universal moment； which is essentially undivided； and inseparable from reaction； or irritability； and
reproduction。 For； being reflection into self； it eo ipso already implies reaction。 Merely to be
reflected into itself is to be a passive； or lifeless being； and not ；sensibility； just as actionwhich is
the same as reactionwhen not reflected into self； is not irritability。 Reflexion in action or reaction；
and action or reaction in reflexion； is just that whose unity constitutes the organic being； a unity
which is synonymous with organic reproduction。 It follows from this that in every mode of the
organism's actuality there must be present the same quantity of sensibilitywhen we consider； in
the first instance； the relation of sensibility and irritability to one anotheras of irritability； and that
an organic phenomenon can be apprehended and determined or； if we like； explained； just as
much in terms of the one as of the other。 What one man takes for high sensibility； another may just
as rightly consider high irritability。 and an irritability of the same degree。 If they are called factors；
and this is not to be a meaningless phrase； it is thereby expressly stated that they are moments of
the notion； in other words； the real object； the essential nature of which this notion constitutes；
contains them both alike within it； and if the object is in one way characterized as very sensitive； it
must be also spoken of in the other way as likewise very irritable。
If they are distinguished； as they must be； they are so in their true nature （dem Begriffe； nach）；
and their opposition is qualitative。 But when； besides this true distinction； they are also set down
as different； qua existent and for thought； as they might be if made aspects of the law； then they
appear quantitatively distinct。 Their peculiar qualitative opposition thus passes into quantity； and
hence arise laws of this sort； e。g。 that sensibility and irritability stand in inverse quantitative
relations； so that as the one increases the other diminishes； or better； taking directly the quantity
itself as the content； that the； magnitude of something increases as its smallness diminishes。
Should a specific content be given to this law； however； by saying； for example； that the size of a
hole increases the more we decrease what it is filled with； then this inverse relation might be just as
well changed into a direct relation and expressed in the form that the quantity of a hole increases in
direct ratio to the amount of things we take awaya tautological proposition； whether expressed
as a direct or an inverse relation； so expressed it comes merely to this that a quantity increases as
this quantity increases。 The hole and what fills it and is removed from it are qualitatively opposed；
but the real content there and its specific quantity are in both one and the same； and similarly the
increase of magnitude and decrease of smallness are the same； and their meaningless opposition
runs into a tautology。 In like manner the organic moments are equally inseparable in their real
content； and in their quantity which is the quantity of that reality。 The one decreases only with the
other； and only increases with it； for one has literally a significance only so far as the other is
present。 Or rather； it is a matter of indifference whether an organic phenomenon is considered as
irritability or as sensibility； this is so in general； and likewise when its magnitude is in question： just
as it is indifferent whether we speak of the increase of a hole as an increase of the hole qua
emptiness or as an increase of the filling removed from it。 Or； again； a number； say three； is equally
great； whether I take it positively or negatively； and if I increase the three to four； the positive as
well as the negative becomes four： just as the south pole in the case of a magnet is precisely as
strong as its north pole； or a positive electricity or an acid； is exactly as strong as its negative； or
the base on which it operates。
An organic existence is such a quantum； like the number three or a magnet； etc。 It is that which is
increased or diminished； and if it is increased； then both its factors are increased； as much as both
poles of the magnet or both kinds of electricity increase if the potential of a magnet or of one of the
electric currents is raised。
That both are just as little different in intension and extension； that the one cannot decrease in
extension and increase in intension； while the other conversely has to diminish its intension and
increase in extensionthis comes from the same notion of an unreal and empty opposition。 The
real intension is absolutely as great as the extension and vice versa。
What really happens in framing a law of this kind is obviously that at the outset irritability and
sensibility are taken to constitute the specifically determinate organic opposition。 This content；
however； is lost sight of and the opposition goes off into a formal opposition of quantitative
increase and diminution； or of different intension and extensionan opposition which has no longer
anything to do with the nature of sensibility and irritability； and no longer expresses it。 Hence this
mere playing at law…making is not confined to organic moments but can be carried on everywhere
with everything and rests in general on want of acquaintance with the logical nature of these
oppositions。
Lastly； if； instead of sensibility and irritability； reproduction is brought into relation with one or
other of them； then there is wanting even the occasion for framing laws of this kind； for
reproduction does not stand in any opposition to those moments； as they are opposed to one
another； and since the making of such laws assumes this opposition； there is no possibility here of
its even appearing to take place。
The law…making just considered implies the differences of the organism； taken in the sense of
moments of its notion； and； strictly speaking； should be an a priori process。 But it essentially
involves this idea； that those differences have the significance of being present as something given；
and the attitude of mere observation has in any case to confine itself merely to their actual
existence。 Organic reality necessarily has within it such an opposition as its notion expresses； and
which can be determined as irritability and sensibility； as these again both appear distinct from
reproduction。 The aspect in which the moments of the notion of organism are here considered；
their Externality； is the proper and peculiar immediate externality of the inner； not the outer which
is the outer embodied form of the whole organism； the inner is to be considered in relation to this
later on。
If； however； the opposition of the moments is apprehended as it is found in actual existence； then
sensibility； irritability； reproduction sink to the level of common properties； which are universals
just as indifferent towards one another as specific weight； colour； hardness； etc。 In this sense it
may doubtless be observed that one organic being is more sensitive； or more irritable； or has a
greater reproductive capacity than another： just as we may observe that the sensibility； etc。； of one
is in kind different from that of another； that one responds differently from another to a given
simulus； e。g。 a horse behaves differently towards oats from what it does towards hay； and a dog
again differently towards both； and so on。 These differences can as readily be observed as that
one body is harder than another； and so on。
But these sense properties； hardness； colour； etc。； as also the phenomena of responding to the
stimulus of oats； of irritability under certain kinds of load； or of producing the number and kind of
youngall such properties and phenomena； when related to one another and compared inter se；
essentially defy the attempt to reduce them to law。 For the characteristic of their being sensuous
facts consists just in their existing in complete indifference to one another； and in manifesting the
freedom of nature emancipated from the control of the notion； rather than the unity of a relationin
exhibiting nature's irrational way of playing up and down the scale of contingent quantity between
the moments of the notion； rather than in these forth these moments themselves。
It is the other aspect； in which tile simple moments of the notion of organism are compared with
the moments of the actual embodiment； that would first furnish the law proper for expressing the
true outer as the copy of the inner。
Now because those simple moments are properties that permeate and pervade the whole； they do
not find such a detached real expression in the organic thing as to form what we call an individual
system with a definite structure （Gestalt）。 Or； again； if the abstract idea of organism is truly
expressed in those three moments merely because they are nothing stable； but moments of the
notion and its process； the organism； on the other hand； qua a definite embodiment； is not
exhaustively expressed in those three determinate systems in the way anatomy analyses and
describes them。 So far as such systems are to be found in their actual reality and rendered
legitimate by being so found； we must also bear in mind that anatomy not only puts before us three
systems of that sort； but a good many others as well。
Further； apart from this； the sensitive system as a whole must mean something quite different from
what is called a nervous system； the irritable system something different from the muscular system；
the reproductive from the intestinal mechanism of reproduction。 In the systems constituting an
embodied form （Gestalt） the organism is apprehended from the abstract side of lifeless physical
existence： so taken； its moments are elements of a corpse and fall to be dealt with by anatomy；
they do not appertain to knowledge and to the living organism。 Qua parts of that sort they have
really ceased to be； for they cease to be processes。 Since the being of an organism consists
essentially in universality； or reflexion into self； the being of its totality； like its moments； cannot
consist in an anatomical system。 The actual expression of th