p. 71/18-19 p. 71/24-26 p. 71/36-37 p. 71/bottom p. 73/25-29
have before us the fact which is signified. We can use the idea so far as to recognize the fact before us as a fact which is ‘this;’ but such a use does not go beyond the given. It affirms of the subject a predicate without which the subject disappears. … the addition of the idea adds nothing to the subject.]: All this argument is excellent. It seems that ‘absolute universals’ cannot be abstractions—see NoD mano (b). There is no particular content to abstract from—it is already ‘in brackets’. Or again, one cannot even attempt to think existence in isolation from existence. [‘This’ is not the only idea which can never be true as a symbol. I will not ask to what extent ‘this’ means ‘for me,’ but what has been said of ‘this’ will held in the main of ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘mine.’ But there are difficulties here which we can not discuss. We may remark in passing that, for the purposes of metaphysics, it would be necessary to find all those ideas whose content appears not able to be used as the adjective of something else.]: Very good. [The mere perpetual disappearance in time of the given appearance is itself the negation of its claim to self-existence.] ‘Perpetual disappearance in time’ u/l: An invariant does not ‘perpetually disappear in time’. This ‘time’ is an unjustified assumption. on reality [Living by relation to what it excludes, it transcends its limit to join another element, and invites that element within its own boundaries.]: But this is failure to see that there are different levels of generality. [There is no solid point of either time or space.] u/l: All right—than abandon the myth! [The real can not be identical with the content that appears in presentation. It for ever transcends it, and give us a title to make search elsewhere.]: On the contrary, it is. [A completed series in time or space can not possibly exist.]: It can, if it accelerates. : Cf. Kierkegaard’s Postscript pp. 102-3 and 299-302. See also NoD, FS II, §§4&5. [There are cases where the subject or, if we please, the Ego seems divided in two. When one self is present the other is absent, and the memories of either self are distinct. Their pasts and futures do not ever touch. The explanation that
Published on Jun 26, 2013
Part B includes two early essays (Nibbana and Anatta and Sketch for a Proof of Rebirth) as well as notes from a Commonplace Book and Margina...