Absolute knowledge is knowledge that the subject is substance, as well as pure negativity. The subject is the union of these two. Hegel wrote that Christianity was the Absolute Religion because its Central myth suggested this. The Incarnation myth is God brought down into Space and Time....But that's what Man is: the collision of Space and Time. Space is continuous. Time is digital. Time exists in the human sense only as concept.

Time exist as conceptualized memory and conceptualized desire. The Future imposes itself on the Spatial present as a concept creatively synthesized from conceptual memory, AKA the past. This is why progress is possible for man but not for animals. Animals cannot sophisticate their system of concepts.

Animal time is also desire, but this desire is not creative in the human sense. Animals can be predicted mathematically, to a large degree. But man, to the degree that he is human, cannot be predicted thus. The caveman could not know that 20th century man would land on the moon. Nor do we know whether man will colonize the universe.

Well now, one more bump just n case the newbies like it

I see now that Wittgenstein came to the same conclusion of Hegel, and focused only on the core of Hegel, the logic of Hegel. It seems to me that the TLP is a transciption of absolute knowledge....and it's an utterly minimal absolute knowledge but utterly central, and piercing absolute knowledge.

Wittgenstein is not only the square root of Hegel but Hegel reduced to a Euclidean point. I don't know if W read Hegel. He might have. But Wittgenstein wasn't the contingent type. None of that mattered to him.

Wittgenstein surpasses Beckett by far at the game of writing the un-writable. Wittgenstein is the philosophical version of the Black Painting. He reduces metaphysics to its hard digital core. Human logic is binary. Period. And this is what makes it dynamic. Just as Hegel saw. Their ontology is the same at the root, exactly the same!

They both got behind the concept, and conceptualization itself. Man is not any thing, but rather the making of things...by which I mean concepts. Concepts can be the organization of qualia or also of other concepts. If one studies logic, one is already gazing at the fundamental ontology...for logic is tautology and negation, and nothing else. The rest is rules invented for convenience. Logarithms. Man understands tautology & contradiction intuitively, and this is the (inferred) structure of human thought itself. From these two ingrediants and qualia! which exists in transcendentally continuous space (Euclidean), entire cultures are formed. From math to language.

But all language is contingent, for tautologies are useless. And most of our useful language refers imperfectly to qualia or abstractions engendered from metaphor. Therefore W's ontology points to a necessity for pragmatism. Witt's ontology is mind-opening beautiful and numinous, but it cannot live one's life for them... It just radically frees the mind from self-imposed constraints...

I think Hegel's logic, i.e. A = not A and the absolute is a reasonable representation of reality from a certain perspective.

However the 'absolute' of Hegel cannot be absolutely absolute but rather conditioned by the language games of Wittgenstein. (Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty)
I think it is impossible for conditioned humans to reconcile with anything that is unconditioned.
As Kant had stated, the unconditioned is at best an idea but can never have objective reality within sensibility.

Could you explain from what perspective, and how it is a reasonable representation of reality from that perspective?

Yes, I agree. The benefit of Hegel & Wittgensteins reduction is that is shows how contingent language is...in that it shows what all of it is built from. Only that tiny core is hard-wired. The rest is an accidental imposition. Hegel draws more conclusions. Wittgenstein leaves it more open. The unconditioned is only inferred, not experienced. But this inference makes us aware of our arrogant confusions....