Sensuous-certainty; or the “this” and meaning something
4 minutes • 820 words
Table of contents
Here we de-complicate Hegel to prove that he emphasized relations between perceiver and perceptions, which is part of Cartesian Relationality.
Overcomplicated Hegel | Simplified Metaphysics Version |
---|---|
Knowing which is immediately our object can be nothing but immediate knowing, knowing of the immediate, or of what is. | Immediate knowing is knowing what we perceive now. [i.e. as opposed to not minding the stuff that currently perceive like when we listen to an online Physics lecture while immersed in a video game] |
Likewise we ourselves have to conduct ourselves immediately, or receptively. | This is the same as immediate acting as being aware of our current actions. [i.e. our awareness is in the video game] |
We therefore alter nothing in the object as it presents itself. | And so, by being aware of things, we change nothing in those things. |
We must keep our conceptualizing1 of it apart from our apprehending of it. | because our awareness of things is different from our understanding of things |
The concrete content of sensuous-certainty permits itself to appear immediately as the richest cognition, indeed, as a knowing of an infinite wealth for which no limit is to be found | The actual information from our awareness of things, as perceptions, is sourced from an infinite possibility of all information |
This is true whether we venture out into the reaches of space and time as the place where that wealth extends itself | This is true whether our minds explore all of space and time for that infinite information |
or when we take a piece out of this plenitude, divide it, and thereby delve into it. | or when we get specific information and analyze it |
It appears as the most veritable, for it has not omitted anything from its object, but rather, has its object in its complete entirety before itself. | The actual information has its meaning in itself. |
However, this certainty in fact yields the most abstract and the very poorest truth. | However, this meaning [from perception] is very abstract |
It expresses what it knows as this: It is; and its truth only contains the being of the item.2 | The information [and therefore perception] merely exists. |
Consciousness only is in this certainty as the pure I | That existing perception has a perceiver [which is ultimately metaphysical in nature since we replace ‘pure’ with ‘metaphysics’ or ‘aether/akasha’] |
or, within that certainty, the I is only as a pure This, and the object likewise is only as a pure This. | That perceiver can assign [a metaphysical or abstract] identity to itself just as it can assign identity to its perception |
I, this I, am certain of this item not because I, as consciousness, have developed myself and have variously set my thoughts into motion. | The perceiver is sure of his perception [i.e. absorbed it into his citta], not because the perceiver is self-acting. |
It is also not because I, as consciousness, am certain of this item for the reason that the item of which I am certain would be a rich relation in its own self according to a set of differentiated conditions or would be a multiple comportment to other items. | It is also not because the perceiver is sure that the perception is instantly important by itself. |
Both have nothing to do with the truth of sensuous-certainty. | Both the perceiver alone and the perception alone is not the cause of it being perceived. |
In that certainty, neither I nor the item have the meaning of a multifaceted mediation | In that awareness, the perceiver and the perception do not derive the meaning and value independently |
nor does I have the meaning of a multifaceted representing or thinking | The meaning from the awareness is not derived from the perceiver alone |
nor does the item have the meaning of a multifaceted composition. | nor from the perception alone |
Rather, the item is, and it is only because it is. | Rather, the item is perceived to exist because it exists. |
For sensuous-certainty this is what is essential. | Existence is essential to perception. |
This pure being, or this simple immediacy constitutes its truth. | Current existence is makes up perception. |
As a relation, certainty is an immediate, pure relation. | As a relation, awareness is a current, metaphysical relation. |
Consciousness is I, a pure this, the singular individual knows a pure this, or he knows the singular. | The perceiver, a metaphysical identity, knows other metaphysical identities. |
Hegel was writing about Cartesian Relationality
We use this part as proof of the universality of Cartesian Relationality – even Hegel starts out with relation between the perceiver and his existing world.
This will help us change:
to:
It means that things that exist also react. This reaction is part of the perception procecss. Therefore everything that exists is a mind.
The universe is therefore a mind made up of minds, made up of minds, made up of minds, and so on.