In his Logic: Part I of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (translated by T.F. Geraets, W.A. Suchting and H.S. Harris [Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991 {1817}], p. 530), Hegel remarks: “This ambiguity in linguistic usage, through which the same word has a negative and a positive meaning, cannot be regarded as an accident nor yet as a reason to reproach language as if it were a source of confusion. We ought rather to recognize here the speculative spirit of our language, which transcends the ‘either-or’ of mere understanding.” Karl Marx also refers to the concept of Aufhebung, adapting it to his own conception of the world. The Quebec philosopher Yvon Gauthier, in his article “Logique hégélienne et formalisation” (Dialogue. Revue canadienne de philosophie 6, no. 2 [September 1967]: 152), employs the neologism “sursumption” (sursomption) to express the term’s meaning: “I propose the translation [in French] ‘sursumer’ and ‘sursomption’ for ‘aufheben’ and ‘Aufhebung.’ The etymological derivation is based on the model ‘assume – assumption.’ The semantics of the word correspond to the antonym of ‘subsumption’ found in Kant.” A few weeks before completing the manuscript of the present volume, we fell by chance on a book whose author also adapts the concept Aufhebung to the cinema, but in a completely different way than we do (this author attempts to describe, in a “painting-cinema comparison,” how cinema can give free reign to an “Aufhebung of painting” (from the back cover). See Alain Bonfand, Le cinéma saturé: Essai sur les relations de la peinture et des images en mouvement (Paris: Vrin, 2011 [2007]). We might mention in passing that the definition of Aufhebung given by Bonfand (p. 55) does not displease us: “surpassing which preserves that which is surpassed as an interiorized surpassed.” One day we will have to determine whether we can propose that the “filming” retains the operation “shooting” as an interiorized surpassed. For the moment, it appears to us that this is the case.