（2）　The　will　or　action　of　the　individuals　is　the　intermediating　force　which　procures
  for　these　needs　satisfaction　in　society；　in　law；　etc。；　and　which　gives　to　society；
  law；　etc。；　their　fulfilment　and　actualisation。
  （3）　But　the　universal；　that　is　to　say　the　state；　government；　and　law；　is　the
  permanent　underlying　mean　in　which　the　individuals　and　their　satisfaction　have
  and　receive　their　fulfilled　reality；　intermediation；　and　persistence。　Each　of　the
  functions　of　the　notion；　as　it　is　brought　by　intermediation　to　coalesce　with　the
  other　extreme；　is　brought　into　union　with　itself　and　produces　itself：　which
  production　is　self…preservation。　It　is　only　by　the　nature　of　this　triple　coupling；　by
  this　triad　of　syllogisms　with　the　same　terming　that　a　whole　is　thoroughly
  understood　in　its　organisation。
  §　199
  The　immediacy　of　existence；　which　the　objects　have　in　Absolute　Mechanism；　is
  implicitly　negatived　by　the　fact　that　their　independence　is　derived　from；　and　due
  to；　their　connections　with　each　other；　and　therefore　to　their　own　want　of　stability。
  Thus　the　object　must　be　explicitly　stated　as　in　its　existence　having　an　Affinity　（or
  a　bias）　towards　its　other　…　as　not…indifferent。
  （b）　Chemism
  §　200
  The　not…indifferent　（biased）　object　has　an　immanent　mode　which　constitutes　its
  nature；　and　in　which　it　has　existence。　But　as　it　is　invested　with　the　character　of
  total　notion；　it　is　the　contradiction　between　this　totality　and　the　special　mode　of　its
  existence。　Consequently　it　is　the　constant　endeavour　to　cancel　this　contradiction
  and　to　make　its　definite　being　equal　to　the　notion。
  Chemism　is　a　category　of　objectivity　which；　as　a　rule；　is　not　particularly　emphasised；　and　is
  generally　put　under　the　head　of　mechanism。　The　common　name　of　mechanical　relationship　is
  applied　to　both；　in　contradistinction　to　the　teleological。　There　is　a　reason　for　this　in　the　common
  feature　which　belongs　to　mechanism　and　chemism。　In　them　the　notion　exists；　but　only　implicit　and
  latent；　and　they　are　thus　both　marked　off　from　teleology　where　the　notion　has　real　independent
  existence。　This　is　true：　and　yet　chemism　and　mechanism　are　very　decidedly　distinct。　The　object；　in
  the　form　of　mechanism；　is　primarily　only　an　indifferent　reference　to　self；　while　the　chemical　object
  is　seen　to　be　completely　in　reference　to　something　else。　No　doubt　even　in　mechanism；　as　it
  develops　itself；　there　spring　up　references　to　something　else：　but　the　nexus　of　mechanical　objects
  with　one　another　is　at　first　only　an　external　nexus；　so　that　the　objects　in　connection　with　one
  another　still　retain　the　semblance　of　independence。
  In　nature；　for　example；　the　several　celestial　bodies；　which　form　our　solar　system；　compose　a
  kinetic　system；　and　thereby　show　that　they　are　related　to　one　another。　Motion；　however；　as　the
  unity　of　time　and　space；　is　a　connection　which　is　purely　abstract　and　external。　And　it　seems
  therefore　as　if　these　celestial　bodies；　which　are　thus　externally　connected　with　each　other；　would
  continue　to　be　what　they　are；　even　apart　from　this　reciprocal　relation。　The　case　is　quite　different
  with　chemism。　Objects　chemically　biased　are　what　they　are　expressly　by　that　bias　alone。　Hence
  they　are　the　absolute　impulse　towards　integration　by　and　in　one　another。
  §　201
  The　product　of　the　chemical　process　consequently　is　the　Neutral　object；　latent　in
  the　two　extremes；　each　on　the　alert。　The　notion　or　concrete　universal；　by　means
  of　the　bias　of　the　objects　（the　particularity）；　coalesces　with　the　individuality　（in　the
  shape　of　the　product）；　and　in　that　only　with　itself。　In　this　process　too　the　other
  syllogisms　are　equally　involved。　The　place　of　mean　is　taken　both　by　individuality
  as　activity；　and　by　the　concrete　universal；　the　essence　of　the　strained　extremes；
  which　essence　reaches　definite　being　in　the　product。
  §　202
  Chemism；　as　it　is　a　reflectional　nexus　of　objectivity；　has　pre…supposed；　not　merely
  the　bias　or　non…indifferent　nature　of　the　objects；　but　also　their　immediate
  independence。　The　process　of　chemism　consists　in　passing　to　and　fro　from　one
  form　to　another；　which　forms　continue　to　be　as　external　as　before。　In　the　neutral
  product　the　specific　properties；　which　the　extremes　bore　towards　each　other；　are
  merged。　But　although　the　product　is　conformable　to　the　notion；　the　inspiring
  principle　of　active　differentiation　does　not　exist　in　it；　for　it　has　sunk　back　to
  immediacy。　The　neutral　body　is　therefore　capable　of　disintegration。　But　the
  discerning　principle；　which　breaks　up　the　neutral　body　into　biased　and　strained
  extremes；　and　which　gives　to　the　indifferent　object　in　general　its　affinity　and
  animation　towards　another；　that　principle；　and　the　process　as　a　separation　with
  tension；　falls　outside　of　that　first　process。
  The　chemical　process　does　not　rise　above　a　conditioned　and　finite　process。　The　notion　as　notion　is
  only　the　heart　and　core　of　the　process；　and　does　not　in　this　stage　come　to　an　existence　of　its　own。
  In　the　neutral　product　the　process　is　extinct；　and　the　existing　cause　falls　outside　it。
  §　203
  Each　of　these　two　processes；　the　reduction　of　the　biased　（not…indifferent）　to　the
  neutral；　and　the　differentiation　of　the　indifferent　or　neutral；　goes　its　own　way
  without　hindrance　from　the　other。　But　that　want　of　inner　connection　shows　that
  they　are　finite；　by　their　passage　into　products　in　which　they　are　merged　and　lost。
  Conversely　the　process　exhibits　the　nonentity　of　the　presupposed　immediacy　of
  the　not…indifferent　objects。　By　this　negation　of　immediacy　and　of　externalism　in
  which　the　notion　as　object　was　sunk；　it　is　liberated　and　invested　with　independent
  being　in　face　of　that　externalism　and　immediacy。　In　these　circumstances　it　is　the
  End　（Final　Cause）。
  The　passage　from　chemism　to　the　teleological　relation　is　implied　in　the　mutual　cancelling　of　both　of
  the　forms　of　the　chemical　process。　The　result　thus　attained　is　the　liberation　of　the　notion；　which　in
  chemism　and　mechanism　was　present　only　in　the　germ；　and　not　yet　evolved。　The　notion　in　the
  shape　of　the　aim　or　end　thus　comes　into　independent　existence。
  （c）　Teleology
  §204
  In　the　End　the　notion　has　entered　on　free　existence　and　has　a　being　of　its　own；　by
  means　of　the　negation　of　immediate　objectivity。　It　is　characterised　as　subjective；
  seeing　that　this　negation　is；　in　the　first　place；　abstract；　and　hence　at　first　the
  relation　between　it　and　objectivity　still　one　of　contrast。　This　character　of
  subjectivity；　however；　compared　with　the　totality　of　the　notion；　is　one…sided；　and
  that；　be　it　added；　for　the　End　itself；　in　which　all　specific　characters　have　been　put
  as　subordinated　and　merged。　For　it　therefore　even　the　object；　which　it
  presupposes；　has　only　hypothetical　（ideal）　reality　…　essentially　no…reality。　The　End；
  in　short；　is　a　contradiction　of　its　self…identity　against　the　negation　stated　in　it；　i。e。
  its　antithesis　to　objectivity；　and　being　so；　contains　the　eliminative　or　destructive
  activity　which　negates　the　antithesis　and　renders　it　identical　with　itself。　This　is　the
  realisation　of　the　End：　in　which；　while　it　turns　itself　into　the　other　of　its
  subjectivity　and　objectifies　itself；　thus　cancelling　the　distinction　between　the　two；
  it　has　only　closed　with　itself；　and　retained　itself。
  The　notion　of　Design　or　End；　while　on　one　hand　called　redundant；　is　on　another
  justly　described　as　the　rational　notion；　and　contrasted　with　the　abstract　universal
  of　understanding。　The　latter　only　subsumes　the　particular；　and　so　connects　it　with
  itself：　but　has　it　not　in　its　own　nature。　The　distinction　between　the　End　or　final
  cause；　and　the　mere　efficient　cause　（which　is　the　cause　ordinarily　so　called）；　is　of
  supreme　importance。　Causes；　properly　so　called；　belong　to　the　sphere　of
  necessity；　blind；　and　not　yet　laid　bare。　The　cause　therefore　appears　as　passing　into
  its　correlative；　and　losing　its　primordiality　thereby　sinking　into　dependency。　It　is
  only　by　implication；　or　for　us；　that　the　cause　is　in　the　effect　made　for　the　first
  time　a　cause；　and　that　it　there　returns　into　itself。　The　End；　on　the　other　hand；　is
  expressly　stated　as　containing　the　specific　character　in　its　own　self　…　the　effect；
  namely；　which　in　the　purely　causal　relation　is　never　free　from　otherness。　The　End
  therefore　in　its　efficiency　does　not　pass　over；　but　retains　itself；　i。e。　it　carries　into
  effect　itself　only；　and　is　at　the　end　what　it　was　in　the　beginning　or　primordial　state。
  Until　it　thus　retains　itself；　it　is　not　genuinely　primordial。　The　End　then　requires　to
  be　speculatively　apprehended　as　the　notion；　which　itself　in　the　proper　unity　and
  ideality　of　its　characteristics　contains　the　judgement　or　negation　…　the　antithesis　of
  subjective　and　objective　…　and　which　to　an　equal　extent　suspends　that　antithesis。
  By　End　however　we　must　not　at　once；　nor　must　we　ever　merely；　think　of　the
  form　which　it　has　in　consciousness　as　a　mode　of　mere　mental　representation。　By