the　form；　on　the　contrary；　is　not　reflected　into　self；　it　is　equivalent　to　the　negative
  of　the　phenomenon；　to　the　non…independent　and　changeable：　and　that　sort　of　form
  is　the　indifferent　or　External　Form。
  The　essential　point　to　keep　in　mind　about　the　opposition　of　Form　and　Content　is
  that　the　content　is　not　formless；　but　has　the　form　in　its　own　self；　quite　as　much　as
  the　form　is　external　to　it。　There　is　thus　a　doubling　of　form。　At　one　time　it　is
  reflected　into　itself；　and　then　is　identical　with　the　content。　At　another　time　it　is　not
  reflected　into　itself；　and　then　it　is　external　existence；　which　does　not　at　all　affect
  the　content。　We　are　here　in　presence；　implicitly；　of　the　absolute　correlation　of
  content　and　form：　viz。；　their　reciprocal　revulsion；　so　that　content　is　nothing　but
  the　revulsion　of　form　into　content；　and　form　nothing　but　the　revulsion　of　content
  into　form。　This　mutual　revulsion　is　one　of　the　most　important　laws　of　thought。
  But　it　is　not　explicitly　brought　out　before　the　Relations　of　Substance　and
  Causality。
  §133n
  Form　and　content　are　a　pair　of　terms　frequently　employed　by　the　reflective　understanding；
  especially　with　a　habit　of　looking　on　the　content　as　the　essential　and　independent；　the　form　on　the
  contrary　as　the　unessential　and　dependent。　Against　this　it　is　to　be　noted　that　both　are　in　fact　equally
  essential；　and　that；　while　a　formless　content　can　be　as　little　found　as　a　formless　matter；　the　two
  （content　and　matter）　are　distinguished　by　this　circumstance；　that　matter；　though　implicitly　not
  without　form；　still　in　its　existence　manifests　a　disregard　of　form；　whereas　the　content；　as　such；　is
  what　it　is　only　because　the　matured　form　is　included　in　it。　Still　the　form　still　suffers　from　externality。
  In　a　book；　for　instance；　it　certainly　has　no　bearing　upon　the　content；　whether　it　be　written　or
  printed；　bound　in　paper　or　in　leather。　That　however　does　not　in　the　least　imply　that　apart　from　such
  an　indifferent　and　external　form；　the　content　of　the　book　is　itself　formless。　There　are　undoubtedly
  books　enough　which　even　in　reference　to　their　content　may　well　be　styled　formless：　but　want　of
  form　in　this　case　is　the　same　as　bad　form；　and　means　the　defect　of　the　right　form；　not　the　absence
  of　all　form　whatever。　So　far　is　this　right　form　from　being　unaffected　by　the　content　that　it　is　rather
  the　content　itself。　A　work　of　art　that　wants　the　right　form　is　for　that　very　reason　no　right　or　true
  work　of　art：　and　it　is　a　bad　way　of　excusing　an　artist；　to　say　that　the　content　of　his　works　is　good
  and　even　excellent；　though　they　want　the　right　form。　Real　works　of　art　are　those　where　content
  and　form　exhibit　a　thorough　identity。　The　content　of　the　Iliad；　it　may　be　said；　is　the　Trojan　war；　and
  especially　the　wrath　of　Achilles。　In　that　we　have　everything；　and　yet　very　little　after　all；　for　the　Iliad
  is　made　an　Iliad　by　the　poetic　form；　in　which　that　content　is　moulded。　The　content　of　Romeo　and
  Juliet　may　similarly　be　said　to　be　the　ruin　of　two　lovers　through　the　discord　between　their　families：
  but　something　more　is　needed　to　make　Shakespeare's　immortal　tragedy。
  In　reference　to　the　relation　of　form　and　content　in　the　field　of　science；　we　should　recollect　the
  difference　between　philosophy　and　the　rest　of　the　sciences。　The　latter　are　finite；　because　their
  mode　of　thought；　as　a　merely　formal　act；　derives　its　content　from　without。　Their　content　therefore
  is　not　known　as　moulded　from　within　through　the　thoughts　which　lie　at　the　ground　of　it；　and　form
  and　content　do　not　thoroughly　interpenetrate　each　other。　This　partition　disappears　in　philosophy；
  and　thus　justifies　its　title　of　infinite　knowledge。　Yet　even　philosophic　thought　is　often　held　to　be　a
  merely　formal　act；　and　that　logic；　which　confessedly　deals　only　with　thoughts　qua　thoughts；　is
  merely　formal；　is　especially　a　foregone　conclusion。　And　if　content　means　no　more　than　what　is
  palpable　and　obvious　to　the　senses；　all　philosophy　and　logic　in　particular　must　be　at　once
  acknowledged　to　be　void　of　content；　that　is　to　say；　of　content　perceptible　to　the　senses。　Even
  ordinary　forms　of　thought；　however；　and　the　common　usage　of　language；　do　not　in　the　least　restrict
  the　appellation　of　content　to　what　is　perceived　by　the　senses；　or　to　what　has　a　being　in　place　and
  time。
  A　book　without　content　is；　as　every　one　knows；　not　a　book　with　empty　leaves；　but　one　of　which
  the　content　is　as　good　as　none。　We　shall　find　as　the　last　result　on　closer　analysis；　that　by　what　is
  called　content　an　educated　mind　means　nothing　but　the　presence　and　power　of　thought。　But　this　is
  to　admit　that　thoughts　are　not　empty　forms　without　affinity　to　their　content；　and　that　in　other
  spheres　as　well　as　in　art　the　truth　and　the　sterling　value　of　the　content　essentially　depend　on　the
  content　showing　itself　identical　with　the　form。
  §134
  But　immediate　existence　is　a　character　of　the　subsistence　itself　as　well　as　of　the
  form：　it　is　consequently　external　to　the　character　of　the　content；　but　in　an　equal
  degree　this　externality；　which　the　content　has　through　the　factor　of　its　subsistence；
  is　essential　to　it。　When　thus　explicitly　stated；　the　phenomenon　is　relativity　or
  correlation：　where　one　and　the　same　thing；　viz。　the　content　or　the　developed
  form；　is　seen　as　the　externality　and　antithesis　of　independent　existences；　and　as
  their　reduction　to　a　relation　of　identity　in　which　identification　alone　the　two　things
  distinguished　are　what　they　are。
  §135
  （c）　Relation　or　Correlation
  ＇a＇　The　immediate　relation　is　that　of　the　Whole　and　the　Parts。　The　content　is　the
  whole；　and　consists　of　the　parts　（the　form）；　its　counterpart。　The　parts　are　diverse
  from　one　another。　It　is　they　that　possess　independent　being。　But　they　are　parts；
  only　when　they　are　identified　by　being　related　to　one　another；　or；　in　so　far　as　they
  make　up　the　whole；　when　taken　together。　But　this　'together'　is　the　counterpart
  and　negation　of　the　part。
  §135n
  Essential　correlation　is　the　specific　and　completely　universal　phase　in　which　things　appear。
  Everything　that　exists　stands　in　correlation；　and　this　correlation　is　the　veritable　nature　of　every
  existence。　The　existent　thing　in　this　way　has　no　being　of　its　own；　but　only　in　something　else：　in　this
  other　however　it　is　self…relation；　and　correlation　is　the　unity　of　the　self…relation　and
  relation…to…others。　The　relation　of　the　whole　and　the　parts　is　untrue　to　this　extent；　that　the　notion
  and　the　reality　of　the　relation　are　not　in　harmony。　The　notion　of　the　whole　is　to　contain　parts：　but　if
  the　whole　is　taken　and　made　what　its　notion　implies；　i。e。　if　it　is　divided；　it　at　once　ceases　to　be　a
  whole。　Things　there　are　no　doubt；　which　correspond　to　this　relation：　but　for　that　very　reason　they
  are　low　and　untrue　existences。　We　must　remember；　however；　what　'untrue'　signifies。　When　it
  occurs　in　a　philosophical　discussion；　the　term　'untrue'　does　not　signify　that　the　thing　to　which　it　is
  applied　is　non…existent。　A　bad　state　or　a　sickly　body　may　exist　all　the　same；　but　these　things　are
  untrue；　because　their　notion　and　their　reality　are　out　of　harmony。
  The　relation　of　whole　and　parts；　being　the　immediate　relation；　comes　easy　to　reflective
  understanding：　and　for　that　reason　it　often　satisfies　when　the　question　really　turns　on　profounder
  ties。　The　limbs　and　organs　for　instance；　of　an　organic　body　are　not　merely　parts　of　it：　it　is　only　in
  their　unity　that　they　are　what　they　are；　and　they　are　unquestionably　affected　by　that　unity；　as　they
  also　in　turn　affect　it。　These　limbs　and　organs　become　mere　parts；　only　when　they　pass　under　the
  hands　of　an　anatomist；　whose　occupation　be　it　remembered；　is　not　with　the　living　body　but　with
  the　corpse。　Not　that　such　analysis　is　illegitimate：　we　only　mean　that　the　external　and　mechanical
  relation　of　whole　and　parts　is　not　sufficient　for　us；　if　we　want　to　study　organic　life　in　its　truth。　And　if
  this　be　so　in　organic　life；　it　is　the　case　to　a　much　greater　extent　when　we　apply　this　relation　to　the
  mind　and　the　formations　of　the　spiritual　world。　Psychologists　may　not　expressly　speak　of　parts　of
  the　soul　or　mind；　but　the　mode　in　which　this　subject　is　treated　by　the　analytic　understanding　is
  largely　founded　on　the　analogy　of　this　finite　relation。　At　least　that　is　so；　when　the　different　forms　of
  mental　activity　are　enumerated　and　described　merely　in　their　isolation　one　after　another；　as
  so…called　special　powers　and　faculties。
  §136
  Force　and　the　expression　of　force
  ＇b＇　The　one…and…same　of　this　correlation　（the　self…relation　found　in　it）　is　thus
  immediately　a　negative　self…relation。　The　correlation　is　in　short　the　mediating
  process　whereby　one　and　the　same　is　first　unaffected　towards　difference；　and
  secondly　is　the　negative　self…relation；　which　repels　itself　as　reflection…into…self　to
  difference；　and　invests　itself　（as　reflection…into…something…else）　with　existence；
  whilst　it　conversely　leads　back　this　reflection…into…other　to　self…relation　and
  indifference。　This　gives　the