Re: "Skillful Means"
- Dear Sunhunter.
You are a remarkable individual!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, SunHunter9@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/28/02 6:02:14 AM, fdixon65@y... writes:
> >Those who make a "spiritualist" of
> >Spinoza err just as surely as those who make of him a
> The Improvement contains Spinoza's actual methods of work, but most
> seem to feel that the Ethics, with TPT, is the mature expression of
> philosophy. If I wanted to give someone a brief survey of the
> perhaps I would read to them just the first bit of each part's
> [PREFACE] Part 2
> (Pr:1) I now pass on to explaining the results, which must
> follow from the essence of God, or of the eternal and infinite
> not, indeed, all of them (for we proved in I:[xvi] , that an
> number must follow in an infinite number of ways), but only those
> are able to lead us, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of the
> human mind and its highest blessedness.
> PREFACE] Part 3
> (Prf:1) Most writers on the emotions and on human conduct seem to be
> treating rather of matters outside nature than of natural phenomena
> following nature's general laws...
> [PREFACE] Part 4
> (Prf:1) Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I
> bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions he is not his own
> master, but lies at the mercy of fortune...
> [PREFACE] Part 5
> (Prf:1) At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics,
> is concerned with the way leading to freedom. (2) I shall therefore
> treat therein of the power of the reason, showing how far the reason
> can control the emotions...
> Given only the name "Ethics," and these preface beginnings, someone
> conclude that the book in hand concerns not materialism or some
> mystical states, but mainly a kind of enlightened psychology, or
> conduct. As far as "materialists" are concerned, I think they are
> "smart" harbingers of the next re-former of Berkeley, etc., who
will also be
> an intellectual whiz, should our race persevere here on planet
> long to produce him or her, because all the while their cohorts in
> logical sciences are busily devising the latest "decision-trees"
> guidance systems and so on. Of course, Gurdjieff's cosmological
> states that "everything is material" but I think what he means
> is synonymous with Spinoza's "substance," which may sound
like "material" to
> those who I feel cannot distinguish between the words, and the
> signify (even in a limited way, I don't understand them completely
> means) in this instance. For me, the most important thing day-by-
> Spinoza, if I had to pick and choose today, that I can't find
> is the content of parts 3 &4, and his other ideas concerning the
> part 5 and the method by which they may be transformed from
> activities. Also, his relentlessness in the pursuit of extending
> is unique. He talks about attaining some kind of perfect
Blessedness, but he
> never says call it quits there. He's going to extend this not just
> sitting on his porch meditating, but to every thing, every waking
> moment, and above all, into relationship with his fellow man. He
> sannyasi or hermit in a cave, but is "taking it to the street" by
> Ethics to a practical science. Spinoza is like the martial artist
> philosophy. He is victorious by striking through and past the
> overcoming suffering.
> Perhaps Spinoza is neither a "materialist" or "spiritualist," but
> like a gold miner who just loves the color and heft of gold itself,
> enjoys therefore nothing more than being down in the earth covered
> working yet another vein, and dying "in the harness." Those lucky
> just to hear about his work, but to discover the actual site, seem
> one nugget after another in his train.
> ...."this knowledge brings it about that we do not grow
> proud when we have accomplished something excellent (which pride
> causes us to come to a standstill, because we think that we are
> already great, and that we need do nothing further; thereby
> militating precisely against our own perfection, which consists
> this -- that we must at all times endeavour to advance further
> further); but that, on the contrary, we attribute all that we
> God, who is the first and only cause of all that we accomplish
> succeed in effecting."
> A "spiritualist," (a Deepok Chopra type always comes to mind-I
wonder if he's
> joking us with that name, it is too close to Deepockets), is
generally like a
> prospector who finds a mine where some real miner worked, notices
one or two
> nuggets near the entrance, then goes off to town with them to get a
> drunk maybe and impress the locals, who on the one hand may have
> anything sparkly and beautiful, or who, or on the other hand may
have a brick
> of bullion to his every nugget because they discreetly knew where
> was, bought tools to actually work the mine with the few nuggets
> likewise initially found lying near the entrance, and can only
> heads as that slightly dipsomaniacal prospector heads down the road
> the town a bad name with his shenanigans.
> A "materialist" wouldn't know a gold eagle if he held it in is
> even the whole notion of prospecting is a myth, and will even argue
> whether there is such a thing as ground, all the while standing
> ...."if a carpenter, while doing some work, finds his Hatchet of
> service, then
> this Hatchet has thereby attained its end and perfection
> -Short Treatise
> So what can we gather immediately from the foregoing? Don't stand
> to a blind carpenter.