content； is on its own account an absolute process of permutation and transposition。 But these two
relations are again themselves one and the same； and the formal distinction of being incited and of
inciting to activity is the same as the distinction of content； i。e。 the distinction between the incited
factor as such； viz。 the passive medium； on the one side； and the inciting factor； viz。 the active
medium； the negative unity； or the 〃one〃 on the other side。 In this way there disappears all
distinction of contrasted and opposed particular forces； which were meant to be present in this
process； for they rested solely on the above distinctions。 And； along with both those distinctions；
the distinction between the forces collapses likewise into merely one。 There is thus neither force
nor inciting and being incited to action； nor the characteristic of being a stable medium and a unity
reflected into self； there is neither a particular which is something on its own account； nor are there
diverse opposites。 What is found in this flux of thoroughgoing change is merely difference as
universal difference； or difference into which the various opposites have been resolved。 This
difference as universal； consequently is what constitutes the ultimate simple element in that play of
forces； and is the resultant truth of that process。 It is the Law of Force。 （3）
The absolute flux of the world of appearance passes into bare and simple difference through its
relation to the simplicity of the inner being； the simplicity apprehended by understanding。 The inner
being is in the first instance merely the implicit universal。 This implicit simple universal； however； is
essentially absolute universal difference as well； for it is the outcome of the change itself； or change
is its very nature。 But change； when planted in the inner reality as it ＇change＇ truly is； forthwith is
taken up into that reality as equally absolute universal difference at peace with itself； and remaining
at one with itself。 In other words； negation is an essential moment of the universal； and negation or
mediation in what is universal is universal difference。 This difference is expressed in the law； which
is the stable presentment or picture of unstable appearance。 The supersensible world is in this way
a quiescent 〃kingdom of laws〃； no doubt beyond the world of perception…for this exhibits the law
only through incessant change — but likewise present in it； and its direct immovable copy or image。
（b） Law as Distinction and Sameness
This kingdom of laws is indeed the truth for understanding； and that truth finds its content in the
distinction which lies in the law。 At the same time； however； this kingdom of laws is only the
preliminary truth and does not give all the fullness of the world of appearance。 The law is present
therein； but is not all the appearance present； under ever…varying circumstances the law has an
ever…varying actual existence。 Thereby appearance continues to keep one aspect which is not in
the inner world； i。e。 appearance is not yet in very truth established as appearance； as that whose
independent being has been done away with。 This defect in the law has to be brought out in the
law itself。 What seems defective in it is that while it no doubt has difference within it； it contains this
in a merely universal indeterminate way。 So far； however； as it is not law in general； but a law； it
has determinateness within it； and as a result there are found an indeterminate plurality of laws。 But
this plurality is rather itself a defect； it contradicts the principle of understanding； for which； since it
is consciousness of the simple inner being； truth is the inherently universal unity。 It must； therefore；
let the many laws coalesce into a single law； just as； e。g。； the law by which a stone falls； and that
by which the heavenly bodies move have been conceived as one law。 When the laws thus
coincide； however； they lose their specific character。 The law becomes more and more abstract
and superficial； and in consequence we find as a fact； not the unity of these various determinate
laws； but a law which leaves out their specific character； just as the one law； which combines in
itself the laws of falling terrestrial bodies； and of the movements of celestial bodies； does not； in
point of fact； express both kinds of laws。 The unification of all laws in universal attraction
expresses no further content than just the bare concept of the law itself； a concept which is therein
set down as existing。 Universal attraction says merely that everything has a constant distinction for
anything else。 Understanding pretends by that to have found a universal law which gives
expression to universal reality as such； but； in point of fact； it has merely found the conception of
law itself； although in such a way that it at the same time thereby declares all reality to be in its very
nature conformed to law。 The idea of universal attraction has； therefore； to this extent great
importance； that it is directed against that unthinking way of representing reality； to which
everything appears in the shape of accident and chance； and for which determinateness；
specificity； takes the form of sensuous independence。
（1） Specific Law and General Law
In contrast； then； with determinate laws stands universal attraction； or the bare conception of law。
In so far as this pure conception is looked on as the essentially real； or as the true inner being； the
determinateness characterizing the specific law itself belongs still to the sphere of appearance； or
rather to sensible existence。 But the pure conception of law transcends not merely the law； which；
being itself a determinate law； stands contrasted with other determinate laws； but also transcends
law as such。 The determinateness； of which we spoke； is itself strictly a mere vanishing moment
which can no longer come forward here as an essential entity （Wesenheit）； for it is only the law
which is the truth here： but the conception of law is turned against the law itself。 That is to say； in
the law distinction itself is immediately apprehended and taken up into the universal； thereby；
however； making the moments； whose relation it expresses； subsist as mutually indifferent and
inherently real entities。 These parts of the distinction found in the law are； however； at the same
time themselves。 determinate aspects。 The pure concept of law； as universal attraction； must； to
get its true significance； be so apprehended that in it； as the absolutely single and simple； the
distinctions which are present in law as such； return again themselves into the inner being； qua bare
and simple unity。 This unity is the inner 〃necessity〃 of the law。
（2） Law and Force
The law is thereby present in a twofold form。 In one case it is there as law in which the differences
are expressed as independent moments； in the other it is in the form of a simple withdrawal into
itself； which again can be called Force； but in the sense not of repressed force ＇spoken of above＇；
but force in general； or the concept of force； an abstraction which absorbs the distinctions involved
in what attracts and is attracted。 In this sense； e。g。； simple electricity is force； the expression of
difference falls； however； within the law； this difference is positive and negative electricity。 In the
case of the motion of falling bodies force is the simple element； gravity； which has the law that the
magnitudes of the different factors in the motion； the time spent； and the space traversed； are to
one another in the relation of root and square。 Electricity itself is not difference per se； is not in its
essential nature。 a twofold entity consisting of positive and negative electricity； hence it is often said
it has the law of being so and so in the way indicated； or again； that it has the property of
expressing itself in this fashion。 This property is doubtless the essential and peculiar property of this
force； i。e。 it belongs to it necessarily。 But necessity is here an empty phrase； force must； just
because it must； duplicate itself in this manner。 Of course； if positive electricity is given； negative
electricity is inherently necessary； for the positive element only is by being； related to a negative； in
other words； the positive element in its very self involves difference from itself； just in the same
way as the negative does。 But that electricity as such should break itself up into parts in this way
— this is not in itself a necessity。 Electricity qua simple force is indifferent to its law — to be in the
form of positive and negative； and if we call the former its notion and the latter its being； then its
notion is indifferent to its being； it merely has this as a property； which just means that this is not
per se necessary to it。 This indifference takes another form when it is said that to be positive and
negative is involved in the definition of electricity； or that this is neither more nor less than its notion
and its essence。 Its being in that case would mean its existence in general。 But in that definition the
necessity of its existence