Everything is Primal Germ or Nothing Is; The Deep Field Logic of Nature

EVERYTHING IS PRIMAL GERM OR NOTHING IS: THE DEEP FIELD LOGIC OF NATURE Iain Hamilton Grant (University of the West of England) In Schelling’s “On the Relation between the Real and the Ideal in ƒ–—”‡dzȋͣͪͨ͢Ȍǡ‘–‘Ž›†‘‡•–Š‡–‹–—Žƒ” ‘’—Žƒ„‘†”‡ƒŽƒ†‹†eƒŽǡ „—– it ‹• ‹–•‡Žˆ „‘†‡† ‹ ƒ† „› ƒ–—”‡Ǥ ˆ –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ †‘‡•ǯ– ‡”‡Ž›„‘†ƒ–—”‡ƒ†Œ—†‰‡–ǡ„—–„‘†•–Š‡Žƒ––‡”–‘–Š‡ˆ‘rmer as an instance of the nature from which i–†‡”‹˜‡•ǡ™Šƒ–”‡Ža–‹‘†‘‡•–Š‡‡••ƒ›ǯ••‡ƒ” Šˆ‘”ƒ–—”‡ǯ•’”‹ƒŽ•„‡ƒ”–‘–Š‡—‹˜‡r•ƒŽ‹•‘ˆŽ‘‰‹ ƒŽŽƒ™ǫŠƒ–ǡ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ‹•–Š‡”‡Žƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ –‘ ‹–• ‡˜‹”‘‹‰ ƒ–—”‡ǫ  Š‡”‡ ƒ‹ –‘ ‡š’Ž‘”‡ –Š‡ Žƒ‹ –Šƒ–ǡ ˆ‘”  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǡ •‘‡–Š‹‰ ‹• Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽŽ› ‡šŠ‹„‹–‡† ™Š‡ –Š‡ ƒ–—”‡ ‹ –Š‡ Œ—†‰‡–†‹ˆˆ‡”•ˆ‘”–Šƒ–”‡ƒ•‘ˆ”‘–Š‡ƒ–—”‡‹™Š‹ Š‹–‹•‹–•‡Žˆ ‘–ƒ‹‡†‘” ‘ ‡‹˜‡†Ǥ ͟Ǥ –”‘†— –‹‘ Why did Schelling not write a book of logic? In fact, he did, athough there are no logics in Schelling that are not environed by “interconnected resistants” (zusammenhängende Gegenstände), as the Freiheitsschrift states 1, no systems not embedded in others, according to the Stuttgart Seminars 2 and the lecture “On the Nature of Philosophy A version of this paper was delivered at the second annual conference of the ‘”–Š‡”‹ ƒ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰‘ ‹‡–›ǣ–Š‡ —–—”‡•‘ˆ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰, in London, Ontario, in ‡’–‡„‡”͟͠͞͡Ǥ›™ƒ”‡•– –Šƒ•–‘‹Ž‘––ƒƒƒŒƒ and Ben Woodard for organizing that excellent event, and, for the introduction to the present essay, to ‡ƒ ”ƒ–Šˆ‘”ƒ•‹‰™Šƒ–‘‡ƒ”–Š –Š‘—‰Š– ™ƒ•†‘‹‰Ǥ 1 Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǡ Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹• Š‡–‡”•— Š—‰‡ò„‡”†ƒ•‡•‡†‡”‡• ŠŽichen Freiheit und die damit zusammenhängende Gegenständeǡ‹ ǤǤ ǤǡSämmtliche Werkeǡ ȋ‡†ǤȌ Ǥ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ ȋ–—––‰ƒ”– ƒ† —‰•„—”‰ǣ ‘––ƒǡ ͦͣͤ͟–ͤ͟Ȍǡ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ Gutmann as Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹ ƒŽ “—‹”‹‡•‹–‘–Š‡••‡ ‡‘ˆ —ƒ ”‡‡†‘ ȋŠ‹ a‰‘ǣ ’‡ ‘—”–ǡ ͧͤ͟͡ȌǤ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰’s Sämmtliche Werke are hereafter referred to parenthetically in the text as SW followed by volume numberǤ 2 Dz‘ ™Šƒ– ‡š–‡– ‹• ƒ •›•–‡ ‡˜‡” ’‘••‹„Ž‡ǫ  ™‘—Ž† ƒ•™‡” –Šƒ– Ž‘‰ „‡ˆ‘”‡ man decided to create a system, there already existed one, that of the cosmos [›•–‡ †‡” ‡Ž–ȐǤdz   ǡ ͢͟͠ǡ (–”Ǥ) Ǥ ˆƒ— ‹ †‡ƒŽ‹• ƒ† –Š‡ †‰ƒ‡ ‘ˆ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͥ͟͞ ƒ• • ‹‡ ‡Ǥdz 3 Yet if logics are so embedded, what becomes of their isolability as logic? What is logic ’‡”•‡ if, in order to be one, it must be systematic, and systematicity entails that nothing be left out? What is it that leaves nothing out? Not the ‘universal’, if this remains an isolably logical creature, but the universe, which does not (if there ‹•‘‡ȌǤ Š‡ ƒ–—”’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡ in general constitutes a long and repeated series of the extractions of the “logic indwelling in nature” 4 ˆ”‘‹–Ǥ Š‡ šŠ‹„‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ–—”ƒŽ ”‘ ‡••, for example, does not simply purport to supply an account of this or that aspect of the natural process (‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ „‹‘Ž‘‰›ǡ Š‡‹•–”›ǡ ‰‡‘‰‘›Ȍǡ „—– ‹• universal like the ‡†— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡›ƒ‹ ”‘ ‡•• 5 ˆ‘—”†‡ ƒ†‡•‡ƒ”Ž‹‡”ǤŠ‡ˆ— –‹‘ of exhibition is to extract the whole from itself, ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ –‘ ”‡ ƒ’‹–—Žƒ–‡ precisely the morphogenetic process involved in natural production ‹‹–•‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘ǡ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘—–Ž‹‡‘” †‡ƒǤƒ–—”‡ƒ–—”‡•™Š‡ it is an ectype of itself, such that its ectypes are insuperably envi”‘‡†Ǥ ‘–Š‡‡š–‡––Šƒ––Š‡Žƒ–‡ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ ‘•‹†‡”‡†DzƒŽŽ•›•–‡•–Šƒ– explain everything by sheer logical interconnection” 6 negative, in that they start from a negation of whatever process is not thinking, the procedure of logical extraction, the ’ƒring of nature to the bone, „‡Ž‘‰•–‘–Šƒ–’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›Ǥ‡––‘–Š‡‡š–‡–ǡ ‘–”ƒ•–‹˜‡Ž›ǡ–Šƒ––Š‡ starting point of an exhibition, ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ‘ˆƒ–Š‹‹‰ƒ†‡•‡•‹„Ž‡ǡ‹•‘– ‹–•‡Žˆ –Š‹‹‰ǡ „—– ™Šƒ– —’”‡–Š‹ƒ„Ž› ‡š‹•–• ȋ  ǡ ͥ͡͡Ȍ 7, that philosophy is ’‘•‹–‹˜‡Ǥ‹ ‡ǡŠ‘™‡˜‡”ǡ™Šƒ–‡˜‡”‹•—-’”‡-thinkably exists, it is thought after the fact as existing, and thus logically as the ’‘•‹–‹‘‘ˆƒ’‘•‹–‹‘Ǥ ‡ ‡–Š‡ƒ–—”’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡ can be considered positive to the extent that, as its very title suggests, it is nature that Š‡‘”›ǣŠ”‡‡••ƒ›•„› ǤǤ Ǥ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ ȋŽ„ƒ›ǣ –ƒ–‡ ‹˜‡”•‹–› ‘ˆ ‡™ ‘” ”‡••ǡͧͧ͟͢Ȍǡͧͥ͟Ǥ 3 “All exclusive systems have in common that they are not the system and that they are therefore something partial or subordinateǤdz  ǡ ͧ͠͞ǡ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ ‡‹‰‡Ž– ƒ• Dz –Š‡ ƒ–—”‡ ‘ˆ Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š› ƒ•  ‹‡ ‡ǡdz ‹ Ǥ —Dž „‡”ǡ ȋ‡†ǤȌ ‡”ƒ †‡ƒŽ‹•–Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š› ȋ ƒ”‘†•™‘”–Šǣ‡‰—‹ǡͧͧͥ͟Ȍǡ͟͟͠Ǥ 4   ǡ ͟͞͡ǡ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ ƒ––Š‡™• ƒ• Š‡ ”‘—†‹‰‘ˆ‘•‹–‹˜‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›ǤŠ‡ Berlin Lectures ȋŽ„ƒ›ǣ–ƒ–‡‹˜‡”•‹–›‘ˆ‡™‘””‡••ǡͥ͠͞͞Ȍǡͤ͟͟Ǥ 5 ‘–ŠDzšŠ‹„‹–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ”‘ ‡••dzȋǡ͡͞͡–ͧ͞Ȍƒ†Dz‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‡†—c–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡›ƒ‹ ”‘ ‡••dzȋ ǡ͟–ͥͦȌƒ”‡ˆ‘”–Š ‘‹‰‹On the World Soul ƒ†–Š‡”ƒ–—”‡’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹ ƒŽ”‹–‹‰•, (–”Ǥ) Ǥ ”ƒ–ȋŽ„ƒ›ǣ–ƒ–‡‹˜‡”•‹–›‘ˆ ‡™‘””‡••ǡˆ‘”–Š ‘‹‰ȌǤ 6 Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǡ ”—†Ž‡‰—‰†‡”’‘•‹–‹˜‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡Ǥò Š‡‡”‘”Ž‡•—n‰‡ͣͪͤͥȀͥͥǡȋ‡†ǤȌ Ǥ —Š”ƒ•ȋ—”‹ǣ‘––‡‰ƒ†ǯ”ƒ•‘ǡͧͥ͟͠Ȍǡ͟͢–ͣ͟Ǥ 7 Š‡ Andere Deduktion paraphrased above is a concise source for Schelling’s ƒ ‘—–‘ˆ™Šƒ–‹•’‘•‹–‹˜‡‹’‘•‹–‹˜‡’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›Ǥ

ͦ͟͞ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ ‡˜‹”‘• ’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›ǡ ”ƒ–Š‡” –Šƒ –Š‡ ‘˜‡”•‡Ǥ Š‡ ‡š–”ƒ –‹‘ ‘” exhibition of nature’s process from nature remains positive, as we shall see, at the point when the copula is no longer a logical, but also a real creature, or when the meƒ•—”‡‘ˆ—‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‹–›‹•–Š‡—‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ –‹•–‘–Š‹•’”‘Œ‡ ––Šƒ– –ƒ‡–Š‡’”‘„Ž‡‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ–—”‡‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ƒ††”‡••‡† ‹ Dz –Š‡ ‡Žƒ–‹‘ ‡–™‡‡ –Š‡ ‡ƒŽ ƒ† –Š‡ †‡ƒŽ ‹ Nature” 8 –‘ „‡ ‘–”‹„—–‘”›Ǥ ‡ ‡ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ –Šƒ– ‘’‡• –Š‡ šŠ‹„‹–‹‘ǣ DzŠƒt am I thinking when I think what exists” (SW X, ͡͞͡Ȍ •‹—Ž–ƒ‡‘—•Ž› ‹˜‹–‡• –Š‡ ‡˜‡Ž‘’‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ Dz™Šƒ–dz –Šƒ–  ƒ thinking in the thinking of it, and, in so producing its downstream, remains ope –‘™ƒ”†• ‹–• —’•–”‡ƒǤ – –Š—• ‡š‡’Ž‹ϐ‹‡• –Š‡ Dz’‘‹– that ƒ–—”’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡is again taken up in the higher, positive system” 9ǣ Š‹‰Š‡”ǡ „‡ ƒ—•‡ –Š‡ ‘™‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ —’”‡–Š‹ƒ„Ž‡ ‡–ƒ‹Ž• that its being thought as unthinkable is additional to the insuperable ”‡ƒ‹†‡”Ǥ Š—• Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•Ž‘‰‹ •ƒ”‡ϔ‹‡Ž†Ž‘‰‹ • dependent in turn on †‡‡’ ϔ‹‡Ž†Ž‘‰‹ •, those concerning matters where “only deep ignorance is appropriate,” 10 and where this ignorance is known 11 without raising the depths into science, but rather driving knowing to a “deeper ‹‰‘”ƒ ‡Ǥdz 12 What is being contested here is the positivity of what is against a philosophy that, if premised on what is known, negates ™Šƒ–‹•‹‘”†‡”–‘ƒ‡–Š‡‘™‹‰’”‹‘”Ǥ –‹•–Š‡’—”’‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ’ƒ’‡” –‘ ‡š‡’Ž‹ˆ› –Š‹• ϐ‹‡Ž† Ž‘‰‹  ƒ– ™‘” ‹  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• ƒ ount of –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ‹ Dz –Š‡ ‡Žƒ–‹‘Ǥdz  „”‹‡ˆǡ ƒ Ž‘‰‹  ‹• ƒ ϐ‹‡Ž† logic by virtue of those resistants on which it connectedly depends, and that 8  ǡͣͧ͡–ͥͦǡ–”Ǥ„› Ǥ ”ƒ–ˆ‘”–Š ‘‹‰‹On the World SoulǤ 9 Schelling, Groundingǡͤͣ͡Ǥ 10 SW ǡ͡͡͠Ǥ 11 DzŠ‡„‡‰‹‹‰‘ˆƒŽŽ• ‹‡ ‡ȏWissenschaft] lies in the cognition [”‡–‹é] of our unknowing [™‹••‡Š‡‹–ȐǤdz ǡ͠͠͡ǡ–”Ǥ„› Ǥ‹”–Šƒ•The Ages of the World ȋŽ„ƒ›ǣ –ƒ–‡ ‹˜‡”•‹–› ‘ˆ ‡™ ‘” ”‡••ǡ ͠͞͞͞Ȍǡ ͤ͟ǡ –”ƒ•Ǥ ‘†Ǥ Hereafte” ‹–‡† ’ƒ”‡–Š‡–‹ ƒŽŽ› ‹ –Š‡ –‡š– ƒ• Ǥ ‡ ‡  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• ‘ ‡–”ation on Socrates’ acknowledgment of his ignorance, the meaning of which Schelling gives, ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ ‹ –Š‡ Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡†‡”ˆˆ‡„ƒ”—‰ͣͪͦͣȀͦͤǡ ȋ‡†ǤȌ Ǥ ”ƒ ȋ ”ƒˆ—”–ǣ—Š”ƒ’ǡͧͧ͟͡Ȍǡ͢͞͡ǣDz’ƒ”–ˆ”‘–Šƒ–Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ• ‹‡ ‡–Šƒ–™ƒ–•–‘ ‡š’Žƒ‹ƒ –—ƒŽ‹–›ǡ‘ ”ƒ–‡•’‘•‹–•ƒ‘™‹‰• ‹‡ ‡Ǥ‹–Š–Š‹•ǡ–Š‡ƒ ‘™Ž‡†g‡–‘ˆŠ‹•‹‰‘”ƒ ‡ϐ‹”•––ƒ‡•‘ƒ’‘•‹–‹˜‡‡ƒ‹‰Ǥdz Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ƒ ‘™Ž‡†‰‡• ‹ –—” Š‹• †‡„– –‘ Ǥ Ǥ ƒƒǯ• Sokratische ‡‘”ƒ„‹Ž‹‡ ȋ•–‡”†ƒǣ ƒ”–—‰ǡͥͣͧ͟Ȍǡͣ͟ǡ ‹–‹‰‹–ƒ– ǡͣͤ͠ǣDzŠ‡•‡‡†-corn of our natural wisdom must degenerate and pass into ignorance so that from this death, from this nothingness, the life and essence of a higher knowing must germinate and be ”‡ƒ–‡†ƒ‡™Ǥdz 12 — Šƒ•–Š‡‹“—‹”›‹–‘–Š‡‰”‘—†‘ˆˆ”‡‡†‘‘”–Š‡™‘”Ž†ǡƒ ‘”†‹‰–‘–Š‡ ϐ‹”•–Ž‡ –—”‡‘ˆ–Š‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›‘ˆ‡˜‡Žƒ–‹‘ǡ ǡͤ͟͞Ǥ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͧ͟͞ –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ ‡˜‹”‘ ‹–ǡ ‹ ƒ •‡•‡ –‘ „‡ —’ƒ ‡† „‡Ž‘™Ǥ Šƒ– ƒ ϐ‹‡Ž† logic contests is that it can be withdrawn from its environment, its —’•–”‡ƒǡ•‘ ƒ• –‘ „‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡ ‹ ‹–•‡ŽˆǤ  ‘–Š‡” ™‘”†•ǡ ‹– ‘–‡•–• the entailment of the transcendental that whatever is must meet it on ‹–• ‰”‘—†ǡ ”ƒ–Š‡” –Šƒ –Š‡ –”ƒ• ‡†‡–ƒŽ ‡‡”‰‹‰ ˆ”‘ ™Šƒ– ‹•Ǥ Š‹• ‡–ƒ‹Ž‡– Šƒ• „een bought by, amongst other methods, the ”‹–‹“—‡ ‘ˆ ‰‹˜‡‡•• ‹•‘ˆƒ” ƒ• –Š‹• ‹˜‘Ž˜‡• –™‘ –Š‹‰•ǣ ϐ‹”•–ǡ –Š‡ non-constitutedness „› the recipient of whatever it is that is said to be given 13, violating what I shall call the Kantian axiom that “he who wouŽ†‘™–Š‡™‘”Ž†—•–ϐ‹”•–ƒ—ˆƒ –—”‡‹–dz 14 in the interests of ƒ‹‰ Dz™Šƒ– ‹•dz ‘•‡“—‡– —’‘ –Š‡ ‘™‹‰ ‘ˆ ‹–ǡ ‘” ‘ˆ ƒ‹‰ ‘–‘Ž‘‰› ‘•‡“—‡– —’‘ ‡’‹•–‡‘Ž‘‰›Ǥ –”‹ –Ž› ‘„•‡”˜‡†ǡ –Š‡ ‡– result of that procedure would be that the known is not, while only what is not known is, or that “what is” is entirely knowing-dependent ‹–Š‡ƒ‡”–Š‡Žƒ–‡ƒ–”‡ ‘‡†•Ǥ Second, the short-circuiting of nature that is the presupposition of givenness demonstrates a physiocidal tendency as evident in contempo”ƒ”›’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›ƒ•‹ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•†ƒ›Ǥ 15 Šƒ–‹•ǡš‹•Dz‰‹˜‡dzŒ—•– ‹ˆ‹–‹•ƒŽ”‡ƒ†›–Š‡”‡ȋƒŽ–Š‘—‰Š™Š‡”‡Dz–Š‡”‡dz‹•ǡ‹•‘‘–ȌǤ –Š‡‰—‹•‡ ‘ˆƒ ”‹–‹“—‡‘ˆ‡’‹”‹ ‹•–‡’‹•–‡‘Ž‘‰›ǡ–Š‡ ”‹–‹“—‡‘ˆ–Š‡‰‹˜‡ǡ‘ certain readings, eliminates any ontology for which being is insepa”ƒ„Ž‡ˆ”‘–Š‘—‰Š–Ǥ‹ ‡–Š‘—‰Š–‹•ƒ‘‰•–™Šƒ–‹•ǡ †‘‘–‹–‡† to contest the connectedness of thought and being, but their insepa”ƒ„‹Ž‹–›”‹••ƒ‡“—ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š‘—–”‡ƒ‹†‡”ǡ™Š‹ Šǡ  Žƒ‹ǡ‹•‘–oŽ‘‰‹ ƒŽŽ› ˜‹ ‹‘—•Ǥ Š—•ǡ ‹n revisiting the problem of the conceptual constructedness of what is, rather than worrying about egress from the transcendental to some non-conceptual reality, I have in my •‹‰Š–• •‘‡–Š‹‰ Ž‹‡ –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Ǥ ˆ –Š‡ ˆ‘” ‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”‹–‹“—‡ ‘ˆ 13 Dzƒ› –Š‹‰• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ •ƒ‹† –‘ „‡ Ǯ‰‹˜‡ǯǣ •‡•‡ ‘–‡–•ǡ ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ ‘„Œ‡ –•ǡ universals, proposi–‹‘•ǡ”‡ƒŽ ‘‡ –‹‘•ǡϐ‹”•–’”‹ ‹’Ž‡•ǡ‡˜‡‰‹˜‡‡••‹–•‡ŽˆǤdz Wilfrid Sellars, ’‹”‹ ‹• ƒ† –Š‡ Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š› ‘ˆ ‹†Ǥ ‹–Š ƒ –—†› —‹†‡ „› Robert Brandom ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣ ƒ”˜ƒ”†‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡͧͧͥ͟Ȍǡ͟͢Ǥ 14 Immanuel Kant, ’—• ‘•–——ǡ ȋ‡†Ǥ ƒ† –”ǤȌ Ǥ ‘Dž ”•–‡” ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣ ƒm„”‹†‰‡‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡͧͧ͟͡Ȍǡ͢͠͞Ǥ 15 ‡‡ǡˆ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ ‘Š ‘™‡ŽŽǯ•”‡•’‘•‡–‘‘„‡”–‹’’‹‹Ǥ‹–Šǡȋ‡†ǤȌ ‡ƒ†‹‰ ‘™‡ŽŽ‘‹†ƒ†‘”Ž† ȋ‘†‘ǣ‘—–Ž‡†‰‡ǡ͠͞͞͠Ȍǡͥͥ͠ǣDz ‡› reminder of second nature has done its work, nature can drop out of my picture –‘‘ǤdzŠ‹• ‘ϐ‹”•ƒ”—• ƒ„”‹‡Žǯ•‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ǡ‹Š‹• Transcendental Ontolo‰›Ǥ ••ƒ›• ‹ ‡”ƒ †‡ƒŽ‹• ȋ‘†‘ǣ Ž‘‘•„—”›ǡ ͟͟͠͞Ȍǡ –Šƒ–  ‘™‡ŽŽ “hardly ever mentions the world in his book ‹† ƒ† ‘”Ž†Ǥdz ȋš‹i) See also ƒ‹‡Ž ‡‡––ǯ• ”‹–‹ ƒŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ ‘ˆ ‘„‡”– ”ƒ†‘ǯ• ƒ‹‰‹–š’Ž‹ ‹– ȋƒm„”‹†‰‡ǣ ƒ”˜ƒ”† ‹˜‡”•‹–› ”‡••ǡ ͧͧ͟͢Ȍǡ ‹ DzŠ‡ ˜‘Ž—–‹‘ ‘ˆ Š›dz ȏŠ––’ǣȀȀƒ•‡Ǥ–—ˆ–•Ǥ‡†—Ȁ ‘‰•–—†Ȁ†‡‡––Ȁ’ƒ’‡”•Ȁ”ƒ†‘Ǥ’†ˆȐ ƒ•– ƒ ‡••‡† ͥ —Ž›͟͢͠͞Ǥ

͟͟͞ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ givenness rests on a theory of the ready-made, then while its supposed virtue is the inconsistency of beginning conceptually with what is not conceptual, thus demonstrating the essential autochtho›‘ˆƒ•’ƒ ‡‘ˆ”‡ƒ•‘•ǡ‹–•˜‹ ‡‹•–Šƒ–‹–‹•ƒƒ†ƒ‹•–’”ƒ‘–Š‡ e˜‹”‘‡†‡••‘ˆ–Š‡’‘•‹–ǡ’”‘’‘•‹–‹‘ǡ‘”Œ—†‰‡–Ǥ ’‘•‹–‹‰ǡˆ‘” example, that “some S are ’,” the ontological commitment to its environment extends only downstream, not up, so that the entire ƒ–—”ƒŽŠ‹•–‘”›‘ˆ–Š‡’‘•‹–, how it came to be, is eliminƒ–‡†Ǥ‡”Šƒ’• this is what Schelling had in view when he wrote that “Idealism…consists in the denial and non-acknowledgment of that negat‹‰’”‹‘”†‹ƒŽˆ‘” ‡ȏƒ†Ȑ‹•–Š‡—‹˜‡”•ƒŽ•›•–‡‘ˆ‘—”–‹‡•Ǥdzȋ  ǡ͟͠͠ȀǡͥȌ •ƒ‡šƒ’Ž‡‘ˆ•— Šƒϐ‹‡Ž†Ž‘‰‹ ǡ–Š‡“—‡•–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ 16, to ™Š‹ ŠDz–Š‡‡Žƒ–‹‘ǡdz–Š‡‡••ƒ›ƒ†Œ‘‹‡†–‘–Š‡•‡ ‘†ƒ†–Š‹”† editions of On the World Soul 17ǡ ‹•†‡˜‘–‡†ǡ‹• Ž‡ƒ”Ž›ƒŽ‘‰‹ ƒŽƒ––‡”Ǥ Yet it is not reducibly so, but arises from a naturephilosophy, as is already ‡˜‹†‡–ˆ”‘‹–•–‹–Ž‡ǡƒ†‹•‡š’Ž‹ ‹–‹‹–•‘’‡‹‰’”‘„Ž‡ǣ how does matter come to be? Why then does a logical treatise open ™‹–Š ƒ †‹• —••‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ •‘—” ‡ ‘ˆ ƒ––‡”ǫ Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ƒ› ”‡ƒ•‘• ˆ‘”–Š‹•Ǥ ‹”•–ǡ‹ˆ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•Ž‘‰‹ ‹•ƒϐ‹‡Ž†Ž‘‰‹ ǡ‹– annot begin with the assumption of entities isolated from one another, complete and independent ab initioǡ ƒ† •‘ ’‘•‡• –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ǡ Dz ‘™ †‘‡• Ǯ‹•‘Žƒ–‹‘ǯ ‘‡ ƒ„‘—–ǫdz ‘‰•– ’ƒ”–• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ•™‡” ƒ”‡ǣ ˆ”‘ ƒ––‡”ǡ –Š‡ child of gravity and light; from the •‘Ž‹†ǡ–Š‡‰ƒ•‡‘—•ƒ†–Š‡Ž‹“—‹†ǡ ‘”–Š‡ˆ‘”•‘ˆ Š‡‹•–”›ǡƒ†–Š‡ˆ‘”•‘ˆ–Š‘—‰Š–ǤŠ—•Ž‘‰‹ ‹••—‡• ˆ”‘ƒ†‡‡’ϐ‹‡Ž†‹–‘™Š‹ Š‹–• ‘‡ –‹‘•‡š–‡†ǡ‘”™‹–Š™Š‹ Š‹– ‹•‹–‹ƒ–‡ƒ–‘‡”‡‘˜‡ǤŠ‡Dz ‘’—Žƒdz•‡”˜‡•‘–‘Ž›–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡–‘ connect the elements of a proposition, but to connect the ideal (the ’”‘’‘•‹–‹‘Ȍ–‘–Š‡”‡ƒŽDz‹ƒ–—”‡Ǥdz –‹•—‹˜‡”•ƒŽŒ—•–‹ˆ–Š‡•–ƒ†ƒ”† ƒ—‹˜‡”•ƒŽ—•–‡‡–‹•‘„–ƒ‹‹‰‹–Š‡—‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ ˆ‹–†‹†‘–ǡ–Š‡”‡ would be at least one domain in which it failed to obtain, namely, the —‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ‡––Š‡ƒ–—”‡‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ‹•‘–•‹’Ž› ‘‡š–‡•‹˜‡™‹–Š the universe or the maximal environment of things, because if it “is” ƒ– ƒŽŽǡ ‹– –‘‘ ‹• ‡˜‹”‘‡†ǡ ‘” ‹• ƒ ‡ –›’‡ǡ ƒ ‘•‡“—‡–Ǥ ‡– •‹ ‡ 16 ƒ” Ǥ Š‘ƒ• ”‡ ‡–Ž› ‰ƒ˜‡ ƒ ‡š ‡ŽŽ‡– ’ƒ’‡” ‘ DzŠ‡ ‡†‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ copula as a fundamental structure in Schelling’s Philosophy” at ˜‹Žǡ ”‡‡†‘ǡ ƒ† ‹‡ǣ  ‘ˆ‡”‡ ‡ ‘  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰̹• ”‡‡†‘ ‡••ƒ› ƒ† ‰‡• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘”Ž† ȋ‹˜‡”•‹–›‘ˆƒ”™‹ ǡƒ›͡͞ǡ͟͢͠͞ȌǤ 17 SW ǡ ͣ͢͡–ͣͦ͢Ǣ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ ”ƒ– ƒ• Dz –Š‡ ‘”Ž† ‘—ŽǤ  ›’‘–Š‡•‹• ˆ‘” ƒ Higher Physics,” in  –Š‡ ‘”Ž† ‘—Ž ƒ† –Š‡” ƒ–—”‡’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹ ƒŽ ”‹–‹‰•Ǥ Š‡ ϐ‹”•– ‡†‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ On the World Soul ™ƒ• ’—„Ž‹•Š‡† ‹ ͥͧͦ͟ǡ –Š‡ •‡ ‘†ǡ –‘ which On the Relation ‹•ƒ†Œ‘‹‡†ǡ‹ͦͤ͟͞ǡƒ†–Š‡–Š‹”†‹ͦͧ͟͞Ǥ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͟͟͟ “what is true of the copuŽƒ‹•–”—‡‘ˆ–Š‡—‹˜‡”•‡dzȋ ǡͤͤ͡Ȍǡ–Š‡ production of the isolated copula—the emergence of expression— additionally bonds that outside of which nothing is, ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ–Š‡‹ϐ‹‹–‡ǡ ™‹–Š–Š‡‹•‘Žƒ–‡†‘”–Š‡ϐ‹‹–‡Ǥ ‡ ‡ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•‡š’Ž‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡ‹™Šƒ– folŽ‘™•ǡ‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ–—”‡‘ˆ–Š‡‹”„‘†Ǥ Second, therefore, if complete isolation is impossible, the copula ‹•—‹˜‡”•ƒŽǤ—–—‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‹–›ǡƒ•‘–‡†ƒ„‘˜‡ǡ ƒ‘–‘Ž› ‘•‹•–‹ the saturation of all instances, as when I say “everything is matter,” if the expression of this state of affairs is not itself counted amongst –Š‘•‡•–ƒ–‡•‘ˆƒˆˆƒ‹”•Ǥ‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‹–›–Š—•‡–ƒ‹Ž•ƒ‹†‘ˆ —”˜ƒ–—”‡‹ its assertion, such that universalization also particularizes that —‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š—• DzƒŽŽ–Š‹‰•ƒ”‡šdz †‘‡• ‘– ‡šŠaust all things, „—–”‡’”‘†— ‡•–Š‡ǡ•‘–‘•’‡ƒǡƒ•–Š‡š–Šƒ––Š‡›ƒ”‡Ǥ Š‹”†ǡ –Š‡ ƒ–—”‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•‡ ™ƒ•  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• ‘ ‡” ˆ”‘ „‡‰‹‹‰ –‘ ‡†Ǥ Š‡ ‡••ƒ› ‘ –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ‹• –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• being a logical treatise, a member of the series of “exhibitions” or Darstellungen of what he lately called, recalling the complex topology presented by the copula, the “uni-˜‡”•‹‘Ǥdzȋǡ͟͟͡Ȍ †‡‡†ǡ ‘’—Žƒ is Dz—‹˜‡”•‹‘dz –‘ –Š‡‡š–‡– –Šƒ– ‹– ‹•ǡ •‘ –‘ •’‡ƒǡ–Š‡ ‘‘ϐ‹Žƒ‡– ‡†‹—–Šƒ–Dz–Š‡ƒŽŽdz„‡ ‘‡•‹ƒŽŽˆ‘”•ǤŠ‡’”‘„Ž‡ǡ–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ of locating the universal is that of the “unknown root” of the universe „‡ ƒ—•‡–Š‡‹†‹˜‹†—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡”‘‘–‹•ƒ ‘•‡“—‡–‡š‡” ‹•‡Ǥ‘”eover, if it is the root of “all the forms and living phenomena of mat–‡”dzȋ ǡͣͧ͡Ȍǡ–Š‡‹–—•–ƒŽ™ƒ›•ƒ†‡˜‡”„‡ˆ‘—†ǡ„‡ ƒ—•‡‹ˆ it were fo—† Œ—•– ‘ ‡ǡ „—– ‹• –Š‡ ”‘‘– ’‘–‡–‹ƒ–‡† ‹ ƒŽŽǡ ‹– —•– always be found; but if it must always be found, the root itself, as a •‡’ƒ”ƒ„Ž‡‡–‹–›ǡ™‹ŽŽ‡˜‡”„‡ˆ‘—†Ǥ ‡ ‡–Š‡Dz†ƒ”‡••dz‘ˆƒ––‡” is not incidental or merely descriptive, but plays a constitutive role for Schelling’s deep-ϐ‹‡Ž†–Š‡‘”‡–‹ ƒŽ‘–‘Ž‘‰›‹•‘ˆƒ”ƒ•–Š‡—‹˜‡”•‡ is not cleanly divided into the sensible and the intelligible, but also –Š‡†ƒ”Ǥƒ”‡••ǡŽ‹‡–Š‡Freedom essay’s “unground,” supplies the surd that renders the asymmetry, entailed if there is emergence, ‹•—’‡”ƒ„Ž‡Ǥ It is, accordingly, not enough to have “what is” issue from a positing, since although this is true of what issues downstream from it, to posit the posit as source eliminates the upstream from which it is in –—”‹••—ƒ–Ǥš’”‡••‹‘‹•ƒŽƒ–‡ƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘Ǥ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ‹ˆ‹†‹˜‹†—ation occurs in nature, the difference between the physical and the Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ ’”‘†— –‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹•‘Žƒ–‡ǡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ϐ‹‹–‡ǡ ‹• ‘– ƒ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡ ‡ ‹ ‹†„—–‘Ž›‘ˆ†‡‰”‡‡ǡ‘”‘ˆ–Š‡“—ƒ–‹–› of the universe enfolded in –Š‡’ƒ”–‹ —Žƒ”ǤŠ—•ǡŒ—•–ƒ•ǡ‹ˆDz‡˜‡”›–Š‹‰‹•ƒ––‡”ǡdz–Š‡—‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‹• in the particular, or the particular is a universe in the universe, so the ‘™‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ‹• ȋ͟Ȍ ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ ƒ† ȋ͠Ȍ more universal than other

͟͟͠ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ matters, since thought is, like its resistants, the universe in the uni˜‡”•‡ ƒ† ‘™• –Š‡ ‘–ƒ‹‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•‡ ‹ –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ Š‘—‰Š– ‹• ‘– –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ Dz–”ƒ• ‡†‡–ƒŽdz ‹ ƒ ƒ‡” ‹ ™Š‹ Š ‹–• ‡˜‹”‘‡–‹•‘–ǡŒ—•–‘”‡•‘Ǥ ͠Ǥǥǣƒ–‡ “—‹•‹–‹‘ Schell‹‰ ‘’‡• –Š‡ ͦ͟͢͢ ƒ”•–‡ŽŽ—‰ †‡• ƒ–—”’”‘œ‡••‡• with the “—‡•–‹‘ǡDzŠƒ–ƒ –Š‹‹‰™Š‡ –Š‹™Šƒ–‡š‹•–•ǫdz –‹•‘‡‘ˆ ƒ•‡”‹‡•‘ˆ“—‡•–‹‘•–Šƒ–’‘•‹–‹‘–Š‡•‹–—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‹“—‹”›in the midst of something else that environs –Š‡“—‡•–‹‘ǤŠ‡Stuttgart Seminars, ˆ‘” ‹•–ƒ ‡ǡ „‡‰‹ ™‹–Š –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘, Dz‘ ™Šƒ– ‡š–‡– ‹• ƒ •›•–‡ ever possible?” the immediate answer to which is that there already ‹•‘‡Ǥ‹‹Žƒ”Ž›ǡˆ”‘–Š‡•–ƒ–‡‘ˆƒˆˆƒ‹”•–Šƒ––Š‡™‘”Ž†‹•Dz ƒ—‰Š–‹ –Š‡‡–•‘ˆ”‡ƒ•‘ǡdz–Š‡“—‡•–‹‘ƒ”‹•‡•ǣDzŠ‘™†‹†‹–‰‡––Š‡”‡ǫdz 18 Š‡ ˆ‘”‘ˆ–Š‡•‡“—‡•–‹‘•‹†‹ ƒ–‡•ǡϐ‹”•–ǡ–Šƒ––Š‡•–ƒ–‡‘ˆƒˆˆƒ‹”•ƒ–ecedent to the thinking of it environs the thinking of that state of affairs, and that this remainder is, according to the famous passage, “irreducible” 19 or insuperable (nie aufgehendeȌǤ ‡ ‘†ǡ –Š‡”‡ ‹• –”ƒ˜‡Ž‹„‘–Š†‹”‡ –‹‘•ǣ„‡ ƒ—•‡–Š‘—‰Š–ǡ–Š‡•›•–‡‘ˆ• ‹‡ ‡ǡƒ† ”‡ƒ•‘ ƒ”‡ Žƒ–‡ ƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘•ǡ Œ—•– ƒ• ƒ› ’”‘’‘•‹–‹‘ ƒ•™‡”‹‰ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ Dz™Šƒ– ƒ  –Š‹‹‰dz ”‡ƒ‹• ‘’‡ ™‹–Š ”‡‰ƒrd to its up•–”‡ƒǡ„‡ ƒ—•‡‹–•„‡‹‰–Š‘—‰Š–‹• ‘•‡“—‡–—’‘™Šƒ–‹–‹•–Šƒ– is thought, so too thought, science and reason remain open to their downstream, insofar as, while dependent on a source that is not and cannot be thought—not merely as content, but also as regards kind—is autonomous with respect to it, ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ’”‡ ‹•‡Ž›not its anteced‡–Ǥ Second, the environed character of thought indicates that it issues from a –‘’‹ , a place rather than a principle, or that it is not demonstrative, but dialec–‹ ƒŽǤ 20 ‡ ‡ǡ‹–Š‡“—‡•–‹‘DzŠƒ–ƒ –Š‹‹‰ 18 Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ ”‡ —”• ‹  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǡ ”—†Ž‡‰—‰†‡”’‘•‹–‹˜‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡ǡ ȋ‡†ǤȌ Ǥ —Š”ƒ• ȋ—”‹ǣ ‘––‡‰ƒ †ǯ”ƒ•‘ǡ ͧͥ͟͠Ȍǡ ͠͠͠ǡ ƒ† ƒ–  ǡ ͟͢͡ǡ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ Bowie as ‹•–‘”› ‘ˆ ‘†‡” Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š› ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣ ambridge University ”‡••ǡͧͧ͟͢Ȍǡͥ͟͢Ǥ 19   ǡ ͤ͡͞ǡ –”Ǥ by Ǥ —–ƒ ƒ• Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹ ƒŽ “—‹”‹‡• ‹–‘ –Š‡ ƒ–—”‡ ‘ˆ —ƒ ”‡‡†‘ ȋŠ‹ ƒ‰‘ǣ’‡‘—”–ǡͧͦͤ͟Ȍǡ͢͡ǡ–”ƒ•Ǥ‘†Ǥ ‡”‡ƒˆ–‡””‡ˆ‡””‡† –‘’ƒ”‡–Š‡–‹ ƒŽŽ›‹–Š‡–‡š–ƒ• Ǥ 20 Dz‡ƒ•‘‹‰ ‹• demonstration [ƒ’‘†‡‹š‹•] when it proceeds from premises ™Š‹ Š ƒ”‡ –”—‡ ƒ† ’”‹ƒ”›ǥǤ ‡ƒ•‘‹‰ ‹• dialectical which reasons from ‰‡‡”ƒŽŽ› ƒ ‡’–‡† ‘’‹‹‘•Ǥdz ”‹•–‘–Ž‡ǡ ‘’‹ •ǡ ȋ–”ǤȌ Ǥ ‘”•–‡”ǡ ‹ Posterior ƒŽ›–‹ •ǡ‘’‹ • ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣ ƒ”˜ƒ”†‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡͧͤ͟͞Ȍǡ͟͞͞ƒǤ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͟͟͡ when I think what exists,” the thinking repositioned by Schelling’s –‘’‹ ǣ –Š‡ ‘‰‹–‘ †‘‡• ‘– ƒ ‘’ƒ› ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘•ǡ „—– ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™• ˆ”‘‹–••‘—” ‡‘–ƒ•ƒ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡ„—–ƒ•ƒ’”‘†— –‹‘Ǥ ‡ ‡–‘ ”‹•–‘–‡Ž‹ƒ –‘’‹ •  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ ƒ††• –Š‡ †‹‡•‹‘ ‘ˆ ‡‡”‰‡ ‡ǣ †‹ƒŽ‡ –‹ †‘‡•‘–†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡„—–‰‡‡”ƒ–‡•Ǥ 21 Š‡‡‡”‰‡–ȋ™Šƒ– I am thinking when I think) is dependent on its source (what exists) while nevertheless autonomous in respect to it, since if it were not so ƒ—–‘‘‘—•ǡ‘‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘™‘—Ž†Šƒ˜‡‘ —””‡†ǤŠ—•–Š‡–Š‹‹‰ neither represents nor repeats what exists but adds a dimension to ‡š‹•–‡ ‡ǤŠ‹•‹•„‡ ƒ—•‡ǡ‹–Š‡ ƒ•‡–Šƒ– ƒ–Š‹‹‰™Šƒ–‡š‹•–•ǡ the thinking of what exists that arises in existence, is “spoken out ‹–‘ ƒ–—”‡dz ȋ  ǡ ͧͣ͡Ȁ ǡ ͥ͢Ȍǡ ƒ† ‹• –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ ƒ ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ ‡Ž‡‡–‹™Šƒ–‡š‹•–•ǡ‘––Š‡‡šŠƒ—•–‹‘‘ˆ‹–Ǥ‹ ‡–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡–Š‡ existence with the predicate “I am thinking it” is not the existence that was asked afte”ǡ –Š‡ Dz™Šƒ– ‡š‹•–•dz ƒ•‡† ƒˆ–‡” ‹ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ †‘‡•‘–”‡ ‘˜‡”–Šƒ–‡š‹•–‡ ‡‹–Š‘—‰Š–Ǥˆ–‡”ƒŽŽǡ‘”‡‡š‹•–•–Šƒ I am thinking, so that Schelling’s famously insuperable remainder 22, ”‡ƒ‹•Ǥ Precisely because reason does not saturate what is, the thinking ‘ˆ™Šƒ–‹•†‘‡•‘– ‘•‹•–‹–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –‹‘‘ˆƒ’Žƒ‡‘ˆ”‡ƒ•‘‘–‘ the plane of being more geometricoǤȋ ǡͧͣ͡–ͧͤȀ ǡͥͣȌ ‡‘m‡–”› ‹• ‹•—ˆϐ‹ ‹‡– –‘ ƒ††”‡•• –Š‡ Dz—‹˜‡”•‡ ‘ˆ ˆ‘”•dz ȋ ǡ ͤ͡͠Ȍǡ ™Š‹ Š ”‡“—‹”‡• –Š‡ ‰”‡ƒ–‡” –‘’‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ ‘plexity exhibited by the ‘’—ŽƒǤ ‡ ‡–Š‡‘Dž „‹—•-Ž‹‡ϐ‹‰—”‡‘ˆ–Š‡—‹-˜‡”•‹‘ǡ–Š‡‘‘ϐ‹Žament that forms all forms, or the identity that is the universe, without the universe being ”‡†— ‹„Ž› –Šƒ–Ǥ ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ Dz™Šƒ– ƒ  –Š‹‹‰ ™Š‡  –Š‹ what ‡š‹•–•dz‹•ƒ“—‡•–‹‘ ‘ ‡”‹‰–Š‡source of my thinking what I am thinking to the extent that, this unprethinkable “what it is that is” does not merely entail, but rather drives a thinking that, accordingly, cannot be of ‹–Ǥ ‘–Š‡”™‘”†•ǡDz™Šƒ–is” is not merely given, since if it were thus ready-made, it would be complete, and since something ‘’Ž‡–‡ ‘—Ž†„›†‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘‡‹–Š‡””‡“—‹”‡‘” ƒ—•‡ƒ›ƒ—‰‡ntation, it would be not a beginning but an end from which no issue 21 DzŠ‡ †‹ƒŽ‡ –‹ ƒŽ ‡–Š‘† ‹•ǡ Ž‹‡ –Š‡ †‹ƒŽ‘‰‹ ƒŽǡ ‘– †‡‘•–”ƒ–‹˜‡ „—– ‰‡‡”a–‹˜‡Ǣ‹–‹•–Šƒ–‹™Š‹ Š–”—–Š‹•‰‡‡”ƒ–‡†Ǥš’‡”‹‡–‹•”—Ž‡†‘—–‘”ƒ†‹––‡† ‘Ž›‹ƒ•—„‘”†‹ƒ–‡ƒ‡”ǡˆ”‘†‡‘•–”ƒ–‹˜‡• ‹‡ ‡Ǥ—––‘‘™™Šƒ–‹t is that is being (and this in the end is alone what it is concerned with), one must, ƒ•™‡•ƒ‹†ǡƒ –—ƒŽŽ›ƒ––‡’––‘–Š‹‹–ǡ•‘–Šƒ–™‡‡š’‡”‹‡ ‡™Šƒ–‹–‹•ǤTentan†—‡–‡š’‡”‹‡†—‡•–Ǥdzȋ ǡ͡͡͞Ȍ 22 DzŠ‡ ‹ ‘’”‡Š‡•‹„Ž‡ „ƒ•‹• ‘ˆ ”‡ƒŽ‹–› ‹ –Š‹‰s, the irreducible [nie aufgehende] remainder that cannot be resolved into reason [‡”•–ƒ†ȐǤdz ȋ  ǡ ͤ͡͞Ȁ ǡ͢͡Ȍ

͟͟͢ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ ™‘—Ž† ƒ”‹•‡Ǥ ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ Schelling, we may say that something thus ‹ ‘•‡“—‡–ǡ•— Š ƒ• ƒ Dzˆ‘”ƒŽƒ†ˆ”—‹–Ž‡••dz ƒ––‡” ȋibidǤǡ ͥ͟͡Ȍǡ ‹• not even antecedent, since an antecedent is one only when there is a ‘•‡“—‡–Ǥ 23 Š‡–Š‹‹‰‘ˆ™Šƒ–‡š‹•–•–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡’‘•‡•–Š‡“—‡stion not only of the source of thinking, but the source of existence, ƒ†–Š—•„‘––‘•‘—–™‹–Š–Š‡“—‡•–‹‘‘ˆ ”‡ƒ–‹‘‘”Dzƒ–—”‡‹–•‡Žˆdz (ibidǤǡ ͥͦ͡Ȍǡ •‹ ‡ ‘Ž› –Š‡ ‹• –Š‡ ’”‘„Ž‡ƒ–‹  ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‰‹˜‡ –”—Ž› †‡ˆ—•‡†ǣ‘–Š‹‰‹•‰‹˜‡„‡ ƒ—•‡ƒ’”‘†— –‹•‘‡Œ—•–‹f production ‡• Š‡™• –Š‡ Dzƒ “—‹”‡† ϐ‹ƒŽ‹–›dz ‹ ™Š‹ Š ‹– ™‘—Ž† ‘•‹•– ™‡”‡ –Š‡ ’”‘†— ––‘‡šŠƒ—•–‹–•’”‘†— –‹‘Ǥ Š‡ –Š‹‹‰ –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ ‹••—‡• ‘– ˆ”‘ •‘‡–Š‹‰ ‰‹˜‡ǡ „—– ”ather from what resists it, and against which ek-•‹•–‡ ‡–Š‡•–ƒ†•Ǥ Š‡thinking of “what am I thinking when I think what exists?” and all that this entails, does not suspend antecedence or “raise it up” ‹–‘ ”‡ƒ•‘ǡ „‡ ƒ—•‡ ”‡ϐŽ‡ –‹‘ ‘ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ ‹• ’”‡ ‹•‡Ž› ƒ later ƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘ –Šƒ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ ‹–•‡ŽˆǤ ˆ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ ϐŽ‘™• down•–”‡ƒ–‘‡š’”‡••‹‘ǡ‹–ƒ ‘”†‹‰Ž›ϐŽ‘™•ˆ—”–Š‡”ˆ”‘‹–•—’•–”‡ƒǡ ‡˜‡ ™Š‡ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ ‘ ‡”• ‹–Ǥ —– ‹– ™‘—Ž† „‡ ƒ ‹•–ƒ‡ –‘ conclude that existence is thus lost to reason, since reason is, on this ƒ ‘—–ǡ ‘–”‹„—–‘”› –‘ ‹–Ǥ ƒ–Š‡” –Šƒ •‡’arating reason from its environment, the latter is dependent on the former when expression occurs, and the bond or copula consisting in dependent-yetautonomous expression, issues not from a given but from “the force of beginning posited in the expressible,” which force, according to the Weltalter, is again “the primordial germ [”‡‹] of living na–—”‡Ǥdzȋ ǡ͢͠͡Ȁǡ͡͞Ȍ Š‡”‡ ‹• ƒ –Š‹”† ‹••—‡ ”ƒ‹•‡† „› –Š‹• “—‡•–‹‘ǡ ‘‡ –Šƒ– Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ works out in his long examination of the copula, which extends from Dz–Š‡‡Žƒ–‹‘dz–‘WAǡƒ†–Š‡ϐ‹”•–’ƒ••ƒ–™Š‹ Š‹•–Š‡ˆ‘ —•‘ˆ–Š‡ ’”‡•‡–‡••ƒ›ǤŠ‡’”‘„Ž‡‹•–Š‹•Ǥ –Š‡“—‡•–‹‘, “what am I think‹‰ ™Š‡  –Š‹ ™Šƒ– ‡š‹•–•ǡdz ‹–• Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ •—„Œ‡ – ‹• –Š‡ Dz™Šƒ–dz  ƒ putatively thinking, and its predicate is Dz ƒ–Š‹‹‰™Šƒ–‡š‹•–•Ǥdz ˆ “what exists is what I am thinking” obtains, then according to the analyses of the proposition in PIN and WA, the copula in the proposi–‹‘ȋDz‹•dzȌ‡š’”‡••‡•–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰•–ƒ–‡‘ˆƒˆˆƒ‹”•ǣ™Šƒ–‡˜‡”‹–‹•–Šƒ– 23 ‡‡ ǡͤ͢͡Ȁ ǡͦ͟–ͧ͟ǣDz –™‘—Ž†‹†‡‡†„‡ ‘–”ƒ†‹ –‘”›‹ˆ–Šƒ–™Š‹ Š‹• †‡’‡†‡– ‘” ‘•‡“—‡– ™‡”‡ ‘– ƒ—–‘‘‘—•Ǥ Š‡”‡ ™‘—Ž† „e dependence without something being dependent, a result without a resultant…that is, the ™Š‘Ž‡ ‘ ‡’–‹‘™‘—Ž†˜‹–‹ƒ–‡‹–•‡ŽˆǤdz –Š‹• ƒ•‡–‘‘ǡ–Š‡ƒ–‡ ‡†‡–‹•‘Ž›ƒ ƒ–‡ ‡†‡–™Š‡–Š‡”‡‹•ƒ ‘•‡“—‡–ǡ•‘–Šƒ––Š‡ƒ–‡ ‡†‡–ǯ•†‡’‡†‡ ›‘ the ‘•‡“—‡–ˆ‘”‹–•ƒ–‡ ‡†‡–•–ƒ–—•ǡ”‡†‡”•‹–‘Ž› ‘•‡“—‡–Ž›ƒ–‡ ‡d‡–Ǥ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͣ͟͟ is x in what exists is also the x –Šƒ– ƒ–Š‹‹‰Ǥ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ•‹ ‡–Š‡ •—„Œ‡ –ƒ ‘”†‹‰Ž›‡š’”‡••‡•–Š‡x in S, and the predicate the x in ’, it follows that the identity asserted in the proposition expresses the unity of the proposition, of each of its terms, and oˆ–Š‡ ‘’—ŽƒǤ 24 Š‡’”‘„Ž‡‹•ǡ‹ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‹–‹‘‹•–Š‡‡š’”‡••‹‘‘ˆ‹–•—‹–›ƒ• ƒˆϐ‹”‹‰–Š‡—‹–›‘ˆ‹–•’ƒ”–•ǡ™Š‡ ‡–Š‡ƒ•›‡–”›‹–Š‡“—‡stion, whence the remainder, the darkness, the surd? We may also approach the same state of affairs in the reverse manner, starting –Š‹•–‹‡ˆ”‘‹†‡–‹–›Ǥ ˆ‹†‡–‹–›‹•‘Ž›ƒ†ƒŽ™ƒ›•‹†‡–‹–›‹–•‡Žˆǡ so that whatever is, considered insofar as it merely is, is identity itself 25, then since there are no instances in which identity is not expressed—hence, “absolute identity is not the cause of the universe, but the universe itself,” 26 neither is there one in which it exclusively ‹•Ǥ˜‡DzA=Adz‹•ƒ†‘’‡”ƒ–‡••‡˜‡”ƒŽˆ‘”ƒŽ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–‹ƒ–‹‘•ǣϐ‹”•–Ž›ǡ in the fact of expression; secondly, in the differentiation of •—„Œ‡ – ƒ†’”‡†‹ ƒ–‡Ǣ–Š‹”†Ž›ǡ‹–Š‡ˆ— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—ŽƒǤ ˆ–Š‡‡š’”‡••‹‘ of identity in the proposition entails the unity of the “three propositions” contained in it—the identity in S, the identity in ’, and therefore the identities in “S is ’” insofar as both are identity and the copula asserts this 27—this does not resolve identity into a logical simple, because the copula provokes an iteration of identity without end or issue, wherein each iteration differs from its antecedent and ‹–• ‘•‡“—‡–ǡ „—– ‘•‡“—‡–Ž› —’‘ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡–‹ƒ–‹‘Ǥ  ‘–Š‡” words, identity is environed insofar as the formal differentiation its iterations express are never summed, because the identity proposition is not extensional, that is, does not cover cases of entities that are identical to one anotherǡ „—– ‹• ‹–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ ™Š‡ ƒ›–Š‹‰ ‡š‹•–•Ǥ Hence even from the perspective of the unity lately expressed in the ’”‘’‘•‹–‹‘ǡ–Š‡ƒ•›‡–”›”‡ƒ‹•Ǥ‹‡–Š‡ƒ‰‡–‹ ‹†‹ˆˆ‡”‡ ‡ point, identity only is if tensed in both directions, which tensions are ‹†‡–‹–›†‹˜‡”‰‡–Ž›Ǥ 24 ƒ”ƒ’Š”ƒ•‹‰  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• ƒƒŽ›•‡• ƒ–   ǡ ͢͟͡Ȁ ǡ ͟͡ ƒ†   ǡ ͟͠͡– ͟͢ȀǡͦǤ 25 “Absolute identity has surely never ceased being identity, and everything that is is, considered in itself…‹†‡–‹–›‹–•‡ŽˆǤdz ǣ͟͠͞ǡ–”Ǥ„›Ǥƒ–‡”ƒ•Dz”‡•‡–a–‹‘‘ˆ››•–‡‘ˆŠ‹Ž‘•‘’Š›ǡdz‹Ǥƒ–‡”ƒ†Ǥ‘‘†ȋ‡†•ǤȌǡŠ‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’ŠiƒŽ —’–—”‡ „‡–™‡‡ ‹ Š–‡ ƒ†  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰Ǥ ‡Ž‡ –‡† ‡š–• ƒ† ‘””‡•’‘†‡ ‡ ȋͣͪ͢͢-ͣͪͤ͢Ȍ ȋŽ„ƒ›ǣ”‡••ǡ͟͠͞͠Ȍǡͧ͟͢Ǥ 26  ǡͧ͟͠ȀDz”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ››•–‡ǡdzͣ͟͢Ǥ 27 DzŠ‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ƒ –—ƒŽŽ› –Š”‡‡ ’”‘’‘•‹–‹‘• ‘–ƒ‹‡† ‹ –Š‡ ƒ„‘˜‡ ‹–‡† ’”‘’‘•i–‹‘ȏαȐǤŠ‡ϐ‹”•–ǡǮαšǯǡ–Š‡•‡ ‘†ǡǮαšǯǡƒ†ǡˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ϐ‹”•–ˆ”‘–Š‹•ǡ–Š‡ third, ‘A and B are ‘‡ƒ†–Š‡•ƒ‡ǯǡ–Šƒ–‹•ǡǮ„‘–Šƒ”‡šǤǯdzȋ ǡ͟͢͠ȀǡͦȌ

ͤ͟͟ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ What of the universality of identity, or rather, the universe it is? No existent expresses a universal insofar as it genuinely is one, „‡ ƒ—•‡ ‘ ‡š‹•–‡– •‹’Ž› ‹• ‹–Ǥ ˆ ‹– ™‡”‡ǡ –Š‡ ‡š‹•–‹‰ —‹˜‡”•‡— nature—wo—Ž† ‘– „‡ ‹†‡–‹–›ǡ „‡ ƒ—•‡ ‹†‡–‹–› ™‘—Ž† „‡ Œ—•– ‘‡ ƒ‘‰•– ƒ› ‡š‹•–‡–•Ǥ  ‘”†‹‰Ž›ǡ –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‹–› ‘ˆ ‹†‡–‹–› ‹• achieved only if it cannot be conceived as separate from the “the universe,” 28 ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ ‹ˆ ‹– ‹• ‘– ƒ ϐ‹‹–‡ ˆ‘” ‘” ƒ ’ƒ”–‹ —Žƒ”Ǥ ‡ce the putatively separable domain of logic or “space of reasons” is only •— Š ƒ †‘ƒ‹ ‘•‡“—‡–Ž› —’‘ ‹–• Dz’‘•‹–‹˜‡Ž› ‡š–ƒ‹‹‰ ȏ’‘•‹–‹˜ ƒ—•• ŠŽ‹‡é–Ȑ–Š‡’‘•‹–‹˜‡dzȋǡ ǣͣ͟͠Ȁ ǡͧͤ͟Ǣ–”ƒ•Žƒ–‹‘‘†iϐ‹‡†Ȍǡ‘”„›„‡‹‰’‘•‹–‡†ƒ••— ŠǤŽ–Š‘—‰Š–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡‹–Š‡˜‹ ‹‹–› of existence, the being posited of the negative is the ground of its ‡š‹•–‡ ‡ǡ ƒ ‡š‹•–‡ ‡ ‹– •Šƒ”‡• ™‹–Š ™Šƒ– ‹– ‡š–ƒ‹•Ǥ  ‘”†‹‰Ž›ǡ the knowing of this means that extainment, too, is a copula (a disŒ— –‹‘Ȍǡ•— Š–Šƒ–‡˜‡‹–Š‡ ƒ•‡‘ˆ–Š‡’‘•‹–‹‰‘ˆ–Š‡‡‰ƒ–‹˜‡ǡ‘” logic, as positively extaining the positive, the copula extends beyond ‹–ǡ ‘‡ –‹‰ǡ ƒ• Dz –Š‡ ‡Žƒ–‹‘dz •ƒ›•ǡ Dz–Š‡ ”‡ƒŽ ƒ† –Š‡ ‹†‡ƒŽ in ƒ–—”‡Ǥ” It follows thƒ–ǡ–‘–Š‡“—‡•–‹‘Dz™Šƒ–‹•–Š‡’”‘’‡”†‘ƒ‹‘ˆ–Š‡ copula?” no domain may be given in answer that is not, insofar as it ‹•ƒ†‘ƒ‹ǡ•‹‹Žƒ”Ž›‡˜‹”‘‡†–‘–Š‡‡š‹•–‡–•™‹–Š‹‹–ǤŠ‡’”‘positional expression of identity is the expression of a universe of propositions, which, if expressed, manifestly differs from the proposition expressing it insofar as such a proposition occurs and does so ‡˜‹”‘‡†Ž›Ǥ ‹‹Žƒ”Ž›ǡ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘ Dz™Šƒ– ƒ  –Š‹‹‰ǥǫ” even ™Š‡ ’‘•‹–‹˜‡Ž› ƒ•™‡”‡†ǡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡’–› •—„Œ‡ – ’osition of the Dz™Šƒ–dz ‘•‡“—‡–Ž›ϐ‹ŽŽ‡†‹ǡ†‘‡•‘–”‡ ‘˜‡”‹–•†ƒ”—’•–”‡ƒ‹ its expressive downstream, but constitutes an iteration of what I have elsewhere called the “remains of the world,”29 or what insuperably environs expression such that an expression is only the latest ƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘Ǥ – ‹• –Š‡ •ƒ‡ ’”‘„Ž‡ –Šƒ– ƒ‡• ƒ––‡” ƒ† ‹–• ‹†‡ƒ Dz†‹ˆϐ‹ —Ž– ƒ††ƒ”dzǣ‹ƒƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ—‹˜‡”•‡ǡ™Šƒ–’ƒ”–‘ˆ‹–‹•ƒ––‡”ǫ 28  ǡͣ͟͠ȀDz”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ››•–‡ǡdzͣ͟͠Ǥ 29 ‡‡›DzŠ‡‡ƒ‹•‘ˆ–Š‡‘”Ž†ǣ ”‘—†•ƒ†‘™‡”•‹ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•ƒ–‡” ƒ–—”’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡,” Schelling Studienǡ˜‘ŽǤ͟ȋ͟͢͠͞Ȍǡ͡–͢͠Ǥ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͥ͟͟ ͡ǤȋŠ‡‡ƒŽƒ†–Š‡ †‡ƒŽȌ‹Nƒ–—”‡ǣ •–Š‡‹˜‡”•‡ Mƒ–‡”‹ƒŽǫ Schelling begins Dz–Š‡‡Žƒ–‹‘dz„›”‡•–ƒ–‹‰–Š‡Žƒ–‘‹ ’”‘„Ž‡ of the darkness of matter, which is amphibolously 30 dark both with ”‡‰ƒ”†–‘•‡•‡ƒ†‹–‡ŽŽ‡ –ǣ Š‡ †ƒ”‡•– ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ –Š‹‰•ǡ †ƒ”‡•• ‹–•‡Žˆ ƒ ‘”†‹‰ –‘ •‘‡ǡ ‹• ƒ––‡”Ǥ ‡– ƒŽŽ –Š‡ ˆ‘”• ƒ† Ž‹˜‹‰ ’Š‡omena of nature result from the ‹˜‘Ž—–‹‘ǡ •“—ƒ”‹‰ or raising [”Š‡„—‰] of this unknown rootǤ ‹–Š‘—––Š‡‘™‹‰‘ˆ–Š‹•ǡ’Š›•‹ •‹•™‹–Š‘—–• i‡–‹ϐ‹ ‰”‘—†•ǡ‡˜‡–Š‡• ‹‡ ‡‘ˆ”‡ƒ•‘‹•„‡”‡ˆ–‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ‘‡ –‹‰–Š‡‹†‡ƒ–‘ƒ –—ƒŽ‹–›Ǥȋ ǡͣͧ͡Ȍ •™‹–Š‹†‡–‹–›ǡ•‘™‹–Šƒ––‡”ǣ„‡ ƒ—•‡DzƒŽŽˆ‘”•dz”‡•—Ž–ˆ”‘ ‹–ǡ‡‹–Š‡”†‘‡•‹–Šƒ˜‡ǡ‘”‹•‹–ǡƒˆ‘”‹–•‡ŽˆǤƒ––‡” ƒ‘–‘ ‡„‡ ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒ–‡†ǡ ‘” Šƒ• ‹–•‡Žˆ ‘ ’‘•‹–‹‘ǡ „‡ ƒ—•‡ ™‡”‡ ‹– –‘ „‡ •—ˆϐiciently local as to be susceptible of isolation, matter would be singular and isolated from the universe that it could no longer, in conse“—‡ ‡ǡ„‡Ǥ ‘„‡‰‹ǡ™‡•ŠƒŽŽ ‘•‹†‡”™Šƒ–’”‡†‹ ƒ–‡•ƒ”‡ƒ––ƒ Š‡†–‘ƒt–‡” ‹ –Š‹• ’ƒ••ƒ‰‡Ǥ ƒ––‡” ‹• ϐ‹”•– ‘•‹†‡”‡† ”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž›ǡ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ„•‘Ž—–‡Ž›ǡ †ƒ”Ǥ Šƒ– ‹•ǡ ‹– ‹• ϐ‹”•– Ž‘ ƒ–‡† ƒ‘‰•– †ƒ” –Š‹‰•ǡ before it is said to be darkness itself, raising the distinction between exemplar and archetype, on the one hand, and between particular ƒ† —‹˜‡”•ƒŽǡ ‘ –Š‡ ‘–Š‡”Ǥ • ”‡‰ƒ”†• –Š‡ ϐ‹”•–ǣ ‹ˆ ƒ––‡” ‡”‡Ž› ‡š‡’Ž‹ϐ‹‡• †ƒ”‡••ǡ ‹ ™Šƒ– ”‡•’‡ – ƒ”‡ ‘–Š‡” †ƒ” –Š‹‰• †ƒ”ǫ ”‡–Š‡›ǡˆ‘”‹•–ƒ ‡ǡ‡’‹•–‡‹ ƒŽŽ›‘”‡”‡Ž›•‡•‹„Ž›‘’ƒ“—‡ǡ–Šƒ– is, relatively dark but not darkne••‹–•‡Žˆǫ ˆƒ––‡”‘Ž›‡š‡’Ž‹ϐ‹es, but is not †ƒ”‡••ǡ†ƒ”‡••‹–•‡Žˆ ƒ‘–„‡ƒ––‡”Ǥ If, taking the second distinction, matter is particular, whatever ‡Ž•‡–Š‡—‹˜‡”•‡‹‰Š–„‡ǡ‹–™‹ŽŽ‘Ž›’ƒ”–Ž›„‡ƒ––‡”Ǥ ˆƒ––‡”‹•ƒ universal, however, in what respect is it differentiable, even on the scale of light and dark? In what respect, that is, would it be darkness 30 For Kant, in the ”‹–‹“—‡‘ˆ—”‡‡ƒ•‘ ȋͤ͠͞–ͦͧȀͤ͟͡–ͤ͢Ȍǡ –Š‡ ƒ’Š‹„‘Ž› •–‡• ˆ”‘ ƒ ‘ˆ—•‹‘ ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ –Š‡ •‘—” ‹‰ ‘ˆ ƒ ’”‘†— – ‹ ‹–• ˆƒ —Ž–›Ǥ ‘ ”‡•‘Ž˜‡ –Š‡ ‘ˆ—•‹‘ǡ ƒ– ’”‘’‘•‡• ”‡ϐŽ‡ –‹‘ ‘ ‡”‹‰ Dz‹ ™Š‹ Š ‘ˆ ‘—” cognitive faculties are our representations connected together? Is it the under•–ƒ†‹‰ǡ‘”‹•‹––Š‡•‡•‡•„›™Š‹ Š–Š‡›ƒ”‡ ‘„‹‡†ƒ† ‘’ƒ”‡†ǫdz‡ϐŽ‡ction achieves the proper environing of representations and the correct distribu–‹‘‘ˆ ‘Œ— –‹˜‡ƒ††‹•Œ— –‹˜‡Œ—†‰‡–•„›–Š‡”‡•–”‹ –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘’—ŽƒǤ ˆ ”‡ϐŽ‡ –‹‘ ”‡•–”‹ –• –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒǡ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• ‹–‡ŽŽ‡ –—ƒŽ ‹–—‹–‹‘ǡ †‹ƒ‰”ƒ•ǡ ‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘•ǡ‘—–Ž‹‡•ƒ†‡ –›’‡•ǡƒ”‡‡–Š‘†•ˆ‘”‹–•‡š–‡•‹‘Ǥ

ͦ͟͟ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ itself, or Œ—•– darkness, since its universality would entail that it also „‡‹•–ƒ ‡†‹Ž‹‰Š–Ǥ Š‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•‘ˆ‹†‡–‹–›Šƒ•ƒŽ”‡ƒ†›•hown that, for Schelling, the universe is the only measure of a universal, although in such a claim, ‹– ‹• ”‡†‡”‡† ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ› ’ƒ”–‹ —Žƒ”Ǥ Š‹• ‹• ™Š› –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ƒŽ•‘ ‘‡ –• –Š‡ ‹ϐ‹‹–‡ ƒ† –Š‡ ϐ‹‹–‡ǡ •— Š –Šƒ– –Š‡ Žƒ––‡” ‹• „‘–Š ƒ instance of the f‘”‡”ǡƒ†–Š‡‡‡”‰‡ ‡‘ˆˆ‘”ˆ”‘‹–Ǥ Yet the passage does not only particularize matter as a logical —‹˜‡”•ƒŽǤ – ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ› ’”‡•‡–• ‹– ƒ• –Š‡ Dz—‘™ ”‘‘– ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ forms,” that is, that it is a morphogenetic universal or “the universe, –Š‡ ‹ϐ‹‹–› ‘ˆ ˆ‘”•Ǥdz ȋ ǡ ͤ͡͠Ȍ 31 Schelling’s particularization of matter as a root, precisely in the sense that it can be potentiated or raised, of a mathematically comprehensible morphogenesis 32, is ‹‡†‹ƒ–‡Ž› ‘—–‡”‡†„›–Š‹•”‘‘–„‡‹‰“—ƒŽ‹ϐ‹‡†ƒ•Dz—‘™Ǥdz ˆǡ ˆ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ –Š‡ ‡’‹•–‡‹  ‘„Œ‡ – –Šƒ– ‹• ƒ ƒ–Š‡ƒ–‹ ƒŽ ˆ‘” ‹• •‡’ƒ”ƒ„Ž‡ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ ‡••‡ ‡ –Šƒ– ƒ‘– „‡ •— Š ƒ ‘„Œ‡ –ǡ then the link between matter and morphogenesis is lacking, leaving the latter incomprehensible if the root remains un‘™Ǥ It is important to note, however, that Schelling’s claim is not that this root is a “thing,” sensibly or physically located amongst other things and merely therefore in ƒ —‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ ƒ–Š‡”ǡ ƒ• –Š‡ ”‘‘– ‘ˆ ƒ function, it obtains only when the functio†‘‡•Ǥ‹ ‡•— Šˆ— –‹‘• †‘‘––‡”‹ƒ–‡‹–Š‡‹”’”‘†— –•ǡ‘”†‘‡•–Š‡”‘‘–‡Œ‘›ϐ‹ƒŽ‹–›‘ˆ ˆ‘”ǡ •‹ ‡ ȋ͟Ȍ it can have none in itself, as we have seen, and ȋ͠Ȍ ™Šƒ–ˆ‘”•‹–™‹ŽŽ‰‡‡”ƒ–‡ƒ”‡—Ž‹‹–‡†‹’”‹ ‹’Ž‡Ǥ ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ™Š‡–Š‡ˆ— –‹‘†‘es obtain, then as root of “all the forms and living phenomena of nature,” it must be s—„Œ‡ – –‘ǡ ƒ• ‹– were, a higher-order exhibition than merely the existing or ’”‡•‡– 31 ‹‘Ž‘‰‹•– Ž‡••ƒ†”‘ ‹‡ŽŽ‹ ™”‹–‡•ǡ ‹ Forms of Becomingǡ ȋ–”ǤȌ Ǥ ƒ˜‹‡• (Princ‡–‘ǣ ”‹ ‡–‘ ‹˜‡”•‹–› ”‡••ǡ ͧ͠͞͞Ȍǣ “the universe of possible forms ƒ ‹ Ž—†‡ ƒ Žƒ”‰‡ǡ ’‡”Šƒ’• ‹ϐ‹‹–‡ǡ —„‡” –Šƒ– Šƒ˜‡ ‘– ›‡– „‡‡ ”‡ƒŽ‹œ‡†Ǥ ‘™ –Š‡ ™‹ŽŽ ™‡ ‡˜‡” „‡ ƒ„Ž‡ –‘ ‘™ ‹ˆ ‘‡ ‘ˆ‘—” ˜‹”–—ƒŽ „—––‡”ϐŽ‹‡• ƒ „‡ included or excluded from –Š‡Ž‹•–‘ˆ’‘••‹„Ž‡„—––‡”ϐŽ‹‡•ǫdzȋͤ͢Ȍ 32 Š‡ –‡†‡ › –‘ ‘•‹†‡” ‘”’Š‘‰‡‡•‹• ƒ–Š‡ƒ–‹ ƒŽŽ›ǡ ’‹‘‡‡”‡† „› Lorenz Oken’s mathematics of protoplasm, in Ž‡‡–•‘ˆŠ›•‹‘-Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›ǡȋ–”ǤȌ Ǥ —Ž ȋ‘†‘ǣ ƒ› ‘ ‹‡–›ǡ ͦͥ͟͢Ȍ ƒ† ǯ” › ‡–™‘”–Š Š‘’•‘n’s On Growth and Form ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣƒ„”‹†‰‡‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡͧͥ͟͟Ȍǡ™ƒ•”‡’”‹•‡† „› ‡‡ƴ  Š‘ ‹ –”— –—”ƒŽ –ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ƒ† ‘”’Š‘‰‡‡•‹• ȋ‡ƒ†‹‰ǣ ‡Œa‹Ȁ—‹‰•ǡ ͧͥͣ͟ȌǤ ‡– ‘”’Š‘‰‡‡•‹• ‹• ‘– ”‡†— ‹„Ž› „‹‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽǡ ƒ• ‹ŽŽ‡• ŠƒƸ –‡Ž‡– •Š‘™• ‹ ‡•‡Œeux du mobile ȋƒ”‹•ǣ ‡—‹Žǡ ͧͧ͟͡Ȍ ƒ† L’enchantement du virtuel ȋƒ”‹•ǣ Ƶ †‹–‹‘• —‡ †ǯŽǡ ͟͠͞͞ȌǤ Ƶ ‹Ž‡ ‘‡Dž Žǡ ȋ‡†ǤȌ Les sciences de la ˆ‘”‡ƒ—Œ‘—”†ǯŠ—‹ ȋƒ”‹•ǣ‡—‹Žǡͧͧ͟͢Ȍ’”‘˜‹†‡•ƒ‰‡‡”ƒŽ‘˜‡”˜‹‡™ǡ™Š‹Ž‡‹‡ŽŽ‹ǡ in Forms of Becoming, demonstrates the ways in which this program survives in ‘–‡’‘”ƒ”›‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘ƒ”›†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒŽ„‹‘Ž‘‰›Ǥ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͧ͟͟ —‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ ‘–Š‡”™‘”†•ǡ„‡ ƒ—•‡ƒ––‡”‹•‘–•ƒ‹†•‹’Ž›–‘be all forms, but rather their rootǡ –Š‡‹” DzƒŽŽdz ‹• •—„Œ‡ – –‘ ”‡˜‹•‹‘ ™‹–Š ‡˜‡”›‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘Ǥ‹’Ž›’—–ǡ–Š‡DzƒŽŽdz‘ˆˆ‘”•Šƒ•‘–‘„–ƒ‹‡†‹ˆ–Š‡ form in which this all is presented is not included amongst the oth‡”•Ǥ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• “—ƒŽ‹ϐ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‹• DzƒŽŽdz ƒ• ƒ ‹ϐ‹‹–› ƒ––‡•–• –‘ ‹–• downstream non-ϐ‹ƒŽ‹–›33, since if this root is responsible for all forms, then the forms the exhibited all assumes must themselves †‡”‹˜‡ ˆ”‘ –Šƒ– •ƒ‡ ”‘‘–ǡ •— Š –Šƒ– ‘ ‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘ ‡šŠƒ—•–• ‹–Ǥ Logically, too, the all is not-all precisely when it is posited, since the positing additionally environs the all with a form not included there‹Ǥ  ‡ –Š‹• ‹• ‘™ǡ –Š‡ ˆ‘” ‹ ™Š‹ Š –Š‡ ‘™‹‰ ‹• ‡šŠ‹„‹–‡† ™‹ŽŽ‹–•‡Žˆ„‡•—„Œ‡ ––‘–Š‡•ƒ‡‘-ϐ‹ƒŽ‹–›ǡ„‡ ƒ—•‡–Š‡‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘n ‘ˆƒŽŽˆ‘”• ƒ‘–‹’”ƒ –‹ ‡‹ Ž—†‡–Š‡ˆ‘”‘ˆ–Šƒ–‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘Ǥ Š‹• ‹• ™Š› –Š‡ ”‘‘– ‹• •‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡Ž› —‘™ƒ„Ž‡ǡ ƒ ‘†‹–‹‘ –Š‡ ’ƒ••ƒ‰‡ †‡• ”‹„‡• ƒ• –Š”‡ƒ–‡‹‰ –Š‡ • ‹‡–‹ϐ‹  ‰”‘—†• ‘ˆ ’Š›•‹ •ǡ for which therefore matter remains insuperably dark, and the science of reason, for without knowing this root, it lacks the copula Dz ‘‡ –‹‰ –Š‡ ‹†‡ƒ –‘ ƒ –—ƒŽ‹–›Ǥdz Š—•ǡ ‹ –Š‡ ϐ‹”•–Ž‹‡• ‘ˆ Dz–Š‡ ‡Žƒ–‹‘ǡdz–Š‡ ‘’—Žƒǯ•ˆ— –‹‘ ƒ† ”ƒ‰‡ƒ”‡ ‡š’Ž‹ ‹–ǣ ‹– ‹• „‡ ƒ—•‡ the copula connects idea to actualit›–Šƒ–’Š›•‹ •™‹ŽŽŠƒ˜‡• ‹‡–‹ϐ‹ ǡ ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ ’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹ ƒŽǡ wissenschaftlicheǡ ‰”‘—†•Ǥ — Š ‰”‘—†• ƒ”‡ ‘– those of the special sciences, but precisely of the universal and systematic science associated with the German idealists’ concept of ’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›Ǥ ‘‡• –Š‹• “—‡•–‹‘ “—ƒŽ‹ˆ› –Š‡ †‹• —••‹‘ ƒ• ”‡†— ‹„Ž› epistemic or transcendental, concerned with the conditions under ™Š‹ Š ƒŽ‘‡ ‘™‹‰ ‹• ‘™ ƒ• ‘™‹‰ǫ ‘‡• ‹–ǡ ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ demand that physics, the science of nature, has its ground •‘Ž‡Ž›in the satisfƒ –‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‹• –”ƒ• ‡†‡–ƒŽ ”‡“—‹”‡‡–ǡ ‘” –Šƒ– ƒ–—”‡ Šƒ•‹–•‰”‘—†‘Ž›‹–Š‡‘™‹‰‘ˆ‹–ǫŠ‹••‘Ž—–‹‘‹•‹‡†‹ƒ–‡Ž› cast into doubt by the assertion following this apparent transcenden–ƒŽ †‡ƒ†Ǥ Š‡ ƒ••‡”–‹‘ ‘ ‡”• –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ‘” „‘† ‘‡cting –Š‡‹†‡ƒ–‘ƒ –—ƒŽ‹–›ǡ™Š‹ Šƒˆ–‡”ƒŽŽ‹•Š‘™–Š‡‡••ƒ›‹•’ƒ”–Ž›–‹–Ž‡†Ǥ ‘–Š‡“—‡•–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡knowing of matter is tied to that of the ‘’—Žƒ or bond connecting the ideal and the real, or Idea and actuality 33 ‹‡ŽŽ‹ǡ Forms of Becomingǡ ͦͧ–ͧ͞ǡ †‹• —••‡• Dzϐ‹ƒŽŽ› ‰‡––‹‰ ”‹† ‘ˆ ϐ‹ƒŽ‹–›ǡdz ™Š‹ Š ‡–ƒ‹Ž• –™‘ –Š‹‰•ǣ ȋ͟Ȍ ‘”’Š‘Ž‘‰› —•– †”‘’ ‹–• ’”‡Œ—†‹ ‡ ‘ ‡”‹‰ “mature” or “adult” form, since as chrysalis forming animals demonstrate, an ‘”‰ƒ‹• Šƒ• ‘”‡ ˆ‘”• –Šƒ ‹–• ƒ†—Ž– •–ƒ–‡Ǣ ȋ͠) also dropping the geneticist assumption of the terminus of process in individuation, since not all processes ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒ–‡Ǥ‡•‡ƒ” Š‹•„‡tter served by a focus on ‡Ž‡‡–ƒ”›‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ(IbidǤǡ ͧ͟͠–ͧ͡Ȍ

͟͠͞ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ (Wirklichkeit), which in turn provides tŠ‡ Dz• ‹‡–‹ϐ‹  ‰”‘—†•dz ‘ˆ ’Š›•‹ •Ǥ As we have seen, the root is unsummable downstream, since the all to which it gives rise is made lo ƒŽ‹‹–•‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘ǤŠ‡”‘‘– that, following its innumerable intermediary links 34, descends throughout nature, is drawn out of nature in an exhibition that remains insuperably local insofar as it, being form and phenomenon, has this root in ‘‘ ™‹–Š ‘–Š‡”• ƒ† •‘ ƒ††• –‘ –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•‡ ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ ˆ‘”•Ǥ Š‡ ’‘‹–‹•‘––Šƒ––Š‡•‘—” ‡‹•ƒŽ‘‡‰‡‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ǡ•‘–Šƒ–ǡŽ‹‡‘ƒtic explorers seeking Arctic light, the naturephilosopher must return –Š‡”‡Ǣ”ƒ–Š‡”ǡ–Šƒ–ˆ‘”•ƒ”‡Žƒ–‡ƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘•ǡ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ‰‡‡”ƒ–‡†ǡƒ‡• forms matter when generation is non-ϐ‹ƒŽǤƒ––‡”ǡ‹‘–Š‡”™‘”†•ǡ‹• ‘––Š‡•—„Œ‡ –‘ˆƒϐ‹‹–‡•‡–‘ˆ’”‘’‡”–‹‡s, powers or “dispositional predicates” (as he notes in the †‡ƒ•ˆ‘”ƒŠ‹Ž‘•‘’Š›‘ˆƒ–—”‡, “a purely logical concept of matter is meaningless” 35), but is only where morphogenetic potentials are expressed, since in being expressed, ˆ‘”‹•ƒ “—‹”‡†‹‡š ‡••‘ˆ–Š‡—„‡”‘ˆˆ‘”•Š‹–Š‡”–‘’”‘†— ‡†Ǥ Schelling therefore offers three reasons for the local character of ƒ––‡”ǣ ȋ͟Ȍ It is itself “synthetic,” 36 “copulative,” or generated, the “sensible and visible child ‘ˆƒ–—”‡dzȋ ǡͤ͡͞Ȍ; ȋ͠Ȍ What is upstream of this root remains unknowable, because it is “unprethinkable” without the forms that arise from it, including the form in which it is therefore lately exhibited; ȋ͡Ȍ Its downstream is material if it consists in additional forms, ‘‡‘ˆ™Š‹ Šƒ”‡ϐ‹al, and this ™‹ŽŽƒŽ™ƒ›•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡–Š‡ ƒ•‡Ǥ In what then is “knowledge of this unknown root” to consist? In ‘–Š‡” ™‘”†•ǡ ™Šƒ– ˆ‘” ƒ”‡ –Š‡ • ‹‡–‹ϐ‹  ‰”‘—†• ‘ˆ ’Š›•‹ • –‘ 34 ‡‡ ǡͥͧ͠ǡ–”Ǥ„›Ǥ‡–‡”•‘ƒ• ‹”•–—–Ž‹‡‘ˆƒ›•–‡‘ˆ–Š‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š› of Nature ȋŽ„ƒ›ǣ–ƒ–‡‹˜‡”•‹–›‘ˆ‡™‘””‡••ǡ͢͠͞͞Ȍǡͧͧ͟ǡ™Š‡”‡ Š‡lling draws attention to the innumerable “intermediary links” obtaining in all ƒ–—”ƒŽ ’Š‡‘‡ƒ ‹ˆ •— Š ’Š‡‘‡ƒ ˆ‘” ƒ ‘Š‡”‡– •›•–‡ ‘ˆ ƒ–—”‡Ǥ – ‹• not merely their number but their systematic interrelations that creates the problem that, if they are so coherent, then these links “may be unknown to us ƒ† ”‡ƒ‹ Š‹††‡ ‹ –Š‡ †‡’–Š• ‘ˆ ƒ–—”‡Ǥdz  ‘”†‹‰Ž›ǡ –Š‡ ™‘” ‘ˆ ƒ–—”ƒŽ science, which consists in their discovery, and that of speculative physics, which exposes lacunae in the system, are not merely incomplete, but rather inϐ‹‹–‡Ǥ 35  ǡ ͣ͠͡ǡ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ ƒ””‹• ƒ† Ǥ ‡ƒ–Š ƒ• †‡ƒ•ˆ‘”ƒŠ‹Ž‘•‘’Š›‘ˆ ƒ–—”‡ ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣƒ„”‹†‰‡‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡͧͦͦ͟Ȍǡͦͦ͟Ǥ 36 IbidǤ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͟͟͠ assume? And if this ground is itself an expression of the connection of the idea t‘ƒ –—ƒŽ‹–›ǡ™Š›†‘–Š‡‰”‘—†•‘ˆ’Š›•‹ •”‡“—‹”‡‹–ǫ Firstly, in accordance with this “synthetic concept of matter,” we ƒ›‘–‡–Šƒ––Š‡‘™‹‰‘ˆ–Š‡—‘™”‘‘–‘ —”• ‘•‡“—‡–Ž› upon it, both in the sense of after the fact, or better, after what it is I am thinking when I think what exists; and in the sense of being ‰‡‡”ƒ–‡†‹ ‘•‡“—‡ ‡‘ˆ‹–Ǥš–”ƒ’‘Žƒ–‹‰ˆ”‘ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•ƒƒŽysis of the “ground- ‘•‡“—‡–dz”‡Žƒ–‹‘‹PIN, generation “in no way determines” what the generated is, but, since it is dependent on its generative root, only “that the dependent can only be as a conse“—‡– ‘ˆ –Šƒ– —’‘ ™Š‹ Š ‹– ‹• †‡’‡†‡–Ǥdz ȋ  ǡ ͤ͢͡Ȁ ǡ ͦ͟Ȍ Š—• Dz„‡‹‰ ‰‡‡”ƒ–‡†dz ‹• ƒ ˆ— –‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ‹•‘ˆƒ” ƒ• –Š‹• ‘„–ƒ‹• ‹ ƒ ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ —‹˜‡”•‡Ǥ Š‡ nowing of this universe will therefore be a form generated dependently upon it, and as such, will contribute to the matter of that universe, not in the sense that knowledge is made of the same stuff, but in the sense that the knowing of the universe obtain•ƒ•ƒŽ‘ ƒŽ‡Ž‡‡–‘ˆ‹–Ǥ Š‡ ‘’—Žƒ ‘‡ –‹‰ –Š‡ ‹†‡ƒ –‘ ƒ –—ƒŽ‹–› ‹• ‘™•—’’Ž‹‡†ǡ ƒŽtŠ‘—‰Š–Š‡ˆ‘”‘ˆ–Š‡‰”‘—†‘ˆ’Š›•‹ •”‡ƒ‹•–‘„‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†Ǥ ˆ the “unknown root” presents a †‡‡’ϔ‹‡Ž† for the knowing of nature, this is because it remains unknown insofar as it is insuperably up•–”‡ƒ‘ˆ–Š‡‘™‹‰‘ˆ‹–ǤŠ‡ˆ‘”‘ˆ–Š‡‰”‘—†‘ˆ• ‹‡ ‡ǡŠ‘wever, is an ultra-†‡‡’ ϔ‹‡Ž† ’”‘„Ž‡, because the knowing of the unknown root involves not only the unknowing of it because it is irretrievably pastǡŽ‹‡–Š‡‹‰ƒ‰‹”‡•’‡ ––‘•—„•‡“—‡–‡˜‡–• in the universe, but additionally, because not only could no particular satisfy unprethinkable root-being, the “seed corn of the universe” 37 ‘” –Š‡ Dz’”‹ƒŽ ‰‡”dz ȋ  ǡ ͦͦ͡Ȍǡ „—– ‡‹–Š‡” –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ could any conditions considered as necessary in the generation of ˆ‘”•’”‘˜‹†‡–Š‡‡–”‹ ˆ‘”ƒ›‘–Š‡”Ǥ ‡ ‡–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡‡––Šƒ– the universe of all forms be exhibited, and in being exhibited, that it be minimally one less than obtain, since the form of the exhibition of these forms cannot be amongst them, and that it be environed upstream and down by the nie aufgehende “what” that is locally –Š‘—‰Š–Ǥ ͢ǤŠ‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ ‹•–‘”›‘ˆ‘•‹–‹‰ Š‡ ”‡•’‘•‡ –‘ –Š‡ ’”‘„Ž‡ ‘ ‡”‹‰ –Š‡ •‘—” ‡ ‘ˆ ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘ǡ the arche kineseos ‘” ™‘”Ž† •‘—Ž ˆ”‘ ™Š‹ Šǡ Dz –Š‡ ‡Žƒ–‹‘dz Šy37 IbidǤǡ͠͠͡Ȁͥͧ͟Ǥ

͟͠͠ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ pothesizes, morphogenesis across the totality of domains arises, is properly given in the ò”œ„—”‰›•–‡ǣ DzEverything is primal germ ‘” ‘–Š‹‰ ‹•Ǥdz ȋ  ǡ ͦͦ͡Ȍ Šƒ– –Š‡ ‹• –Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ‹–› ‘ˆ †‘ƒ‹•ǫ According to this last claim, a totality is a totality only if it is additionally a primal germ, and, “—ƒ primal, not ultimate but made into ƒƒ–‡ ‡†‡–‹•‘ˆƒ”ƒ• ‘•‡“—‡ ‡•–Šƒ–ǡ„›†‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘ǡ ƒ‘–„‡ ‹–ǡ‹••—‡†‘™•–”‡ƒˆ”‘‹–ǤŠƒ––Š‹•–‘–ƒŽ‹–›‹• ‘•‡“—‡–†‘‡•‘– therefore mean it is not totality, but that totality too is generative, –Šƒ– ‹•ǡ ‹ ‘’Ž‡–‡ ƒ† ‡˜‹”‘‡†Ǥ ‹‹Žƒ”Ž›ǡ ƒ †‘ƒ‹ ‹• ‘‡ Œ—•– ™Š‡‹–’”‘†— ‡•ƒ‘–Š‡”Ǥ Š‡‡••ƒ›ƒ––Š‡ ‡–”‡‘ˆ‘—”‹“—‹”›‘–‡•‹‹–•–‹–Ž‡–Šƒ––he relation between the real and the ideal, between the matrix of natural ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒ†Ž‘‰‹ ǡ ‹•–‘„‡ •‘—‰Š– ‹ ƒ–—”‡Ǥ‡– ƒ–—”‡†‘‡• ‘– answer the “totality of domains” problem if nature consists in the isotropic morphogenesis Schelling hypothesizes ‹–†‘‡•Ǥ ˆ ƒ–—”‡ ‹• –‘„‡Œ—†‰‡†–Šƒ–—Ž–‹ƒ–‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ˆ”‘™Š‹ ŠƒŽŽ†‹‡•‹‘ƒŽ potentials issue, therefore the metadimensional source of dimensionality, the arche kineseos, then this is nature ’‘•‹–‡†, whether by itself or by some other, somehow •‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡†ˆ”‘‹–Ǥƒ–—”‡’‘•‹–‡†‹• nature expressed, and regardless of the medium of expression— gravity, light, logic, art or revelation—there is always an “earlier” ‘‡ǡ ƒ•  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ ’—–• ‹–Ǥ ȋ  ǡ ͣ͢͟Ȁ ǡ ͧͦȌ Š‡”‡ –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ ƒ–—”‡ϐ‹‰—”‡•ƒ••—„Œ‡ct, ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡƒ•–Š‡Dz™Šƒ– ƒ–Š‹‹‰™Š‡ –Š‹ what exists,” but also in its “autarchy,” 38 ‹– ‹• ƒŽ”‡ƒ†› ‘•‡“—‡– —’‘‹–•„‡‹‰‡š’”‡••‡†ƒ••— Šǡ–Šƒ–‹•ǡ‘–Š‡ ‘•‡“—‡–’”‡†‹ a–‹‘‘ˆƒƒ–‡ ‡†‡–ǡ‘”‘–Š‡’”‘†— –‹‘‘ˆ‰”‘—†•ǤŠ‹•‹•‘––‘ say that there is a “nature itself,” an abstract nature without characteristics, but rather that where there are predicates, these follow a •—„Œ‡ – –Šƒ– ‘Ž› „‡ ‘‡• ™Šƒ– ‹– ‹• ‹ –Šƒ– ‡š’”‡••‹‘ „› that ex’”‡••‹‘Ǥ‡–—••ƒ›–Š‡ǡ–Šƒ–ƒ–—”‡‹••‘—” ‡Ǥ What then would it „‡ǫŠ‡–‘–ƒŽ‹–›‘ˆ™Šƒ–‹•ƒ–‡ ‡†‡––‘™Šƒ–‡˜‡”‹–‹•–Šƒ–‹–‹•–Š‡ •‘—” ‡‘ˆǤ—–™Šƒ––Š‡™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘•‡“—‡–ǡ•‹ ‡™‡”‡–Š‡ ‘n•‡“—‡–‘–ƒ—–‘‘‘—•™‹–Š”‡•’‡ ––‘‹–•ƒ–‡ ‡†‡–ǡ–Š‡”‡™‘—Ž† „‡ ‘ ‘•‡“—‡–Ǥ ˆ ™Šƒ– ‹• ‘•‡“—‡– —•– „‡ ƒ—–‘‘‘—•™‹–Š respect of its antecedent, and if what is antecedent is nature, then the ‘•‡“—‡– ‹• ‘– ƒ–—”‡ǡ ™Š‹ Š ‹• ‘–”ƒ”› –‘ –Š‡ Š›’‘–Š‡•‹•Ǥ  other words, the dimension of time does not facilitate the construction of the scientiϐ‹  ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ‰”‘—†ǡ‹ˆƒ‰”‘—†‹•‘‡™Š‡ –Š‡”‡‹•ƒ ‘•‡“—‡–Ǥ Perhaps we might claim instead, then, that nature is the “envi”‘‡–‘ˆƒŽŽ‡˜‹”‘‡–•Ǥdz•™‡Šƒ˜‡•‡‡ǡ–Š‘—‰Šǡ–‘„‡•— Šƒ 38  ǡͥ͟Ȁdz ‹”•–—–Ž‹‡ǡdzͥ͟Ǥ

˜‡”›–Š‹‰ s Primal Germ or Nothing Is ͟͠͡ totality would entail that it be generative, in which case what exactly does it environ? Surely what environs is environed in turn if the primal, the root, is not to be located once or ‘Ž›‹‘‡’Žƒ ‡, but rather ‡–‡”ƒŽŽ› and ‹‡˜‡”›–Š‹‰ǫ Š‡ ’”‹ƒŽǡ ‹ ‘–Š‡” ™‘”†•ǡ „ecomes one only if it is environed „› ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‘”‡‘˜‡”ǡ •‹ ‡ ƒ––‡”‹•ǡƒ ‘”†‹‰–‘ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǡ‘Ž›–Š‡Žƒ–‡Ž›ƒ “—‹”‡†‘”’Š‘‰enetic root, and if the universe is a material one, it is similarly environed upstream as downstreamǤŠƒ––Š‡™‘—Ž†–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡– of all environments be? It certainly could not be spatiotemporal if these are dimensions of morphogenesis, since the environment of all ‡˜‹”‘‡–• —•– ‡“—ƒŽŽ› ‡˜‹”‘ –Š‡ ’”‘†— –‹‘ ‘ˆ ˆ‘”•ǡ ‘” ‘ such meta-‡˜‹”‘‡– ™‘—Ž† ‘„–ƒ‹Ǥ Š—•ǡ ƒ–—”‡ ‹• –Š‡ ‡˜‹”‘nment of all env‹”‘‡–•‘–™‘ ‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ ‹”•–ǡ–Šƒ––Š‡‘”’Šo‰‡‡–‹  —‹˜‡”•‡ ‹• ‘– –Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ‹–›ǡ „—– ‡˜‹”‘• ‘•‡“—‡– –‘–ƒŽities (the environment of all environments; the insuperable anteced‡–ǡƒ†•‘ˆ‘”–ŠȌǤŠ‹•‡ƒ•–Šƒ––Š‡‡š’”‡••‡†‘”’‘•‹–‡†–‘–ƒŽ‹–› i•ƒDz—‹˜‡”•‡‹–Š‡—‹˜‡”•‡Ǥdzȋ ǡͥ͠͞Ȍ‡ ‘†ǡ–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡDz˜erything is primal germ” now states both that if there is emergence, –Š‡”‡‹•‘Ž›‘‡ ƒ•‡‹™Š‹ Š‡‡”‰‡ ‡†‘‡•‘–‘ —”ǣ–Š‡ ƒ•‡‘ˆ nothing; and, if there is emergence anywhere, it is maximally nonŽ‘ ƒŽǤ ˜‡”› ‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•ƒŽ ‡šŠ‹„‹–• –Š‡ —‹˜‡”•‡ in a universe, but the exhibited universe is itself a morphogenetic in•–ƒ ‡Ǥ ‡ ƒ‘™•‡‡–Š‡‡š–‡–‘ˆ–Š‡†‡‡’ϐ‹‡Ž†’”‘„Ž‡‘ˆ‰”‘—†• ‘”ǡƒ• Š‡ŽŽ‹‰’—–•‹–ǡ–Š‡‹ϐ‹‹–›‘ˆˆ‘”•ǣ•‹ ‡‘‘‡ ƒ†‹†ƒ–‡ ‡–‹–› ƒ•ƒ–‹•ˆ›–Š‡•‡ƒ” Šˆ‘”’”‹ƒŽ•ǡƒŽŽ†‘Ǥ•‹ Š‘Žƒ•‡• Š‡” puts the pointǣ “here is no limit to the number of natural kinds to ™Š‹ Šƒ‡–‹–›ƒ›„‡Ž‘‰Ǥdz 39 Š‹•‡ƒ•–Šƒ–‘‹–‡”‡†‹ƒ”›Ž‹ is not involv‡†‹–Š‡• ‹‡–‹ϐ‹ –”ƒ•‹–‹‘ˆ”‘ǡŽ‡–—••ƒ›ǡ–Š‡‡‡rgence of chemical matter, of gravitation and light, or of spacetime, to –Š‡ ‡‡”‰‡ ‡ ‘ˆ ’‘•‹–‹‰ǡ –Šƒ– ‹•ǡ –Š‡ ’”‘†— –‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘•‡“—‡– primals in the extraction of logic from nature such that nature now includes –Š‹• ‡š–”ƒ –‡† Ž‘‰‹  ƒ• ‹–• ‘•‡“—‡–Ž› Ž‘ ƒŽ ‡šŠ‹„‹–‹‘Ǥ – ˆ—”–Š‡”‡ƒ•–Šƒ–‘•‡–‘ˆ†‹‡•‹‘•‘”ƒš‡•ϐ‹ƒŽŽ›“—ƒŽ‹ˆ›ƒ•–Š‡ unconditioned or absolute metric of nature’s exhibition, since this ‘ —”• ™Š‡”‡˜‡” ƒ›–Š‹‰ ‹• ƒ– ƒŽŽǤ Š—s, as the form of “On the ‡Žƒ–‹‘dz •Š‘™•ǡ ’‘•‹–‹‰ Šƒ• ƒ ƒ–—”ƒŽ Š‹•–‘”› ƒ• †‡’‡†‡– ‘ Š‡‹•–”›ǡ ‰”ƒ˜‹–› ƒ† Ž‹‰Š– ƒ• ‹• ’Žƒ‡–ƒ”› ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‡‹–Š‡” ‹• there any difference in kind between the one and the other, since both produce their morphogenetic ”‘‘–• ‘•‡“—‡–Ž› —’‘ –Š‡‹” 39 ‹ Š‘Žƒ•‡• Š‡”ǡƒ–—”‡ƒ††‡”•–ƒ†‹‰ ȋšˆ‘”†ǣšˆ‘”†‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡ ͠͞͞͞Ȍǡ͢͠Ǥ

͟͢͠ ›’‘•‹—, ˜‘ŽǤͣͫ‘Ǥͣȋ’”‹‰Ȁ”‹–‡’•ͤͣͧ͢Ȍ obtaining, and both sever nature into a before and an after, both of ™Š‹ Šǡ‹„‘–Š ƒ•‡•ǡƒ–—”‡”‡ƒ‹•Ǥ Šƒ–”‡ƒ‹•ǡ–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ‘ˆ–Š‡ˆ‘”‘ˆ• ‹‡–‹ϐ‹ ‰”‘—†•ǫ ‹”•–ǡ we have hinted at the topological complexity of Schelling’s thought of the copula, to the fuller exhibition of which this essay is preparato”›Ǥ 40 —ˆϐ‹ ‡‹––‘•ƒ›–™‘–Š‹‰•‹–Š‹•”‡‰ƒ”†ˆ‘”–Š‡’”‡•‡–ǣϐ‹”•–ǡ with Schelling, that the copula in matter is not another, but only a “stricter” one than in rea•‘Ǥȋ ǡͤ͡͞Ȍ ‘–Š‡”™‘”†•ǡ–Š‡Žƒ–‘nic problem of the ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ‹–›‘ˆ–Š‡‹†‡ƒ ‹••ƒ–‹•ϐ‹‡†„›–Š‹•ƒ ‘—––‘ the extent that the division between nature and logic must always be the effect of the understanding in nature, the “division of forces,” as the Freiheitschrift †‡• ”‹„‡•‹–•Dzϐ‹”•–ƒ –Ǥdzȋǡ ǣͤ͟͡Ȁ ǡͤ͡Ȍ Second, in the essay we have been considering, as in the First Outline, the World Soul, the ‹˜‡”•ƒŽ‡†— –‹‘, and the šŠ‹„‹–‹‘, but also in the dimensional diagrams that pepper niversal Deduction, the magnetic lines that gradually transform into the ”‡†—’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ 41 of propositions within propositions, and then into the Weltformel 42, or the fascination with Aristotle’s ethological modelling of behaviour in the Darstellung des rein-ra–‹‘ƒŽ‡Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡ 43ǡ  Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ• ’”‘Œ‡ – is the morphology or topology of the sheerly but not merely ideal insofar as this consists in the self-augmentation of the real, rather than as a supersession, suspension, replacement, or merely epistemic eliminat‹‘ǡƒDz”ƒ‹•‹‰—’dz‹–‘•‘‡–Š‹‰Š‹‰Š‡”–Šƒ‹–ǡ‘ˆƒ–—”‡Ǥ Š‹•‹•™Š›ǡ ™‘—Ž†•—‰‰‡•–ǡƒ–—”ƒŽ‹•–‹ ‹†‡ƒŽ‹•‘—–ϐŽƒ•‡Ž‹‹ative realism on –Š‡•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡”‡ƒŽǡƒ†™Š›‹–‘—–ϐŽƒ•–Š‡”‡†— ‹„Ž› ‘ ‡’–—ƒŽ ‘ –Š‡ ’ƒ”– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹†‡ƒŽǤ ˆ –Š‡ ‹†‡ƒŽǡ ϐinally, adds to the catalogue of real forms, this is because nature is generalizably tran• ‡†‡–ƒŽ™‹–Š”‡•’‡ ––‘‹–•‘™•‘—” ‡•Ǥ –‹•„‡ ƒ—•‡‘ˆ–Š‹•—Ž–”ƒ†‡‡’ ϐ‹‡Ž† Ž‘‰‹  –Šƒ– ƒ–—”‡ ”‡ƒ‹• –Š‡ †ƒ”‡•– ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ –Š‹‰•ǡ ‘” darkness itself, according t‘•‘‡Ǥ ƒ‹Ǥ ”ƒ–̻—™‡Ǥƒ Ǥ— 40 See Grant, ‡ƒ‹•‘ˆ–Š‡‘”Ž†ǣ Š‡ŽŽ‹‰ǯ•ƒ–‡”ƒ–—”‡’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›, in prepa- ”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ 41 For Schelling’s account of ”‡†—’Ž‹ ƒ–‹‘ or “reduplicative positing,” see his ‹Ž‡‹–—‰ ‹ †‹‡ Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š‹‡ǡ ȋ‡†ǤȌ Ǥ Š”Šardt (Stuttgart-ƒ† ƒ•–ƒ––ǣ ”‘mmann- ‘Žœ„‘‘‰ǡ ͧͦͧ͟Ȍǡ ͣͣ–ͣͤǤ ‡‡ƒŽ•‘  ǡ ͟͞͡ǡ –”Ǥ „› Ǥ‘™‹‡ ƒ• ‹•–‘”›‘ˆ ‘†‡”Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š› ȋƒ„”‹†‰‡ǣƒ„”‹†‰‡‹˜‡”•‹–›”‡••ǡͧͧ͟͢Ȍǡͥ͟͟Ǥ 42 ‡‡ ǡ͟͡͠Ȁǡͦ͢Ǥ 43 ‡‡‡•’‡ ‹ƒŽŽ›‡ –—”‡ͧ͟ǡ ǡ͢͡͡–ͣͤǤ