What we sense and what we percieve.

Hegel's Notion is the synthesis of Being and Essence, without being concretely real; it lacks physical existence. It's similar to Plato's conception of the Ideal form and is a universal (Aristotle - although Hegel also uses the word) in that it is the inparticular thing. The Notion of a house is the essence of a house as it exists (being) but does not physically exist; it is only the notion of a house. It might sound contradictary to speak of something involving existence in its concept but not existing, but it is the concept of existence and not the actuality of existing.

I don't know about Galileo, but you very well may be right. Where did he refer to this? Descartes was an early phenomenologist that is similar to Hegel in this respect, although it must be noted that Hegel differed from Descartes in some respects. He believed that things exist as ideas (Notions) beyond what is observed (which Descartes did - his conception of a triangle) as well as physically in Nature (Descartes suggests that there is something other than myself b\c I do not call observations to mind willingly.) Descartes believed in Hegel's nature, but doubted observations from nature. Hegel believed observations to be the synthesis of the Notion in Nature (matter is observed - as I said, matter is notional) which makes both the Notion (Descartes's pure idea) and Nature (Descartes's other - maybe God, maybe an evil spirit, etc.) both valid, and our observations are the synthesis of both. Therefore, we never directly observe nature because our observations of nature are also notional (universal/conceptual.) Descartes doubted that what we observe is real, although Hegel showed that what we observe is inherently rational b\c we observe it as a notion that we understand, and what is real and what is rational are the same thing if rational concepts and realistic nature are synthesized in our observations.

I hope that made sense. I'm sorry for all the parenthesis, but I'm trying to compare the two to make the relation clearer.

I was absolutely stunned when I got to the part in the Phenomenology when he proved that matter is not "existant" outside of observation and that the observation of matter is reduced to probablities (wave theory!) if one believes that matter does in fact exist physically rather than notionally. It took over another hundred years for Bohr, Schrodinger, Wheeler (et al) to determine this from science.

We are matter observing matter.

Yes, we are extensions of mother earth. Not separate.

When we think we are extensions of mother earth we are already separate from it.

Cyracuz wrote:

We are matter observing matter.

(Or) ... We are the Universe observing itself.

rosborne979 wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

We are matter observing matter.

(Or) ... We are the Universe observing itself.

We are the universe engaged in the struggle to observe itself.

Can we agree on "glorious struggle"?

your screen-name...

We are the universe engaged in the struggle to observe itself. The eye trying to see itself. This is why we are tongue-tied ignoramuses, even the greatest philosophers among us. But we keep trying, don't we.