indifference。　This　gives　the　correlation　of　Force　and　its　Expression。
  The　relationship　of　whole　and　part　is　the　immediate　and　therefore　unintelligent
  （mechanical）　relation—a　revulsion　of　self…identity　into　mere　variety。　Thus　we　pass
  from　the　whole　to　the　parts；　and　from　the　parts　to　the　whole：　in　the　one　we　forget
  its　opposition　to　the　other；　while　each　on　its　own　account；　at　one　time　the　whole；
  at　another　the　parts；　is　taken　to　be　an　independent　existence。　In　other　words；
  when　the　parts　are　declared　to　subsist　in　the　whole；　and　the　whole　to　consist　of
  the　parts；　we　have　either　member　of　the　relation　at　different　times　taken　to　be
  permanently　subsistent；　while　the　other　is　non…essential。　In　its　superficial　form　the
  mechanical　nexus　consists　in　the　parts　being　independent　of　each　other　and　of　the
  whole。
  This　relation　may　be　adopted　for　the　progression　ad　infinitum；　in　the　case　of　the
  divisibility　of　matter：　and　then　it　becomes　an　unintelligent　alternation　with　the　two
  sides。　A　thing　at　one　time　is　taken　as　a　whole：　then　we　go　on　to　specify　the　parts：
  this　specifying　is　forgotten；　and　what　was　a　part　is　regarded　as　a　whole：　then　the
  specifying　of　the　part　comes　up　again；　and　so　on　for　ever。　But　if　this　infinity　be
  taken　as　the　negative　which　it　is；　it　is　the　negative　self…relating　element　in　the
  correlation　—　Force；　the　self…identical　whole；　or　immanency　—　which　yet
  supersedes　this　immanency　and　gives　itself　expression；　and　conversely　the
  expression　which　vanishes　and　returns　into　Force。
  Force；　notwithstanding　this　infinity；　is　also　finite：　for　the　content；　or　the　one　and
  the　same　of　the　Force　and　its　out…putting；　is　this　identity　at　first　only　for　the
  observer：　the　two　sides　of　the　relation　are　not　yet；　each　on　its　own　account；　the
  concrete　identity　of　that　one　and　same；　not　yet　the　totality。　For　one　another　they
  are　therefore　different；　and　the　relationship　is　a　finite　one。　Force　consequently
  requires　solicitation　from　without：　it　works　blindly：　and　on　account　of　this
  defectiveness　of　form；　the　content　is　also　limited　and　accidental。　It　is　not　yet
  genuinely　identical　with　the　form：　not　yet　is　it　as　a　notion　and　an　end；　that　is　to
  say；　it　is　not　intrinsically　and　actually　determinate。　This　difference　is　most　vital；
  but　not　easy　to　apprehend：　it　will　assume　a　clearer　formulation　when　we　reach
  Design。　If　it　be　overlooked；　it　leads　to　the　confusion　of　conceiving　God　as　Force；
  a　confusion　from　which　Herder's　God　especially　suffers。
  It　is　often　said　that　the　nature　of　Force　itself　is　unknown　and　only　its
  manifestation　apprehended。　But；　in　the　first　place；　it　may　be　replied；　every　article
  in　the　import　of　Force　is　the　same　as　what　is　specified　in　the　Exertion：　and　the
  explanation　of　a　phenomenon　by　a　Force　is　a　mere　tautology。　What　is　supposed
  to　remain　unknown；　therefore；　is　really　nothing　but　the　empty　form　of
  reflection…into…self；　by　which　alone　the　Force　is　distinguished　from　the　Exertion　…
  and　that　form　too　is　something　familiar。　It　is　a　form　that　does　not　make　the
  slightest　addition　to　the　content　and　to　the　law；　which　have　to　be　discovered　from
  the　phenomenon　alone。　Another　assurance　always　given　is　that　to　speak　of　forces
  implies　no　theory　as　to　their　nature：　and　that　being　so；　it　is　impossible　to　see　why
  the　form　of　Force　has　been　introduced　into　the　sciences　at　all。　In　the　second　place
  the　nature　of　Force　is　undoubtedly　unknown：　we　are　still　without　any　necessity
  binding　and　connecting　its　content　together　in　itself；　as　we　are　without　necessity　in
  the　content；　in　so　far　as　it　is　expressly　limited　and　hence　has　its　character　by
  means　of　another　thing　outside　it。
  §136n1
  Compared　with　the　immediate　relation　of　whole　and　parts；　the　relation　between　force　and　its
  putting…forth　may　be　considered　infinite。　In　it　that　identity　of　the　two　sides　is　realised；　which　in　the
  former　relation　only　existed　for　the　observer。　The　whole；　though　we　can　see　that　it　consists　of
  parts；　ceases　to　be　a　whole　when　it　is　divided：　whereas　force　is　only　shown　to　be　force　when　it
  exerts　itself；　and　in　its　exercise　only　comes　back　to　itself。　The　exercise　is　only　force　once　more。
  Yet；　on　further　examination　even　this　relation　will　appear　finite；　and　finite　in　virtue　of　this　mediation：
  just　as；　conversely；　the　relation　of　whole　and　parts　is　obviously　finite　in　virtue　of　its　immediacy。　The
  first　and　simplest　evidence　for　the　finitude　of　the　mediated　relation　of　force　and　its　exercise　is；　that
  each　and　every　force　is　conditioned　and　requires　something　else　than　itself　for　its　subsistence。　For
  instance；　a　special　vehicle　of　magnetic　force；　as　is　well　known；　is　iron；　the　other　properties　of
  which；　such　as　its　colour；　specific　weight；　or　relation　to　acids；　are　independent　of　this　connection
  with　magnetism。　The　same　thing　is　seen　in　all　other　forces；　which　from　one　end　to　the　other　are
  found　to　be　conditioned　and　mediated　by　something　else　than　themselves。　Another　proof　of　the
  finite　nature　of　force　is　that　it　requires　solicitation　before　it　can　put　itself　forth。　That　through　which
  the　force　is　solicited；　is　itself　another　exertion　of　force；　which　cannot　put　itself　forth　without　similar
  solicitation。　This　brings　us　either　to　a　repetition　of　the　infinite　progression；　or　to　a　reciprocity　of
  soliciting　and　being　solicited。　In　either　case　we　have　no　absolute　beginning　of　motion。　Force　is　not
  as　yet；　like　the　final　cause；　inherently　self…determining：　the　content　is　given　to　it　as　determined；　and
  force；　when　it　exerts　itself；　is；　according　to　the　phrase；　blind　in　its　working。　That　phrase　implies　the
  distinction　between　abstract　force…manifestation　and　teleological　action。
  §　136n2
  The　oft…repeated　statement；　that　the　exercise　of　the　force　and　not　the　force　itself　admits　of　being
  known；　must　be　rejected　as　groundless。　It　is　the　very　essence　of　force　to　manifest　itself；　and　thus　in
  the　totality　of　manifestation；　conceived　as　a　law；　we　at　the　same　time　discover　the　force　itself。　And
  yet　this　assertion　that　force　in　its　own　self　is　unknowable　betrays　a　well…grounded　presentiment
  that　this　relation　is　finite。　The　several　manifestations　of　a　force　at　first　meet　us　in　indefinite
  multiplicity；　and　in　their　isolation　seem　accidental：　but；　reducing　this　multiplicity　to　its　inner　unity；
  which　we　term　force；　we　see　that　the　apparently　contingent　is　necessary；　by　recognising　the　law
  that　rules　it。　But　the　different　forces　themselves　are　a　multiplicity　again；　and　in　their　mere
  juxtaposition　seem　to　be　contingent。　Hence　in　empirical　physics；　we　speak　of　the　forces　of　gravity；
  magnetism；　electricity；　etc。；　and　in　psychology　of　the　forces　of　memory；　imagination；　will；　and　all
  the　other　faculties。　All　this　multiplicity　again　excites　a　craving　to　know　these　different　forces　as　a
  single　whole；　nor　would　this　craving　be　appeased　even　if　the　several　forces　were　traced　back　to
  one　common　primary　force。　Such　a　primary　force　would　be　really　no　more　than　an　empty
  abstraction；　with　as　little　content　as　the　abstract　thing…in…itself。　And　besides　this；　the　correlation　of
  force　and　manifestation　is　essentially　a　mediated　correlation　（of　reciprocal　dependence）；　and　it
  must　therefore　contradict　the　notion　of　force　to　view　it　as　primary　or　resting　on　itself。
  Such　being　the　case　with　the　nature　of　force；　though　we　may　consent　to　let　the　world　be　called　a
  manifestation　of　divine　forces；　we　should　object　to　have　God　himself　viewed　as　a　mere　force。　For
  force　is　after　all　a　subordinate　and　finite　category。　At　the　so…called　renaissance　of　the　sciences；
  when　steps　were　taken　to　trace　the　single　phenomena　of　nature　back　to　underlying　forces；　the
  Church　branded　the　enterprise　as　impious。　The　argument　of　the　Church　was　as　follows。　If　it　be　the
  forces　of　gravitation；　of　vegetation；　etc。；　which　occasion　the　movements　of　the　heavenly　bodies；
  the　growth　of　plants；　etc。；　there　is　nothing　left　for　divine　providence；　and　God　sinks　to　the　level　of
  a　leisurely　onlooker；　surveying　this　play　of　forces。　The　students　of　nature；　it　is　true；　and　Newton
  more　than　others；　when　they　employed　the　reflective　category　of　force　to　explain　natural
  phenomena；　have　expressly　pleaded　that　the　honour　of　God；　as　the　Creator　and　Governor　of　the
  world；　would　not　thereby　be　impaired。　Still　the　logical　issue　of　this　explanation　by　means　of　forces
  is　that　the　inferential　understanding　proceeds　to　fix　each　of　these　forces；　and　to　maintain　them　in
  their　finitude　as　ultimate。　And　contrasted　with　this　de…infinitised　world　of　independent　forces　and
  matters；　the　only　terms　in　which　it　is　possible　still　to　describe　God　will　present　him　in　the　abstract
  infinity　of　an　unknowable　supreme　Being　in　some　other　world　far　away。　This　Is　precisely　the
  position　of　materialism；　and　of　modern　'freethinking'；　whose　theology　ignores　what　God　is　and
  restricts　itself　to　the　mere　fact　that　he　is。　In　this　dispute　therefore　the　Church　and　the　religious　mind
  have　to　a　certain　extent　the　right　on　their　side。　The　finite　forms　of　understanding　certainly　fail　to
  fulfil　the　conditions　for　a　knowledge　either　of　Nature　or　of　the　formations　in　the　world　of　Mind　as
  they　truly　are。　Yet　on　the　other　si