that is outside of itself.

This is so because the totality of matter in the proc

ess of becoming contains, by
definition, everything that exists. If we find that something is outside of any
given part of what we are
considering, this merely means that we must define a broader category, which inc
ludes the part in question
as well as what is outside of it. Thus, even though the existence and the charac
teristic defining the mode of
being of any given thing can, and indeed must, be contingent on other things, th
at of the infinite totality of
matter in the process of becoming cannot, because whatever it might be contingen
t on is also by definition
contained in this totality.
We then come to the question of defining in detail what is this totality of matt
er in the process of
becoming. By this we mean that we wish to specify its basic properties and quali
ties, and to delimit its
general characteristics.
Now, the most essential and fundamental characteristic of the totality of matter
in the process of
becoming lies precisely in the fact that it can be represented only with the aid
of an inexhaustible series of
abstractions from it, each abstraction having only an approximate validity, in l
imited contexts and
conditions, and over periods of time that are neither too short nor too long. Th
ese abstractions have many
rationally understandable relationships between them. Thus, they represent thing
s that stand in reciprocal
relationships with each other, and each theory, expressed in terms of a specific
kind of abstraction, helps to
define the domains of validity of different theories, expressed in terms of othe
r kinds of abstractions. The
fact that all these relationships exist is not surprising, since every theory is
, in any case, some kind of
abstraction from the same totality of matter in the process of becoming. Vice ve
rsa, the fact that we need an
inexhaustible series of such abstractions for the better and better representati
on of reality as a whole is also
not surprising, provided that we recall that, as we saw in Section 9, this reali
ty is concrete; i.e. has aspects
that are unique for each thing in each amount of its existence.
The definition of the concrete characteristics of the totality of matter in the
process of becoming can then
be accomplished in unlimited detail in terms of relationships among the things t
hat one can abstract out of
this process itself. For each thing that exists in this process can be defined,
to successively better
approximations and in progressively wider contexts, in terms of its reciprocal r
elationships with more and
more other things. This is the basic reason why the study of any one thing throw
s light on other things, and
thus eventually leads back to a deeper understanding of its own properties. In f
act, if it were possible to
define the totality of all reciprocal relationships between things, this would e
nable us to define matter in the
process of becoming completely. For every thing that exists, including all its c
haracteristic properties and
qualities, every event that happens, and every law relating these events and thi
ngs, is defined only through
such reciprocal relationships. And what more can there be to define about matter

in the process of becoming,

except that which does not exist, has no properties and qualities, satisfies no
laws, does not happen, and
which is therefore precisely nothing? Of course, as has already been pointed out
, we cannot actually come
to know all these reciprocal relationships in any finite time, however long. Nev
ertheless, the more we learn
about them, the more we will know about what matter in the process of becoming i
s, since its totality is
defined by nothing more than the totality of all such relationships.
In conclusion, a consistent conception of what we mean by the absolute side of n
ature can be obtained if
we start by considering the infinite totality of matter in the process of becomi
ng as the basic reality. This
totality is absolute in the sense that it does not depend on anything else for i
ts existence or for a definition of
any of its characteristics. On the other hand, just what it is can be defined co
ncretely only through the
relationships among the things into which it can be analysed approximately. Each
relationship has in it a certain
content that is absolute, but this content must, as we have seen, be defined to
a closer and closer
approximation, with the aid of broader concepts and theories, that take into acc
ount more and more of the
factors on which this relationship depends. Hence, even though the mode of being
of each thing can be