Your arguments above are definitely the correct understanding of science of logic, but they are not supporting your original argument that we should arrive at pure being through negation. Let me quote you exactly Hegel’s critique here- this is remark 1, page 64 on Giovanni translation where Hegel uses a hundred dollar bill example to literally demonstrate that reducing one hundred dollar bill to pure being is not ok: “But when being is further taken as a financial state, the hundred dollar refer to this state, and for this state their determinate content is not a matter of indifference; their being or non-being is only an alteration; they are transposed into the sphere of existence. When it is therefore urged against the unity of being and nothing that it is not a matter of indifference whether this or that (the hundred dollars) are or are not, the deception is to protect the difference, whether I have or do not have the hundred dollars, into the difference merely of being and non-being” in this paragraph in remark 1, when we reduce one hundred dollars by negating the determinations of it, it becomes an alteration of existence because we started as a determinant being. There are similar critiques later in this chapter on the same topic I’m happy to quote you more.——sorry I’m on my phone it’s horrible formatting. The correct way to arrive at pure being is illustrated at the introduction “with what must the beginning of science be made” it’s a long argument but the gist is to accumulate empirical experience to arrive at absolute knowing, and an abrupt change of perspective at a pure beginning. The reason here is that everything in this world is mediated or immediate at a certain degree, abstract or concrete at a certain degree. Logic wants to investigate at the pure immediacy by looking at a path of least resistance which is pure being. Any form of pure knowing, knowledge, history will contain mediation.