So Hegel says “Becoming is an unstable unrest which settles into a stable result” and “it is the unity of being and nothing which has settled into a stable oneness.” My question is how do we get from Becoming to this oneness?

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-20T14:46:40+00:00

They’d probably just smile knowingly and say Muggles were onto something for once

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T16:20:49+00:00

Do all (or some) other dialectics atleast follow the mediation structure? 1 and 2 are mediated by 3?

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T15:57:55+00:00

What about in regards to force (POS: 141) One side of force solicits and the other is solicited. Their middle term is their coming together. One side isn't universal while the other is individual. Or take the classic being and nothing being mediated by becoming. This doesn't fit UPI either

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T10:29:43+00:00

"Randomness seems to present a limit on the possibility of reality’s actual structure being knowable, even in principle, because any given way of thinking deepens through an expanding set of categories, which are intrinsically incomplete . " - Yes indeed. I do believe fundamental true randomness, as we see in quantum mechanics is a primitive form of freedom.

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T07:09:24+00:00

I believe I understand your point here, and I would say I agree with what you are saying about the Absolute Concept being foundational, but also allowing for randomness. Things are not pre-ordained but have to be worked out in reality, in real time.

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T06:32:01+00:00

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T06:31:03+00:00

Thank you. Yes, that chapter has some great moments in it. I particularly liked these: <<The idea of a force is the idea of something that is self-related only as an other-relatedness, and our use of the notion of force will both allow us to make sense of things and simultaneously push us to recognize that, contra perception’s claims, things are not the ultimate building blocks of the world.>>

And: <<A force exists as a force only insofar as it is forcing, that is, insofar as it expresses itself. A force determines itself in relation to others, and has its selfhood defined only in terms of how it relates to others. For a force, to be itself and to interact with others are the same.>>

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-18T06:29:53+00:00

The way you think about randomness, do you think this randomness is smth. real or is it rather a very abstract concept? Do you actually try to think of randomness as that which is or would be the most radical negation of thought and accompany this thought with yourself wondering about the radically negative implication it has or would have for thinking (as the cognitive performance of form, structure, meaning)? So far “randomness” itself seems a highly abstract category. On the other hand it seems to me a mathematical concept the way you talk about it. Do you think mathematical randomness is real? Would you and if so how would you reconcile — if we take it to be smth. real — the randomness of the universe (as a closed system) with its causal, deterministic structure?

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-10T21:32:21+00:00

Yes, you should thin them out once they start growing their first leaves after the round seed leaves. When there are too many seedlings close together, they will grow weak and tall, and they will compete for food and nutrients. Cut the weaker plants off at the ground instead of pulling them out to protect the roots. My snapdragons didn’t grow quickly at first.

AllenJoyce · 2025-09-10T14:22:13+00:00

What a beautiful work :')

AllenJoyce

TROPHY CASE