For your comprehensive answer.
Let me start off by heartily agreeing with you that Hegel is indeed a genius. I love the guy. :-}
It is not your ordinary fellow who can deal with the mind’s landscape in such a thorough fashion and with such clarity. I do however not agree that the Ultimate Truth that he is aiming for is within this structure, but rather that we can use his structure as a diving board from which to transcend structure altogether. That IMO is his real genius or his profound gift to man.
To me, seeing the mind (Psyche) with such clarity is exactly what gives us the power to transcend her. Or knowing the dimensions of the wall that imprisons us, and narrows our vision, gives us the power to climb up on that very wall, and see further than was ever possible before. Mind in this way becomes a tool and not in fact who we are.
That being said:
The dialectic is all about duality IMO. (1 equaling Thesis, 2 equaling Antithesis.) (A little like yin/yang.) There is your duality. Further what you have is a Synthesis equaling Unity, or simply bringing these two parts back together into one whole. There is actually no flight in this reconstruction, or said differently no raising above itself.
Granted there is some utility in seeing both of these parts together and what they are capable of, much like two legs allowing us to walk rather than to simply hop. But this may be only better use of what we already have.
Some might say that this combination creates a spiral, or something larger than the sum of its parts. But I don’t see the spiral as a necessary outcome. It is my impression rather that what we have here, if carried out in a rigorous form of logic, is something more like the heads and tails of a coin being equal to that one coin. Show me if you will that there is movement to a higher truth within this process if you will.
It is my impression that in looking at Hegel’s work, rather like a Mandala, that we pick up on something entirely more transcendent.
B: Hegel does not depict a static form of beginning or some kind of state of nothingness.
S9: When speaking about the mind, it is not possible to point out some static point, not any static point. The mind is a constantly moving thing, is constantly becoming and never arriving. So no, Hegel being quite astute wouldn’t make such an error. Let us remember that beginning and end are concepts within the mind. We have no concrete proof that either of these really exists elsewhere.
B: Stalling on that particular comparison is simply refuting the entire paragraph and saying nothing.
S9: If comparing is simply “stalling,” why do you think Hegel made comparison of the Thesis and the Antithesis 2 thirds of his work? Do you believe that the Synthesis (the last third) is the only thing worth regarding, or worthy of our attention? Please bear with me if I am just not getting it. I confess straight-out that “I am no kind of a genus, no how.”
B: What is essentially the notion of being, not-being, and being-not need not be contrasted with each other until they are viewed in terms of actual becoming.
S9: Are you suggesting that being, not being and being not are static, perhaps in some Platonic fashion, until we begin to compare them or create with them a becoming and/or motion? Are these three not similar to up and down, with there being no possible up without a down or a up/down, especially on a ladder up/down being this one instrument?
RE: Quote: On top of this, I believe that we feel that the mind is our only instrument for dealing with this search. But perhaps this isn’t the case, because down through history since the ancient times persons of wisdom have told us repeatedly that there is something going on outside of the mind or rather previously to the mind and perhaps even of a whole other dimension than our slower mind. (This instrument being more immediate and all incompassing.)
B: eh? I don't see how this relates to anything.
S9: Perhaps not. I just keep alluding to this mysterious other thing that is taking place obviously unnoticed by many. This other thing is transcendent of the mind and what our poor little mind is actually looking for within all of these mental gymnastics. I believe that Hegel saw this and was pointing at it. (Very Zen) I further see his work as being one magnificent finger pointing.
He might well have said to us, “Don’t look at my finger. Look where I am pointing.”
I feel if poor little me can see this, he probably could to.
RE: S9: Quote: I have heard of Pure Being described as “everywhere center and without periphery.” How is the mind able to objectify such as this, or “Suchness?”
B: It does not objectify this until it grasps Spirit. This is part of the point.
S9: I would say rather that in passing beyond, or is it in dropping the error of objectification that we begin to notice the ever-present Spirit. We also begin to give up on grasping of our own Spirit. This is because in both of these objectifying and grasping we see Spirit as outside of us. When in truth we are Spirit. Spirit is paradoxically both the transcendent and eminent Self that Hegel’s work/finger is pointing at.
Or as Lin Chi said, “Look, look!”
B: I don't know what scent you are speaking about though.
S9: Yes it is very subtle. But when you finally know where to look, where Hegel is pointing, it becomes screamingly obvious. Some have described it as an elephant sitting on our table which most of us over look constantly.”
B: Hegel does not have a kind of "Progress" or even evolution of sorts. Spirit is indeed revealed in a dialectic form, which is a sort of duality of Spirit itself.
S9: I would rather say that Spirit is alluded to. Spirit is no duality of any sort. “Neti Neti” (Not this, not this) is one method of dropping such notions as this. What “Neti Neti” is dropping is concepts that are simply not true, concept like Spirit as within concept.
How I do go on. :-}
B: As in each stage or movement of the dialectic a bit more of Spirit is revealed, or we seem to think ourselves aware of the attainment of Spirit, whereas in reality we never grasp Spirit altogether unless the dialectic is violently halted or suspended.