In the Doctrine of Essence Hegel begins with shine [schein] as
"all that remains of the sphere of being" (WL, p.342).
He further qualifies it as a
"nothingness or a lack of essence...its being is its own equality with itself" (WL, p.346).
That is, the shining of being seems to be being's immediate turning into itself that exclaims itself as itself. This to me is a confusing formulation, because in the Encyclopedia Hegel makes it clear that formulations like this already presuppose a kind of relation to itself that
"promises a difference between subject and predicate," (Enz, p.178)
that is, a distinction between being itself as the other and itself. In other words, when we can speak of shine it seems like we have already passed into the realm of identity. It is impossible to articulate the immediacy of shine, as being shouting itself as such, without already speaking the language of identity (A=A) which posits a difference. This appears to take away the necessity of shine as a transition from being to essence, as the gap between shining (scheinen) and appearing (erscheinen) is filled not with necessity but a mystical leap of some kind. One could possibly save this by taking a Lacanian turn saying that the shine is a necessary failure or misidentification that allows the truth of identity to emerge which teleologically justifies this idea, but I don't think introducing it would be a strictly Hegelian solution and moreover Hegel never returns to shine at the end of the Doctrine of Essence unlike for any of the other concepts which appear false at the beginning of each part of the Logic. I know shine reappears in his aesthetics but I am not familiar with it. Is there anything I am missing in my reading that leads me to this paradox?