accidental；　perishable；　non…essential；　etc。　can　equally　abstractly　be　grouped　together；　and　this　is
  what　usually　happens　as　the　next　step　in　quite　formal　thinking。　But　the　connection　of　this　second
  with　the　first　is　so　evident　that　one　cannot　avoid　grasping　it　as　also　in　a　unity　with　the　latter；　thus
  with　Spinoza；　the　attribute　is　the　whole　substance；　but　is　apprehended　by　the　intellect　which　is　itself
  a　limitation　or　mode；　but　in　this　way　the　mode；　the　non…substantial　generally；　which　can　only　be
  grasped　through　an　other；　constitutes　the　other　extreme　to　substance；　the　third　generally。　Indian
  pantheism；　too；　in　its　monstrous　fantasies　has　in　an　abstract　way　received　this　development　which
  runs　like　a　moderating　thread　through　its　extravagances；　a　point　of　some　interest　in　the
  development　is　that　Brahma；　the　one　of　abstract　thought；　progresses　through　the　shape　of　Vishnu；
  particularly　in　the　form　of　Krishna；　to　a　third　form；　that　of　Siva。　The　determination　of　this　third　is
  the　mode；　alteration；　coming…to…be　and　ceasing…to…be…the　field　of　externality　in　general。　This
  Indian　trinity　has　misled　to　a　comparison　with　the　Christian　and　it　is　true　that　in　them　a　common
  element　of　the　nature　of　the　Notion　can　be　recognised；　but　it　is　essential　to　gain　a　more　precise
  consciousness　of　the　difference　between　them；　for　not　only　is　this　difference　infinite；　but　it　is　the
  true；　the　genuine　infinite　which　constitutes　it。　This　third　principle　is；　according　to　its　determination；
  the　dispersal　of　the　unity　of　substance　into　its　opposite；　not　the　return　of　the　unity　to　itself　…　not
  spirit　but　rather　the　non…spiritual。　In　the　true　trinity　there　is　not　only　unity　but　union；　the　conclusion
  of　the　syllogism　is　a　unity　possessing　content　and　actuality；　a　unity　which　in　its　wholly　concrete
  determination　is　spirit。　This　principle　of　the　mode　and　of　alteration　does　not；　it　is　true；　altogether
  exclude　the　unity；　in　Spinozism；　for　example；　it　is　precisely　the　mode　as　such　which　is　untrue；
  substance　alone　is　true　and　to　it　everything　must　be　brought　back。　But　this　is　only　to　submerge　all
  content　in　the　void；　in　a　merely　formal　unity　lacking　all　content。　Thus　Siva；　too；　is　again　the　great
  whole；　not　distinct　from　Brahma；　but　Brahma　himself。　In　other　words；　the　difference　and　the
  determinateness　only　vanish　again　but　are　not　preserved；　are　not　sublated；　and　the　unity　does　not
  become　a　concrete　unity；　neither　is　the　disunity　reconciled。　The　supreme　goal　for　man　placed　in　the
  sphere　of　coming…to…be　and　ceasing…to…be；　of　modality　generally；　is　submergence　in
  unconsciousness；　unity　with　Brahma；　annihilation；　the　Buddhist　Nirvana；　Nibbana　etc。；　is　the　same。
  Now　although　the　mode　as　such　is　abstract　externality；　indifference　to　qualitative　and　quantitative
  determinations；　and　in　essence　the　external　and　unessential　elements　are　not　supposed　to　count；　it
  is　still；　on　the　other　hand；　admitted　in　many　cases　that　everything　depends　on　the　kind　and　manner
  of　the　mode；　such　an　admission　means　that　the　mode　itself　is　declared　to　belong　essentially　to　the
  substantial　nature　of　a　thing；　a　very　indefinite　connection　but　one　which　at　least　implies　that　this
  external　element　is　not　so　abstractly　an　externality。
  Here　the　mode　has　the　specific　meaning　of　measure。　Spinoza's　mode；　like　the　Indian　principle　of
  change；　is　the　measureless。　The　Greek　awareness；　itself　still　indeterminate；　that　everything　has　a
  measure　…　even　Parmenides；　after　abstract　being；　introduced　necessity　as　the　ancient　limit　by　which
  all　things　are　bounded　…　is　the　beginning　of　a　much　higher　conception　than　that　contained　in
  substance　and　in　the　difference　of　the　mode　from　substance。
  Measure　in　its　more　developed；　more　reflected　form　is　necessity；　fate；　Nemesis；　was　restricted　in
  general　to　the　specific　nature　of　measure；　namely；　that　what　is　presumptuous；　what　makes　itself　too
  great；　too　high；　is　reduced　to　the　other　extreme　of　being　brought　to　nothing；　so　that　the　mean　of
  measure；　mediocrity　is　restored。　'The　absolute；　God；　is　the　measure　of　all　things'　is　not　more
  intensely　pantheistic　than　the　definition：　'The　absolute；　God；　is　being；'　but　it　is　infinitely　truer。
  Measure；　it　is　true；　is　an　external　kind　and　manner　of　determinateness；　a　more　or　less；　but　at　the
  same　time　it　is　equally　reflected　into　itself；　a　determinateness　which　is　not　indifferent　and　external
  but　intrinsic；　it　is　thus　the　concrete　truth　of　being。　That　is　why　mankind　has　revered　measure　as
  something　inviolable　and　sacred。
  The　Idea　of　essence；　namely；　to　be　self…identical　in　the　immediacy　of　its　determined　being；　is
  already　immanent　in　measure；　so　that　the　immediacy　is　thus　reduced　by　this　self…identity　to
  something　mediated；　which　equally　is　mediated　only　through　this　externality；　but　is　a　mediation
  with　itself　…　that　is；　reflection；　the　determinations　of　which　are；　but　in　this　being　are　nothing　more
  than　moments　of　their　negative　unity。　In　measure；　the　qualitative　moment　is　quantitative；　the
  determinateness　or　difference　is　indifferent　and　so　is　no　difference；　is　sublated。　This　nature　of
  quantity　as　a　return…into…self　in　which　it　is　qualitative　constitutes　that　being…in…and…for…itself　which　is
  essence。　But　measure　is　only　in　itself　or　in　its　Notion　essence；　this　Notion　of　measure　is　not　yet
  posited。　Measure；　still　as　such；　is　itself　the　immediate　＇seiende＇　unity　of　quality　and　quantity；　its
  moments　are　determinately　present　as　a　quality；　and　quanta　thereof；　these　moments　are　at　first
  inseparable　only　in　principle　＇an　sich＇；　but　do　not　yet　have　the　significance　of　this　reflected
  determination。　The　development　of　measure　contains　the　differentiation　of　these　moments；　but　at
  the　same　time　their　relation；　so　that　the　identity　which　they　are　in　themselves　becomes　their
  relation　to　each　other；　i。e。　is　posited。　The　significance　of　this　development　is　the　realisation　of
  measure　in　which　it　posits　itself　as　in　relation　with　itself；　and　hence　as　a　moment。　Through　this
  mediation　it　is　determined　as　sublated；　its　immediacy　and　that　of　its　moments　vanishes；　they　are
  reflected。　Measure；　'　having　thus　realised　its　own　Notion；　has　passed　into　essence。
  At　first；　measure　is　only　an　immediate　unity　of　quality　and　quantity；　so　that：　（1）；　we　have　a
  quantum　with　a　qualitative　significance；　a　measure。　The　progressive　determining　of　this　consists　in
  explicating　what　is　only　implicit　in　it；　namely；　the　difference　of　its　moments；　of　its　qualitatively　and
  quantitatively　determined　being。　These　moments　further　develop　themselves　into　wholes　of
  measure　which　as　such　are　self…subsistent。　These　are　essentially　in　relationship　with　each　other；
  and　so　measure　becomes　（2）；　a　ratio　of　specific　quanta　having　the　form　of　self…subsistent
  measures。　But　their　self…subsistence　also　rests　essentially　on　quantitative　relation　and　quantitative
  difference；　and　so　their　self…subsistence　becomes　a　transition　of　each　into　the　other；　with　the　result
  that　measure　perishes　in　the　measureless。　But　this　beyond　of　measure　is　the　negativity　of　measure
  only　in　principle；　this　results　（3）；　in　the　positing　of　the　indifference　of　the　determinations　of
  measure；　and　the　positing　of　real　measure　…　real　through　the　negativity　contained　in　the　indifference
  …　as　an　inverse　ratio　of　measures　which；　as　self…subsistent　qualities；　are　essentially　based　only　on
  their　quantity　and　on　their　negative　relation　to　one　another；　thereby　demonstrating　themselves　to　be
  only　moments　of　their　truly　self…subsistent　unity　which　is　their　reflection…into…self　and　the　positing
  thereof；　essence。
  The　development　of　measure　which　has　been　attempted　in　the　following　chapters　is　extremely
  difficult。　Starting　from　immediate；　external　measure　it　should；　on　the　one　hand；　go　on　to　develop
  the　abstract　determination　of　the　quantitative　aspects　of　natural　objects　（a　mathematics　of
  nature）；　and　on　the　other　hand；　to　indicate　the　connection　between　this　determination　of　measure
  and　the　qualities　of　natural　objects；　at　least　in　general；　for　the　specific　proof；　derived　from　the
  Notion　of　the　concrete　object；　of　the　connection　between　its　qualitative　and　quantitative　aspects；
  belongs　to　the　special　science　of　the　concrete。　Examples　of　this　kind　concerning　the　law　of　falling
  bodies　and　free；　celestial　motion　will　be　found　in　the　Encyclopedia。　of　the　Phil。　Sciences；　3rd
  ed。；　Sections　267　and　270；　Remark。　In　this　connection　the　general　observation　may　be　made　that
  the　different　forms　in　which　measure　is　realised　belong　also　to　different　spheres　of　natural　reality。
  The　complete；　abstract　indifference　of　developed　measure；　i。e。　the　laws　of　measure；　can　only　be
  manifested　in　the　sphere　of　mechanics　in　which　the　concrete　bodily　factor　is　itself　only　abstract
  matter；　the　qualitative　differences　of　such　matter　are　essentially　quantitatively　determined；　space
  and　time　are　the　purest　forms　of　externality；　and　the　multitude　of　matters；　masses；　intensity　of
  weight；　are　similarly　external　determinations　which　have　their　characteristic　determinateness　in　the
  quantitative　element。　On　the　other　hand；　such　quantitative　determinateness　of　abstract　matter　is
  deranged　simply　by　the　plurality　of　conflicting　qualities　in　the　inorganic　sphere　a　rid　still　more　even
  i