[BNP/E3, 15² – 51-55a]

Determined Being is the same as indetermined Being.

Being determined is Being as Being; i.e. absolute Being.

Being indetermined is Being inconditioned, i.e. Being absolute. Therefore Being in se is neither determined nor undetermined; for if being is then 2 contrary things can be asserted (and proved) it is neither (above both).

To say the world is finite and to say it is infinite is the same thing. For what is infinite has not begun nor will end; that is to say, begins in zero and ends in zero. If the finite exist it proceeds from nothing, i.e. from zero and ends in nothing, i.e. in zero.

___

Does the unconscious exist? Does not all notion suppose consciousness? Expansion iron by heat is it not the iron striving to escape pressure. (Henrique Rosa)

[51^v]

Cause and effect identical in experience by the principle of the conservation of energy.

_______

If the individual suffers, so must the cell suffer — so the atom, so the energy inter-atomic which is modernly considered as the only reality. All is evil. Absolute repose would be happiness, and it does not exist. Vain is the dream of the mystic: in repose I shall be happy. The principle is true, but there can be no application thereof. We may lie unmoving an eyelid, still in undreamful sleep beneath a tree; in us the constituents of the uni-

[52^r]

verse are in perpetual and painful motion. All is evil; virtue and happiness are but attenuations of the inexterminable suffering which pervades all things, finitely if they be finite, infinitely if they have no end.

_______

Consideration à priori of dualism.

_______

The doctrine of Free-Will before popular opinion.

_______

Indivisibility of the atom.

_______

We can only know what we are; we are finite and know but the finite. To know the infinite we must be the infinite ourselves.

_______

Infinitesimal Calculus.

_______

[52^v]

Being as plurality does not exist; Being as unity exists, but in appearance — ultimate appearance we may call it; Being as Being is the only reality. “I am that I am.”

___

Conscientiousness. I copy an exercise in class. It harms no one else, let us suppose, for I am the only one who does not know. It does not harm the teacher, for some reason or other — Yet my action is not good. Be pleased, Charles Robert Anon, to explain. 

___

Evolution and movement come both under the denomination change. Could we prove change impossible (at least in infinity) evolution would be destroyed, or, at least driven from infinity. /

[53^r]

Idea of Infinity cannot co-exist with the idea of evolution. The infinite cannot be evolved.

Proof. We have 2 ideas within the idea of space — space and no-space.

What is the infinite? Space? No. No-space? No, likewise. Both together? No, for they would eliminate each other. The infinite therefore is neither space nor no-space.

(Remark: supposing it impossible to prove the infinite to be as above, then: the infinite is either both space and no-space, or neither. If both, this evolution takes place in space and in no-space at the same time.

If neither, evolution is impossible, for it can take place but in space.)

___

Needs deeper consideration.

Evolution and infinity.

Anon

[53^v]

___

Immanent Cause proved.

Then 3 Immanent Causes possible:

Matter Cause

Matter-Force Cause

Spirit (Force) Cause.

Matter Cause and Matter Force

Causes are false before the doctrine of evolution.

For Matter-Cause and Matter-Force-Cause would thus evolve themselves (in their cases). Now absolute Cause evolves itself. (Remark: Why? To evolve itself properly speaking, a thing has to cease to be itself in the transformation. Our only escape is by saying that

[54^r]

transformation is appearance. But if transformation be appearance Matter and Force, which are appearance, are no reality. We are therefore driven to this conclusion: Force alone exists (or spirit); the spiritual Immanent Cause is the only possible — upon condition that the apparent world is an illusion strange and complete.

_______

“Modern Science before Reason.”

etc

Which science covers with the hollow name of necessity, wherein it conceals clumsily the philosophic obsession — basis of all philosophy, of the raison d’être.[1]

[54^v]

In the two previous articles which I contributed to this review, I have entertained the readers with the examination of scientific doctrines and with an establishing of the noumenon. I am now to enter the true field of dialectics where human reason has to take up arms against her enemy, common sense, I shall attempt, by {…} arguments to establish the identity of contraries.

[55^r]

1. Argument of Series: mathematical. Logical

2. Conservation of Energy.

3. Absolute Cause its own effect.

4. Diogenes Apollonius — here all things not are they could not unite. Something like to this.

5. Argument by space

          1. Finiteness and infinity.

          2. Space and No-space. And so for time.

6. Argument by Being (or anything else) — like to that used by Hegel. Determinate and indeterminate.

7. Moral argument.

8. Fundamental argument.

How are 2 things contraries.

9. Movement and Repose.

(Heraclitus and Parmenides) appearance

[55a^r]

Movement can be but appearance. Reality can coexist with no change.

___

Conservation of Energy. What changes does not conserve itself. (Henrique Rosa). What does he mean by this?

___

What can pass to something else has no real existence.

___

But then Force (inter-atomic) has existence really?

___

Matter-Force Cause evolves itself. Now nothing can evolve itself. What changes does not exist, i.e., is not.

___

Dematerialisation of matter. If matter can pass to energy neither of them is a reality; even though matter be but a manifestation.

Anon

[1] raison d’être. ^{/“reason for existing.”\}