Re: [spinoza] Re: The cause of the ineffectiveness of prayers and child-sacrifices.
- Thanks. I may try a few T'ai Chi moving meditations with this. Long ago I earned my living (poorly) as a musician, and I still sometimes
think in music and play my imaginings, or just sing them. I like particularly to improvise Gregorian/modal style chanting in resonant chambers.
Here is my piano interpretation of "Forest Flower" by Charles Lloyd. It's been wonderful to discover someone so devoted to Spinoza.
I'm putting my energies, when available, mostly into a blog in which I hope to publish all of TEI, with comments. Stuart has commented.
I would like to see your comments there.
I think it is so difficult to avoid misunderstandings, especially in written email exchanges, that small differences become deviations from the
principal aims of the work. Ordinarily, I no longer post on the Yahoo site. However, your expressions are so earnest that they are quite compelling.
My own teacher, knowing we would be parted by his death soon, gave me his affirmation, saying "Donovan, I see your mind is expanding into the
infinite. Be patient with the others. After all, there are so few interested in these ideas. Cherish the ones that are, and remember to look for the good
I sense the influence of my old school, but this is mere curiosity.
On May 7, 2013, at 4:22 AM, "strugglingamphibian" <strugglingamphibian@...> wrote:
> Kritzel is simply the name of my favorite "song" (in relation to my imagination). It always helps me calm down when I am angry, disappointed etc.
> Christian Kleine - Beyond Repair
> --- In email@example.com, Donovan Rundle <donovanrundle@...> wrote:
> > I sorta get the "Cedalion" part (guiding and healing poor old Orion, searching for the sun) because, after all, my handle was "Sunhunter." What's this Kritzel?
> > On May 6, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Donovan Rundle <donovanrundle@...> wrote:
> > > BTW, Cedalion, how did you become acquainted with Dr. Kettner?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On May 15, 2013, at 3:15 AM, "strugglingamphibian" <strugglingamphibian@...> wrote:
> HELLO DONOVAN. I HOPE YOU ARE WELL.Hello Donovan would be preferable please. I am not well and prefer not to be reminded. Machines that say "please" and "have a nice day"
are wont to provoke disgust and laughter.
>Try some form of proper internet quoting please. It's call "etiquette" or "courtesy."
> You respond regarding the attributes: No. The immediate attributes are conceived through themselves.
>Take a look through the "Short Treatise" and slowly read all that Spinoza has to say there regarding what he means by "sons of God," "immediate mode," etc.
> To which I answer: Yes, ALL the attributes exist in and are conceived through themselves BUT the attributes are NOT "immediate".
> Spinoza takes great pains to demonstrate why ALL of the attributes/natures of the ONE substance exist as ETERNAL and unchangeable not "IMMEDIATE". He goes on to demonstrate how God, thinking about his infinite nature, is the IMMEDIATE (i.e. what follows from, exists and is conceived in something other than itself) expression of aforementioned infinite nature in so far as we consider God as thinking substance. To use terms such as "attribute of mind" and then later respond to my probing by affirming that thinking nature is "immediate" is evidence to me that you STILL don't get it.
>This is getting better. Why does Spinoza tell DeVries that particular things are eternal truths? Is it merely tautological, in the sense that being conceived in an immediate mode, attributes, God, etc. is already a definition of an eternal truth? How would Spinoza know this?
> Regarding my naive monism, there could be an uncountable number of ideas/minds, but all these seemingly plural ideas are nothing but expressions of JUST ONE BEING CONSIDERED AS A THINKING BEING (ATTRIBUTE THOUGHT). There could be an uncountable number of bodies and an infinite number of permutations that can arise from these bodies, but all these seemingly plural bodies are nothing but expressions of JUST ONE BEING CONSIDERED AS AN EXTENDED BEING (ATTRIBUTE EXTENSION)
>You seem quick to mistake my meaning. What you cite here as a refutation does nothing but affirm what I meant. I deliberately excluded the general order of nature, restricting my observations to being x, but you fail to distinguish between understanding the order of nature with respect to my nature alone and the general order of nature. You have not studied TEI.
> You go on to remark that: You are missing the cardinal point. Man X may conceive the order of nature insofar as it is displayed in inmost essence of MindX=inmost essence of Body X.
> To which I answer: NO. If by man, you mean a being consisting of mind and body and if by mind you mean an idea in the infinite thinking being, the answer is NO. A man can NEVER know the order of nature. Excerpt from Ethics Part 5 Proposition 29:
> Therefore to this extent the mind has not the power of conceiving things under the form of eternity, BUT it possesses such power, because it is of the nature of reason to conceive things under the form of eternity (II. xliv. Coroll. ii.), AND also because it is of the nature of the mind to conceive the essence of the body under the form of eternity (V. xxiii.), for BESIDES these two there is NOTHING which belongs to the essence of mind.
>Please see the "Short Treatise" chapter concerning "Regeneration." You, like virtually everyone else, think you know something about extension. Read the end of Chapter 5 of the Ethics. This is the part where most
> If Man X could GET this cardinal point you speak of and truly know the ORDER OF NATURE insofar as it is displayed in inmost essence of MindX=inmost essence of Body X, then the body of this man could never, ever, ever, ever perish.
Buddhists get off the bus, because Spinoza asserts the eternity of the inmost essence of the mind, etc.
> A body's demise is ALWAYS brought about by external causes (hence Spinoza labeling suicides weak-minded). I recommend you examine proposition 4 in part 4 of ethics very carefully.Yes, like birth. The cause of a things actual being is something else again.
>Yes, this is good as far as it goes, however it lacks explanation of why it is so much more difficult to put Humpty Dumpty together again. But that's okay, I don't expect Spinoza to get into questions which don't bear on helping his readers to blessedness. Still, as we imagine time, it does seem to point in a direction
> You then remark that: More banalities and folderol. This is a waste of time.
> To which I answer: Spinoza argues that "Further, no one doubts that we imagine time, from the fact that we imagine bodies to be moved some more slowly than others, some more quickly, some at equal speed."
>So redundant. The vehemence of capitalization...overused. Loses effect.
> But never mind some silly ostracized lens grinder. Use YOUR OWN native strength. "We" can have a clear idea/definition of God. Could you please provide a definition of this "time" you insist I am wasting? If you cannot, then I will go on wasting what DOES NOT EXIST for the sake of partaking of what ACTUALLY DOES.
> As for my blending mysticism with Spinoza, I say once more, that God, and how his absolutely infinite nature is expressed, is all that can be. I say, yet again, that it is the imagination/emotions (what spinoza calls the ideas of bodily modifications) the mind's biggest obstacle to realizing its oneness/unity with the only being that can exist. This is why Spinoza repeats well past the point of tautology that one must distinguish one's memory-imagination, which presents a dream world, from one's TRUE understanding. Understanding is NOTHING BUT GOD'S KNOWLEDGE OF HIS INFINITE NATURE.
>As a psychic, you are quack.
> Proposition 43 Note: We may add that our mind, in so far as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite intellect of God (II. xi. Coroll.); therefore, the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the ideas of God.
> I have been doing a lot of thinking about what you have to say. You seem like a cool guy and I genuinely enjoy these exchanges and want them to continue. That said, I've been wondering: if Gregory could not help you get it, how could I succeed where he failed? I suppose you may be offended at my insistence (and then go on denying/dreaming to yourself that you are not emotional about this at all) that despite the "time" you have dedicated, that you are still dreaming and have never been awake but a true friend always tells a person he considers his friend the truth. It is the snakes and fakes that tell you things that "sound nice". So once again, YOU DON'T GET IT.
> Ram Dass, insists that: To him who has had the experience no explanation is necessary, to him who has not, none is possible." Dude, you need to tear you long held and beloved fabric of reasoning and start all over again. If I myself taken this advice earlier, I would have advanced A LOT further and that remains by far my biggest regret till my body dies. Donovan, or rather, the thing that mistakes itself for a Donovan, given your native strength, I honestly believe you will make progress remarkably quickly, but FIRST, you must REALIZE THAT YOU DON'T GET IT.LOL. Get what? Monetheism? I do get that you have been exposed to a partial smattering of Spinoza, a little of which may have stuck to your self-proclaimed slimy skin, LOL. I do think you can take a little joke...maybe.
You don't interest me much, dude, because you think you know what you don't know. I could be wrong, as I allow that my idea of you is not you. How do passions illustrate that, as obviously as Poe's "Purloined Letter," that the inmost essence of the mind is simply realized, and this is the reality of the notion of being separated from any external cause? Ram Dass is like people who put "Live and Let Live" bumper stickers around. He should take his own advice and shut up then. Spinoza has a plan. It's explained in a few Props in Part V, and I've never seen any academic deconstruction of it. It involves change and growth over time. If we read the first 10 or so paragraphs of TEI, we note that Spinoza made progress. This doesn't mean that we can give away responsibility for our mind. That is indeed a delusion, because, for one thing, the eternal soul is known through itself as well, and through God and the attribute of mind. Still, it is helpful to most to learn the humility of listening intently to one who they sense is wise. Caveat emptor, of course.
I am only a little interested in you, so this is hardly friendship.
> Yours in friendship,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]