67 pages Sartre: Negation"Everything changes its sign when we enter the domain of the negative" (CDR 221).

3-06Nega Negationdial..............................................................................................................................................3

Being and Nothingness, Tr. by Hazel Barnes, New York,. Philosophical Library, 1956. Part One, The Problem of Nothingness [Original translation modified by Sartrean term clarifications]........3

3-06Nega Part one, Chapter One: The Origin of Negation (BN3-45)..........................................................3

10-15Nega Section I. The Question (BN3-5).........................................................................................4Possibility ‘of non-beingI conditions questionI of being[-there] and limits the reply’ (BN3)........................4The War Dairies: Negation is veiled as conjuring the alteritylived of two objectsI.......................................9

10-15Nega Section II. Negations (BN6-11)..........................................................................................10If being[there] is everywhere, otherness and negation are problems (BN7)................................................10AbsenceI of the figureI Pierre from the café’s groundI (BN9-11)................................................................12

Absence (index).............................................................................................................................14Absent-presence (index)................................................................................................................15

Where ‘are we to place negation?’: ‘I expected to find 1500 francs’ (BN11).............................................16For ‘negationI is a refusalI of existenceI (BN11-2).......................................................................................16Internal_negation (BN86, out of sequence).................................................................................................17Crescent moon’s dialectical lack, lacking, lacked (BN86-7, out of sequence)............................................18The precipice crossing and creatingI Constantinople (NE 97-8)..................................................................20

11-15Nega Section III. The Dialectical Concept of Nothingness (BN12-16)....................................21Being ‘is prior to nothingnessI and establishes the groundI for it’ (BN16)..................................................21Hegel’s being and non-being are contrariesI, equally positive or negativeI: Hegel’s essence groundsI

being (BN12)....................................................................................................................................22Hegel ‘opposesI being to nothingness as thesis and antithesis’ [logical contrariesI] (BN14)......................23

11-15Nega Section IV. The Phenomenologicalposited Concept of NothingnessI (BN16-21)...............27Heidegger’s pre-ontological comprehension of being as anguished apprehension of nothingness (BN16-

17)..................................................................................................................................................27DaseinI’s groundlessnessI: ‘We are shown a negatingI activity and there is no concern to groundI this activityI upon a negativeI being[-there]’ (BN18-9)...................................................................28

Sartre’s human_reality, in surpassing1neg nothingness2neg organize the world (BN17).................................31

11-15Nega Section V. The Origin of NothingnessI (BN21-45)..........................................................32NégatitésI: Distance, hateposited, repulsionI, regret, etc (BN20-1)..................................................................32Pages 26-7 out of sequence at Sartre\Imagination-Consciousness, not the object, differentiates

perception from imagination..........................................................................................................35Pages 28-45 out of sequence at Sartre\Anguish-BN Part One, Chapter One: The Origin of

Nothingness, section V (28-45)....................................................................................................35To ‘what’ being[-there] is the for-itselfontology presence?’ (BN180-4, 189-90 out of sequence)...................35

Critique of Dialectical Reason, Volume One, Tr. Alan Sheridan-Smith. Published by New Left Books. [Original translation modified by Sartrean terms and their clarification] 38

11-15Nega I. Needdial/lived (CDR79-83)....................................................................................................38If ‘there are [only] individuals, who, or what, totalizes?’ (CDR79).............................................................38

1

It ‘is through needdial/lived that the first negation of the negation and the first totalization [in course]dial/lived appears in matter’ (CDR80)..............................................................................................................40

First contradiction: Interiority and exteriority imposed on the same human organism (CDR80)................43Through ‘inertia a body can act on another in the milieu of exteriority’ (CDR81)..........................44

Organic ‘functioning, needdial/lived, and praxis are strictly linked in a dialectical sequence’ (CDR82)..........48OutsideI ‘matterI reduces the organismlived to the inorganicI to the exact degree that the organismI transformsI matterI into a totalitydial/lived’.........................................................................................50

Cyclical_societiesdial transition to elementary praxis through possibility (CDR82).....................................52

11-15Nega 2. The Negation of the Negation (CDR83-91)...................................................................53Negation1neg of the negated given2neg (SM91-3)............................................................................................53Worker must see possible future happiness to see present pain (BN434-6, CDR325, both out of sequence) 55Friedrich Engel’s negation_of_negation as abstracted from natural laws’ (CDR83)...................................58NegativeI ‘forces can existI only within a movementdial/lived determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’]

by the future [avenir]’ (CDR85)........................................................................................................59Negationdial is first manifested as partialdial action posited for itself (CDR85)..............................................60Wholedial and partdial: Four possible dialectic structuresdial/lived....................................................................60

In ‘existenceI and tension determined by the wholedial, every particularitydial producesI itself in the unityI of a fundamental contradictionI’ (CDR86)..............................................................................62

Needdial/lived: Restoration of negatedI organism; means and ends; passivity (CDR87)...................................63Negation ‘of negation producesI an indeterminate ensemble’ unless arising from and transcendinglived/1neg

toward totalizationdial/lived’ (out of sequence CDR89-90)...................................................................65

2

Sartre: Negation

E N D O F T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

3-06Nega Negationdial

Being and Nothingness, Tr. by Hazel Barnes, New York, Philosophical Library, 1956. Part One, The Problem of Nothingness [Original translation modified

by Sartrean term clarifications]

3-06Nega Part one, Chapter One: The Origin of Negation (BN3-45)Kant, (source unknown) "[Boundaries] always presuppose a space existing outside a certain definite

place and enclosing it; limits do not require this, but are mere negations which affect [life] so far as it is not absolutely complete." Sartre, CDR (p. 43P , Ftn. 21) "...It has been clearly demonstrated that, in the very last part of Kant’sI life, the requirement of intelligibilityposited led him right up to the threshold of dialectical_Reasonconcept."

10-15Nega Section I. The Question (BN3-5)

10-15Nega Possibility ‘of non-beingI conditions questionI of being[-there] and limits the reply’ (BN3)Sartre, BN (p. 3, Fr. 37, subsequent to Ontology-VI. Being-in-itself (BNlxii-lxvii, "...Thus we have ...

been led progressively to posit two types of beingI, the in-itselfontology and the for-itself...") "Our inquiry has led us to the heart of being[-there]. But we have been brought to an impasse since we have not been able to establish the joiningok between the two regionsok of beingI which we have discovereddial/lived

e... [I]t is not profitable first to separate the two terms of a connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg in order to try to join them together again later. The connectionI is a synthesisdial/lived. Consequently the results of analysis can not be covered over again by the momentsdial of this synthesisI.**2

(BNp. 3-4, Fr. 37) "M. Laporte says that an abstractionlived or posited***3 is made when something not capable of existing in isolation [color, etc] is thought of as an isolated state. The concretelived or posited****2 by contrast is a totalitydial/lived which can existI by itself alone. Husserl is of the same opinion; for him red is an abstraction because color cannot existI without formI. On the other hand, a spatial-temporal thing with all its determi-nations [‘that is, as limitation’], is an example of the concrete. From this point of view [knower-knownontology], consciousnessknower is an abstraction since it conceals within itself an ontological source in the regionI of the in-itselfontology, and conversely the phenomenonlived-known is likewise an abstraction since it must ‘appear [paraître]’ to consciousnessknower. The concrete can be only the synthetic_totalitydial/lived of which consciousnessknower, like the phenomenonknown, constitutesBN only momentsdial. The concrete is man within the worldlivedc in that specific union of manI with the worldI which Heidegger, for example, calls ‘being-in-the-world.’ We deliberately begin with the abstract if we question ‘expérience’ as Kant does, inquiring into the conditions of its possibilityontology—or if we effect a phenomenological reduction like Husserl, who would reduce the world to the state of the noesis-correlate of consciousness. (BNp. 4) But we will no more succeed in restoring the concrete by the summation or organization of the elements which we have abstracted from it than Spinoza can reach substance by the infinite summation of its modes.

(BNp. 4, Fr. 38) "The relationok of the regionsIok of beingI is an original emergence and is a part of the very

structuredial of these beingsI. But we discovereddial/lived this in our first observationsposited. It is enough now to open our eyes and interrogate [interroger] ingenuously this totalityI which is man-in-the-world. It is by the description of this totalityI that we shall be able to reply to these two questionsR1

ok: (1) What is the syntheticdial/lived connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which we call being-in-the-world? (2) What must man and the worldI be in order for a connectionI

ok between them to be possible? In , the two questionsI are interdependent, and we can not hope to reply to them separately. But each type of human conduct, beingI the

3

Sartre: Negation

conduct of manI in the world, can release for us at once man, the world, and the connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which unites them only on condition that we envisage these formsI of conduct as realities objectively graspable [transformableto] and not as subjective affects which disclose themselves only in the face of reflection [réflexion]." "Now this very inquiry furnishes us with the desired conduct; this manI that I am—if I apprehend him such as he is at this momentdial in the world, I establish that he stands before beingI in an attitude of interrogationok. At the very momentI when I ask, ‘Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the relationok of man with the worldI?’ I pose a questionI

ok. This questionIok I can consider objectivelyI, for it matters little

whether the questionerIok is myself or the reader who reads my work and who is questioningI okalong with me.

But on the other hand, the questionI is not simply the objectiveI totalityI of the words printed on this page; it is indifferent to the symbols which express it. In a word, it is a humanI attitude filled with meaningBNlived. What does this attitude reveal to us?

(BNp. 4-5)"In every questionsR2ok we stand before a being[-there] which we are interrogating

[interrogeons]. Every questionIok presupposes a beingI who questionsok and a beingI which is questionedI

ok [knower-known]c. This is not the original connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of man1neg to being-in-itselfontology/2neg, but rather it stands within the limitations of this connectionI

ok and takes it for granted. On the other hand, this beingI which we interrogate [interroge], we interrogate [interroge] about something. That about which I interrogate [interroge] the being[-there] participatesI in the transcendencelived/1neg of beingI. I interrogate [interroge] beingI about its ways of beingI or about its beingI. From this point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg the questionI

ok is a kind of expectation; I expect a reply from the beingI interrogated [interroge]. That is on the basis of a pre-interrogativeok familiarity with beingI, I expect from this beingI a revelation of its beingI or its way of beingI. (BNp. 5) The reply will be a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ It is the existence of these two equally objectiveI and contradictory possibilities which on principle distinguishes the questionI

ok from affirmationdial or negationR. There are questionsok which on the surface do not permit a negative reply—like, for example, the one we put earlier, ‘What does this attitude reveal to us?’ But actually we see that it is always possible with questionsok of this type to reply, ‘Nothing’ or ‘Nobody’ or ‘Never.’ Thus at the momentI when I ask, ‘Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of manlived/1neg with the worldlived/2neg?’ I admit on principle the possibilityI of a negative reply such as, ‘No, such a conduct does not existI.’ This means that we admit to beingI faced with the transcendentI fact of the non-existence of such conduct.

(BNp. 5) sartre¶"One will perhaps be tempted not to believe in the objectiveI existence of a non-being*****1; one will say that in this case the fact simply refers me to my subjectivity; I would learn from the transcendentI beingI that the conduct sought is a pure fiction. But in the first place, to call this conduct a pure fiction disguises the negation without removing it. ‘To be a pure fiction’ is equivalent here to ‘to be only a fiction.’ Consequently to destroy the reality of the negation is to make [faire] the realityI of the reply to disappear. This reply, in effect, is the very beingI which gives2neg it to me1neg, that is, reveals the negationI to me. There existsI then for the questionerI

ok the permanent objectiveI possibilityI of a negativeI reply. In connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to this possibilityI the questionerI

ok by the very fact that he is questioningIok, posits

himself as in a stateposited of indetermination. He does not know [sait] whether the reply will be affirmativedial or negativeI. Thus the questionI

ok is a bridge set up between two non-beings: the non-being of the knowing [savoir] in man, the possibilityI of non-being of beingI in transcendentI beingI. Finally the questionI

ok implies the existenceI of a truthlived. By the very questionI

ok the questionerI affirmsI that he expects an objectiveI reply, such that we can say of it, ‘It is thus and not otherwise.’ In a word the truthI, as differentiated from being[-there], introduces a thirdI non-being as determiningdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] the questionI

ok—the non-being of limitation. This triple non-being every questionI [interrogation] and in particular the metaphysical questionI [interrogation], which is our questionI [interrogation]."

"We set out upon our pursuit of beingI, and it seemed to us that the seriesI of our questionsI [interrogation] had led us to the heart of beingI. But behold, at the momentI when we thought we were arriving at the goal, a glance cast on the questionI [interrogation] itself has revealed to us suddenly that we are encompassed with nothingness. The permanent possibility of non-being, outside us and within, conditions our questions I ok about being I . Furthermore it is non-being which is going to limit the reply. What beingI will be must of necessityBNontology arise on the basis of what it is not. Whatever beingI is, it will allow this formulation: ‘being[-there] is that and outside of that, nothingI.’

4

Sartre: Negation

"Thus a new component of the real has just appeared to us—non-beinge affect of above on further inquiry ..."-------------------------------------------------

See Sartre\Ontology-Object ‘of consciousness must be distinguished from consciousness by its absence, by its nothingness’**2 See Sartre\Dialectic-Analytical Reasonconcept as syntheticI transformationI of its dialectic precursor***3 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ABSTRACT lived or posited [abstrait~e];

-------------------------------------------------****2 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-CONCRETE [concret]; cf. totalitydial/lived, French Dict: tangibleadj

Psychology of Imagination: (p. 9-10, Fr. 19) "When, to the contrary, I think of a cube as a concrete concept, I think of its six sides and its eight angles all at once; I thinkI that its angles are right angles, its sides squared..."

Existentialism: (p. 56) There is no way of judging. The content is always concrete and thereby unforeseeable; there is always the element of invention..."

BN: (p. livc, Fr. 21) "...PleasureI must not disappearI [s’évanouir, faint, lose consciousness] behind its own consciousness of selfI; it is not a representationposited, it is a concrete eventlivedc, full and absolute. It is no more a quality of consciousness of selfI than consciousness of selfI is a qualityI of pleasureI...";

(p. 599c) "...The goal of existential_psychoanalysisc is to rediscoverdial/lived through these empirical, concrete projects the original way in which each man has chosen [original_ choice ] his being[there]..."

CDR: (p. 95c, Fr. 208) "...immediate expérience gives2neg being[-there] at its most concrete, but it takes it at its most superficial levelok and remains in the realmFr=? of abstractions..."

(p. 109c) "...reciprocitylivedc is alwaysok concrete..."(p. 113c) "...The origin of struggle in every instance lies, in fact, in some concrete antagonism

whose material condition is scarcity, in a particular form..."(p. 503c) "...the practico-inert_field reintroduces itself at the momentdial of the truelived concrete so

producing a new complexity..."(p. 671c) "...We now confront not the real concrete, which can only be historicallivedc but the set of

formal contexts, curves, structuresdial/posited and conditionings which constitutedial/posited the formalposited milieu in which the historicalI concrete must necessarilyCDRdial/lived occur..."; CDRII: (p. 33c) "...precisely because it is concrete and real—totalizationdial/lived operatesc only through the limitations it imposesok...";

(p. 49-50c) "...[A]nother difference between the concept and the incarnationlived: in the former, the ‘inner’ determinationsdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] are united by bonds of exteriority; in the latter, at all levels, all the determinationsI are concrete and it is a bond of immanence that unites them.";

The Family Idiot (5:203c) "...surpassing1neg them each time toward a concrete creation..."-------------------------------------------------

*****1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NON-BEING .non-being as ‘a refusal c of existence BN (p. 11c) "...For negation is a refusal of existence. By means of it a being[-there] (or a way of beingI)

is posited, then thrown back to nothingness..."The Family Idiot (1:427c) "The primacy of nothingness over being[-there], Gustave’s only claim to

possession of the world, does not involve a theoretical affirmation; the child is too young to construct a theory around it, too passive to pass judgments; he must believe it, live it; and, since his sole activity is resentment, he must turn himself into an implacable, supreme, and empty non-being by experiencingc it as if he were simply submitting to his totalitarian intention to disqualify what exists in the name of what does not."

Sartre\Flaubert’s Personalization-Actors sacrifice themselfI to non-being[-there]I ‘so that appearances can existI,’ and cross-references, with (2:14c) "...Kean is Hamlet, frenziedly, utterly, desperately, but there is no reciprocity—Hamlet is not Kean. This means that the actor sacrifices himself so that an appearance can exist and makes himself by choice into the support of non-being."

non-being as ontological insecurityCDR: (p. 256c) "...solitude ... actually lived in everyone’s project as his negativec structuredial..."Sartre\Flaubert’s School Years-RThe Trap [Gustave’s demoralization of his classmates]

(3:195)

5

Sartre: Negation

R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience (p. 37) "The first intimations of non-being may have been the breast of the mother as absent. This seems to have been Freud’s suggestion..."

R. D. Laing, The Divided Self (p. 42) "...[ontological insecurity, which threatens us with non-being[-there], exists when] the individual in the ordinary circumstances of living may feel more unreal than real; in a literal sense, more dead than alive; precariously differentiated from the rest of the world, so that his identity and autonomy are always in question. He may lack the experience of his own temporal continuity. He may not possess an over-riding sense of personal consistency or cohesiveness. He may feel more insubstantial than substantial, and unable to assume that the stuff he is made of is genuine, good, valuable. And he may feel his self as partially divorced from his body. This formulation is very similar to those of H. S. Sullivan, Hill, F. Fromm-Reichmann, and Arieti in particular. Federn, although expressing himself very differently, seems to have advanced a closely allied view."

non-being as double nihilationThe Family Idiot: (2:13c) "...how should people admire him ‘beingI’ the character so well if no

one, beginning with himself, knows that he is not that character in reality. Therefore, not everyone can make a career in the theater; the fundamental qualification is not talent or disposition but a certain constitutedI relationship between realityI and unrealityI, without which the actor would never even take it into his head to subordinate beingI to non - being ...";

(4:47c) "...it is the position of non-being[-there] to be realized as the mediatedlivedc term of an oriented temporalizationCDRlived..."

(5:238c) "...[Man defines himself] interiorly as a practical relationok to future [futur] man; and by this definition that puts non-being, in the form of not-yet, at the source of existence he gives2neg himself a derisory power that makes him, depending on one’s point of view, a perpetually-deferred-being[-there] or pro-ject...";

Sartre\Flaubert’s Neurosis-RThe ‘non-being of Being,’ ‘The being of Non-being,’ with Evil in-between: ‘the ineluctable slippage of Being toward Nothingness’

D. W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (p. 23c) "...the real thing [mother, etc.] is the thing that is not there."

2-11Nega The War Dairies: Negation is veiled as conjuring the alteritylived of two objectsI

Sartre, The War Dairies (p. 176P, Fr. 217) "The problem of negationR has always been veiled like that of being[-there], since ‘not-being[-there]’ seemed the judgement of a mind conjuring two objects up before it and asserting their alterity lived . If for example, I say that paper is not porous, I do not ascribe this negation to the paper, which in itself has no connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg whatsoever with porosity, but to my mind. Let’s be clear about this: isn’t negation a mode of beingI of my mind, which in negatingI forms a plenary act of judgement—and which, for most philosophers, is pure actI, plenitude of existence, at the very momentdial in which it négates. Thus negation becomes a γεκτύv8 [abstract, incorporeal notion], a nothing. It is neither mind, nor in the mind, nor in paper, nor in porosity, nor a relationship that existsI like a repulsive force between paper and porosity. It is basically just a category that allows the mind to make a synthesisdial/lived between porosity and paper—from a distance, without altering their nature in the slightest, without changing their respective positions, without either drawing them closer together or driving them farther apart. Thus philosophy's endeavor has been to slim negation down to the point where it becomes a thin film between the mind and things—a nothingI

e..."(WDp. 177P, Fr. 218) "Because it seemed contradictory to grant negative qualities in any beingI

whatsoever, people have tried to get round the problem by forging positive concepts to take account of this property: for example, the conceptsI of unextendedness or immateriality. But a verbal examination will suffice to show that ‘unextended’ is a mere word, hiding a shamefaced negation in its wombe..."

10-15Nega Section II. Negations (BN6-11)

1-12Nega If being[there] is everywhere, otherness and negation are problems (BN7)

6

Sartre: Negation

Sartre, BN (p. 7, Fr. 41) "The questionR can be put in these terms: Is negation as the structuredial/lived of the judicative proposition at the origin of nothingnesslived**? Or on the contrary is nothingness as the structureI of the real [the being of negation, below], the origin and foundation of negation? Thus the problem of beingI had referred us first to that of the questionI as a human attitude, and the problem of the questionI now refers us to that of the beingI of negation.

"It is evident that non-beingI always appears [apparait] within the limits of a humanI expectation. It is because I expect to find fifteen hundred francs that I find only thirteen hundred. It is because the physicist expects a certain verification of his hypothesis that can tell him noe... [Are] these non-beingsI to be reduced to pure subjectivity?e... of Husserl’s noesis? We think not.

"First, it is not truelived that negation is only a quality of judgment. The questionI is formulated by an interrogative judgment, but it is not itself a judgment; it is a pre-judicative attitude. I can questionI by a look, by a gesture. In posing a questionI I stand facing beingI in a certain way and this connection1neg&2neg [rapport] [of three degrees] to beingI is a connectionI [rapport] of beingI; the judgment is only one optional expression of it. Likewise it is not necessarilyBNlived a man whom the questionerI questionsI about beingI; this conception of the questionI by making of it an intersubjective phenomenonposited, detaches it from the beingI to which it adheres and leaves it in the air as pure modality of dialogue. On the contraryI, we must consider the questionI in dialogue to be only a particular species of the genus ‘questionI;’ the beingI in questionI is not necessarilyBNlived a thinking beingI. If my car breaks down, it is the carburetor, the spark plugs, etc., that I questionI. If my watch stops, I can questionI the watchmaker about the causeposited

ok of the stopping, but it is the various mechanisms of the watch that the watchmaker will in turn questionI. What I expect from the carburetor, what the watchmaker expects from the works of the watch, is not a judgment; it is a disclosure of beingI on the basis of which we can make a judgment. And if I expect a disclosure of beingI, I am prepared at the same stroke for the eventuality of a disclosure of a non-beingI. If I questionI the carburetor, it is because I consider it possible that ‘there is nothing there’ in the carburetor. Thus my question by its naturelivedc envelops a certain pre-judicativec comprehensionok of non-beingI; it is in itself a relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of beingI with non-beingI, on the basis of the original transcendencelived/1negc; that is, in a relationI

ok of beingI with beingI." [‘being with being’ as explained on (BNp. 180) "...We shall define transcendenceI as that inner and realizing negation which reveals the in-itselfontology while determining the beingI of the for-itselfontology."]

-------------------------------------------------Forest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick, introduction to The Transcendence of the Ego (p. 26c) "...being,

Sartre had recognized, is everywhere. Since every act of consciousness reveals beingI, the crucial phenomenological problem now becomes that of explaining, as in The Sophist, our encounters with otherness and negation in the world. In short, non-being is the philosophical challenge..."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NOTHINGNESS lived [néant] NOTHING lived [réin]; checked all hits for erroneous upper/lower case; See Capitalized Nothingness below.

Lower case nothingness:BN: (p. 21c, as given2neg) "...Nothingnesslived can be nihilated only on the foundation of being[-

there]; if nothingnesslived can be given2neg, it is neither before nor after beingI, nor in a general way outside of beingI, it [nothingness]I is in the very womb of the beingI, in its heart, like a worm.";

(p. 84c) "...the for-itselfontology is conscious of its facticitylivedc. It has the feeling of its complete gratuity; it apprehends itself as beingI there for nothinglived, as beingI de trop.";

(p. 177c) "...In fascination, which represents the immediate fact of knowing [connaître], the knowerR [connaissant] is absolutelyontology nothinglived but a pure negation... In fascinationI there is nothinglived more than a gigantic object in a desert world. Yet the fascinatedI intuition is in no way a fusion with the object. In fact the condition necessaryBNlived for the existence of fascinationI is that the objectc be raised in absolute relief on a background of emptiness; that is, I am precisely the immediate negation of the objectI and nothin g lived but that.";

(p. 278c) "...Absencelived/2neg is not a nothingnesslived of connectionsok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg with a placelived/1neg; on the contrary, I determinedial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] Pierre in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to a determinedI placelived/2neg by declaring that he is absentlived/1neg from it...";

7

Sartre: Negation

Sartre\Anguish-RHeidegger’s anxious nothingness;Sartre\Ontology-RSartre’s ‘first condition of all reflection [réflexivité] is a pre-reflectiveI

cogito’ (BN74-79)The Family Idiot: (2:81c) "...The faked gift of the real becomes the gift of the self, and this is

both a gift of nothingI—pure appearance—and the sacrifice of the gift giver to nothingnesslived (he succeeds in becoming appearanceI)...";

Sartre\Flaubert’s Personalization-RPre-teen sadomasochism;Peter Caws, Sartre , (p. 43c) "...the image differs from the concept—I may have the concept of my absent

friend in his present circumstances, and this may be wholly positive, but ... ‘the ‘imaging’ consciousness posits its object as a nothingness.’"

-------------------------------------------------Capitalized Nothingness:The Family Idiot: Sartre\Flaubert’s Last Spiral-RClairvoyance, ‘the methodological and immediate

transmutation of experience’;Sartre\Flaubert’s Neurosis-RThe ‘non-being of Beingconcept,’ ‘The being of Non-beingconcept,’

with Evil in-between: ‘the ineluctable slippage of Beingconcept/2neg toward Nothingnessconcept’

10-15Nega AbsenceI of the figureI Pierre from the café’s groundI (BN9-11)BN (p. 9-10, Fr. 43) "It is certain that the café by itself with its patrons, its tables, its booths, its

mirrors ... is a fullness of being[-there]. And all the intuitive detail which I can have are filled by these odors, these sounds, these colors, all phenomenalived which have a transphenomenalc beingI. Similarly Pierre’s actual presence in a place which I do not know [connais] is also a plenitude of being[-there]I. We seem to have found fullness everywhere. But we must observe that in perceptionlivedc there is always the construction of a figure1negc on a ground2negR. No one object, no groupI of objectsI is especially designed to be organized as specifically either groundI or figureI [forme]; all depends on the direction of my attention. When I enter this café to search for Pierre, there is made a syntheticdial/lived organization of all the objectsI in the café, on the groundI of which Pierre is given2neg as about to appear [paraître]. This organization of the café as the groundI is an originalI nihilation2neg. Each element1neg of the setting, a person, a table, a chair, attempts to isolate itself, to list itself upon the groundI constitutedBN by the totalitylived of the other objectsI, only to fall back once more into the undifferentiation of this groundI; it melts into the groundI. (BNp. 10) For the groundI is that which is seen only in addition, that which is the objectI of a purely marginal attention. Thus the original nihilationI of all the figuresI which appearI

Fr=? and are swallowed up in the total neutrality of a groundI is the necessaryBNlived condition [of the possibility] for the apparitionFr=? of the principle figureI, which is here the personlived/1neg of Pierre. This nihilationI is given2neg to my intuition; I am witness to the successive disappearance of all the objectsI which I look at—in particular of the faces, which detain me for an instant (Could this be Pierre?) and which as quickly decompose precisely because they ‘are not’ the face of Pierre. Nevertheless if I should finally discoverdial/lived Pierre, my intuitionI would be filled by a solid element, I should be suddenly arrested by his face1neg and the wholedial/2neg café would organize itself around him as a discrete presenceI.

(BNp. 10-11, Fr. 44) sartre¶"But now Pierre is not here. This does not mean that I discoverdial/lived his absenceR in some precise spot in the establishment. In fact Pierre is absentI from the wholedial café; his absenceI fixes the café in its evanescence; the café remains groundI; it persists in offering itself as an undifferentiated totalityI to my only marginal attention; it slips into the backgroundI; it pursues its nihilationI. Only it makes itself groundI for a determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] figureI; it carries the figureI everywhere in front of it, presents the figureI everywhereI to me. This figureI which slips constantly between my lookI and the solid, real objectsI of the café is precisely a perpetual disappearance; it is Pierre raising himself as nothingness1neg on the groundI2neg of the nihilationI of the café. So that what is offered to intuition is a flickering of nothingnessI; it is the nothingnessI of the groundI, the nihilationI of which summons and demands the apparitionok of the figureI, and it is the figureI—the nothingnessI which slips as a nothingI to the surface of the groundI. It serves as the foundation for the judgment—‘Pierre is not here.’ It is in fact the intuitiveI apprehension of a double nihilationI. To be sure, Pierre’s absenceI supposes an original connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between me1neg and this café2neg; there is an infinity of people who are without any connectionI [rapport] with this café for want of a realI expectation which establishes their absenceI. But, to be

8

Sartre: Negation

exact, I myself expected to see Pierre, and my expectation has causedlivedok

c the absenceI of Pierre to happen as a real event concerning this café. It is an objective fact at present that I have discovereddial/lived this absenceI, and it presentsI itself as a syntheticdial/lived connectionI [rapport] between Pierrelived/1neg and the settinglived/2neg in which I am lookingI for him. Pierre’s absence haunts this café and is the condition of its self-nihilating [negation of negation not surpassed] organization as groundI. By contrast, judgments which I can make subsequently to amuse myself, such as, ‘Wellington is not in this café, Paul Valéry is no longer here, etc.’—these have a purely abstractposited meaningBNlived; they are pure applications of the principle of negation without realI or efficacious foundation, and they never succeed in establishing a real connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the café and Wellington, or valéry. Here the relationok [of three degrees]lived&lived ‘is not’ is merely thought. (BNp. 11) This example is sufficient to show that non-being does not come to things by a negativeI judgment; it is the negativeI judgment, on the contrary, which is conditioned and supported by non-beingI. [continued-5, back-5]

-------------------------------------------------See Sartre\The Other-RWhat if apprehension is mistaken and the other [above, Pierre] is not there

10-15Nega Absence (index)Index of Terms-ABSENCE Ontology-R1-3ObjectI of consciousness must be distinguishedI by its absenceI, by its nothingnessI,

BN (p. xlixP ) "It would be impossible to define being[-there] as [only] a presence since absence too discloses beingI, since not to be there means still to be."

Herein-(above) RAbsence of the figureI Pierre from the café’s figure/groundlived, with BN (p. 9-11)

Ontology-R1-2For-itself’sontology becoming specifically not in-itselfontology as being-in-the-world, with BN (p. 177c) "In the case of absence indeed I make myself determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by a being[-there] which I am not, and which does not exist or which is not there; that is, what determinesI me is like a hollow in the middle of ... my empirical plenitude."

BN (p. 278c) "...absence is defined as a mode of being[-there] of human_reality in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg to locations and placeslived/2neg which it has itself determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by its presencelived/1neg..."

The War Diaries (p. 188-9) "...It is only against the background of [a] prior unity of being[-there] that absence can be given... [The] original backgroundI of presence is lifted and denied by absence—yet its what makes [absence] possible..."

Thus absence, which is negation, has two characteristics of beingI. 1. It appears against the background of existential unity that it deniesI, and retains this positive unity as the essence of its negationI. It draws its beingI from this positive unity; it borrows its being from it. Absence is beingI. 2. It establishes between two beings a syntheticdial/lived unity of negationI: in other words, it brings them together precisely by denying their presenceI..."

But this at one and the same time concretely explains to us the nature of the original nihilation or apparition of consciousness—which is precisely an absence2neg in relation [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the in-itselfontology/2neg, and which nihilates1neg without destroying the in-itself’sI original relationI of immanence2neg, indeed is even able to nihilateI only against this original backgroundI of immanenceI—and simultaineously refers back for its primary explanation to the original absence, which is precisely the absence of consciousness with respect to the world that vests it..."

Search for a Method (p. 80-1P) "e...everyone will agree that a city is a material and social organization which derives its reality from the ubiquity of its absence. It is present in each one of its streets insofar as it is always elsewheree... (p. 81) Each urban collective has its own physiognomye..."

"The Itinerary of a Thought" (p. 42c) "Today, the notion of ‘lived experience’c represents an effort to preserve that presence_to itself which seems to me indispensable for the existence of any psychic_fact, while at the same time this presenceI is so opaque and blind before itself that it is also an absence from itself. Lived experienceI is always simultaneously present_to itself and absent from itself..."

(p. 46c) "...in my very early book L’Imaginaire I tried to show that an image is not a sensation reawakened, or re-worked by the intellect, or even a former perception altered and attenuated by knowledgeFr=?,

9

Sartre: Negation

but is something entirely different—an absent reality, focused in its absence through what I called an analogonc..."

(p. 51c) "But there is totalization [in course]dial/lived in language. You cannot say a single sentence which does not refer, by its elements, to opposites. Thereby the wholedial of languageIc, as a system of a system of differential meaningsCDR, is present in its very absence, as linguists themselves admit. Every sentenceI is a levy on the entire resources of speech, for words only existI by their opposition to each other..."

10-15Nega Absent-presence (index)Sartre\Index of Terms-ABSENT-PRESENCE ; 3 hits listed below; cf. absence, presence_to.Sartre, BN (p. 61c) "...as Husserl clearly understoodFr=? ... my consciousness appears originally to the

other as an absence. It is the object always present as the meaningBNlived of all my attitudes and all my conduct—and always absent for it gives2neg itself to the intuition of another as a perpetual question..."

(BNp. 103-4c, Fr. 140) "...the pure presence_to itself of the pre-reflective [préréflexif] cogitolivedc—in the sense that the possible which I am is not pure presence_toI the for-itselfontology as reflection [reflet] to reflecting [reflétant] but that it is absent-presence. Due to this fact the existence of reference as a structuredial of being[-there] in the for-itselfI is still more clearly marked. The for-itselfI is itself over there, beyond its reach, in the far reaches of its possibilitiesIc (p. 104) This freeBNc necessityBNontology of being—over there—what one is in the form of lackdial/lived constitutesdial selfness..."

Sartre, "The Itinerary of a Thought" (p. 42c, 1969) "...Today, the notion of ‘lived experience’ represents an effort to preserve that presence_toI itself which seems to me indispensable for the existenceI of any psychic_fact, while at the same time this presenceI is so opaque and blind before itself that it is also an absence from itself. Lived experienceI is always simultaneously present to itself and absent from itself..."

10-15Nega Where ‘are we to place negation?’: ‘I expected to find 1500 francs’ (BN11)Sartre, BN (p. 11, Fr. 45, continuing-5, back-5) "How could it be otherwise? How could we even

conceive of the negative [seeking to deny lack] form [forme] of judgment if all is plenitude of being[-there] and positivity? We d for a moment that the negationR could arise from the comparison instituted between the result anticipated and the result obtained. But let us look at that comparison. Here is an original judgment, a concrete, positive psychic**a act which establishes a factlivedcR: ‘There are 1300 francs in my wallet’e... ‘I expected to find 1500 francs.’*** There we have real and established factI, psychicI positive events, affirmativedial judgments. Where are we to place negationI? Are we to that it is a pure and simple application of a category? And do we wish to hold that the mind in itself possess the not as a form [forme] of sorting out and separationI ? But in this case we remove even the slightest suspicion of negativityI from the negationI. If we admit that the category of the ‘not’ exist, and existsI in fact in the mind, and is a positive and concreteI process to brace and systematize our knowledges [connaissances]; if we admit first that it is suddenly released by the presence in us of certain affirmativeI judgments and then it comes suddenly to mark with its seal certain thoughts which result from these judgments—by these considerations we have carefully stripped negation of all negativeI function. [continuing same paragraph below]

12-09Nega For ‘negationI is a refusalI of existenceI (BN11-2)Sartre, BN (p. 11, Fr. 45, continuing, my paragraph break) sartre¶For negation is a refusal of existence. By

means of it a being[-there] (or a way of beingI) is posited, then thrown back to nothingness. If negationI is a [Kantian] category, if it is only a sort of plug set indifferently on certain judgments, then how will we explain the fact that it can nihilate a being[-there]I, causelived

ok it suddenly to arise, and then appoint it to be thrown back to non-being. If prior judgments establish fact, like those which we have taken for examples, negation must be like a freeBN discoverydial/lived, it must tear us away from this wall of positivityI which encircles us. NegationI is an abrupt break in continuity which can not in any case result from prior affirmationsdial; it is an original and irreducible event. Here we are in the sphereok of consciousness. Consciousness moreover can not produce a negation except in the form of consciousness of negation. No category can ‘inhabit’ consciousness and reside there in the manner of a thing. The notI, as an abrupt intuitive discoveryI, appears [apparaît] as consciousness (of being[-there]), consciousness of the notI. In a word, if beingI is everywhere, it is not only nothingness which, as Bergson** maintains, is inconceivable; for negation will never be derived from beingI. The

10

Sartre: Negation

necessaryBNontology condition [of the possibility] for our saying notI, is that non-beingI be a perpetual presenceI in us and outside of us, that nothingnessI

ok haunt being[-there]I.(BNp. 11-12, Fr. 46) "But where does nothingness come from? If it is the original condition of the

questioning attitude and more generally of all philosophical or scientific inquiry, what is the original connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the human being2neg to nothingnessI1neg? (BNp. 12) What is the original nihilatingI conduct?" [continued-3, back-3]

10-15Nega Internal_negation (BN86, out of sequence)Sartre, BN (p. 86, Fr. 122, continuing, my paragraph break, out of sequence from Sartre/Ontology-

Cogitoconcept as Descartes’ substance, Husserl’s phenomenalism, Heidegger’s disdain) sartre¶What our ontological description has made to appearFr=? immediately is that this being[-there] is the foundationc of itself as a faultI [défaut] in being[-there]I; that is to say, that it determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] its being[-there] by means of a being[-there]I which it is not ."

"Nevertheless there are many ways of not being and certain of these do not touch the inner Natureconcept of the being which is_what_it_is_not [as is and is notontology]. If, for example, I say of an inkwell that it is not a bird, the inkwell and the bird remain untouched by the negation. This is an external_relationok** which can be established only by a human_reality acting as witness. On the other hand, there is a type of negation which establishes an internal_connectiondial/livedc

ok [of interior structures of consciousness] between: ‘the one which denieslived*** and that which one denies .10

sartre¶(BNp. 86, Fr. 122) "Of all these internal_negationslived****, the one which penetrates most profoundly within beingI, the one which constitutesBN within its being[-there] the beingI of which it deniesI with the beingI that it deniesc—this is lackdial/lived. [continued-4, back-4, same paragraph below]

-------------------------------------------------Ftn. 10, "To this type of negation Hegelian oppositionI belongs. But this oppositiondial must itself base itself on a primitive internal_negation, that is to say on lackdial/lived...";

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-EXTERNAL_RELATION lived; above, ‘requires a witnessc.’; cf. internal_relation in a totalitydial/lived.

-------------------------------------------------*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-DENY lived [nierv, niantpr, nié~epa, deniernf]; [deny]; [not dénierv, dénégationsnf, renietv, and disconvenirvi];

Herein-R2Wholedial and partdial: Four possible dialectic structuresdial/lived

-------------------------------------------------**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-INTERNAL_NEGATION ; dialectical; cf. is and is notontology, lackdial/lived...

BN: (p. 86c, Ftn. 10c, above) "Hegelian oppositionI belongs to this type of negation. But this oppositiondialc must itself be based on an original internal negation’ that is, on lackdial/lived...";

(p. 463c) "...We choose the world, not in its contexture as in-itselfontology but in its meaningBNlived, by choosingI ourselves. Through the internal - negation by denyingc that we are the worldI, we make the worldI appear as world, and this internal_negation can exist only if it is at the same time a projection toward a possible...";

Sartre\The Other-RConclusion to III: Discoverydial/lived of oneself and others in the cogitoontology, with (p. 252c, Fr. 291) "(4) e...The other must appear [apparaître] to the cogitoontology as not beingI mee... [I]t will be an internal_negation, which means a syntheticdial/lived, active connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the two terms, each one of which constitutesBN itself by denying1neg that it is the otherI 2neg..."

CDR: (p. 103c) "...my perceptionlivedc gives2neg me my limits by disclosing the duality of my internal_negation. [that is] Even my subjectivity is objectively designated through them as an Otherconcept (another classI, another profession, etc.), and in interiorizing this designation, I become [fais] my objectiveI milieu in which two people realize their mutual dependence outside me.";

The Family Idiot: (1:44-5c) "...The dialectical understandingFr=? can certainly build closer and closer to the last moments of a life; but it begins arbitrarily with the first date mentioned in the records, that is, it is based on the incomprehensibleFr=?. (1:45) And that obscurity, surpassed1neg but preserved, remains its permanent limit and internal_negationok..."

11

Sartre: Negation

11-15Nega Crescent moon’s dialectical lack, lacking, lacked (BN86-7, out of sequence)Sartre, BN (p. 86-7, Fr. 122, continuing-4, back-4, my paragraph break, out of sequence from Sartre\

Negation-Internal_negation) sartre¶This lackdial/lived/2neg** does not appear [appartient] to the nature of the in-itselfontologyc, which is all positivity. It appearsI [paraît] in the world only with the upsurge of human_reality. It is only in the human worldI that there can be lacklived/2neg. A lacklivedc presupposes a trinity: that which is missing or ‘the lackingdial/lived,’ that which misses what is lackingdial/lived or ‘the existing,’ and a totalitydial/lived which has been broken by the lackingdial/lived and which is restored by the synthesisdial/1neg of ‘the lackingdial/lived’ and ‘the existingI’—that is ‘the lackeddial/lived.’ The being[-there] which is released to the intuition of human_reality is always that to which some thing is lackingdial/lived—i.e., the existingI. For example, if I say that the moon is not full and that one quarter is lackingdial/lived, I base this judgment on full intuition of the crescent moon. Thus what is released to intuitionI is an in-itselfontology which by itself is neither complete nor incomplete but which simply is what it is, without connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg with other beingsI. In order for this in-itselfontology to be grasped [transformsto] as the crescent of the moon it is necessaryI that a human_realityI surpass1neg the given2neg toward the project of the realized totalityI1neg—here the disk of the full moon—and return toward the given2negI to constituteBN it as the crescent moon1neg; that is to say, in order to realize it in its being[-there]I in terms of the totalityI which becomes its foundation. In this same surpassing1neg the lackingdidal/lived will be posited [posé] as that whose syntheticdial/lived addition to the existingI will reconstituteI the syntheticI totalityI of the lackeddial/lived. In this sense the lackingdia/lived is of the same nature as the existingI’ it would suffice to reverse the situation in order for the lackingdial/lived to become the existingI to which the lacking is missing, while the existingI would become the lackingdial/lived. This lackingdia/lived as the complement of the existingI is determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] in its being[-there]I by the synthetic_totalitydial/lived of the lacked. (BNp. 87) Thus in the humanI world, the incomplete beingI which is released to intuition ‘lackingdial/lived’ is constitutedI in its being[-there]I by ‘the lackeddial/lived’—that is, by what it is not. It is the full moon which confers on the crescent moon2neg its being[-there]I as crescent; what-is-not1neg [moon] determines [‘that is, as limitation’] what-is [cresent]. It is in the beingI of the existingI, as the correlate of a human transcendencelived/1neg, to lead outside itself to the beingI which it is not [moon]—as to its meaningBNlivedR."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-LACK dial/lived [le manque], LACKED [le manqué], LACKING [le manquantpr];

BN: (p. 86c) "...Ftn. 10, "Hegelianc oppositionI belongs to this type of negation. But Hegel’s opposition must itself be founded on a primitive internal_negationok that is to say, on lackdia/lived. For example, if the non-essential becomes in its turn essential, this is because it is felt as a lackdial/lived in the heart of the essential."

(p. 95c, Fr. 131) "e...In order for valuelived to become the object of a thesisposited, the for-itselfontology

which it haunts must also appear before the regard of reflection [réflexion]. Reflexive [réflexive] consciousness in fact accomplishes two things by the same stroke; the Erlebnisposited reflected-on [réfléchie] is posited in its natureposited as lackdial/posited, and valueI is disengaged as the out-of-reach meaningBNlived of what is lackeddial/posited...";

(p. 626c) "...Ontology has revealed to us, in fact, the origin and the natureI of valuelived; we have seen that valueI is the lacklived/2neg in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to which the for-itselfontology/1neg

determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] its being[-there] as a lackdial/lived. By the very fact that the for-itselfI exists, as we have seen, valueI arises to haunt its being-for-itselfontology. It follows that the various tasks of the for-itselfI can be made the object of an existential_psychoanalysis, for they all aim at producing the missing synthesisdial/lived of consciousness and being in the form of valueI or self-cause...";

Sartre\Temporality-RTennis court consciousness existsI as internal_connectiondial/lived [of interior structures of consciousness] to the future [futur]

Search for a Method: (p. 26-7c) "...Since the ruling principle of the inquiry is the search for the syntheticdial/lived ensemblelivedc, each fact, once established, is questioned and interpreted as part of a wholedial. It is on the basis of the fact, through the study of its lacksdial/lived and its ‘over significations,’ that one determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’], by virtue of a hypothesis, the totalitylived at the heart of which the fact will recover its truthlivedc..."

CDR: (p. 102c) "...Their work [gardener_and_road-mender] discoversdial/lived it [the real] to them and I grasp [transformsto] it as a lackdial/lived of [my] being[-there] in discoveringdial/lived their work. Thus theirlived/2neg

12

Sartre: Negation

negative relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg to my own existence constituteddial me, at the deepest levels of myselflived/1neg, as definite ignorancelived, as inadequacy. I sense myself as an intellectual through the limits which they prescribe to my perception."

The Family Idiot: (1:141P ) "...In itself [not in-itself] existencec is lack, it is that singular lackdial/lived which defines this existenceI and which is not a lack of anything in particular...".

11-15Nega The precipice crossing and creatingI Constantinople (NE 97-8)Sartre, Notebooks for an Ethics (p. 97-8c) "...a project [crossing a precipice] ... clarifies what it is in

terms of what is not [as is and is notontology] (the end). The necessaryBNlived means is therefore itself an end. A second-order endc or, if you prefer, momentdial. It is, on the one hand, required by non-being (the end) and, on the other hand, sketched out by beingI (the two sides of the precipice) in the illumination of non-beingI. It is non-beingI that reveals the lackdial/lived of the indispensable means. (NEp. 98) Yet it is being[-there] that announces to us the required qualities for the means to be utilizable: the size of the precipice determinesdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] the minimum length required for the plank; the weight of my body, its minimum resistance; my physical strength, the maximum weight it can have..."

BN (p. 433-4, Fr. 478, out of sequence from Sartre\Freedom-I. Freedom: The First Condition of Action) "e...The intention of providing a rival for Rome can come to Constantine only through the apprehension of an objective lackdial/lived: Rome lacksI a counterweight; to this still profoundly pagan city ought to be opposed a Christian city which at the momentdial is missing. (BNp. 434) Creating Constantinoplelived/1neg is comprehended [comprend] as an act only if first the conception of a new city has preceded the actionI itself or at least if this conceptionI serves as an organizing theme for all later steps. But this conceptionI can not be the pure representationposited of the city as possible. It apprehendsI the city in its essential characteristic, which is to be a desirable and not yet realized possibleI."

"e...Will someone say that the taxes are collected badly, that Rome is not secure from invasions, that it does not have the geographical location which is suitable for the capital of a Mediterranean empire which is threatened by barbarians, that its corrupt morals make the spread of the Christian religion difficult? How can anyone fail to see that all these considerations are negative; that is, that they aim at what is not, not at what is [is and is notontology]."

11-15Nega Section III. The Dialectical Concept of Nothingness (BN12-16)

11-15Nega Being ‘is prior to nothingnessI and establishes the groundI for it’ (BN16)Sartre, BN (p. 16, Fr. 50) "...reversing the statement of Spinoza, we could say that every negation is a

determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’]. This signifies that being[-there] is prior to nothingness and established the ground for it. By this we must understandposited

ok not only that beingIok has a logicalposited

precedence over nothingnessI but also that it is from beingIok that nothingness derives concretely its efficacy.

This is what we mean when we say that nothingnessok haunts being[-there]okIe... Its nothingnessI of beingI is

encountered only within the limits of beingI, and the total disappearance of beingI would not be the advent of the reign of non-being, but on the contrary the concomitant disappearanceI of nothingness. Non-being exists only on the surface of being[-there]I." [continued at Sartre\Being-there-Heidegger’s being-in-the-world: Pre-ontological comprehension of being as anguished apprehension of nothingness (16-17)]

-------------------------------------------------Peter Caws, Sartre (p. 69) "...In Hegel’s view, being and nothingness are two abstractions, one full, one

empty ... entering jointly into the determination of everything... But to use them as thesis and antithesis in this way, says Sartre, is to mistake their logicalposited relation to one another. Hegelian being and nothingness are contraries, the extremes of a logicalI series going all the way from affirmation to denial. Sartrean Being and Nothingness, on the other hand, are according to him contradictories, and ‘this implies that logicallyI nothingness is subsequent to being since it is being, first posited, then denied (BN 14)...

"The question that now arises is: what is it about being that might generate nothingness?... [W]hatever turns out to be responsible will have to show, in some metaphorical sense, suicidal tendencies, since the negation of being must involve to some degree its own annihilation. Can a being or beings be found thus

13

Sartre: Negation

carrying within themselves the seeds of their own annihilation? Sartre’s obvious answer is that human beings have just this property..." See Herein-non-being

11-15Nega Hegel’s being and non-being are contrariesI, equally positive or negativeI: Hegel’s essence groundsI being (BN12)

Sartre, BN (p. 12, Fr. 46, continuing-3, back-3) "e...We have established, in effect [en effet], a certain parallelism between the types of conduct man adopts in the face of being[-there] and those which he maintains in the face of nothingness, and we are right away [aussitôt] tempted to consider being[-there]I and non-being as two complementary components of the real—like dark and light [logical contrariesR]. In short we would then be dealing with two strictly contemporary notionslivedc which would somehow be united in the production of existents and which it would be useless to consider in isolation. Pure beingI and pure non-beingI would be two abstractions which could be reunited only on the basis of concrete realities."

(BNp. 12-3, Fr. 47) "One can apply to Hegel; what Le Senne said of the philosophy of Hamelin: ‘Each of the lower terms depends on the higher term, as the abstract on the concrete which is necessary for it to realize itself.’ The true concrete for HegelI is the Existentconcept with its essence; it is the Totalityconcept produced by the syntheticdial/lived integration of all the abstract momentsdial which are surpassed1neg in it by requiring their [dialectic] complement. In this sense Beingconcept will be the most abstractI of abstractionsI and the poorest, if we consider it in itself—that is, by separating it from its surpassing1neg toward Essenceconcept. (BNp. 13) In fact [citing Hegel], ‘BeingI is related to EssenceI as the immediate to the mediate.’ Things in general ‘are,’ but their being[-there] consists in manifesting their essence. Being passes into EssenceI. One can express this by saying, "Beingconcept presupposes Essenceconcept." Although EssenceI1neg appears in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]concept&concept as 1neg&2neg to BeingI2neg as mediatedI, EssenceI is nevertheless the true origin. Being returns to its foundation: Being is surpassed1neg in EssenceI.’

(BNp. 13, Fr. 47) "Thus Beingconcept cut from Essenceconcept which is its foundation becomes ‘mere empty immediacy.’ This is how the Phenomenology of Mind defines it by presenting pure Beingconcept/2neg from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of truthlived/1neg as the immediate. If the beginning of logicposited is to be the immediate, we shall then find beginning in Beingconcept, which is ‘the indetermination which precedes all determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’], the undetermined as the absolute point of departure.’

"But right away Beingconcept, thus determinedI ‘passes into’ its contrary e..."[BNFr. 48]"It is still too soon for us to discuss the Hegelian concept itself**: it is the ensemble of the

results of our study in order to take a position regarding this. It is appropriate here to observe only that being[-there] is reduced by Hegel to a signification of the existent. Being is enveloped by essence, which is its foundation and origin. Hegel’s whole theory is formed on the idea that a philosophical procedure is necessary in order at the outset of logicposited to rediscoverdial/lived the immediate in terms of the mediated, the abstractI in terms of the concrete on which it is formed. But we have already remarked that being[-there]lived/2neg does not hold the same connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the phenomenalived/1neg as the abstractI2neg holds to the concreteI1neg. Being is not one ‘structuredial among othersI ,’ one momentdial of the object; it is the very condition of all structuredial and of all momentsI. It is the foundation on which the characteristics of the phenomenonI will manifest themselves. Similarly it is not admissible that the [Hegel’s] beingI of things ‘consists in manifesting their essence.’ For then a beingok of that beingok would be necessaryBNontology. Furthermore if the beingok of things ‘consisted’ in manifesting their essence, it would be hard to see how Hegel could determinedial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] a pure momentdial of Beingconcept

ok where we could not find at least a trace of that original structuredial e..."

-------------------------------------------------** See Sartre\Phenomenology-Hegel’s totalization (SM 8-9)

11-15Nega Hegel ‘opposesI being to nothingness as thesis and antithesis’ [logical contrariesI] (BN14)Sartre, BN (p. 14-5, Fr. 49) "To oppose being to nothingness as thesis and antithesis, as HegelR does, is

to suppose that they are logically contemporary. Thus at the same time two contrariesok** arise as the two limiting terms of a logical seriesI . Here we must note carefully that contrariesok alone can enjoy this simultaneityok because they are equally positive (or equally negative). But non-being is not the contraryok of being[-there] ok; it is its contradiction. This implies that logically nothingness is subsequent to beingI

ok since it is

14

Sartre: Negation

beingIok, first posited, then denied. It can not be therefore that beingI

ok and non-being are concepts with the same content since on the contrary non-being supposes a irreducible mental act. Whatever may be the original undifferentiation of beingI

ok, non-being is that same undifferentiationI deniedI. This permits Hegel to make beingI

ok pass into nothingness; this is what by implication has introduced negation into his very definition of beingI

ok. This is self evident since any definition is negativeI, since Hegel has told us, making use of a statement of Spinoza’s, that omnis determinatio est negatio [determination as negation]. (BNp. 15) And does he [Hegel] not write, ‘It does not matter what the determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] or content is which would distinguish beingI

ok from something else; whatever would give it a content would prevent it from maintaining itself in its purity. It is pure indetermination and emptiness. Nothing can be apprehended in it.’

(BNp. 15, Fr. 49) sartre¶"Thus anyone who introduces negation into being[-there] from outside will discoverdial/lived subsequently that he makes it pass into non-being. But here we have a play on words involving the very idea of negationI. For if I refuse to allow beingI

ok any determination [‘that is, as limitation’] or content, I am nevertheless forced to affirmdial at least that it is. Thus, let anyone denyI beingI

ok whatever he wishes, he can not causeI

ok it not to be, thanks to the very fact that he deniesI that it is this_or_that. Negation cannot touch the nucleus of the beingI of being[-there]*** which is absoluteontologyc plenitude and entire positivity. By contrast non-being is a negationI which aims at this nucleus of absoluteI density. It is in its heart that non-beingI denies itself. When Hegel writes, ‘(Beingconcept

ok and nothingness) are empty abstractions, and the one is as empty as the other,’ he forgets that emptiness is emptiness of something.8 Being is empty of all other determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] than identity with itself, but non-being is empty of beingok. In a word, we must recall here against Hegel that beingok is and that nothingnessI is not."

-------------------------------------------------(BNp. 94, Ftn. 12, out of sequence from Sartre/Ontology-III. The For-Itselfontology and the Being of Value)

"One will perhaps be tempted to translate the trinity into HegelianR terms and to make of the in-itselfontology, the thesis, of the for-itselfontology the antithesis, and of the in-itself-for-itself or Valueconcept the synthesisdial/lived. But it must be observed here that while the for-itselfontology lacksdial/lived the in-itselfI, the in-itselfI does not lackI the for-itselfI. There is then no reciprocity in the oppositiondial****. In short, the for-itselfI2neg remains non-essential and contingent in connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the in-itselfI1neg, and it is this non-essentialityok which we earlier called its [the for-itself’sI] facticitylivedc...";

-------------------------------------------------Ftn 8. "It is so much the more strange in that Hegel is the first to have noted that ‘every negation is a determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] negation’; that is, it depends on a content."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-CONTRARY [contraire]; ‘Contraries arise as the two limiting terms of a logical series; Klaus Hartmann, "Sartre's Theory of Ensembles" (p. 658, Ftn. 52) "...Raymond Aron states that Sartre's dialectic uses contraries rather than contradictions...";

The two propositions, "All S is P" and "No S is P" are contraries, except when the S is non-existent.The Emotions: (p. 55c) "...But at the very momentI

? when, on reading ‘indep. . .,’ I intuitivelyI grasp [transformsto] ‘independent,’ the word ‘independent’ is given2neg as a probable reality (in the manner of the table or the chair). Contrariwise, my intuitiveI graspI of the words I am writing delivers them to me as certain..."

BN: Herein-H01-0Hegel’s being and non-being are contraries, equally positive or negative: Hegel’s essence groundsI being;

(p. 85c)"...negation manifests itself not as a contrary force, but, what amounts to the same thing, as partial determination [‘that is, as limitation’] of the wholedial in so far as this partialI determinationI is posited for itself..."

CDR: Groups&Reciprocity-3. Labour (CDR89-94), with CDR (p. 92c) "...the law of the interpenetration of contrariesok, badly proclaimed by Engels, becoming perfectly intelligible when related to a praxis seen in the light of its future [futur] totalization [in course]dial/lived and of the completed totalities which surround it..."

The Family Idiot: (1:11c) "...Significationokc—that transcendencelived/1neg which exists only through the

project that aims at it—and passivityc—pure En-soiconcept [In-itselfconcept], material weight of the sign—pass one through the other, a pair of contrariesok that interpenetrate instead of opposingc each other...";

(3:205c, put simply) "...look how [the sugar cube] weighs in my hand like a piece of marble or else, on the contrary, how it floats in my cup of coffee without sinking to the bottom...’;

15

Sartre: Negation

*** BN (p. liic) "...if my consciousness were not consciousness of beingI consciousness of the table, it would then be consciousness of the table without consciousness of beingI so..."

-------------------------------------------------**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-OPPOSITION dial; see below Opposition in biological forms of negation

Miscellaneous:BN: (p. xlvc) "..."In the first place we certainly thus get rid of that dualismIR2 which in the

existent opposesdial interior to exterior..."(p. xlvic) "...if we no longer believe in the being-behind-the-apparitionok, then the

apparitionIok becomes, on the contrary full positivity; its essence is a ‘to appear [paraître]’ which is no longer

opposeddial to being[-there] but on the contraryI is the measure of it..."(p. 94c) "...while the for-itselfontology lacksdial/lived the in-itselfontology, the in-itselfI does not

lackI the for-itselfI. There is then no reciprocity in the oppositiondial. In short, the for-itselfI remains non-essential and contingent, in connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the in-itselfI, and it is this non-essentiality which we earlier called its [for-itself] facticitylived..."

Search for a Method (p. 170c) "...It is in order to take into account these two oppositedial [opposés] characteristics (no common naturelivedc but an always possible communication) that the movementdial/lived of anthropology once again and in a new form [forme] gives2neg rise to the ‘ideology of existence’..."

CDR: (p. 89c) "...Thus he sets himself in oppositiondial [s’oppose] to himself through the mediation of the inert; and, conversely, the constructive power of the labourer opposesdial [oppose] the part to the wholedial...";

(p. 90c) "...the organism makes itself inertiac (the man applies his weight to the lever, etc.) in order to transform the surrounding inertiaI. The chassé-croisé [change of placesfig] which opposesdial [oppose] the human_thingI [man pushing lever] to the thing-man [transformedI inertiaI] will be found at every level of dialectical expérience. But the meaningI of labour is provided by the end..."

The Family Idiot: (2:192c) "...As a sadist he unrealizesc himself as his oppositedial; as a masochist, he makes himself into what he is..."

"The Itinerary of a Thought" (p. 51c) "But there is totalization [in course]dial/lived in language. You cannot say a single sentence which does not refer, by its elements, to oppositesdial. Thereby the wholedial of languageI, as a system of a system of differential meaningCDRlived, is present in its very absence, as linguists themselves admit. Every sentenceI is a levy on the entire resources of speech, for words only exist by their oppositiondial to each other...";

Opposition in biological forms of negation :CDR: (p. 84c) "...There is no doubt that matter passes from one state to another, and this means

that change takes place. But a material change is neither an affirmationdial nor a negationdial it has not destroyed, because nothing was constructed; it has not broken resistances, because the confronting forces have very simply given2neg the result that they were to have givenI—it would be just as absurd to assert that the two opposeddial [opposées] forces actingI upon a membrane negate themselves, or to say that they collaborate to determine [‘that is, as limitation’] a certain tension. All one can do is to utilize the negative sequence to distinguish one direction from the other.";

(p. 85c) "...discharge and excretion, as a directed movement of rejection, are just opaque and biological forms of negationdial. Similarly, lackdial/lived appears through function, not only as a mere inertI lacuna, but also as an oppositiondial [opposition] of functionI to itself. Finally, needdial/lived posits negationI by its very existence in that it [need]I is itself an initial_negation of lackdial/lived. In short, the intelligibility of the negative as a structuresdial of Beingconcept/2negc

ok can be made manifest only in joining [liaison] with a developing process of totalizationdial/lived; negationI is defined on the basis of a primary force, as an opposing [opposée] force of integration, and in connection [rapport] [of three degrees] to the future [futur] totalitydial/lived as the destiny or end of the totalizing movementdial/lived..."

11-15Nega Section IV. The Phenomenologicalposited Concept of NothingnessI (BN16-21)

16

Sartre: Negation

11-15Nega Heidegger’s pre-ontological comprehension of being as anguished apprehension of nothingness (BN16-17)

Sartre, BN (p. 16, Fr. 51) "There is another possibleI way of conceiving being[-there] and nothingness as complements. One could view them as two equally necessaryBNlived components of the real without making beingI ‘pass into’ nothingness —as HegelR does—and without insisting on the posteriority of nothingnessI as we attempted to do.** We might on the contrary emphasize the reciprocalI forces of repulsion which beingI and non-being exercise on each other, the real in some way beingI the tension resulting from these antagonistic forces. It is toward this new conception that Heidegger is oriented.

(p. 16-7, Fr. 51) "We need not lookI far to see the progress which Heidegger’s theory of nothingnessI has made over that of HegelI. First, beingI and non-beingI are no longer empty abstractions. Heidegger in his most important work*** has shown the legitimacy of raising the question concerning beingI; the latter has no longer the character of a Scholastic universal, which it still retained with HegelI. (p. 17) There is a meaningBNlived

of beingI which must be clarified; there is a ‘pre-ontologicalc comprehensionok’ of beingI which is involved in every kind of conduct belonging to ‘human_reality’—i.e. in each of its projects. Similarly difficulties which customarily arise as soon as a philosopher touches on the problem of Nothingnessconcept/1negc

ok are shown to be without foundation; they are important in so far as they limit the function of the understandingposited

okc, and they

show simply that this problem is not within the province of the understandingokI. There exists on the other hand

numerous attitudes of ‘human_reality’I which imply a ‘comprehensionok’ of nothingness, hatepositedc, prohibition, regret, etc. For ‘Dasein’ there is even a permanent possibility of finding oneself ‘face to face’ with nothingnessI

and discoveringdial/lived it as a phenomenonlived: this possibilityI is anguishlivedR.(p. 17, Fr. 52) sartre¶"Heidegger, while establishing the possibilitiesI of a concrete grasp [transformsto] of

nothingness, never falls into the error which HegelI made; he does not preserve a beingIok for non-being, not

even an abstract beingok: nothingI is not, it nihilates itself. It is supported and conditioned by transcendencelived/1neg. We know [sait] that for Heidegger the beingI of human_reality is defined as ‘being-in-the-worldlivedc.’ The worldlivedc is a syntheticdial/lived complex of instrumentalc realities inasmuch as they point one to another in ever widening circles, and inasmuch as man makes himself announce what he is in terms of this complex. That signifies at once [à la fois] that human_realityI springs forth as long as it is invested with beingI and ‘finds itself’ (sich befinden) in beingI—and, at once, that this is the human_realityI which makes it so that this being, which besieges human_realityI, disposes itself around human_realityI under the form of world." [continued]

-------------------------------------------------** See (p. 16) Herein-Being is prior to nothingness and establishes the ground for it’*** Footnoted as What is Metaphysics.

11-15Nega DaseinI’s groundlessnessI: ‘We are shown a negatingI activity and there is no concern to groundI this activityI upon a negativeI being[-there]’ (BN18-9)

Joseph Fell, "Battle of the Giants over Being" (p. 266c) "The way is prepared for the remembering of Being by Dasein's experience of its own groundlessness. This means that Dasein can locate no other entities or beings on which to ground itself. That is to say, Dasein's quest for some-thing on which to groundI itself—...—turns up no-thing. That says in turn that among entities that can ground, there is no appeal beyond the entity Daseine..."

In CDR, later than BN below, Sartre makes some concessions to Heidegger in Sartre\Freedom-Man ‘who recognizes himself in his work completely and who also does not recognize himself in it at all’, with CDR (p. 226c, Fr. 336) We shall find that this expérience complicates itself, to the degree in which we advance in our discoverydial/lived, but for the present we may say: the man who looks at their work, who recognizes themself in it completely, who at the same time does not recognize themself in it at all; the man who can say at once: ‘I did not want this’ and ‘I comprehendok that this is what I have done and that I could not do anything else’, the man whose freeCDR praxis returns as prefabricatedc beingI and who recognizes himself in the one as in the other—this man grasps [transformslived to lived], in an immediate dialectical movementdial, necessityCDRdial/livedc as the destiny in exteriority of freedomCDRRc."

-------------------------------------------------

17

Sartre: Negation

Sartre, BN (p. 18-19, Fr. 53) sartre¶"Now the characteristic of Heidegger’s philosophy is to describe Dasein by using positive terms which hide the implicit negations, DaseinI is ‘outside of itself, in the world’; it is ‘a being of distancesontology [lointains]’; it is care; it is ‘its own positivities,’ etc.** All this amounts to saying that DaseinI ‘is not’ in-itselfontology, that it ‘is not in immediate proximity to itself, and that it ‘surpasses1neg’ the world inasmuch as it posits itself as not being-in-itselfontology and as not being the world. In this sense HegelR is right rather than Heidegger when he states that Mind is the negative. (BNp. 19) Actually we can put to each of them the same questionc, phrased slightly differently. We should say to HegelI: ‘It us not sufficient to positI mind as mediationlivedI and the negativeI; it is necessaryBNlived to demonstrate negativity [seeking to deny lack] as the structuredial of being[-there] of mind. What must mind be in order to be able to constituteBN itself as negativeI?’ And we can ask the same questionI of Heidegger in these words: ‘If negation is the original structuredial of transcendencelived/1neg, what must be the original structureI of ‘human_reality’ in order for it to be able to transcendI the world?’ In both cases we are shown a negating activity and there is no concern to ground R

this activity I upon a negative I being I .*** Heidegger in addition makes of nothingness a sort of intentional correlate of transcendenceI, without seeing that he has already inserted it into transcendenceI itself as its original structuredial.

(BNp. 19, Fr. 53-4) "Furthermore what is the use of affirmingdial that nothingness provides the ground for negatingI, if it is merely to enable us to form subsequently a theory of non-being which by definition separates nothingnessI from all concrete negation? [Fr. 54] If I emerge in nothingness beyond the world, how can this extra-mundane nothingnessI furnish a foundation for those little pools of non-being which we encounter each instant in the depth of beingI. I say, ‘Pierre is not there,’ ‘I have no more money,’ etc. Is it really necessaryBNlived to surpass1neg the world toward nothingness and to return subsequently to beingI in order to provide a groundI for these everyday judgments? And how can the operationdial/lived be affectedI? To accomplish it we are not required to make the worldI slip into nothingnessI; standing within the limit of beingI, we simply deny an attribute to a subject. Will someone say that each attribute refused, each beingI deniedI, is taken up by one and the same extra-mundane nothingness, that non-beingI is like the fullness of what is not, that the world is suspended in non-beingI as the real is suspended in the heart of possibilities? In this case each negation would necessarilyBNlived have for origin a particular surpassing1neg: the surpassingI of one beingI toward another. But what is this surpassingI, if not simply the HegelianI mediationI —and have we not already and in vain sought in HegelI the nihilatingI groundI of the mediationI? Furthermore even if the explanation is validdial/lived for the simple, radicalontology negationsI which refuseI

ok to a determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] object any kind of presence in the depth of beingI (e.g., ‘Centaurs do not exist’—‘There is no reason for him to be late’—The ancient Greeks did not practice polygamy’), negationsI which, if need be, can contribute to constitutingBN nothingness as a sort of geometrical place for unfulfilled projects, all inexact representations, all vanished beingsI or those of which the idea is only a fiction—even so this interpretation of non-beingI would no longer be validI for a certain kind of reality which is in truthlived the most frequent: namely, those negationsI which include non-beingI in their being[-there]. How can we hold that these are at once partly within the universe and partly outside in extra-mundane nothingnessI. [continued-1, back-1]

-------------------------------------------------Sartre, The War Dairies (p. 179P) "e...The for-itself’sontology movementdial of nihilation is not a

withdrawale... [N]ihilationI implies an immediate, distancelessontology Fr=? adhesion of the world to the for-itselfI.

This presence of the worldI to consciousness—which is separated from the worldI by nothing save that it is itself a nothingI—is transcendencelived/1neg. The in-itselfontology vests consciousness in order to be surpassed1neg by it in Nothingnessconcept. But not, as Heidegger believes, in the Nothingnessconcept which retains the world in it, but in the Nothingnessconcept which consciousness itself is. Consciousness, in its for-itselfI, transcendsI the worldI towards itself. It is vested by the in-itselfI precisely insofar as it is numbed by Nothingnessconcept."

-------------------------------------------------Heidegger, What is Metaphysics (p. 103c) "Holding itself out into the nothing, DaseinI is in each case

already beyond beings as a whole [how so without differentiation]. This being beyond beings we call ‘transcendenceI ’..." Sartre, BN (p. 294P ) "...transcendenceI with Heidegger [means] the otherI [autrui] can be definedc only by a total organization of the world..."

-------------------------------------------------

18

Sartre: Negation

** Barnes, "Introduction," BN (p. xxv) "...Sartre criticizes Heidegger for restricting his experience of Nothingness to special crises and ignoring the host of everyday situations in which it figures..." [sub-topic below]; Sartre, BN (p. 324c) "Bachelard rightly reproaches phenomenologyposited for not sufficiently taking into account what he calls the ‘coefficient of adversity’c in objects. The accusation is just and applies to Heidegger’s transcendenceI as well as to Husserl’sc intentionalityc..."*** See nothing being ground in Sartre\Existentialism-Anxious nothingness as Dasein facing finite being: Nihilation repels in retreat; -Sartre\The Other-Heidegger’s and behaviorists’ manufactured object, with traces of transcendence-transcendedlived/2neg, refers to others

11-15Nega Sartre’s human_reality, in surpassing1neg nothingness2neg organize the world (BN17)Sartre BN (p. 17, Fr. 52, continuing) sartre¶"But [Heidegger’s] human_reality can make being[-there]

appear [paraître] as organized totalitydial/lived in the world only by surpassing1neg beingI. All determinationI [Heidegger’s ground] for HeideggerR is surpassing1neg since it supposes a withdrawal taken from a particular point of view. This surpassingI the worldI, which is a condition of the very rising up of the world as such, is effected by the Dasein which directs the surpassingI toward itself. The characteristic of selfness (Selbstheit), in fact, is that man is always separated from what he is by all the breadth of the beingI which he is not. He makes himself knownFr=? to himself from the other side of the worldI and he looks from the horizon** toward himself to recover his inner beingI. ManI is ‘a beingI of distancesontology [lointains].’ In the movementdial/lived of turning inward which traverses all of beingI, beingI arises and organizes itself as the world without there beingI either priority of the movementI over the worldI, or the worldI over the movementI. But this apparitionok of the selfI beyond the worldI—that is to say, the totalityI of the real—is an emergence of ‘human_reality’ in nothingness. (p. 18, Fr. 52) It is in nothingnessI alone that being[-there] can be surpassed1neg. At the same time it is from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2negc of beyond the world that beingI is organized into the worldI, which means on the one hand that human_realityI rises up as an emergence of beingI in non-being and on the other hand that the worldI is ‘suspended’ in nothingness. Anguish*** is the discoverydial/lived of this double, perpetual nihilation. It is in terms of this surpassing1neg of the world that DaseinI manages to realize the contingency of the worldI; that is, to raise the questionc, ‘How does it happen that there is something rather than nothingI’? Thus the contingency of the world appearsFr=? to human_realityI in so far as human_realityI has established itself in nothingness in order to grasp [transformsto] the contingency."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-HORIZON [Heidegger’s term];

Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (p. I, [19], Preface) "...Our provisional aim is the Interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of [ontological] Being.4 Translators Ftn. 4, "...Throughout this work the word ‘horizon’ is used with a connotation somewhat different from that to which the English-speaking reader is likely to be accustomed. We tend to think of a horizon as something which we may widen or extend to go beyond; Heidegger, however seems to think of it rather as something which we can neither widen nor go beyond, but which provides the limits for certain intellectual activities performed ‘within’ it."

Search for a Method: (p. 17c) "e...what did begin to change me was the reality of Marxism, the heavy presence on my horizon of the masses of workers, an enormous, somber body which lived MarxismI

e..."CDR: (p. 94c) "...The full comprehensionFr=? of act and object remains the temporalCDRlived development

of a practical intuition rather than apprehension of a necessityCDRdial/lived. For necessityI can never be given2neg in intuition, except as a horizon, an intelligible limit of intelligibilityI.";

The Family Idiot: (1:136c) This means that the justification of this ‘creature of distancesontology [lointains]’ is always retrospective; it traces him from the depths of the futureFr=? and from the horizons, it traces back across the course of time going from the present to the pastlived, never from the pastI to the presentI...";

(3:25c) "...[T]he child appears to himself on the horizon of a merciless struggle, a cruel game in which he doesn’t know the rules..."

Sartre\Flaubert’s School Years-RAt ‘ease in the world ... is only the least possible degree of being "ill at ease"’: ‘I come to myself "from other horizons"’

-------------------------------------------------*** See Sartre\Anguish-Anxiety reveals the nothing, not to you or I, but to Dasein

19

Sartre: Negation

11-15Nega Section V. The Origin of NothingnessI (BN21-45)

11-15Nega NégatitésI: Distance, hateposited, repulsionI, regret, etc (BN20-1)Sartre, BN (p. 20-1, Fr. 54, continuing-1, back-1) "Take for example the notion of distanceRontology

ok, which conditions the determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of a location, the localization of a point. It is easy to see that it possesses a negativeR momentdial. Two points are distant when they are separated by a certain length. The length, a positive attribute of a segment of a straight line, intervenes here by virtue of the negationR of an absolute, undifferentiated proximity e... We will willingly admit with Heidegger that ‘human_reality’ is ‘remote-from-itself;’ that is to say, it rises in the world as that which createsok distancesRontology ok and at once causeslived

ok them to be removed (entfernend). But this remoteness-from-self, even if it is the necessaryBNlived condition [for the possibility] in order that there may be remoteness in general, envelops remoteness in itself as the negativeI structuredial which must be surmounted. It will be useless to attempt to reduce distanceR

ok to the simple result of a measurement. (p. 21, Fr. 55) What has become evident in the course of the preceding discussion is that the two points and the segment which is inclosed between them have the indissoluble unity of what the German call a Gestalt. Negation is the cement which realizes this unity. It defines precisely the immediate connection [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which connects these two points and which presents them to intuition the indissoluble unity of the distanceIR

ok. This negation can be covered over only by claiming to reduce distanceIR

ok to the measurement of a length, for negationI is the raison d’être of that measurement.

(BNp. 21, Fr. 55) "What we have just shown by the examination of distanceIok, we could just as well have

brought out by describingI realities like absence, change, otherness, repulsion, regret, distraction, etc. There is an infinite number of realitiesI which are not only objects of judgment, but which are experienced [éprouvées]ontology, contended, feared, etc., by the human being[-there] and which in their inner structuredial are inhabited by negationI, as by a necessaryBNlived condition [for the possibility] of their existence. We shall call them négatités**13. Kant caught a glimpse of their significance when he spoke of regulative concepts (e.g. the immortality of the soul), types of syntheses of negativeI and positiveI in which negation is the condition of positivity. The function of negationI varies according to the nature of the objectI considered. Between wholly positiveI realities (which however retain negationI as the condition of the sharpness of their outlines, as that which fixes them as what they are) and those in which the positivityIc is only an appearanceFr=? concealing a hole of nothingness, all gradations are possibleI . In any case it is impossible to throw these negationsI back into an extra-mundane nothingnessI since they are dispersed in beingI, are supported by beingI, and are conditions of reality. NothingnessI beyond the world accounts for absolute_negationc

ok; but we have just discovereddial/lived a swarm of ultra-mundane beingsI which possess as much realityI and efficacy as other beingsI, but which inclose within themselves non-being. They require an explanation which remains within the limits of the real. Nothingness if it is supported by beingI, vanishes qua nothingnessI, and we fall back upon being[-there]. NothingnessIc can be nihilatedc only on the foundation of beingI [as the negation1 goal]; if nothingnessI can be given2neg, it is neither before nor after being[-there]I, nor in a general way outside of beingI, it [nothingness]I is in the very womb of the beingI, in its heart, like a worm."

(BNp. 23, Fr. 58) "...by a double movementdial/livedc of nihilationc, [1] he nihilatesI the thinglived/1neg questioned in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to himselflived/2neg by placing it in a neutral state, between being[-there]lived/1neg and non-beinglived/2neg—and [2] he nihilatesI himselflived/1neg in connectionI to the thing questionedlived/2neg by wrenching himself from being[-there] in order to be able to bring out of himselflived/2neh the possibility of a [his] non-being1neg..."

(BNp. 24, Fr. 58) "e...There is no doubt at all that these [négatités] are transcendentlived/1neg realities; distanceI

ok, for example, is imposed on us as something which we have to take into account, which must be cleared with effort. However these realitiesI are of a very peculiar nature; they all indicate immediately an essential connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of human_realitylived/1neg to the worldlived/2neg. They derive their origin from an act, an expectation, or a project of the human beingI; they all indicate an aspect of beingI as it appears [apparaît] to the humanI beingI who is engaged in the worldI. The connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of manlived/1neg in the worldlived/2neg, which the négatités indicate, have nothingI [n’ont rein] in

20

Sartre: Negation

common with the connectionsIFr=? à posteriori which are brought out by empirical activityI. We are no longer

dealing with those connectionsI of instrumentalityI by which, according to Heidegger, objectsI in the worldI disclose themselves to ‘human_realityI.’ Every négatité appearsI [apparaît] rather as one of the essential conditions of these essential conditions of instrumentality. In order for the totalitydial/lived of being[-there] to order itself around us as instrumentsI, in order for it to parcel itself into differentiated complexes which refer one to another and which can be used, it is necessaryBNlived that negation rise up not as a thingc among other thingsI but as the rubric of a category which presides over the arrangement and the redistribution of great masses of beingI in thingsI. Thus the rise of manI in the midst-of-the-beinglived which ‘invests’ him causeslived

ok a world to be discovereddial/lived. But the essential and primordial momentdial of this rise is the negationI. Thus we have reached the first goal of this study. ManI is the beingI through whom nothingness2neg comes to the worldlived/1neg. But this question right away [aussitôt] provokes another: What must manI be in his beingI in order that through him nothingnessI may come to being[-there]?"

------------------------------------------------** Ftn. 13. Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NÉGATITÉS ; 4 hits; "A word coined by Sartre with no equivalent in English." Tr., Hazel Barnes; cf. BN: (p. 44c) "...But this very fact that the transcendenceslived/1neg of empirical freedomI are constitutedBN in immanence as transcendencesI shows us that we are dealing with secondary nihilationsc which suppose the existence of an original nothingness2neg. They are only a stage in the analytical regression which leads us from the examples of transcendenceI called ‘négatités’ to the being[-there] which is its own nothingnessI. Evidently it is necessaryBNlived to find the foundation of all negation in a nihilation..."

(p. 47, Fr. 81) "The human being[-there] is not only the being by whom négatités are disclosed in the world; he is also the one who can take negativeok attitudes with respect to himself..."

Pages 26-7 out of sequence at Sartre\Imagination-Consciousness, not the object, differentiates perception from imagination

Pages 28-45 out of sequence at Sartre\Anguish-BN Part One, Chapter One: The Origin of Nothingness, section V (28-45)

11-15Nega To ‘what’ being[-there] is the for-itselfontology presence?’ (BN180-4, 189-90 out of sequence)Sartre, BN (p. 180, Fr. 216, out of sequence from Ontology-Terms: spatialityI,extensionI,the real is

realization . (179-80)) "To what being[-there] is the for-itselfontology presence? Let us note immediately that the question is badly posedI

e... The for-itselfI can not be presentI to this** beingI rather than to that since it is the presenceI of the for-itselfI which causeslived

ok the existence of a ‘this’ rather than a ‘that’..."sartre¶"e...It is the for-itselfI in its presenceI to beingI which causesI there to be an all of beingI. We must

understandpositedok indeed that this particular beingI can be called this only on the groundR of the presenceI of all

beingI. This does not mean that one beingI needdial/lived all beingI in order to existI but that the for-itselfI realizes itself as a realizingI presenceI to this beingI on the original groundI of a realizingI presenceI to alle... In other words, the presenceI of the for-itselfI to the worldlivedR can be realizedI only by its presenceI to one or several particularFr=? things, and converselyFr=? its presenceI to a particularI thingI can be realizedI only on the groundI of a presenceI to the worldI. Perceptionlivedc is articulated only on the ontologicalc foundation of presenceI to the world, and the worldI is revealed concretely as the groundI of each singular perceptionI. It remains to explain how the upsurge of the for-itselfI in beingI can bring it about that there is an all and thesis [i.e., this_or_that].

(BNp. 181, Fr. 217) "The presenceI of the for-itselfI to being[-there] as totalitydial/lived comes from the fact that the for-itselfI has to be—in the modeok of beingI what it is not and of not beingI what it is [is and is notontology]R—its own totalityI as a detotalized_totalitydial/lived. In so far as the for-itselfI makes itself be in the unity of a single upsurge as all which is not beingI, beingI stands before it as all which the for-itselfI is not. The original negation is a radicalontology negationI

e..."(BNp. 182, Fr. 218) "This original relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg between the all2neg and the

‘thislived1negc’ is at the source of the relationI between figure1neg and ground2negRok which the Gestalt theory has

brought to light. The ‘thislived/1neg’ always appears [paraît] on a ground2negIok; that is, on the undifferentiated

totalitylived/2neg of beingI inasmuch as the for-itselfontology/1neg is the radicalontology and syncretic negation of it.***

21

Sartre: Negation

Yet it can always dissolve again into this undifferentiatedI totalityI when another ‘this’ arises. But the apparitionok of the ‘this’ or of the figureI1neg on the groundI2neg, since it is the correlate of the appearanceI of my own concrete negationI on the syncretic groundI of a radicalontology negationI, implies that I both am and am not [is and is notontology]R that total negationI or, if you prefer, that I am it in the modeok of ‘non-being’ and that I am not it in the modeI

ok of beingI. It is, in effect, only in this way that the present negationI will appearI [paraîtra] on the groundI of the radicalontology negation which it is. Otherwise indeed the present negationI would be entirely cut off or else it would be dissolved in the radicalI negationI. The appearanceI of the this on the all is correlative with a certain way which the for-itselfontology has of beingI the negationI of itself. There is a this because I am not yet my future [futures] negationsI and because I am no longer my pastlived negationsI

e..."(BNp. 183) "e...NegationI can come to the this only through a beingI which has to be at once presence to

the wholedial of beingI and to the this—that is, through an ekstatic beingI. Since it leaves the this intact as being in itself [no hyphens], since it does not effect a real synthesisdial/lived of all the thises in totalityI, the negationI constitutiveBN of the thislivedc is a negationI of the externalok type; the relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of the ‘thislived/1neg’ to the wholelived/2neg is a relationI

ok of exterioritye... When we are progressively approaching a landscape which was given2neg in great masses, we see objectslived/1neg appearI which are givenI as having been there already, as elements in a discontinuous collection of ‘thises’; in the same way, in the experiments of the Gestalt school, the continuous backgroundI2neg suddenly when apprehended as figureI1neg bursts into a multiplicity of discontinuous elements. Thus the world, as a correlate of a detotalized_totalitydial/lived, appearsI as an evanescent totalityI in the sense that it is never a realI synthesisdial/lived but an ideal limitation [negation]—by nothing—of a collection of thises."

(BNp. 184, Fr. 220) "e...Space does not allow itself to be apprehended by concrete intuition for it is not, but it is continuously spatialized. It depends on temporalityBNlived and appears [apparaît] in temporalityI since it can come into the world only through a beingI whose modeok of beingI is temporalizationI; for spaceI is the way in which this beingI loses itself ekstatically in order to realize being[-there]. The spatialI characteristic of the this is not added syntheticallydial/lived to the this but is only the ‘place’ of the thislived/1neg; that is, its connection [of three degrees]ok

1neg&2neg of exterioritylived/1neg to the groundlived/2neg inasmuch as this connection [rapport] [of three degrees] can collapse into a multiplicity of externalok connectionsok

I with other thises when the groundI2neg itself disintegrates into a multiplicity of figuresI1neg. In this sense it would be useless to conceive of spaceI as a form [forme] imposed on phenomenalived by the [Kant’s] a priori structuredial of our sensibility. SpaceI cannot be a formI [forme], for it [space] is nothing; it is, on the contrary,Fr=? the indication that nothingI except the negationI

—and this still as a type of externalok connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg which leaves intact what it unites—can come to the in-itselfontology through the for-itselfontology

e..."(BNp. 189-90, Fr. 226) "The original connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the thesis to one

another can be neither interaction nor causalityFr=? nor even the upsurge on the same groundR of the world. If we suppose that the for-itselfI [pour-soi] is present to one thislived/1neg, the other thises exist at the same time in-the-worldI but by virtue of beingI undifferentiatedI2neg; they constitutedBN the groundI2neg on which the thislived/1neg confronted is raised in relief. In order to establish any connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg whatsoever between one this and another this, it is necessaryBNlived that the second thislived/1neg be revealed rising up on the groundI of the worldlived/2neg on the occasion of an express negation which the for-itselfI has to be. But at the same time each this must be held at a distanceontology from the other as not being the other by a negation of a purely external [negation]ok type. (p. 190) Thus the original relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of this is an external_negationok****. ‘Thatlived/2neg’ appearsI as not beingI thislived/1neg. And the external negationok is revealed to the for-itselfontology as a transcendentlived/1neg; it is outsideok, it is in-itselfontology. How are we to comprehendok it?

(BNp. 190, Fr. 226) "The apparitionok of the this-that can be produced first only as totalityIlived. The primary connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg here is the unity of a totalityI capable of disintegratione..."

(BNp. 255c) "...The distanceontology which unfolds between the lawn and the man across the primary upsurge of this primary relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg is a negationI2neg of the distanceI which I establish1neg

—as a pure type of external negationok—between these two objects. The distanceI appearsI [apparaît] as a pure disintegration of the relationsok

I which I apprehend between the objects of my universe..."-------------------------------------------------

** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-THIS_OR_THAT [ceci ou cela]; external_negation; implies presence_to; entails figure/groundlived and a totalitydial/lived capable of disintegration.

22

Sartre: Negation

BN: (p. 182c, above) "...The ‘thislived/1neg’ always appears on a groundI2neg...";(p. 183c,above) "...the this is a negation of the externalok type; the relationok [of three

degrees]1st&2neg of the ‘thislived/1neg’ to the wholelived/2neg is a relationIok of exteriority...";

(BNp. 190c, Fr. 226, copied from above) "The apparitionok of the this-that can be produced first only as totalitydial/lived. The primary connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg here is the unity of a totality I capable of disintegratione..."*** Copied and see Sartre\Language&Comprehension-Language ‘is me and I am languageI’: ‘How can we choose the spokenI word unless it is the wordI itself?’ (Fl1:12, CDR99)**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-EXTERNAL NEGATION

BN: (p. 255c) "... The distanceontology which unfolds between the lawn and the man across the syntheticdial/lived upsurge of this primary relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg is a negation2neg of the distanceposited which I establish1neg—as a pure type of external negationok—between these two objectsI. The distanceontology appears as a pure disintegration of the relationsI

ok which I apprehend between the objectsI of my universe. It is not I who realize this disintegration; it appearsI to me as a relationI

ok which I aim at1neg emptily across the distancesposited which I originally established2neg between things. It stands as a background of things, a backgroundI which on principle escapes me and which is conferred on them from without..."

Critique of Dialectical Reason, Volume One, Tr. Alan Sheridan-Smith. Published by New Left Books. [Original translation modified

by Sartrean terms and their clarification]Volume I Book I. From Individual Praxis to the Practico-inert [totality]lived

I. Individual Praxis as Totalization [in course] (79-94)

11-15Nega I. Needdial/lived (CDR79-83)

11-15Nega If ‘there are [only] individuals, who, or what, totalizes?’ (CDR79)Sartre, CDR (p. 79, Fr. 193, my paragraph breaks) "If the dialectic is possibleI , we must be able to find

answers to the following four questions:**sartre¶[1] How can praxis in itself be an expérience at once of necessityCDRdial/lived and of freedomCDR since

neither of these, according to classical logicposited, can be grasped [transformspositedtoposited] in an empirical process?

sartre¶[2] If dialectical rationality really is a logic of totalization [in course]dial/lived, how can Historyconcept—that swarm of individual destinies—perchance might be itself given2neg as a totalizing movementdial/lived...

sartre¶[3] If the dialectic is comprehensionok of the present through the pastlived and through the future [avenir], how can there be a historical future [avenir]?

sartre¶[4] If the dialectic is to be materialistlivedc, how are we to comprehendFr=? the materiality of praxis and its connection [rapport] [of three degrees] to other forms of materiality?

(CDRp. 79, S&A 428-9) "It should be recalled that the crucial discoverydial/lived of the dialectical expérience is that man is ‘mediated’ by things to the same extent as things are ‘mediatedI’ by man. This truthlived must be born in mind in its entirety if we are to develop all of its consequences. This is what is called dialectical_circularitylivedc and, as we shall see, it ought to be established by dialectical expérienceI. But if we were not already dialectical beings[-there] we would not even be able to comprehendok itS&A. I present it at the outset not as a truthI, nor even a conjecture, but as the type of thinking which ought to be adopted prospectively, in order to shed light upon an experienceFr=? which is developing on its own."

(CDR ASp. 79-80) "On the most superficial and familiar level, the experienceIFr=? first reveals, in the unity

of dialectical joiningsok, unification as the movementdial/lived of individual praxis, of plurality, the organization of plurality, and the plurality of organizations. (CDRp. 80) One need only open one’s eyes to see this. Our problem concerns these joiningsI [liaisons]. If there are [only] individuals I , who , or what , totalizes I?

(CDRp. 80) "The immediate response is that there would not even be the beginnings of partial totalization [in course]I if the individualI were not totalizingdial/lived through himself. The entire historical dialectic rests on

23

Sartre: Negation

individual praxis in so far as it is already dialectical, that is to say, to the extent that action is itself the negating transcendencelived/1neg of contradiction2neg, the determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] of a present totalization1neg in the name of a future [futur] totalitylived/2neg, and the real effective working of matter. This much is clear, and is an old lesson of both subjective and objective expérience. Our problem is this: what will be the dialectic if there is nothing but men and if these men are all dialecticalS&A? As I have said, the expérienceI would furnishS&A its own intelligibility. We must therefore see what is the real rationality of actionI, at the level of individual praxis (ignoring for the instantok the collective constraints which giveI [suscitent] rise to it, limit it or make it ineffective)."

-------------------------------------------------** Ronald Aronson, "Sartre and the Dialectic: The Purposes of Critique, II," (p. 98) "...Solutions to questions (2) and (3), it will be obvious, cannot even be attempted before the second volume. Numbers (1) and (4) can be posed, but the first can certainly not be completed without exploring and establishing the meaning of History as a joint production of necessity and freedom. Only [4] might have been answered—but was not—in the first volume. The point is that through the pause we have understood certain elements of the dialectic, have seen the way they may combine, but have not yet observed them combine to form the irreversible and large-scale entities which emerge in and seem to direct our history. And so we must accordingly turn to the second volume." Ref Sartre\Intelligibility of History-Critique of Dialectical Reason Volume II-Index

11-15Nega It ‘is through needdial/lived that the first negation of the negation and the first totalization [in course]dial/lived appears in matter’ (CDR80)

Sartre, Search for a Method (p. 171, Ftn. 3, Fr. 126, out of sequence from Sartre\Existentialism-Indirect ‘knowledge—the result of reflection on existence—is presupposed by all the concepts of anthropology’) "Denying the fundamental priority of need**1 is beyond questionI ; we name it last, on the contrary, to mark the summary of all existential structuresdial. In its full development, needdial/lived is a transcendencelived/1neg and a negativitydial***1 (negation_of_negationdial****1 to the extent that it produces itself as lackdial/lived/2neg seeking to denydial/lived/1negc itself) ***** hence surpassing1neg-toward (pro-ject rudimentary)."

Sartre, CDR (p. 80, Fr. 194) "Everything is discoverabledial/lived through needdial/lived (le besoins/[in distress]); needdial/lived is the first totalizingdial/lived connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the material being[-there], man1neg, and the material grouplived/2neg to which he belong. This connectionI [rapport] is unilateral, and of interiority. Indeed, it is through needdial/lived that the first negation of negation and the first totalization [in course] dial/lived appears in matter . Needdial/lived is a negation_of_the_negationI in so far as it exposesS&A itself as a lackdial/lived within the organism; and needdial/lived is a positivity in so far as the organiclived totalitydial/lived tends to preserve itself as such through it. The original negation [above, negation_of_the_negation], in fact, is an initial contradictionR between the organicI and the inorganicI, in the double sense that [1] lackdial/lived is defined in relationI [pour] to a totalityI, but that a lacuna [discharge and excretion, cavity, missing part], a negativity [seeking to deny lack], has as such a mechanical kind of existence, and [2] that in the last analysis, what is lackingdial/lived can be reduced to inorganicI or less organized elements or, quite simply, to dead flesh, etc. From this point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg [1 and 2 above], the negation_of_this_negation is achieved through the transcendencelived/1neg of the organicI towards the inorganicI: needdial/lived is a link of unilateral immanencelivedc with surrounding materiality in so far as the organismI tries to sustain itself with it; it is already totalizingI, and doubly so, for it is nothing other than the living totalityI, manifesting itself as a totalityI and disclosingS&A the material environment, to infinity, as the total field of possibilities of satisfaction."

-------------------------------------------------See Herein-In ‘existenceI and tension determined/limited by the wholedial, every particularitydial producesI itself in the unityI of a fundamental contradictionI’

-------------------------------------------------**1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEED dial/lived; [besoin]; dialectic; ‘sums up existential structuresdial’;

Search for a Method: (p. 171c, Fr. 126) "...Needdial/lived, negativity [seeking to deny lack], surpassing1neg, project, transcendencelived/1neg, form in effect [en effet] a synthetic_totalitylivedc..."

CDR: (p. 90c) "...needdial/lived, far from being[-there] a vis a tergo pushing the labourer, is in fact the lived revelation of a goal to aim at...";

24

Sartre: Negation

Herein-R(sub-topic below) First contradictionI: Interiority and exteriority imposed on the same humanI organism (CDR80)

Herein-RNegative ‘forces can existI only within a movementdial/lived determined by the future’;-RTransition from cyclical society to elementary praxis as possibility, for cyclical societies without

needdial/lived

Sartre\Political Scarcity-RTension of capitalist’ interest as practical_fielddial/lived results in exigency presented as categorical_imperative coming from needdial/lived itself;

-------------------------------------------------***1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATIVITY [seeking to deny lack]; see negative and internal negative below.

Search for a Method: (p. 33, Ftn. 9c, Fr. 39) "...‘Class-consciousness’ ... is that contradiction already surpassed1neg by praxis and thereby preserved and denied all at once. But it is precisely this revealing negativity [seeking to deny lack], this distanceontology within immediate proximity, which constitutesdial at the same stroke what existentialism calls ‘consciousness of the object’ and non-theticlived consciousness of self.";

(p. 171c, Fr. 126) "...Needdial/lived, negativity [seeking to deny lack], surpassing1neg, projectI, transcendencelived/1neg, form in effect [en effet] a synthetic_totalitylivedc..."

negativeCDR: (p. 85c) "... In short, the intelligibility of the negative as a structuredial of Beingconcept

okc can

be made manifest only in connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg with a developing process of totalization [in course]dial/lived;

(p. 221c) "...Everything changes its sign when we enter the domain of the negative; from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of this new logic, the unity of men through matterlived/2neg can only be their separationlived/1neg. In other words, separationI ceases to be a pure relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of exterioritylived/2neg and becomes a bond of lived interioritylived/1neg...";

Herein-RNegative ‘forces can existI only within a movementdial/lived determined by the future’;

CDRII: (p. 55c) "...In the example chosen, transcendenceI will consist in the fact that the the sub-group, negating the indetermination and profiting from it, will seek to appropriate a certain seriesI of matters, even though it is not sure they are within its competency..."

Internal negative: 2 hits.BN: (p. 284c) "...But with regard to the other, on the contraryok, the internal negativeok relationok

[of three degrees]1st&2neg is a relationok of reciprocityI . The beingI which consciousness has to not-be is defined as a beingI which has to not be this consciousness..."-

"The Idiot of the Family": (p. 113c) "...You therefore have two temporalCDRlived elements: the beginning and development of passivity, with the method that tries to deal with it, and at the same time, interioritylivedc, that is to say, ideas which overlap with one another, which have internal negative—or dialectical—relationships..."

-------------------------------------------------****1 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATION_OF_NEGATION dial; See negationfirst and negationsecond below in cites; cf. negation of negation surpassed, negation of negation not surpassed.

Negation of negation is simultaneous.Herein-2. The Negation of the Negation (CDR83-91)BN (p. 463c, Fr. 507) "...Through the internal_negationlivedc by denyingc that we are the world

[negationsecond], we make the worldI appear as worldI, and this internal_negationI can exist only if it is at the same time a project toward a possible [negationfirst]..."

Search for a Method (p. 171, Ftn. 3, Fr. 126), "...In its full development, needdial/lived is a transcendencelived/1neg [the first negation, e.g., a building] and a negativity [the second negation, e.g., a vacant lot] (negation_of_negation to the extent that it produces itself as lackdial/lived seeking to deny1negc itself) hence surpassing1neg-toward (pro-ject rudimentary)."

CDR (p. 60, Fr. 175) "...The transparence of praxis (let us say, for the instant of individual praxisI) has its origin in the indissoluble joiningok between negationfirst (which totalizesdial/lived/1neg in situation what it denies2neg) and a projectlivedc which defines itself through connectionok [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg with an

25

Sartre: Negation

abstract and still formalc whole which the practical_agency projectsIc into the futuredial/lived/1neg [avenir] and which appears [apparaît] as the reorganized unity of the denied situationlived/2neg..."

-------------------------------------------------***** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATIVE TRANSCENDENCE ; negation of negation not surpassed

BN: (p. 44c) "...transcendence_in_immanencelivedc which conditions all negative transcendences..."Search for a Method (p. 171, Ftn. 3, above) "...needdial/lived is a transcendencelived/1neg and a negativity

(negation1_of_negation2 inasmuch as it is produced as a lackdial/lived seeking to be deniedc)..."

11-15Nega First contradiction: Interiority and exteriority imposed on the same human organism (CDR80)Sartre, CDR (p. 80-1, S&A 429-30, Fr. 194-5) "On the level which concerns us here, there is nothing

mysterious in this Rtranscendencelived/1neg through needdial/livedR since the basic behaviour associated with needI for food repeats the elementary processes of nutrition: chewing, salivation, stomach contractions, etc. TranscendenceI is evincedS&A here as a simple unity of a total function. (CDRp. 81) Without a unity of basic behaviour within the wholedial, there would be no such thing as hunger; there would only be a scattering of disconnected, frantic actions. NeedI is a functionI which presents itself for what it is,S&A and totalizesdial/lived itself as functionI because it is reduced to becoming a gesture, functioningI for itself and not within the integration of organiclived life. And this isolation threatens the [human] organismIR as a wholeI with disintegration—the danger of death. This initial totalization [in course]dial/livedendentI to the extent that the organismI finds its being[-there] outsidec itself—immediately or mediately—in inanimate beingI; needI sets up the initial contradiction/2negR because the organismI depends, for its very beingIS&A directly (oxygen) or indirectly (food), on unorganized beingI and because, conversely, the control of its reactions imposes a biological status on the inorganiclived. In fact this is really a questionok of two statuses beingI imposed on the same materiality, since everything points to the factI that living bodies and inanimate objects are composed of the same molecules1. Yet the status is mutually contradictoryIS&A, since the first [living bodies] supposes an interior bond between the wholeI as a unity, and the molecular connectionsFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg, whereas the second [inanimate objects] is a status of pure exterioritylivedHB.** Nevertheless, negativity [seeking to deny lack] and contradictionI attain the inert through organicI totalization [in course]dial/lived. As soon as needI appears, surrounding matter receivesS&A a passive unity owing to the single fact that a totalizationI reflects itself there as a totalitylived apppearing complete: matterIlived/2neg disclosed as passive_totalitydial/lived*** by an organicI beingI seeking its beingIlived/1neg in it—this is Natureconcept in its initial form. Already, it is from the starting point of the total field that needI seeks possibilities of satisfaction, and it is thus totalizationI which will discoverdial/lived, in the passive_totalitydial/lived, its own material being[-there] as abundance or scarcity."

-------------------------------------------------See Sartre\Intelligibility of History-Unforseen determinations create contradictions in groups, repeats the above arguments on the social level.See Sartre\Dialectic-Marx’s/Sartre’s materialistic ‘monismI as a dualismI; it is, in fact, at once monist and dualist’, with CDR (p. 180c) "...It is the only monismc which makes man neither a molecular dispersal nor a beingI apart, the only one which starts by defining him by his praxis in the general milieu of animal life, and which can transcendlived/1neg the following two true but contradictory propositions: all existence in the universe is material; everything in the world of man is human."

-------------------------------------------------** Barnes, "Sartre as Materialist," (p. 673) cites these same two sentences from Sartre’s 1946 ‘Matérialisme et revolution’ in Situations, III, p. 166, indicating its early formulation and lasting relevance.*** Sartre\Index of Terms-PASSIVE_TOTALITY dial/lived; 3 hits; cf. Sartre\Flaubert’s Personalization-passivity.

CDR: (p. 45c) "...the passive_totalitydial/lived is, in fact, gnawed away by infinite divisibility. Thus, as the active power of holding together its parts, the totalitydial/lived is only the correlative of an act of imagination: the symphony or the painting, as I have shown elsewhere, are imagineries aimed through the ensemblelivedc of dried paints or the linking of sounds which serve as their analogonc..."

(p. 129c) But in a givenI situation, whether it be the raft of the Medusa, an Italian city under siege, or a modern society (...), scarcity makes the passive_totality of individuals within a collectivityI into an impossibility of co-existenceI. The group or the nation is defined by its surplus population; it has to reduce its number in order to survive."

26

Sartre: Negation

11-15Nega Through ‘inertia a body can act on another in the milieu of exteriority’ (CDR81)Sartre, CDR (p. 81-2, S&A 430, Fr. 195-6) "But at the same time while Natureconcept appears [apparaît]

through the mediation of needdial/lived, as a false organism, the organismI exteriorizes itself as pure materiality. In effect, within the organismI, a biological status is superimposed, in the organismI, on a physico-chemical one. And even if it is truelived that, in the interiority of nutritive assimilation, molecules are controlled and filtered into an intimate joiningFr=? with the permanent totalization [in course]dial/lived it [molecular joining] is from the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of exteriority, the living body satisfies all the exteriorI laws. In this sense, one could say that matterposited, outside of it [the living body], reduces the livingI bodyI to an inorganiclived status precisely to the extent that the bodyI transformslivedc matterI into a totalitydial/lived. Through just this, the livingI bodyI is in danger in the universe, and the universe too harbours the possibilityI of the non-being of the organismI. (CDRp. 82) Inversely, the organic_totalitylived** in order to find its being[-there] within Natureconcept or to protect itself against destruction, must transform itself into inert_matter [inertia]lived***2, for it is only as a mechanical system that it [organicI totalityI] can modify the materialI environment. The man in needI is an organic_totalitylived perpetually making himself into his own toolok in the milieu of exteriorityIlived. The organic_totalitylived acts on inert bodiesI through the intermediary of the inert bodyI which it is and which it makes itself be. It is inert in as much as it is already subjected to all the physical forces which expose it to itself as pure passivity; it makes itself inert in its beingI in so far as it is only externally and through inertia itself that a bodyIlived it can actI on another bodyI in the milieu of exteriorityIlived."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ORGANIC_TOTALITY lived; 5 hits all below.

At bookmark above, "...The man in needdial/lived is an organic_totalitylived perpetually making himself into his own toolok in the milieu of exteriority..."

BN: (p. 385-6c, Fr. 426) sartre¶"But what is the objectI of desireI. Shall we say that desireI is the desireI of a body? In one sense this can not be denied. But we must take care to understandFr=? this correctly. To be sure it is the bodyI which disturbs us: an arm or a half-exposed breast or perhaps a leg. But we must realize at the start that we desireI the arm or the uncovered breast [figure] only on the ground of the presence of the whole bodyI as an organic_totalitylived. The bodyI itself as a totalityI may be hidden. (BNp. 386) I may see only a bare arm. But the bodyI is there. It is from the standpoint of the bodyI that I apprehend the arm as an arme... And my desireI is not mistaken; it is addressed not to a sum of physiological elements but to a total form—better yet, to a form in situatione... [A] purely material objectI is not in situationI. Thus this organic_totalitylived which is immediately present_to desireI is desirable only in so far as it reveals not only life but also an appropriate consciousnesse... Consciousness therefore remains always at the horizon of the desiredI bodyI; it makes the meaningBNlived and the unity of the bodyI

e..."CDR: (p. 82c, bookmark above) "..."Inversely, the organic_totalitylived in order to findok its being[-

there]Fr=? within Natureconcept or to protect itself against destruction, must transform itself into inert matter, for it is only as a mechanical system that it [organic_totality]c can modify the materialI environment... The organic_totalitylived acts on inert bodiesI through the intermediary of the inert bodyI which it is and which it makes itself be..."

(p. 256c) "...solitude of the organism, as the impossibility of uniting with Othersconceptok in an

organic_totalitylived, reveals itself through the solitude which everyone lives as the provisional negation of their reciprocal connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg with OthersI

ok..."-------------------------------------------------

***2 Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-INERTIA [inerte];; cf. practico-inert_matter; See below nertia and dialectic, Inertia as a group quantity , inert matter;* CDR: (p. 229P ) "...inertia (the stability of equal and constant forces in equilibrium)..."

BN: (p. lvic) "e...What is truly unthinkable is passive existence; that is, existenceI which perpetuates itself without having the force either to produce itself or to preserve itself. From this point_of_viewdouble connection of

1st&2neg there is nothing more unintelligible than the principle of inertiace..."Search for a Method (p. 173c) "...In giving words to these moments, one does not transform them into

Knowledge [Savoir]concept—since this concerns the inert, and what we ... call the ‘practico-inerte [totality]lived’..."

27

Sartre: Negation

CDR: (p. 15c) "...the determinism of the positivists is necessarilyCDRdial/lived a form of materialism, whatever its subject matter, it endows it with the characteristics of mechanical materiality, namely inertia and exteriorposited causationposited...";

(p. 58c) "...In this respect, as we shall see in detail later, thought, when it makes itself into directed inertia in order to act on inertia, conforms to the rule of the practical_organismc at every level...";

(p. 59c) "...Thus analytical_Reasonconcept, as a pure, universal schemaI of naturalI laws, is really only the result of a syntheticdial/lived transformation or, so to speak, a certain practical momentdial of dialectical_Reasonconcept: this latter, like animal-toolsc, uses its organicc powers to make certain sectors of itself into a quasi inorganiclived residue deciphering the inert through its own inertiae...";

(p. 90c) "...the crucial momentdial of labour is that in which the organism makes itself inert (the man applies his weight to the lever, etc) in order to transformlivedc the surrounding inertia.";

(101c) "...Every thing supports with all its inertia the particularFr=? unity which a long forgotten action imposed upon it...";

(p. 135c) "...the farmer makes himself into an inert object in order to act on the soil...";(p. 221c) "...since matter unites men in so far as it binds them together and forces them to enter a

material system, it unifies them in so far as they are inertia...";Sartre\Dialectic-R3. ‘Totality and Totalization’, with (p. 45c) "The ontological status to which it

[image of painting] lays claim by its very definition is that of the in-itselfontology, the inert...";Herein-R Cyclical_societiesI transition to elementary praxisI through possibility (CDR82);

-------------------------------------------------Inertia and dialectic:

CDR: (p. 66c, Ftn. 28) "...What we call the dialectic of passivityc, or anti-dialecticc, is the momentdial of intelligibility corresponding to a praxis turned against itself in so far as it is reinstated as the permanent seal of the inert. At this level we shall have to turn our attention to the way inertia itself becomes dialectical through having this sealI placed upon it: not in so far as it is pure inertia, but in so far as we must station ourselves at the point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg of inert exterioritylived/2neg in order to discoverdial/lived passivised praxis1neg...";

-------------------------------------------------Inertia as a group quantity :

CDR: (p. 72c) "...quantity produces in each member of a group a thick layer of inertia (exteriority within interiority), though it is lived dialectically in interiorityI..." and, "... inertia of exteriorityI, that is to say, its character as a discrete quantity...";

(p. 265c) ...he actualizes his being-outside-himself as a reality shared by several people and which already exists, and awaits him, by means of an inert practice, endowed by instrumentality..."

Heidegger, What is a Thing, cited in Basic Writings (p. 256) "...‘Every body continues in its state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by force impressed up it.’ This is called the principle of inertia."; Annex\Heidegger\Lifework-Law of inertia is no more experiential than mathematics;

Bergson, Creative Evolution (p. 98) "The resistance of inert matter was the obstacle that had first to be overcome...";

-------------------------------------------------Inert matter: 2 hits; cf. matter

CDR: (p. 82c) "...But once the organized body takes its own inertia as mediation between inert matter and its own needdial/lived, instrumentality, end, and labour are given2neg together...";

The Family Idiot: (5:294c, Fr. 3:317) it all comes down to the fact that man, exterior to himself, is simply an inert material system, and his oneiric essence, by the syntheticdial/lived unity and relationok [of three degrees]lived&lived of interiority it confers upon him, defines him as a dreamI through activity..."

11-15Nega Organic ‘functioning, needdial/lived, and praxis are strictly linked in a dialectical sequence’ (CDR82)

Sartre, CDR (p. 82, S&A 430-1, Fr. 196) "The action of a living body on the inert can be exercised either directly or through the mediation of another inertI bodyI, in which case we call the intermediary a

28

Sartre: Negation

toolok**. But once the organized bodyI takes its own inertiaI as mediationI between inert_matterI and its own needdial/lived, instrumentalitylivedc, the end and labour are given2neg togetherok: the totalitylived appearing complete to be preserved is, in effect, projected as a totalization [in course]dial the movementdial/lived by which the livingI bodyI uses its inertiaI to overcome the inertiaI of things. At this level, the transcendencelived/1neg of exteriority towards interiorization is characterized at once as existence and as praxis. Organic *** functioning, need I , and praxis I are strictly linked in a dialectical livedc sequence S&A; dialectical timec came into being[-there], in fact, with the organism; for the livingI beingI can survive only by renewing itself. This temporalCDRlived connectionFr=? [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg between the future [futur]lived/2neg and the pastlived/2neg, through the presentlived/1neg, is none other than the functional connectionI of the totalityI to itself; the totalityI is its own future [avenir] beyond a present of reintegrated disintegration. In short, a livingI unity is characterized by the decompression**** [the presentI sees across pastI and futureI] of the temporalityI of the momentdialS&A; but the new temporalityCDRlived is an elementary synthesisdial/lived of change and identity, since the future [avenir] governs the presentI in so far as this future [avenir] narrowlyS&A identifies itself with the pastI. [continued-2, back-2, same paragraph below]

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-TOOL [outil]; as distinguished from instrument;*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-ORGANISM, ORGANIC [organisme]; cf. Groups&Reciprocity-inorganiclived; -practical_organism; See below groups referred to as organisms , Organic animal-tools.

organism, organicHerein-OutsideI ‘matterI reduces the organismI to the inorganicI to the exact degree that the organismI

transformsI matterI into a totalitydial/lived’CDR: (p. 81c) "...As soon as needdial/lived appears, surrounding matter receivesS&A a passive unity owing to

the single fact that a totalization [in course]dial/lived reflects itself there as a totalitylived appraring complete: matter revealed as passive_totalitylived by an organic being[-there] seeking its beingI in it—this is Natureconcept in its initial form..."; [sometimes to an organic material wholedial] "...the organism finds its being outsidec itself—immediately or mediately—in inanimate beingI; needI sets up the initial contradiction because [1] the organism depends, for its very being[-there]—directly (oxygen) or indirectly (food), on unorganized beingI and because, conversely, [2] the control of its reactions imposes a biological status on the inorganiclived..";

Herein-RFirst contradiction: Interiority and exteriority imposed on the same organism, with CDR (p. 221c) "We have already seen how, through its quality as inorganiclived inertiaI, the organism can come into contact with the non-organized world; what we find here is passive materiality, as an elementary structuredial of the human organism, in thrall to an inorganic_matterlived which has taken away its power of transcendencelived/1neg

towards organized action...";-------------------------------------------------

groups referred to as organisms: CDR: (p. 259c) "...At this momentdial of the expérience, the unit-being[-there] (être-unique) of the group

lies outside itself, in a object to come, and everyone, in so far as he is determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by the common interest, differentiates himself from everyone else only by the simple materiality of the organism...";

CDRII: (p. 56c) "...Contradiction will ...appearFr=? ... at the precise momentdial when the same matter is claimed by each sub-group against the othersok: i.e. inasmuch as the indetermination transcendedlived/1neg by bothok organisms becomes the very mediation which unites them in antagonism...";

Sartre\Intelligibility of History-RUnforseen indeterminations create contradictions in groupsI;-------------------------------------------------

Organic animal- tools : Sartre left open the possibility of animal pre-reflection and reflexion in Sartre\Flaubert’s Constitution animals;

CDR: (p. 59c) "...Thus analytical_Reasonconcept, as a pure, universal schemaposited of naturalposited laws, is reallyI only the result of a syntheticdial/lived transformation or, so to speak, a certain practical momentdial of dialectical_Reasonconcept: this latter, like animal I -tools , uses its organic powers to make certain sectorsok of itself into a quasi-inorganiclived residue deciphering the inertI through its own inertiaI...";

(p. 83c) "...I have said that organisms cannot act on the environment without temporarily returning to the level of the inertiaI; but animal-toolsI make themselves permanently inertI in order to protect

29

Sartre: Negation

their lives or, to put it another way, instead of using their own inertiaI they protectS&A it behind a fabricated inertiaI. It is at this ambiguous level that the dialectical transition from function to actionI can be seen..."

-------------------------------------------------**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-DECOMPRESSION ; ‘diluted in his surroundings,’ cf. compression below;

CDR: (p. 85c) "...nature is an immense dispersive decompression..."The Family Idiot: (1:494c) "...As an adolescent, when he writes of the long dazes he used to lose himself

in, he describes them sometimes as freeI falls, sometimes as a decompression of his being[-there] which was diluted in his surroundings.."

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-COMPRESSION ; with decompression above;

CDRII: (p. 49c) "[2a]... a procedure of totalizinglived compression which, by contrast [to Marxist’s ‘inner’ determinationsI beingI united by bonds of exteriority], grasps [transformsto] the centripetal movementdial/lived of all the significations attracted and condensed in the event or in the objecte... The mere sight of individuals queuing in front of the ticket office and exchanging banknotes for entrance tickets could not be comprehended [compris] without reference beingI made to the prevailing monetary system and ultimately to the whole present-day economye... These determinationsdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] themselves, interiorized, suddenly help to singularize it; and graspingI [transformslived determinationstonew dial] how they exercise a specific action within the incarnationlived is precisely a new dialectical procedure...";

The Family Idiot: (5:36c in Being-there) "...in the living state, an intuitive, implicit and nonverbal knowledge [savoir], a certain direct and totalizinglivedc yet wordless comprehensionok of contemporary man among men and in the world, hence an immediate grasp [transformslived mantolived world] of the inhumanity of man and his subhumanity, the first seed of a political attitude of refusal. On this level all thought is given2neg but it is not posed [not yet negation1] for itself, and so in its extreme compression it escapes verbalposited elaboration..."

11-15Nega OutsideI ‘matterI reduces the organismlived to the inorganicI to the exact degree that the organismI transformsI matterI into a totalitydial/lived’

Sartre CDR (p. 83c) "...The projectc, as transcendencelived/1negc, is merely the exteriorization of immanencelivedc; transcendenceI itself is already present in the functional fact of nutrition and excretion, since what we find here is a connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of unilateral interiority between two states of materiality. And conversely, transcendence_contains_immanence within itself in that its link with its purpose and with the environment remains one of exteriorizedI interiorityI."

(p. 91c) "...Thus neither analytical_Reasonconceptc, which applies to relationsok [of three degrees]1st&2neg in exteriority, nor dialectical_Reasonconcept, which derives its intelligibility from totalities, and which governs the connections [rapports] [of three degrees]lived&lived of wholesdial to their partsdial/lived and of totalitiesI to one another in a process of increasing integration, can establish the status of intelligibilityI for organized bodies. If they emerged from inorganic_matterlived, there was a passage not only from the inanimate to life, but from one rationalityc to the other [analytic to dialectic]."

-------------------------------------------------Barnes, "Sartre as Materialist," (p. 673) "The [human] organism finds itself in danger of death within the

environing material universe, ‘Matter revealed as a passive_totality by an organicI beingI which tries there to find its beingI—this is Nature in its first form’ ("Matérialisme et revolution," Situations, III, p. 166-7).’ Sartre points out the basic contradictionR which provides the dialectical genesis: the very being of the organism depends on unorganized being and the inorganic (for oxygen and for food, etc.), and through this dependence it ‘imposes a biological status upon the inorganic.’ Sartre adds that in fact we are dealing with the imposition of different status on the same materiality..."

"Sartre goes on to describe for the first time an interaction which in a later passage he calls a ‘transubstantiation**.’ Within the body a biological status is superimposed upon the physico-chemical. Consequently Nature itself, by virtue of the needsdial/lived of the organism, takes on the appearance of a ‘false organism.’ But if we say that to some degree the inorganic has taken on the dimension of the organicI, there has been also a movement in the reverse direction. When this absorption of external matter by the living body is looked at—as it rightly may be—from the exterior point of view, the entire process may be seen to satisfy ‘external laws.’ ‘[citing Sartre] In this sense one could say that matter outside of (the organism I ) reduces it to

30

Sartre: Negation

the inorganic status to the exact degree that the organism transforms matter into a totality dial/lived ’ (p. 167). In order to modify the material environment, the organism must itself in some way be or become matter. For it is only as a mechanical system that such interaction can take place."** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-TRANSUBSTANTIATION ;

CDR: (p. 178c) "...Through transubstantiation, the project inscribed by our bodies in a thing takes on the substantial characteristics of the thing without altogether losing its original qualities. It [the projectI inscribed by our bodies] thus possesses an inert future [avenir] within which we have to determinedial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] our own future [avenir]. The futureI comes to man through things to the degree that it has comeHB to things through man..."

11-15Nega Cyclical_societiesdial transition to elementary praxis through possibility (CDR82)Sartre, CDR (p. 82-3, continuing-2, back-2, S&A 431-2, Fr. 196, my paragraph break) sartre¶The

cyclical_processdial**—which characterizes at once biological time and that of the first societies—is broken from withoutS&A, by the environment, simply because the contingent and inescapable fact of scarcityc disrupts exchanges. This interuption is lived as negation in this simple sense that the cyclical movementdial/lived or function reproduces itself to empty denying of the same identity of future [futur] to the pastlived and falling again to the level of a circular organization present and conditioned by the pastI; (CDRp. 83) this gap is the condition necessaryCDRdial/lived so that the organism is no longer the milieu and the destiny of the functionI but its end."

(CDRp. 83) "The only real difference between primitive syntheticdial/lived temporalityCDRlivedR and the time of elementary praxis lies in result fromS&A the material environment which, by not containing what the organism seeks, transformslivedc the totalitydial/lived as future [futur] reality into possibility R. Needdial/livedR, as a negation of the negationR, is the organismI itself, livingI itself in the future [futur], through present disorders as its own possibilityI and, consequently, as the possibilityI of its own impossibilityI; and praxis, in the first instance is nothing but the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the organismI, as exterior and future [futur] end, to the present organismI as a totalityI under threat; it is function exteriorized. The real difference is not between functionI as internalok assimilation and the construction of toolsok with an end in view [praxis]. Many species of animals, in fact, make toolsI

ok of themselves: that is to say, organized matter produces [by itself]S&A the inorganiclived or the pseudo-inertR. I have said that organismsI cannot act on the environment without temporarily returning [falling provisionally back]S&A to the level of the inertiaI; but animal-toolsc

ok make themselves permanently inertIR in order to protect their lives or, to put it another way, instead of using their own inertiaI they protectS&A it behind a fabricated inertiaIR. It is at this ambiguous level that the dialectical transition from function to action can be seen. The projectc, as transcendencelived/1neg, is only the exteriorizationI of immanence; transcendenceI itself is already present in the functional fact of nutrition and excretion, since what we find here is a connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of unilateral interiority between two states of materiality. And conversely, transcendence_contains_immanence within itself in that its link with its purpose and with the environment remains one of exteriorizedI interiorityI."

Caws, Sartre (p. 169) "...In his own treatment of needI he says that it is ‘the first totalizing relation’ through which ‘everything is to be explained’ (CDR 80). But on the one hand it is hard to know what he would do with evolutionary developments prior to man (...), and on the other it is hard to see, if there is any kind of continuous development from the primordial individual to the complexity of history, where the specifically Marxist component enters... If the process occurred blindly, then nobody was totalizing it and it was not truly dialectical; if not, then some interests at least must antedate the establishment of modes of production."

"...Sartre gets himself into a tight corner because of his repugnance of the opaque, his insistence on the transparent and apodictic character of the dialectic, his refusal of inconsistencies in history..."

-------------------------------------------------**Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-CYCLICAL PROCESS/SOCIETY dial; functions without praxis, without consideration of possibilities, and without the temporalityCDRlived of a future [futur]; Herein-negation of negation not surpassedSee, Annex\Pol...\Progress-RSartre: Ancient stability and medieval eternity as unaware of ; Pol...\Degeneration of Human Violence-RBibby: Peaceful tribes cyclic burnt fields: Scandinavia millet; Asian rice; -RFromm: Primitive and feudal societies production/consumption stability

31

Sartre: Negation

11-15Nega 2. The Negation of the Negation (CDR83-91)CDR (p. 83) continued below at Friedrich Engel’s negation_of_negation as abstracted from

natural laws’ (CDR83)See Sartre\Dialectic-Negation ‘in the very act of denialI creates a provisional totalitydial/lived; it is totalizing before being partialdial’ (CDR60)

11-15Nega Negation1neg of the negated given2neg (SM91-3)Search for a Method (p. 91P, Fr. 76) "...For us, man is characterized above all by his surpassing1neg a

situation, and by what he succeeds in making of what he has been madee... The most rudimentary behavior must be determined at once in connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the reallived/1neg and present factors which condition it1neg and in connectionI

ok to a certain objectlived/2neg, still to come, which it attempts to give rise to1neg. This is what we call the projectR.

(SMp. 92-3P, Fr. 77) "Starting with the projectI, we define a double simultaneous relationshipok. In connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the given2neg, the praxis1negR is negativity [seeking to deny lack], but what is always involved is the negation1_of_the_negation2. In connectionI

ok to the objectlived/2neg aimed at, praxis1neg is positivityc, but this positivityI opens into the ‘non-existentc,’ to what has not yet been. A flight and a leap ahead1neg all together a refusal2negc and a realizationlived/1neg, the project retains and discloses the surpassed2neg reality which is refused2neg by the very movementdial/lived which surpasses1neg it. Thus knowing [connaissance]livedc

is a momentdial of praxisR, even its most fundamental one; but this knowing [connaissance] does not partake of an absolute Knowledge [Savoir]concept. Defined by the negation of the refusedI realitylived/2neg in the name of the realityI to be produced1neg, it [knowing] remains the captive of the action which it clarifies, and disappears along with it. Therefore it is perfectly accurate to say that man is the product of his product [product as individual of their own production ‘therefore passive and alienated’]. The structuresdial of a society which is created by human work define for each manI an objective situation as a starting point; the truthlivedc of a man is the nature of his work, and it is his wages. (SMp. 93, Fr. 77) But this truthI defines him just insofar as he constantly surpasses1neg it in his practical activity. (In a popular democracy this may be, for example, by working a double shift or by becoming an ‘activist’e...) Now this surpassing1neg is conceivable only as a relationok [of three degrees]1st&2neg of the existentlived/2neg to its possibleslived/1neg e... [T]he field of possiblesI, however reduced it may be, always exists, and must not be imagined as a zone of indetermination, but on the contrary as a strongly structureddial region** which depends upon all of Historyconcept and which envelops its own contradictionR. It is by surpassing1neg the given2neg toward the field of possiblesI and by realizing one possibilityI1neg from among all the others2neg that the individual objectifies himself and contributes to making HistoryI. The projectI then takes on a reality which the agent ignores, one which, through the conflicts it manifests and engenders, influences the course of events."

-------------------------------------------------See Herein-[below]Worker must see possible future happiness to see present pain (BN434, out of sequence), with BN (p. 436c, last sentences) "...Under no circumstances can the pastlived in any way by itself produce an act; that is, the positing of an endc which turns back upon itself so as to illuminate it [with meaningBNlived]. This is what Hegelc caught sight of when he wrote that ‘the mind is the negative’c...[it] is after he has formed the project of changing the situation that it will appearFr=? intolerable."

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATION [négation]; dialectic; cf. negativity.

BN: Herein-[above topic] 2. The simultaneous Negation of Negation (CDR83-91)-H02-0Possibility ‘of non-being conditions questions of being[-there] and limits the reply’ (BN 3);-Where ‘are we to place negation?’: ‘I expected to find 1500 francs’ (BN 11);-RNégatités: Distance, hateposited, repulsion, regret, etc (BN 20-1)-RDasein’s groundlessnessI: ‘We are shown a negatingI activity and there is no concern to groundI

this activityI upon a negativeI being[-there]’ (BN18-9)Sartre\The Other-RComprehending ‘the objectification of the other as the second momentdial in

my connectionok to him’ (BN 287)Search for a Method: (p. 92c) "...Defined by the negation 2 of the refused realitylived/2neg in the namec of the

realityI to be produced1neg..."

32

Sartre: Negation

CDR: Herein-RNegation is first manifested as partial determination posited for itself;(p. 11c) "...For negation is a refusal of existence. By means of it a being[-there] (or a way of

beingI) is posited, then thrown back to nothingness..."The War Dairies: Herein-The War Dairies: Negation is veiled as conjuring the alteritylived of two objectsCDR: Herein-RNegation is first manifested as partial determination posited for itself (CDR85), with

(CDRp. 85c) "...negation is defined on the basis of a primary force, as an opposinglivedc force of integration, and in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the future [futur]lived/2neg totalitydial/lived as the destiny or end of the totalizing movementdial/lived/1neg...";

(p. 256c) "...solitude of the organism, as the impossibility of uniting with Othersconceptok in an

organic_totalitylived, reveals itself through the solitudeI which everyone lives as the provisional negation of their reciprocal connections [rapports] [of three degrees] with OthersI

ok...";-------------------------------------------------

** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-REGION [region]BN: (p. lxiiic, Fr. 30) "...In particular the preceding reflections have permitted us to distinguish two

absolutelyontology separated regionsok of being[-there]: the beingI of the pre-reflective [préréflexif] cogitolivedc and the beingI of the phenomenalived..."

(p. lxvi, Fr. 32-3) "...The possible is a structuredial of the for-itselfontology; that is, it belongs to the other region of beingI. Being-in-itselfontology is never either possibleI or impossible. It is..."

11-15Nega Worker must see possible future happiness to see present pain (BN434-6, CDR325, both out of sequence)

Sartre, BN (p. 434-5, Fr. 478, out of sequence from Sartre\Freedom-I. Freedom: The First Condition of Action ) "In so far as man is immersed in the historical situation, he does not even succeed in conceiving of the failures and lacksdial/lived in a political organization or determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] economy; this is not, as is stupidly said, because he ‘is accustomed to it,’ but because he apprehends it in its plenitude of being[-there] and because he can not even imagine that he can exist in it otherwise. For it is necessaryI to reverse common opinion and on the basis of what it is not, to acknowledge the harshness of a situationI or the suffering which it imposes, both of which are motivesok for conceiving of another state of affairs in which things would be better for everybody. (BNp. 435, Fr. 479) It is on the day that we can conceive of a different state of affairs that a new light falls on our troubles and our suffering and that we decide that these are unbearable. A worker in 1830 is capable of revolting if his salary is lowered, for he easily conceives of a situationI in which his wretched standard of living would be not as low as the one which is about to be imposed on him. But he does not represent his sufferings to himself as unbearable; he adapts himself to them not through resignation but because he lacksI the education and reflection [réflexion] necessaryI for him to conceive of a social state in which these sufferings would not exist. Consequently he does not act. Masters of Lyon following a riot, the workers at Croix-Rousse do not know what to do with their victory; they return home bewildered, and the regular army has no trouble in overcoming them. Their misfortunes do not appear [paraissent] to them ‘habitual’ but rather natural; they are, that is all, and they constituteBN the worker’s condition. They are not detached; they are not seen in the clear light of day, and consequently they are integrated by the worker with his being[-there]. He suffers without considering his suffering and without conferring valuelived upon it. To suffer and to be are one and same for him. His suffering is the pure affectivec tenor of his non-positional consciousness, but he does not contemplatec. Therefore this suffering can not be in itself a motiveok for change. Quite the contrary, it is after he has formed the project of changing the situationI that it will appearI [paraîtra] intolerable to him. This signifies that he will have had to give himself room, to withdraw1neg in connectionok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to it2neg, and will have to have effected a double nothingness: On the one hand, he must posit an ideal state of affairsconcept as a pure present nothingness; on the other hand, he must positI the actual situationI as nothingnessI/2neg in connection [rapport] [of three degrees] to this state of affairs. He will have to conceive of a happiness attached to his class as a pure possiblelived/1neg—that is, presently as a certain nothingnessI—and on the other hand, he will return to the present situationI2neg in order to illuminate it in the light of this nothingnessI in order to nihilateR [néantiser] it in turn by declaring: ‘I am not happy.’"

(BNp. 436, Fr. 480) "e...Spinoza’s statement, ‘Omnis determinatio est negatio**,’ remains profoundly truelived

e... But this power of nihilationIR can not be limited to realizing a simple withdrawal1neg in connection

33

Sartre: Negation

[rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the world. In fact, in so far as consciousness is ‘invested’ by beingI, in so far as it simply suffers what is, it must be included in being[-there]. It is the organized form ‘worker-finding-his-suffering-naturallived/2neg’ which must be surmounted1neg and denied2neg in order for it to be able to make the object of a revealing contemplationconcept.*** This means evidently that it is by a pure wrenching away1neg from himself2neg and the worldlived/2neg that the worker posit his sufferingposited/2neg as unbearable suffering and consequently can make of it the motiveI for his revolutionary actionlived/1neg. This implies for consciousness the permanent possibilityI of effecting a rupture with its own pastlived, of wrenching itself away from its past2neg so as to be able to consider it in the light of a non-being1neg and so as to be able to confer on it the which it has2neg in terms of the project of a meaningI which it does not have1neg. Under no circumstances can the past2neg in any way by itself produce an act; that is, the positing of an end1neg which turns back upon itself2neg so as to illuminate it1neg. This is what Hegelc caught sight of when he wrote that ‘the mind is the negative [negation of the negation]’c

e..."-------------------------------------------------

Sartre, CDR (p. 325, Fr. 431, out of sequence from Sartre\Groups&Reciprocity-6. Collective Praxis), cf. S&A 462) "...the period of the freeI contract by which, in the nineteenth century, the isolated worker, a prey to hunger and poverty, sold his labour power to a powerful employer who imposed his own rates, is at once the most shameless mystification and a reality. It is truelived that he has no other way out; the choice is an impossible one; he has not the ghost of a chance of finding better-paid work and in any case he never even asks himself the question: what is the point of it all?..."

Sartre, Words (p. 88P) "When a child is unhappy, he doesn’t ask himself questions. If he suffers bodily as a result of needsdial/lived and sickness, his unjustifiable state justifies his existence. His right to live is based on hunger, on the constant danger of death. He lives in order not to die."

-------------------------------------------------See Pol...\Horneyan Therapy-Disillusioning reality tests accompanied by constructive moves, with Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth (p. 347c) "All such [psychic] changes can be described as a gradual work of reality-testing and value-testing... But so far they are all disillusioning processes. And they alone could not and would not have a thorough and lasting liberating effect if constructive moves did not set in simultaneously..."Ref Sartre\Flaubert’s Neurosis-Rclass

-------------------------------------------------** Sartre\Index of Terms-DETERMINATION IS NEGATION [as limitation]

BN: (p. 185P ) "...‘Omnis determination est negation,’ which Hegel might say had infinite riches, and to declare rather that every determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] which does not appearlivedc [appartient]c to the being[-there] which has to be its own determinations [‘that is, as limitation’] is ideal negation...";

CDR: Herein-[below]RNegative ‘forces can existI only within a movementdial/lived determined by the future’, with CDR (p. 85c) "Determination dial [‘that is, as limitation’] will be real negation only if it identifies the determinedI within a totalization [in course]dial/lived or a totalitydial/lived...";

-------------------------------------------------*** Copied Sartre\Dialectic-Analytical Reasonconcept as synthetic transformation of its dialectic precursor

11-15Nega Friedrich Engel’s negation_of_negation as abstracted from natural laws’ (CDR83)Sartre, CDR (p. 83-4, S&A 432, Fr. 197) "Hence, although at first the material universe can render

man’s existence impossible, it is through man that negation comes to man and to matter. On this basis we may comprehendok the crude intelligibility of the famous law of the ‘negation of negation’ which Engels erroneously gives as, basically, an irrational ‘abstractionposited’ from naturalposited laws. (CDRp. 84) In fact, the [Engels’] dialectic of Natureconcept—whether one seeks it in ‘changes of state’ in general or makes it the dialectic of the outside in human history—is incapable of answering two essential questions: Why is there something like a negation either in the naturalI world or in humanI history? And why, and in what defining circumstances does the negation of a negation give rise to an affirmation? Indeed, it is not clear why transformations of energy ... could be regarded as negations**a, except by men and as a convention for indicating the direction of the process. There is no doubt that matterI passes from one stateI to another, and this means that change takes place. But a material change is neither an affirmationdial nor a negation; it has not destroyed, because nothing was

34

Sartre: Negation

constructed; it has not broken resistences [below sub-topic] because the forces in presence have very simply givenI the result that they were to have givenI—it would be just as absurd to assert that the two opposedI

ok forces acting upon a membrane negate themselves, or to say that they collaborate to determine [‘that is, as limitation’] a certain tension. All one can do is to utilize the negative sequence**b to distinguish one direction from the other. [continued]

-------------------------------------------------**a&b Not the negative or negation of the negation in Sartrean terms but in pseudo-scientific terms to distinguish the direction of occurrences.

11-15Nega NegativeI ‘forces can existI only within a movementdial/lived determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by the future [avenir]’ (CDR85)

Sartre, CDR (p. 85, continuing, not S&A, Fr. 198) "Resistence [above sub-topic undelined] and, consequently, negative R forces can exist only within a movement dial/lived which is determined dial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] in accordance with the future [avenir] , that is to say, in accordance with a certain form of integration. If the end to be attained were not fixed from the beginning, how could one even conceive of a restraint? In other words, there is no negation unless the future [futur] totalizationdial/lived is continually present as the detotalized_totalitydial/lived of the ensemble in question. When Spinoza says ‘All determination is negationR,’ he is right, from his point of view, because substance, for him, is an infinite totalityI . This formula is thus an instrument of thought for describing and comprehendingFr=? the internal_connectiondial/livedc

ok [of interior structures of consciousness] of the wholedial..."

"Determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] will be real negation [determination as negation]I only if it identifies the determinedI within a totalization or a totalitylived. Now, praxis, born of needdial/livedR, is a totalizationlived/2neg whose movementdial/lived towards its own endlived/1neg practically makes the environment into a totalityI. It is to this double point_of_viewdouble connection of 1st&2neg that the movementI of the negativeI owes its intelligibility. On the one hand, the organism engenders the negativeI as that which destroys its unity: discharge and excretion [lacuna below], as a directed movement of rejection, are just opaque and biological forms of negation. Similarly, lackdial/lived appears through function, not only as a mere inert lacuna, but also as an oppositionc of functionI to itself. Finally, needI posits negation by its very existence in that it is itself an initial negation of negation. In short, the intelligibilityposited of the negativeI as a structuredial of Beingconcept/1negc

ok can be made manifest only in joining [liaison] with a developing process of totalizationI; negation is defined on the basis of a primary force, as an opposingc [opposée] force of integration, and in connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the future [futur]lived/2neg totalityI as the destinylived/1neg or end of the totalizing movementdial/lived.** [continued same paragraph below]

-------------------------------------------------** cf. CDRII (p. 41at Ftn 12c) "...This relativity of possibleI Beingconcept

ok—which we will study in itself somewhat further on—makes the abstract universal into a secondary structuredial of concrete_totalizationlivedc..."

11-15Nega Negationdial is first manifested as partialdial action posited for itself (CDR85) Sartre CDR (p. 85-6, Fr. 199, continuing, my paragraph break) sartre¶At a still deeper level, and more obscurely, the organism itself as a transcendencelived/1neg of the multiplicity of exteriority is a unilateral primary negationR in that it preserves multiplicity within itself and unites itself against this multiplicity, without being able to eliminate it. Multiplicity is its danger, the constant threat to it; and, at the same time, it is its mediation with the material universe which surrounds it and which can negateI it. (CDRp. 86) Thus negationI is determineddial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by unity; it is the same through unity and in unity that can manifest itself. At first, negation manifests itself not as a contraryc

ok force, but, what amounts to the same thing, as partial determination I of the whole dialR in so far as this partialI determinationI is posited for itself..."

11-15Nega Wholedial and partdial: Four possible dialectic structuresdial/lived

Sartre, Politics and Literature (1972, p. 117-19, cited from Peter Caws, Sartre (p. 147-8) sartre¶(a, paragraph breaks are mine) Politics and Literature (1972, p. 117-19) "[In response to Lévi-

Strauss] A dialectical thoughtlivedR is first of all, in one and the same movementdial/lived, the examination of a

35

Sartre: Negation

reality in so far as the realityI forms partdial** of a wholedial***, in so far as the realityI deniesR that wholedial, in so far as that wholeI comprises, conditions the realityI, and deniesI the realityI

sartre¶(b) in so far, consequently, as it [thought/reality] is both positive and negative with regard to the wholedial, in so far as movementdial/lived must be both destructive and conservative with regard to the wholedial;

sartre¶(c) in so far as it [thought/reality] has a relationship to each of the partsdial of the wholedial, each of which is both a negation of the wholedial and includes the wholedial in itself;

sartre¶(d) in so far as all these partsdial, or the sum of these partsdial, at a given2neg momentdial deniesI—in so far as each contains the wholedial—the [isolated] partdial we are considering, in so far as this [isolated] partdial deniesR2 them [sum of the other parts], in so far as the sum of the partsdial, in re-becoming collectivelyI , becomes the collectivity of those partsdial joinedFr=? together, i.e., the wholedial less this one, in conflict with this one, and lastly in so far as all of this, considered each time as positive and as negativeI, gives rise to a movementdial/lived towards a restructuringdialR of the wholedial. . . . (p. 148) Dialectical thought is quite simply a way of using analytical_thoughtposited

e... Analytical_thoughtI is thoughtI that renders itself inert so as to be competent to deal with the inertI, whereas dialecticalI thoughtI is the syntheticdial/lived utilization of the collectivity of inertI thoughtsI which themselves become partdial of a wholedial which shatter their determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] and negationI in order to re-belong to the wholedial, etc."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-PART [partie~s; not partir];

CDR: (p. 45c; ce) "...A totalitylived, is defined as a being[-there] which, while radicallyontologyc distinct from the sum of its parts, is present in its entirety, in one form or another, in each of these parts, and relates to itself either through its connection [rapport] [of three degrees] to one or more of its parts, or through its relationok to the S&A connection [rapport] [of three degrees] that all, or several, of these parts maintain among themselvesS&A..."

Herein-RNeeddial/lived: Restoration of negated organism; inverted means and end; passivity (CDR87);

Politics and Literature (1972), Herein-Wholedial and partdial: Four possible dialectic structuresdial/lived

-------------------------------------------------*** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-WHOLE dial [toutindef pron=everything, tousindef pron=all]; dialectic; cf. overall_totalizationdial/lived below.

CDR: Herein-RNegation is first manifested as partial determination posited for itself; -H05-9 RIn ‘existenceI and tension determined/limited by the wholedial, every particular produces itself in the unity of a fundamental contradiction’

Politics and Literature (1972), Herein-Wholedial and partdial: Four possible dialectic structuresdial/lived

Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-OVERALL_TOTALIZATION dial/lived; 3 hits; cf. wholeCDR: (p. 88c) "...in the case of a transformation necessaryCDRdial/lived for praxis, its determinationdial [‘that

is, as limitation/negation’] becomes its negation: the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the integrated elements to the partial wholedial is more precise, less ‘indeterminate’ than its relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to the overall totalizationdial/lived, but poorer and less comprehensiveFr=?...";

(p. 92c) "...Since the individual worker is just such a totalization [in course]dial/lived, he can only comprehendok himself in his acts, and in his connectionFr=? [of three degrees]1neg&2neg to Natureconcept (and indeed, as we shall see, in his connectionI

Fr=? with othersok) if he interprets every partialI totalityI in terms of the overall totalizationdial/lived...’;

CDRII: (p. 27c) "Precisely in so far as, in a syntheticdial/lived unification, the part is a totalization [in course]I of the wholedial (or the overall totalization), Incarnationlived is a singular form of totalizationI...";

11-15Nega In ‘existenceI and tension determined by the wholedial, every particularitydial producesI itself in the unityI of a fundamental contradictionI’ (CDR86)

Sartre, CDR (p. 86, Fr. 199) "On the basis of these expériences we could establish a dialectical logic**posited of negation as the connectionok [of three degrees]posited&posited as 1neg&2neg between internalok structuresdial/posited both to each other [as parts] and to the wholedialR within a totalityposited or a totalization [in course]lived. One would see in effect that within the field of existence and tension determined dial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] by the whole I , [1] every particularity dial *** [particularité] produces itself in the unity of a

36

Sartre: Negation

fundamental contradiction : [2] It is a determinationI of the wholeI and, as such, it is the wholeI which gives2neg rise to it; [3] in a certain sense, in so far as the being[-there] of the wholeI demands that it be present in all its parts, every particularitydial is the wholeI itself; but at the same time [simultaneity in part/wholedial contradiction]R, as arrest, as turning-back upon themselves, as enclosure, particularitiesdial are not not the wholeI, and it is precisely against the wholeI (and not against those beingsI which transcendlived/1neg this totalitylived) that they particularizedial themselves. But in the context of this contradictionI, [1] particularization produces itself precisely as negation of interiority—as particularizationdial of the wholeI it is the wholeI opposingc [s’opposant] itself through a particularitydial which it governs and which depends on it; [2] and as determinationc [‘that is, as limitation’]—that is, as limitation—it is defined as this nothing which stands in the way of the retotalizationdial/livedR of the wholeI and would liquidate itself in such a retotalizationI? It is the existence of this non-being as a connection [of three degrees]lived&lived as 1neg&2neg in course between the constituteddial/lived wholeI and the constituentlived totalizationI, that is to say, between the wholeI as the future [futur] result, abstract but already present and the dialectic as a process tending to constituteI in its concrete reality the totalityI which defines it as its future [avenir] and its end; it is the existenceI of this active nothingness (totalizationI positing its momentdial****) and all together passive (the wholeI as the presence of the futureFr=?), which constitutesI the first intelligibleposited negation**** of the dialectic. And it is within the totalityI, as the abstractI unity of a field of and tension, that the negation1neg of negation becomes an affirmationdial******.

sartre¶ "Thus, however it manifests itself—whether [1] as the liquidation of a partial momentdial or as the [2] apparitionok of other momentsI in conflict with the first [1] (in short, the differentiation or even fragmentation of the partialI totalityI into smaller parts)—the new structuredial is the negation of the first [1] (either directly or by attracting, through its very presence, the connection [of three degrees]Fr=? of the first [1] to the wholedial). In this way, the wholeI manifests in the second [2] structuredial, which it also produces and preserves, as a totalityI resuming within itself the particular determinations [‘that is, as limitation’], and suppressing them, either through a liquidation pure and simple of their particularitydial, or by differentiatingI itself around and in to them, in such a way as to insert them into a new order which in its turn becomes the wholeI itself as a differentiatedI structuredial."

-------------------------------------------------*** Ref Sartre\Corcordance-PARTICULARITY DIAL [LARIZE] [particularité, liére, iser~e, not particulier=particular, not participe]; dialectic; cf. part.

BN: Not a Sartrean term in early works.CDRII: Sartre\Intelligibility of History-Three Factors of Dialectical Intelligibility [totalization,

particularization, contradiction: Dialectical intelligibility—constituent Reasonconcept or constituted Reasonconcept—as defined through totalization]

-------------------------------------------------**** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-MOMENT dial;

The Family Idiot: (1:497c) "...In his finitude itself the believer finds his reasons for surpassing1neg it toward the infinite—for him, his determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation’] ... is to live before Godc as the abstractposited momentdial of a dialectical movementdial/posited which posesposited the negation 1 [finitude] in order to denyposited it [in life 'before God']..."

-------------------------------------------------***** Sartre\Index of Terms-AFFIRMATION dial; See negation of negation surpassed;

BN: Sartre\Dialectic-Dialectic ‘is a methodposited and a movement in the object’

11-15Nega Needdial/lived: Restoration of negatedI organism; means and ends; passivity (CDR87)Sartre, CDR (p. 87-8, Fr. 200-1) "Let us return to needdial/lived. When the project passes through the

surrounding worldlived/2neg towards its endlived/1neg—in this case, the restoration1neg of a negated organismlived/2neg—it unifies the field of instrumentality around itself, so as to make it [project] into a totalitylived which will provide a foundation for the singular objects which must come to its aid in its task. The surrounding worldI is thus constituteddial practically as the unity of materials and means. However, since the unity of the meansI is precisely the endI, and since the endI itself represents the organicI totalityI in danger, the new, backward [renversé] connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg between the two ‘states of matter’ [means and ends]R emerges here for the first time: inert plurality becomes totalityI through unification by the endI into an

37

Sartre: Negation

instrumental_field; it is in itself the end fallen into the domain of passivity. Its character as a completed totalityI, however, far from being damaged by its inertiaI, is actually preserved by it. In the [human] organismI, bonds of interiority overlaybelow those of exteriority; in the instrumental_fieldI it is the other way round: a bond of internalok unification underlies the multiplicity of exteriorityI,[which overlaysabove praxis] and it is praxis which, in the light of the endI, constantly reshapes the order of exteriorityI on the basis of a deeper unity. On this basis, a new type of negation is born [naît], for this is a new type of totalityI which is passive and all together unified, but which is constantly reshaping itself, either through the direct action of man or in accordance with its [this new type of negation] own laws of exteriorityI. In either case the changes occur on the basis of a pre-existingc unity and become the destiny of this totalityI, even if their sources lie elsewhere, at the furthest corner of the world. (CDRp. 88) Everything which takes place within a totalityI, even disintegration is a total event of the totalityI as such and is intelligible only in terms of the totalityI. But as soon as the ferment of the totalizeddial/lived plurality produces a few passiveI syntheses, it shatters the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of immediate integration between the elements and the wholedial/1neg, within the constituteddial wholeI2neg.

(CDRp. 88, Fr. 201) sartre¶"The relative autonomy of the partR thus formed necessarilyCDRdial/lived actsI as a brake on the overall movementdial/lived; the whirlpool of partial totalization [in course]dial/lived thus constitutesI itself as a negationI1neg of the total movementI2neg. By the same token, even in the case of a transformation necessaryI for praxis, its [the partial totalization’s] determination_becomes_its_negation: the connectionc [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the integrated elements1neg to the partialI wholedial/2neg is more precise, less ‘indeterminate’ than its relationc

ok [of three degrees]1st&2neg to the overall totalization, but poorer and less rich [riche]. As a result of its new bond of exteriorizedI interiorityI, the element loses the set of objective possibilities which each element possessed within the general movementdial/lived; it impoverishes itself. Thus the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of this partialI totalityI1neg to the total totalityI2neg takes the form of conflict; absolute integration requires that every singular [singuliéré] determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] should be eliminated to the extent that it threatens to constitutedial a new plurality. Conversely, inertiaI and the necessitiesCDR of partialI integration require each part of the relative totalityI to resist the pressures of the wholeI. Finally, the determinationI of a partialI totalityI, within the detotalized_totalitydial/lived**, must also determinedial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] the ensemble which remains outside this integration, as a partialI totalitydial/lived, albeit negatively [seeking to deny lack]. The unity in exteriorityI of those regionsFr=? which lie outside the zoneFr=? of partialI integration (in the first instance, those which have not been integrated) is transformedI into a unity of interiorityI, that is, into an integrating determinationI, simply because, within a totalityI, even exteriorityI is expressed by connections [rapports] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of interiorityI. At once, the relationok [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of the new totalizationI to the wholeI varies: it may start to posit itself for itself, in which case the ‘totalizationI’ is completely shattered; it may identify itself with the wholeI itself and strive to reabsorb the new enclave; finally, it may be torn apart by contradiction, positing itself at the same time as the wholeI, or at any rate, as the very process of totalizationI, and as a partialI momentdial which derives its determinationsdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] from its oppositionc [opposition] to the otherI [whole]."

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-DETOTALIZED_TOTALITY lived

BN: (p. 181c, Fr. 217) "The presence of the for-itselfontology to being[-there] as totalitydial/lived comes from the fact that the for-itselfI has to be—in the mode of beingI what it is not and of not-being[-there] what it is—[is and is notontology] its own totalityI as a detotalized totalitylived...";

12-15Nega Negation ‘of negation producesI an indeterminate ensemble’ unless arising from and transcendinglived/1neg toward totalizationdial/lived’ (out of sequence CDR89-90)

Sartre, CDR (p. 89-90, continuing, Fr. 202-3) sartre¶"But this new process, the negation of the negation, derives its intelligibility, once again, from the original totalitydial/lived. In a realistc and materialist system there can be no justification for asserting, a priori, that the negation of a negation must give rise to a new affirmation, as long as the type of reality in which these negatings occur remains undefined. Even in the human universe, the universe of totalitiesIc, there are quite definitive and classifiable situations in which the negation of negation is a new negation**, because in these special cases there is interference between totalityI and recurrencec. But

38

Sartre: Negation

this is not our present concern. (CDRp. 90) That which is, in every case, is that the negation of the negation produces c an indeterminate ensemble livedc except when it is considered as producingc itself in the interior of a totalityI. The negation of the negation would be, even within a totality I , a return to the point of departure if it was not about a totalityI being[-there] surpassed1neg towards a totalizingdial/lived end. The suppression of the partialdial organizations of the instrumental field would consequently bring us back to the original indifferentiation of the unified environment (as when one destroys the traces of an event, of an expérience, of a construction, unless the movementdial/lived to suppress them is accompanied by an effort to preserved them—that is, unless they are regarded as a step towards a unity of differentiationI in which a new type of subordination of the parts to the wholedial and a co-ordination of the partsI with one another is to be realized. And this is what necessarilyCDRdial/lived arrives since that the aim is not to preserve the unity of the field of action in and for itself, but to find in it material elements capable of preserving or restoring the organicI totalityI it contains. Thus, in so far as body is function, functionI needdial/lived, and needI praxis one can say that humanI Labour, the original praxisI by which man produces and reproduces his life, is entirely dialectical: its possibility and its permanent necessityCDRdial/lived rest upon the connection [rapport] [of three degrees]1neg&2neg of interiority which unites the organismI with the environment and upon the deep contradiction between the inorganiclived and organicI orders, both of which are present in everyone. Its primary movementdial/lived and its essential character are defined by a twofold contradictoryI transformation: the unity of the project endows the practical_fielddial/lived with a quasi-syntheticdial/lived unity, and the crucial momentdial of labour is that in which the organismI makes itself inertc (the man applies his weight to the lever, etc.) in order to transformI the surrounding inertiaI."

-------------------------------------------------In the journal Science, 06-04-04c, a domestic animal brought back a named toy from a group of 10 that

had namesI. More remarkably, in a separate room with 11 toys, 10 having known names, the collie 70% of the time retrieved the 11th toy, when provided its unfamiliar nameI. This success parallels that of three-year-olds.

-------------------------------------------------** Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATION OF THE NEGATION NOT SURPASSED ; negative_transcendence

Herein-negation, negation of negation-H11-9It ‘is through needdial/lived that the first negation of the negation and the first totalization [in

course]dial/lived appears in matterI’-Cyclical_societiesdial transition to elementary praxis through possibility (CDR82)

Sartre\Dialectic-R1. Dialectic MonismI (CDR15-18, SM99-100)Sartre\Political Scarcity-RInterest as not motivational, but imposed by material tools is negation of

negation without affirmation-Sacrificial_groupsI negation_of_negation as needdial/lived is not praxisI CDR: (p. 89c) "...Even

in the human universe, the universe of totalitiesposited, there are quite definitive and classifiable situations in which the negation of the negation is a new negation, because in these special cases there is interference between totalityI and recurrencec..."

The Family Idiot: (1:142c) "...we observe two negations—on this groundI [terrain]—do not add up to an affirmation, they embrace one another without suppressing themselves; disgustc is felt to be disgustingI and is not, for all that, more disgusting; on the contrary, it suffers an interiorI devalorization...";

(5:292c) "...Indeed, the dolorism most of these artists display seems less something to their credit than an initial expiation; they are trying to efface the stain of living by punishing themselves, merely a negation of negation—which, as we know, does not always correspond to an affirmation..."

-------------------------------------------------Ref Sartre\Index of Terms-NEGATION OF NEGATION SURPASSED ;

Herein-negation, negation of negationCDR: (p. 46-7c) "...it is within the framework of totalization [in course]dial/lived that the negation of

negation becomes an affirmation... (p. 47) Thus it is to the interior of a developing [en cours] unification (which has already defined the limits of its fieldc) that a determinationdial [‘that is, as limitation/negation’] can be said to be a negation and that the negation of negation is necessarily CDR dial/lived an affirmation I ...";

(p. 86c) "...And it is within the totalitydial/lived, as the abstract unity of a field of forces and tension, that the negation of a negation becomes an affirmation.";

Sartre\Dialectic-RDialectic ‘is a methodposited and a movement in the object’

39

Sartre: Negation 40