Movement has by definition a non-linear nature. If this were not the case, it would necessarily tend inversely to linearity and therefore to the abolition of movement as such. As movement does not imply the abolition of movement as a universal principle specific to matter, but the abolition of the matter which carries movement, that is to say its transformation since its abolition is impossible.
There is always movement, because there is always matter. But so that the movement does not stop, without which there would be no more matter expressing it, it must be the matter itself which stops, and as it cannot stop, it is transformed. Matter carries movement, is abolished by movement, is constituted by movement.
But nothing can constitute matter. Therefore is matter movement and movement matter.
What is at stake here is the question of quality. A line, even an ascending one, does not evolve, it carries a uniform direction. And who says uniform direction says absence of rupture. Even a movement uniformly experiencing breaks would, by definition, have no breaks due to its continuous dimension. It can therefore not exist.
Therefore, the break is not sufficient in itself to go beyond the principle of a linear movement.
If we take a uniform line, we have no breaks.
∕
If you accept the breaking principle and integrate it into the movement, then you have a leap, but only in terms of form. This jump only adjusts the direction, corrects it, it is a qualitative correction of the quantitative. The break applies to development, to its expression – but it is not development itself.
A break, a qualitative leap, is not enough to formulate quality.
A qualitative leap knows quality, it is not quality. A jump is not quality in itself.
__ ∕
Concretely, we can see in the development of the phenomena that there is advance, retreat, revolution, restoration, counter-restoration. The final transition to a higher stage is never unilateral. It is never linear.
It is never linear either with a single « jump », since there are backslides, a push forward, a counter-push, etc.
So there is not simply a « break » in the course of development. There is not a trend, then suddenly a qualitative acceleration breaking with this trend while continuing it. This can only be a summary description, losing the substance of quality.
What is at stake here is the contradiction between the new and the old. If we stop at it, we have the principle of rupture, in a way however formal.
This contradiction in fact also implies the contradiction of the phenomenon with itself. There is no abstract struggle between the new and the old, only a concrete struggle.
This contradiction in fact also implies the contradiction of the phenomenon with itself. There is no abstract struggle between the new and the old, only a concrete struggle.
The development being internal, the crisis does not occur from the outside, bringing about a transformation, but inside and it is carried by the inside itself; in fact it is the interior itself.
Any development of a phenomenon is a crisis carried by an internal tear. It is not the « form » of the phenomenon that is affected by the crisis, but the contradictory substance of the phenomenon that carries it.
There is therefore no linear movement, because the movement itself undergoes a change in nature by the change in the substance of what carries it.
The changing movement is the changing matter, the changing matter is the changing movement. Movement is transformation of matter and transformation of matter is transformation of movement.
Thus, there is a contradiction between the change in the nature of the movement and the change in the substance that carries it. The old wears the old movement, the new the new movement. But the old and the new are one and the same phenomenon, thus carrying so contradictory both the old and the new movements.
There are thus:
– contradiction within the phenomenon (or more adequately contradiction of the phenomenon), producing the movement;
– contradiction within the phenomenon, between the old and the new;
– contradiction between the new movement and the old, within the phenomenon;
– contradiction between the old movement and the new, within the phenomenon;
– contradiction between the movement and the phenomenon.
There is no negation of negation, because each stage constitutes a qualitatively new terrain. There is no linear movement, nothing is linear, everything comes under the non-linear character – including the non-linear character.
This is because the contradiction is always concrete – there is no movement in itself – it is the dignity of the real that prevails.