Measure[edit] Specific Quantity[edit] A. The Specific Quantum[edit] Measure is the simple relation of the quantum to itself ...

; the quantum is thus qualitative. Previously, Quantum was held to be indifferent to the Quality of that which it quantified. Now, as Measure, Quality and Quantity though still distinct from one another are inseparable and in their unity comprise a specific eterminate !eing" #$verything that e%ists has a magnitude and this magnitude belongs to the nature of the something itself. &he indifference of Quantum is retained in Measure insofar as the magnitude of things can increase or decrease without fundamentally altering their Quality, and yet their essential unity nevertheless manifests at the 'imit where an alteration in Quantity will bring about a change in Quality.()*+ $,-MP'$" -ristotle gives the e%ample of a head from which hairs are pluc.ed one by one. /t0s Quality of being a head of hair remains if only a few hairs are gone, but at a certain point, it undergoes Qualitative -lteration and become a bald head. -lthough the Quantitative change is gradual, the Qualitative one, oftentimes, is #une%pected. #/t is the cunning of the Notion to sei1e on this aspect of a reality where its quality does not seem to come into play; and such is its cunning that the aggrandi1ement of a 2tate or of a fortune, etc., which leads finally to disaster for the state or for the owner, even appears at first to be their good fortune.(34+ B. Specifying Measure[edit] /nsofar as Quantity describes the upper and lower 'imits between which a specific Quality can maintain itself, it serves as a (a) Rule. &he 5ule is an arbitrary e%ternal standard or -mount that measures something other than itself. -lthough it is often tempting to assume so, there is in actuality no ob6ect that can serve as a completely universal standard of measurement, i.e., be pure Quantity. 5ather, what is involved in measurement is a ratio between two Qualities and their inherent Quantities, the one made to act as the (b) Specifying Measure of the other, this other, however, being itself 6ust as capable of measuring that which it is being measured by.(37+ $,-MP'$" /n the measure of temperature, we ta.e the e%pansion and contraction of mercury relative to the heat it contains as a Quantitative 5ule for the increase or decrease of temperature in general by dividing the range of its change in magnitude into a scale of arithmetical progression. &empting though it is to believe, this is not the measure of temperature as such, but only the measure of how Quantitative change specifically affects the Quality of mercury. &he water or air the mercury thermometer measures has a very different Qualitative relationship to changes in the Quantity of heat which do not necessarily bear any direct relation to mercury0s. &hus, what is actually going on when we ta.e a temperature is a relationship of comparison between two Qualities and their respective natures when e%posed to a Quantitative increase or decrease in heat, and not a universal determination by some disembodied, abstract #thing that is temperature itself.(38+ 2o long as we arbitrarily use the Quantitative properties of some Quality or other as a 5ule to Measure the magnitude of other Qualities, we abstract from it its Qualitative nature. 9owever, once we have established a Quantitative ratio between two or more Qualities, we can give this ratio an independent e%istence that Quantitatively unites things that are Qualitatively distinct. :e can thus ta.e the Qualities of both sides into account, the independent, or Realized, Measure serving as their (c) Relation. &his Measure necessarily involves variable magnitudes since the Qualitatively distinct ways in which different things relate to Quantity can only be registered in their respective rates of increase or decrease relative to each other. ;urther, in order for each side of the ratio to fully reflect the distinctiveness of the Quality it represents, both sides must be Quantitatively self<related, i.e., ta.e the form of powers as in the case of the 5atio of Powers e%plicated above.(3=+ $,-MP'$" >elocity is the ratio of space0s relation to time"

/t is only an intellectual abstraction, though, since it merely serves to measure space by the 5ule of time or time by the 5ule of space. /t supplies no ob6ective standard for the inherent Quantitative relation to each other that pertains to their specific Qualities. &he formula for a falling body comes closer, but here time is still serving as an arbitrary 5ule, that is, it is assumed to vary in a simple arithmetical progression. /t is the form of motion described by ?epler0s third law of planetary motionthat comes closest for 9egel to being a 5eali1ed Measure of the relation between the inherent Qualities of space and time" (3@+ C. Being- !r-Se"f in Measure[edit] -lthough now united by the Quantitative 5atio, the two or more Qualities thus brought into relation retain their mutual separation as distinct Qualities. ;or e%ample, even though we can determine the Quantitative relationship between space and time in the e%ample of a falling body, each of them can still be considered on its own, independent of the other. 9owever, if we then ta.e the constant produced by the ratio of the two sides as a self<subsistent 2omething in its own right, that is, a Being-For-Self, then the two formerly entirely distinct Qualities become its own sublated moments, their very natures now seen to have been in fact derived from this relation of Measure in the first place.(3A+ #ea" Measure[edit] A. The #e"ati!n !f Se"f-Subsistent Measures[edit] Real Measure gives us a new standpoint e%ternal to the different Measures being brought into relation with each other, this relation now designating the independent e%istence of an actual physical 2omething. &his 2omething gains its Qualitative determination from the Quantitative (a) combination between two Measures immanent in it, i.e., volume and weight. Bne designates an inner Quality, in this case weight; the other designates an e%ternal Quality, in this case volume, the amount of space it ta.es up. &heir combination gives us the ratio of weight to volume which is its specific gravity. &he constant that results from this ratio is the inner characteristic 5eal Measure of the thing in question, but, ta.ing the form as it does of a mere number, a Quantum, this constant is li.ewise sub6ect to alteration, i.e., addition, subtraction, etc. Cnli.e mere Quantum, however, the 5eal Measure of a thing is inwardly determined, and so preserves itself somewhat in alteration. /f two material things are combined, the dual Measures of the one are added to those of the other. &he degree to which they e%hibit self<preservation is registered in the internal MeasureDweight in this case Dwhich ends up being equal, after combination, to the sum of the original two Measures; the degree to which they e%hibit Qualitative alteration is registered in the external MeasureDspace in this caseDwhich does not necessarily result in a sum equal to its parts, but often in the case of material substances e%hibits a diminution in overall volume.(3)+ /f we adopt the constant of one specific 5eal Measure as our Cnit, the constants of other 5eal Measures can be brought into relation to it as -mounts in a (b) series of Measure relations. 2ince it is arbitrary which one 5eal Measure in such a series will serve as the Cnit, there are as many incommensurable series of Measure relations as there are individual 5eal Measures. 9owever, when two 5eal Measures, which are themselves ratios, are combined, the result is a new ratio of those ratios, itself designated by a constant in the form of a Quantum. /f this constant is adopted as the Cnit, instead of an individual 5eal Measure, then what were two incommensurable series are now made commensurable with each other in a common denominator. 2ince each 5eal Measure within a series forms such a constant with every other member in that series, any individual series in which a particular 5eal Measure serves as the Cnit can be made commensurable with any other series with a different 5eal Measure as Cnit. 2ince it is a thing0s 5eal Measure that determines its specific Quality, and since that 5eal Measure is in turn derived from the Quantitative relation it has with other 5eal Measures in the

form of a series of constants, it would appear that, as in eterminate !eing above, Quality is only relative and e%ternally determined. 9owever, as we have seen, a 5eal Measure also has an internal relation that gives it a self<subsistence that is indifferent to any e%ternal relation. &herefore, the series of Quantitative relationships between these 5eal Measures only determines the (c) Elective Affinity between their different Qualities, but not these Qualities themselves.(33+ &he QuantityEQuality dialectic manifests itself in the realm of $lective -ffinity in that a 5eal Measure within in a series will not necessarily resonate Qualitatively with those in another series even if they bear a proportional Quantitative relationship. /n fact, the specific Quality of a particular 5eal Measure is in part registered by the other 5eal Measures it has a special -ffinity for, that is, how it responds to Quantitative -lteration. /t is the /ntensive side of Quantity Fsee aboveG such as it relates to specific 5eal Measures that determines its Qualitative behaviour when sub6ect to changes in $%tensive Quantity.(3H+ $,-MP'$" 9egel ma.es it clear that the above analysis applies to the system of chemical affinities and that of musical harmony. /n the case of the latter, for e%ample, each individual noteis a 5eal, self<subsistent Measure, consisting as it does of a specific internal ratio between, say, the length and thic.ness of a guitar string. -n individual note, however, only achieves meaning in its relation to a system of other notes that are brought into Quantitative relation to each other through a specific note that serves as the Cnit, or .ey. - note serving as the .ey in one system, is equally an individual member in other systems in which other notes play this role. Notes that harmoni1e when played together are demonstrating their $lective -ffinity for one another, that is, the higher Qualitative unity that results from a combination in which each individual note nevertheless retains its self<subsistence.(3*+ B. $!da" %ine !f Measure-#e"ati!ns[edit] &he relation of $lective -ffinity is an e%ternal relation between two 5eal Measures that is determined by their Quantitative aspects. /n and of themselves, each 5eal Measure retains its Qualitative indifference to all others, even those it has -ffinity for. 5eal Measures, however, are also sub6ect to internal alteration a.in to what has already been discussed in #Measure above, i.e., that its Quality can be maintained only within a certain Quantitative range beyond which it undergoes a sudden #leap into another Quality. &hese different Qualities form Nodes on a line of gradual Quantitative increase or decrease.(H4+ $,-MP'$" Natural numbers consist of a series of numbers that gradually increase by one in perpetual succession. 9owever, some of these numbers relate in specific ways to others, being their multiple, power or root, etc., and thus constitute #Nodes. &ransition from the liquid to the fro1en state in water does not occur gradually with a diminution of temperature, but all of a sudden at 4IJ. ;inally, the #state has its own measure of magnitude and when this is e%ceeded this mere change in si1e renders it liable to instability and disruption under that same constitution which was its good fortune and its strength before its e%pansion. &hus, contrary to -ristotle0s doctrine that natura non facit saltum, according to 9egel nature does ma.e leaps. (H7+ C. The Measure"ess[edit] Measure, being the unity of Quality and Quantity, now transitions into its version of the /nfinite, the Measureless, which accordingly is the unity of the Qualitative and Quantitative /nfinites. /n the Measureless, the Quantitative /nfinite is manifested in the potential of the Nodal line to increase endlessly; the Qualitative /nfinite is manifested as the eternal beyond of any particular Qualitative determination. 2eeing as the successive determinations are self<generated by an internal Quantitative -lteration of Measure, they can now be seen, from the standpoint of the Measureless, to be different States of one and the same Substrate. &he nature of the 2ubstrate is not tied, li.e the 2omething was, to a merely e%ternal Qualitative appearance, but represents the underlying unity of a variety of internally determined appearances, which are its 2tates. (H8+

The Bec!ming !f &ssence[edit] A. Abs!"ute 'ndifference &his 2ubstrate, as what persists through the succession of 2tates, is in a relation of Absolute Indifference to every particular determinationDbe it of quality, quantity or measureDthat it contains. /t is merely the abstract e%pression of the unity that underlies their totality.(H=+ B. 'ndifference as 'n(erse #ati! !f its act!rs &a.en in its immediacy, this /ndifference is simply the result of all the different determinatenesses that emerge within it. /t itself does not determine its own inner fluctuations, i.e., is not self<determining. 9owever, in accordance with the measure relations developed so far, each of its moments are in reciprocal, quantitatively determined ratios with one another. ;ormerly, from the standpoint of Quality, a sufficient Quantitative increase or decrease would result in a sudden transition from one Quality to another. Now, with -bsolute /ndifference as our standpoint, every possible Qualitative determination is already implicitly related to every other by means of a Quantitative ratio. $very Quality is connected to, and in equilibrium with, its corresponding other. /t is therefore no longer meaningful to say that something can have #more or #less of one Quality than another as if each Quality were absolutely distinct from each other. :hatever Quality there is #more of in one thing than another can be equally said to be a #less of whatever Quality e%ists in its stead in the other, i.e., there is an In erse Ratio of their Factors. 2o, with a so<called #Quantitative change, #one factor becomes preponderant as the other diminishes with accelerated velocity and is overpowered by the first, which therefore constitutes itself the sole self<subsistent Quality. &he two Qualities are no longer distinct, mutually e%clusive determinations, but together comprise a single whole.(H@+ $,-MP'$" 9ere, 9egel ma.es a powerful argument in favour of the e%planatory powers of his speculative philosophy over those of empirical science, specifically with regards to the concepts of centripetal and centrifugal forces as they are supposed to relate the elliptical motion of celestial bodies. /f, as is supposed by science, such an orbit is made up of an inverse relation of centripetal and centrifugal forcesDthe former predominating over the other as the body approaches perihelion, the reverse if approaching aphelionDthen the sudden overta.ing of the stronger force by the wea.er that ta.es place on either end of the orbit can only be e%plained by some mysterious third force. /ndeed, what is to stop the dominant force from completely overta.ing the wea.er, causing the body either to crash into whatever it is orbiting or to fly off at ever accelerating speeds into spaceK Bnly the inherent unity of the two Qualities, centripetal and centrifugal, arrived at by the ascension of thought to -bsolute /ndifference, can adequately e%plain the Notion of the elliptical orbit, says 9egel.(HA+ C. Transiti!n int! &ssence 2trictly within the realm of !eing, the underlying unity behind all its determinations necessarily stands e%ternally, and in contradiction, to those determinations themselves. &he transition to $ssence occurs when these determinations reabsorb this unity bac. into themselves, i.e., they sublate it. &he inherent contradiction between difference and unity is resolved when the latter is posited as the negati e of the former. 2o, from henceforth it cannot be said that they simply emerge within the 2ubstrate of /ndifference, but that this #substrate itself is their very own living self<relation. /n other words, the differences between all the determinations of !eing, namely the Quantitative difference and the inverse ratio of factors, are no longer self< subsistent, but in fact are mere moments in the e%pression of the implicit unity that rules them and, themselves, #are only through their repulsion from themselves. !eing has finally determined itself to no longer be simply affirmative !eing, i.e., that which characteri1ed !eing as !eing in the first place, but as a relation with itself, as Being-!ith-Self, or "ssence.(H)+