Contingency and necessity co-imply with neither ontologically prior

Evidence

What occurs does not arise out of a pre-existing foundation, nor is the accident itself the foundation. Contingency and necessity support one another in such a way that spirit is free from their division and can simply let go its two-sided claim: it could have been otherwise, it could not have been otherwise. It would be futile to want to determine some ontological priority of essence over accident, or accident over essence, for their co-implication is primary. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 1114

Categorization

• DEFINE: The core formulation of accident-essence co-implication that recurs throughout the book, stated cleanly here.
• XREF: Directly answers the reader’s MOC framing: priority of agency over passivity (or reverse) in the enemy concept cannot be settled — their co-implication is primary. This is grounds for the plasticity claim’s refusal of the passive/active binary. — connects to: The dialectic of necessity and contingency mirrors the generation of meaning — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 1112