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
be conscious of | Synonyms at Dictionary.com Mobile
Expand Messages
- Hi Blake,
I have a question to you...
I would be grateful if you answer me this question.
I have read a few explanation on this matter but I am wondering your comment:
We know that for Spinoza there is no immortality. Spinoza rules out personal immortality.
Nevertheless, in Ethics, Part V at P23, Spinoza says:
“The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal.”
That is to stay if body destroyed, at the same time mind destroyed.
If BODY dies, MIND dies at the same time.
So, what is this eternal thing which remains after death? - First, let's not get mystical. There is no magic.There are two ways to understand this: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturtata.Natura NaturataThoughts in your mind are unique as you are unique. Most often these unique patterns disappear along with your body.Spinoza had unique thoughts too. He recorded some of those unique thoughts in the books he wrote. Now, 300+ years later, we have read, are affected, and are discussing Spinoza's unique mental patterns. Although Spinoza's body is long dead, there is yet something of Spinoza persisting...When you die, your body is gone. Yet, people and things you have affected, and continue to affect, remain to the extend that your efforts continue to affect things in the then current universe.Natura NaturansThink of a loaf of bread. Each slice represents a following slice of time. You are going through the loaf one slice as you travel through time. Even though you are on the 15th slice, doesn't the 4th slice still exist? So, although Spinoza does exist today, from the perspective of eternity (the whole loaf), doesn't Spinoza still exist?Hope that helps.Blake McBride
- Decided to re-post with some typo's fixed.First, let's not get mystical. There is no magic.There are two ways to understand this: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.Natura NaturataThoughts in your mind are unique as you are unique. Most often theseunique patterns disappear along with your body.Spinoza had unique thoughts too. He recorded some of those uniquethoughts in the books he wrote. Now, 300+ years later, we have read,are affected, and are discussing Spinoza's unique mental patterns.Although Spinoza's body is long dead, there is yet something ofSpinoza's mind persisting...When you die, your body is gone. Yet, people and things you haveaffected, and continue to affect, remain to the extend that yourefforts continue to affect things in the then current universe.Natura NaturansThink of a loaf of bread. Each slice represents a subsequent slice oftime. You are going through the loaf one slice at a time as youtravel through time. Even though you are on the 15th slice, doesn'tthe 4th slice still exist? So, although Spinoza does not exist today,from the perspective of eternity (the whole loaf), doesn't Spinozastill exist?Hope that helps.Blake McBride
- Blake may know but take for granted an important aspect of the part of Spinoza (or of PeeWee Herman) which lives on after death.Blake's description of the immortal aspects of individual thought requires a human (or sentient) community to preserve, maintain and pass on earlier thoughts from generation to generation -- from "slice to slice."Without this maintenance and preservation community, there is nothing that was Spinoza which could travel forward in time and reach us or influence us 300+ years after his death.Contrast this immortality with platonic objects like the locus of mathematical truth, which (consensus holds) exists independent of humans. e.g. the Pythagorean theorem is true even if Pythagoras had not lived, discovered it, and passed it on to others; it is true everywhere in the universe, whether local sentients have discovered it or not. The locus of mathematical truth is independent of our notions of time and space, of past, present and future, and of "here and there." It does not depend on or conform to the properties of the "slice by slice" model of immortality.BobMassachusetts USA----- Original Message -----From: blake@... [spinoza]Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 4:35 PMSubject: [spinoza] Re: A question to BlakeDecided to re-post with some typo's fixed.First, let's not get mystical. There is no magic.There are two ways to understand this: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.Natura NaturataThoughts in your mind are unique as you are unique. Most often theseunique patterns disappear along with your body.Spinoza had unique thoughts too. He recorded some of those uniquethoughts in the books he wrote. Now, 300+ years later, we have read,are affected, and are discussing Spinoza's unique mental patterns.Although Spinoza's body is long dead, there is yet something ofSpinoza's mind persisting...When you die, your body is gone. Yet, people and things you haveaffected, and continue to affect, remain to the extend that yourefforts continue to affect things in the then current universe.Natura NaturansThink of a loaf of bread. Each slice represents a subsequent slice oftime. You are going through the loaf one slice at a time as youtravel through time. Even though you are on the 15th slice, doesn'tthe 4th slice still exist? So, although Spinoza does not exist today,from the perspective of eternity (the whole loaf), doesn't Spinozastill exist?Hope that helps.Blake McBride
- On Jul 9, 2015, at 1:35 PM, blake@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Decided to re-post with some typo's fixed.First, let's not get mystical. There is no magic.A radical empiricist is one who recognizes that mystical experiences, such as Spinoza’s description of “rebirth” in the Short Treatise, are nevertheless bona fide human experiences. Not everyone has them, obviously, but many do. Think Paul on the road to Damascus. Think all that Spinoza says of prophecy in the Theological Political Treatise. He doesn’t dispute that Moses saw a burning bush and heard a “voice of God.” Oh, is that not a “mystical” experience? Why doesn’t Spinoza just toss it in the Positivist dustbin? He knew all about language games.Positivism is so dead. There is no magic? Yes, let’s whisk it away to the land of unreal by definition. Magic is very important to many cultures around the world. It affects people. Even western teenagers. A kid carves the name of his heart’s desire into a candle, then scatters contracts around the room of people who have consigned to him their immortal souls. He burns the candle, singing a certain "penetrating chant."Was ist das? Keine Zauberflote? Mein Leibgott. How dull. I grew up near Carlos Casteneda’s power spots. I’ll admit there is no chimera here on Earth, but no magic? Gee whiz. No, I don’t think anyone crosses up God, but you have read Hamlet, no? I remember having the flu and reading Castaneda’s “Art of Dreaming” for entertainment. Went to sleep, looked for and found myself in the dream and woke myself up, then that self went on to find another self to awaken. Next thing you know, I’m at the Fifth Gate of Dreaming, which is supposed to take years of study with a Sorcerer. Ach, but I’m always lying…Reasoning will never convince you that this sentence is true, yet you sense there must be something true about it, no?There are two ways to understand this: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.Natura NaturataThoughts in your mind are unique as you are unique. Most often theseunique patterns disappear along with your body.Spinoza had unique thoughts too. He recorded some of those uniquethoughts in the books he wrote. Now, 300+ years later, we have read,are affected, and are discussing Spinoza's unique mental patterns.Although Spinoza's body is long dead, there is yet something ofSpinoza's mind persisting...When you die, your body is gone.I’ve seen too many dead people. They have to be cleaned up. You should read some interesting things in Spinoza about a certain Spanish poet. Crikey, Blake! Remember him?Yet, people and things you haveaffected, and continue to affect, remain to the extend that yourefforts continue to affect things in the then current universe.Natura NaturansThink of a loaf of bread. Each slice represents a subsequent slice oftime. You are going through the loaf one slice at a time as youtravel through time. Even though you are on the 15th slice, doesn'tthe 4th slice still exist? So, although Spinoza does not exist today,from the perspective of eternity (the whole loaf), doesn't Spinozastill exist?Sean Carroll might think so. You should check out what Spinoza has to say about time. Very interesting. “Some things move faster than others.” Yes, entropy is interesting, unscrambling the egg and such, but time has no ontological status for Spinoza. BTW, sliced bread was invented as a packaged item in Missouri in 1928. Or so I read the other day.Hope that helps.“From Eternity to Here?” Not very Spinozist. He maintains that for those who unite with God thereby eternize the soul. It’s in the Short Treatise. How about we study Spinoza here? Hey, thinking of Cal Tech, I thought I had an original idea in theoretical physics so I wrote to Kip Thorne. He wrote me back right away. Maybe I’ll post that, since anything goes here these days.Blake McBrideI do appreciate you even bothering to post Blake, I really do, and I know you are trying. But please stick to Spinoza and forget the magic bread. If you want to try explaining the Second Law of Thermodynamics and its effect on Humpty Dumpty, that would be fun perhaps. - Can we agree that Spinoza was not a Platonist?Mathematics is a way people represent their world to themselves. Check out Morris Kline’s “Mathematics: Loss of Certainty” Euclidean geometry is an historical artifact because space is curved these days. To the eternal soul, death isn’t real because for one thing, time isn’t real. If one is united with God in essence, how can one die?Local sentients may live in worlds with different attributes, and if in our cosmos, were never of the “flat earth” type persuasion.On Jul 9, 2015, at 3:03 PM, 'Robert Merkin' bobmerk@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Blake may know but take for granted an important aspect of the part of Spinoza (or of PeeWee Herman) which lives on after death.Blake's description of the immortal aspects of individual thought requires a human (or sentient) community to preserve, maintain and pass on earlier thoughts from generation to generation -- from "slice to slice."Without this maintenance and preservation community, there is nothing that was Spinoza which could travel forward in time and reach us or influence us 300+ years after his death.Contrast this immortality with platonic objects like the locus of mathematical truth, which (consensus holds) exists independent of humans. e.g. the Pythagorean theorem is true even if Pythagoras had not lived, discovered it, and passed it on to others; it is true everywhere in the universe, whether local sentients have discovered it or not. The locus of mathematical truth is independent of our notions of time and space, of past, present and future, and of "here and there." It does not depend on or conform to the properties of the "slice by slice" model of immortality.BobMassachusetts USA----- Original Message -----From: blake@... [spinoza]Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 4:35 PMSubject: [spinoza] Re: A question to BlakeDecided to re-post with some typo's fixed.First, let's not get mystical. There is no magic.There are two ways to understand this: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.Natura NaturataThoughts in your mind are unique as you are unique. Most often theseunique patterns disappear along with your body.Spinoza had unique thoughts too. He recorded some of those uniquethoughts in the books he wrote. Now, 300+ years later, we have read,are affected, and are discussing Spinoza's unique mental patterns.Although Spinoza's body is long dead, there is yet something ofSpinoza's mind persisting...When you die, your body is gone. Yet, people and things you haveaffected, and continue to affect, remain to the extend that yourefforts continue to affect things in the then current universe.Natura NaturansThink of a loaf of bread. Each slice represents a subsequent slice oftime. You are going through the loaf one slice at a time as youtravel through time. Even though you are on the 15th slice, doesn'tthe 4th slice still exist? So, although Spinoza does not exist today,from the perspective of eternity (the whole loaf), doesn't Spinozastill exist?Hope that helps.Blake McBride - Hello blake,I don't know how 'magic' got in there but as to 'mystical,' certainly one of the primary definitions or connotations is, & I quote, "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality." If this is not Spinoza's intent in part 5 of the ethics, please provide an alternative that will answer to what you take to be his purpose there.Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 07/09/2015 1:22 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spinoza] Re: A question to Blake
First, let's not get mystical. There is no magic.
There are two ways to understand this: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturtata.Natura NaturataThoughts in your mind are unique as you are unique. Most often these unique patterns disappear along with your body.Spinoza had unique thoughts too. He recorded some of those unique thoughts in the books he wrote. Now, 300+ years later, we have read, are affected, and are discussing Spinoza's unique mental patterns. Although Spinoza's body is long dead, there is yet something of Spinoza persisting...When you die, your body is gone. Yet, people and things you have affected, and continue to affect, remain to the extend that your efforts continue to affect things in the then current universe.Natura NaturansThink of a loaf of bread. Each slice represents a following slice of time. You are going through the loaf one slice as you travel through time. Even though you are on the 15th slice, doesn't the 4th slice still exist? So, although Spinoza does exist today, from the perspective of eternity (the whole loaf), doesn't Spinoza still exist?Hope that helps.Blake McBride - Hello Blake,
Thank you very much for your explaining.
First of all I should strongly emphasize that I never like superstitions which can be perceived magical or mystical or fantastic.
Spinoza was not an ethereal man, was not a prophet.
His philosophy can not be named or bordered by any religious point of view, or by just rigid pantheism, or by panentheism
or by rigid atheism.
May be his philosophy can be named a kind of materialism or a kind of atheism.
We shouldn't attempt to connect his philosophy to any religious thoughts or beliefs.
He said "Deus sive Natura".
That is to say, all universe itselif is GOD. (maybe a multiverse which includes a large number of universes, or parallel universes).
Actually Giardano Bruno had said this, about 50 years ago before Spinoza.
Bruno was burned alive, by the Inquisition.
And Spinoza also took a punishment by jewish community.
The most severe excommunication.
This is a big shame for jews.
.....
So I'm not prone to superstitions or any other magical-mystical-fantastic thoughts.
I'm not even have any religious ideas or baliefs as well.
This universe is deterministic at macro level, and indeterministict at micro level.
I believe that our wonderfull universe and our wonderfull world works by determenist phisical laws at macro level.
So I don't believe in FREE WILL.
Free Will maybe is an illusion.
Nevertheless we can be free from determenist relations, and from necesseties by understanding and sensing these determenism and necessities.
By adaquate knowledge and adaquate ideas.
With Second Kind of Knowledge or knowledge of the Third Kind or Intuition like Spinoza says.
...
Yes i believe determenistic phisic laws at macro level in our Universe and in our world.
Bu this doesn't mean that life is very boring or mechanical, or unemotional or have no mystery.
Just opposite, our world is full of mysteries,
So energetic, so lively, so colorful, so dynamic, so harmonic, so rhythmic and of course so wonderful.
NATURA NATURATA derives from NATURA NATURANS, unceasingly like Spinoza says.
This deriveness is magical. This is extraordinary very very beautiful panorama, for sighted people.
Spinoza teaches us, living in real life without forgetting PERSPECTIVE of ETERNITY.
To see things from perspective of eternity.
Not only the infinity of space but the eternity of TIME as well.
This perspective of eternity is the most important pillar of his philosophy,
But this doesn't mean that this extraordinarily beautiful panorama not only for watching hypnotized look but more importantly for LIVING.
CONTRARILY Spinoza is a philosohper of DAILY LIFE.
Spinoza teachs to evreyone to combine their CONATUS' to other CONATUS'
So there is a sociality here, there is an association here, there is a philosophy of contact,
there is a philosophy of merging powers here.
Thank you very much Blake for your answering my question about Spinoza says in Ethics, Part V at P23
“The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal.”.
....
By the way let me know your thoughts about universe please?
There must be a beginning and ending?
Do you beileve that everything (Space and Time) began with BIG BANG?
What about before BIG BANG?
What do you think about multiverse or parallel universes?
Holografik universe?
Quantum mechanics can work in mind, in brain?
Some scientists say "yes quantum works in Brain, so there is Free Will"
Some scientists say "no quantum laws can not work in brain, there is no free will" (for example Victor Stenger says)
I am wondering your opinions on these matters.
Your opinions very valuable for me.
Thank you again.
Oguz
Istanbul - Hello Oguz,I agree with your summary comments. Thank you for your kind remarks. I will answer your questions in-line below.On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:58 AM, oguz unal oguzunal@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
....
By the way let me know your thoughts about universe please?
There must be a beginning and ending?
Do you beileve that everything (Space and Time) began with BIG BANG?
What about before BIG BANG?
What do you think about multiverse or parallel universes?
Holografik universe?True knowledge of the universe's origins are beyond my knowledge, and, in fact, beyond any humans knowledge. All we can do is glean as much information as we can and produce hypothesis. Although this is always the case, the difference is the distance between what we can observe and what we are trying to explain. There is no greater distance than the "origin" of the universe.This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, it only means that we should be pretty skeptical about the conclusions. This is also somewhat true of our analysis of sub-atomic particles.
Quantum mechanics can work in mind, in brain?If sub-atomic particles, by virtue of our observations and reasonable theories/explanations, remain random, then we end up with determinism at the macro level and randomness at the sub-atomic level. Neither of which gives us free will or anything supernatural. I am very inclined to believe (and all that we know) that there is nothing but a complex, deterministic process going on in the brain, and that sub-atomic randomness may add a very, very small randomness to out behavior, it still adds nothing significant.My personal, uneducated opinion (valueless) on sub-atomic particles is that there is something we don't yet understand and we are using randomness to do away with trying to explain it. Ultimately I believe we will find that it is an utterly deterministic process. It only appears random because we are unaware of the other factors at this time. (Actually, I do know a little more about the topic. I do understand that the current theories show that the randomness is not a filler but has been shown to be a requirement. I just think this will be shown to be wrong just as many other, long-term, useful theories have been. I base this opinion on the following: it is incomprehensible to me that a 100% deterministic macro world is 100% built upon with stuff that is 100% in-deterministic. Even if you grant that the macro world is not 100% deterministic but only 99.9999999999%, it still doesn't make sense that ALL of what is built on is in-deterministic.)
Some scientists say "yes quantum works in Brain, so there is Free Will"
Some scientists say "no quantum laws can not work in brain, there is no free will" (for example Victor Stenger says)Randomness and free will are unrelated.
I am wondering your opinions on these matters.
Your opinions very valuable for me.
Thank you again.
Oguz
Istanbul__._,_.__ - On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:03 PM, 'Robert Merkin' bobmerk@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Blake may know but take for granted an important aspect of the part of Spinoza (or of PeeWee Herman) which lives on after death.Blake's description of the immortal aspects of individual thought requires a human (or sentient) community to preserve, maintain and pass on earlier thoughts from generation to generation -- from "slice to slice."Without this maintenance and preservation community, there is nothing that was Spinoza which could travel forward in time and reach us or influence us 300+ years after his death.Ah, lest we not forget that all modes are related (expressions of the single substance) or we would't have a single substance. Thus there are plenty of modes to "preserve, maintain and pass on earlier thoughts".Contrast this immortality with platonic objects like the locus of mathematical truth, which (consensus holds) exists independent of humans. e.g. the Pythagorean theorem is true even if Pythagoras had not lived, discovered it, and passed it on to others; it is true everywhere in the universe, whether local sentients have discovered it or not. The locus of mathematical truth is independent of our notions of time and space, of past, present and future, and of "here and there." It does not depend on or conform to the properties of the "slice by slice" model of immortality.Platonic ideals do not exist, period. Human thought is capable of producing abstractions, and using those abstractions to serve useful functions. Math, and the notion of triangles only exist as abstractions in the human mind. Show me a perfect triangle in the real world. How many books have been written about the many irreconcilable difference between multiple, proven mathematical systems? (I could find them for you.) Mathematics has been shown not to be able to "explain everything".Individual modes (infinite and finite) are related to other modes but have an independent history and future. Let me see if I can make this more clear. Modes interact and clearly affect each other. A particular mode has a history that explains its current state. Although that history involves other modes, the history of one mode is independent or different than that of another mode. Do not confuse the grouping of them into classes as humans do for practical purposes into thinking that they are dependent on each other. (I have to admit, this is hard to explain (or I am just not explaining it well) and easy to be taken other than is intended. )In an effort to try to clarify what may seem like a contradiction between my first response and my second - modes interact, affect, join, and split with other modes. In fact, the whole notion of modes is something of a convenience rather than a fact. Modes don't exist other than as an expression of the whole (Substance). For example, is my car an individual mode, or is the steering wheel (a part of the car) an individual mode? Being an expression of a single Substance, all modes are related. But looking at it Natura Naturata, each mode has a history that is individual to that mode, and that mode is nothing more than the accumulation of it's prior causes (history).I am not a Platonic idealist, and nor was Spinoza.Blake McBrideBobMassachusetts USA
- On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Donovan Rundle donovanrundle@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Can we agree that Spinoza was not a Platonist?
Absolutely!Mathematics is a way people represent their world to themselves. Check out Morris Kline’s “Mathematics: Loss of Certainty” Euclidean geometry is an historical artifact because space is curved these days. To the eternal soul, death isn’t real because for one thing, time isn’t real. If one is united with God in essence, how can one die?Local sentients may live in worlds with different attributes, and if in our cosmos, were never of the “flat earth” type persuasion. - On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, stuarts55 stuarts55@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hello blake,I don't know how 'magic' got in there but as to 'mystical,' certainly one of the primary definitions or connotations is, & I quote, "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality." If this is not Spinoza's intent in part 5 of the ethics, please provide an alternative that will answer to what you take to be his purpose there.When I use the words magical and mystical I mean the following:Magical = supernaturalMystical = there is a part that I do not understand, and that part might be supernaturalI do not believe supernatural refers to anything. It is a contradiction.Spinoza is sometimes referred to as mystical because they don't understand him. I suppose seeing an airplane by an ancient tribe would be mystical.To explain the purpose to Part 5, I refer you to the first sentence in Part 5:"I pass on finally to that part of the Ethics which concerns the method or way leading to freedom."If you recall, Part 4 is about Man's bondage. In it he describes how we are victims (in bondage) of our passive emotions. Part 5 is the solution. Part 5 continues with:"In this part, then, I shall be dealing with the power of reason ,pointing out the degree of control reason has over the emotions, and then what isfreedom of mind, or blessedness, from which we shall see how much to be preferred is the life of the wise man to the life of the ignorant man."Blake McBride
- In response to Blake's analogy of the loaf of bread regarding time, I will like to interject that it implies that time is an illusion. That the past, the present and the future do not exist. It was the belief inherited from Plato and even supported by Einstein as he expressed in a letter he wrote before his death, to the spouse of a deceased friendI will like to introduce the possibility that time is real and that what is important is the moment. This has been well theorized by the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Osmolin in his book Time Reborn. With time being real what is of necessity is the evolution of Nature, including its laws, not just biological ones, but physical and cultural (read about "memes" by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene).Then determinism could fall by the wayside since what is then as important is novelty, renewal and the possibility of change. The future is open to new occurrences including evolution of the laws of Nature.Spinoza was suffused with the world of the times, the radical views of the Enlightenment, which he shoved valiently forward. Yet that world was a Newtonian one, where space, time and the laws of Nature were seen as eternal, unchanging. Where causality reigned supreme. Where experiment was the measure of what was observed (not just theorizing). Yet again experiments can only be conducted in controlled environments with selected variables.The whole Universe/Nature/ God cannot be taken as a whole in any experiment, many effects are unaccounted for and I suggest that Time, the whole of it, could be one of them.We have seen that Newton's theories fail in Einsteins universe. Einstein's theories fail at the Quantum level. Causality fails at "Chaos" door steps. In the Quantum world, we talk of probabilities, not certainties.I think is worth considering and in so doing, then bring Spinoza's ideas in context, as steps (big ones) in the evolution of our understanding of Nature and not as the final say.Luis
- Hey blake. Stuart here. For now I pass by your remarks on the mystical/magical thing except to point out that the concept of non physical does not necessarily equal the concept of supernatural. Think about it. Descartes certainly didn't equate them. At least, by implication.Now, I asked you whether you thought spinoza had a different purpose in part 5 than trying to indicate how an individual subject might find communion with God or ultimate reality.You point out his intention to lead us out of bondage into freedom. I agree. However, ultimate freedom occurs when one is in the condition I defined. (To be defended at the end of my response)Then you point out his intention to show the power that reason has over the affects in a person who has traveled a path of "purification" of a familiar philosophical sort. (For this idea, I recommend Plato, Plotinus, Buddha, Jesus,.........etc) (And, of course, "our" leader, Socrates, that living example, of a physical warrior with a gentle heart, completely unaffected by circumstance, unmoved from his "center" by the passing parade). Anyway, be that as it may, I, of course, completely agree that what you aver is, indeed, a goal of his in part 5. But you seem to ignore that P19 states clearly that the rational love of god does not reach communion with god. Though, he also clearly states in P20 that the rational love of god does promote communion among persons. And in P19S, he summarizes the power of reason over the affects. And he clearly states at the conclusion of P19S that all that reason can accomplish has been stated. This, of course, is where he brings in what intuition is able to accomplish. I cut to the chase. P36C "...insofar as God loves himself, he loves men, and consequently that God's love of men and the Mind's intellectual Love of God are one and the same." Ie, by the 3rd kind of knowledge a communion with "ultimate reality" is possible that is not possible merely by the use of reason. In short, your claims are true as far as they go. Unfortunately, they only go as far as P20 or so.By the way, as a beer pitcher aside (Ie, a personal note), I'm not overly "excited" by the possibility that when my living body becomes a cadaver, someone or other will remember me, my actual conscious experience, for ten seconds and even then, in a probably completely distorted imginary way.Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 07/10/2015 9:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Re: A question to Blake
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, stuarts55 stuarts55@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hello blake,I don't know how 'magic' got in there but as to 'mystical,' certainly one of the primary definitions or connotations is, & I quote, "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality." If this is not Spinoza's intent in part 5 of the ethics, please provide an alternative that will answer to what you take to be his purpose there.When I use the words magical and mystical I mean the following:Magical = supernaturalMystical = there is a part that I do not understand, and that part might be supernaturalI do not believe supernatural refers to anything. It is a contradiction.Spinoza is sometimes referred to as mystical because they don't understand him. I suppose seeing an airplane by an ancient tribe would be mystical.To explain the purpose to Part 5, I refer you to the first sentence in Part 5:"I pass on finally to that part of the Ethics which concerns the method or way leading to freedom."If you recall, Part 4 is about Man's bondage. In it he describes how we are victims (in bondage) of our passive emotions. Part 5 is the solution. Part 5 continues with:"In this part, then, I shall be dealing with the power of reason ,pointing out the degree of control reason has over the emotions, and then what isfreedom of mind, or blessedness, from which we shall see how much to be preferred is the life of the wise man to the life of the ignorant man."Blake McBride - Sorry, but a Cipla references I make to P19 should really be attributed to P20Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "stuarts55 stuarts55@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 07/10/2015 8:04 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Re: A question to Blake
Hey blake. Stuart here. For now I pass by your remarks on the mystical/magical thing except to point out that the concept of non physical does not necessarily equal the concept of supernatural. Think about it. Descartes certainly didn't equate them. At least, by implication.Now, I asked you whether you thought spinoza had a different purpose in part 5 than trying to indicate how an individual subject might find communion with God or ultimate reality.You point out his intention to lead us out of bondage into freedom. I agree. However, ultimate freedom occurs when one is in the condition I defined. (To be defended at the end of my response)Then you point out his intention to show the power that reason has over the affects in a person who has traveled a path of "purification" of a familiar philosophical sort. (For this idea, I recommend Plato, Plotinus, Buddha, Jesus,.........etc) (And, of course, "our" leader, Socra tes, that living example, of a physical warrior with a gentle heart, completely unaffected by circumstance, unmoved from his "center" by the passing parade). Anyway, be that as it may, I, of course, completely agree that what you aver is, indeed, a goal of his in part 5. But you seem to ignore that P19 states clearly that the rational love of god does not reach communion with god. Though, he also clearly states in P20 that the rational love of god does promote communion among persons. And in P19S, he summarizes the power of reason over the affects. And he clearly states at the conclusion of P19S that all that reason can accomplish has been stated. This, of course, is where he brings in what intuition is able to accomplish. I cut to the chase. P36C "...insofar as God loves himself, he loves men, and consequently that God's love of men and the Mind's intellectual Love of God are one and the same." Ie, by the 3rd kind of knowledge a communion with "ultimate reality" is possible that is not possible merely by the use of reason. In short, your claims are true as far as they go. Unfortunately, they only go as far as P20 or so.By the way, as a beer pitcher aside (Ie, a personal note), I'm not overly "excited" by the possibility that when my living body becomes a cadaver, someone or other will remember me, my actual conscious experience, for ten seconds and even then, in a probably completely distorted imginary way.Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 07/10/2015 9:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.c om
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Re: A question to Blake
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, stuarts55 stuarts55@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hello blake,I don't know how 'magic' got in there but as to 'mystical,' certainly one of the primary definitions or connotations is, & I quote, "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality." If this is not Spinoza's intent in part 5 of the ethics, please provide an alternative that will answer to what you take to be his purpose there.When I use the words magical and mystical I mean the following:Magical = supernaturalMystical = there is a part that I do not understand, and that part might be supernaturalI do not believe supernatural refers to anything. It is a contradiction.Spinoza is sometimes referred to as mystical because they don't understand him. I suppose seeing an airplane by an ancient tribe would be mystical.To explain the purpose to Part 5, I refer you to the first sentence in Part 5:"I pass on finally to that part of the Ethics which concerns the method or way leading to freedom."If you recall, Part 4 is about Man's bondage. In it he describes how we are victims (in bondage) of our passive emotions. Part 5 is the solution. Part 5 continues with:"In this part, then, I shall be dealing with the power of reason ,pointing out the degree of control reason has over the emotions, and then what isfreedom of mind, or blessedness, from which we shall see how much to be preferred is the life of the wise man to the life of the ignorant man."Blake McBride
Posted by: stuarts55 <stuarts55@...>Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (15) - People prefer to ignore the text and so, they can imagine that they know something, even about Spinoza. Without the highest standard of the true idea, most who make pseudo-philosophic utterances are merely distracting students from the text. Of course, even they are rare, to be valued and set straight, because so few care about the ideas in any way.From “the Short Treatise” and please, stop just “making shit up” above Spinoza’s views. Support with citations.Pt.2, Ch.26-P04:Lastly, we see also that reasoning is not the principal thingin us, but only like a staircase by which we can climb up to thedesired place, or like a good genius which, without any falsity ordeception, brings us tidings of the highest good in order therebyto stimulate us to pursue it, and to become united with it; whichunion is our supreme happiness and bliss.=================In a coma after having been shot at 17 because of my dissent re: a police state in Berkeley, where I was a student, I told my mother that “I have a thousand steps to climb.”5 years later I found myself drawn to “the Short Treastise."=================Just a JourneymanJust a Journeyman
I have a thousand steps to climb,
and I am climbing
One step at a time.
Each step's a thought that I've embraced
and some, unsound, must be replaced
before I venture on.
Some treads are warped, some aren't whole,
and some conceal a hidden rot.
But each must be made excellent,
before they'll bear my weight.
And I am just a journeyman,
who toils in the earliest light.
My hammer rings to my Master's voice,
"Keep on 'til you've got it right!"
And thus I take each step in turn,
with each there's something new to learn
About my nature's way.
Some treads are tests I fail to best,
I'm beaten down, I need a rest,
But I'm back at work next day.
Alone in the silence before that new dawn.
Alone with my Master, we wait for the Sun
And at first light of daybreak, once again we've begun,
Rebuilding the staircase
To the Nameless One
=======
This is an older piece, which I still like even though I discovered that Spinoza was right, the staircase of understanding "quadam sub species aethernitas" only goes so far:Hey blake. Stuart here. For now I pass by your remarks on the mystical/magical thing except to point out that the concept of non physical does not necessarily equal the concept of supernatural. Think about it. Descartes certainly didn't equate them. At least, by implication.Now, I asked you whether you thought spinoza had a different purpose in part 5 than trying to indicate how an individual subject might find communion with God or ultimate reality.You point out his intention to lead us out of bondage into freedom. I agree. However, ultimate freedom occurs when one is in the condition I defined. (To be defended at the end of my response)Then you point out his intention to show the power that reason has over the affects in a person who has traveled a path of "purification" of a familiar philosophical sort. (For this idea, I recommend Plato, Plotinus, Buddha, Jesus,.........etc) (And, of course, "our" leader, Socrates, that living example, of a physical warrior with a gentle heart, completely unaffected by circumstance, unmoved from his "center" by the passing parade). Anyway, be that as it may, I, of course, completely agree that what you aver is, indeed, a goal of his in part 5. But you seem to ignore that P19 states clearly that the rational love of god does not reach communion with god. Though, he also clearly states in P20 that the rational love of god does promote communion among persons. And in P19S, he summarizes the power of reason over the affects. And he clearly states at the conclusion of P19S that all that reason can accomplish has been stated. This, of course, is where he brings in what intuition is able to accomplish. I cut to the chase. P36C "...insofar as God loves himself, he loves men, and consequently that God's love of men and the Mind's intellectual Love of God are one and the same." Ie, by the 3rd kind of knowledge a communion with "ultimate reality" is possible that is not possible merely by the use of reason. In short, your claims are true as far as they go. Unfortunately, they only go as far as P20 or so.By the way, as a beer pitcher aside (Ie, a personal note), I'm not overly "excited" by the possibility that when my living body becomes a cadaver, someone or other will remember me, my actual conscious experience, for ten seconds and even then, in a probably completely distorted imginary way.Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 07/10/2015 9:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: spinoza@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spinoza] Re: A question to Blake
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, stuarts55 stuarts55@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hello blake,I don't know how 'magic' got in there but as to 'mystical,' certainly one of the primary definitions or connotations is, & I quote, "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality." If this is not Spinoza's intent in part 5 of the ethics, please provide an alternative that will answer to what you take to be his purpose there.When I use the words magical and mystical I mean the following:Magical = supernaturalMystical = there is a part that I do not understand, and that part might be supernaturalI do not believe supernatural refers to anything. It is a contradiction.Spinoza is sometimes referred to as mystical because they don't understand him. I suppose seeing an airplane by an ancient tribe would be mystical.To explain the purpose to Part 5, I refer you to the first sentence in Part 5:"I pass on finally to that part of the Ethics which concerns the method or way leading to freedom."If you recall, Part 4 is about Man's bondage. In it he describes how we are victims (in bondage) of our passive emotions. Part 5 is the solution. Part 5 continues with:"In this part, then, I shall be dealing with the power of reason ,pointing out the degree of control reason has over the emotions, and then what isfreedom of mind, or blessedness, from which we shall see how much to be preferred is the life of the wise man to the life of the ignorant man."Blake McBride - On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:In response to Blake's analogy of the loaf of bread regarding time, I will like to interject that it implies that time is an illusion. That the past, the present and the future do not exist. It was the belief inherited from Plato and even supported by Einstein as he expressed in a letter he wrote before his death, to the spouse of a deceased friendSuggesting that time is an illusion was neither intended, nor, as far as I can see, implicit in the analogy. From the perspective of Natura Naturata, is is surely real.I will like to introduce the possibility that time is real and that what is important is the moment. This has been well theorized by the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Osmolin in his book Time Reborn. With time being real what is of necessity is the evolution of Nature, including its laws, not just biological ones, but physical and cultural (read about "memes" by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene).Then determinism could fall by the wayside since what is then as important is novelty, renewal and the possibility of change. The future is open to new occurrences including evolution of the laws of Nature.According to Spinoza, nothing can be different than it is. From the perspective of Natura Naturans, all of time is one solid, unchanging thing.Spinoza was suffused with the world of the times, the radical views of the Enlightenment, which he shoved valiently forward. Yet that world was a Newtonian one, where space, time and the laws of Nature were seen as eternal, unchanging. Where causality reigned supreme. Where experiment was the measure of what was observed (not just theorizing).Agreed. I, however, do not believe Spinoza's theories are out-of-date, notwithstanding quantum mechanics.Yet again experiments can only be conducted in controlled environments with selected variables.The whole Universe/Nature/ God cannot be taken as a whole in any experiment, many effects are unaccounted for and I suggest that Time, the whole of it, could be one of them.We have seen that Newton's theories fail in Einsteins universe. Einstein's theories fail at the Quantum level. Causality fails at "Chaos" door steps. In the Quantum world, we talk of probabilities, not certainties.I think is worth considering and in so doing, then bring Spinoza's ideas in context, as steps (big ones) in the evolution of our understanding of Nature and not as the final say.I have to admit, my interest in Spinoza is not to satisfy a curiosity about physics. I believe that, although Spinoza used the physics of the time as the basis for his ideas, I believe strongly that the parts of physics that have been learned anew are not critical to the conclusions Spinoza draws.BlakeLuis__.
- On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:04 PM, stuarts55 stuarts55@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hey blake. Stuart here. For now I pass by your remarks on the mystical/magical thing except to point out that the concept of non physical does not necessarily equal the concept of supernatural. Think about it. Descartes certainly didn't equate them. At least, by implication.If what you mean is that non-material things like the force of gravity and magnets are not supernatural, I agree. I offer the following:2D6: reality equals perfection1P11Sch: So perfection does not annul a things existence: on the contrary, it posits it1Appendix: For the perfection of things should be measured solely from their own nature and powerThings that are real have power to affect.Now, I asked you whether you thought spinoza had a different purpose in part 5 than trying to indicate how an individual subject might find communion with God or ultimate reality.You point out his intention to lead us out of bondage into freedom. I agree. However, ultimate freedom occurs when one is in the condition I defined. (To be defended at the end of my response)Then you point out his intention to show the power that reason has over the affects in a person who has traveled a path of "purification" of a familiar philosophical sort. (For this idea, I recommend Plato, Plotinus, Buddha, Jesus,.........etc) (And, of course, "our" leader, Socra tes, that living example, of a physical warrior with a gentle heart, completely unaffected by circumstance, unmoved from his "center" by the passing parade). Anyway, be that as it may, I, of course, completely agree that what you aver is, indeed, a goal of his in part 5.But you seem to ignore that P19 states clearly that the rational love of god does not reach communion with god.Though, he also clearly states in P20 that the rational love of god does promote communion among persons. And in P19S, he summarizes the power of reason over the affects. And he clearly states at the conclusion of P19S that all that reason can accomplish has been stated. This, of course, is where he brings in what intuition is able to accomplish. I cut to the chase. P36C "...insofar as God loves himself, he loves men, and consequently that God's love of men and the Mind's intellectual Love of God are one and the same." Ie, by the 3rd kind of knowledge a communion with "ultimate reality" is possible that is not possible merely by the use of reason. In short, your claims are true as far as they go. Unfortunately, they only go as far as P20 or so.I agree with what you say above, however the "magic sauce" that I would try to dispense with is the notion that there is something supernatural about the Third Kind of knowledge.In the past I've posted a detailed explanation of the three kinds of knowledge, and it's not as much a mystery as writes would have it be.Yes, you can only go so far through learning and understanding (2nd type), and true salvation can only occur with the 3rd kind of knowledge. I would also add that the distance between what you can accomplish through the 2nd kind of knowledge vs. the 3rd is very, very immense. In fact, what you can accomplish through the 2nd is near useless. The value of the 2nd kind is its ability to lead one to the 3rd kind of knowledge.Rather than repeat on old post I made regarding this topic, see my post on 10/20/14.Blake McBride
- On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Donovan Rundle donovanrundle@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:People prefer to ignore the text and so, they can imagine that they know something, even about Spinoza. Without the highest standard of the true idea, most who make pseudo-philosophic utterances are merely distracting students from the text. Of course, even they are rare, to be valued and set straight, because so few care about the ideas in any way.I've noticed that most academics succeed not through understanding and original thought but rather through memorization. They can quote all sorts of things but will never permit genuine inquiry by someone. Their answer to individual inquiry is either to quote someone else or tell you to read books X, Y, and Z. Why can't they just answer the question?I've also noticed that most people have pre-conceived notions or preferences (like life after death). They then read a text and twist it into what they want. They write many books. At some point it becomes the accepted interpretation. Academics, being largely memorizesors rather than thinkers, then get railroaded into the same dead ends as their predecessors.It's sad they can see this.From “the Short Treatise” and please, stop just “making shit up” above Spinoza’s views. Support with citations.a. if you look at my responses, you'll see that I often do.b. given the constraints of real life, I am unable to produce a cross-referenced, 20 page, academic paper to each question. Instead I offer the key.Pt.2, Ch.26-P04:Lastly, we see also that reasoning is not the principal thingin us, but only like a staircase by which we can climb up to thedesired place, or like a good genius which, without any falsity ordeception, brings us tidings of the highest good in order therebyto stimulate us to pursue it, and to become united with it; whichunion is our supreme happiness and bliss.Yea, see my previous post.Blake
- On Jul 18, 2015, at 5:20 AM, Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Donovan Rundle donovanrundle@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:People prefer to ignore the text and so, they can imagine that they know something, even about Spinoza. Without the highest standard of the true idea, most who make pseudo-philosophic utterances are merely distracting students from the text. Of course, even they are rare, to be valued and set straight, because so few care about the ideas in any way.I've noticed that most academics succeed not through understanding and original thought but rather through memorization. They can quote all sorts of things but will never permit genuine inquiry by someone. Their answer to individual inquiry is either to quote someone else or tell you to read books X, Y, and Z. Why can't they just answer the question?I appreciate your obvious efforts to continually study and improve. Since Luiz touched on Darwinism, how about an academic Darwinism? Success in philosophy may be selected for more by the traits you describe rather than by even attempting to answer the question. I can’t feasibly take college courses, so I’ve been purchasing and studying anything germane to my interest for my own edification and for the chance I’ll find new ways to get Spinoza’s idea over to my (few) private students. But it wasn’t Wittgenstein who was like the Newton and Einstein of philosophy in one person—it’s Spinoza. What mind body problem? What free will/determinism problem? Academics, and I’ve now seen and heard quite a host, are Spinoza-blind. They don’t even DEAL with the guy. I must say, I’m at a loss about this.I've also noticed that most people have pre-conceived notions or preferences (like life after death). They then read a text and twist it into what they want. They write many books. At some point it becomes the accepted interpretation. Academics, being largely memorizesors rather than thinkers, then get railroaded into the same dead ends as their predecessors.Studying rationally can be sloth. I think Aristotle said that. What he means, opinion here, is that philosophy demands a tremendous effort at meditation. Spinoza is obviously correct in pointing out that only a mind which reflects the true order of nature objectively is going to realize that death is an experience that ends with being dead. BTW, have you seen Bentham’s mummy? Quite a treasure. One wonders, is keeping it really best for everyone? But, once the idea of death is inwardly rehearsed via radical detachment even from the inner “subject object paradigm,” then maybe the knowledge of the third kind can show that at the highest epistemic level, death can only mean either a lot of imagination along theological lines, some sort of law of thermodynamics interpretation, or anything but the realization that If God’s Essence involves Existence, and if the attribute are also eternal, and we are modifications capable of conceiving these attributes (which can only be conceived through themselves or through God), then when we do conceive such, we are Eternal. We don’t “exist” eternally as God does, but excuse me, we do now, and as we do, so may we “imperience” utter bliss of perfection, Love of God.Ego death is a dance that can be danced in life. Dancing in the dark, a partner may slip in and start guiding the steps, guiding our vision to Heaven until the lights come back on. It’s not mystical, except by Stuart’s sharing (which I “agree” with, as I do yours), but it’s better than sex and drugs, maybe even rock and roll. LOL…..It's sad they can see this.Stay with us…don’t get pulled into the Dark Side.From “the Short Treatise” and please, stop just “making shit up” above Spinoza’s views. Support with citations.a. if you look at my responses, you'll see that I often do.Oops. But have you read that work lately? Especially around the chapter on Regeneration? Hard to call “rebirth” not magical not mystical.Spinoza specifically rejects positivism saying “I am interested in the nature of things, not the meaning of words.” What a fucking genius. But he meant this hierarchically, obviously.b. given the constraints of real life, I am unable to produce a cross-referenced, 20 page, academic paper to each question. Instead I offer the key.Know whatcha mean. I had surgery two days ago and have to go lie down. I’ll probably watch the end of Prof. Grimes grinding through his lectures on “Values.”Pt.2, Ch.26-P04:Lastly, we see also that reasoning is not the principal thingin us, but only like a staircase by which we can climb up to thedesired place, or like a good genius which, without any falsity ordeception, brings us tidings of the highest good in order therebyto stimulate us to pursue it, and to become united with it; whichunion is our supreme happiness and bliss.Yea, see my previous post.Blake
- On Jul 18, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:In response to Blake's analogy of the loaf of bread regarding time, I will like to interject that it implies that time is an illusion. That the past, the present and the future do not exist. It was the belief inherited from Plato and even supported by Einstein as he expressed in a letter he wrote before his death, to the spouse of a deceased friendSuggesting that time is an illusion was neither intended, nor, as far as I can see, implicit in the analogy. From the perspective of Natura Naturata, is is surely real.Excuse me. What does Spinoza have to say about time?I will like to introduce the possibility that time is real and that what is important is the moment. This has been well theorized by the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Osmolin in his book Time Reborn. With time being real what is of necessity is the evolution of Nature, including its laws, not just biological ones, but physical and cultural (read about "memes" by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene).Then determinism could fall by the wayside since what is then as important is novelty, renewal and the possibility of change. The future is open to new occurrences including evolution of the laws of Nature.According to Spinoza, nothing can be different than it is. From the perspective of Natura Naturans, all of time is one solid, unchanging thing.No. It’s not a “thing” at all.Again, from the fact that we can limit duration and quantity at our pleasure, when we conceive the latter abstractedly as apart from substance, and separate the former from the manner whereby it flows from things eternal, there arise time and measure; time for the purpose of limiting duration, measure for the purpose of limiting quantity, so that we may, as far as is possible, the more readily imagine them. Further, inasmuch as we separate the modifications of substance from substance itself, and reduce them to classes, so that we may, as far as is possible, the more readily imagine them, there arises number, whereby we limit them. Whence it is clearly to be seen, that measure, time, and number, are merely modes of thinking, or, rather, of imagining. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that all, who have endeavoured to understand the course of nature by means of such notions, and without fully understanding even them, have entangled themselves so wondrously, that they have at last only been able to extricate themselves by breaking through every rule and admitting absurdities even of the grossest kind. For there are many things which cannot be conceived through the imagination but only through the understanding, for instance, substance, eternity, and the like; thus, if anyone tries to explain such things by means of conceptions which are mere aids to the imagination, he is simply assisting his imagination to run away with him. Nor can even the modes of substance ever be rightly understood, if we confuse them with entities of the kind mentioned, mere aids of the reason or imagination. In so doing we separate them from substance, and the mode of their derivation from eternity, without which they can never be rightly understood. To make the matter yet more clear, take the following example: when a man conceives of duration abstractedly, and, confusing it with time, begins to divide it into parts, he will never be able to understand how an hour, for instance, can elapse. For in order that an hour should elapse, it is necessary that its half should elapse first, and afterwards half of the remainder, and again half of the half of the remainder, and if you go on thus to infinity, subtracting the half of the residue, you will never be able to arrive at the end of the hour. Wherefore many, who are not accustomed to distinguish abstractions from realities, have ventured to assert that duration is made up of instants, and so in wishing to avoid Charybdis have fallen into Scylla. It is the same thing to make up duration out of instants, as it is to make number simply by adding up noughts.Spinoza was suffused with the world of the times, the radical views of the Enlightenment, which he shoved valiently forward. Yet that world was a Newtonian one, where space, time and the laws of Nature were seen as eternal, unchanging. Where causality reigned supreme. Where experiment was the measure of what was observed (not just theorizing).Agreed. I, however, do not believe Spinoza's theories are out-of-date, notwithstanding quantum mechanics.Yet again experiments can only be conducted in controlled environments with selected variables.The whole Universe/Nature/ God cannot be taken as a whole in any experiment, many effects are unaccounted for and I suggest that Time, the whole of it, could be one of them.We have seen that Newton's theories fail in Einsteins universe. Einstein's theories fail at the Quantum level. Causality fails at "Chaos" door steps. In the Quantum world, we talk of probabilities, not certainties.I think is worth considering and in so doing, then bring Spinoza's ideas in context, as steps (big ones) in the evolution of our understanding of Nature and not as the final say.I have to admit, my interest in Spinoza is not to satisfy a curiosity about physics. I believe that, although Spinoza used the physics of the time as the basis for his ideas, I believe strongly that the parts of physics that have been learned anew are not critical to the conclusions Spinoza draws.But I ask, what “science” does not accept statistical data (Crikey, they would kill for the level of certainty in quantum experiments, yes…do read Feynmann’s “QED” on Heisenberg). Where is Hume just now? It’s all fucking statistics and how not? Ca Medicine, biology, zoology….I’m not a scientist, but which ones rely only on “hard” science. I suggest that Spinoza, in Part One, is actually saying, well look, I will prove it by his correspondence….the whole of nature, as we see it below the level of the attributes, is one big crapshoot. You don’t see that while Spinoza saw the iceberg, we have now caught up to see the tip, and, assbackwards as ever, are making a huge mess of it. For Spinoza, it was ever a quantum world except in the third kind of knowledge, which is Heavenly certain. Heavenly as an adverb?Thirdly. You proceed to object, that my axioms ought not to be ranked as universal notions. I will not dispute this point with you; but you further hesitate as to their truth, seeming to desire to show that their contrary is more probable. Consider, I beg, the definition which I gave of substance and attribute, for on that they all depend. When I say that I mean by substance that which is conceived through and in itself; and that I mean by modification or accident that, which is in something else, and is; conceived through that wherein it is, evidently it follows. that substance is by nature prior to its accidents. For without the former the latter can neither be nor be conceived. Secondly, it follows that, besides substances and accidents, nothing exists really or externally to the intellect. For everything is conceived either through itself or through something else, and the conception of it either involves or does not involve the conception of something else.============BlakeLuis__.
- What is your interest in Spinoza? If it’s like mine, then it’s like Spinoza’s, which is all nicely summed up in the first paragraph of TEI. So, we do need to keep our eyes on the ball (don’t like “prize” here, it’s not a prize, more like Holy Grace, non-theological type)."[1] (1) After experience had taught me that all the usualsurroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that noneof the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything eithergood or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them,I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some realgood having power to communicate itself, which would affect themind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, theremight be anything of which the discovery and attainment wouldenable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness.”===============================On Jul 18, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Donovan Rundle donovanrundle@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:I have to admit, my interest in Spinoza is not to satisfy a curiosity about physics.Spinoza was infinitely patient with his interlocutors, even engaging in talk of “ghosts” and other matters of relatively little consequence. I am being haunted by my beloved “Tigger” a Bengal/Schroedinger hybrid cat with whom I was very entangled, she being something of “a familiar.” I have to be careful not to close the door on her. She was never very attached to anyplace, but she was especially detached from me because she loved to meditate together.
- On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Donovan Rundle donovanrundle@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:...I appreciate your obvious efforts to continually study and improve.I also appreciate your continued grappling with Spinoza. I hope I was of some assistance!.....Studying rationally can be sloth. I think Aristotle said that. What he means, opinion here, is that philosophy demands a tremendous effort at meditation.I think it actually requires something at least as equally important. All people have prejudices (pre-conceived ideas with no real basis) of one sort or another. It is my opinion that, rather than the complexity of Spinoza's Ethics, it is the reader's prejudices that make it difficult.Spinoza is obviously correct in pointing out that only a mind which reflects the true order of nature objectively is going to realize that death is an experience that ends with being dead. BTW, have you seen Bentham’s mummy? Quite a treasure. One wonders, is keeping it really best for everyone? But, once the idea of death is inwardly rehearsed via radical detachment even from the inner “subject object paradigm,” then maybe the knowledge of the third kind can show that at the highest epistemic level, death can only mean either a lot of imagination along theological lines, some sort of law of thermodynamics interpretation, or anything but the realization that If God’s Essence involves Existence, and if the attribute are also eternal, and we are modifications capable of conceiving these attributes (which can only be conceived through themselves or through God), then when we do conceive such, we are Eternal. We don’t “exist” eternally as God does, but excuse me, we do now, and as we do, so may we “imperience” utter bliss of perfection, Love of God.Ego death is a dance that can be danced in life. Dancing in the dark, a partner may slip in and start guiding the steps, guiding our vision to Heaven until the lights come back on. It’s not mystical, except by Stuart’s sharing (which I “agree” with, as I do yours), but it’s better than sex and drugs, maybe even rock and roll. LOL…..I've actually had some interesting experiences in the distant past that serve as yet another reason for the confidence I have in my interpretation. I hope to write about it.It's sad they can see this.Stay with us…don’t get pulled into the Dark Side.I actually haven't changed stance in many years. I figured Spinoza out in my 40's. His system makes sense to me.From “the Short Treatise” and please, stop just “making shit up” above Spinoza’s views. Support with citations.a. if you look at my responses, you'll see that I often do.Oops. But have you read that work lately? Especially around the chapter on Regeneration? Hard to call “rebirth” not magical not mystical.It has long been my opinion that the Short Treatise was not written by Spinoza but one of his students/followers. I get most of my information from The Ethics, the Emendation, and his letters. I have Latin and Dutch originals from 1677 - no Short Treatise. That Opera printed all of his known works, and all of the works in his disk when he died. No Short Treatise. Clearly the ST was written by someone who knew Spinoza's work and probably Spinoza, but it was not written by Spinoza.Spinoza specifically rejects positivism saying “I am interested in the nature of things, not the meaning of words.” What a fucking genius. But he meant this hierarchically, obviously.b. given the constraints of real life, I am unable to produce a cross-referenced, 20 page, academic paper to each question. Instead I offer the key.Know whatcha mean. I had surgery two days ago and have to go lie down. I’ll probably watch the end of Prof. Grimes grinding through his lectures on “Values.”I am sorry you under the weather. I truly hope you feel better.Blake
- On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Donovan Rundle donovanrundle@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:What is your interest in Spinoza? If it’s like mine, then it’s like Spinoza’s, which is all nicely summed up in the first paragraph of TEI. So, we do need to keep our eyes on the ball (don’t like “prize” here, it’s not a prize, more like Holy Grace, non-theological type)."[1] (1) After experience had taught me that all the usualsurroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that noneof the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything eithergood or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them,I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some realgood having power to communicate itself, which would affect themind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, theremight be anything of which the discovery and attainment wouldenable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness.”===============================You beat me to the quote. We are 100% in sync!Blake
- ----- Original Message -----Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 1:18 PMSubject: Re: [spinoza] Re: A question to BlakeBTW, have you seen Bentham’s mummy? Quite a treasure. One wonders, is keeping it really best for everyone?=============There are so many things on my UK must-see list that I despair of ever seeing them all, but Bentham's mummy has always been one of them. Makes a fellow wonder if all those wax museum replicas are really wax replicas -- or maybe secret examples of the taxidermist's art.For all who, like me, may never get around to seeing Bentham's mummy in the flesh, University College London maintains this virtual 360-degree virtual Bentham mummy (which Bentham and UCL term his "auto-icon"):Are you volunteering to destroy Bentham's mummy to achieve a "better for everyone" corpse disposal? You should know that's not Bentham's real head. Mummifying his head was aesthetically less than successful, so the auto-icon displays a Madame Tussauds-style wax effigy head instead. Over the centuries, stealing Bentham's true head became a popular UCL student prank, but UCL now keeps it securely locked away. Your wish for the best of all possible resting states for Bentham unintentionally enrolls you in the secretive and ghoulish prank society of UCL undergrads.Near the end of his life, Freud wrote to a friend that no one really believes he's going to die; death is something that happens to Other People, whose funerals we dutifully attend, but deep-down, we know it will never happen to us. (Freud not only became merely dead, but really most sincerely dead, on 23 September 1939. I don't know if he recognized or acknowledged it.)For some light summer reading, I recommend Aldous Huxley's novel "After Many a Summer Dies the Swan" (in UK titled "After Many a Summer").
- Thanks, I’ll jot that down. Huxley is most dear to me for his “Art of Seeing.” He and I are plagued by visual issues. I didn’t go with the Bates Method (which he managed to sell Krishnamurti on) but his insights into the “situational awareness” and psychological inputs to the “seeing” equation have prolonged by functional sightedness by decades.Huxley and wife have been coming up for my wife and I as we read “The Goddess Pose,” a wonderful bio of Indra Devi. It’s a Yogins thing.Namaste, d.On Jul 18, 2015, at 11:16 AM, 'Robert Merkin' bobmerk@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:For some light summer reading, I recommend Aldous Huxley's novel "After Many a Summer Dies the Swan" (in UK titled "After Many a Summer").
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.