Referring to the transition of Capital to particularity, particular capitals, real capitals. The intra-duality of capital [in general, universality]is conceptual, which self-divides into two capitals with separate existence, thus determining the middle term, particularity. Determinate particularity is many capitals;but only determined [ posited] particularity returns to the prior moment of capital [in general]as `plurality in general'. Movement from simple to concrete/real abstraction. Accordingly, the third moment should be individuality [ shares, credit are individuated juridically], which leaves one perplexed about the use of singularity [ besides, how does this occur in syllogistic ( Cf WL, Bk 2,`Subjective Logic', is perhaps appropriate) reasoning ?]. Sounds a poor term, or maybe i am incorrect, calling for clarification in general. I would prefer individuality.RegardsDebu
Apologies for the long delay in answering. We can choose different world when translating of course; in my view, what is relevant is the content, and with singularity I mean the in intself reflected universal in hegelian terms; that is a particular subject that, in its particular action, acts as universal and leads the process toward totality. Individuality could be reffered to the concept of Individualität, which is something else and so could be misleading. It is not Individualität but Einzelheit, this was my point. Thanks for your comment. Bye.