Perception and Deception: The Cycle of Truth and Illusion

How Consciousness Navigates the Tension Between Essential Essence and Inessential Abstraction.

Table of Contents

Abstract:

In Perception and Deception, the dynamics of perception and its contradictions are explored through a dialectical lens. Consciousness initially perceives the object in its singularity, positing it as a unified truth, only to encounter the tension of opposing abstractions. These abstractions—universality and singularity, essence and inessentiality—constantly undermine the perception of the object as true. As consciousness oscillates between determinations, it becomes caught in a perpetual cycle of negation and affirmation, failing to recognize the underlying contradiction inherent in its perception. The belief in an object’s solid reality is shattered by its contradiction, which is inherent within the very act of perception.

The study emphasizes how common sense, or ordinary perception, is swept up by these oscillations. As it strives to reconcile opposing abstractions, it falls victim to the cyclical nature of perception, believing it can resolve contradictions through superficial distinctions like “insofar” or “essential versus inessential.” This process, instead of clarifying truth, traps the perceiving mind in an endless loop of self-deception. Each resolution is temporary, as the mind seeks to affirm what it just negated. Through these efforts, consciousness remains mired in illusion, unable to transcend the limited framework of perception.

The ultimate realization in Perception and Deception is that consciousness must recognize the essential unity underlying these contradictions. The object is not merely what it appears to be through the fleeting moments of perception, nor can it be understood by separating opposing qualities into distinct realms. True understanding arises only when consciousness embraces the paradox that its perceptions of singularity and universality, essence and inessentiality, are interlinked and cannot be reconciled through common sense alone. This insight into the dialectical nature of perception unveils the deeper truth: the object, the perceiver, and the act of perceiving are all united in a mutually dependent, ever-shifting relationship that transcends simple oppositions.

Immediate certainty, in its essence, fails to grasp the true nature of what it encounters. This is because the truth it seeks is not contained in the particular “This” it observes, but in the universal that underlies all things. The object of sensory certainty, when it is first perceived, appears to consciousness as singular, immediate, and self-contained. However, this initial perception is limited; it is only through reflection and further development that the universal nature of the object becomes apparent. The immediate certainty insists upon the particularity of the object—the “This”—while overlooking the fact that the true essence of the object is found not in its particularity but in the universal principles that govern it.

Perception, however, operates differently. Rather than focusing solely on the particularity of the object, perception elevates that object into the realm of the universal. The object is not simply a discrete, isolated entity in the perceptual field; it is recognized as part of a broader, universal reality. This recognition of universality is not merely an intellectual abstraction but a lived experience that shapes perception itself. The I, which is at the core of perception, is not a mere isolated subject; it too is a universal, participating in the larger unity of existence. The individual self, in its engagement with the world, does not exist as a detached observer but as part of a broader, interconnected web of relationships that transcend the singular.

Thus, the universal is not just an abstract principle in the background but an active force that structures our experience. Both the I and the object emerge as universal, interconnected, and inseparable. The I, in perceiving the object, acknowledges its universality, and the object, in being perceived, becomes a part of the universal realm that the I inhabits. This shift from immediate certainty to perception marks a transformation in how knowledge is understood and how truth is grasped. What was once a singular, immediate “This” becomes a moment within the unfolding reality of the universal.

Now that the principle has emerged, our engagement with perception is no longer arbitrary or contingent, as it was in the realm of sensory certainty. In sensory certainty, the two moments—subject and object—simply appeared, without any deeper understanding of their relationship or the necessity that binds them. However, with the emergence of the universal principle, these moments are no longer just fleeting or incidental but are now inherently constituted as necessary. The movement of pointing-out, which was once just a simple gesture in sensory certainty, is now recognized as the first essential moment of perception. This movement of pointing-out is the active engagement of consciousness with the object, the subject’s effort to distinguish, identify, and grasp the object in its perceptible form.

In parallel, the second moment is understood as a simplicity. This simplicity is the object itself, not in its fragmented or abstract form, but as it exists in its universal truth. The object in perception is not merely a static or isolated entity but is part of a larger, interconnected system of being. The simplicity here refers to the object’s inherent unity, a quality that ties it into the broader system of reality, and its truth emerges as a result of the universal connection it shares with the perceiving subject. The object is not simply a “thing” but an expression of the universal principle that governs both subject and object. This simplicity of the object is thus not opposed to its complexity but rather reflects its deeper, unified essence, which is accessible through perception.

Thus, the two moments—the movement of pointing-out, which corresponds to perceiving, and the simplicity of the object—are inseparable within the experience of perception. Together, they constitute the fundamental structure of how we encounter the world. They are not arbitrary or contingent but reflect a necessary interplay between the subject and the object, a movement that is guided by the universal principle that underlies the entire perceptual experience. Through this process, both the perceiving subject and the object come to be understood as participants in the same universal truth, each defining and being defined by the other.

In this framework, the object and the movement of perception are not separate entities but are intrinsically linked. The object, in its essence, embodies the very movement that defines how it is perceived. The unfolding and differentiation of moments within the act of perception—the subject’s experience of seeing, hearing, or touching—reflects the unity and synthesis that the object embodies. Each moment within the perceptual process corresponds to a specific aspect of the object, and as the perception evolves, so too does the object come to be understood as a dynamic, ever-unfolding unity.

For consciousness, universality stands as the guiding principle, the essence that organizes perception. It is the universal connection between subject and object, the law that underpins the unfolding of moments. When perception is considered in its totality, this universality becomes clear: the object, through its essence, represents the full scope of the perceptual experience, not as isolated moments, but as a coherent unity. In contrast, the abstraction of the perceiving subject and the perceived object, as separate and differentiated entities, appears as secondary and inessential. These abstractions are mere conceptual tools, tools that we use to articulate the perceptual process but that do not truly capture the full essence of the experience.

Thus, the core of perception lies not in the individual moments of perceiving and being perceived but in the universal principle that governs their interrelationship. This principle reveals that both the object and the act of perception are bound together in an indivisible unity. The abstract division between subject and object is not the true nature of perception; rather, it is in their synthesis that we find the true essence of perceptual experience. Perception, in its deepest form, is the manifestation of this unity, a process of revealing the object not as a static, isolated entity, but as a living, unfolding moment that participates in the universal flow of being.

In the context of perception, both the perceiving subject and the perceived object are universally essential, as they both represent fundamental aspects of experience. However, their interrelationship introduces a necessary distinction between them: while both are essential, one must take on the role of the primary essence, and the other must take on the role of the inessential. This distinction is not an arbitrary imposition, but arises organically from the dynamics of perception itself.

The perceiving subject, as the active agent in the process of perception, assumes the role of the essential. It is through the subject’s engagement with the world that objects come to be known and apprehended. The object, on the other hand, becomes the inessential, as it exists only in relation to the perceiving subject. While the object is essential in itself, it can only be realized as such through the act of perception. Thus, the relationship between subject and object is a dialectical one, where the subject, as the active principle, takes precedence in defining what is essential and what is inessential.

This distinction between essential and inessential is not a static or permanent division but is constantly shifting with the flow of perception. As perception unfolds, the object continually returns to the subject, enriching its understanding and reinforcing the unity between them. Through this dynamic interaction, both the subject and the object maintain their essential nature, yet their roles in the perceptual process are fluid, constantly redistributing the balance of essence and inessentiality. In this way, the distinction between the essential and inessential becomes not just a theoretical concept but a lived, experiential reality, embedded in the very process of perception itself.

The object, as determined by its simplicity, represents the essence—it remains unaltered and indifferent to whether it is perceived or not. Its existence is not contingent upon perception; it is an enduring, stable reality in itself. The object, in this sense, embodies the essential nature of what is perceived, independent of the act of perceiving. Its truth lies in its simplicity and constancy, remaining true regardless of the variations in perception or the subjective involvement of the perceiving subject.

Perception, in contrast, is inherently unstable and contingent. It exists only in the act of perceiving; it is an event that emerges from the subject’s engagement with the object, but it does not have independent existence outside of that engagement. Perception is not an essence in itself but a dynamic, shifting process. It is therefore inessential, as it depends entirely on the interaction between the subject and the object. This instability of perception highlights the contrast between the object’s essential, unchanging nature and the inessential, transitory nature of perception.

Thus, the object and perception occupy different roles in the structure of experience. The object stands as the fixed essence, unperturbed by the subjective process of perception. Perception, on the other hand, is a contingent movement, a process that is both necessary for the realization of the object in consciousness but also inherently inessential due to its dependence on the subject. The distinction between the essence of the object and the inessential nature of perception underscores the dialectical relationship between subject and object in the process of knowing.

The object, now that its essential nature has been identified as universality, requires further elaboration. Its simplicity, as previously discussed, is not an abstract simplicity but one that is mediated, containing within itself the potential for differentiation. This principle of mediation leads us to recognize that the object is not a mere singularity; it must manifest itself through a multitude of properties, each expressing a different aspect of its being. These properties are not arbitrary additions but integral moments of the object’s nature, revealing the object’s complexity while maintaining its essence as universal.

In this way, the object emerges as something more than just an undifferentiated entity. Its nature is to unfold in various properties or aspects, each of which represents a facet of the whole. These properties, while distinct, do not disrupt the unity of the object but rather serve to actualize the object’s inherent potential. The object, in its full actuality, is a synthesis of these properties, and it is through them that its essence is revealed in a way that is comprehensible to consciousness.

The object, then, is both universal and particular, simple and complex. Its universality lies in its essential unity, while its particularity is expressed in the manifold properties it exhibits. These properties, though diverse, are interconnected and necessary, each one contributing to the object’s overall existence. Thus, the object is not static but dynamic, unfolding through its properties, yet always remaining grounded in its essential nature. This development of the object points to the dialectical nature of its existence, where simplicity and complexity coexist, and where the object is both what it is and what it becomes through its expression in the world.

The richness of sensory knowledge is fully realized in perception, not in the immediate certainty where it was only an incidental feature. Sensory certainty, in its simplest form, only grasped the object as it appeared, without acknowledging the multiplicity or complexity inherent in its nature. In contrast, perception, as a more developed mode of consciousness, incorporates negation, differentiation, and multiplicity into its very essence. It understands that the object cannot be reduced to a mere, singular, unchanging entity, but rather, it unfolds through a series of distinctions that reflect its full nature.

Perception is thus not just a passive reception of sensory data, but an active process that involves the differentiation of elements, the negation of immediacy, and the unfolding of complexity. It is through this movement of perception that we come to understand the world not as a static, simple set of objects, but as a dynamic, interconnected web of relations, where each object is defined by its interactions with others. The object, in perception, is no longer a singularity but a multiplicity that emerges through the act of perceiving.

In this way, perception provides the richness and depth that sensory certainty lacks. It recognizes that the true nature of an object lies not in its immediate, unexamined appearance, but in the unfolding of its various properties, relations, and connections. Perception, therefore, is not just a more sophisticated form of knowledge—it is the very mode of knowing that allows us to engage with the world in its full complexity, revealing the inherent multiplicity and relationality that make the world what it is.

The This is thus posited as not being this, or as annulled. Yet, it is not a mere nothingness; it is a determinate nothing—a nothing imbued with content. This content, however, is no longer the immediate, singular “This” that was originally grasped, but rather, it is the essence of the This reconfigured as something more complex, as something universal. In this new form, the This does not remain as the specific, particular object it was once thought to be, but it takes on a more abstract quality, revealing itself as a universal that is yet to be fully determined through its properties.

In this transformation, the sensory is still present, but it no longer holds the same role or significance as it did in the immediacy of sensory certainty. What was once understood as the particular object—the This—becomes something larger and more relational. The immediate certainty of the object has dissolved, giving way to a perception of the object as part of a broader, more complex web of relations. The This no longer stands alone but is now understood as something that will be determined through its properties, qualities, and relations to other objects.

Thus, the sensory object is not lost entirely but is redefined through its shift from a particular, meant entity into a universal form that is subject to further determination. What was once grasped as a simple, immediate truth now becomes something that can be elaborated upon, explored, and understood in a more complex, interconnected way. The sensory object, now seen as universal, sets the stage for a deeper understanding, one that moves beyond the simplicity of sensory certainty to engage with the richness and multiplicity inherent in the world.

This annulment reveals its true double meaning, as demonstrated by the negative: it is both a negation and a preservation. The nothingness here is not an absolute void but the nothingness of the This—a negation of the particular and specific, while simultaneously preserving its essence in a transformed, universal form. This nothingness does not annihilate the sensory object; rather, it retains the immediacy of the This while altering its nature, turning it into something universal. The sensory, once immediate and particular, is now universal in its immediacy, retaining its essential characteristics while becoming applicable to a broader context.

In this movement, being itself becomes universal. It incorporates mediation and negativity as internal elements, and by doing so, it becomes more than just the mere existence of a particular object. The act of negation introduces the possibility for differentiation within being itself. It is no longer simply a fixed, singular entity but is now a being that can be differentiated and determined through its properties. This mediation allows being to move beyond its immediate, singular existence and into a realm of complexity and relation.

Thus, being, in its newfound universal form, is no longer merely a passive, static presence. It becomes dynamic and multi-dimensional, capable of being understood through its properties, its relations, and its inherent capacity for differentiation. The This that once appeared as a simple, immediate truth is now transformed into something that is not only preserved but also enriched, allowing for a more complex and nuanced understanding of reality. The sensory object, now viewed through the lens of universality, takes on new significance, revealing the richness of being that was previously concealed in its immediacy.

Simultaneously, many properties emerge, each one the negation of the others. In the simplicity of the universal, these determinations are not fixed or isolated but are instead expressed in relation to one another within the broader context of being. However, each property, through further specification, becomes distinct and independent, standing on its own without necessarily needing the others to define it.

These properties, though interconnected within the broader framework of the universal, exist for themselves—they are self-contained and defined by their own intrinsic nature. Despite their relational nature, each property remains indifferent to the others. This indifference does not imply a lack of connection, but rather, it reflects the autonomy of each property within the larger system. Each property can be understood individually while still being part of a more complex whole.

Thus, the properties of being, as they unfold within the universal, reveal a dynamic interplay between unity and differentiation. While they exist independently in their own right, they also maintain a relational connection that allows them to contribute to the overall essence of the universal. The process of differentiation does not undermine the unity of being; rather, it enriches it, allowing for a fuller and more nuanced understanding of existence. This balance between independence and interrelation is essential to the unfolding of the universal and the complex nature of being itself.

The simple, self-same universality is, however, distinct and free from these determinations. It exists as pure self-relation, a foundational unity in which all properties and distinctions coexist as a harmonious whole, yet each remains unaffected by the other. In this medium, the properties do not engage with one another actively, nor do they alter one another’s essence. Instead, they interpenetrate seamlessly within the space of universality, maintaining their distinctness without being influenced or defined by the others.

This self-relation of universality is the underlying condition in which the properties remain individually distinct yet unified. It is a space of pure potential, where all determinations are present but not yet in opposition or interaction with each other. Each property is preserved in its essence, independent and self-contained, while simultaneously existing in relation to the larger, encompassing whole. The indifference of these properties to one another speaks to the inherent unity within the universality they share, creating a system where every determination is validated, yet remains separate.

Thus, universality, in its pure form, is the medium in which the multiplicity of properties can emerge and coexist without interference. It offers the foundation for being to manifest, providing the ground on which all determinations—whether they are properties, qualities, or relations—are both preserved and interwoven. Within this framework, the properties retain their identity, yet they belong to the greater unity, making universality not just a space for their existence but the very condition for their possibility.

This abstract universal medium, which we may refer to as thinghood in general or pure essence, is in fact nothing other than the Here and Now, as previously demonstrated. It exists as a simple unity of many, in which the many elements are themselves simple universals. The particularity of a given object, such as this salt, embodies this dual nature: it is simultaneously a singular Here, a unique instance of presence, and a manifold expression of various determinations. For example, this salt is white, sharp, cubic, and of a certain weight, among other properties—each of which contributes to its identity while remaining distinct in its own right.

In this way, the Here and Now manifest as the foundational structure for all particular things, while maintaining their universal nature. The salt, as a thing, is not merely a collection of accidental attributes but a unified whole that exemplifies the universal principle of thinghood. It serves as an embodiment of the underlying abstraction—the pure essence that underlies all concrete particularities. Despite the multiplicity of its properties, the salt retains its identity as a singular object, unified within the larger framework of universal presence.

Thus, the simple unity of the Here and Now encapsulates the nature of any given thing. It demonstrates how a particular object, such as salt, is both a singular instance of being and a complex collection of properties that are universally applicable to all things. This interplay between singularity and multiplicity reveals the depth of the universal medium, showing how essence and appearance are combined in the constitution of all things.

All of these many properties coexist within one simple Here, interpenetrating in a harmonious unity. Each property does not possess a separate Here from the others; rather, each exists within the same Here, interwoven with the others. However, despite this interpenetration, the properties do not alter or influence one another. The whiteness of the salt does not modify its cubic shape, nor does its sharpness affect its weight. Each property, as a simple self-relation, remains entirely unaffected by the others. They exist alongside one another, related through the indifferent also, without any mutual interference.

This coexistence of properties highlights the essential unity of the object, where the properties are not in conflict or interaction with one another but instead form a collective whole within the same singular space. The properties maintain their distinctness, each remaining isolated in its own self-relation, but all existing together as part of the unified thing. The salt remains both an individual object and a complex of various characteristics that do not influence one another but simply coexist in the same universal Here.

In this sense, the object exemplifies the nature of being in its purest form: a unity of many, each of which retains its own integrity while being part of the whole. The universal Here becomes the medium through which all properties are expressed, but this expression does not come through any direct interaction between them. Instead, it is the simple, undisturbed coexistence of these properties that makes the object what it is, revealing the essence of thinghood as both unified and plural.

This, too, is the pure universality itself—the medium that unifies the properties into the thinghood that constitutes the object. It is within this universality that all the properties of the object coexist, each distinct yet combined into a singular whole. This medium does not merely allow the properties to exist side by side but serves as the unifying force that gives the object its identity as a thing. Without this universality, the properties would remain disparate and unconnected, lacking the unity that defines them as part of a single, coherent object.

In this sense, universality becomes the essential condition for the object’s existence, providing the framework within which its properties are not only preserved but also brought together into a unified entity. The object, as it is experienced in perception, exists through the integration of its properties, but it is only through the universality that encompasses them that it becomes a thing—an object with an inherent and unifying essence. Thus, the pure universality, as the medium for these properties, constitutes the essence of the object and gives it the form that we recognize and identify as a particular thing in the world.

The universality is not merely a passive backdrop for these properties; it actively shapes the object’s identity, transforming a collection of independent qualities into a cohesive whole. This process illustrates how pure essence, in its simplest form, provides the foundation for all things, unifying disparate properties into a singular experience of objecthood. Through the lens of universality, the object is revealed not only as a sum of its parts but as a unified entity, bound together by the very medium that makes its existence possible.

In the relationship that has been established, only the aspect of positive universality has so far been observed and developed. This positive universality reflects the unifying force that binds the properties together into a coherent object. However, for a more complete understanding, another dimension must be included: the role of differentiation and opposition in determining the properties. The properties, as previously discussed, are presented as self-referential and independent; however, this independence would ultimately render them undetermined—merely potential, without the specificity required to constitute the thing as it is perceived.

Properties become determinate not merely by being contained within the universal medium of thinghood, but through their differentiation from one another. In other words, properties acquire their specific identity only in relation to their opposites. The sharpness of an object is defined in opposition to its smoothness, its weight in contrast to lightness, and its color is understood through its distinction from other colors. It is through these contrasts, these relations of opposition, that properties gain their determinate nature.

Thus, the process of determination is not simply the realization of universality; it is the establishment of differences within the universal. This tension between universality and particularity, between unity and opposition, is what enables properties to manifest as distinct and determinate. Without this relational aspect, properties would remain indeterminate, unable to define the object as a whole. It is the interplay between the universal medium and the opposition of properties that ultimately shapes the object, rendering it a tangible and meaningful presence in consciousness.

Given this opposition, the properties cannot coexist in the simple unity of their medium without experiencing tension. The very essence of this medium, as essential as it is to the properties, is its ability to maintain a unity that encompasses them. However, this unity is not a mere passive one—it is actively defined by the negation of otherness, which separates and excludes differences. As a result, the differentiation of properties does not occur within this simple unity, but rather outside of it, in the space where opposites are marked and contrasted.

The medium, which initially seemed to be an indifferent “also,” becomes something more complex—a “one” that actively holds the unity of the properties but simultaneously excludes what does not belong to it. It is not merely a passive receptacle for the properties, but the very condition that allows them to be distinguished from one another. This exclusivity—the way in which the medium negates the differences between the properties—ensures that each property is defined by its opposition to others and by the unity of the whole. Thus, the unity of the medium becomes a dynamic, active force, one that is defined by both inclusion and exclusion, by the balance of indifference and active differentiation.

In this way, the properties are not simply contained within the universal medium; rather, they emerge as distinct and determinate through the negation of what is not them. The medium, while remaining essential to the unity of the object, is not merely an empty vessel—it is a force that shapes and defines the properties, transforming them from abstract potentialities into the concrete determinations that constitute the object as it is known.

The one, in this context, represents the moment of negation, where the thing asserts itself by excluding what it is not. This act of negation is simple in its essence, as it does not engage in complex relations but instead firmly establishes the thing as distinct, separate from all other things. It is through this self-relation of negation that the thing becomes defined and recognized as itself.

In the property, this negation manifests as determinateness, a clear and distinct characteristic that marks the property as something specific. This determinateness, however, is not isolated—it is immediately unified with the immediacy of being, which is the pure presence of the property. Through this unity, the immediacy becomes infused with negation, resulting in universality. This universality reflects the property’s place within the broader structure of the thing, as it is defined not only by what it is but also by what it is not.

Yet, when the property emerges as the one, it becomes independent. It is no longer merely a part of the whole, determined by its relation to its opposite. Instead, it exists in and for itself, free from the necessity of its counterpart. It stands as an autonomous moment, its determinateness now fully realized, and its universality no longer dependent on the unity with what it negates. This independence allows the property to stand alone, defined by its own nature, and to exist as an essential part of the whole while retaining its singularity.

In this systematic articulation of the thing as it presents itself within perception, we observe a threefold structure that allows the thing to fully emerge as the truth of perception. Each moment contributes to the thing’s development, and together they form a coherent, interconnected whole. The thing is constituted by:

(a) Indifferent, Passive Universality: This is the foundational medium within which all properties or materials exist. It represents the universal backdrop that is indifferent to the distinctions made within it. It is not actively engaged with the properties but serves as the encompassing space where they are situated. This is the “also” of the thing, the pure universality that holds the multiplicity of properties together without altering or determining them.

(b) Negation, the One: This moment introduces the principle of differentiation. It is the act of negation that excludes what is not the thing, thereby asserting its unity. In this negation, the thing is not merely a passive existence but a self-determining unity that excludes the other. It is simple yet powerful, as it forms the boundary that defines the thing by what it is not. Through negation, the thing becomes a singularity, an independent entity in its own right.

(c) The Many Properties: The third moment emerges from the interaction between the first two: the indifferent universality and the negation. These properties are the manifold distinctions that arise within the unity of the thing. They are the result of the negation’s act of differentiation, spreading itself out into various forms or expressions. Each property exists as a distinct determination but is always anchored within the universal medium, reflecting the thing’s essence while still being part of a larger whole. These properties constitute the fullness and richness of the thing, radiating outward from its unified center.

Together, these three moments—universality, negation, and multiplicity—constitute the fully developed thing. They are the necessary elements that make perception of the thing not only possible but also meaningful, revealing the complex and interconnected nature of reality as it appears in consciousness.

On the one hand, the distinctions that make up the properties of the thing belong to the indifferent medium of universality, meaning that they exist as universal, self-referential, and unaffected by one another. Each property is contained within the broad, indifferent space of the thing, where it remains unified with the others in a simple, passive coexistence. This universality ensures that the properties, while distinct, do not interfere with or alter each other—they merely coexist in a shared space, each maintaining its own identity within the broader framework.

On the other hand, these properties, as part of the negative unity, are not merely passive elements within a universal medium. Instead, they are defined through negation—through their opposition to other properties. This negative unity introduces exclusivity: the properties are mutually exclusive and must stand in opposition to any property that falls outside their own set. The act of negation establishes boundaries that prevent any overlap or confusion between properties, ensuring that each one retains its distinctiveness by excluding its opposite. Thus, the properties are not just passive qualities within an indifferent medium, but active distinctions that arise from the negation of what they are not, leading to their necessary opposition to other possible properties.

Sensory universality, as the immediate unity of being and negation, only becomes a property when the dialectical interplay between these two moments is fully realized. The one—representing pure unity—and the universal—representing the all-encompassing indifference—are not static elements but dynamic forces that are developed and differentiated within the thing itself. In this development, being and negation do not simply coexist; they are unified by their own interplay, creating a deeper, more complex reality.

Through this dialectical unfolding, the thing becomes more than just a collection of passive moments. The properties emerge as differentiated aspects of this fundamental unity, each existing in tension with the others. Yet, despite their opposition, they are still held together by the essential unity of the thing itself. This unity does not cancel out the individuality of each property but instead makes the totality of the thing possible, integrating both the universal and the particular in a harmonious, structured whole. It is this intricate relationship of being and negation, unity and differentiation, that completes the thing and gives it its full meaning within the sensory realm.

This nature of the thing in perception presents consciousness with the object in its purest form. Consciousness, as perceiving, is determined by its engagement with the thing, which serves as its object. In this process, consciousness must simply take up the object, apprehending it without distortion or addition. The truth of the object emerges through this immediate and unaltered relation between consciousness and the thing. If consciousness were to add any concept or substract any nuance, it would no longer be engaging with the thing as it is but rather introducing an element that distorts the truth.

Therefore, the truth is realized only when consciousness engages with the object in its pure immediacy, without interference. In this way, the thing is apprehended not as a construct of thought or an abstraction but as it exists within the realm of sensory certainty. The object, as it is perceived, contains within it the truth of that perception, and any modification or further elaboration would distort this direct relationship, moving consciousness away from the true and into the realm of subjective interpretation. The true exists when consciousness allows the object to be itself, without imposing additional determinations upon it.

Since the object is the true, universal, and self-consistent, it remains unchanged and constant, whereas consciousness is mutable and inessential, subject to the potential of misapprehension. The perceiving consciousness, aware of its own fluid nature, recognizes the possibility of deception because, within the universality that governs it, otherness always emerges before it. However, this otherness is immediately negated, annulled, and transformed into something that no longer disrupts the unity of perception.

In this sense, consciousness exists in a state where it can engage with the object and yet is susceptible to error because its own nature is not fixed. While the object retains its consistency, consciousness, by virtue of its mutable and inessential nature, has the capacity to misinterpret, over-extend, or misplace its perception. The immediate awareness of otherness within consciousness, though nullified in the act of perception, signals the potential for deviation from the truth, making the process of true perception delicate and requiring careful attention to the object in its purity, without the interference of the mutable consciousness.

Thus, the criterion for truth in perception is the self-consistency of the object, and the task of consciousness is to apprehend the object in a way that is aligned with this consistency. However, perception involves a relational aspect, where consciousness compares and contrasts different moments within its experience. These moments, although they arise from the object, are subject to the interpretive processes of consciousness.

If a discrepancy arises in this process, it is not the object that is untrue, for the object, as self-consistent and universal, retains its truth independent of perception. The discrepancy instead lies within the act of perception itself, which may have failed to properly align with the object’s self-consistency. This indicates that any misapprehension is not due to the object’s inherent nature but is a result of how consciousness engages with the object—suggesting that perception, as mutable and contingent, must be corrected to properly reflect the true nature of the object.

In examining the experience that consciousness undergoes in actual perception, we find that it is not a new or separate process but rather the unfolding of the contradictions that have already emerged in the previous development of the object and its relationship to consciousness. The object, as we have seen, is defined by its universality, consistency, and self-relation, while consciousness, in contrast, is mutable and relational, subject to changes in how it apprehends and interprets the object.

This tension between the object’s self-consistency and the fluid, often imperfect nature of perception creates the basis for the experience of misapprehension, which is itself a necessary moment in the progression of knowledge. The experience of perception involves confronting the contradictions between how the object is meant to be understood and how consciousness actually perceives it. As these contradictions unfold, consciousness comes to understand that perception is not simply a passive reception of the object but an active, dialectical process of relating the object to itself, working through differences, and coming to terms with the limitations of its own apprehension.

At first, the object appears to me as a singular, unified whole—a pure one. However, as I engage with it, I perceive a property within it that is universal, extending beyond the singularity of the object. This realization reveals that the object’s initial presentation as a one was, in fact, incomplete. The true essence of the object cannot be contained in this singular, isolated form; instead, it must be understood in its universality, which transcends the one. This awareness forces me to reevaluate the object, recognizing that its essence lies in its totality, a complex unity of many properties that together define it.

This shift in understanding brings with it the recognition that my original apprehension was mistaken. The object, initially perceived as a pure unity, is in truth a multiplicity—each property contributing to its full essence. As a result, the untruth I encountered in my initial perception does not lie within the object itself, but in the way I related to it. The object’s true nature is revealed only when I grasp it as a community of interrelated properties, each of which contributes to the whole. Thus, my understanding of the object evolves, moving from a singular, isolated perception to a more comprehensive, unified understanding of its true nature.

This transformation highlights the dialectical nature of perception, where the object is not a fixed, static entity but a dynamic totality that unfolds through the interaction of its properties. In recognizing the object as a community of properties, I am led to understand that perception itself is not merely a passive reception of isolated truths but an active process of unfolding the totality of the object’s essence. This shift from singularity to universality is a necessary movement in the development of true knowledge, where the object reveals itself in its fullness and complexity.

In the next step of perception, I become aware that the property I had initially perceived as part of a continuous whole is, in fact, determinate. It stands in opposition to and excludes other properties, introducing a distinction that challenges my previous understanding of the object as a seamless community. The property, by its nature, is not a harmonious part of a unified continuity, but rather something that defines itself through its exclusion of other possibilities. This realization forces me to reconsider my earlier apprehension of the object as a unified totality, and instead, I must now approach it as something exclusive, where the determinateness of the property requires a more discrete understanding.

The perception of the property as determinate and opposed to others reveals a deeper complexity within the object. No longer can I take the object as a simple community of properties, where each aspect flows into the next. The object must now be viewed as a more fragmented and exclusive unity, where each property has its own specific identity and is defined through its opposition to what is not it. In other words, the object becomes a set of determinations, each of which plays a role in defining the whole by excluding what it is not. This shift in perception demands that I abandon the idea of a continuous unity and embrace the reality of the object’s exclusive and determinate nature.

This new understanding of the object as exclusive and determinate leads me to revise my earlier conception of it. The object is no longer simply a harmonious whole but a structure made up of distinct, oppositional parts, each contributing to the overall essence. The perception of the object thus undergoes a transformation from a simple, continuous unity to a more complex, exclusive unity. This shift demonstrates the dialectical nature of perception, where the object’s true essence is revealed through the unfolding of its contradictions and the recognition of the exclusions and determinations that define it. In doing so, I come closer to understanding the object in its full complexity, appreciating the interrelations and oppositions that constitute its being.

In this revised perception, the object reveals itself as not a singular, unified whole but a complex arrangement of many properties, each one distinct and separate. These properties do not affect one another directly; they exist independently, existing as individual determinations within the broader context of the object. This realization challenges my initial perception of the object as an exclusive one, and instead, I recognize that the object is, as before, a medium where multiple properties coexist. Yet, these properties are no longer simply unified in a continuous whole; they are sensory universals that assert their individuality through their determinate nature.

The object, now understood as a communal medium, holds within it various properties that each stand in opposition to others, each maintaining its own self-contained existence. However, these properties are not passive or arbitrary; they are determinate and assert their individuality by excluding what is not themselves. In this way, they become essential moments of the object, contributing to its overall essence but maintaining their own identity. Thus, my perception must shift once more from viewing the object as a simple, exclusive unity to recognizing it as a collection of interrelated but independent properties.

This process of perception brings to light the essential nature of the object, which is neither a singular, exclusive one nor a purely communal whole. Instead, the object is a complex unity composed of many sensory universals, each existing for itself as a determinate property. The object becomes a dynamic and multifaceted entity, where each property plays a role in the overall essence without dissolving into a mere continuity or exclusivity. In this way, the true nature of the object is revealed through the interplay of its various properties, each of which contributes to its completeness while preserving its own independence.

In this isolation, the property appears as something that lacks the specificity and relational determination that would make it a true property in the sense of perception. It ceases to have any particular determination or negation that gives it distinctiveness. Instead, it simply exists as an abstract, undifferentiated sensory being. It is no longer a property that defines the object, but rather a mere moment of being without contrast or opposition, without the tension between self and other that makes properties truly determinate.

This shift reveals a key truth: a property can only exist as such when it is defined in opposition to other properties. Without this relational aspect, it is reduced to a simple, undifferentiated being that lacks real determination. This undifferentiated being, in its pure self-relation, is a kind of sensory generality, but it cannot be considered the true object of perception. The true object, in its essence, must encompass both unity and opposition, both being and negation.

Thus, when I isolate a property from the whole of the object and remove its relational context, it ceases to be a true property, and instead becomes merely an abstraction. The true object must be a unity of many determinations, each one opposing and defining the other. Without this tension, the object remains incomplete, an abstract concept devoid of the richness that gives it its full meaning in perception.

This cyclical return signals a deeper dynamic at play in the process of perception and understanding. As consciousness retreats into meaning, it recognizes that meaning itself is insufficient without the immediate sensory experience to ground it. Sensory being and meaning are inextricably bound, and this relationship continually compels consciousness to move between the two—perception and abstraction—in a process of perpetual negation and self-negation.

The very act of perceiving brings the object back into consciousness, though not as it initially appeared. Now, the object must be reconsidered, not simply as a singular sensory item, but as part of a dynamic process. The return to perception is not a mere repetition; it is a return to a deeper, more reflective engagement with the object. Each moment of negation serves to refine and expand the understanding of the object, as it emerges from its immediate, sensory immediacy into a richer, more complex conception.

This dynamic illustrates the dialectical nature of consciousness—it cannot remain static in either perception or meaning. Each moment of sensory certainty is sublated, transformed, and reinterpreted through the dialectical movement. Thus, the truth of perception is never final but is always subject to revision and deeper understanding as consciousness progresses through its experience. The cycle of negation is not futile, but rather the essential mechanism through which consciousness reaches the fullness of its understanding.

This circular process reveals the dynamic nature of perception, where consciousness is both propelled and constrained by its own inherent contradictions. At each stage, consciousness confronts a contradiction, attempting to resolve it, only to discover that the resolution leads to the emergence of new contradictions. This perpetual unfolding is not a futile repetition but a progressive movement towards a deeper understanding of the object and the self. Each cycle, while seemingly a return to the same place, is actually a movement toward a more nuanced and refined grasp of the object as it reveals itself.

Perception, in this sense, becomes an ongoing dialectical process—one in which consciousness continually revises its own understanding through its engagement with the object. With every turn, the object is not simply encountered anew, but is viewed through the lens of the previous negations, which allow it to be understood in new and more comprehensive ways. The contradictions that emerge are not signs of failure but are integral to the dynamic unfolding of truth.

Ultimately, this circularity reflects the nature of knowledge itself: a continuous, self-correcting process that deepens and expands as it progresses. Consciousness, through this cycle, does not remain trapped in contradiction but transcends each moment of conflict to reach a more profound unity, where understanding and being converge. Perception, then, is not a static act but a living, evolving journey of insight that constantly transforms both the object and the subject of knowledge.

This newfound understanding marks a shift in consciousness’s approach to perception. The cycle is no longer a mere repetition of the same pattern but a dynamic progression where each return to the cycle brings greater awareness. Consciousness has internalized the process, recognizing that what initially appeared as direct and immediate apprehension was, in fact, a movement toward self-reflection. The object is no longer seen as a fixed, external reality; instead, it is understood as something shaped by the consciousness that perceives it. This recognition unveils the complex interplay between the object, the subject, and the act of perceiving itself.

Perception, once thought of as a straightforward reception of sensory data, is now understood as a dual process: both an engagement with the external world and a reflection on the act of engagement. Consciousness no longer simply encounters the world; it engages in an ongoing dialogue with it, continually adjusting and refining its understanding. Each time consciousness returns to the cycle, it does so with more insight into the limitations and conditions of its own perception, realizing that perception is as much an internal process of self-determination as it is an external grasping of reality.

In this sense, the cycle of perception is no longer seen as a failure to apprehend the truth, but as a necessary process of unfolding and refining. Through each cycle, consciousness moves closer to a more complete understanding, a synthesis of immediate experience and reflective thought. The truth of perception, therefore, lies not in the static object of apprehension, but in the dynamic, ever-evolving relationship between subject and object, between consciousness and its experience. This cyclical process leads consciousness toward the realization that perception is not simply a passive reception, but an active, self-aware movement toward truth.

As consciousness acknowledges this reflexive aspect of perception, it realizes that its role is not merely to passively apprehend the object but to actively shape and determine its own experience of it. This self-awareness allows consciousness to assume responsibility for its own perceptions, acknowledging that what it takes as true is not a direct reflection of the object, but a result of its own reflective activity. The realization that perception involves both the object and the subject—the external and the internal—transforms consciousness’s approach to truth.

In striving to preserve the object in its purity, consciousness no longer accepts its previous assumptions or limitations. The truth of the object is not something external to it, something to be grasped as an independent, fixed reality. Instead, the truth emerges through the interplay of the object and consciousness, as a mutual relation that is both constructed and discovered. The object, in this sense, is not static but is understood as dynamic, continuously coalescing through the act of knowing.

Consciousness, therefore, becomes engaged in a more refined process of knowing, one that recognizes the essential role of reflection and self-awareness. The true object is preserved not as an isolated, unchanging entity but as a part of an evolving system of understanding. This process of striving toward purity and clarity does not lead to a final, fixed truth but to an ever-deepening comprehension of the relationship between the subject and object, between the knower and the known. It is in this dynamic, reflective process that the true nature of perception unfolds.

In this advanced stage of perception, consciousness not only reflects upon itself but also actively engages in the correction of its previous misapprehensions. Unlike in sensory certainty, where the untruth was mistakenly thought to reside within consciousness itself, perception now reveals that any error arises from the interplay between consciousness and the object. Consciousness, by acknowledging its own role in the creation of untruth, gains the power to negate these errors.

This process of negation is a self-corrective movement. Consciousness distinguishes between its own immediate apprehension of the object and the potential untruth that might arise from its perception. Through this distinction, consciousness becomes capable of recognizing the inessential aspects of its perception—the elements that distort the truth. By correcting these distortions, it re-aligns itself with the object, reasserting the truth as its own, and solidifying the object’s place in the universal system of knowledge.

Thus, perception evolves from a simple, passive reception of the object into an active process of self-awareness and self-correction. The truth is no longer a static, external reality but something that emerges within consciousness through its reflective activity. This dynamic, ongoing correction ensures that the truth of perception becomes internalized and solidified within consciousness, laying the foundation for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the object, and of consciousness itself as the agent of truth.

This mode of consciousness is marked by a heightened self-awareness, where it is no longer content to simply perceive the object as it appears. Instead, it simultaneously becomes aware of its own reflective activity—the way it engages with and processes the object. In this state, consciousness recognizes the difference between its immediate apprehension of the object and its reflective activity upon that apprehension. This awareness allows consciousness to distinguish the pure, immediate perception of the object from the interpretative layer it places upon it.

By distinguishing its reflection from the act of simple apprehension, consciousness gains the ability to refine its perception. It no longer accepts the object as given but actively engages with it, questioning, refining, and correcting its understanding. This refined engagement ensures that consciousness is not merely subject to the vagaries of immediate perception but is instead actively working to preserve the truth. The preservation of truth in this context is not a passive holding onto an unaltered image of the object, but a dynamic process of continual self-correction and refinement, driven by the conscious recognition of its reflective role.

Through this refined perception, consciousness becomes not just a passive observer but an active participant in shaping its understanding of the world. The truth, in this context, is not something static or external to consciousness, but something that is continuously constituted and preserved through the dialectical interplay between perception and reflection. This dual awareness allows consciousness to refine its connection to the object, ensuring that the truth remains untainted by misperception and that the object is grasped in its fullest, most accurate form.

At the outset, I grasp the thing as one, holding it firmly in its unity. This initial perception of unity is essential to the object’s truth, and it must be preserved as the basis of my understanding. However, as perception unfolds and the object is further apprehended, contradictions may arise that threaten to disrupt this unity. When such contradictions emerge, they must not be seen as inherent flaws in the object itself but recognized as arising from my own reflective process.

The recognition of these contradictions as reflections of my own activity marks a crucial shift in perception. I realize that what disturbs the unity of the object is not an external flaw, but rather my engagement with it. This reflection acknowledges that the tension between the unity I first perceive and the contradictions I encounter stems from my own reflective judgments, not from the object in its essence. Therefore, these contradictions must be understood as contingent and resolvable, not as inherent divisions in the object itself.

By identifying the source of contradiction as a product of my reflective engagement, I am able to preserve the unity of the object in its truth. My perception becomes more refined, and I learn to navigate the tensions between immediate perception and reflective thought. In this way, I avoid reducing the object to an incoherent or fragmented whole, instead allowing it to emerge as a unified, coherent entity that is shaped by both my immediate perception and my reflective awareness. The true object, then, is not static, but is preserved and maintained through the continuous interplay of perception and reflection.

In perception, various properties present themselves as belonging to the thing itself—white, sharp, cubic, etc. These qualities seem inherent to the object, making it appear as though the thing possesses these attributes independently. However, upon deeper reflection, it becomes clear that the thing, in its essence, is one. It is only when the thing is engaged through the different senses—sight, taste, touch—that it appears to manifest different properties.

Each sense contributes a particular aspect to the object, but none of these properties are intrinsic to the thing as it is in itself. The object does not possess sharpness, whiteness, or cubicity by nature; rather, these properties emerge only when the object is perceived through specific sensory channels. The sharpness is a function of our sense of taste, the whiteness of our vision, and the cubic form felt through touch. These differences, though they seem to characterize the object, are in fact shaped by the sensory apparatus and the interaction between the subject and the object.

Thus, the apparent multiplicity of properties does not disrupt the unity of the object itself. Instead, it reveals that the distinctions we perceive arise within us, not within the object. The thing, in its essence, remains one, and it is our perception of it through different senses that gives rise to its various qualities. The unity of the object, therefore, is preserved in its essence, while its properties are contingent upon the mode of perception through which it is encountered.

The distinctness of these aspects—the white, sharp, and cubic properties—does not emerge from the thing itself but from the way in which our sensory faculties separate and interpret the object. The eye, tongue, and touch, each distinct in its function, contribute their own particular perception of the object. The object does not inherently possess the attributes of whiteness, sharpness, or cubicality; rather, these qualities are products of the specific sensory mode through which the object is apprehended.

This distinction is crucial: the thing itself, in its essence, is not divided into these properties. Rather, it is we, as perceiving subjects, who impose this separation by means of our sensory faculties. We serve as the universal medium through which these properties are apprehended and differentiated. Each sense functions independently, and yet the totality of the object, as perceived through the various faculties, comes together within us.

In this sense, we are the true medium within which the object is apprehended and made into a composite of separate properties. The object itself, though unified in its essence, becomes a multiplicity through the lens of our perception. Thus, the distinctions between properties are not inherent in the thing, but are the result of the sensory process and the ways in which we relate to the object through our faculties. The object’s unity remains intact in its essence, while its properties are understood only through the mediation of our senses.

By recognizing that the determination of being a universal medium originates from our own reflection, we achieve the preservation of the thing’s self-consistency and truth as being one. In other words, we come to understand that the distinctions we perceive—whether through sight, touch, or other senses—are not intrinsic to the object itself but are the result of the interaction between the object and our sensory faculties. This realization allows us to see beyond the multiplicity of sensory impressions and recognize that, at its core, the object remains unified and consistent in its essence.

This self-reflection, in turn, affirms the truth of the object as a singular, self-sustaining entity. While our senses break the object into distinct moments or properties, these separations are not contradictions of the object’s unity but reflections of the way our consciousness interacts with it. The truth of the object, therefore, is preserved in its essential unity, even as it is experienced through the lens of differentiated sensory perceptions.

In this way, the object’s truth does not lie in its sensory multiplicity but in its unified essence. Through our reflective understanding, we maintain the object’s self-consistency, recognizing that the appearance of separateness is a product of our perception rather than a fundamental feature of the thing itself. This understanding allows us to transcend the limitations of sensory perception and grasp the object in its true, unified form.

These various aspects, which consciousness attributes to itself, are thus determined in relation to one another within the universal medium. The property of whiteness, for example, is defined only in opposition to blackness, just as sharpness is understood in contrast to dullness, and so forth. Each of these properties exists because of its distinction from other properties, and it is only in this relational context that they acquire their meaning.

In this way, the thing is one because it stands in opposition to others. It is not just a collection of disparate properties; rather, its unity arises from the way these properties are distinguished from one another and how they are organized within the universal medium. The thing maintains its singularity because it does not dissolve into the multiplicity of its properties but rather remains unified through the very distinctions that define its existence.

Thus, the thing’s essence is not in the individual properties but in the unity that emerges through the interplay of these oppositions. The thing is one precisely because its properties are defined by their opposition to others, and in this dynamic relation, the thing maintains its identity, revealing that true unity is not the absence of distinction but the synthesis of opposites within a coherent whole.

The thing does not exclude others merely because it is one. Instead, its oneness is rooted in its universal self-relation, which encompasses all things equally. This universality does not lead to isolation but rather allows the thing to exist in relation to others. In its unity, the thing is not separate from others; rather, it contains within itself the potential for distinction.

What differentiates the thing from others is not its mere oneness but its determinateness. This determinateness arises through the specific properties that define it, which make it distinct from other things. These properties are what give the thing its particular identity and what allow it to be recognized as unique. In other words, the thing is determinate in and for itself because of the particular ways in which it manifests its properties.

Therefore, the thing’s essence is not in being merely one, but in being a determinate one—defined by its properties and its relationship to other things. It is through this process of differentiation that the thing exists as a singular, distinct entity within the broader universal context. The thing is not isolated, but is defined by the very properties that make it stand apart from the other things with which it exists.

The thing, in its truest form, is self-contained; it exists independently and in itself. Its existence is not determined by external factors or the needs of others, but by its intrinsic essence. Everything that belongs to the thing is integral to its own nature, existing solely for the thing itself. This self-contained nature underscores its reality, distinguishing it from any external reference or relational dependency. It is through its essence that the thing defines itself and remains true to its own existence, free from any external imposition. The thing’s truth is grounded in its being for itself, an existence that is not contingent upon anything outside of it but is self-sufficient in its totality.

Secondly, the determinate properties of the thing are not merely relational or dependent on other things; they are intrinsic to the thing itself. These properties are essential to the thing’s identity, defining it in its uniqueness and specificity. They do not exist merely for the sake of contrast with other things but are integral to its own essence. Each property contributes to the totality of the thing, shaping its being and ensuring its distinctiveness. In this sense, the properties are not external attributes or mere accidents; they are fundamental aspects of the thing’s nature, necessary to its being and self-definition.

Thirdly, these determinate properties are indeed properties of the thing, but only insofar as they exist as multiple and distinct from one another. While each property contributes to the thing’s identity, they do so in a manner that highlights their differentiation from one another. However, despite their distinctiveness, these properties remain independent of one another and are indifferent to each other. They coexist within the thing, but they do not interact or influence one another; each property simply exists as an independent expression of the thing’s essence. This independence underscores the thing’s internal unity, where the multiple distinctions within it do not disturb its essential oneness.

Thus, in truth, it is the thing itself that is white, cubic, sharp, and so forth. The thing embodies the “also” — the universal medium in which these many properties exist independently of one another, without touching or negating one another. Each property is merely a distinct manifestation of the thing’s essence, and these distinctions coexist within the thing without any interference between them. This self-contained unity of the thing, where each property is simultaneously independent and yet part of a unified whole, defines its true nature. The thing is understood as the true, not merely as a collection of individual properties, but as a singular essence in which all properties are held together in perfect harmony.

In perception, consciousness is simultaneously aware of its reflection into itself, and thus, alongside the “also” — the universal medium — the opposing moment inevitably emerges. This opposing moment is the unity of the thing with itself, which functions to exclude any distinctions or differences that may arise. Consciousness, therefore, must recognize this unity as inherent to the thing itself. The thing is not merely a collection of distinct properties, but the sustaining and unifying force behind them. It is this unity that preserves the coherence and integrity of the thing, despite the multiplicity of its properties. Consciousness must internalize this unity, understanding that the thing’s essence lies not in the differences that it perceives but in the seamless unity that holds those differences together.

It is said of the thing: it is white, also cubic, also sharp, and so on. However, in the way it is white, it is not cubic; and in the way it is cubic and white, it is not sharp, and so forth. The unity of these properties does not exist in the thing itself; instead, it arises within consciousness. Consciousness, therefore, must refrain from collapsing these distinct properties into a singular unity within the thing. To preserve the integrity of the thing as a whole, consciousness introduces the concept of “insofar”—a device that allows the separation of the properties. This enables consciousness to hold the thing as the “also,” where the various properties are recognized in their independence yet still belong to the thing as a unified totality. By using the notion of “insofar,” consciousness preserves the distinctions while maintaining the overall coherence of the thing, ensuring that the thing’s essence is not lost in the complexity of its properties.

In doing so, consciousness essentially reassigns the unity of the properties to itself, treating what were previously called “properties” as independent, free-standing elements. The thing, as a result, is elevated to a true also, no longer a singular unity but a collection of diverse materials. The unity once inherent in the thing is displaced, and instead of being a cohesive, singular entity, the thing is reduced to a mere encompassing surface—a convergence of many distinct moments. These moments no longer reside within the thing as its essence but are seen as external to it, united only through the act of perception. The thing itself, now understood as an “also,” becomes a complex configuration that consciousness assembles from its parts, rather than an indivisible whole.

Reflecting on what consciousness previously attributed to the thing and now attributes to itself, it becomes evident that consciousness oscillates between two modes: one where both itself and the thing are viewed as a pure, featureless unity, and another where the thing is resolved into its independent properties or materials, with consciousness treating them as separate and distinct. Through this comparison, consciousness comes to realize that its act of perceiving inherently involves a dialectical interplay between apprehension and reflection. More significantly, this duality reflects the very nature of truth itself. The thing, as perceived, is not simply a static unity nor an arbitrary collection of parts, but is understood through the tension between these two aspects—its indivisible wholeness and the multiplicity of its determinate properties. This dual manifestation reveals the deeper structure of truth, wherein the thing exists as both a unity and a collection, and consciousness navigates between these perspectives to arrive at a fuller understanding.

Consciousness thus realizes that the thing reveals itself to perceiving consciousness in a particular manner, yet at the same time, it is reflected out of this presentation and into itself. In this reflection, the thing possesses within itself an opposing truth—one that is not immediately accessible in the sensory apprehension, but is instead revealed through the movement of consciousness itself. This duality signifies the tension between what is immediately perceived and the deeper, reflective truth that emerges when consciousness steps back and examines the relationship between its perception and the thing. The thing is not merely what it appears to be in the moment of perception; its full truth is revealed through the dynamic interplay of consciousness’s direct engagement and its reflective awareness.

Consciousness, having experienced the tension between perception and reflection, now transcends this duality. No longer viewing the object as the static, self-consistent truth while perceiving itself as inconsistent, it begins to project itself outward. In doing so, the object no longer exists as a separate, static entity but becomes the entirety of the movement previously divided between the object and consciousness. This shift marks a profound transformation, where the object and consciousness are no longer oppositional but united in a dynamic process, reflecting the true nature of both. Consciousness, in this projection, does not merely apprehend the object as it appears but experiences it as an unfolding, living truth, inseparable from the very act of knowing.

In this new perspective, the thing is understood as both self-contained and relational, existing simultaneously for itself and for another. This dual nature creates a tension within the thing, as its unity is contradicted by its differentiation. The thing, in being for itself, is defined by its self-relation, yet when it is for another, it assumes a form that is distinct and separate. Consciousness, in turn, must resolve this contradiction by reflecting upon it and reasserting its own role in the process. By maintaining the unity of these opposing aspects outside the thing itself, consciousness allows the thing to preserve its differentiated essence while upholding its essential unity. Thus, the reconciliation of this contradiction becomes the task of consciousness, which must recognize the complex nature of the thing and hold these moments together, both in their difference and their unity.

In this development, the thing is split into two objects, each embodying a distinct aspect of its essence. On the one hand, there is the thing as the unified, self-contained entity, reflected into itself and existing independently. On the other hand, there is the thing as a collection of properties, each existing in opposition to others, maintaining their separateness. These two aspects—indifference and unity—are inherently contradictory when considered together within a single object. To resolve this contradiction, the essence of the thing must be distributed across two objects, with each representing one aspect of its nature. This division allows consciousness to preserve the integrity of the concept of the thing while acknowledging the need for differentiation and unity in separate forms. Thus, the true essence of the thing emerges through this dialectical movement, where the contradictions inherent in its essence are reconciled across multiple objects.

In this resolution, the thing retains its self-consistency, existing as a unified whole in itself. However, this unity is not an isolated or absolute oneness; it is disrupted by the presence of other things, which challenge its inherent self-sufficiency. These other things, by their very existence, introduce an external dimension that prevents the thing from remaining entirely self-contained. This externalization of otherness situates the unity of the thing in opposition to what is outside it, including consciousness. The unity of the thing is thus preserved, but only by recognizing that its essence cannot be fully realized in isolation—it must exist in relation to other things, each of which contributes to defining its identity and its limits. Through this dynamic, the thing achieves its true being, as both unified in itself and differentiated from everything else.

This reciprocal distinction between things reflects the essential contradiction inherent in each individual thing. While each thing appears separate and distinct, its identity and nature are defined only through its relationship to others. The essence of the thing cannot be understood in isolation; rather, it is through this relational process that its true nature emerges. Each thing is not simply a self-contained entity, but rather its distinction is determined by the contrasts it holds with other things. This means that the thing’s identity is, in a sense, relational and interdependent, grounded in the network of its differences from the surrounding objects. Thus, the contradiction within the essence of the thing is never fully resolved, as it always reverts back to the relational framework, making the unity of each individual thing only meaningful in the context of its opposition to others.

This determinateness, which distinguishes one thing from another, is not a contradiction within the thing itself but rather a clear, self-contained quality that defines the essence of the thing. Each thing possesses its own intrinsic nature, which is simple yet definitive, marking it as distinct from others. This difference does not arise from an internal conflict or opposition within the thing, but rather from its external relation to others, making it uniquely itself. In this way, the thing’s essence is grounded in its difference, but this difference is not a contradiction or an unresolved tension. Rather, it is a clear and necessary characteristic that defines its place in the larger system of things, while maintaining its individuality and self-consistency.

In truth, the inherent difference within the thing manifests as a real multiplicity of properties that characterize it. However, because the determinateness that defines the essence of the thing—its unique distinction from others—resides in its being for itself, this multiplicity of properties, despite its real existence, remains secondary and inessential. The properties are not what fundamentally constitute the thing, but rather are expressions or manifestations of its self-identity. As such, they appear as contingent moments that do not alter the essential unity of the thing itself. The thing’s true essence is found in its determinateness as a distinct entity, not in the sum of its properties, which are subordinated to its essential self-consistency.

Thus, the thing incorporates within its unity a dual “insofar”: one that signifies the essential determinateness that distinguishes it absolutely from others, and another that represents the inessential multiplicity of properties. This duality does not create a contradiction within the thing itself. Instead, the absolute difference—the essence of the thing’s uniqueness—places the opposition outside the thing, in relation to another thing external to it. In this way, the thing remains self-consistent, even as its properties are differentiated and categorized externally. The thing’s essence is maintained through its singular determinateness, while its multiplicity of properties exists in relation to other things, allowing its identity to be fully preserved without internal contradiction.

The remaining multiplicity of properties, while necessarily belonging to the thing, is nonetheless inessential to its essence. These properties are integral to the thing’s existence, yet they do not define its fundamental character. They serve as contingent attributes that may vary or change, but they do not alter the core identity of the thing. The essence of the thing lies in its determinateness—its specific, defining nature—while the multiplicity of its properties is secondary and extraneous to that essence. These properties may change or be perceived differently, but the thing remains consistent in its essential being.

The determinateness that constitutes the essential character of the thing and distinguishes it from all others is defined in such a way that the thing is in opposition to others while maintaining its independence. However, this independence is precarious: the thing, as a one existing for itself, can only remain as such insofar as it does not stand in relation to others. When it is related to others, a connection is forged that inherently disrupts its isolated being-for-itself. This connection brings the thing into interaction with otherness, causing it to lose its pure self-containment. The very act of being related to others introduces a duality, where the thing’s identity as an independent entity is suspended in favor of its relational existence. Thus, the thing’s true being is contingent upon its lack of relation to others, and any connection to the external world transforms its original essence into something mediated and dependent.

Through its absolute character and opposition to others, the thing inherently enters into a relation with the external. This relation, however, is not one of mutual interaction; rather, it signifies a negation of the thing’s independence. The thing, by its very essence, finds itself defined and limited by its opposition to others, transforming what was once its defining characteristic—its self-sufficiency—into its own negation. In this process, the thing ceases to exist as an independent entity. Its self-contained being is disrupted, and what once stood alone as a singular whole now becomes part of a larger web of relations. The thing, in its essence, is no longer a stable, autonomous unity but instead exists as a dynamic entity, constantly mediated by the external relations that define and alter it. In its very opposition, the thing undermines its own individuality, showing that it is, in truth, nothing more than the relation it sustains with everything else.

The necessity of the experience for consciousness—where the thing, through its very determinateness, which constitutes its essence and being-for-itself, undermines its own self-sufficiency—becomes evident when we consider its simple concept. The thing, in its self-determined essence, is initially posited as an independent unity, distinct from all others. However, this very distinction creates a tension: in defining itself in opposition to others, the thing introduces a relational aspect that contradicts its claim to independence. This relationality, inherent in its determinateness, necessitates its interaction with other things, thereby negating its self-contained nature. As consciousness reflects on this movement, it becomes clear that the essence of the thing cannot remain purely isolated; its very identity relies on its interaction with the external, making it, in a sense, inherently dependent. The contradiction within the thing’s essence, then, is not an external imposition but an intrinsic feature of its concept, manifesting as the very dynamic of its existence.

The thing, initially posited as being-for-itself, represents the absolute negation of all otherness, existing as an absolute self-relation. In this mode, it is a pure negation that only refers to itself, seemingly self-contained and self-sufficient. Yet, in this very self-relation, the essence of the thing is undermined. A negation that only refers to itself ultimately becomes a negation of its own essence—it negates its own self-contained identity. In doing so, it must find its essence not in isolation but in relation to something other. This paradoxical movement reveals that the thing, far from being a static, self-sufficient entity, is defined by its interaction with otherness. The self-contained negation dissolves when it is revealed that its true essence emerges only through its relation to the external. Therefore, the thing’s very essence is not self-contained but necessarily combined with its external relations, signifying the dissolution of its initial claim to absolute independence.

The object, as determined, embodies its essential property that defines its simple being-for-itself—this self-sufficiency or self-relation. Yet, at the same time, the object contains a necessary diversity within itself. This diversity, while crucial to its nature, does not define the object’s essential determinateness. Instead, the diversity exists as a supplementary or non-essential feature, serving to complicate and enrich the object’s character without altering its fundamental self-relational essence. The true essence of the object lies in its unity, its capacity to be for itself, which remains intact even as it accommodates these other properties. The diversity within the object does not detract from its fundamental determinateness; rather, it complements and extends the object’s being, while its essence remains defined by its singular self-relation, untouched by the variations it may contain.

This distinction between the essential and the inessential exists only conceptually, in words. In truth, the inessential—though necessary—annuls itself. It exists as a negation that ultimately returns to itself, dissolving into nothingness. The inessential cannot maintain itself as a separate or independent feature of the object; rather, it only appears as a momentary and necessary determination that serves to enrich the understanding of the object’s essence. However, its very nature is self-negating: it exists only as something that, in the end, must be sublated, absorbed back into the unity of the essential. Thus, the inessential is only truly meaningful in relation to the essential, and its own negation reveals the ultimate unity of the object, where no division truly exists.

The final insofar, which once maintained a separation between being-for-itself and being-for-another, now collapses under the weight of this internal contradiction. The object is no longer a simple, isolated unity; it becomes the embodiment of its own negation, a self-reflection that exists only in relation to others. It is for itself precisely because it is for another, and it is for another only because it is for itself. This duality renders the object a paradox, a unified whole that simultaneously contains its own opposite. Through this contradiction, the object transcends its previous determinations and reveals itself as an interconnected and relational entity, where the boundaries between self and other dissolve. The object, now in its totality, cannot be understood in isolation but must be seen as part of a dynamic interexchange between identity and difference.

The object, now conceived as being-for-itself, reflects into itself, maintaining a self-contained unity. However, this unity is not independent but inherently bound to its opposite, being-for-another. In this way, the very concept of being-for-itself is annulled by its relation to another, rendering it inessential. What was initially thought to be the non-essential aspect—its relation to another—is now revealed to be intrinsic to its essence. The object, in its unity, contains its own negation, and the once clear boundary between what is essential and what is inessential disappears. Thus, the object cannot be fully understood in isolation, but only as part of a dynamic relationship, where being-for-itself and being-for-another are inseparably interconnected.

In this process, the object is annulled in its pure determinations, the very ones that were supposed to define its essence. Just as the object was previously annulled in its sensory being, it now transitions into a universal. Yet, this universal is not a self-consistent and autonomous entity; rather, it remains fundamentally conditioned by the sensory nature from which it arises. As a result, it is not a truly independent universal. Instead, it is a universal that carries within it the seeds of contradiction. This contradiction manifests in the split between singularity and universality, between the singular properties of the object and the universal, which is composed of free-standing, independent matters. Thus, the object, as a universal, remains intrinsically unstable, torn between its essence as a singular being and its potentiality as a broader, more abstract concept.

These pure determinations, while seemingly expressing the essence itself, reveal themselves to be a being-for-itself that remains tethered to being-for-another. Despite their apparent separateness, both are fundamentally unified in their essence. In this reconciliation, an unconditional and absolute universality emerges—one that transcends the earlier contradictions and distinctions. This emergence marks the point at which consciousness fully enters the realm of understanding, where the unity of being-for-itself and being-for-another becomes clear. The object, now comprehended through its totality, no longer remains confined to its singular properties or relations but becomes an absolute, self-sufficient unity that transcends its previous limitations. This marks a pivotal shift in consciousness, as it now operates within a more refined and a better understanding of the object, free from the contradictions that once plagued its perception.

Sensory singularity fades away through the dialectical movement of immediate certainty, which transforms it into universality—but only as sensory universality. The act of meaning, which once defined and mediated the object, is now annulled, and perception is able to apprehend the object as it truly is in itself. This apprehension now focuses on universality in its most fundamental form, where singularity is no longer merely a contingent feature but emerges as true singularity. This true singularity is identified as being-for-itself, where the object is self-reflective and self-contained, no longer merely an object of perception but the embodiment of self-realization within perception itself. Thus, in this transition, the object no longer exists merely as a sensory phenomenon but as an essence fully aligned with its own self-reflection, unified within the universal totality of its being.

However, this being-for-itself, despite its apparent completeness, is still conditional. Alongside it exists another being-for-itself—universality, which stands opposed to singularity and is conditioned by it. These two contradictory extremes do not merely coexist in isolation; rather, they are unified within a single whole. The essence of this unity reveals a deeper contradiction: being-for-itself is inherently marked by negation, as it exists simultaneously in relation to its opposite. This means that the very nature of being-for-itself is self-contradictory, for it cannot be purely itself without its negation, and thus it is not truly being-for-itself in its unqualified form. This tension reveals the fundamental nature of the object: that its unity is a dialectical synthesis of opposites, an ongoing movement that cannot settle into a singular, stable identity.

The sophistry of perception attempts to salvage these contradictory moments by appealing to distinctions of perspective, such as “also,” “insofar,” and the separation of the inessential from its opposing essence, in an effort to grasp the truth. However, these strategies, far from preventing deception in perception, only expose their own limitations. The supposed truth, sought through this framework of perceptual logic, ultimately reveals itself to be its own opposite. What was intended as a clear, stable distinction between moments of perception instead devolves into an unstable dialectic, where the boundary between essence and appearance, truth and falsehood, becomes blurred. The very tools used to distinguish truth within perception betray their own insufficiency, for they fail to address the fundamental contradiction at the heart of perception itself.

Thus, the essence of the object dissolves into an undifferentiated and indeterminate universality, one that inherently contains the inability to sustain the distinctions or determinations on which perception relies. This universality, while seemingly a resolution of the object’s essence, instead exposes its limitations, as it cannot preserve the necessary boundaries that give the object its particularity. In this dissolution, the object loses its specificity and becomes a mere concept, incapable of maintaining the distinctions that define it within perception. The result is a loss of stability, where the object, as it is perceived, becomes contradictory—both universal and particular, present and absent, true and false—all at once.

These empty abstractions—singularity and its opposing universality, essence tied to something inessential yet simultaneously necessary—form the underlying forces at work in what is often hailed as the “sound common sense” of perception. This common sense, self-assured and convinced of its firm grounding in reality, is, in fact, a mere plaything of these contradictions. It constructs its sense of certainty on foundations that are inherently unstable, where what it perceives as solid and real is merely an illusion of coherence. It is at its poorest, most fragile, when it believes itself to be richest, as it fails to recognize the deeper complexities and contradictions that undermine its apparent simplicity.

Driven back and forth by these futile entities, tossed between their opposites, common sense clings to sophistry as it alternates between asserting one abstraction and its direct contradiction, all the while resisting the truth. It believes that philosophy only concerns itself with empty conceptual entities, reducing them to abstract, lifeless notions. Indeed, philosophy does engage with these entities, but it does so in recognition of their purity as essences—the foundational elements and forces. What sets philosophy apart, however, is its ability to comprehend these essences in their full determination, mastering their contradictions. In stark contrast, the perceiving mind, unaware of the underlying complexities, treats these abstractions as truths, helplessly spiraling from one error to the next, trapped within the contradictions they give rise to.

This mind remains unaware that it is governed by these simple essences; instead, it mistakenly believes it is engaging with solid substances and concrete content. Similarly, sensory certainty does not recognize that its essence lies in the empty abstraction of pure being. It is these very abstractions—these essential forces—that drive everything, permeating all material and content. They govern the relationship between consciousness and the sensory world, dictating the movement of perception and determining what is true within it. Only by acknowledging and comprehending these underlying forces can one transcend the limitations of superficial understanding and grasp the true nature of experience.

The process of perception unfolds as an ongoing oscillation between affirming something as true and then negating that very truth. This cyclical movement characterizes the daily activity of perceiving consciousness, which believes it is operating within the realm of truth. As it progresses, consciousness inevitably negates all the supposed determinations or essences it initially posits. Yet, in each fleeting moment, it clings to a singular truth, only to abandon it for its opposite. In this constant shift, consciousness recognizes the instability of these truths and resorts to sophistry to protect them from collapse, simultaneously asserting as true what it had just dismissed. This struggle reveals the fundamental instability inherent in sensory perception, where truth remains elusive, perpetually deferred and distorted by the mind’s inability to reconcile the contradictions within its own determinations.

What these abstractions—the notions of universality and singularity, the “also” and “one,” essence intertwined with inessentiality, and inessentiality deemed necessary—compel the mind to do is reconcile and unify them, thereby overcoming their contradictions. However, common sense resists this process. It clings to distinctions like “insofar” or “separated perspectives,” relying on the idea of taking one thought as the truth while maintaining the other as merely a contingent or secondary one. This resistance to synthesis traps common sense in a cycle of maintaining opposing abstractions as true, refusing to confront the deeper unity and resolution that philosophy reveals through the dialectical movement. The mind, instead of acknowledging the necessary reconciliation of these contradictions, desperately holds onto them as separate truths, perpetuating a fragmented view of reality.

However, the nature of these abstractions inherently unites them, and common sense, in its futile attempts to separate them, becomes their victim. It is spun about in their swirling cycle, trying to uphold their truth. Sometimes it takes their untruth upon itself, accepting the contradiction as a necessary part of the whole; other times, it dismisses the deception as mere appearances or attempts to separate the essential from what is falsely deemed necessary but inessential. In doing so, common sense fails to maintain the integrity of truth, instead granting itself untruth by continuously reinforcing the very contradictions it attempts to resolve. The effort to separate or stabilize these opposing abstractions only deepens the confusion, as the mind remains trapped within an endless cycle of negation and assertion, perpetuating an illusion of certainty while abandoning the pursuit of genuine truth.

Simon Gros

Perception and Deception: The Cycle of Truth and Illusion

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Perception and Deception: The Cycle of Truth and Illusion

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply