Ofcourse, Hegel pointed out the contradictory form ofthis reasoning. Humans lay claim to the possibility of absolute negation. Can you say no? No to everything? No to life? Yes, I can do that. From then on, freedom becomes tied to the possibility ofsaying yes to no. Abso lute negation is thus affirmative in principle. This claim then prompts Hegel to show that all possibility tends towards effectiveness, that all negation is confounded with the energy of its doubling, in other words, its posi tive power, its power ofaffirmation. Henceforth, ifsaying no always amounts to positing the possibility of something it is no longer possible simply to negate. Categori cal refusal is not possible.
Does negation have any chance at all then? The pos sibility I am trying to bring to light—how to say no, a cut and dry no, an inconvertible, irredeemable no; how to think destruction without remission—could be called the negativepossibility. This type ofpossibility is not the nega tion ofpossibility, nor is it to be confused with the impos sible. Without reducing it to affirmation, the negative possibility is not the expression ofany lack or any deficit. It bears witness to a power or aptitude of the negative that is neither affirmed nor lacking, a power that forms. As I indicated, to take on the search for such a possibility immediately situates the proposal both within and without the yes and the no, even within and without the positive and the negative as traditionally understood.
To summarise, according to Whitehead the ultimate and
only aim in itself of the (development of the) world is beauty
and harmony, i.e., maximising individual experiential intensity while minimising the hindrance of other individual
entities’ intensities. In a similar vein, Nietzsche argues that
the only justification of human existence—in the sense of selfdesign on the basis of the will(s) to power, and not just as
self-conservation—is the aesthetic one.
commonalities that link Whitehead’s philosophy with Nietzsche’s
thinking about the world can be summed up in their mutual exaltation
of novelty, complexity, creativity, multiplicity, and adventurousness, and
at the same time their incontrovertible rejection of ontological duality,
essentiality, finality, certainty, simplicity, and sterility
And because reality is always reality for consciousness, and since consciousness always includes feeling and willing, “it is the artist, not the scholar, who arrives at the true nature of reality.” It is the artist who does not concern him or herself with subjectivity or objectivity, who, in order to create must be fully engaged in a creative event through knowing, feeling, and willing, and who is ever aware that artistic reality “is a succession of events that flow without stopping.” Thus, your pure experience and mine are the doorways to reality. -Keiji Nishida
For his part, Nishida maintained that “meanings and judg‐ ments are an abstracted part of the original experience, and com‐ pared with the actual experience they are meager in content.”12 James called concepts “static abstractions” taken from the original “given” in experience: concepts are like the “perchings” of birds in flight, just temporary resting places chosen to stop the incessant flight of experience. Concepts are fixations on a limited aspect of that flow for practical purposes. But there are more smells, col‐ ors, textures, and shapes in experience than we have names for. The color chips in a paint store, for example, while outstripping previously limited color choices, can never reach a full display of the infinite color variations possible. Each color chosen is a static fixation on one point in the color spectrum, while the additional experiences of color variations are inexhaustible.
For the man who has been born anew, breathed through with the breath of God (the Holy Spirit), the love of neighbor must take on the character of love that is at the same time sword, and sword that is at the same time love. This is how faith and love must be in the world, if they are to bear witness to the love of the God who says of himself: "Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten"
The self-consciousness of the cogito, ergo sum, therefore, needs to be thought about by leaving its subjectivity as is and proceeding from a field more basic than self-consciousness , a field that I have been calling "elemental." Ofcourse, when we say "thinking about," we do not mean the ordinary type ofobjective thinking. Thinking about the ego from an elemental field means that the ego itself opens up in subjective fashion an elemental field of existence within itself. In this sense, what we are saying is no different from saying that the elemental self-awareness of the ego itself comes to be an elemental self. This way of thinking about the cogito is "existential" thinking: more elemental thought must signal a more elemental mode of being of the self. On this view, the Cartesian cogito, ergo sum can secure its own truth only when the field of self consciousness breaks open to the more elemental field of the elemental self. Where this does not take place, the self of that self-consciousness
comes eventually to be a falsehood and a delusion unto itself.
This matter is something that comes to light in ancient philosophy and, in a special way, most acutely in religion. Looked at in this sense, the unique and characteristic mark of religion can be seen as the existential exposure of the problematic contained in the ordinary mode of self-being. It can be seen as the way of the great, elemental ego cogito
elucidating the ego sum.
Even granting that we cannot really get in touch with reality on the fields of consciousness and self-consciousness, neither can we stop short at the viewpoint of preconscious life and sympathy that we have described above. More than a few religions have in fact based them selves on a return to just such a preconscious level; but at that level, it is impossible to get deeply in touch with reality. Instead of regressing from the field of consciousness to a preconscious or subconscious one, we need rather to seek a new and more encompassing viewpoint that passes through, indeed breaks through, the field of consciousness to give us a new perspective