Hi Patrick,

     I'd like to respond briefly for now by saying that I understand your
plight. My review of the list archive shows a very academic approach to
Spinoza and I applaud the efforts of all involved. And where would we be
without the efforts of language translators like Elwes, Curley, Shirley and
others for our fine English versions of his works? This seems to be the way
we proceed in today's world where "science" and analysis rules. Let's now
take ink and paper samples and find out what materials were used, ah, now
we have DNA analysis, let's get a clone of Spinoza from the dust in the
corner of his old study maybe the form of his brain was special. I want to
try on his genes. Let's track every Latin or Dutch term down to it's
earliest usage. Better still let's abstract (in spite of our authors
warnings) the mere "essence" of Spinoza's words and then maybe our arms
will embrace the almighty! After all, every child and news reporter knows
that e=mc^2 is the very essence of the Universe (or is it eleven dimensions
of superstrings?)

     Ok, I'll stop. Words and formulas are not Ideas says Spinoza using
words. After more than twenty-five years studying Spinoza's words and
having all too brief "flashes" of Intuition with regard to the ideas behind
them, it has only been in the last few years that I've made real inner
progress but I am still just beginning to truly move along the inner path.
To me the real progress has only come by focusing on my own particular
nature. You mention that perhaps: "Spinoza's taxonomy of the affects and
passions in Book III of the Ethics is the best introduction to his thinking
for modern readers." and I would go so far as to say you should print out a
list of these definitions and refer to them throughout the day as you
observe and begin to understand your own emotions in action (oops,
passion.) These are the best examples to study in this regard, not some
abstract human mind.

     Some words from our author that you could probably insert anywhere in
his writings and they will fit:

========= TEI-P46(39):
"If any one asks why I have not at the starting point set forth all the
truths of nature in their due order, inasmuch as truth is self-evident, I
reply by warning him not to reject as false any paradoxes he may find here,
but to take the trouble to reflect on the chain of reasoning by which they
are supported; he will then be no longer in doubt that we have attained to
the truth. This is why I have begun as above."
=========

Let us reflect together in our slow reading,

     Terry

Ps: A few specific comments inserted below and let's all think about
Patrick's thoughts here. Anyone else feel they are missing something and
desire Improvement of their Understanding?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@...>
To: <spinoza@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Digest Number 17


> Dear Terry,
>
> I would like to see this list revived no
> matter what its focus but
> I think it might be a good idea to look
> at the archives to see what
> happened to the last attempt to slow
> read the _Ethics_, namely that
> (despite very active participation)
> it petered out long before getting to
> the 'good parts' which I take to be Book
> V. (I think that anyone who wants to
> come to grips to
> Spinoza really would do better, at least
> on a first reading, to start
> with Book III and read to the end
> skipping the 'proofs' altogether.)

     I think this is a good idea and if you have the Dover edition of Elwes
you can read the whole Ethics in about seventeen pages of the table of
contents.

>
> Like you I was trained as a
> mathematician, although I think I may
> have
> come to Spinoza at later stage than you,
> after realizing the limitations of
> reason without experiment as a way of
> understanding the world.

     Just one point here Spinoza tells us that though he is interested in
"the world" his primary focus is improving his Understanding of his own
nature which he desires to perfect:

"Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of
eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that
it is in God, and is conceived through God."

NOT:

"Our mind, in so far as it knows the world under the form of eternity, has
to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that the world is
in God, and is conceived through God."

AND CERTAINLY NOT:

"Our mind, in so far as it forms an abstract idea of an abstract human mind
under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of
God, and knows that the etc."

>Many of
> Spinoza's proofs are not convincing to
> me even in situations
> where his conclusions seem to me to be
> probably correct and I would very much
> like to be able to buy his arguments.
> For example his idea
> of 'strong determinism' (Penrose's
> phrase) --- that only one history of the
> universe is logically possible --- I
> find very attractive but surely nobody
> seriously believes that he has *proved*
> this?
> Spinoza himself seems to have
> acknowledged the limitations of his
> 'geometrical method' in that he has
> attached Appendices to Books I--IV
> which restate his ideas
> straightforwardly (and which seem to be
> the source of most of your favorite
> citations!)
>

     I don't know what to say that might help you here for now except that
it may be the Improvement of your Understanding that is needed. Even the
need to understand what that involves. Your own mind is the first object of
Spinoza's study. I believe that it is a rare individual that can skip the
TEI and go straight to the Ethics but if such a person is lurking on this
list; Please help us out here! Perhaps if we begin at the beginning and
work together (my guess is that many of the 148 or so current subscribers
to this list, myself included, feel the same way you do!) we might make
some real progress but there are no guaranties. You have a sense that
Spinoza is on to something --good start. To quote Jonathan Livingston
Seagull; "Let's begin with level flight."

> And I would like to draw your attention
> again to the fact that some people seem
> to have grasped the essence of Spinoza
> while generally misunderstanding his
> arguments. For instance this quote from
> Goethe obviously bears Spinoza's
> hallmark:
>
> Nature has divided herself that she may
> be her own delight. The
> spectacle of Nature is always new for
> she is always renewing the
> specatators. Life is her greatest
> invention and death her expert
> contrivance to get plenty of life.
>
> Goethe said he `searched the world in
> vain for the means of developing my
> strange nature until I met with the
> Ethics of that philosopher'.  I think
> any reader who falls under Spinoza's
> spell sooner or later arrives at a point
> where he is completely flabbergasted by
> the degree of selflessness that seems to
> be required to follow him.
> This happened to Goethe at the
> proposition in Book V that goes `He
> who loves God cannot endeavour to bring
> it about that God should love himin
> return'. Goethe's remarks about this
> make it clear that he failed to
> understand that Spinoza's `cannot'
> refers to a logical impossibility rather
> than a moral imperative but I do believe
> that Goethe got the gist of Spinoza much
> better than most. (In my own case it was
> the imaginative sweep of these lines
> which overwhelmed me (from memory):
>
> The strong man has ever first in his
> thoughts that all things follow
> from the necessity of the divine nature,
> that whatever he deems to be
> horrible or evil and whatsoever
> accordingly appears to him to be
> impious, hateful, unjust or base,
> assumes that appearance owing to his
> confused, fragmented and disordered view
> of the universe.)
>
> Excuse me for rambling on like this; the
> point I'm trying to make
> is that reason alone is not the key to
> Spinoza. Reason is effective because of
> its *affective* character (the
> 'intellectual love of God' being nothing
> other than the *pleasure* of
> understanding things intuitively as
> 'being in God and following from the
> necessity of the divine nature'). I
> would like to suggest that Spinoza's
> taxonomy of the affects and passions in
> Book III of the Ethics is the best
> introduction to his thinking for modern
> readers.

>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick

----------
> From: Tim Bagwell <TheEditor@...>
> To: spinoza@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [spinoza] Digest Number 17
> Date: 10 abril, 2000 6:38
>
Timo:

Will you be treating Spinoza's influence on Freud at some point in the
book?  Have? you seen Yovel's work regarding Spinoza and Freud?

Tim

Timo Jarvilehto wrote:

> I don't know if this is the right place, but I would be very
> interested to get some comments from Spinoza specialists on my
> interpretation of Spinoza's ideas so far as they are relevant to
> psychology. I am writing a book about systemic approach in psychology
>
> (see e.g. Jarvilehto 2000, THE THEORY OF THE ORGANISM-ENVIRONMENT
> SYSTEM: IV. THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL ACTIVITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
> http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/art4.htm)
>
> and its historical part I locate Spinoza in the roots of psychology
> in the following way (sorry about the lengthy introduction of Ancient
> Greece etc, but I think this is important for understanding my point
> about the role of Spinoza):
>
> ROOTS OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
>
> The role of soul in Greek philosophy
>
> The first roots of Western psychology may be found in the ancient
> Greece.  Several thinkers were puzzled by the concept of soul and by
> the identity of the human being in the changing world.  Heracleit
> coined the idea of the continuous change (`Nobody may step twice in
> the same river'), Parmenides the idea of no change, which led to a
> synthesis by Democrit in the form of change based on unchangeable
> atoms.
>
> Although Plato did not much sympathize with Democrit, also he was
> some kind of atomist.  Atoms were something eternal that could not be
> observed, but they formed the basis of the observable world.
> Similarly, for Plato the ideas were something unchangeable and
> eternal, but they formed the basis of the observable and changing
> world.  Thus Plato shared the basic idea of Democrit of the way of
> explaining the observable world with something which could not be
> observed, or the change with something that could not change.
>
> As the identity of man was something unchangeable it had to be
> based on the world of unchangeable ideas.  Thus, according to Plato,
> the soul was part of this world.  The soul was the reality; the body
> only a shadow and, actually, a prison of the soul.  As all knowledge
> (epistheme) was in the realm of the ideas the soul did not receive any
>
> knowledge from the world, but all real knowledge was inborn and
> learning was only a process of remembering (anamnesis).  From the
> outer world the soul could receive only changing opinions (doxa).
>
> Aristotle, one of the pupils of Plato, did not accept Plato's view
> without criticism, but proposed his own theory: the soul is the form
> of the body.  Soul is the basic principle of life and movement, and
> therefore all living creatures have a soul.  There are, however,
> developmental stages in the formation of soul from the vegetative soul
>
> (nutrition and reproduction), through the animal soul (sensation and
> movement), to the human soul (volition and thinking).  Here Aristotle
> laid down the principles, which are even now relevant for the
> developmental psychology.  He also proposed the basic hierarchical
> scheme of psychological analysis from simple forms into the complex
> ones, from sensation to perception, imagination, to general concepts
> and categories.
>
> The dichotomies created in the Greek philosophy, in respect to
> psychological considerations, were the following: psychology as
> metaphysics of soul (Plato) vs. biology of soul (Aristotle); mental
> vs. vital; spirit vs. life; psychology as a spiritual science vs.
> natural science; experience vs. behavior.
>
> Medieval considerations: St. Augustin and Thomas Aquinas
>
> The controversy between Plato and Aristotle was continued in the
> Middle Ages by St. Augustin and Thomas Aquinas, respectively.  St.
> Augustin explicitly formulated the problem of `inner' and `outer', and
>
> proposed that the truth may be found only inside man, in the soul. `Do
>
> not turn outwards! Come back to yourself! Inside man resides the
> Truth' (De Vera, 39,72).  The truth radiates from the God into the
> soul of man, not through senses, but when man is co-operating with the
>
> God.  Because the soul is in the inner world and body in the outer
> there must be some connection between them which is accomplished by
> breathing.  When breathing disappears, the soul separates from the
> body and man dies.
>
> This mediation hypothesis was connected with the idea of
> representation: the soul is a picture of God and has like God a
> threefold structure: being, knowing, wanting; memory, understanding,
> will; self-consciousness, wisdom, love. It was also St. Augustin who
> proposed as the first one the idea that man may build his existence on
>
> his doubts: `When I doubt, I exist' (De civit. Dei 11, 26). This was a
>
> logical starting point when considered that the truth will always be
> found inside, not outside.
>
> Thomas Aquinas followed the Aristotelian tradition and proposed that
> the soul should not be separated from the body, because the soul is,
> in fact, functioning of the body. Soul is not a thing, but a principle
>
> of life: `the soul is the primary principle of our nourishment,
> sensation, and local movement....and of our understanding' (Summa
> Theologica).  The soul cannot be located in any single part of the
> body, because it joins the whole body as its form.  Thus, there is
> neither any interaction between the body and the soul.  The soul has,
> however, abilities, part of which are directly connected with the form
>
> of the body, and thus, disappear with death, and part of which are
> eternal outlasting the existence of the body.  The former group is
> characterized by sensitivity and nutrition which belong also to
> animals; the latter ones belong to the body as its subject
> (intelligence and will) are typical only of human beings.
>
> Establishment of the two systems approach:  The dualism of Descartes
>
> >From the point of view of the contemporary psychology the French
> philosopher  and  mathematician René Descartes was certainly the most
> influential figure.  Descartes was the one who solved the controversy
> between the Platonian and Aristotelian views in favor of the Platonian
>
> concept of soul, but with modifications related to the beginnings of
> the modern science.  With his theory of the relationship between the
> soul and body he established the modern two systems view of
> psychology; however, not exactly in the form as it is represented at
> the present.
>
> According to Descartes the soul consists of  a special mental
> substance capable of thinking. In contrast, the body is a non-thinking
>
> and mechanical being, build up  of another substance, the  matter.
> Mental activity was possible  only for the soul  who  through the
> brain could receive outer  influences and also control  the behavior
> of the body. The God was the principle joining these two different
> substances.
>
> By following the vibrations of the pineal gland the soul acquired
> knowledge from the outer world.  This knowledge was transmitted
> through nerve tubes containing vital spirits, which were set in
> vibrating motion by environmental stimuli.  On the other hand, the
> soul could control the pineal gland, and by its vibratory motion it
> could pump vital spirits into the nerve tubes, which resulted in
> inflation of the muscles, causing finally movements of the body.
> Thus, Descartes  was explicitly a  proponent of the  two systems
> theory, but  it is important to note that in his theory the border
> between the systems was not located between the body and the outer
> environment, but between the soul and the brain.
>
> Cartesian ideas dominate the present-day psychology and
> neurophysiology.  This is seen, for example, in the linear and
> mechanistic analysis of behavior, in the analysis proceeding from the
> stimulus to the response, from the input to the output, and in the
> modern conception of transfer of  knowledge (information) from the
> environment into the organism.
>
> Also the localization of mental functions in the brain has its basis
> in the Cartesian theory.  Although for Descartes the soul-substance
> was something quite different from the body-substance, he considered
> that the soul must have some connection to the brain; in some sense he
>
> located the soul in the pineal gland, although he needed the concept
> of God to make understandable how these different substances may
> interact.  When during the 19th century the mystical soul-matter or
> soul-substance was rejected, mental activity was  located to different
>
> parts of the brain, first  to the cortical areas, because these parts
> were conspicuously larger in humans than in other animals, and later
> to many other parts.  Nowadays the soul may be located in any part of
> the brain, in which activity is found by modern recording methods.
>
> The ascription of a place in the brain to the mental activity or
> mental abilities, started all those systemic inconsistencies in
> psychological theorizing, which also at  the present dominate
> psychology.
>
> Descartes had already formulated the concept of reflex: the body is a
> machine that responds constantly to constant stimuli.  According to
> him the soul, however, gives flexibility to this machine  by
> interpreting and estimating the events  in  the environment.  When the
>
> soul as a mystical being was rejected, human activity could be
> explained directly from  the influences of  stimuli.  But even here
> organism was treated as one system and the environment as another,
> although some sort of mechanical one-system theory was developed by
> some, especially by the French philosopher LaMettrie.
>
> The materialists tried to neglect  mental activity, but it was
> difficult to deny subjective experience, altogether.  When this
> experience was thought to be located in the body,  either so that it
> was the same thing as the  bodily  action,  or then something special
> or emergent, created by the  activity of the body, a new  systemic
> border was created.  Now the body and the environment had to be
> separated from  each other.  The  body was the carrier of mental
> activity and of the acting subject; the environment consisted of  the
> objects of action and  of  the sources of forms of mental activity -
> the  stimuli.  The confusion in  the systemic thinking could be seen
> especially in that the body was characterized by
> spiritual-psychic-material concepts, whereas the environment consisted
>
> simply of physical stimuli.
>
>
> Spinoza and the soul as the idea of body in God
>
> Descartes' work was further developed by the Dutch philosopher
> Benedictus de Spinoza. Spinoza was not satisfied with the Cartesian
> dualistic solution of the mind-body problem, and proposed his monistic
>
> point of view as an extension of the Cartesian ideas.  Spinoza tried
> to explain the  activity of man by starting with the assumption of
> only one  substance, nature  or God (Deus sive Natura).  According to
> Spinoza, nature was the only existing substance, being eternal and
> infinite, and of the attributes of which man knew two: thought and
> extension.  Nature was  a unitary system, the parts of which all
> belonged together, and acted in a harmony according to  causal
> relations.  Man was an expression  of nature, in which the two
> attributes, thought and extension,  were expressed in finite form.
>
> According to  Spinoza, typical for every existing thing is a striving
> to maintain  itself.  This follows from the proposition  that
> everything must have a cause;  thus,  destruction of a thing, too.
> Every being or thing  may  maintain itself so long no outer cause is
> effective.  Living or inanimate beings are not different in this
> respect.  The  stone is resisting disturbances like a human, for  to
> destroy  any of them  outer force is needed.  Thus, in the nature
> there is nothing passive, receptive as such, but everything existing
> has an active character.
>
> According to Spinoza,  knowledge is not something which moves
> from the outer world through the body to the soul; instead,
> knowledge is the form of existence.  If the organism has no
> knowledge, it simply does not exist.  The increase of knowledge
> means growth, it means an increase in existence.  Furthermore,
> emotions, for example, are not some inner movements of the soul  or
> mystical  states,  but changing of the existence of man towards
> perfection (joy),  or  destruction (sorrow).
>
> Thus, from the Spinoza's thinking we may  arrive in a conception,
> according to which mental activity  is explicitly activity of the
> organism in its environment, the soul is the idea of the body in the
> God, as Spinoza expressed.  The mental  or  psychical  is not
> something comparable to the  body,  consisting only of a different
> substance, but it may be defined  as a form of existence of body in
> its environment.  Mental and physical cannot be in a causal relation,
> because the physical is included in the mental.  Therefore mental acts
>
> may be explained only by mental acts and physical events only through
> other physical events: `Connexio et ordo rerum, idem est, ac ordo, et
> connexio idearum' (Ethics).
>
> The  philosophy  of Spinoza expresses for the first time those
> principles which are formulated  in  the theory of organism-
> environment system.  From  the thinking of Spinoza follows precisely
> the conception of the world as a unitary systemic whole, in which the
> organism and environment naturally  connect with each other.  This
> systemic whole  is not governed just by  mechanical forces, because
> these forces  are only one form of expression of nature.  Mental
> activity, thinking or subjective experience  are  also in the nature
> and  they  are expressed in various ways  in  the  systems with
> different structures.
>
> In fact, Spinoza's ideas were only logical continuation of problems
> inherent in the Cartesian model of the relation between the soul and
> body.  As Spinoza puts it: `I cannot understand how such a brilliant
> thinker... may develop such obscure ideas...'.  Descartes had
> formulated the possibility to treat the body as any machine
> constructed by human beings.  This means that the constructor has to
> treat the machine and its environment as one system, because he must
> build the machine to act in a certain kind of environment.  Machine
> may be separated from the environment only if we forget its
> constructor.  Spinoza realized that  man was not constructed by no
> other man, but by the nature (or God).  Therefore, man had to develop
> together with the nature, as its inseparable part.  Thus: the soul is
> the idea of the human body in God.
>
> Thanks,
> Timo Jarvilehto
>
> ===================================================
> Timo Jarvilehto
> http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/indexe.htm
> Professor of psychology
> University of Oulu
> PB 2000, 90014 Oulun yliopisto, Finland
> tjarvile@...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
>
> Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>

In the table of contents of the Elwes translation the following
sections are identified. I prefixed them by PNN(nn) where NN=paragraph
number per Curley and (nn)=per Elwes counting each indentation found in the
text:

============
P01(1). Of the ordinary objects of men's desires.
P12(6). Of the true and final good.
P16b(7). Certain rules of life.

P18b(12). Of the four modes of perception.
P25(22). Of the best mode of perception.
P32(32). Of the instruments of the intellect, or true ideas.
P43(38). Answers to objections.

P50(43). First part of method. Distinction of true ideas from fictitious
ideas.
P66(54). And from false ideas.
P69(55). Reality of truth.
P77(61). Of doubt.

P81(62). Of memory and forgetfulness.
P88(66). Mental hindrances from words--and confusion of ready imagination
with understanding.

P91(68). Second part of method. Its object, the acquisition of clear and
distinct ideas.
P92(69). Its means, good definitions. Conditions of definitions.
P106(86). How to define the understanding.
============

     In addition to this outline view it might be useful to look at what
seems to be a summary of the method being developed here for improving our
Understanding. From a letter by Spinoza:

=========== Letter 42(37):
"...I pass on to your question, which runs as follows: 'Is there, or can
there be, any method by which we may, without hindrance, arrive at the
knowledge of the most excellent things? or are our minds, like our bodies,
subject to the vicissitudes of circumstance, so that our thoughts are
governed rather by fortune than by skill?' I think I shall satisfy you, if
I show that there must necessarily be a method, whereby we are able to
direct our clear and distinct perceptions, and that our mind is not, like
our body, subject to the vicissitudes of circumstance.
     This conclusion may be based simply on the consideration that one clear
and distinct perception, or several such together, can be absolutely the
cause of another clear and distinct perception. Now, all the clear and
distinct perceptions, which we form, can only arise from other clear and
distinct perceptions, which are in us; nor do they acknowledge any cause
external to us. Hence it follows that the clear and distinct perceptions,
which we form, depend solely on our nature, and on its certain and fixed
laws; in other words, on our absolute power, not on fortune --that is, not
on causes which, although also acting by certain and fixed laws, are yet
unknown to us, and alien to our nature and power. As regards other
perceptions, I confess that they depend chiefly on fortune. Hence clearly
appears, what the true method ought to be like, and what it ought chiefly
to consist in --namely, solely in the knowledge of the pure understanding,
and its nature and laws. In order that such knowledge may be acquired, it
is before all things necessary to distinguish between the understanding and
the imagination, or between ideas which are true and the rest, such as the
fictitious, the false, the doubtful, and absolutely all depend solely on
the memory. For the understanding of these matters, as far as the method
requires, there is no need to know the nature of the mind through its first
cause; it is sufficient to put together a short history of the mind, or of
perceptions, in the manner taught by Verulam.
     I think that in these few words I have explained and demonstrated the
true method, and have, at the same time, pointed out the way of acquiring
it. It only remains to remind you, that all these questions demand
assiduous study, and great firmness of disposition and purpose. In order to
fulfil these conditions, it is of prime necessity to follow a fixed mode
and plan of living, and to set before one some definite aim. But enough of
this for the present, &c."
===========

     Two things stand out to me in this letter;

"it is before all things necessary to distinguish between the understanding
and the imagination"
and;
"all these questions demand assiduous study, and great firmness of
disposition and purpose. In order to fulfil these conditions, it is of
prime necessity to follow a fixed mode and plan of living, and to set
before one some definite aim."

     Now, with regard to the work at hand; perhaps we can go through each of
the above identified sections in order and discuss or question the ideas
expressed. I presume we each have a copy of the text so should we just
quote the specific parts we have questions or comments on rather than
trying to insert all the text for reading here? I'm going to make an
attempt along these lines and anyone else please feel free to offer or
demonstrate an alternative.

P01(1) "Of the ordinary objects of men's desires.":

     In my earlier post on slow reading and authorial intent, I started with
a key point from the first paragraph of this section namely his "resolved
to inquire whether there might be some real good having power to
communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of
all else; whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery
and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending
happiness." This seems to follow Spinoza's own admonition from the above
letter; "to set before one some definite aim."

     Seems like a grand desire to me but I know that many readers (myself
included) kind of chuckle to ourselves when we first read this; "Yea,
right; 'continuous, supreme, and unending happiness' --surely he's engaging
in fantasy here." He'll return to this idea shortly but in the rest of this
section he discusses what it is that leads him to the conclusion "that all
the usual surroundings of social life are vain and futile".

     He identifies three classifications of what are ordinarily thought of
as the "highest good" namely Riches, Fame, and Pleasures of Sense. He goes
on to point out some of the associated problems that go with the pursuit of
these things. But hey, why spend time telling us these things. Let's get on
with improving our Understanding! We're sophisticated intellectual beings,
we know we're "above" all this. No, wait slowwww downnnn. He wants us to
think about the things we currently might consider the "highest good".
(remember authorial intent?) How does life seem to you? What gets your
attention out of all the daily so called activities. Look at kids in the
school yard, perhaps we see several practicing their basketball or soccer
skills. What is going on in their minds? What do we engage ourselves in
when we are not being driven by our need for food and shelter. If you ask
these kids they might tell you they want to grow up to be [fill in your
favorite sports figure if you have one] --Why? Are they pursuing the
advantages that physical activity brings to health and well being? In our
own secret pursuits what do we often desire? FAME. Why am I spending my
time writing to this quite public eGroup list? I will confess that there is
this (sometimes quite strong) desire to make a mark in the human community
and to seek the praise of other's. What does Fame provide us that makes us
pursue it sometimes blatantly and sometimes in a more veiled manner?

     As we get older and leave the school yard behind we often add the
pursuit of Riches. "God if only I'd win the lottery life would be grand!"
If you don't have enough money for food and shelter life stinks and Spinoza
seems to acknowledge this but we don't seem to want to stop there. What's
wrong with Riches as our "highest good"?

     When the work day is done and we retire for the evening, perhaps to the
relaxing hot-tub with friends or we use a few chemicals [legal or
otherwise] to loosen up or maybe we have other ways of finding Sense
Pleasure. Again, what's wrong with this?

     Spinoza will eventually spend a fair amount of time studying these and
related questions in the Ethics but for now perhaps it is enough simply to
acknowledge as our author does that these things do indeed occupy our mind
for much of our life and that they do carry with them many uncertainties.
They may be good in a way but Spinoza says they seem to him to be vain and
futile in the long run. Maybe he's looking ahead and asking himself where
his life is leading? Are we asking ourselves the same questions at this
point? It might help our study if we try to spend some time reading and
thinking over the ideas presented at this the very threshold of Spinoza's
search.

     I'm going to close for now and hope other's of you will say what you
think of this first part of the first section of The Improvement. What
stand out in your mind here?

     Spinoza Study: To sit together (virtually in this case) and to Think
Together.

     Terry

Dear Terry,

I would like to see this list revived no
matter what its focus but
I think it might be a good idea to look
at the archives to see what
happened to the last attempt to slow
read the _Ethics_, namely that
(despite very active participation)
it petered out long before getting to
the 'good parts' which I take to be Book
V. (I think that anyone who wants to
come to grips to
Spinoza really would do better, at least
on a first reading, to start
with Book III and read to the end
skipping the 'proofs' altogether.)

Like you I was trained as a
mathematician, although I think I may
have
come to Spinoza at later stage than you,
after realizing the limitations of
reason without experiment as a way of
understanding the world. Many of
Spinoza's proofs are not convincing to
me even in situations
where his conclusions seem to me to be
probably correct and I would very much
like to be able to buy his arguments.
For example his idea
of 'strong determinism' (Penrose's
phrase) --- that only one history of the
universe is logically possible --- I
find very attractive but surely nobody
seriously believes that he has *proved*
this?
Spinoza himself seems to have
acknowledged the limitations of his
'geometrical method' in that he has
attached Appendices to Books I--IV
which restate his ideas
straightforwardly (and which seem to be
the source of most of your favorite
citations!)

And I would like to draw your attention
again to the fact that some people seem
to have grasped the essence of Spinoza
while generally misunderstanding his
arguments. For instance this quote from
Goethe obviously bears Spinoza's
hallmark:

Nature has divided herself that she may
be her own delight. The
spectacle of Nature is always new for
she is always renewing the
specatators. Life is her greatest
invention and death her expert
contrivance to get plenty of life.

Goethe said he `searched the world in
vain for the means of developing my
strange nature until I met with the
Ethics of that philosopher'.  I think
any reader who falls under Spinoza's
spell sooner or later arrives at a point
where he is completely flabbergasted by
the degree of selflessness that seems to
be required to follow him.
This happened to Goethe at the
proposition in Book V that goes `He
who loves God cannot endeavour to bring
it about that God should love himin
return'. Goethe's remarks about this
make it clear that he failed to
understand that Spinoza's `cannot'
refers to a logical impossibility rather
than a moral imperative but I do believe
that Goethe got the gist of Spinoza much
better than most. (In my own case it was
the imaginative sweep of these lines
which overwhelmed me (from memory):

The strong man has ever first in his
thoughts that all things follow
from the necessity of the divine nature,
that whatever he deems to be
horrible or evil and whatsoever
accordingly appears to him to be
impious, hateful, unjust or base,
assumes that appearance owing to his
confused, fragmented and disordered view
of the universe.)

Excuse me for rambling on like this; the
point I'm trying to make
is that reason alone is not the key to
Spinoza. Reason is effective because of
its *affective* character (the
'intellectual love of God' being nothing
other than the *pleasure* of
understanding things intuitively as
'being in God and following from the
necessity of the divine nature'). I
would like to suggest that Spinoza's
taxonomy of the affects and passions in
Book III of the Ethics is the best
introduction to his thinking for modern
readers.

Regards,

Patrick

Will you be treating Spinoza's influence on Freud at some point in the book?  Have? you seen Yovel's work regarding Spinoza and Freud?

Tim

Timo Jarvilehto wrote:

I don't know if this is the right place, but I would be very
interested to get some comments from Spinoza specialists on my
interpretation of Spinoza's ideas so far as they are relevant to
psychology. I am writing a book about systemic approach in psychology

(see e.g. Jarvilehto 2000, THE THEORY OF THE ORGANISM-ENVIRONMENT
SYSTEM: IV. THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL ACTIVITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/art4.htm)

and its historical part I locate Spinoza in the roots of psychology
in the following way (sorry about the lengthy introduction of Ancient
Greece etc, but I think this is important for understanding my point
about the role of Spinoza):

ROOTS OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY

The role of soul in Greek philosophy

The first roots of Western psychology may be found in the ancient
Greece.  Several thinkers were puzzled by the concept of soul and by
the identity of the human being in the changing world.  Heracleit
coined the idea of the continuous change (`Nobody may step twice in
the same river'), Parmenides the idea of no change, which led to a
synthesis by Democrit in the form of change based on unchangeable
atoms.

Although Plato did not much sympathize with Democrit, also he was
some kind of atomist.  Atoms were something eternal that could not be
observed, but they formed the basis of the observable world.
Similarly, for Plato the ideas were something unchangeable and
eternal, but they formed the basis of the observable and changing
world.  Thus Plato shared the basic idea of Democrit of the way of
explaining the observable world with something which could not be
observed, or the change with something that could not change.

As the identity of man was something unchangeable it had to be
based on the world of unchangeable ideas.  Thus, according to Plato,
the soul was part of this world.  The soul was the reality; the body
only a shadow and, actually, a prison of the soul.  As all knowledge
(epistheme) was in the realm of the ideas the soul did not receive any
knowledge from the world, but all real knowledge was inborn and
learning was only a process of remembering (anamnesis).  From the
outer world the soul could receive only changing opinions (doxa).

Aristotle, one of the pupils of Plato, did not accept Plato's view
without criticism, but proposed his own theory: the soul is the form
of the body.  Soul is the basic principle of life and movement, and
therefore all living creatures have a soul.  There are, however,
developmental stages in the formation of soul from the vegetative soul
(nutrition and reproduction), through the animal soul (sensation and
movement), to the human soul (volition and thinking).  Here Aristotle
laid down the principles, which are even now relevant for the
developmental psychology.  He also proposed the basic hierarchical
scheme of psychological analysis from simple forms into the complex
ones, from sensation to perception, imagination, to general concepts
and categories.

The dichotomies created in the Greek philosophy, in respect to
psychological considerations, were the following: psychology as
metaphysics of soul (Plato) vs. biology of soul (Aristotle); mental
vs. vital; spirit vs. life; psychology as a spiritual science vs.
natural science; experience vs. behavior.

Medieval considerations: St. Augustin and Thomas Aquinas

The controversy between Plato and Aristotle was continued in the
Middle Ages by St. Augustin and Thomas Aquinas, respectively.  St.
Augustin explicitly formulated the problem of `inner' and `outer', and
proposed that the truth may be found only inside man, in the soul. `Do
not turn outwards! Come back to yourself! Inside man resides the
Truth' (De Vera, 39,72).  The truth radiates from the God into the
soul of man, not through senses, but when man is co-operating with the
God.  Because the soul is in the inner world and body in the outer
there must be some connection between them which is accomplished by
breathing.  When breathing disappears, the soul separates from the
body and man dies.

This mediation hypothesis was connected with the idea of
representation: the soul is a picture of God and has like God a
threefold structure: being, knowing, wanting; memory, understanding,
will; self-consciousness, wisdom, love. It was also St. Augustin who
proposed as the first one the idea that man may build his existence on
his doubts: `When I doubt, I exist' (De civit. Dei 11, 26). This was a
logical starting point when considered that the truth will always be
found inside, not outside.

Thomas Aquinas followed the Aristotelian tradition and proposed that
the soul should not be separated from the body, because the soul is,
in fact, functioning of the body. Soul is not a thing, but a principle
of life: `the soul is the primary principle of our nourishment,
sensation, and local movement....and of our understanding' (Summa
Theologica).  The soul cannot be located in any single part of the
body, because it joins the whole body as its form.  Thus, there is
neither any interaction between the body and the soul.  The soul has,
however, abilities, part of which are directly connected with the form
of the body, and thus, disappear with death, and part of which are
eternal outlasting the existence of the body.  The former group is
characterized by sensitivity and nutrition which belong also to
animals; the latter ones belong to the body as its subject
(intelligence and will) are typical only of human beings.

Establishment of the two systems approach:  The dualism of Descartes

>From the point of view of the contemporary psychology the French
philosopher  and  mathematician René Descartes was certainly the most
influential figure.  Descartes was the one who solved the controversy
between the Platonian and Aristotelian views in favor of the Platonian
concept of soul, but with modifications related to the beginnings of
the modern science.  With his theory of the relationship between the
soul and body he established the modern two systems view of
psychology; however, not exactly in the form as it is represented at
the present.

According to Descartes the soul consists of  a special mental
substance capable of thinking. In contrast, the body is a non-thinking
and mechanical being, build up  of another substance, the  matter.
Mental activity was possible  only for the soul  who  through the
brain could receive outer  influences and also control  the behavior
of the body. The God was the principle joining these two different
substances.

By following the vibrations of the pineal gland the soul acquired
knowledge from the outer world.  This knowledge was transmitted
through nerve tubes containing vital spirits, which were set in
vibrating motion by environmental stimuli.  On the other hand, the
soul could control the pineal gland, and by its vibratory motion it
could pump vital spirits into the nerve tubes, which resulted in
inflation of the muscles, causing finally movements of the body.
Thus, Descartes  was explicitly a  proponent of the  two systems
theory, but  it is important to note that in his theory the border
between the systems was not located between the body and the outer
environment, but between the soul and the brain.

Cartesian ideas dominate the present-day psychology and
neurophysiology.  This is seen, for example, in the linear and
mechanistic analysis of behavior, in the analysis proceeding from the
stimulus to the response, from the input to the output, and in the
modern conception of transfer of  knowledge (information) from the
environment into the organism.

Also the localization of mental functions in the brain has its basis
in the Cartesian theory.  Although for Descartes the soul-substance
was something quite different from the body-substance, he considered
that the soul must have some connection to the brain; in some sense he
located the soul in the pineal gland, although he needed the concept
of God to make understandable how these different substances may
interact.  When during the 19th century the mystical soul-matter or
soul-substance was rejected, mental activity was  located to different
parts of the brain, first  to the cortical areas, because these parts
were conspicuously larger in humans than in other animals, and later
to many other parts.  Nowadays the soul may be located in any part of
the brain, in which activity is found by modern recording methods.

The ascription of a place in the brain to the mental activity or
mental abilities, started all those systemic inconsistencies in
psychological theorizing, which also at  the present dominate
psychology.

Descartes had already formulated the concept of reflex: the body is a
machine that responds constantly to constant stimuli.  According to
him the soul, however, gives flexibility to this machine  by
interpreting and estimating the events  in  the environment.  When the
soul as a mystical being was rejected, human activity could be
explained directly from  the influences of  stimuli.  But even here
organism was treated as one system and the environment as another,
although some sort of mechanical one-system theory was developed by
some, especially by the French philosopher LaMettrie.

The materialists tried to neglect  mental activity, but it was
difficult to deny subjective experience, altogether.  When this
experience was thought to be located in the body,  either so that it
was the same thing as the  bodily  action,  or then something special
or emergent, created by the  activity of the body, a new  systemic
border was created.  Now the body and the environment had to be
separated from  each other.  The  body was the carrier of mental
activity and of the acting subject; the environment consisted of  the
objects of action and  of  the sources of forms of mental activity -
the  stimuli.  The confusion in  the systemic thinking could be seen
especially in that the body was characterized by
spiritual-psychic-material concepts, whereas the environment consisted
simply of physical stimuli.
 

Spinoza and the soul as the idea of body in God

Descartes' work was further developed by the Dutch philosopher
Benedictus de Spinoza. Spinoza was not satisfied with the Cartesian
dualistic solution of the mind-body problem, and proposed his monistic
point of view as an extension of the Cartesian ideas.  Spinoza tried
to explain the  activity of man by starting with the assumption of
only one  substance, nature  or God (Deus sive Natura).  According to
Spinoza, nature was the only existing substance, being eternal and
infinite, and of the attributes of which man knew two: thought and
extension.  Nature was  a unitary system, the parts of which all
belonged together, and acted in a harmony according to  causal
relations.  Man was an expression  of nature, in which the two
attributes, thought and extension,  were expressed in finite form.

According to  Spinoza, typical for every existing thing is a striving
to maintain  itself.  This follows from the proposition  that
everything must have a cause;  thus,  destruction of a thing, too.
Every being or thing  may  maintain itself so long no outer cause is
effective.  Living or inanimate beings are not different in this
respect.  The  stone is resisting disturbances like a human, for  to
destroy  any of them  outer force is needed.  Thus, in the nature
there is nothing passive, receptive as such, but everything existing
has an active character.

According to Spinoza,  knowledge is not something which moves
from the outer world through the body to the soul; instead,
knowledge is the form of existence.  If the organism has no
knowledge, it simply does not exist.  The increase of knowledge
means growth, it means an increase in existence.  Furthermore,
emotions, for example, are not some inner movements of the soul  or
mystical  states,  but changing of the existence of man towards
perfection (joy),  or  destruction (sorrow).

Thus, from the Spinoza's thinking we may  arrive in a conception,
according to which mental activity  is explicitly activity of the
organism in its environment, the soul is the idea of the body in the
God, as Spinoza expressed.  The mental  or  psychical  is not
something comparable to the  body,  consisting only of a different
substance, but it may be defined  as a form of existence of body in
its environment.  Mental and physical cannot be in a causal relation,
because the physical is included in the mental.  Therefore mental acts
may be explained only by mental acts and physical events only through
other physical events: `Connexio et ordo rerum, idem est, ac ordo, et
connexio idearum' (Ethics).

The  philosophy  of Spinoza expresses for the first time those
principles which are formulated  in  the theory of organism-
environment system.  From  the thinking of Spinoza follows precisely
the conception of the world as a unitary systemic whole, in which the
organism and environment naturally  connect with each other.  This
systemic whole  is not governed just by  mechanical forces, because
these forces  are only one form of expression of nature.  Mental
activity, thinking or subjective experience  are  also in the nature
and  they  are expressed in various ways  in  the  systems with
different structures.

In fact, Spinoza's ideas were only logical continuation of problems
inherent in the Cartesian model of the relation between the soul and
body.  As Spinoza puts it: `I cannot understand how such a brilliant
thinker... may develop such obscure ideas...'.  Descartes had
formulated the possibility to treat the body as any machine
constructed by human beings.  This means that the constructor has to
treat the machine and its environment as one system, because he must
build the machine to act in a certain kind of environment.  Machine
may be separated from the environment only if we forget its
constructor.  Spinoza realized that  man was not constructed by no
other man, but by the nature (or God).  Therefore, man had to develop
together with the nature, as its inseparable part.  Thus: the soul is
the idea of the human body in God.

Thanks,
Timo Jarvilehto

===================================================
Timo Jarvilehto
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/indexe.htm
Professor of psychology
University of Oulu
PB 2000, 90014 Oulun yliopisto, Finland
tjarvile@...

---

---

This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
 

I don't know if this is the right place, but I would be very
interested to get some comments from Spinoza specialists on my
interpretation of Spinoza's ideas so far as they are relevant to
psychology. I am writing a book about systemic approach in psychology

(see e.g. Jarvilehto 2000, THE THEORY OF THE ORGANISM-ENVIRONMENT
SYSTEM: IV. THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL ACTIVITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/art4.htm)

and its historical part I locate Spinoza in the roots of psychology
in the following way (sorry about the lengthy introduction of Ancient
Greece etc, but I think this is important for understanding my point
about the role of Spinoza):

ROOTS OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY

The role of soul in Greek philosophy

The first roots of Western psychology may be found in the ancient
Greece.  Several thinkers were puzzled by the concept of soul and by
the identity of the human being in the changing world.  Heracleit
coined the idea of the continuous change (`Nobody may step twice in
the same river'), Parmenides the idea of no change, which led to a
synthesis by Democrit in the form of change based on unchangeable
atoms.

Although Plato did not much sympathize with Democrit, also he was
some kind of atomist.  Atoms were something eternal that could not be
observed, but they formed the basis of the observable world.
Similarly, for Plato the ideas were something unchangeable and
eternal, but they formed the basis of the observable and changing
world.  Thus Plato shared the basic idea of Democrit of the way of
explaining the observable world with something which could not be
observed, or the change with something that could not change.

As the identity of man was something unchangeable it had to be
based on the world of unchangeable ideas.  Thus, according to Plato,
the soul was part of this world.  The soul was the reality; the body
only a shadow and, actually, a prison of the soul.  As all knowledge
(epistheme) was in the realm of the ideas the soul did not receive any
knowledge from the world, but all real knowledge was inborn and
learning was only a process of remembering (anamnesis).  From the
outer world the soul could receive only changing opinions (doxa).

Aristotle, one of the pupils of Plato, did not accept Plato's view
without criticism, but proposed his own theory: the soul is the form
of the body.  Soul is the basic principle of life and movement, and
therefore all living creatures have a soul.  There are, however,
developmental stages in the formation of soul from the vegetative soul
(nutrition and reproduction), through the animal soul (sensation and
movement), to the human soul (volition and thinking).  Here Aristotle
laid down the principles, which are even now relevant for the
developmental psychology.  He also proposed the basic hierarchical
scheme of psychological analysis from simple forms into the complex
ones, from sensation to perception, imagination, to general concepts
and categories.

The dichotomies created in the Greek philosophy, in respect to
psychological considerations, were the following: psychology as
metaphysics of soul (Plato) vs. biology of soul (Aristotle); mental
vs. vital; spirit vs. life; psychology as a spiritual science vs.
natural science; experience vs. behavior.

Medieval considerations: St. Augustin and Thomas Aquinas

The controversy between Plato and Aristotle was continued in the
Middle Ages by St. Augustin and Thomas Aquinas, respectively.  St.
Augustin explicitly formulated the problem of `inner' and `outer', and
proposed that the truth may be found only inside man, in the soul. `Do
not turn outwards! Come back to yourself! Inside man resides the
Truth' (De Vera, 39,72).  The truth radiates from the God into the
soul of man, not through senses, but when man is co-operating with the
God.  Because the soul is in the inner world and body in the outer
there must be some connection between them which is accomplished by
breathing.  When breathing disappears, the soul separates from the
body and man dies.

This mediation hypothesis was connected with the idea of
representation: the soul is a picture of God and has like God a
threefold structure: being, knowing, wanting; memory, understanding,
will; self-consciousness, wisdom, love. It was also St. Augustin who
proposed as the first one the idea that man may build his existence on
his doubts: `When I doubt, I exist' (De civit. Dei 11, 26). This was a
logical starting point when considered that the truth will always be
found inside, not outside.

Thomas Aquinas followed the Aristotelian tradition and proposed that
the soul should not be separated from the body, because the soul is,
in fact, functioning of the body. Soul is not a thing, but a principle
of life: `the soul is the primary principle of our nourishment,
sensation, and local movement....and of our understanding' (Summa
Theologica).  The soul cannot be located in any single part of the
body, because it joins the whole body as its form.  Thus, there is
neither any interaction between the body and the soul.  The soul has,
however, abilities, part of which are directly connected with the form
of the body, and thus, disappear with death, and part of which are
eternal outlasting the existence of the body.  The former group is
characterized by sensitivity and nutrition which belong also to
animals; the latter ones belong to the body as its subject
(intelligence and will) are typical only of human beings.

Establishment of the two systems approach:  The dualism of Descartes

From the point of view of the contemporary psychology the French
philosopher  and  mathematician René Descartes was certainly the most
influential figure.  Descartes was the one who solved the controversy
between the Platonian and Aristotelian views in favor of the Platonian
concept of soul, but with modifications related to the beginnings of
the modern science.  With his theory of the relationship between the
soul and body he established the modern two systems view of
psychology; however, not exactly in the form as it is represented at
the present.

According to Descartes the soul consists of  a special mental
substance capable of thinking. In contrast, the body is a non-thinking
and mechanical being, build up  of another substance, the  matter.
Mental activity was possible  only for the soul  who  through the
brain could receive outer  influences and also control  the behavior
of the body. The God was the principle joining these two different
substances.

By following the vibrations of the pineal gland the soul acquired
knowledge from the outer world.  This knowledge was transmitted
through nerve tubes containing vital spirits, which were set in
vibrating motion by environmental stimuli.  On the other hand, the
soul could control the pineal gland, and by its vibratory motion it
could pump vital spirits into the nerve tubes, which resulted in
inflation of the muscles, causing finally movements of the body.
Thus, Descartes  was explicitly a  proponent of the  two systems
theory, but  it is important to note that in his theory the border
between the systems was not located between the body and the outer
environment, but between the soul and the brain.

Cartesian ideas dominate the present-day psychology and
neurophysiology.  This is seen, for example, in the linear and
mechanistic analysis of behavior, in the analysis proceeding from the
stimulus to the response, from the input to the output, and in the
modern conception of transfer of  knowledge (information) from the
environment into the organism.

Also the localization of mental functions in the brain has its basis
in the Cartesian theory.  Although for Descartes the soul-substance
was something quite different from the body-substance, he considered
that the soul must have some connection to the brain; in some sense he
located the soul in the pineal gland, although he needed the concept
of God to make understandable how these different substances may
interact.  When during the 19th century the mystical soul-matter or
soul-substance was rejected, mental activity was  located to different
parts of the brain, first  to the cortical areas, because these parts
were conspicuously larger in humans than in other animals, and later
to many other parts.  Nowadays the soul may be located in any part of
the brain, in which activity is found by modern recording methods.

The ascription of a place in the brain to the mental activity or
mental abilities, started all those systemic inconsistencies in
psychological theorizing, which also at  the present dominate
psychology.

Descartes had already formulated the concept of reflex: the body is a
machine that responds constantly to constant stimuli.  According to
him the soul, however, gives flexibility to this machine  by
interpreting and estimating the events  in  the environment.  When the
soul as a mystical being was rejected, human activity could be
explained directly from  the influences of  stimuli.  But even here
organism was treated as one system and the environment as another,
although some sort of mechanical one-system theory was developed by
some, especially by the French philosopher LaMettrie.

The materialists tried to neglect  mental activity, but it was
difficult to deny subjective experience, altogether.  When this
experience was thought to be located in the body,  either so that it
was the same thing as the  bodily  action,  or then something special
or emergent, created by the  activity of the body, a new  systemic
border was created.  Now the body and the environment had to be
separated from  each other.  The  body was the carrier of mental
activity and of the acting subject; the environment consisted of  the
objects of action and  of  the sources of forms of mental activity -
the  stimuli.  The confusion in  the systemic thinking could be seen
especially in that the body was characterized by
spiritual-psychic-material concepts, whereas the environment consisted
simply of physical stimuli.


Spinoza and the soul as the idea of body in God

Descartes' work was further developed by the Dutch philosopher
Benedictus de Spinoza. Spinoza was not satisfied with the Cartesian
dualistic solution of the mind-body problem, and proposed his monistic
point of view as an extension of the Cartesian ideas.  Spinoza tried
to explain the  activity of man by starting with the assumption of
only one  substance, nature  or God (Deus sive Natura).  According to
Spinoza, nature was the only existing substance, being eternal and
infinite, and of the attributes of which man knew two: thought and
extension.  Nature was  a unitary system, the parts of which all
belonged together, and acted in a harmony according to  causal
relations.  Man was an expression  of nature, in which the two
attributes, thought and extension,  were expressed in finite form.

According to  Spinoza, typical for every existing thing is a striving
to maintain  itself.  This follows from the proposition  that
everything must have a cause;  thus,  destruction of a thing, too.
Every being or thing  may  maintain itself so long no outer cause is
effective.  Living or inanimate beings are not different in this
respect.  The  stone is resisting disturbances like a human, for  to
destroy  any of them  outer force is needed.  Thus, in the nature
there is nothing passive, receptive as such, but everything existing
has an active character.

According to Spinoza,  knowledge is not something which moves
from the outer world through the body to the soul; instead,
knowledge is the form of existence.  If the organism has no
knowledge, it simply does not exist.  The increase of knowledge
means growth, it means an increase in existence.  Furthermore,
emotions, for example, are not some inner movements of the soul  or
mystical  states,  but changing of the existence of man towards
perfection (joy),  or  destruction (sorrow).

Thus, from the Spinoza's thinking we may  arrive in a conception,
according to which mental activity  is explicitly activity of the
organism in its environment, the soul is the idea of the body in the
God, as Spinoza expressed.  The mental  or  psychical  is not
something comparable to the  body,  consisting only of a different
substance, but it may be defined  as a form of existence of body in
its environment.  Mental and physical cannot be in a causal relation,
because the physical is included in the mental.  Therefore mental acts
may be explained only by mental acts and physical events only through
other physical events: `Connexio et ordo rerum, idem est, ac ordo, et
connexio idearum' (Ethics).

The  philosophy  of Spinoza expresses for the first time those
principles which are formulated  in  the theory of organism-
environment system.  From  the thinking of Spinoza follows precisely
the conception of the world as a unitary systemic whole, in which the
organism and environment naturally  connect with each other.  This
systemic whole  is not governed just by  mechanical forces, because
these forces  are only one form of expression of nature.  Mental
activity, thinking or subjective experience  are  also in the nature
and  they  are expressed in various ways  in  the  systems with
different structures.

In fact, Spinoza's ideas were only logical continuation of problems
inherent in the Cartesian model of the relation between the soul and
body.  As Spinoza puts it: `I cannot understand how such a brilliant
thinker... may develop such obscure ideas...'.  Descartes had
formulated the possibility to treat the body as any machine
constructed by human beings.  This means that the constructor has to
treat the machine and its environment as one system, because he must
build the machine to act in a certain kind of environment.  Machine
may be separated from the environment only if we forget its
constructor.  Spinoza realized that  man was not constructed by no
other man, but by the nature (or God).  Therefore, man had to develop
together with the nature, as its inseparable part.  Thus: the soul is
the idea of the human body in God.

Thanks,
Timo Jarvilehto

===================================================
Timo Jarvilehto
http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/homepage/tjarvile/indexe.htm
Professor of psychology
University of Oulu
PB 2000, 90014 Oulun yliopisto, Finland
tjarvile@...

I second Terry's suggestion of starting with or reviewing "On The Improvement of Human Understanding".   I was introduced to Spinoza first through "On The Improvement of Human Understanding" in the seventh grade.  My family life was already atheio-agnostic and infused with a bit of 60s radicalism. "On The Improvement of Human Understanding" was my first taste of the concept of liberating the mind to see all possibilities.  I don't know who has kids and who doesn't. "On The Improvement of Human Understanding" is a good primer and if you have kids (13 or older) let them have it.  I actually think younger minds may be able to read Spinoza better.  Though I will say, even if you start young, you don't know much until you talk it over with others.

Terry's note about physics and philosophy is interesting.  I can't recall the letter but Spinoza in some ways did not consider himself a philosopher. I am paraphrasing here (forgive me please Terry, your citations are quite good) "philosophers see the world the way they would like it to be, politicians see it as it is."   Sir Karl Popper, in writing about the philosophy of science did not refer to Spinoza as philosopher but as a physicist.  This is why the reception of Spinoza's ideas in the writing of others can be so helpful.

I think the divide between the specialist and enthusiast is interesting too.  In the days prior to the Holocaust, Spinoza was much more a grassroots phenomenon.  Well at least much more of the literate European middle and upper classes were familiar with his writings and those of others who wrote about him.  This may have made for a less distinguishable divide between specialist and non specialist.  More people in the gray areas in-between.  So now its up to us to jump start the discussion.  More gray areas means more discussion may mean more "clear and distinct ideas."

Tim Bagwell

Terry Neff wrote:

Hi Patrick,

    I hope others will offer their thoughts on the situation you describe
and in addition maybe I can at least offer some encouragement.

    I am not trained as a philosopher either and quite frankly in college
the only courses of any interest to me were Mathematics and Physics though
time and experience has broadened that view. My problem with the Ethics was
that I wanted it to be as clear to me as Euclid's Elements. I can still
remember as kid (even before I took Geometry in school) taking paper, a
straight-edge, and compass and working through many of the fundamental
propositions. It fascinated me to start with the simple, clear ideas and be
able to build new, more complex but still clear ideas. Looking back I
realize that I didn't care where these ideas might be heading or what
practical use they might have I just enjoyed working with them.

    When I came to Spinoza I expected this same clarity and as with you it
just didn't happen. Unlike you however I had a mental block against going
forward to later parts before I had the same kind of clarity I had
experienced with Euclid. I spun my wheels on Book I for a long time and
often set it aside, before I decided to just muddle on through to the end.
You may have some intuition that what Spinoza describes in Book V is the
"Fruit" of his labours and this seems to me to be a good sign but I believe
that to come to deeper understanding you will need to follow his reasoning
closely. Spinoza prods us in several places to put in efforts to follow
him. For instance, (and this also relates to your second point about
studying "World Religions"):

============= E2: PROP. 3, Note:
"...If we might pursue the subject further, I could point out, that the
power which is commonly attributed to God is not only human (as showing
that God is conceived by the multitude as a man, or in the likeness of a
man), but involves a negation of power. However, I am unwilling to go over
the same ground so often. I would only beg the reader again and again, to
turn over frequently in his mind what I have said in Part 1. from E1P16 to
the end. No one will be able to follow my meaning, unless he is
scrupulously careful not to confound the power of God with the human power
and right of kings."
=============

and a little further on:

============= E2: PROP. 11 Corollary, Note:
"Here, I doubt not, readers will come to a stand, and will call to mind
many things which will cause them to hesitate; I therefore beg them to
accompany me slowly, step by step, and not to pronounce on my statements,
till they have read to the end."
=============

Where he says "I would only beg the reader again and again, to turn over
frequently in his mind..." and "I doubt not, readers will come to a
stand..." he knows this is not going to be easy for us but this is Reason
put to the grand task of bringing our thoughts into a direction that will
awaken our Intuitive Knowledge of God (as Spinoza has defined God!) and
this is our mind's "Highest Blessedness". There simply is nothing as
"greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength."

    Also, on your second point about studying "World Religions" I think
this is a fine idea but I would suggest that you carefully read Spinoza's
"Theological-Political Treatise" and bear in mind always the key point he
develops there:

============= TPT, Ch. 14:
"...between faith or theology, and philosophy, there is no connection, nor
affinity. I think no one will dispute the fact who has knowledge of the aim
and foundations of the two subjects, for they are as wide apart as the
poles."
=============

and also from one of his letters:

=============
"Sublime speculations have, in my opinion, no bearing on Scripture. As far
as I am concerned I have never learnt or been able to learn any of God's
eternal attributes from Holy Scripture."
=============

    I too have studied Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and other thought and find
much of it useful but just remember our imagination tends to blend many
things together and the vague feelings that we might have about "God" and
the "Universe", etc. when we read various writings need to be overcome by
forming clear ideas. In fact Buddha in the Dhammapada is said to have
expressed this very idea as:

"Clear thinking leads to Nirvana,
a confused mind is a place of death.
Clear thinkers do not die,
the confused ones have never lived."

Sounds quite Spinozistic to me :-)

    One last suggestion for you and I would include it to the list members
too. The Improvement of the Understanding is a great study in preparation
for study of the Ethics. One of the key points being distinguishing between
our imagination and our Understanding. Perhaps we could begin by slow
reading it here.

    Regards,

        Terry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@...>
To: <spinoza@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Digest Number 16
 

> Dear Terry,
>
> I was very pleased to read your message
> `Why Slow Read Spinoza?'.
>
> I too believe that Spinoza found a path
> to 'continuous, supreme
> and unending happiness' and for several
> years I have striven to see the
> world through the lens of Book V of the
> _Ethics_. But I am not trained
> as a philosopher and there are large
> parts of Books I and II that I've
> never been able to understands (even
> with commentaries such as Curley's
> and Lloyd's). I've tended to approach
> Spinoza in the manner of Goethe
> ('dipping into Spinoza') and I wonder if
> this is not the best way for
> non-specialists (considering that most
> specialists don't seem to 'get'
> it anyway)?
>
> One alternative way of approaching
> Spinoza would be to try to find
> approximations to his idea of God in the
> World Religions. I take Spinoza at his
> word when he says that man's 'freedom,
> salvation or blessedness' lies in the
> 'constant eternal and unending love of
> God or in God's love for man' but I was
> completely stumped as to how Spinoza's
> God could be *lovable* until I studied
> the Bhagavad Gita. I wonder if any other
> members of the list have had a similar
> experience?
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick
 
 

This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
 

Hi Patrick,

     I hope others will offer their thoughts on the situation you describe
and in addition maybe I can at least offer some encouragement.

     I am not trained as a philosopher either and quite frankly in college
the only courses of any interest to me were Mathematics and Physics though
time and experience has broadened that view. My problem with the Ethics was
that I wanted it to be as clear to me as Euclid's Elements. I can still
remember as kid (even before I took Geometry in school) taking paper, a
straight-edge, and compass and working through many of the fundamental
propositions. It fascinated me to start with the simple, clear ideas and be
able to build new, more complex but still clear ideas. Looking back I
realize that I didn't care where these ideas might be heading or what
practical use they might have I just enjoyed working with them.

     When I came to Spinoza I expected this same clarity and as with you it
just didn't happen. Unlike you however I had a mental block against going
forward to later parts before I had the same kind of clarity I had
experienced with Euclid. I spun my wheels on Book I for a long time and
often set it aside, before I decided to just muddle on through to the end.
You may have some intuition that what Spinoza describes in Book V is the
"Fruit" of his labours and this seems to me to be a good sign but I believe
that to come to deeper understanding you will need to follow his reasoning
closely. Spinoza prods us in several places to put in efforts to follow
him. For instance, (and this also relates to your second point about
studying "World Religions"):

============= E2: PROP. 3, Note:
"...If we might pursue the subject further, I could point out, that the
power which is commonly attributed to God is not only human (as showing
that God is conceived by the multitude as a man, or in the likeness of a
man), but involves a negation of power. However, I am unwilling to go over
the same ground so often. I would only beg the reader again and again, to
turn over frequently in his mind what I have said in Part 1. from E1P16 to
the end. No one will be able to follow my meaning, unless he is
scrupulously careful not to confound the power of God with the human power
and right of kings."
=============

and a little further on:

============= E2: PROP. 11 Corollary, Note:
"Here, I doubt not, readers will come to a stand, and will call to mind
many things which will cause them to hesitate; I therefore beg them to
accompany me slowly, step by step, and not to pronounce on my statements,
till they have read to the end."
=============

Where he says "I would only beg the reader again and again, to turn over
frequently in his mind..." and "I doubt not, readers will come to a
stand..." he knows this is not going to be easy for us but this is Reason
put to the grand task of bringing our thoughts into a direction that will
awaken our Intuitive Knowledge of God (as Spinoza has defined God!) and
this is our mind's "Highest Blessedness". There simply is nothing as
"greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength."

     Also, on your second point about studying "World Religions" I think
this is a fine idea but I would suggest that you carefully read Spinoza's
"Theological-Political Treatise" and bear in mind always the key point he
develops there:

============= TPT, Ch. 14:
"...between faith or theology, and philosophy, there is no connection, nor
affinity. I think no one will dispute the fact who has knowledge of the aim
and foundations of the two subjects, for they are as wide apart as the
poles."
=============

and also from one of his letters:

=============
"Sublime speculations have, in my opinion, no bearing on Scripture. As far
as I am concerned I have never learnt or been able to learn any of God's
eternal attributes from Holy Scripture."
=============

     I too have studied Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and other thought and find
much of it useful but just remember our imagination tends to blend many
things together and the vague feelings that we might have about "God" and
the "Universe", etc. when we read various writings need to be overcome by
forming clear ideas. In fact Buddha in the Dhammapada is said to have
expressed this very idea as:

"Clear thinking leads to Nirvana,
a confused mind is a place of death.
Clear thinkers do not die,
the confused ones have never lived."

Sounds quite Spinozistic to me :-)

     One last suggestion for you and I would include it to the list members
too. The Improvement of the Understanding is a great study in preparation
for study of the Ethics. One of the key points being distinguishing between
our imagination and our Understanding. Perhaps we could begin by slow
reading it here.

     Regards,

         Terry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@...>
To: <spinoza@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Digest Number 16


> Dear Terry,
>
> I was very pleased to read your message
> `Why Slow Read Spinoza?'.
>
> I too believe that Spinoza found a path
> to 'continuous, supreme
> and unending happiness' and for several
> years I have striven to see the
> world through the lens of Book V of the
> _Ethics_. But I am not trained
> as a philosopher and there are large
> parts of Books I and II that I've
> never been able to understands (even
> with commentaries such as Curley's
> and Lloyd's). I've tended to approach
> Spinoza in the manner of Goethe
> ('dipping into Spinoza') and I wonder if
> this is not the best way for
> non-specialists (considering that most
> specialists don't seem to 'get'
> it anyway)?
>
> One alternative way of approaching
> Spinoza would be to try to find
> approximations to his idea of God in the
> World Religions. I take Spinoza at his
> word when he says that man's 'freedom,
> salvation or blessedness' lies in the
> 'constant eternal and unending love of
> God or in God's love for man' but I was
> completely stumped as to how Spinoza's
> God could be *lovable* until I studied
> the Bhagavad Gita. I wonder if any other
> members of the list have had a similar
> experience?
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick

Dear Terry,

I was very pleased to read your message
`Why Slow Read Spinoza?'.

I too believe that Spinoza found a path
to 'continuous, supreme
and unending happiness' and for several
years I have striven to see the
world through the lens of Book V of the
_Ethics_. But I am not trained
as a philosopher and there are large
parts of Books I and II that I've
never been able to understands (even
with commentaries such as Curley's
and Lloyd's). I've tended to approach
Spinoza in the manner of Goethe
('dipping into Spinoza') and I wonder if
this is not the best way for
non-specialists (considering that most
specialists don't seem to 'get'
it anyway)?

One alternative way of approaching
Spinoza would be to try to find
approximations to his idea of God in the
World Religions. I take Spinoza at his
word when he says that man's 'freedom,
salvation or blessedness' lies in the
'constant eternal and unending love of
God or in God's love for man' but I was
completely stumped as to how Spinoza's
God could be *lovable* until I studied
the Bhagavad Gita. I wonder if any other
members of the list have had a similar
experience?

Regards,

Patrick

Why Slow Read Spinoza? Lance mentions "Respect for authorial intent"
as an element of the concept of "Slow Reading". What is Spinoza's intent in
his writing and beyond that; with what was his life concerned? He didn't
want any more money than he needed for the simplest of life's necessities.
He turned down positions that would have brought prestige and power to his
life. He passed his time in study, writing, and making lenses and
apparently enjoyed the fellowship of close friends and neighbors. In this
life, he seems to have discovered what he thinks is a great treasure within
his own mind and he wants to share it with us! He tells us in several
places what he is aiming toward and what he found but how many of us take
him seriously. Maybe he's just making fancy talk, maybe he's crazy as a
loon, maybe his words will provided good material we can show off at
cocktail parties or maybe, just maybe, he actually discovered what he says
he did and he believes he can help us discover it too!

      What did he say about his intent? Early on he expressed his resolve
to:

============ TEI-P1:
"...inquire whether there might be some real good having power to
communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of
all else; whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery
and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending
happiness."
============

      I guess he saying, look, so far life seems to have had its ups and
downs for me and I set myself to wondering whether there is anything of
real value to be discovered which will provide real happiness. I can get
myself in such a frame of mind to some degree. So what does he mean by
"some real good"? He describes:

============ TEI-P12:
"I will here only briefly state what I mean by true good, and also what is
the nature of the highest good."

"...all things which come to pass, come to pass according to the eternal
order and fixed laws of nature. However, human weakness cannot attain to
this order in its own thoughts, but meanwhile man conceives a human
character much more stable than his own, and sees that there is no reason
why he should not himself acquire such a character. Thus he is led to seek
for means which will bring him to this pitch of perfection, and calls
everything which will serve as such means a true good. The chief good is
that he should arrive, together with other individuals if possible, at the
possession of the aforesaid character. What that character is we shall show
in due time, namely, that it is the knowledge of the union existing between
the mind and the whole of nature. This, then, is the end for which I
strive, to attain to such a character myself, and to endeavor that many
should attain to it with me."
============

     Ok, he says he can form a conception of a higher human character and
that he desires to attain such character for himself and others. This
character is "the knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the
whole of nature" and this knowledge brings with it supreme, and unending
happiness. Sure sounds good to me, the only question might be "Is this guy
nuts? The mind and the Whole of Nature??? What's he got in that pipe he's
smoking?" I don't know but I'd like to put myself in his shoes and to
acquire his viewpoint, and see if I can acquire this character too. I'm
thinking; "Yea, but he thinks all things come to pass according to the
eternal order and fixed laws of nature." and we know better now a days what
with [fill in your favorite pet quantum theory.] But look, if the guy says
that what he found brought him supreme happiness then I'm more than a
little curious to know what he means.

He goes on:

============ TEI-P16:
"...before all things, a means must be devised for improving the
understanding and purifying it, as far as may be at the outset, so that it
may apprehend things without error, and in the best possible way." ...
"Thus it is apparent to every one that I wish to direct all sciences to one
end and aim, so that we may attain to the supreme human perfection which we
have named; and, therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to
promote our object will have to be rejected as useless. To sum up the
matter in a word, all our actions and thoughts must be directed to this one
end."
============

     He clearly states that he has one end and aim, to: "attain to the
supreme human perfection which we have named" and that further, the
sciences are useful to him only in so far as they are directed toward this
goal. He also identifies an immediate need to improve our own Understanding
and then goes on to distinguish the known modes of perception and indicates
that Reason and Intuition are to be preferred over the Imagination and
Memory. He points out that False, Fictitious, and Doubtful ideas all
involve the imagination and the confusions of experience and memory and
that we must constantly seek to avoid them in working toward our goal.

     Moving on to the Ethics, which is the ultimate expression of Spinoza's
quest for the "Highest Good", we find that he often reiterates his goal and
gives us advice on how to proceed. He summarizes Ethics, part I, On God:

============= Ethics I, Appendix:
"In the foregoing I have explained the nature and properties of God. I have
shown that he necessarily exists, that he is one: that he is, and acts
solely by the necessity of his own nature; that he is the free cause of all
things, and how he is so; that all things are in God, and so depend on him,
that without him they could neither exist nor be conceived; lastly, that
all things are predetermined by God, not through his free will or absolute
fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power"
=============

     Later on he's going to tell us that though we might follow his
reasoning here and know these ideas to be true they do not affect our mind
so much as when we come to know the same things by Intuition. But let's
continue; what can we make of the foregoing:

============= Ethics II, The Human Mind, Preface:
"I now pass on to explaining the results, which must necessarily follow
from the essence of God, or of the eternal and infinite being; not, indeed,
all of them (for we proved in E1P16, that an infinite number must follow in
an infinite number of ways), but only those which are able to lead us, as
it were by the hand, to the knowledge of the human mind and its highest
blessedness."
=============

     Again he indicates the aim for himself and for others; "supreme human
perfection" or what he here names "blessedness." He continues his
reasoning, leading always in a specific direction. He says we need to
understand our own mind and how it works. He explains the three kinds of
knowledge and reminds us that Reason may provide the direction and a runway
but we need liftoff into Intuition for the Highest Human Perfection:

============= Ethics IV, Appendix, 4:
"Thus in life it is before all things useful to perfect the understanding,
or reason, as far as we can, and in this alone man's highest happiness or
blessedness consists, indeed blessedness is nothing else but the
contentment of spirit, which arises from the intuitive knowledge of God:
now, to perfect the understanding is nothing else but to understand God,
God's attributes, and the actions which follow from the necessity of his
nature. Wherefore of a man, who is led by reason, the ultimate aim or
highest desire, whereby he seeks to govern all his fellows, is that whereby
he is brought to the adequate conception of himself and of all things
within the scope of his intelligence."
=============

     He's bringing us toward the peak of human perfection in part 5 where he
begins:

============= Ethics V, Preface:
"At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics, which is concerned
with the way leading to freedom. I shall therefore treat therein of the
power of the reason, showing how far the reason can control the emotions,
and what is the nature of Mental Freedom or Blessedness"
=============

     Here Blessedness is equated with Mental Freedom and much of what he has
said so far and will here show more directly is the usefulness of
understanding our own emotions so that we can enjoy this Blessedness as he
relates:

============= Ethics V, P20, Note:
"Again, it must be observed, that spiritual unhealthiness and misfortunes
can generally be traced to excessive love for something which is subject to
many variations, and which we can never become masters of. For no one is
solicitous or anxious about anything, unless he loves it; neither do
wrongs, suspicions, enmities, etc. arise, except in regard to things
whereof no one can be really master.
  We may thus readily conceive the power which clear and distinct knowledge,
and especially that third kind of knowledge, founded on the actual
knowledge of God, possesses over the emotions: if it does not absolutely
destroy them, in so far as they are passions; at any rate, it causes them
to occupy a very small part of the mind. Further, it begets a love towards
a thing immutable and eternal, whereof we may really enter into possession;
neither can it be defiled with those faults which are inherent in ordinary
love; but it may grow from strength to strength, and may engross the
greater part of the mind, and deeply penetrate it."
=============

     What follows in the Ethics from this point has been much debated and in
some cases simply written off as the ravings of a lunatic by some and as a
misguided endeavor to satisfy some social or political aim by others.
However, maybe we need to put these judgments aside for a while and if we
can free ourselves a bit from attachment to our own imagination and
preconceived notions and can use our power of reason without turning it to
the support of dogma ("scientific" or otherwise) we might find that this
part expresses in words something far beyond all ordinary pleasures and
that we can truly attain it for ourselves.

     Desiring to attain blessedness does not make it happen and just because
Spinoza says "...I do not presume that I have found the best philosophy, I
know that I understand the true philosophy." we can't just take his word
for it. We need to apply great effort to study the writings and our own
nature and keep in mind always that "All things excellent are as difficult
as they are rare." These works seems to be the expression of a mind which
found the Highest Human Blessedness for himself and he tells us that that
Blessedness awaits all who will put in the effort to Understand.

     Slow reading may begin the process of Improvement of the Understanding
and sharing our thoughts and confusions here about what we read may help
each of us attain the Inner Freedom and Joy our author seems to intend.

     Terry

For an HTML implementation of the idea behind Lance's "index of
implication." see:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/

and select "Spinoza's Works". There you will find a "split-frame"
presentation of Spinoza's major works. In particular, within the Ethics,
for each element you will find a section of links titled "Referenced in:"
which includes the "forward references". Using the "split-frame" technique
allows you to continue to view the original element in the upper frame
while displaying each selected reference in the lower frame.

     I actually compared my original "Referenced in" list with Lance's
"Index of implication" and included some of the links he shows from Curley
that are not in the Elwes text I used. Site does not include Latin and
element commentary as Lance suggests but it's a start.

     Regards,
         Terry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lancelot R. Fletcher" <lance@...>
To: <spinoza@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:58 AM
Subject: [spinoza] File Upload -- Logical Index to the Ethics


> I have just uploaded a copy of my Logical Index to the Ethics to the file
> section:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/files/spinoza/
>

<snip>

I have just uploaded a copy of my Logical Index to the Ethics to the file
section:

http://www.egroups.com/files/spinoza/

You may note the change of domain name here from onelist.com to egroups.com.
The two systems are now merged. The onelist.com domain will still work, but
egroups is now the name for the combined system.  You can now start sending
mail to spinoza@egroups.com.

About the index:  This index, which I call an "index of implication." is
intended to show both the derivation and the implication of every term in
Spinoza's Ethics.  I first conceived of it while I was taking a course on
Spinoza with Hans Jonas in about 1967.  At that time the task of creating
the index on paper was too laborious (for me, at least), so I put it to one
side.    In 1986, after losing a campaign for election to the New York State
Assembly, I found myself exhausted emotionally and spiritually and found
that returning to the study of Spinoza was like taking a wonderfully
restorative inner vacation.  So I took the time to work further on this
index.  My computer tools were still fairly primitive.  The initial version
of the index was created using the indexing tools of WordPerfect.  Then I
converted it to its present form using a DOS hypertext tool called Houdini.
The present condition of the index reflects the limitations of my tools and
my available energy at the time it was created.

The invention of HTML, however, means that it should now be possible to
realize my original vision for this index much more completely.  Ideally,
each term should be an active link.  Each term in the index should be an
active link to a page containing the text, both in Latin and the
translation, and on that page there would be links to a commentary on that
passage, together with links to each term mentioned in the proof of the
given term, and forward links to each subsequent place in the Ethics in
which the term in question is cited.

All of this leads me to a request/proposal:  I suspect there are many others
here who are much more skilled than I am at html editing, and I would be
very grateful if others were willing to become my partners in perfecting
this index.  If it were more fully developed, I think it could become an
extraordinarily valuable research tool.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

***Freelance News***

The Free Lance Academy is pleased to announce the formation of a new slow
reading list to support slow readings of Plato's Timaeus.  If you would like
to subscribe, send a message to:

plato-timaeus-subscribe@onelist.com

or go to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/plato-timaeus

You may also subscribe from my list page:
http://www.freelance-academy.org/lists.html

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

***Freelance News***

This is to announce that the strauss-reading list has been re-established --
as a forum for close readings of texts by Leo Strauss.  The first text we
will read is Persecution and the Art of Writing, a brief but very important
essay which is one of the essays in a collection of Strauss's writings which
bears that title.

To subscribe to the strauss-reading list you may go to
http://www.freelance-academy.org/lists.html , scroll down the alphabetical
list until you find strauss-reading, then click either on "subscribe" or on
the list website link.  You can also send email to
strauss-reading-subscribe@onelist.com.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

Hi Lance,

     In anticipation that the promotion of this list at the
http://spinoza.net site will spark new interest here in the reading and
study of Spinoza's ideas I have a request. Perhaps, if you can find the
time and are so inclined, you could restate your wonderful concept of
"SlowReading" including especially your "Respect for authorial intent"
approach as you apply it to the reading and study of Spinoza's works.

     In addition, and of course this is dependent on your own situation and
inclination, I have a further request. In the appendix to part four of the
Ethics Spinoza expressed that:

"Nothing can be in more harmony with the nature of any given thing than
other individuals of the same species; therefore for man in the
preservation of his being and the enjoyment of the rational life there is
nothing more useful than his fellow-man who is led by reason. Further, as
we know not anything among individual things which is more excellent than a
man led by reason, no man can better display the power of his skill and
disposition, than in so training men, that they come at last to live under
the dominion of their own reason."

From a reading of the archives of this list and from correspondence with
you in the past I can think of no more qualified person than you to help
fill the gap mentioned in your reply below. I believe your participation
and leadership in this list would be most profitable to the Spinoza
community. You have demonstrated on this and other lists your remarkable
ability to examine, digest and restate in clear terms the ideas expressed
by others and at the same time to provide further food for thought.

     With Warm Regards,
         Terry Neff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lancelot R. Fletcher" <lance@...>
To: <spinoza@onelist.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: [spinoza] Promote function HTML


> From: "Lancelot R. Fletcher" <lance@...>
>
> Dear Claude,
>
<snip>
...
> but I think it is only honest to recognize that there is a gap between
the
> possibility and the actuality of the conversation about Spinoza on this
list
> and, to the extent that my inaction is responsible for that, I apologize.
>
> Lance Fletcher
> list owner
>
<snip>

Sorry for the big bang entry of The Spinoza Net to the spinoza onelist.  I should have knocked.  I had seen the slow reading notice in the NASS (North American Spinoza Society) newsletter and I am only now getting around to setting up a link to the slow reading site.  By heavily promoting the onelist spinoza site it relieves me of designing and building a similar service on the Spinoza.Net.  The features available at onelist would require a substantial investment in my programming resources that are not available now.  So I was happy to find out about its existence.

I didn't know what to expect from the slow reading list.  I was pleasantly surprised.  I poked around through most of the features and found them fairly easy to use.  I wonder if some of the members are unfamiliar with how the menu options can be utilized?  Maybe we can demonstrate?

For those members who visit www.spinoza.net they should be aware of our very Spinozist privacy policy (http://www.spinoza.net/privacy.htm).  We don't track visitors behind the scenes or trace cookies or anything remotely like an intrusion into your privacy.  We only count hits on one page, that counter can be viewed the bottom of (http://www.spinoza.net/Default.htm).  We only really know if someone has been there if the send us an email.  So if a member visits it would be nice to receive an email telling us what you think.  We will soon (April or May) begin posting reader comments on the site.  Something along the lines of "Liked your Site" T.B. -USA, again preserving privacy.

I know the feeling about arriving guests, having posted a few too many pages with spelling and link errors (there are couple out there now).  It is both fortunate and unfortunate that The Spinoza Net is not exactly on a major internet crossroads (yet) so I wouldn't expect too many new arrivals soon.

Which brings up another problem.  Those of us who nearly live out on the net are sometimes all too brief and too quick in our replies.  I  notice I failed to place "TheEditor@..." in the "reply to" section of my email attempt to communicate about the The Spinoza Net to Claude, causing it to fail to be delivered.  Thanks for providing Claude with a literate and timely reply.

Tim Bagwell
TheEditor@...
 

"Lancelot R. Fletcher" wrote:

From: "Lancelot R. Fletcher" <lance@...>

Dear Claude,

If you have visited http://spinoza.net, you probably have the answer to your
question.  The "spinoza net" is an attractively designed website devoted to
matters pertaining to Spinoza, and I probably should have mentioned it here
before now. Anyway, the site has three principal divisions: The works,
containing hypertext versions of the Elwes translation of Spinoza's
principal works; The "research center", which aims to have annotated
bibliographies and links to online articles about Spinoza (right now it
mainly contains advertising for books on Spinoza that can be purchased at
Amazon.com); and "events", which has links for Spinoza-related conferences
and, at present, two issues of the newsletter for the North American Spinoza
Society.

In short, Tim Bagwell is telling us that his site is giving this list some
free advertising.

I must confess that I have slightly mixed feelings when I receive such news.
On the one hand, I feel pleased and grateful.  On the other hand, it gives
me a pang -- the way you feel when you learn that guests are about to arrive
at your doorstep and you know your house is in no condition to receive them
appropriately (maybe you keep your house in such spotless condition that
that is never an issue, but some of us are not like that). I very rarely
feel regret in my life -- and regret is a highly un-Spinozistic emotion --
but I think it is only honest to recognize that there is a gap between the
possibility and the actuality of the conversation about Spinoza on this list
and, to the extent that my inaction is responsible for that, I apologize.

Lance Fletcher
list owner
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claude Caspar [mailto:claudecaspar@...]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:05 AM
> To: spinoza@onelist.com
> Subject: RE: [spinoza] Promote function HTML
>
>
> From: "Claude Caspar" <claudecaspar@...>
>
> What three sites?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Bagwell [mailto:TheEditor@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 12:09 AM
> > To: spinoza@onelist.com
> > Subject: [spinoza] Promote function HTML
> >
> >
> > From: "Tim Bagwell" <TheEditor@...>
> >
> > By the beginning of April we will have "Promote" links from all three
> > of "The Spinoza Net" sites back to the onelist Spinoza groups site.
> >
> > Tim Bagwell
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
> > Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as
> > 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> > Apply NOW!
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/0/_/260643/_/953788176/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
> > Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> > e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 0.0%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/937/0/_/260643/_/953816728/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
> Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>

---

---

This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
 

Dear Claude,

If you have visited http://spinoza.net, you probably have the answer to your
question.  The "spinoza net" is an attractively designed website devoted to
matters pertaining to Spinoza, and I probably should have mentioned it here
before now. Anyway, the site has three principal divisions: The works,
containing hypertext versions of the Elwes translation of Spinoza's
principal works; The "research center", which aims to have annotated
bibliographies and links to online articles about Spinoza (right now it
mainly contains advertising for books on Spinoza that can be purchased at
Amazon.com); and "events", which has links for Spinoza-related conferences
and, at present, two issues of the newsletter for the North American Spinoza
Society.

In short, Tim Bagwell is telling us that his site is giving this list some
free advertising.

I must confess that I have slightly mixed feelings when I receive such news.
On the one hand, I feel pleased and grateful.  On the other hand, it gives
me a pang -- the way you feel when you learn that guests are about to arrive
at your doorstep and you know your house is in no condition to receive them
appropriately (maybe you keep your house in such spotless condition that
that is never an issue, but some of us are not like that). I very rarely
feel regret in my life -- and regret is a highly un-Spinozistic emotion --
but I think it is only honest to recognize that there is a gap between the
possibility and the actuality of the conversation about Spinoza on this list
and, to the extent that my inaction is responsible for that, I apologize.

Lance Fletcher
list owner


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claude Caspar [mailto:claudecaspar@...]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:05 AM
> To: spinoza@onelist.com
> Subject: RE: [spinoza] Promote function HTML
>
>
> From: "Claude Caspar" <claudecaspar@...>
>
> What three sites?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Bagwell [mailto:TheEditor@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 12:09 AM
> > To: spinoza@onelist.com
> > Subject: [spinoza] Promote function HTML
> >
> >
> > From: "Tim Bagwell" <TheEditor@...>
> >
> > By the beginning of April we will have "Promote" links from all three
> > of "The Spinoza Net" sites back to the onelist Spinoza groups site.
> >
> > Tim Bagwell
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
> > Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as
> > 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> > Apply NOW!
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/0/_/260643/_/953788176/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
> > Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> > e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 0.0%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/937/0/_/260643/_/953816728/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
> Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>

What three sites?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bagwell [mailto:TheEditor@...]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 12:09 AM
> To: spinoza@onelist.com
> Subject: [spinoza] Promote function HTML
>
>
> From: "Tim Bagwell" <TheEditor@...>
>
> By the beginning of April we will have "Promote" links from all three
> of "The Spinoza Net" sites back to the onelist Spinoza groups site.
>
> Tim Bagwell
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as
> 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/0/_/260643/_/953788176/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
> Slow Reading:  http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> e-mail, mailto:spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>

By the beginning of April we will have "Promote" links from all three
of "The Spinoza Net" sites back to the onelist Spinoza groups site.

Tim Bagwell

This conference may be of interest to some subscribers.

Lance Fletcher
list owner

--------------------------------------------------
         THE MIDWEST AND SOUTHEASTERN SEMINARS
                              IN THE
         HISTORY OF EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

         Joint Spring Meeting, March 25 and 26, 2000
                                at
                 The University of Chicago

Program

Saturday afternoon, March 25
1:00-2:15 Helen Hattab (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale), “God and
Nature in the Seventeenth Century: The Problem of Divine and Natural
Causation in Basso and Descartes”
2:15-3:30 Julie Klein (Villanova University), “Descartes, Atheism, and
Pantheism”
3:30-4:45 Susan Peppers (University of Pennsylvania), “Arnauld’s
Representationalism and the Mind’s Activity”
4:45-6:00 Michael Futch (Emory University), “Causation, Time, and Reduction
in Leibniz’s Metaphysics”

Sunday morning, March 26
9:00-10:15 George Pappas (Ohio State University), “Abstract Ideas and
Berkeley's New Theory of Vision”
10:15-11:30 Robert Schwartz (University of Wisconson-Milwaukee), “Making
Maximum Sense of Minimum Sensibile”
11:30-12:45 Donald Ainslie (University of Toronto), “Hume’s Anti-cogito”

Sunday afternoon, March 26
2:00-3:15 Boris Kusko (Duke University), “Knowledge of the Other Attributes
in Spinoza's Ethics”
3:15-4:30 Michael Rosenthal (Grinnell College), “Persuasive Passions:
Scripture, History, and Politics in Spinoza’s Theological-Political
  Treatise”

The Midwest and Southeast Seminars are informal groups, formed to foster
interaction among scholars of seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophy.

All sessions will be held at the Franke Institute for the Humanities in the
Joseph Regenstein Library on the campus of the University of Chicago, 1100
E. 57th St., Chicago, IL. We gratefully acknowledge their hospitality.

There will be a dinner on Saturday evening, to which all attendees and
their guests are cordially invited; final arrangements will be announced at
the first session.

Housing near the University of Chicago campus is available at:

International House, 1414 E. 59th St., Chicago, IL 60637, 773/753-2270. $37
per person.

Chicago Theological Seminary, 1164 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637,
773/752-5757, ext. 219 ask for Bernice McMillian. $40 for single; $55 for
double.

Ramada Inn Lake Shore Drive, 4900 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL
60615, 773-288-5800. $85 per room. Reservations must be made by 3/10/00,
and you must mention the Midwest Seminar to book rooms.

For further information, contact Daniel Garber, Department of Philosophy,
University of Chicago, 1050 E. 59th St., Chicago, IL, 60637; tel:
773/702-7920; FAX: 773/702-9861; email: garb@....

Persons with a disability who believe they may need assistance: please call
Barbara Collins in advance at 773-702-8274.

If you live in or near Toronto, you may be interested to know that Bill
Oates and Kosta Simopoulos have decided they can't get enough of slow
reading online, so they are starting a local Slow Reading group which will
meet at the University of Toronto.  The details are below.

If you don't live near Toronto and feel a little envious of those who have
the privilege of participating in this group, please let me know
(lance@...) or post a message on the list whose topic reflects
your interest.  I think it would be a good thing to have more of this sort
of thing.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

===================Announcement==================
Plato Slow Reading Group: Lysis, Symposium, Phaedrus

  Time: Tuesday 7-9pm-first meeting, Feb.1st/2000

  Location:

  John M.Kelly Library
  St.Michaels College
  113 St.Joseph Street
  Downtown-St.George Campus
  University of Toronto

  All interested persons are welcome.

  Contact Kosta Simopoulos or Bill Oates at:

  kosta.simopoulos@...
  boates1@...




Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

A slow reading of Aristotle's On Interpretation is just getting under way on
The Free Lance Academy's Aristotle-logic list, and you are invited to join.
This short work is part of Aristotle's Organon, but, considering that its
Greek title is peri hermeneia, I think it might also be fair to call it the
first treatise in the field of hermeneutics.

The discussion will be led by Ben B. Day with (I expect and hope) active
participation by David Hitchcock and Scott Carson.

You can join the aristotle-logic list by sending a message to:
aristotle-logic-subscribe@onelist.com or by pointing your browser to:
http://www.onelist.com/community/aristotle-logic.  I actually recommend that
you use the website option, because the website has many useful features --
including archives of the conversation so far.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

The Free Lance Academy's Aristotle Metaphysics list is about to launch a new
reading of the Metaphysics, and you're invited to join.

We haven't yet decided exactly how to do it. We might go straight through
the text from beginning to end, or we might select a particular problem or
section to concentrate on.  Also, we haven't yet chosen a discussion leader.

If you would like to join this discussion, send a message to:

aristotle-met-subscribe@onelist.com

or go to the list home page: http://www.onelist.com/community/aristotle-met
and subscribe from there.

If you would like to be considered as a discussion leader, please contact me
at the address below.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

Tony Beavers requested that I distribute the following to my lists.  I don't
usually distribute announcements, but I have tried out Noesis and I can
attest that it is a very useful tool and a lot of fun.

Lance Fletcher

------------

               -- Please cross-post as appropriate --

The Internet Applications Laboratory at the University of Evansville
would like to announce the beta-release of the latest version of Noesis
at

                       http://noesis.evansville.edu

Noesis has been thoroughly overhauled since its previous release. It now
indexes over 20,000 philosophical items by more than 2,000 authors. It
allows full-text searching across all or only subsections of the database,
flexible search filters, many options for browsing, the creation of
user-defined subsets of the database for custom organizing, and
peer-review endorsements by professional users. It will continue to grow
in content and features, especially during the coming months.  Using
Noesis is free of charge.

Anthony Beavers
Co-editor, Noesis
Director, The Internet Applications Laborator
The University of Evansville

Peter Suber
Co-editor, Noesis
Earlham College


Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

-----Mensaje original-----
De: spinoza-owner@onelist.com [mailto:spinoza-owner@onelist.com]
Enviado el: martes 12 de octubre de 1999 8:35
Para: fmpatino@...
Asunto: [spinoza] Welcome to spinoza@onelist.com


Welcome to the spinoza list.  I look forward to your participation.  Please
take a moment to review this message.  To post a message on the list, send
it to: spinoza@onelist.com.  If you know of web links relevant to the
subject matter of the list, feel free to add them to the "bookmarks" section
for this list, which you can find by going to your user center and from
there to the "list center" for this list.  To unsubscribe, go to the ONElist
web site, at http://www.onelist.com, and select the User Info link from the
menu bar on the left.  Or, if you prefer, you can send e-mail to:
spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com from the address at which you are currently
subscribed.  The spinoza list is intended for thoughtful discussion about
the philosophy of Spinoza and, especially, slow readings of his works.  For
a brief discussion of what I mean by "slow reading," please see my essay at
http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm.  This is one of a group of
lists, mostly dealing with philosophy, which are hosted by The Free Lance
Academy, a not-for-profit organization whose main purpose is to create
opportunities for serious, committed intellectual inquiry outside the
university, primarily by means of online media such as internet mailing
lists.  For the names of other lists in this group, search on the relevant
keywords listed below.  In the belief that the most effective way to learn
something is to teach it, another of the principal aims of The Free Lance
Academy is to provide opportunities for teaching, especially for people who
might not otherwise have such an opportunity. If you would like to become a
discussion leader of this list or any other list hosted by The Free Lance
Academy, please contact Lance Fletcher, the President of The Free Lance
Academy, at: lance@....  The easiest way to manage your
participation in this and the other lists operated at Onelist.com is to
visit the Onelist.com website and enter the User Center.  You can also read
the archives and even post messages from that website.  However, if you
prefer to manage you participation by means of e-mail, that can be done
also.  The following are the e-mail commands supported by the Onelist.com
software.  As you can see, the command is part of the address, so it doesn't
matter what you put in the message or on the subject line:
spinoza-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to a list.
spinoza-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from a list.
spinoza-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
spinoza-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.  RULES
RELATING TO MESSAGE-CONTENT:  Personally, I hate rules.  The purpose of the
lists hosted by The Free Lance Academy is to foster serious, thoughtful
conversation.  Where people keep that purpose in view and address one
another with mutual respect, rules are generally unnecessary.  However,
breakdowns do happen, and sometimes people take -- or give -- offense.  In
that event, here is what I ask you to remember:  1.  You are my guest here.
Although I don't own or control Onelist.com, as the list owner I have
control over the subscriber list.  Subscribers who are discourteous or
abusive to other subscribers will soon be former subscribers.  2.  In
general, obscene language and ad hominem attacks are forbidden.  3.  If you
are offended by something contained in a message posted by somebody else and
feel that a response is needed, the best course of action is to send private
e-mail to the author of the message.  If you do not wish to do that, or if
it does not achieve satisfactory results, send private e-mail to me
(lance@...) and I will intervene.  4.  Do not, under any
circumstances, respond to messages that you find offensive by posting
messages of protest or rebuke on the list.  To the others on the list this
is just as offensive as the originally offending post.  It is like shouting,
"BE QUIET!" to somebody in the audience who is talking during a concert.
Lance Fletcher

******************************************************************
**********************Freelance-News**************************
******************************************************************

I am pleased to announce the formation of the plato-meno list,
intended to provide a forum for a slow reading of Plato's Meno.  (For
a brief discussion of what I mean by "slow  reading," please see my
essay at  http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm.)

This is one of a number of lists dealing with Plato among a  larger
group of lists, mostly dealing with philosophy, which are  hosted by
The Free Lance Academy, a not-for-profit organization  whose main
purpose is to create opportunities for serious,  committed
intellectual inquiry outside the university, primarily  by means of
online media such as internet mailing lists.

To subscribe to the plato-meno list, you may point your browser to the
following URL

http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/plato-meno

Or you may subscribe via e-mail by sending a message to:
plato-meno-subscribe@onelist.com (It doesn't matter what you put in
the body of the message or on the subject line, since the address
itself is the subscribe command.)

Perhaps I should mention that the creation of this list was requested
by some of the members of the Free Lance Academy's klein list, and it
is likely that some readers will be using Jacob Klein's Commentary on
Plato's Meno as an aid to their reading.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

I will be away from my computer from April 29 until May 9. I may be
able to check my e-mail while I am travelling, but I may not, so it is
likely that correspondence pertaining to my lists will go unanswered
until my return.

Most of this time I will be in Tbilisi, in the Republic of Georgia.
If you happen to be in that vicinity and would like to get together, I
can be contacted at the Metechi Palace Hotel.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

******************************************************************
**********************Freelance-News**************************
******************************************************************

Announcing:    FIDES-ET-RATIO   (Faith and Reason)

A List Dedicated to the Reading and Understanding of the Encyclical
"Fides et Ratio" by Pope John Paul II


The Free Lance Academy is pleased to announce the formation of the
fides-et-ratio list and you are cordially invited to subscribe.

You may subscribe to the fides-et-ratio list via e-mail by sending a
message to:

fides-et-ratio-subscribe@onelist.com

Or, if you prefer, you can join this list by going to the following
web page:

      http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/fides-et-ratio

The discussion leader for the fides-et-ratio list is Daniel Scuiry
[Daniel.Scuiry@...].  It was also his idea to create this list.
The following is Daniel Scuiry's description of the intention for the
list.

"The purpose of the fides-et-ratio list is to host a critical reading
of the papal encyclical, "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)". We will
survey the encyclical's text with an aim towards relating it to issues
relavent to philosophers, scientists, academics, religionists and
anyone committed to thoughtful reflection on the meaning of personal
existence: "All men and women ... are in some sense philosophers and
have their own philosophical conceptions with which they direct their
lives. In one way or other, they shape a comprehensive vision and an
answer to the question of life's meaning..." (Fides et Ratio, #30).
Our goal is to offer readers, through the benefit of an open forum,
the opportunity to form their own conscience and make their own
critical judgment on the meaning and implications this encyclical may
have in their lives. Hence this list is open to anyone, regardless of
background or theistic persuasion, who believes the encyclical has
meaning and impact in their own lives or the lives of others."

The plan is to complete the reading of Fides et Ration within
approximately four to six months.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

******************************************************************
**********************Freelance-News**************************
******************************************************************

I am pleased to announce the formation of the Herodotus list and I
invite you to subscribe.

You may subscribe to the herodotus list via e-mail by sending a
message to:

herodotus-subscribe@onelist.com

Or, if you prefer, you can join this list by going to the following
web page:

      http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/herodotus

The purpose of the Herodotus list is to provide a forum for slow
readings and
thoughtful discussions of the "Histories" of Herodotus. (For a brief
discussion
of what I mean by "slow reading," please see my essay at
http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm.) The discussion leader
for the
Herodotus list will be Jim Costopoulos of Vassar.

For the first few months there will be some attempt to have the
discussion on the list track a seminar on Herodotus that is now under
way at Fordham.

Note:  This message is being sent to all of the lists hosted by The
Free Lance Academy at Onelist.com.  If you are subscribed to more than
one of those lists, you will receive more than one copy of this
message.  I apologize for the duplication.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

Hello fellow Spinozists.  This is my first correspondence to the list,
and I thought I would start with a humble request.  I am presently
working the contemporary continental understanding of Spinoza,
particularly Gilles Deleuze's and Antonio Negri's readings.  I have
already performed a great deal of manual research; but in being somewhat
new to philosophy in cyberspace, I am curious if anyone might have
published pertinent material in an internet journal or some other
electronic format, that s/he wouldn't mind sharing with me.  Since I am
working on an area of spinoza scholarship that has burgeoned in recent
years I am hopeful.  Thank you and I look forward to many thoughtful and
engaging discussions about Spinoza and Spinozism in the future.

Robert E. S. Moore