Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More

Spinoza Group: for Spinozistic readings and discussions is a Restricted Group with 494 members.

Spinoza Group: for Spinozistic readings and discussions
- Restricted Group,
- 494 members

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

Expand Messages

Luis Gutierrez
Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.Anyone?Luis
Message 1 of 16 , Oct 12 6:44 AM
Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
koltzenburg@...
hello Luis, thank you for your question, interesting idea, can you describe what you perceive as ambiguous? best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net ... From: Luis
Message 2 of 16 , Oct 12 10:05 PM
hello Luis,

thank you for your question, interesting idea,

can you describe what you perceive as ambiguous?

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@...

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
To:"spinoza@yahoogroups.com" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:44:20 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:[spinoza]

>
>
> Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
> Anyone?
> Luis
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
Luis Gutierrez
Thank you Claudia for your interest in my question. I think that I get the main thrust of Spinoza s argument regarding the concepts of the infinite, eternal
Message 3 of 16 , Oct 13 2:13 PM
Thank you Claudia for your interest in my question. I think that I get the main thrust of Spinoza's argument regarding the concepts of the infinite, eternal nature of Substance and its correlation to its Attributes which are the essence of Substance and themselves infinite and eternal.
From there I follow that the reality of the modifications arising from the eternal and infinite Attributes are in themselves infinite and eternal (ie., motion and rest.)
My difficulty starts when Spinoza, in Ethics I, prop. XXVIII regarding finite modes, states:
" Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity."
So I comprehend two paths of causality, on the one hand the path of eternal, infinity and on the other hand the path of contingent, finitudes, here I am following Diane Steinberg.
Diane Steinberg, on her book On Spinoza, more lucidly addresses this issue, " what is infinite and always exists can only give rise to what is infinite and always exists. Finite things can be produced only by' an attribute of God insofar as it is modified by a modification which is finite and has a determinate existence(Ip28)'."
So my questions are: What is the causal chain of connection between the two? How could an eternal infinity degrade to the contingent finitude of finite modes? How do they link up and touch each other?
I am not sure what Spinoza's answer is yet. I feel that I am missing something important somewhere.
Thanks again,
Luis
koltzenburg@...
hi Luis, cannot wind my head around this at the moment, but reading your description of the problem you want to solve, a quip attributed to Einstein crosses my
Message 4 of 16 , Oct 13 10:02 PM
hi Luis, cannot wind my head around this at the moment, but

reading your description of the problem you want to solve, a quip attributed to Einstein crosses my mind:

ca. "Of you want to solve a problem, you should choose a path other than the one that brought you there."

in your case, an this is just my wild I guess in a way, dissolving binaries of various kinds might work,

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@...

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
To:"spinoza@yahoogroups.com" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

>
>
> Thank you Claudia for your interest in my question. I think that I get the main thrust of Spinoza's argument regarding the concepts of the infinite, eternal nature of Substance and its correlation to its Attributes which are the essence of Substance and themselves infinite and eternal.
> From there I follow that the reality of the modifications arising from the eternal and infinite Attributes are in themselves infinite and eternal (ie., motion and rest.)
> My difficulty starts when Spinoza, in Ethics I, prop. XXVIII regarding finite modes, states:
> " Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity."
> So I comprehend two paths of causality, on the one hand the path of eternal, infinity and on the other hand the path of contingent, finitudes, here I am following Diane Steinberg.
> Diane Steinberg, on her book On Spinoza, more lucidly addresses this issue, " what is infinite and always exists can only give rise to what is infinite and always exists. Finite things can be produced only by' an attribute of God insofar as it is modified by a modification which is finite and has a determinate existence(Ip28)'."
> So my questions are: What is the causal chain of connection between the two? How could an eternal infinity degrade to the contingent finitude of finite modes? How do they link up and touch each other?
> I am not sure what Spinoza's answer is yet. I feel that I am missing something important somewhere.
> Thanks again,
> Luis
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
Luis Gutierrez
Hi Claudia,I love the quote. What follows is what I have been able to stitch together. It starts with the sequence from The One Substance (infinite, eternal,
Message 5 of 16 , Oct 14 4:24 PM
Hi Claudia,
I love the quote. What follows is what I have been able to stitch together.
It starts with the sequence from The One Substance (infinite, eternal, conceived in itself, cause of everything else that follows), to the Attributes (infinite, eternal, the essence of the One and only Substance, two of which are known to us: extension and thought), to the infinite modes or modifications of the One Substance( ie., motion and rest when referring to the Attribute of extension and infinite intellect from the Attribute of thought) and to finally the finite modes (the contingent, perishable, finite things of the universe, including us).
I am left with Infinite and eternal, in one corner and the finite and contingent in the other corner. But how is the latter constituted in and by the former?
Accepting that Descartes got it wrong with his dual monism, I am left with a One and Only Substance that is somewhat similar to the Epicurean atomistic conception of the world, poetically and beautifully elucidated by Lucretius in his De Rerum Natura. So, if at a very simplistic level, we imagine that Nature is made of infinite, eternal "Lego" pieces, endowed with the Attributes of extension and thought, all made of the same One Substance. I see that, say, the human body is made of a composite of multiple pieces of "legos" attached in a very complex pattern.
That complex pattern is a human being. That human being eventually perishes and the complex pattern gets dissolved to lesser and lesser complexities or patterns of "Lego" pieces until eventually (if we take it to its limits) only single "legos" are left. The essence of these single "lego" pieces has to be the One and Only Substance.
It leads me to conclude, therefore, that finite things are nothing but patterns of complexity of Substance from a single pattern to ever more complex forms. The patterns are then the finite and contingent elements or modes of Nature/God/Substance and that is how they connect: the infinite with the finite. The finite things are just patterns of complexity of Nature easily dissolvable and recycled.
That is as far as I have been able to take it. Does it hold water?
Luis
koltzenburg@...
Hi Luis, wish I had more time to dive into my own thought patterns about Spinoza s thinking, alas not until November it seems to me that the HOW is really
Message 6 of 16 , Oct 14 9:47 PM
Hi Luis, wish I had more time to dive into my own thought patterns about Spinoza's thinking, alas not until November

it seems to me that the HOW is really important for what we make of the WHAT
but its role often overlooked

I see you are using metaphors to describe the way in which you attempt to make sense of what you read
e.g., stitching together and lego system,

is this the path that led you to the problem?

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@...

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
To:"spinoza@yahoogroups.com" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:24:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

>
>
> Hi Claudia,
> I love the quote. What follows is what I have been able to stitch together.
> It starts with the sequence from The One Substance (infinite, eternal, conceived in itself, cause of everything else that follows), to the Attributes (infinite, eternal, the essence of the One and only Substance, two of which are known to us: extension and thought), to the infinite modes or modifications of the One Substance( ie., motion and rest when referring to the Attribute of extension and infinite intellect from the Attribute of thought) and to finally the finite modes (the contingent, perishable, finite things of the universe, including us).
> I am left with Infinite and eternal, in one corner and the finite and contingent in the other corner. But how is the latter constituted in and by the former?
> Accepting that Descartes got it wrong with his dual monism, I am left with a One and Only Substance that is somewhat similar to the Epicurean atomistic conception of the world, poetically and beautifully elucidated by Lucretius in his De Rerum Natura. So, if at a very simplistic level, we imagine that Nature is made of infinite, eternal "Lego" pieces, endowed with the Attributes of extension and thought, all made of the same One Substance. I see that, say, the human body is made of a composite of multiple pieces of "legos" attached in a very complex pattern.
> That complex pattern is a human being. That human being eventually perishes and the complex pattern gets dissolved to lesser and lesser complexities or patterns of "Lego" pieces until eventually (if we take it to its limits) only single "legos" are left. The essence of these single "lego" pieces has to be the One and Only Substance.
> It leads me to conclude, therefore, that finite things are nothing but patterns of complexity of Substance from a single pattern to ever more complex forms. The patterns are then the finite and contingent elements or modes of Nature/God/Substance and that is how they connect: the infinite with the finite. The finite things are just patterns of complexity of Nature easily dissolvable and recycled.
> That is as far as I have been able to take it. Does it hold water?
> Luis
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
Luis Gutierrez
Hi Claudia,Don t worry about it. I ll know I arrived when I get there (probably something that Yogi Berra must have said).Thank you for your interest.Luis
Message 7 of 16 , Oct 15 6:45 AM
Hi Claudia,
Don't worry about it. I'll know I arrived when I get there (probably something that Yogi Berra must have said).
Thank you for your interest.
Luis
Blake McBride
Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe. Of course, more precisely,
Message 8 of 16 , Oct 15 3:15 PM
Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.

Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.

Blake McBride

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
Luis Gutierrez
Hi Blake,I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the
Message 9 of 16 , Oct 15 4:51 PM
Hi Blake,
I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the attribute of extension, but I take it that you think that the metaphor extends to finite things as well. . . The intricacy necessary to conform to ever increasing patterns of complexity to explain the different things in the universe, from quantum particles to atoms to humans, to planets, galaxies, etc., is daunting. Yet your metaphor is very attractive.
Do you think that the same image, of the ocean and waves, also applies when looked at from the attribute of thought?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.

Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.

Blake McBride

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
Blake McBride
Finite modes are things like you, me, a car, a rock, etc.. - individual things. Infinite modes are things like gravity. They are universal. Blake McBride On
Message 10 of 16 , Oct 15 5:50 PM
Finite modes are things like you, me, a car, a rock, etc.. - individual things. Infinite modes are things like gravity. They are universal.

Blake McBride

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Blake,
I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the attribute of extension, but I take it that you think that the metaphor extends to finite things as well. . . The intricacy necessary to conform to ever increasing patterns of complexity to explain the different things in the universe, from quantum particles to atoms to humans, to planets, galaxies, etc., is daunting. Yet your metaphor is very attractive.
Do you think that the same image, of the ocean and waves, also applies when looked at from the attribute of thought?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.

Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.

Blake McBride

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
Blake McBride
Be careful with the mode of thought. It s not what most people think. The attribute of thought is not thought like people thinking. At is more like our word
Message 11 of 16 , Oct 15 6:01 PM
Be careful with the mode of thought. It's not what most people think. The attribute of thought is not thought like people thinking. At is more like our word "pattern".

As I learn things, my brain alters its "patterns" to reflect the things I've learned. Obviously, there is a one-to-one relationship (or one thing seen from two perspectives) between the "patterns" in my brain that represent things I've learned, and the physical interconnectedness within my brain.

Likewise, "patterns" exist among all physical things. These "patterns" are the attribute of thought. It is not human thought.

Blake McBride

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Blake,
I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the attribute of extension, but I take it that you think that the metaphor extends to finite things as well. . . The intricacy necessary to conform to ever increasing patterns of complexity to explain the different things in the universe, from quantum particles to atoms to humans, to planets, galaxies, etc., is daunting. Yet your metaphor is very attractive.
Do you think that the same image, of the ocean and waves, also applies when looked at from the attribute of thought?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.

Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.

Blake McBride

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
Luis Gutierrez
Very helpful insight. Thank you Blake. Would you suggest author/authors that would help me expand on your ideas?Luis On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:01 PM,
Message 12 of 16 , Oct 15 6:23 PM
Very helpful insight. Thank you Blake. Would you suggest author/authors that would help me expand on your ideas?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:01 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Be careful with the mode of thought. It's not what most people think. The attribute of thought is not thought like people thinking. At is more like our word "pattern".

As I learn things, my brain alters its "patterns" to reflect the things I've learned. Obviously, there is a one-to-one relationship (or one thing seen from two perspectives) between the "patterns" in my brain that represent things I've learned, and the physical interconnectedness within my brain.

Likewise, "patterns" exist among all physical things. These "patterns" are the attribute of thought. It is not human thought.

Blake McBride

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Blake,
I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the attribute of extension, but I take it that you think that the metaphor extends to finite things as well. . . The intricacy necessary to conform to ever increasing patterns of complexity to explain the different things in the universe, from quantum particles to atoms to humans, to planets, galaxies, etc., is daunting. Yet your metaphor is very attractive.
Do you think that the same image, of the ocean and waves, also applies when looked at from the attribute of thought?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.

Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.

Blake McBride

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
Blake McBride
Dear Luis, Thank you for your kind remarks. It has been a long time since I read anything about Spinoza (although I probably have the largest Spinoza library
Message 13 of 16 , Oct 15 7:27 PM
Dear Luis,

Thank you for your kind remarks. It has been a long time since I read anything about Spinoza (although I probably have the largest Spinoza library in the U.S.). I taught a six week course on Spinoza's Ethics a number of years ago. After that, being unsatisfied with the available literature, I started writing my own book "Spinoza's Ethics Explained". One of my goals in life is to finish it.

I did write a paper on the attributes, and one on determinism. I can share those with you if you like. Perhaps I will just put those up on one of my web sites.

I have to admit that much of my understanding of the less understood pieces did not come from any book other than The Ethics. I read and read the Ethics. I kept morphing my interpretation of his propositions to minimize contradictions with other propositions. Then, about 15 years ago, it all made sense. It all fits. The Ethics appears as a logical whole to me. (This is one of the few testaments to the beauty of the geometrical method...)

I've met and heard Steven Nadler. He strikes me as one of the few who understand Spinoza. I read his historical book but not all of his book on The Ethics. I'd probably recommend that one.

I remember enjoying Jon Wetlesen's The Sage And The Way.

A lot of the other books cover the basics well but utterly fall apart in the more controversial parts. They don't see what is going on. You can tell they don't get it or they'd see that those parts are just as straight forward - once you get past your prejudices.

A few of the other books that get recommended (like Hallett), are so complex that very, very few can get through them. IMO, The Ethics is not that complicated. Books like Hallett make what appears difficult (The Ethics) a lot more difficult unnecessarily. Rather than simplify it into something a person can understand, they make it more complex.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Blake McBride

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Very helpful insight. Thank you Blake. Would you suggest author/authors that would help me expand on your ideas?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:01 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Be careful with the mode of thought. It's not what most people think. The attribute of thought is not thought like people thinking. At is more like our word "pattern".

As I learn things, my brain alters its "patterns" to reflect the things I've learned. Obviously, there is a one-to-one relationship (or one thing seen from two perspectives) between the "patterns" in my brain that represent things I've learned, and the physical interconnectedness within my brain.

Likewise, "patterns" exist among all physical things. These "patterns" are the attribute of thought. It is not human thought.< /div>

Blake McBride

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Blake,
I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the attribute of extension, but I take it that you think that the metaphor extends to finite things as well. . . The intricacy necessary to conform to ever increasing patterns of complexity to explain the different things in the universe, from quantum particles to atoms to humans, to planets, galaxies, etc., is daunting. Yet your metaphor is very attractive.
Do you think that the same image, of the ocean and waves, also applies when looked at from the attribute of thought?
Luis

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.

Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.

Blake McBride

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.
Anyone?
Luis
Robert Merkin
Akin to Einstein s heuristic advice is Latin s Solvitur ambulando. Einstein seems to appear in Spinoza reverence circles regularly. This thread reminded me
Message 14 of 16 , Oct 13 10:43 PM
Akin to Einstein's heuristic advice is Latin's "Solvitur ambulando."

Einstein seems to appear in Spinoza reverence circles regularly.

This thread reminded me strongly of a comment Einstein made in his encomium to Spinoza, "Zu Spinozas Ethik" (1920).

You must kindly pardon me
If I think here of Münchhausen,
An individual thriving on tricks
Pulling himself from the swamp by his own bootstraps.

(filched from a list member, original German on request.)

One of the serial liar's seemingly credible, reasonable tales recounted how he lifted himself and his horse from a quagmire by pulling upwards on the queue of his wig. (Another version more resembles "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.")

I'd just halt at the obvious: Two geniuses, the latter obviously the most sincere admirer of the former ... and none more than Einstein had the credentials to ask embarrassing questions about the proof schema of "The Ethics."

I particularly admire Einstein's comment for its light-hearted humor. Most Spinoza admirers are convinced "there's nothing funny about Spinoza."

Youse guys are far deeper Spinoza scholars than I, but I'd be grateful for comments or citations that suggest Spinoza himself had doubts or misgivings about the proof structure in "The Ethics."

Bob Merkin
Massachusetts USA

----- Original Message -----
From: koltzenburg@... [spinoza]
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

hi Luis, cannot wind my head around this at the moment, but reading your description of the problem you want to solve, a quip attributed to Einstein crosses my mind:

ca. "Of you want to solve a problem, you should choose a path other than the one that brought you there."

in your case, and this is just my wild I guess in a way, dissolving binaries of various kinds might work,

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@...

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
To:"spinoza@yahoogroups.com" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

>
> Thank you Claudia for
your interest in my question. I think that I get the main thrust of Spinoza's argument regarding the concepts of the infinite, eternal nature of Substance and its correlation to its Attributes which are the essence of Substance and themselves infinite and eternal.

> From there I follow that the reality of the
modifications arising from the eternal and infinite Attributes are in themselves infinite and eternal (ie., motion and rest.)

> My difficulty starts when Spinoza, in Ethics
I, prop. XXVIII regarding finite modes, states:

>
" Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity."

> So I comprehend two paths of causality, on the
one hand the path of eternal, infinity and on the other hand the path of contingent, finitudes, here I am following Diane Steinberg.
> Diane Steinberg, on her book On Spinoza, more lucidly addresses this
issue, " what is infinite and always exists can only give rise to what is infinite and always exists. Finite things can be produced only by' an attribute of God insofar as it is modified by a modification which is finite and has a determinate existence(Ip28)'."
> So my questions are: What is the causal chain of connection between
the two? How could an eternal infinity degrade to the contingent finitude of finite modes? How do they link up and touch each other?
> I am not sure what Spinoza's answer is yet. I feel that I am
missing something important somewhere.
> Thanks again,
> Luis
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
Donovan Rundle
To your further question, whether things and their modifications are eternal truths, I answer: Certainly. If you ask me, why I do not call them eternal
Message 15 of 16 , Oct 14 11:37 AM
" To your further question, whether things and their modifications are eternal truths, I answer: Certainly. If you ask me, why I do not call them eternal truths, I answer, in order to distinguish them, in accordance with general usage, from those propositions, which do not make manifest any particular thing or modification of a thing; for example, nothing comes from nothing. These and such like propositions are, I repeat, called eternal truths simply, the meaning merely being, that they have no standpoint external to the mind, etc”

The existence of a thing, limited by duration, and its essence, both have God for their efficient cause. The problem is really that people try to “figure it out” rather than following the course of behavior suggested by Spinoza as the way to prepare one’s being to receive wisdom. No, they don’t have time to learn what the Yogis call “Svedyaya” or “self-study.” But it is all amusing, is it not, like Munchhausen’s wig?

.
On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:43 PM, 'Robert Merkin' bobmerk@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Akin to Einstein's heuristic advice is Latin's "Solvitur ambulando."

Einstein seems to appear in Spinoza reverence circles regularly.

This thread reminded me strongly of a comment Einstein made in his encomium to Spinoza, "Zu Spinozas Ethik" (1920).

You must kindly pardon me
If I think here of Münchhausen,
An individual thriving on tricks
Pulling himself from the swamp by his own bootstraps.

(filched from a list member, original German on request.)

One of the serial liar's seemingly credible, reasonable tales recounted how he lifted himself and his horse from a quagmire by pulling upwards on the queue of his wig. (Another version more resembles "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.")

I'd just halt at the obvious: Two geniuses, the latter obviously the most sincere admirer of the former ... and none more than Einstein had the credentials to ask embarrassing questions about the proof schema of "The Ethics."

I particularly admire Einstein's comment for its light-hearted humor. Most Spinoza admirers are convinced "there's nothing funny about Spinoza."

Youse guys are far deeper Spinoza scholars than I, but I'd be grateful for comments or citations that suggest Spinoza himself had doubts or misgivings about the proof structure in "The Ethics."

Bob Merkin
Massachusetts USA

----- Original Message -----
From: koltzenburg@... [spinoza]
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

hi Luis, cannot wind my head around this at the moment, but reading your description of the problem you want to solve, a quip attributed to Einstein crosses my mind:

ca. "Of you want to solve a problem, you should choose a path other than the one that brought you there."

in your case, and this is just my wild I guess in a way, dissolving binaries of various kinds might work,

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@...

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
To:"spinoza@yahoogroups.com" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

>
> Thank you Claudia for your interest in my question. I think that I get the main thrust of Spinoza's argument regarding the concepts of the infinite, eternal nature of Substance and its correlation to its Attributes which are the essence of Substance and themselves infinite and eternal.

> From there I follow that the reality of the modifications arising from the eternal and infinite Attributes are in themselves infinite and eternal (ie., motion and rest.)

> My difficulty starts when Spinoza, in Ethics I, prop. XXVIII regarding finite modes, states:

> " Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity."

> So I comprehend two paths of causality, on the one hand the path of eternal, infinity and on the other hand the path of contingent, finitudes, here I am following Diane Steinberg.
> Diane Steinberg, on her book On Spinoza, more lucidly addresses this issue, " what is infinite and always exists can only give rise to what is infinite and always exists. Finite things can be produced only by' an attribute of God insofar as it is modified by a modification which is finite and has a determinate existence(Ip28)'."
> So my questions are: What is the causal chain of connection between the two? How could an eternal infinity degrade to the contingent finitude of finite modes? How do they link up and touch each other?
> I am not sure what Spinoza's answer is yet. I feel that I am missing something important somewhere.
> Thanks again,
> Luis
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------
Donovan Rundle
It is said that James Joyce frequently chuckled, or broke into full blown laughter, while writing ôUlysses.ö I found out why. Parts of it are utterly
Message 16 of 16 , Oct 15 8:26 AM
It is said that James Joyce frequently chuckled, or broke into full blown laughter, while writing “Ulysses.” I found out why. Parts of it are utterly hysterical, and I wondered if this book influenced John Lennon….It takes careful observation of one’s self to discover if one is experiencing full blown mirth. Laughter can be an expression of pain, such as derision, or completely mechanical imitation, such as when one finds oneself laughing with others when one didn’t actually hear the joke.

Learn the causes of these phenomena and begin to live. Learn by impartially watching, always, everywhere….

PROP. XLII. Mirth cannot be excessive, but is always good ;
contrariwise, Melancholy is always bad.
Proof.-Mirth (see its Def. in III. xi. note) is pleasure,
which, in so far as it is referred to the body, consists in all
parts of the body being affected equally : that is (III. xi.),
the body's power of activity is increased or aided in such a
manner, that the several parts maintain their former proportion
of motion and rest ; therefore Mirth is always good (IV. xxxix.),
and cannot be excessive. But Melancholy (see its Def. in the
same note to III. xi.) is pain, which, in so far as it is
referred to the body, consists in the absolute decrease or
hindrance of the body's power of activity ; therefore (IV.
xxxviii.) it is always bad. Q.E.D.

On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:43 PM, 'Robert Merkin' bobmerk@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Akin to Einstein's heuristic advice is Latin's "Solvitur ambulando."

Einstein seems to appear in Spinoza reverence circles regularly.

This thread reminded me strongly of a comment Einstein made in his encomium to Spinoza, "Zu Spinozas Ethik" (1920).

You must kindly pardon me
If I think here of Münchhausen,
An individual thriving on tricks
Pulling himself from the swamp by his own bootstraps.

(filched from a list member, original German on request.)

One of the serial liar's seemingly credible, reasonable tales recounted how he lifted himself and his horse from a quagmire by pulling upwards on the queue of his wig. (Another version more resembles "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.")

I'd just halt at the obvious: Two geniuses, the latter obviously the most sincere admirer of the former ... and none more than Einstein had the credentials to ask embarrassing questions about the proof schema of "The Ethics."

I particularly admire Einstein's comment for its light-hearted humor. Most Spinoza admirers are convinced "there's nothing funny about Spinoza."

Youse guys are far deeper Spinoza scholars than I, but I'd be grateful for comments or citations that suggest Spinoza himself had doubts or misgivings about the proof structure in "The Ethics."

Bob Merkin
Massachusetts USA

----- Original Message -----
From: koltzenburg@... [spinoza]
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

hi Luis, cannot wind my head around this at the moment, but reading your description of the problem you want to solve, a quip attributed to Einstein crosses my mind:

ca. "Of you want to solve a problem, you should choose a path other than the one that brought you there."

in your case, and this is just my wild I guess in a way, dissolving binaries of various kinds might work,

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@...

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
To:"spinoza@yahoogroups.com" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:Re: ambiguous? Re: [spinoza]

>
> Thank you Claudia for your interest in my question. I think that I get the main thrust of Spinoza's argument regarding the concepts of the infinite, eternal nature of Substance and its correlation to its Attributes which are the essence of Substance and themselves infinite and eternal.

> From there I follow that the reality of the modifications arising from the eternal and infinite Attributes are in themselves infinite and eternal (ie., motion and rest.)

> My difficulty starts when Spinoza, in Ethics I, prop. XXVIII regarding finite modes, states:

> " Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity."

> So I comprehend two paths of causality, on the one hand the path of eternal, infinity and on the other hand the path of contingent, finitudes, here I am following Diane Steinberg.
> Diane Steinberg, on her book On Spinoza, more lucidly addresses this issue, " what is infinite and always exists can only give rise to what is infinite and always exists. Finite things can be produced only by' an attribute of God insofar as it is modified by a modification which is finite and has a determinate existence(Ip28)'."
> So my questions are: What is the causal chain of connection between the two? How could an eternal infinity degrade to the contingent finitude of finite modes? How do they link up and touch each other?
> I am not sure what Spinoza's answer is yet. I feel that I am missing something important somewhere.
> Thanks again,
> Luis
>
>
------- End of Original Message -------

Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

Spinoza Group: for Spinozistic readings and discussions is a Restricted Group with 494 members.

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation