Superphysics Superphysics

Sensuous-certainty; or the “this” and meaning something

by Hegel Icon
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:

Descartes
“I think therefore I am”

to:

“I perceive therefore I exist”

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.

Any Comments? Post them below!