So, negation is important because there is no motion forward without it. The Notion is not an explanation but an activity. It is not "automatic" as a process. If it was, then it would already be appropriated like a Category of Reason. — Valentinus

I think that is correct and is a consistent feature throughout.The latest in para 32 and 33:

32:

However, the life of spirit is not a life that is fearing death and austerely saving itself from ruin; rather, it bears death calmly, and in death, it sustains itself. Spirit only wins its truth by finding its feet in its absolute disruption. Spirit is not this power which, as the positive, avoids looking at the negative, as is the case when we say of something that it is nothing, or that it is false, and then, being done with it, go off on our own way on to something else. No, spirit is this power only by looking the negative in the face and lingering with it. This lingering is the magical power that converts it into being. — Hegel

33:

Nowadays the task before us consists not so much in purifying the individual of the sensuously immediate and in making him into a thinking substance which has itself been subjected to thought; it consists instead in doing the very opposite. It consists in actualizing and spiritually animating the universal through the sublation of fixed and determinate thoughts. — Hegel

Unfortunately, the only Hugo I've read is "Les Miserables," which I read in French in high school.
— T Clark

That's some assignment! — SophistiCat

Hah. That's nothing. Try translating prescribed Latin texts for a Higher qualification.
https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/67252.html

Let me put in a plug now for LibriVox, which has free downloadable audiobooks of writing in the public domain read by volunteers, some of whom are wonderful. I also listened to William James' "Pragmatism," which I highly recommend. — T Clark

Good call. You wouldn't be part of the 'wonderful', would you ?
I think some voices are easier to listen to than others.
And some can act the parts really well. Seamlessly.

faust handschuh. — T Clark

What ? Goethe's gloves - Faust 1 and 2 ?

You're really searching back through the rubbish bin, I mean archives. — T Clark

Consider me a T Clark stalker :snicker: :love: :gasp:
I mean 'follower' of wisdom :nerd: :smile: :sparkle:

My word for today is "woebegone." - looking sad, pitiful. A friend was having a bad day yesterday and I described her this way. Feels good to say. Elicits an image in my mind of whomever I am talking about with an expression like Eeyore's. Reminds me of German - they build their words like brick walls, one word on top of another. Love German.

So, please contribute. Let's keep it to English. — T Clark

No, nein- that's not right, richtig. Contributes to narrow-minded Brexiteernicity :naughty:

I love German too.
'Ausgezeichnet' is a favourite of mine. It's outtasight. It feels good and bright. Far out, man :cool:

Afraid to say I never listened to him before. But now I have. Thanks :sparkle:

Bryan Magee and Peter Singer on 'Hegel and Marx'. 43 mins.

https://youtu.be/C9SUYhdivn0

Yes, I think the question is - what kind of a philosopher. And what more besides...

Schopenhauer had a personal animosity towards him. Illustrated in a cartoon and brief summary from existential comics.

Schopenhauer was quite bitter about Hegel's success, apparently in part due to a particular incident where both of them had a philosophy seminar scheduled at the same time, and everyone went to Hegel's, leaving his pretty much totally empty. Some choice quotes from Schopenhauer on Hegel:

"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of an whole generation."
- The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 (1844)

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/40

Source of light-hearted thought for the day:
'Sorry, I only date dialectical idealists'.

I read mostly fiction - "serious" literature, with a bit of light fare for when I am too exhausted or distraught for more demanding stuff. I rarely read book-length non-fiction - I just don't value most of it enough to prioritize it over fiction. I was a bit surprised to see Amity and others referring to reading fiction almost as if it was cheating at reading. On the contrary, I have always associated "reading" with fiction books, first and foremost. — SophistiCat

Surprised at being picked out in this way. Fiction as 'cheating at reading' ?! What on earth ?
Reading fiction is where I began. Children's Bible stories, the Parables of Jesus and Louisa M. Alcott.
To name just a few. I read 'Black Beauty' in the bath for God's sake :roll:
The local library meant I no longer had to read and reread the same books I received as gifts.

However all this reading did me no good when it came to learning the subject 'English' at High School.
It took a special, inspirational teacher to get me through...
It takes something extra to read carefully and to extract meaning, philosophical or otherwise.
And then to write about it.

Hope to have set your mind at ease, SophistiCat ?

Ah OK.
Russell, Quine, Hume, Socrates, Davidson, Searle, Reichenbach, Mach, Nozick, Ayer, Feyerabend, Achille Varzi, Foucault, Santayana.

What is it about them that makes them 'good philosophers' - from your point of view ?
And why wouldn't you have Hegel amongst them ?

Astonishing and controversial claims is what our idiotic net driven public discourse craves for and will be the ones that are picked up — ssu

Yeah, true enough. So, this idiot picked it up through a particular desire to find out more about Hegel.
It caught my eye, as intended. A first sentence leading to more...

Another point of view would be if the present we don't see anything important in Hegel's works or something equivalent. — ssu

Yes. That would be another way to come at Hegel. What is your view ?

I'd say the word "good" was forgotten. Hegel is not a good philosopher. :joke: — Terrapin Station

What or who is your idea of a good philosopher ?
Or even that boring old question of 'What is a philosopher ?' :yawn:
Why would anyone say Hegel is not a philosopher, good or otherwise ?

Thoughts and questions from a very different Magee. RIP.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6404/rip-bryan-magee

Bryan Magee and Peter Singer on 'Hegel and Marx'. 43 mins.

https://youtu.be/C9SUYhdivn0

Trying to avoid a total sidetrack here, I had thought to start a new thread entitled ' Hegel is not a philosopher !' ( using Magee's quote ) *
However, I note this has been discussed before:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/517/mysticism/p1

This is a passage from Hegel which I think is particularly relevant, quoted in the book I am reading, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Magee thinks Hegel uses mytho-poetic language to "encircle" or "circle around" his subjects with concrete images to gain speculative knowledge of them, rather than trying to think them in the determinate language of abstract conceptualization. So we get a picture, but no definitive propositional-type claims are made about the subject and there always remains mystery.

I hope this can be opened; I didn't have time to type it out; I'm pretty pressed at the moment.

Attachment
Hegel Passage(344K) — Janus

* Done.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6430/hegel-is-not-a-philosopher-thoughts-

How much of what he claims can be found in the texts? — Fooloso4

Indeed. And that is a timely reminder to return to the Preface.
The alternative perspectives and interpretations are fascinating.
To be followed up outwith this thread, I think.
Thanks to all.

That's why, in my opinion, Aristotelian philosophy is enjoying a revival particularly in the biological sciences. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Where is the evidence for this ?

Actually I want to comment on one phrase from the SEP quote I provide:

"For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else."

I think it would be rather better to paraphrase it like this: that as all originates from a common source, then every being reflects or is an aspect of that source. The analogy of ‘basic energies’ is rather materialist for my liking. I also think my paraphrase is nearer in meaning to Hegel. — Wayfarer

I think this fascinating. Yet again, I am tempted beyond the Preface. I won't pursue this in great detail here...but important to bear in mind as I progress my understanding of Hegel. Thanks.

Before returning to the Preface mountainside...

Just one question - why do you think your paraphrase is nearer in meaning to Hegel ?
I don't understand your objection to 'basic energies'.
Have you read this ?

Another parallel between Hermeticism and Hegel is the doctrine of internal relations. For the Hermeticists, the cosmos is not a loosely connected, or to use Hegelian language, externally related set of particulars. Rather, everything in the cosmos is internally related, bound up with everything else. Even though the cosmos may be hierarchically arranged, there are forces that cut across and unify all the levels. Divine powers understood variously as “energy” or “light” pervade the whole.  — Glenn Magee

Hegel's Preface :
Magee starts off with this astonishing claim:

Hegel is not a philosopher. He is no lover or seeker of wisdom — he believes he has found it. Hegel writes in the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, “To help bring philosophy closer to the form of Science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title of ‘love of knowing’ and be actual knowledge — that is what I have set before me” (Miller, 3; PC, 3). By the end of the Phenomenology, Hegel claims to have arrived at Absolute Knowledge, which he identifies with wisdom. — Glenn Magee

Didn’t notice you’d already referenced Wallace! Only responded to the post above my reply. — Wayfarer

No worries.
My turn to confess :yikes:
I only found the article by following your previous link to it elsewhere. I should have acknowledged that.
From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2384/page/p1
"There's an article by Robert M. Wallace, Hegel's God, although some of it is pretty murky, in my opinion. But it is introduced with the statement that ' 'Large numbers of people both within traditional religions and outside them are looking for non-dogmatic ways of thinking about transcendent reality', of which Hegel's philosophy of religion is given as an example".— Wayfarer

But there's a huge amount of study involved in all of those issues, and I've only skimmed the surface. But I think it is possible to identify aspects the Hegelian 'absolute' with both the 'first mover' of Aristotle, and also with the One of neo-platonism (feasibly a kind of 'world soul'). — Wayfarer

Thanks for this. It is just what I was looking for. A way to understand Hegel and his spirit.

There's a strong element of mysticism in German idealism, particularly Hegel, Schelling and Fichte, and to a lesser extent Kant and Schopenhauer. Now, the very word 'mysticism' is a pejorative to a lot of people, it's seen as the opposite of rigorous philosophy. But the true mystics are actually very rigorous in their own way. — Wayfarer

I am quite attracted to this way of looking at the world. I mentioned Goethe earlier. He is not a philosopher as such but a worthy nevertheless.

I will read the SEP entry later but this part seems to capture the process well:

With the belief that acts of self-consciousness exemplify a self-creative process akin to divine creation, and developing a logic that reflects the structure of self-consciousness, namely, the dialectical logic of position, opposition and reconciliation (sometimes described as the logic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis),

Also have a glance at this article
https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Hegels_God — Wayfarer

Have done :smile: See earlier post. I found it helpful.

Fine.

Correct me if I’m confused. — Noah Te Stroete

If you are confused, then join the club. I am the last person to be correcting anyone.
Have you read the Preface ? Have you read the thread ? Have you perused any particular paragraph ?
It's easy to drop in by with some insight or opinion without any previous signs of commitment.
I think that is what Tim was guarding against at the beginning. There are rules !

Returning again to this:

I was struck by this phrase in #6:

" If, namely, the True exists only in what, or better as what, is sometimes called intuition, sometimes immediate knowledge of the Absolute, religion or being - not at the centre of divine love but the being of the divine love itself - then what is required in the exposition of philosophy is, from this viewpoint, rather the opposite of the form of the Notion. For the Absolute is not supposed to be comprehended, it is to be felt and intuited; not the Notion of the Absolute, but the feeling and intuition of it, must govern what is said, and must be expressed by it" - Hegel.

The bolded sentence seems obviously mystical to me; it seems suggestive of Eckhardt. — Wayfarer

@Wayfarer, your post intrigued me at the time and I think I did try to respond to it but inadequately.
I understand that you didn't have the time to participate in the reading or group discussion.
However, I would be interested to hear your views on Hegel and his position on God.
What he means by the Absolute. It seems to change from something mystical to the more concrete.
Perhaps from the real feel to the theoretical ?

From Gardner's glossary:

ABSOLUTE adj.,n. (absolute, das Absolute). Complete, self-contained, all-encompassing. Per Inwood, the Absolute 'is not something underlying the phenomenal world, but the conceptual system embedded in it'. — Amity

I'm happy to slow down. — tim wood

It's OK whatever you decide to do. I will either continue in my own sweet way, or I won't :smile:
It will still involve clarifying or questioning the text and Hegel's thoughts - hopefully.

Returning to the question of Hegel's God. And para 23.

Some read Hegel as anti-religious and others as religious. At this point perhaps it is prudent to just suggest that Hegel sublates religion. — Fooloso4

Perhaps Goethe shares Hegel's view of continuous development. It is not simply what was said or done at the beginning, but the continued active doing. From what you presented it also seems that Goethe shares Hegel's rejection of a transcendent God who acts upon the world. — Fooloso4

23:

"The need to represent the absolute as subject has helped itself to such propositions as “God is the eternal,” or “God is the moral order of the world,” or “God is love,” etc." - Hegel.

Does Hegel intend for us to draw a connection between “God is love”, “The life of God and divine cognition ... as a game love plays with itself” (19),and the goal of philosophy as moving “nearer to the goal where it can lay aside the title of love of knowing and be actual knowing (5)? — Fooloso4

Thank you, Fooloso4, for helping me along the way. Your questions have stayed with me.
@Fooloso4 - if you, or anyone else, are still interested and have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on the PN article. Even if briefly.

Previously, I raised concerns about Hegel's apparent religiosity - the ascending staircase to the Absolute, a glorious path leading to Perfection.
Today I read this PN article which helped me better understand Hegel's position:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Hegels_God

Putting these two points together, Hegel arrives at a substitute for the conventional conception of God that he criticized. If there is a higher degree of reality that goes with being self-determining (and thus real as oneself), and if we ourselves do in fact achieve greater self-determination at some times than we achieve at other times, then it seems that we’re familiar in our own experience with some of the higher degree of reality that we associate with God. Perhaps we aren’t often aware of the highest degree of this reality, or the sum of all of this reality, which would be God himself (herself, etc.). But we are aware of some of it – as the way in which we ourselves seem to be more fully present, more fully real, when instead of just letting ourselves be driven by whatever desires we currently feel, we ask ourselves what would be best overall. We’re more fully real, in such a case, because we ourselves are playing a more active role, through thought, than we play when we simply let ourselves be driven by our current desires...

...Hegel’s conception explains and preserves two other famous features of Abrahamic religions as well. The God that Hegel describes as emerging from the world of finite things, gives to them the greatest reality of which they’re capable. In this way, Hegel’s God performs something very similar to what’s traditionally called ‘creating’. However, because this Hegelian ‘creating’ takes place throughout time, rather than only ‘in the beginning’, it doesn’t conflict with what astrophysics and biology tell us about the history of the universe.

The other feature of the Abrahamic religions that Hegel preserves is that their God in some way takes care of or ‘saves’ his creatures. The God who is free love and boundless blessedness does exactly this, though in a perhaps unfamiliar way. Hegel’s God doesn’t ‘intervene’ in the world, or in something that comes ‘after’ it; rather, Hegel’s God is omnipresent in the world, giving each of us the full reality and thus the blessedness of which we’re capable. — Robert Wallace

Do "people not read books anymore?" How harmful is this? Likewise, how important are public libraries?
Thoreau wrote a really good section of "reading"-particularly talking about the spiritual act. Most of my personal favourite authors/philosophers/theorists are also devout readers. I read somewhere that the key to writing well is reading well. — Grre

Just musing here. But let's talk about books. — Grre

People do 'read' books still. In different ways, times, places.
Public libraries are important - as is where they situated. My local has moved 3 times in my lifetime. I haven't always lived here but I know all about the library !

I discovered libraries by following a friend, aged about 5. It was part of an old institute. Next to the school. Very handy.Then, it was very austere and quite scary. Silence enforced by a stern librarian. However, I loved the magic of books and escaped into other worlds.

Much later it was a stand-alone, concrete modern thing, not so central. The librarian seemed more interested in talking about holidays and emigrating.

Currently it is part of a vibrant community centre, attached to the school.
It is amazing. Young children are introduced to the joys of reading by visiting in class.
In their joining, the librarians are part of their journey. And more besides.
And I had worried that they were dying out...

This Guardian article might be of interest to you. The comments too.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2019/aug/14/how-to-restore-your-books-habit-reading-social-media#comment-131966175

I am no longer as absorbed in reading as I once was. I lighten my load with fiction.
And yes, reading is important as an external boost to thinking. Even a short article can be thought provoking and philosophical. It don't need to be heavy.

Yes. I think many will be in a state of depression, if not worse.
What kind of philosophical view would see you through ?
West ? East ? Ancient or modern ?

I don't think it will happen as the current government in the UK is anti immigration and offering British passport to 7 million hker may be opposed on many other grounds. — Wittgenstein

I think you have an excellent grasp of the current situation.
It will not happen. Too much too late.

Thank you so much for that explanation and insight into the cultural and historical background.
I understand better what you meant by accepting a Chinese identity.
The new generation, in particular, are unlikely to surrender their freedoms without a fight.
And they have developed their own multi-varied identities.
I think that is right.

The attack at the International Airport was way worse than the attack on the legislative council building since the former one involved attacking innocent mainland tourists. They even attacked a police officer till he was knocked down and forced to draw a gun to back off the crowd. Such acts will work in favour of CCP and give them reasons to send in army for maintaining " public order " — Wittgenstein

About this attack: I watched a 13min video on Channel 4 news last night - we were pre-warned about the violence.
https://www.channel4.com/news/hong-kong-violent-clashes-paralyse-airport-for-second-day

Report by Jonathan Miller

Hong Kong airport is once again paralysed by protesters who want to see their freedoms protected. Freedoms that they were promised over 20 years ago, when the UK handed Hong Kong back to China.

But once again, what began as a peaceful demonstration has ended in chaotic violence.

Will China step in? US President Donald Trump has just announced on social media that his own intelligence services have told him that the Chinese government is moving troops to the border. — Jonathan Miller Ch4 news

I'm happy to slow down. Interested persons post here what they think a good rate is. My approach has been to "reload" when the discussion on the earlier post seemed done. — tim wood

Given that I have made similar comments before to no great effect, I welcome this response.
In the main, the pace of posting paragraphs has been such that catching up has not been a huge problem. And I have enjoyed some fruitful sidetracks.

However, you have changed your initial approach. Contrary to what you have said, you do not in fact wait until the earlier post has been discussed or 'seemed done'. Indeed, para 28 was not even commented on, far less 'explicated'.

Para 26 proved more difficult to understand and so, has just finished being discussed by 2 of us.
I realise and totally understand that not everyone wants to spend so much time on a single paragraph or to tease out the meaning of a difficult concept. But 2 is approximately half the current group.

So, opinions as to what 'a good rate' might be will be as varied as motivations and reading pace.
The trouble is that there are non too many 'interested persons' around. Some have left or decided not to join, for various reasons.

I would welcome a return to your initial approach which meant taking the time to give an explication on each paragraph at the point of copy and paste. Then others can respond accordingly. But that's just me and no doubt you will have good reasons why that is not possible.

Thanks.

In 28 years, China will takeover HK and people in hk should start accepting their Chinese identity atleast as a step towards integrating with China. — Wittgenstein

Concerning national identity - I lack knowledge in this - how many identify with the Chinese way of life ?
I don't know that there should be a 'should' to accept a forced identity.

What do you think of this proposal ?

The UK should give Hong Kong citizens full UK nationality as a means of reassurance amid the current standoff with Beijing, the chair of the influential Commons foreign affairs committee has argued.

Tom Tugendhat said this should have happened to people in the formerly British-ruled territory in 1997, when it was handed back to Chinese control, and that doing so now would reassure Hong Kong’s people that they were supported by the UK. — Peter Walker

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/uk-british-nationality-hong-kong-citizens-tom-tugendhat

Thanks for taking the time to present such a thorough explanation. — Wayfarer

Yes. An excellent in-depth, comprehensive piece of clear knowledgeable writing. Far superior to my quickie link to the Guardian article. Thanks Wittgenstein :smile:

I need to review some other parts of Hegel that is influencing my perspective. — Valentinus

I think it is wise to take time to review difficult aspects of Hegel. All the better to clarify and hopefully reach a better understanding. This 'to and fro' is an important part of our discussion. I appreciate all thought provoking questions and responses.

Then be easy. If you get it I'll be interested, but let's stay with the main part of this. Your call. — tim wood

'Be easy!' - a favourite quote of yours from the Three Musketeers.

Perhaps more pertinent here is their: 'The merit of all things lies in their difficulty.'

To achieve a deeper understanding of the difficult Preface requires several things. At the risk of repeating myself...

For some, this includes:
Careful reading with continual review.
A bit of a breather. To help get your head out of the single, successive paragraphs to gain perspective.
Seeking help from other resources.

You need to heed your own advice. Be easy. This swift copy and pasting of paragraphs might be what you need to do to reach the end. To keep control of the thread.
But at what cost to cohesive, clear comprehension ?

Another thing might be that each thing must be other than all other things. Is the whole other than itself? In one sense since there is nothing other than the whole of what is then there would be nothing other than the whole. But self-knowing requires the self to treat itself as is object of knowledge. — Fooloso4

OK. Yes, in one sense, each thing or person is other than the rest, but there are similarities as well as differences. As we all know.

If we take the 'whole' as meaning the whole of 'what is', we cannot know that that is all there is. There could easily be more than the whole of what we currently know. But that pertains to scientific knowledge, doesn't it, not philosophical knowledge such as it is. Given that both take place within a changing world, neither can be complete or whole.

'Self knowing' if that is the same as self consciousness requires a self-regarding as an object. To be able to detach and be objective. And that can never be complete either. It is an ongoing process.

However, a union can obtain between individual knowledge of the self/subject, that is 'subjective' and philosophical knowledge - the knowing of reason (objective). They are not distinct entities. It takes two to tango. Ain't that the tangled truth ?

I linked to 'the Outlines of Hegel's Phenomenology' earlier. I find it helpful as an aid in understanding.
In particular this part seemed relevant.

THIRD PHASE.
Reason.

40. Reason is the highest union of consciousness and self-consciousness, or of the knowing of an object and of the knowing of itself. It is the certitude that its determinations are just as much objective, i.e. determinations of the essence of things, as they are subjective thoughts. It (Reason) is just as well the certitude of itself (subjectivity) as being (or objectivity), and this, too, in one and the same thinking activity.

41. Or what we see through the insight of Reason, is: (1) a content which subsists not in our mere subjective notions or thoughts which we make for ourselves, but which contains the in-and-for-itself-existing essence of objects and possesses objective reality; and (2) which is for the Ego no alien somewhat, no somewhat given from without, but throughout penetrated and assimilated by the Ego, and therefore to all intents produced by the Ego.

42. The knowing of Reason is therefore not the mere subjective certitude, but also TRUTH, because Truth consists in the harmony, or rather unity, of certitude and Being, or of certitude and objectivity.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ol/ol_phen.htm

If we were to draw the circles of wholes where would absolute otherness be? If it is complete otherness it would be a circle that is not encompassed in some larger whole, otherwise it would not be absolute otherness. — Fooloso4

Agree. If we take it 'absolute' as 'all encompassing', it would be the outer circle.
I think, according to Hegel, it is the universality of philosophical science or knowing ?
It would seem like the end point of his conceptual system.

Perhaps what Hegel is getting at is the movement from absolute otherness to its sublation, its negation. — Fooloso4

Perhaps indeed.
Isn't this what he says in para 26 ? It is the ground. The beginning of the circle or spiral upwards.
"Pure self-knowing in absolute otherness, this ether as such, is the very ground and soil of science, or, knowing in its universality" - Hegel.

Given the eternal thinking process, and the dialectic, it is the beginning of new concepts and ideas.
Perhaps some other philosopher, post-Hegel, takes one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Quantitative evolutionary steps up a ladder.
Followed by qualitative revolutionary leaps in thought ?
We blow thought bubbles, then burst them or they are burst, sometimes they join up...
And so it goes...

The protests were initially focused on a bill that would have made it possible to extradite people from Hong Kong to China, where the Communist party controls the courts. Many Hongkongers feared the law would be used by authorities to target political enemies and that it would signify the end of the “one country, two systems” policy, eroding the civil rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents since the handover of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997. Millions of people joined street marches against the bill, paralysing the city. The protests have gone from weekly to almost daily.

What do the protesters want?

The extradition bill was suspended by the territory’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, in mid June, but protesters want it officially withdrawn. In addition to demanding Lam’s resignation, the protesters are calling for:

The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill

The government to withdraw the use of the word “riot” in relation to protests

The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped

An independent inquiry into police behaviour

Implementation of genuine universal suffrage — Alison Rourke

Absolute otherness must be the otherness of the whole within itself as the condition for the whole's self-knowledge. The circle of self-knowledge plays out on the levels of the individual, the culture, and the whole. The first two are limited wholes, the last the whole of wholes. — Fooloso4

Just noticed this part I bolded. I think you answered your own question. Where is your struggle ? There is no contradiction in terms, is there ?

Returning to our previous question about 'absolute otherness'...

Science is the in-itself but must become for itself, that is, it must move from self-consciousness as being something inner, by which substance is other or object to self-consciousness, to self-consciousness being for itself, the whole as the union of substance and subject. Here spirit is no longer substance, that is, object of consciousness but the actualization of spirit, as in itself and for itself; not something that is mine or particular, or even as universal, but as absolute, the identity of difference, one with itself. — Fooloso4

what I am still struggling with the concept of absolute otherness. It seems to be a contradiction in terms. What is other is so relative to something, but if relative then it is not absolute. — Fooloso4

I am going to refer to Gardner's glossary in an effort to understand the above.

ABSOLUTE adj.,n. (absolute, das Absolute). Complete, self-contained, all-encompassing. Per Inwood, the Absolute 'is not something underlying the phenomenal world, but the conceptual system embedded in it'.

FOR ITSELF (fur sich). Reflective, explicit, self-comprehending, fully developed. Contrasts with: in itself, in-and-for-itself.

IN ITSELF (an sich). Merely potential or implicit...Something is 'in itself' when it is considered separately from other things, and ( in the case of a form of consciousness) when it is unreflective. That is why, for Hegel, the in itself is mere potentiality: actuality requires determination, negation, relations with other things. Note that a thing may be 'in itself for us'...an expression Hegel uses often: this just means that we are considering it as it is separate from other things. Contrasts with: for itself, and in-and-for-itself.

IN-AND-FOR-ITSELF (an und fur sich). Completely developed; both at home with itself, and finding itself in the other. It contrasts with mere being in itself and being for itself. Being in-and-for-itself is the condition of the Absolute, God, Spirit actualised. — Gardner

So, what can be meant by 'absolute otherness', as per para 26.

"Pure self-knowing in absolute otherness, this ether as such, is the very ground and soil of science, or, knowing in its universality" - Hegel.

Taking absolute as an adjective: all-encompassing. There is a sense of a complete or whole otherness wherein we as individuals find ourselves.
We move from our separate, individual potential ( in itself) to actual, full self-realisation in a personal and global sense ( in-and-for-itself) via socio-cultural relationships and being actively reflective ( for itself).

That is, we are relative within an absolute whole.
That's my current understanding. Open to review.

Experience or knowledge? My preference and instinct is to not wrestle with this aspect at the moment, but to see what comes.

And that it has got to be possible to re-say Hegel in more accessible language - to be striven for. And gained, though perhaps through successive approximations. — tim wood

To even try 'to re-say Hegel' we need to know what he is saying in the first place. To focus on the text. This means careful reading - not a swift, superficial skipping over of paragraphs 'to see what comes'. And yes, even then, approximations are the most we can hope to achieve.
I think, as a group, we are doing quite well. Getting there...

All of this, requires understanding important philosophical terminology, related to Hegel.

From Sebastian Gardner's glossary:

EXPERIENCE ( Erfahrung). In the Phenomenology, experience refers to the experience of consciousness on its way to Science. It does not have the usual implication of restriction to the sensory but rather hinges on thought; so it does not mean for Hegel what it means for the emliricists or for Kant. Hegel originally planned to give Phenomenology the title 'Science of the Experience of Consciousness'. — Gardner

CONSCIOUSNESS ( Bewusstsein). Note that Hegel sometimes uses consciousness as a generic term for cognitive awareness, of which self-consciousness is one species; and sometimes as a species of consciousness in the generic sense, where it contrasts with self-consciousness. — Gardner

SCIENCE (Wissenschaft). In Hegel, Science refers not to natural science but to philosophical knowledge, which must be in a systematic, articulate form. Thus it refers to his own philosophy. — Gardner

With these paragraphs, Hegel draws in sharp relief the comparison of individual experience to what makes that possible. — Valentinus

How so ?

This "universal self" is central to what is being presented but is very hard for me to understand. — Valentinus

I don't fully understand it either. I think I remember discussing it earlier - but it never quite sinks even with all the repetition. It is linked to mediation and sublation.
We need others to become more. To connect. To be global. Universal.
We keep our sense of self as we progress and are lifted up into a higher Self.
Or something along these lines...

I don't know if this will help.
From an Outline of Hegel's Phenomenology:

Universality of Self-Consciousness.

38. The universal self-consciousness is the intuition of itself, not as a special existence distinct from others, but an intuition of the self-existent universal self. Thus it recognises itself and the other self-consciousness in itself, and is in turn recognised by them.

39. Self-consciousness is, according to this its essential universality, only real in so far as it knows its echo (and reflection) in another (I know that another knows me as itself), and as pure spiritual universality (belonging to the family, the native land, &c.) knows itself as essential self. (This self-consciousness is the basis of all virtues, of love, honour, friendship, bravery, all self-sacrifice, all fame, &c.)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ol/ol_phen.htm

I am not sure how to read that against the background of negation and exclusion being the default position — Valentinus

the logic of both the stuff in time combined with the idea of a dialectic as producing results through a process suggests that "exclusion" is a very important activity in what Hegel has in mind. — Valentinus

The inclusion part only gets recognition after the conflict is over. — Valentinus

I find this excerpt from para 28 helpful:

The individual whose substance is spirit standing at the higher level runs through these past forms in the way that a person who takes up a higher science goes through those preparatory studies which he has long ago internalized in order to make their content current before him; he calls them to mind without having his interest linger upon them. In that way, each individual spirit also runs through the culturally formative stages of the universal spirit, but it runs through them as shapes which spirit has already laid aside, as stages on a path that has been worked out and leveled out in the same way that we see fragments of knowing, which in earlier ages occupied men of mature minds, now sink to the level of exercises, and even to that of games for children. — Hegel/Pinkard

So, knowledge for the particular individual is internalised as he progresses through life and learning via study and experience. All of this happens within a universal culture.
We proceed by laying aside ( a kind of exclusion ) previous baby steps in learning, but they are necessarily incorporated into our whole (inclusion).
The spirit grows. Rung by rung.

Rockmore has this to say:

Hegel now relates human beings to the process of knowledge. The individual, who participates in the knowing process, does so from both individual and universal perspectives. What was earlier central, as the current view of knowledge, afterward subsists as a mere trace (Spur), like Jacques Derrida's own view of the trace (la trace ).18 We cannot separate prior from present views of knowledge. The process of education consists in making our own what was already known by our predecessors, "a past existence" now described as "the already acquired property of universal Spirit which constitutes the substance of the individual" (§28, 16). Human history records the immense efforts of human beings over a period of many centuries to know the world and themselves through the elaboration of a satisfactory view of knowledge. "The goal is Spirit's insight into what knowing is" (§29 , 17).

In the course of human history, mere existence is transformed into a series of shapes. To transform experience into knowledge, we must consider the movement of shapes preserved in memory, which must be represented and with which we must become acquainted. Through representation, we arrive at what is familiar to us, but which, to become scientific knowledge, requires the more refined cognitive "activity of the universal self, the concern of thinking" (§30, 18).  — Tom Rockmore

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7d5nb4r8;brand=ucpress

[Added: I might put this question aside for now.] — Fooloso4

Yes, you and me both.
Ciao :cool: