An Unfinished Essay on New System

The Sublime Beings: Remod A Brief Outline of New System

Preface

Sublime Beings: Remod is an essay I wrote a year ago, when I was trying to stretch like glue the system of Hegelian thinking to its maximum abstract level.While I no longer agree with everything the essay proposes, I think it’s still very interesting for sure. I decided to publish it because of the upcoming essay I am going to release soon. 

The essay is mostly about ontology, some terms are unclear and will be discarded in the next essay. This is the first essay to explain “New System” and it’s not greatly understandable. Introductory essays to the system will be written for readers who do not understand.

Oh, and the essay is unfinished. The third Section was never completed. 

Methodology in Spirit:Section I

Proper Method

We owe our thinking, in large, to Hegel. Where his thinking leads, we try to meet the ends. The proper method of thinking, now towards history and art, muddied by the confusion of contemporary nihilistic thinkers and self refuting “Hegelians” tarnishes the proper analysis of existence. To begin, there comes the abstraction of category over principle. The abstract form is the identity of thinking towards something. Thought creates an identity for itself, that equals to itself as the object of its consciousness. Once it realizes Truth in the world, it makes that truth the object of perception. The trap is in the thought towards the internal logic of the identity itself. The thing in the world, rather than being something prior to man or something ahead of man, is related precisely to man. Man in himself knows the thing to be a being for another being, and yet the thing is known to be a being in itself. Thus, there is both object and subject, and neither collapses, for both know each other in order to know the truth. Truth, therefore, is a relation. All relations are subject to the mediation between each related being, which melt into organic nature. The organ sublates each motion and individual relation as the truth of itself. This is the organism known as history. When man therefore knows Truth, it is that he knows himself in the world, and knows the organ he is within. Thus, science in its ultimate form is the organ of Truth, which is the natural relations between truths that sublate to make Truth itself an identity to know. 

History is the organ of movement between relations. This is man realizing himself by realizing what concretely he is and what makes him concretely what he is. Both in the concrete relations and in his immanent relation to the concrete, is exposed purely the nature of Man himself as his own essence. For the essence of man’s relations is an extension of the meaning inherent to the relations Man makes. He is not divided from the world, he is precisely within it. History is this organism that unfolds these relations. History is not therefore an internally consistent principle of reason, and neither is Truth. A thing bears negative relation to its positing. It exists exactly by not being posited, and instead being sublated by relation. Therefore, an abstraction such as constitutionalism does not realize the actual function of a country, and only dwells in the negative form of the “Constitution” of a country, dividing the truth of the nation from itself by revealing the inorganic structure of a nation as compared to the national-unity of the constitution and the movement of real relations in upholding this constitution as the truth of the constitution itself. Only then, as this being for another being, is the constitution a thing. In this separation of Internal consistency versus the flux of relation, there is lost the actual property of the “constitution itself”. Thus, thinking towards Truth in history requires a “Scientific” thinking, where truth does not negate itself in one side of the dialectic between each distinction and separate relation. This is our method of history.

Now we will commence a proper study and analysis of ontology, that I have referred to as Actology.

                            Towards Actology: Section II 

                                           Reflexivity

Tirelessly, you must circle the question first and foremost, of “What is thinking” which dominates the realm of thought itself. Thought formed from itself as a being separate from the essential moment of thinking itself; inverse perception, generates the relation of thinking to thinking. Hegel’s thinking is realized in Force, in Understanding moving through Force, and the constitution of Law, which generates the knowledge of difference, viz. Gravity or Motion. Hegel’s consciousness realizes itself in this moment where it must realize itself in the relation of the law as a subject over the law. Knowing itself collapses the inner world. However, it is a motion through the inner world. Because the realization of Law vs dynamism, is only the realization of the dynamic perception of flux (difference to difference) and change as Law over itself, to discover the solicitation of difference as beings rather than the One. Elevate Hegel to the concrete world. Perception is a relation to being itself. So is Self-Consciousness in itself where it relates to Law now as the identity of its own Understanding. The vanishing of Understanding is not the abolition of the different processes of consciousness in the Self. It is the vanishing of the difference of identity between the ‘Truth’ and the ‘Observation’. This does not contradict Self-Consciousness’ process. Self-Consciousness is the unity of ‘meaning’ and the identity of understanding. Meaning directs itself towards the positing of being and it’s negative as a universal mediation, but it is only in being-itself where the object of meaning exists. It is not in only this consciousness that meaning exists. Hegel’s law does not simply extend to the perceptual, it extends to the meaningful. Flux and change does not exist in the Law of Non-Contradiction by means of formal logic. Non-Contradiction necessarily contradicts something of it’s relation in order to generate meaning. But this process does not exist. This is the unknown “Law” of Hegel, where Hegel falls into the Blind-Rational. No such movement exists between contradictions to reach meaning itself. Yes, meaning is retrocausal, it arrives upon itself before it’s creation via being and difference, but it is the retrocausality itself that is already dependent upon meaning, within thinking itself. Meaning is the presupposition of the movement to create itself… 

Meaning is therefore not arrived upon by contradiction. Contradiction arrives upon meaning.

                                       Truth as Transcendental Condition

Truth shares differences from meaning. It is because Meaning is aimed towards the specificity of an object, while Truth precludes the manifold objects, because Truth as a category is the register where objects lie within. However, Truth is itself created by Meaning. Meaning refers to the path and purpose of Objects, as well as the purpose of all objects in each other. However, this necessarily supposes Meaning as a thing of it’s own. Necessarily, all Objects share meaning, which means Meaning is the Common medium all objects share. However, Meaning can not be an Object, having a specific content which negates other content, neither can it be Being alone, as it necessarily specifies things, while Being alone can not grant specificity to things. Being gives common grounding to things, while Meaning grants specific meaning to things. This poses the question, whether Meaning is a universal at all, rather than simply a grouping of separate meanings. As the specificity of things being an object in itself negates specificity. But this makes the meaning of things separate in their meanings from other objects' meanings, which is a self collapsing system. Because then the meaning of a single thing can not bear relation to the meaning of another if it shares in a non-relation, which means one’s meaning does not build towards others. 

In other words, Meaning must be universal. With meaning being universal, it absolutely transcends the limit of individuality, wherein its specific meanings determines Meaning. For a specific meaning negates other meanings to give life to its object, and to give life to other meanings, and therefore does not behave like Meaning which moves in all things as the Universal notion of Meaning. But this negates specific meanings for a universal shared Meaning. But here, it negates what Meaning is. For Meaning would become for itself, only either its negations between things to form meanings, or itself only in itself as “Meaning”. In other words, a “Meaning-this” or a “Whole-Meaning”. The issue is, the “Meaning-this” gives color to the “Whole-Meaning” and the “Whole-Meaning” includes the Meaning-this in its vanishing from this into its category (Whole) as a truth. But here, we have another issue. Meaning would in itself be “Nothing”, for it’s Whole is only in negating things, as a Whole that is not many but Complete, while meanings always signify the incompleteness of themselves, necessarily to give other meanings. Any meaning that is “complete” totally, would be complete in its ultimate sense (we do not mean complete as itself, we mean complete as the completeness of reality), which would make all other objects unnecessary or the totality of all other objects the meaning of this particular object. Therefore, it can’t be the sum of meanings, for that includes the complete object which means its incompleteness. On the other hand, it can’t all be a Meaning-this, for that would negate its own thisness by negating otherness. In other words, other meanings could not give it definition proper as a “this” for this only exists truly in being something other than “that”.

Therefore, Meaning can’t be universal.

Meaning is contradictory and insufficient to explain itself as an object. This leaves only 2 possible interpretations: Meaning is non-being, which would mean it does not hold territory as a thing or an object and is the non-existence of a thing’s real completeness, which would make the universal Meaning itself Non-being or Incompleteness. On the other hand, it could point towards Meaning being transcendent and above Reality, which would signify Reality’s incompleteness in the face of Meaning’s wholeness. The answer is contained within both. This is signified by the One’s dialectical phenomenology; or, the concealed ness of the unconcealed. The One of pure Real both signifies Incompleteness in itself, and is whole in comparison to the incompleteness of reality. In this way, neither is actually incomplete, but relates via a middle term, Incompleteness, which is a phenomenological dialectics. In this way, the plain reality is the incompleteness, as it is itself real, and yet it is real as the object which discloses beings to meaning. Oneness, in other words, is not the pure nature of the One, but a self-real experience of reality via incompleteness. 

 Truth is therefore a transcendental category of phenomenological disclosure. It is conditioned as a transcendental category of meaning, which is experienced before Meaning, to disclose the completeness of the Oneness and realize then it’s meaning and incompleteness.Truth is not bound to Reason, it binds Reason, as Reason is the rejection of outward Incompleteness and completes itself by Inner Truth alone. Reason, therefore, makes Meaning whole, which precisely makes Meaning meaningless. The real object of Truth is the disclosure of plain expedient Meaning in an isolated form from its otherness through the middle term of incompleteness, which only the philosopher or poet grasps in order to extend the position of Meaning to the transcendental. This is why the Poet is a centralizer, he opens the concealed, makes the Unconcealed on the face of the earth. The poet is, for his work, immeasurably greater than the philosopher. The greatest poet is he who makes his word the common language of the people. Thus, the greatest poet is he who expands language to become New, opening language in a new direction. Common language is the condition which Truth precludes and reproduces itself from. The poet makes Common Language an expression in itself of something to disclose the Incompleteness in its phenomenological disclosure as “plain reality” which implies the pure essential reality of it as a thing, rather than related to the metaphysical principle of Language as form.

Truth is therefore, a moment of Reality, or something real. But it is only a moment because Truth’s moment is the division enacted by the Incompleteness which defines the relation between Reality and Meaning. Truth is the object of the isolated materials of both Reality and Meaning behind the Middle terms, and is a Phenomenon of the disclosure of Oneness, or “experience of the One”.

                                             The Insufficiency of all “Being-Systems”

Therefore, both One and Oneness relate to each other via their proper relation as Essence and Disclosed-Essence, or “Experience of the plain reality” which is neither empirical or transcendental, but plain and bare. This is clear in that, all proposition, even behind its presupposition, does not presuppose itself as being, but simply is Being. This “Simple-I” is the disclosure of the One’s phenomenological dialectics. Then, from this plain-reality, the Simple-I grasps that such a relation between One and Oneness exists in such a way as it is necessary that there be Dyad, or the relation between 2: Essence and its disclosure. Then, the Simple-I, discovers in itself, that it forms a Triad, wherein Simple-I grasps difference and unity between Essence and phenomenon. Therefore, Essence, its disclosure, and difference are all Three necessary objects in order to form the plane of Subjectivity, for disclosure into a subject will always require the third, the Difference. This is what we can know as Knowledge.

The conceit of all Philosophy: that it knows anything at all, that it truly knows anything at all. This is its limit with which it is struck by the wrath of itself. Knowledge, per se, is itself for itself. The limit of Knowledge stands above Knowledge itself. All Knowledge is the Afterimage of Truth and Meaning, only acting upon its image. For us, Knowledge assumes a thing in Being to be called outside of its pure Being into the realm of relation. However, it discovers that the relation which it strives to make, has already been made. “plain reality” displays this inherent quality already, that there was already a Triad before there was even disclosure, before there was a subject. But this discovery is itself, the subjective conditions of the discriminating subject. “plain reality”, therefore, lacks grounding in itself to be experienced. 

A subject discriminates upon its own Being, scourging its pre-conscious consciousness, or the spirit of pre-modern Dwelling. Dwelling is the first object of the situation, wherein every non-being finds its content. Dwelling is a totally speculative thing, in terms of no one can possess actual knowledge about what Dwelling is. Dwelling, however, is the principal object of new inquiry. Dwelling is the principle of the poet, and the reality of Silence. Dwelling, in our chapter of Actology itself, holds the chief position. Here, it only serves to illustrate the subject’s destruction of its origins. The subject bars and washes away What was, or in truth What-Is. Therefore, all moments are a suspension of an existing unconscious reality which, in some sense, is frozen in time, and yet superseding the subject. The subject’s own movement away, it’s scourging, is part of this movement, wherein a suspended, concurrent reality, immanent and imminent, realizes itself through the barred conditions of this subject. In these terms, we call the real One and its plain disclosure, the movement of Notion, and declare the truth of all things in their Notion. Thus, when I claim Oneness is only the experience of the One, it is to say that the One’s truth, dwelling in the Incompleteness, in its own nature is suspended to this conceptual realm. However, the Middle term of Oneness, is the only uniform complete mode. Oneness is the only unified One by nature of Phenomenological dialectics; the eidetic object of the concealed is the completeness signified. Thus, the Absolute’s movement is thought to be the Notion. Instead, Notion is the thing which closes the One by rendering new terms, defeating Oneness briefly. In truth, the One is not truly One, only in its experience is it One. We do not give definition to what One is in itself, as itself is characterized only by it’s disclosure of Oneness. This problem is to consider, for a more detailed work on Actology specifically. 

“plain reality”, as the human term to describe Incompleteness, experiences for itself bare Things, and does not suffer to feel Incompleteness, for it has already passed and accepted it in itself, though not openly or determinately. For “plain reality”, it does not have a negative. It is indifferent to itself, is not real for itself, and so vanishes at the sight of any positive or negative consciousness or movement. Actually, it is better to say that there is no “itself” of “plain reality”, for “plain reality” even in speaking is only a reference to the thing which has no other name or relation. Therefore, we know it only in seeing it as the negative of everything else, even though that itself does not do it justice. In truth, “plain reality”, serving as the phenomenological disclosure of One, and not Oneness, is only referent by nature of us having no other reference like it, and at the same time unlike it. It is neither positive, nor negative, but vanishes upon the subject’s arrival. At the same time, “plain reality” is the epistemological position for Dwelling, which is, to say, a pure history of Nothingness for the pure existence which grounds Thingness. However, the issue of this thinking is, it seems to ground impossible statements within language, the Thing it precedes. How can we, therefore, speak of this at all? Because to not speak of it, precisely brings us there. And this is the work of the master poet, and the work of a prophet. This is the weakness of all Being-systems.

Being-systems are totalizing systems of Subjective Reason to give Being a full form as if it becomes totally accommodated for. These systems seek to break the chain of distinctions and Incompleteness by recognizing the imprint of Reason alone to distinguish it, and make it whole, giving it breath through the zone of totalizing Idealism. In other words, Idealism is the syllogism, which gives to content, a final form.

Being-Systems are also maximizing systems of extension, wherein Being is supposed to be stripped bare of all characteristics and contents in order to come to its true content, what it truly contains, and means for subjectivity. According to any Being-System, all things colored by subjectivity must share in the propositions of subjectivity, and come around to subjectivity.

                                    Indiscrete Movement: Problems of Nothingness

Indiscrete Movement will be covered at various places, alongside the problem of Dwelling.

Nothingness moves; This is the paradox of Nothingness, that it is called, and it is  moving. Indiscrete Movement is the rough movement: Things in their pure form of relation and movement, without the furnishing of subjectivity. It is the pre-existing movement not latent with form. It is not subjectivity which makes this relation, for subjectivity before it’s self-scourging is this relation, outside of itself. The Subject is a pre-subjective being incorporated into the movement. It is pure unmediated self. Even the self pervades itself, the Subject does not contaminate it’s own Self with a pure Subjectivity. In the Pure Subject which tarries the line across Being and Nothing, where it marks its subject by negation, and yet separates that separation from its own pure “Notion”, we discover the abstraction of the pure negative Notion. The empty universal of Subjectivity in itself, holds absolutely nothing on its own account. Only when the Subject comes and realizes something as the Object qua a universal Subjectivity, then this empty universal plays into the zone of the “Notion”.

The individual Subject is not empty, neither a nothing or a negation, but its specific subjectivizing contains a negation of its Dwelling. Dwelling here, is not Otherness, neither Notion. It is Something Else.

In its initial form, Thing is the pure negative of the negative. It is nothing like Nothing, and therefore is not Nothing. Therefore, for Thing, there can not be Nothing itself for it, as Thing’s law of identity (Which, alongside Non-Contradiction, we have limited to a certain realm) presupposes the negation from Nothingness. According to a popular philosopher, Hegel, Nothingness is itself the necessary relation which brings Being into Thing through Difference. This is because Hegel determines Being to be indeterminate, and Nothing to be indeterminate as well. For Hegel, Nothingness is within a triad from which emerges Becoming- the final series in the triad. This is the Logic of pure negativity. Nothingness’ is indeterminate, and negation is the determinate specific negative of a determinate content. But this is the first problem of Nothingness. In the specific negation, the Nothingness itself is a pure negative to the negation. The determinate negation, in it’s negativity, is nothing like Nothingness, and does not hold Nothingness itself for itself. Instead, the Nothingness is itself negative  of a determinate negative. But for this matter, it is then clear that determinacy is itself negative to itself. For Nothingness is not indeterminate, as determinate negation is itself positing a determinate being. Nothingness is not indeterminate, for there is no determinate Nothing. Determinate Nothing is itself Indeterminate content, for it is determined to be, and therefore has a certain Not-this, but in it’s not-this, it’s own being is simply Not-in-itself, which would mean it is not within what the determinate negative is, but is precisely what is not in it. This is, simply put, indeterminate generality posing as Something. In other words, it is the being of Something without its content, which is why Nothingness is simply Nothing-for-it, as it is not Nothing in a specific negative form, but is only the positing of Nothingness in ‘something,’ to claim its own emptiness. The determinate particular instantiation of “Not it” itself is indeterminate, because it posits its own “Not” which has no thing of its own. And yet, it poses a general stance of being a thing. This must be resolved by positing a negation of negation: A move away from the  indeterminacy of the calling out to being itself in its Incompleteness, and a strive towards a specific “What-is'' wherein the negative becomes “Not” the case on it’s own. In here, to respond to a specific emptiness, or an indeterminate emptiness with a determinate “What” or Not(Not(A) is the totality of the categories that ground something as a determinate object. In other words, what is Not the case, is not the case, which returns us to what the case is. But here, we run into another problem of Nothingness. Here we are not concerned with judgment of a being in itself, but what other objects form from negation. So now we are looking on the other side of the negative to see determinate objects formed.

Returning to our critique of Nothingness’ relation to negative, negative is the entered emptiness of something rather than Nothing, because within itself it is entered into Something as its “not” or contradiction. Therefore, the negation is simply the position of an Incompleteness within a thing. It is only negative in relation to Nothingness itself. In other words, indeterminateness is not only related to general Being and Nothingness, but Things. Indeterminate Something is something, though it is, in relation to content, a negation. So, what is a negation of negation? 

A negation of negation is not the case for a not the case. In other words, an object is expanded out of the term of what it is not, so it subsumes what it isn't as what it isn't. Here, there is a subtle transformation, from Indeterminate Something, to a Determinate Something. When we first negate the object (This is not), we declare that it is not something else, but we do not declare what it is, and so stand upon an indetermination. However, we don’t have the determination of what the Thing it is not, is. It is because that thing stands in pure negativity as an indeterminate itself, while the thing by means of negation has been determined. However, when we turn to the object formed from the negative, indeed it is defined by its determinate negativity of the prior Something, but it itself only has definition in this negative as the “Not-this' ' of the thing, and therefore is empty. The negation of negation is both return and deference, moving like a contracting wave from one to the other. This is the resolution of a negative; the Not-This is determined within specificity, by being challenged as a being, claiming it is Not(Not-This). In broader terms, categories are negatives of negatives, specific indeterminates, universal particulars. In one stroke, negation of negation returns to the content of the Thing, and also defers it to a category. But this does not erase the Not-This. Within the category, the Not-This is subsumed within the Things content. For example, to state that a thing  lacks space, is to speak of an indeterminate thing, space, which seems to be infinite and all encompassing in its negative quality. To establish the limitations, however, of how much space is needed, gives the space definition in relation to the Thing’s own capacity of space itself, subsuming the space of the Thing itself within the demand for “more space”. This, while returning to the Thing’s space, also defers and subsumes the lack of space as a “lack” of a specific space. Moving out of the Thing’s own space, though we are referring to a universal concept of Space which can be understood outside reference to the Thing, the Thing subsumes the Space-of-itself into it’s own definition, as lacking, and therefore, having a capacity for space. Before, it only lacked space, which itself means nothing until we clarify the Thing’s relation to space, and say that it is not that it lacks space, but specific and determined space. Therefore, it is not the case that it does not have space. This preserves the fact that the Thing does not possess space, but also defeats the concept that it does not possess Space. However, is this negation of negation? Well, we are now, for indiscrete movement, there, as we have fixed our fixed understanding of difference. Negation of negation must be something after this initial movement. However, this is where the Problem of Nothingness becomes superseded by Indiscrete Movement. The problem of Nothingness must be confronted later on, perhaps in a longer work on this specific problem itself.

    Section III: Actology

World-Making: Meaning

At every expense of thinking, logic, consistency, Beauty must be exhausted. No other thing is of as much importance.

The Beauty of Thinking’s simple place is without consistency, without necessity, simply put, a perfect beauty without any origin outside of its own self. Yet, we must know that it is the Dwelling we are speaking of. This is the non-existent Oneness’ which is, in truth, the only thing from which knowledge of being emerges. This is the center of honesty, earnestness, and faith: Often defined by their radical existence in the face of things that contradict them, such as lies, cold-heartedness, and skepticism. The center-of-reality emerges from the ground: It is a legislation which treats facts as a system rather than disjointed or separate facts. Think of any index, any financial ledger, which organizes information together within a system, bringing together separate facts to generate a whole “story”. This is a center-of-reality.

Dwelling does not need to unite ideas together, it doesn’t need to bring forward separate truths to make a whole story. Dwelling, in its proximity to Disclosure of Oneness (Phenomenological Dialectics), doesn’t see or sense a whole and a part. For it, the experience of Oneness alone is all that is One alone. Even the One itself is not really One, we are only disclosing a One. We would only see Wholes and parts as Incompleteness permeating into Being. But Dwelling in the World, we do not feel this as some necessity of truth or reality. One can simply be without conditions, not because he is some Being outside of those conditions, but because those conditions originate from that Being-itself. So, in a sense, we know the truth of Silence and Freedom, and some would confess that Silence and Freedom are one and the same.  Here is the origin of Art. All good Art, however composed of words, letters, structures, and so forth, are pieces attempting to express pure and noble things free from the restrictions of language.

The One does not fall under the identity “one” in a plain sense. Neither are we referring to “it” in any real sense, as we are not claiming “it” to “be”, or claiming some sort of One as Plato or Plotinus would have imagined, a henology or pure God. No, we are speaking of “plain reality”, and therefore speaking of Dwelling. The structure of this does not exist. That’s why one can never actually really say What “One” is. And yet, it is this absence of existence, which colors and makes whole, Existence. The “One” essentially speaking, is the Unbound. Any disclosure of the “One” enters into reality as “Something”. Necessarily, that Something has a whole of itself. And yet, that whole is actually Incompleteness, as it is not an absolute