Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:Topic Panentheism

Expand Messages
  • Blake McBride
    ... OK, let s first agree on our terms. Pantheism means that God and Nature (the world or universe) are one and the same. Panentheism means that Nature is _in_
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > Blake McBride wrote:
      >
      > > After reading the above article, clearly, Spinoza is
      > > a pantheist and not a panentheist. I can give the
      > > relative passages in the Ethics if necessary.
      > >
      > ===========
      At 09:39 AM 9/2/2002 +0200, John Willemsens wrote:
      >Your views until now are that if we must choose between pantheism and
      >panentheism, Spinozism is the former. I personally believe that God
      >sive/or/i.e. Nature's complete immanence makes it a panentheism, which means
      >that I am existence herenow. Does anybody share this view? SpinozismNow
      >requires your active participation to be of any use to anybody.
      >John.


      OK, let's first agree on our terms.

      Pantheism means that God and Nature (the world or universe)
      are one and the same.

      Panentheism means that Nature is _in_ God and that God is
      therefore more than the Nature within.

      To draw an analogy from the ocean, then, panentheists believes
      that Nature is like the salt in the ocean whereas pantheists believe
      that Nature is the ocean itself.

      I guess my first question is whether or not my descriptions are accurate
      enough to continue our discussion.

      Spinoza, IMO, is clearly a pantheist. Are you saying, John, that
      Spinoza is a panentheist?

      (I think this group, SpinozismNow, is a very good and important one.
      However I believe this topic is more appropriate for the spinoza-ethics
      group since it deals with Spinoza's ideas without relation to time. I do
      have plenty of ideas which do relate to time (now) though.)


      Blake McBride


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Willemsens
      Dear Blake, I must stress again that I am not implying anything. I was just wondering/asking whether Spinozism should be considered or not a panentheism,
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Blake,
        I must stress again that I am not implying anything. I was just
        wondering/asking whether Spinozism should be considered or not a
        panentheism, whereby the physical universe and our place in it are part and
        parcel/maybe a subset of never-to-be-conventionally-understood totality
        (=God sive/or/i.e./i.o.w. Nature), which would be pretty near the Advayavada
        position.
        I wonder if anybody else would like to comment.
        John.

        >
        > You seem to be implying that there is something more than
        > the physical realm (with respect to the attribute of extension).
        > Or, put another way, you seem to imply that the physical
        > universe is a subset of something. Neither can be further
        > from the truth.
        >
        > In 2P7 Spinoza states that "the order and connection of ideas
        > is the same as the order and connection of things". And in
        > 2P7 Sch. Spinoza states that "thinking substance and extended
        > substance are one and the same substance, comprehended now
        > under this attribute, now under that". He then continues with "a mode
        > of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing,
        > expressed in two ways".
        >
        > The point is that each attribute _fully_ expresses God with respect to
        that
        > attribute. And since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the
        > attributes (actually they are actually one, viewed in different ways), no
        > attribute
        > is a bigger set that another. No attribute augments another. Each
        attribute
        > is the full expression with respect to that attribute.
        >
        > The physical universe (or the attribute of extension) is all there is,
        period.
        > The attribute of thought (with respect to God) is all there is, period.
        > They are one and the same, looked at in two different ways. Neither
        > has supremacy over the other and neither is a subset of the other.
        >
        > Blake McBride
      • Blake McBride
        ... There are two ways of viewing thought within a man. One is in respect to God and the other with respect to the man. See 2P36 Dem. Here is how it works.
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:43 AM 9/2/2002 -0500, ethel jean saltz wrote:

          >But I go one step further with respect to the intellect. I believe that the
          >intellect in a single human being is physically divided into 3 operating
          >systems as defined by Paul Maclean's model of the Triune Brain. That's
          >based on my own physical events since I was tortured by chronic skin organ
          >poison-ivy like itching for 22 years. So I don't look at you as a single
          >unity, but a synergy of 3 operating systems fighting for dominance within
          >you. I think of GOD when it is the rational operating system that has
          >control. I, long ago, realized that everything I think is due to physical
          >events. However, promoting that kind of thinking in the economic world
          >doesn't give one economic security, exactly :). It certainly doesn't "win
          >friends and influence people".

          There are two ways of viewing thought within a man. One is in respect
          to God and the other with respect to the man. See 2P36 Dem.
          Here is how it works.

          Let's say that the following represents the molecular pattern of body "A":

          32 65 89 42 67 456 829 24 891 782 8 45 27

          Now body "A"'s corresponding thought pattern would be:

          32 65 89 42 67 456 829 24 891 782 8 45 27

          They are exactly the same as seen viewed both in numerical terms.
          The thought pattern is entirely true (as it agrees entirely with the
          physical pattern). See 1A6, 2P7 & 2P32.

          Now, let's say that body "B" is represented (either in the extended
          or thought attributes) as follows:

          99 87 321 783 455 2 780 921 873 65 89 41 67

          Now the interesting part. Notice that "A" shares some pattern with
          "B" (65 89 42 67). This represents "A"'s knowledge of "B". So,
          the two points are as follows. "A"'s thoughts agree with and is totally
          true as it relates to "A"'s body. At the same time "A" has an idea of
          "B" (65 89 42 67). Notice that "A"'s idea of "B" is incomplete and,
          in fact, partially erroneous (42 vs. 41).

          Thus I have shown how ideas with respect to God are always true
          and those with respect to the man are necessarily incomplete
          and erroneous. See 2P22, 2P36


          >All of which may change now that Israel has embraced Spinoza's ETHICS as
          >being Jewish. The new debate will be exactly "did Spinoza die a Jew" in his
          >Triune Brain? ;)

          Although it would be nice, I would hardly say that Israel has wholeheartedly
          embraced Spinoza.


          >I repeat the concluding paragraph of ETHICS, Part I, Concerning God, which
          >says everything you have so elegantly said: (??? if my interpretation is
          >correct)
          >
          > >
          > > .... To those who ask why God did not so create all men,
          > > that they should be governed only by reason, I give no answer
          > > but this: because matter was not lacking to him for the creation
          > > of every degree of perfection from highest to lowest; or, more
          > > strictly, because the laws of his nature are so vast, as to
          > > suffice for the production of everything conceivable by an
          > > infinite intelligence, as I have shown in Prop. xvi.
          > > Such are the misconceptions I have undertaken to note; if there
          > > are any more of the same sort, everyone may easily dissipate
          > > them for himself with the aid of a little reflection.
          > > END OF PART I
          >
          >Question, what is meant by "God ... create all men"? I take it literally,
          >that he is accepting the fact that most readers think of God as a person
          >and ask in this sense. His "infinite intelligence" part of the response
          >leads me to think that he doesn't really want to exclude his own version of
          >God and substitutes it for "God".

          Spinoza doesn't think that God created man. Man is one expression
          of God. God had no choice but to express himself as he did. It is
          his nature.


          >And since these are the last words in Part I, Concerning God, I want to
          >include his reference to PXVI:
          >
          > > XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite
          > number of things in infinite
          > > ways--that is, all things which can fall within the
          > sphere of infinite intellect.
          > >
          > > >>>>>Proof--This proposition will be clear to
          > everyone, who remembers that from the given definition
          > > of any thing the intellect infers several properties,
          > which really necessarily follow therefrom (that is, from
          > > the actual essence of the thing defined); and it
          > infers more properties in proportion as the definition of
          > > the thing expresses more reality, that is, in
          > proportion as the essence of the thing defined involves more
          > > reality. Now, as the divine nature has absolutely
          > infinite attributes (by Def. vi.), of which each expresses
          > > infinite essence after its kind, it follows that from
          > the necessity of its nature an infinite number of things
          > > (that is, everything which can fall within the sphere
          > of an infinite intellect) must necessarily follow. Q.E.D.
          > >
          > > <<<<<Corollary I.--Hence it follows, that God is the
          > efficient cause of all that can fall within the sphere
          > > of an infinite intellect.
          > >
          > > <<<<<Corollary II.--It also follows that God is a
          > cause in himself, and not through an accident of his
          > > nature.
          > >
          > > <<<<<Corollary III.--It follows, thirdly, that God is
          > the absolutely first cause.
          >
          >=======================
          >After all is said and done, doesn't this say "all men are created equal",
          >that is, with equal opportunity to investigate their own unique selves? The
          >investigation being -- working with God/Infinite Intellect?
          >Thus each of us, unique beings, ethically should take the time to listen
          >and discuss with our fellow unique beings, even encourage?

          All men are not created equal. Each man is individually determined by
          his unique structure and environment. Be careful with the word "opportunity".
          It implies choice, of which, there is none. Certainly we perceive choice
          but it
          is only because of our perception of effects without knowledge of their
          cause.

          Blake McBride




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.