it is only in the first.—

Thus something which is only Inner as yet, is for this reason only Outer. Or, conversely, what is only Outer is therefore only Inner. Or again, if Inner is determined as Essence and Outer as Being, then a Fact, in so far as it is only in its Essence, is for this very reason only an immediate Being; or, a Fact which only is is for that reason still only in the stage of Essence.—Outer and Inner are determinateness posited in such a manner that each of these two determinations not only presupposes the other and passes over into it as into its truth, but also remains posited as determinateness (in so far as it is this truth of the other), and points towards the totality of both.—Inner then is the formal completion of Essence. Essence—that is, in so far as it is determined as Inner—implies its own defectiveness and the fact that it is only as relation to its Other, namely, Outer; and similarly Outer is not only Being, nor even Existence, but is only as related to Essence or Inner. But there is not only given the relation of the two to each other, but also (1) this determinate relation of absolute form, in which each is, immediately, its own opposite, and (2) their common relation to a third term, or, rather, to their unity. But as yet their mediation lacks this identical foundation which contains both; hence their relation is the immediate conversion of one into the other, and this negative unity which connects them is the simple and empty Point.

The general movement of Essence is a Becoming towards the Notion. In the Relation of Inner and Outer its essential moment emerges—namely, that its determinations are posited as being in negative unity in such a manner that each immediately is not only its other but also the totality of the whole. But in the Notion as such this totality is the universal,—a foundation which is not yet present in the Relation of Inner and Outer.—In the negative identity of Inner and Outer, which is the immediate conversion of one of these determinations into the other, that foundation, too, is lacking which above was called the Fact.—

The unmediated identity of form, posited as it here is without the movement—full of content—of the Fact itself, should be very carefully noticed. It occurs in the Fact as this is in its beginning. Thus Pure Being immediately is Nothing. And, generally, all that is real is, in its beginning, such a merely immediate identity; for in its beginning its moments are not yet developed nor in opposition; it has not yet internalized itself out of externality, nor, on the other hand, has it externalized and elicited itself by means of its activity out of internality. Consequently it is Inner only as determinateness against Outer, and Outer only as determinateness against Inner. Thus partly it is only an immediate Being; partly (in so far as it equally is negativity, which is to become the activity of development) it is, as such, essentially only Inner.—This is apparent in every natural, scientific, and, generally, intellectual development; and it is essential to understand that the First, when as yet Something is internal, or in its concept, is, for this reason, only its immediate and passive existence. Thus—to take the nearest example—the Essential Relation here considered is only Relation in itself—it is its concept, or is internal—before it has moved through mediation, the Relation of Force, and has realized itself. Hence it is only external and immediate Relation, the Relation of Whole and Parts, in which the sides have an indifferent persistence against each other. Their identity is not yet in themselves; as yet it is only internal, and hence they fall apart and have an immediate, external persistence.—Similarly the sphere of Being in general is only simple Inner, and hence it is the sphere of existent immediacy, or externality.—Essence (Wesen) is no more than Inner, and is therefore taken as a wholly external common element without system; we speak of Schulwesen and Zeitungswesen, and mean something common which is produced when existing objects are grouped together externally and in so far as they are without essential connexion or organization.—Or, in concrete objects, the germ of a plant is inner plant, and a child, internal man. But for this reason plant or man as germ is an immediate, an Outer which has not yet given itself negative self-relation, but is passive and lies exposed to otherness.—Similarly God in his immediate concept is not Spirit: Spirit is not the immediate entity, the opposite of mediation, but rather Essence which eternally posits its immediacy, whence it eternally returns to itself. Immediately therefore God is only Nature. In other words. Nature is only the inner God who is not actual as Spirit and consequently not veritable God.—Or again in thought—in first thought—God is only Pure Being, or else Essence or the abstract Absolute, but not God as Absolute Spirit, which alone is the veritable nature of God.

3. The first of the identities of Inner and Outer which we considered is the foundation, indifferent to the distinction of these determinations as to a form external to it,—the identity as Content. The second is the unmediated identity of their distinction, the immediate conversion of each into its opposite,—the identity as pure Form. But these two identities are only the sides of one totality; or, the totality itself is but the conversion of one into the other. The totality, as foundation and content, is this intro-reflected immediacy only by virtue of the presupposing Reflection of form which transcends their distinction and posits itself, as against it, as indifferent identity or reflected unity. Or, content is form itself in so far as the latter determines itself as variety and constitutes itself one of its sides as externality, but constitutes itself the other (Inner) as intro-reflected immediacy.

Conversely, the distinctions of form, Inner and Outer, are hereby posited each in itself as the totality of itself and its Other. Inner, as simple intro-reflected identity, is the immediate, and consequently is as much Being and externality as Essence; and Outer, as manifold and determinate Being, is only Outer, that is, it is posited as unessential and as having passed back into its Ground,—in other words, as Inner. This transition of each into the other is their immediate identity as foundation; but also it is their mediated identity; for each is through its Other what it is in itself, the totality of the Relation. Or conversely the determinateness of each side is mediated with the other determinateness through the fact that in itself it is the totality; thus the totality mediates itself with itself through form or determinateness, and the determinateness mediates itself through its simple self-identity.

That, therefore, which Something is, it is wholly in its externality; its externality is its totality—it is equally its intro-reflected unity. Its Appearance is not only Reflection into other, but into self, and consequently its externality is the manifestation of that which it is in itself. Thus its content and its form are utterly identical, and therefore in and for itself it is just the fact of its self-manifestation. It is the revelation of its Essence in such a manner that this Essence simply consists in this, that it is that which reveals itself.

Essential Relation, in this identity of Appearance with Inner or Essence, has determined itself as Actuality.