LXX

61.      Assume a pendulum hanging still and vertical. On the left of the pendulum is light and on the right is dark. Draw the pendulum to the top of its arc on the left and let go. The initial sweep of the pendulum takes it through an arc from “A” in pure light, through the central vertical to “B,” a height of darkness. It then turns on itself and sweeps back toward the light. But it’s rise in the light is never quite as high as “A” and when it sweeps back into the dark, it will not reach the height of “B”. Still, each time it passes through the constant vertical.

62.      Historically, once a height (be it light or dark) has been passed, it can never be reached again. Neither the Glory of Greece nor the devastation of the Dark Ages shall be seen again.

63.      This central vertical, let us call it “X,” may be defined as the historical convergency.

64.      The nature of historical convergency. Two possible natures come to mind at convergence. The first is a grey, neither light nor dark area in which there is no contrast, no passion. Mediocrity, if you will. The sky and the earth being indistinguishable from each other, there is no horizon. The noble idea and the diabolic idea reach a norm which is neither noble nor diabolic. This is Hegelian synthesis. It is able to become hypothesis only because either the light or the dark would contrast with it. But ultimately, the deterioration is complete and the synthesis is the same.

65.      A is opposite B. B is opposite A. X is opposite A. A is opposite X. B is opposite X. X is opposite B. For convenience of notation let’s assume that “<->” means opposite. There are three realities, each opposites of each of the other two.

66.      A second possible nature exists at convergence. That is that at X, instead of neither light nor dark, there is both light and dark, inseparably held together, yet each distinct and not infringing on the other. This predicates the paradox: Light and Dark proceed from the same essence of being channeled into differing networks. (58) (38) Therefore: A<->B, A<->X, and B<->X may also be written A=X, B=X, A=B. It is all one.

67.      We limit our possibilities. Our if/then formula for rational deduction may be at fault. This, only because our thought process runs in pairs. We think of light and dark as the opposite sides of the pendulum. This if/then could be expressed four ways:

a.      If light, then not dark.

b.      If dark, then not light.

c.       If not light, then dark.

d.      If not dark, then light.

We are deceived in this, yet we fight wars over it.

68.      The four formulae are based on the assumption that light and dark are opposite and that one or the other must exist while one and only one can exist.

69.      Red and green sit opposite each other on the color wheel. But consider the implication of “If not red, then green.” The inverse is not necessarily true. Depending on the subject, if not red, then any number of possibilities. If we are discussing traffic signals, if not red then either green or yellow, for example.

70.  The difference between 68 and 69 is that we have defined colors as relative and have defined light and dark as absolute.

 

Editor’s Note: Wesley wrote before the Internet and from the experience of 25 years in utter isolation. He doesn’t always have  an exact handle on the philosophies that he quotes. Thus, he identifies three terms, hypothesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and a name: Hegel. He doesn’t have access to reference material to see what Hegel actually said about them, but defines the terms to suit himself. It is surprising, however, that he comes near to the same conclusion: “Being and non-being are the same.” It should also be noted that verses 43-64 comprise what is known as “the brown section” of the First Hundred. Unaccountably, Wesley changed from black ink to brown for these verses creating many headaches as editors attempt to decipher what may have been his secret meaning.