is no element but content, and we have found that no content, on the other side, is the possession of the “this.” There is none that sticks within its precincts, but all tends to refer itself beyond. What remains there is chance, if chance is used in the sense of our sheer ignorance. It is not opposition, but blank failure in regard to the claim of an idea.[1] And opposition and exclusiveness, in any sense, must transcend the bare “this.” For their essence always implies relation to a something beyond self; and that relation makes an end of all attempt at solid singleness. Thus, if chance is taken as involving an actual relation to an idea, the “this” already has, so far, transcended itself. The refusal of something given to connect itself with an idea is a positive fact. But that refusal, as a relation, is evidently not included and contained in the “this.” On the other hand, entering into that relation, the internal content has, so far, set itself free. It has already transcended the “this” and become universal. And the exclusiveness of the “this” everywhere in the same way proves self-contradictory.
And we had agreed before that the mere “this” in a sense is positive. It has a felt self-affirmation peculiar and especial, and into the nature of that positive being we entered at length. But we found no reason why such feelings, considered in any feature or aspect, should persist self-centred and aloof. It seemed possible, to say the least, that they all might blend with one another, and be merged in the experience of the one Reality. And with that possibility, given on all sides, we arrive at our conclusion. The “this” and “mine” are now absorbed as elements within our Absolute. For their resolution must be, and it may be, and so certainly it is.
- ↑ Chance, in this sense of mere unperceived failure and privation, can hardly, except by a licence, be called chance. It cannot, at all events, be taken as qualifying the “this.”
