And if the “this” is asserted to be all-exclusive because it is “unique,” the discussion of that point need not long detain us. The term may imply that nothing else but the “this-mine” is real, and, in that case, the question has been deferred to Chapter xxi. And, if “unique” means that what is felt once can never be felt again, such an assertion, taken broadly, seems even untrue. For if feelings, the same in character, do in fact not recur, we at least hardly can deny that their recurrence is possible. The “this” is unique really so far as it is a member in a series, and so far as that series is taken as distinct from all others.[1] And only in this sense can we call its recurrence impossible. But here with uniqueness once more we have negative relations, and these relations involve an inclusive unity. Uniqueness, in this sense, does not resist assimilation by the Absolute. It is, on the other hand, itself incompatible with exclusive singleness.
Into the nature of self-will I shall at present not enter. This is opposition attempted by a finite subject against its proper whole. And we may see at once that such discord and negation can subserve unity, and can contribute towards the perfection of the universe. It is connection with the central fire which produces in the element this burning sense of selfness. And the collision is resolved within that harmony where centre and circumference are one. But I shall return in another place to the discussion of this matter (Chapter xxv.).
We have found that the “this,” taken as exclusive, proclaims itself relative, and in that relation forfeits its independence. And we have seen that,
- ↑ On this point compare Principles of Logic, Chapter ii.
