[207/42] Stb: The UC is *like* a spirt, in that it contains two parts, and also their unity. But it is not aware of this, and so experiences itself as both, then as one when it identifies itself as both, but thus returns again. The “two” I’m referring to are self as immutable and self as mutable (via the duplication, as #206 calls it, of skepticism).
[208] Returning movements: It sees the two parts as essential/immutable vs unessential. But first sees itself as unessential since it is aware of the contradiction, but then as the unchanging awareness becomes associated to the essential, and tries to rid itself of the unessential but that would mean being free of itself, since its essence is to contain both of them. Thus:
“But inasmuch as the two are equally essential to the Unhappy Consciousness and are mutually contradictory, that consciousness is merely the contradictory movement in which the opposite does not come to rest in its opposite, but only generates itself anew in it as an opposite.” -R
– This doesn’t seem to defy the individual, and what was called by H the unessential/changing, is not called the “individual consciousness”, which seems to be narrowing the gap btw the dichotomy that started this chapter.
[210] Thus the changeless becomes linked to individuality. But (the narrator? says) there are 3 ways for this association: (1) if the changeless emerges, thus resetting the contradictory movements, (2) when c perceives individuality in the changeless {as happened #209}, and (3) when c “finds itself as this individual in the element of the changeless”. Conclude: (1) is nothing, as the changless is still alien to the c and is the judge of it, (2) shows changless qua form of individuality, and (3) this allows this to occur via spirit.
– And then H says, this is all premature, something to do with this being an unchangeable, not per se, but of c.
———————
Q[212/47] “Through the nature of the existing One, through the actuality it has acquired, it necessarily happens that it has vanished in time, and having been remote in space it simply remains remote.”
IS THIS WHAT TAYLOR MEANT when he spoke about the crusades!!!????
[49] seems to be indicating the trinity..
—–
“So when we say that a cultural phenomenon, such as religion, is the outward projection of individual psychic elements, what we mean is that we must regard culture as the epiphenomenon of consciousness, in the dialectical clash between its component essences (not forces) .”
“Unable to grasp itself in any conclusive manner, the Unhappy Consciousness finds a way of saying what it must on another plane-religion.”
.Enter scene: Hegel’s uhc
—–
“229 . Through these moments of surrender, first of its right to decide for itself, then of its property and enjoyment, and finally through the positive moment of practising what it does not understand, it truly and completely deprives itself of the consciousness of inner and outer freedom, of the actuality in which consciousness exists for itself. It has the certainty of having truly divested itself of its ‘/’, and of having turned its immediate self-consciousness into a Thing, into an objective existence.”
230 “For the surrender of one’s own will is only from one aspect negative; in principle, however, or in itself, it is at the same time positive, viz. the positing of will as the will of an ‘other’, and specifically of will, not as a particular, but as a universal will.”
230 LL “But in this object, in which it finds that its own action and being, as being that of this particular consciousness, are being and action in themselves, there has arisen for consciousness the idea of Reason, of the certainty that, in its particular individuality, it has being absolutely in itself, or is all reality.”
