按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
him it manifested itself at first only as a formal spark of light … to the genera of his categories
（quantity； quality； etc。）； but only to their species which； too； alone he called categories。
Consequently he was unable to hit on the third to quality and quantity。
With Spinoza； the mode is likewise the third after substance and attribute； he explains it to be the
affections of substance； or that element which is in an other through which it is comprehended。
According to this concept； this third is only externality as such； as has already been mentioned；
with。 Spinoza generally； the rigid nature of substance lacks the return into itself。
The observation here made extends generally to those systems of pantheism which have been
partially developed by thought。 The first is being； the one； substance； the infinite； essence； in
contrast to this abstraction the second； namely； all determinateness in general； what is only finite；
accidental； perishable； non…essential； etc。 can equally abstractly be grouped together； and this is
what usually happens as the next step in quite formal thinking。 But the connection of this second
with the first is so evident that one cannot avoid grasping it as also in a unity with the latter； thus
with Spinoza； the attribute is the whole substance； but is apprehended by the intellect which is itself
a limitation or mode； but in this way the mode； the non…substantial generally； which can only be
grasped through an other； constitutes the other extreme to substance； the third generally。 Indian
pantheism； too； in its monstrous fantasies has in an abstract way received this development which
runs like a moderating thread through its extravagances； a point of some interest in the
development is that Brahma； the one of abstract thought； progresses through the shape of Vishnu；
particularly in the form of Krishna； to a third form； that of Siva。 The determination of this third is
the mode； alteration； coming…to…be and ceasing…to…be…the field of externality in general。 This
Indian trinity has misled to a comparison with the Christian and it is true that in them a common
element of the nature of the Notion can be recognised； but it is essential to gain a more precise
consciousness of the difference between them； for not only is this difference infinite； but it is the
true； the genuine infinite which constitutes it。 This third principle is； according to its determination；
the dispersal of the unity of substance into its opposite； not the return of the unity to itself … not
spirit but rather the non…spiritual。 In the true trinity there is not only unity but union； the conclusion
of the syllogism is a unity possessing content and actuality； a unity which in its wholly concrete
determination is spirit。 This principle of the mode and of alteration does not； it is true； altogether
exclude the unity； in Spinozism； for example； it is precisely the mode as such which is untrue；
substance alone is true and to it everything must be brought back。 But this is only to submerge all
content in the void； in a merely formal unity lacking all content。 Thus Siva； too； is again the great
whole； not distinct from Brahma； but Brahma himself。 In other words； the difference and the
determinateness only vanish again but are not preserved； are not sublated； and the unity does not
become a concrete unity； neither is the disunity reconciled。 The supreme goal for man placed in the
sphere of coming…to…be and ceasing…to…be； of modality generally； is submergence in
unconsciousness； unity with Brahma； annihilation； the Buddhist Nirvana； Nibbana etc。； is the same。
Now although the mode as such is abstract externality； indifference to qualitative and quantitative
determinations； and in essence the external and unessential elements are not supposed to count； it
is still； on the other hand； admitted in many cases that everything depends on the kind and manner
of the mode； such an admission means that the mode itself is declared to belong essentially to the
substantial nature of a thing； a very indefinite connection but one which at least implies that this
external element is not so abstractly an externality。
Here the mode has the specific meaning of measure。 Spinoza's mode； like the Indian principle of
change； is the measureless。 The Greek awareness； itself still indeterminate； that everything has a
measure … even Parmenides； after abstract being； introduced necessity as the ancient limit by which
all things are bounded … is the beginning of a much higher conception than that contained in
substance and in the difference of the mode from substance。
Measure in its more developed； more reflected form is necessity； fate； Nemesis； was restricted in
general to the specific nature of measure； namely； that what is presumptuous； what makes itself too
great； too high； is reduced to the other extreme of being brought to nothing； so that the mean of
measure； mediocrity is restored。 'The absolute； God； is the measure of all things' is not more
intensely pantheistic than the definition： 'The absolute； God； is being；' but it is infinitely truer。
Measure； it is true； is an external kind and manner of determinateness； a more or less； but at the
same time it is equally reflected into itself； a determinateness which is not indifferent and external
but intrinsic； it is thus the concrete truth of being。 That is why mankind has revered measure as
something inviolable and sacred。
The Idea of essence； namely； to be self…identical in the immediacy of its determined being； is
already immanent in measure； so that the immediacy is thus reduced by this self…identity to
something mediated； which equally is mediated only through this externality； but is a mediation
with itself … that is； reflection； the determinations of which are； but in this being are nothing more
than moments of their negative unity。 In measure； the qualitative moment is quantitative； the
determinateness or difference is indifferent and so is no difference； is sublated。 This nature of
quantity as a return…into…self in which it is qualitative constitutes that being…in…and…for…itself which is
essence。 But measure is only in itself or in its Notion essence； this Notion of measure is not yet
posited。 Measure； still as such； is itself the immediate ＇seiende＇ unity of quality and quantity； its
moments are determinately present as a quality； and quanta thereof； these moments are at first
inseparable only in principle ＇an sich＇； but do not yet have the significance of this reflected
determination。 The development of measure contains the differentiation of these moments； but at
the same time their relation； so that the identity which they are in themselves becomes their
relation to each other； i。e。 is posited。 The significance of this development is the realisation of
measure in which it posits itself as in relation with itself； and hence as a moment。 Through this
mediation it is determined as sublated； its immediacy and that of its moments vanishes； they are
reflected。 Measure； ' having thus realised its own Notion； has passed into essence。
At first； measure is only an immediate unity of quality and quantity； so that： （1）； we have a
quantu