E4: PROP. 28:
The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest
virtue is to know God.

Proof.--The mind is not capable of understanding anything higher than God,
that is (E1D6), than a Being absolutely infinite, and without which (E1P15)
nothing can either be or be conceived; therefore (E4P26 and E4P27), the
mind's highest utility or (E4D1) good is the knowledge of God.

knowledge and sensation

E2: PROP. 10
...The nature of God, which should be reflected on first, inasmuch as it is
prior both in the order of knowledge and the order of nature, they have
taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and have put into the first
place what they call the objects of sensation;
-----

Things as defined attributes of God

E1: PROP. 25, Corollary:
-- Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God,
or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and
definite manner.
---------

--He who, guided by [PASSIVE] emotion only, endeavours to cause others to
love what he loves himself, and to make the rest of the world live according
to his own fancy, acts solely by impulse, and is, therefore, hateful,
especially to those who take delight in something different, and accordingly
study and, by similar impulse, endeavour, to make men live in accordance
with what pleases themselves. Again, as the highest good sought by men under
the guidance of emotion is often such, that it can only be possessed by a
single individual, it follows that those who love it are not consistent in
their intentions, but, while they delight to sing its praises, fear to be
believed.

Spinoza's Ethics group post by Terry Neff

Re: Dreamworld vs. Inner Life/Terry

Posted by: "Terry Neff" tneff@earthlink.net tneff

Wed Jul 5, 2006 9:42 am (PST)

Hi All,

I would like to offer a thought experiment to help explain what I meant
when I wrote the following and how it might relate to the ideas expressed in
Spinoza's Ethics:

---------- TNeff message, 6/11/2006:
For each individual human being on this planet, the entirety of their perception of "history" and of "culture" and of "religion", etc., in so far as these involve "external bodies" which are perceived confusedly as they imagine them and not, as these perceptions actually involve, modes of their own body, the entirety of these "things" I repeat, are nothing more than an elaborate dream involving the motion and rest of each particular individual's extremely complex body.
All of the apparent clashes of "culture", "religion", etc., and the destruction of one actual body by another in the name of such things, only occur so long as the individuals involved remain unaware of the nature of this dream "world" and mistake it for reality.
----------

Imagine that you decide to write a book on the social and economic forces affecting the world today. You have traveled and studied extensively doing research on such things and now you decide to take six months off to begin writing. You arrange to stay by yourself on a small secluded island which has a nice house with all the food and supplies you will need including a library of books and DVDs for some occasional relaxation. There is no way to communicate with the rest of the world from this island and so you hire someone to fly you there and to pick you up in the same way six months later.

As you begin your stay on the island you immerse yourself in your notes and reference works and, unbeknownst to you, a highly communicable fatal disease begins to spread very rapidly elsewhere and within a week the entire
human population, except for you, is wiped out. You have no way of knowing this so you continue to work on your book as you think about all that you know concerning the social and economic forces that you have studied and
which you continue to think of as belonging to "the world".

Now, do these "social and economic forces" have any actual existence outside of your own imagination/memory? How can they? All of the physical bodies involved (except for the humans) may still be functional; the bank buildings and stock exchanges around the world still exist as do all the computers, the internet, cars, trains, planes, etc. --but, at the present time, on this planet, is there any actual existing thing or action outside of your imagination which can be referred to by you as "social and economic forces"? Still, you continue in your seclusion to believe that all the things of the world, as you imagine them, continue to exist and operate just as they did when you left them to come to the island. Your own mind has not changed at all in this regard, --from the time when you arrived on the island and the actual world was existing and operating in a particular way, until the present when the actual existing world has changed drastically, your mind has not changed with regard to these things.

Spinoza shows, and if we follow his chain of reasoning we too may have
an adequate idea that:

======= E2: PROP. 13:
The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body, in other
words a certain mode of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.
======= Corollary:
--Hence it follows that man is composed of mind and body, and that the human
body exists as we perceive it.
=======

He shows that our own body exists as we perceive it, not that "the world
of external bodies exists as we perceive it." He goes on to show:

======= E2: PROP. 16, Corollary 2:
--It follows, secondly, that the ideas, which we have of external bodies,
indicate rather the constitution of our own body than the nature of external
bodies.
======= E2: PROP. 17:
If the human body is affected in a manner which involves the nature of
any external body, the human mind will regard the said external body [only
as it has affected our own body, see below. -TNeff] as actually existing, or
as present to itself, until the human body be affected in such a way, as to
exclude the existence or the presence of the said external body.
======= Corollary:
--The mind is able to regard as present external bodies, by which the human
body has once been affected, even though they be no longer in existence or
present.
=======

Now I choose to call "the world" of external bodies and of social and
economic forces, etc. in your mind in the above situation a "dream" as long
as you are unaware that you are only dealing with the constitution of your
own body, not the actual world as it exists in God. As Spinoza clarifies in
the following note (you might realize this already from E2P16C2 above) these
images of external things in your mind do not answer to the actual essence
of the actual external bodies involved:

======= E2: PROP. 17 Corollary, Note:
...Furthermore (E2P17C, E2P16C2), we clearly understand what is the
difference between the idea, say, of Peter, which constitutes the essence of
Peter's mind, and the idea of the said Peter, which is in another man, say,
Paul. The former directly answers to the essence of Peter's own body, and
only implies existence so long as Peter exists; the latter indicates rather
the disposition of Paul's body than the nature of Peter, and, therefore,
while this disposition of Paul's body lasts, Paul's mind will regard Peter
as present to itself, even though he no longer exists.

Further, to retain the usual phraseology, the modifications of the human
body, of which the ideas represent external bodies as present to us, we will
call the images of things, though they do not recall the figure of things.
When the mind regards bodies in this fashion, we say that it imagines.

I will here draw attention to the fact, in order to indicate where error
lies, that the imaginations of the mind, looked at in themselves, do not
contain error. The mind does not err in the mere act of imagining, but only
in so far as it is regarded as being without the idea, which excludes the
existence of such things as it imagines to be present to it. If the mind,
while imagining non-existent things as present to it, is at the same time
conscious that they do not really exist, this power of imagination must be
set down to the efficacy of its nature, and not to a fault, especially if
this faculty of imagination depend solely on its own nature--that is (E1D7),
if this faculty of imagination be free.
=======

...and so I wrote:

---------- TNeff message, 6/11/2006:
For each individual human being on this planet, the entirety of their
perception of "history" and of "culture" and of "religion", etc., in so far
as these involve "external bodies" which are perceived confusedly as they
imagine them and not, as these perceptions actually involve, modes of their
own body, the entirety of these "things" I repeat, are nothing more than an
elaborate dream involving the motion and rest of each particular
individual's extremely complex body....
----------

Of course the thought experiment involves an extreme situation but still
it is not impossible. However, if you prefer, think now about what you
believe to be the world of external bodies and actions as you perhaps sit in
front of your computer reading this message. Stop reading and think about
this for a moment. Are you conscious that the idea that you have of "the
world", whether you focus on social, economic, cultural, religious,
technological, etc. things and forces, is not the actual idea of the actual
world of bodies in the infinite intellect of God but rather is the idea of
the motion and rest of your own body? If not then might we not describe this
complex imagination as a "dream world" even if our eyes are open, etc.?

Spinoza asks us in the Ethics to follow along with him as he helps us to
see for ourselves the results:

======= E2 Preface:
...which must necessarily follow from the essence of God, or of the eternal
and infinite being; not, indeed, all of them (for we proved in E1P16, that
an infinite number must follow in an infinite number of ways), but only
those which are able to lead us, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of
the human mind and its highest blessedness.
=======

This Blessedness is not some dream or fantasy and it is not dependent on
our coming to any understanding of social, economic, cultural, religious,
technological, medical, etc. forces affecting our lives although of course
our imagination will often turn toward contemplating such things. In fact,
Spinoza shows in The Improvement of the Understanding and throughout the
Ethics just how difficult it will be to turn away from these other things
for even a short period of time in order to contemplate the actual nature of
our own actual mind as it actually derives from God.

If I may I will violate my usual endeavour to keep things focused on the
Ethics here by quoting from Spinoza's TPT since he seems to summarize quite
nicely his aim for us also in the Ethics:

======= TPT04-P12-14:
Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim - namely,
to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by this aim
of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as THE IDEA OF HIM IS IN US
[my emphasis -TNeff], may be called the commands of God, because they
proceed, as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists IN OUR MINDS
[my emphasis -TNeff], and the plan of life which has regard to this aim may
be fitly called the law of God.

The nature of the means, and the plan of life which this aim demands,
how the foundations of the best states follow its lines, and how men's life
is conducted, are questions pertaining to general ethics [does he explicitly
discuss in any detail "the foundations of the best states" in The
Ethics? -TNeff]. Here I only proceed to treat of the Divine law in a
particular application.

As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the
ultimate end and aim of all human actions [is this some "fantasy of
self-mastery" ? -TNeff], it follows that he alone lives by the Divine law who
loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of any other object,
such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely because he has
knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love of God is the
highest good. The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love
God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not from fear of any pains
and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we desire to
take pleasure. The idea of God lays down the rule that God is our highest
good - in other words, that the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate
aim to which all our actions should be directed [again, is this some
"fantasy of self-mastery"? -TNeff]. The worldling cannot understand these
things, they appear foolishness to him because he has too meager a knowledge
of God, and also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which
he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he
chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason.
They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than
intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without
question.
=======

Best Regards,
Terry

God: Fifteen Propositions [from the Ethics]

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.")

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.

Love of God as The Highest Good

the essence of God, or of the eternal and infinite being; not, indeed, all of them, but only
those which are able to lead us, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of the human mind and its highest blessedness.


Theological-Politico Tractatus 04-P12-14:
Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim - namely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by this aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as THE IDEA OF HIM IS IN US, may be called the commands of God, because they
proceed, as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists IN OUR MINDS, and the plan of life which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the law of God.


As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the ultimate end and aim of all human actions, it follows that he alone lives by the Divine law who loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of any other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely because he has knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love of God is the highest good. The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not from fear of any pains
and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we desire to take pleasure.

The idea of God lays down the rule that God is our highest good - in other words, that the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be directed .
The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear foolishness to him because he has too meager a knowledge of God, and also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he
chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason.

They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without question.

imagination: contingency in the past or future

======= E2: PROP. 44:
It is not in the nature of reason to regard things as contingent, but as
necessary.
Proof.--It is in the nature of reason to perceive things truly (E2P41),
namely (E1A6), as they are in themselves--that is (E1P29), not as
contingent, but as necessary. Q.E.D.
======= Corollary 1.--Hence it follows, that it is only through our
imagination that we consider things, whether in respect to the future or the
past, as contingent.

at which point the present memory is

E3: PROP. 2, Note:
...the decision of the mind, which is believed to be free, is not
distinguishable from the imagination or memory, and is nothing more than the
affirmation, which an idea, by virtue of being an idea, necessarily involves
(E2P49). Wherefore these decisions of the mind arise in the mind by the same
necessity, as the ideas of things actually existing. Therefore those who
believe, that they speak or keep silence or act in any way from the free decision of the mind
, do but dream with their eyes
open.
--------

======= TEI-P64(52) Note:
Observe that fiction regarded in itself, only differs from dreams in
that in the latter we do not perceive the external causes which we perceive
through the senses while awake. It has hence been inferred that
representations occurring in sleep have no connection with objects external
to us. We shall presently see that error is the dreaming of a waking man; if
it reaches a certain pitch it becomes delirium.
=======

E2P17C=====
The mind is able to regard as present external bodies, by which the
human body has once been affected, even though they be no longer in
existence or present.
======
======= E2: PROP. 16, Corollary 2:
...the ideas, which we have of external bodies, indicate rather the constitution of our own body than the nature of
external bodies.

perception of externals is a decision of the mind to imagine a difference in the idea and the idea of itself.

eternity spinoza

E1: DEF. 8:
By eternity, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived
necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.

the existent or eternal is the essence of itself and not
conditioned by time or space that is perception

more on previous

   From: "Terry Neff" tneff@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Upanishad (Vedanta)


Hi Ethel and All,

 To view the world through "Jewish", "Christian", "Moslem", "Sufi",
"Hindu", "Buddhist", "Taoists", etc. spectacles is, in terms that
Spinoza used in expressing the Ideas in The Ethics, to merely observe the
operations of our own Imagination as it has been shaped through our senses by our
own particular life experiences and studies. Once Spinoza began to realize
this he could not possibly have thought of his own Essential Nature as being
"Jewish", and it is, after all, our own Essential Nature which he shows
that he is helping us to discover.

 Here are a few things that came to my mind with regard to the
statements you offered:

> Just to add some reality to this.

 If we focus only on the things that our senses and memory present
to us, which is the ordinarily case with nearly everyone, myself included,
then we will think of those things together as "reality". But there is actually
only One Reality according to Spinoza and we know this only to the extent
that we Understand, through Reason or Intuition, not through the confused ideas
of our Imagination. So...

> You do know that Baruch Spinoza had a thorough classical Jewish
> education.  Some of my teachers even think if he had lived around
> 100 BCE he would have been a famous talmudist.

 So did he come out of his human mother's womb and say to himself;
"Let's see, where can I get the best education on this particular planet on
which I find myself being born?" or did he simply receive the education his
parents and the surrounding conditions presented to him and which they (his
parents and those other humans around him) had in turn received and understood
in their own way from those who came before them, etc.? Are the ideas
expressed in The Ethics dependent on, or derived from, "Jewish" ideas or from
simple Ideas common to all people and to all cultures, nations, etc.?

> Can one discuss Spinoza without understanding the role of the
> Talmud Torah (which was dispised by both Constantine and Hitler).

 The ideas expressed in the Ethics remain the same even without
knowing who wrote it and what the author's background was. In a similar manner
one needs to know nothing about Euclid and his background or life in order
to follow and understand the Ideas expressed in The Elements of Geometry.
Spinoza wrote (pay particular attention to the last sentence):

======== TPT07-P48:
...Euclid, who only wrote of matters very simple and easily understood,
can easily be comprehended by anyone in any language; we can follow his
intention perfectly, and be certain of his true meaning, without having
a thorough knowledge of the language in which he wrote; in fact, a quite
rudimentary acquaintance is sufficient. We need make no researches
concerning the life, the pursuits, or the habits of the author; nor
need we inquire in what language, nor when he wrote, nor the vicissitudes of
his book, nor its various readings, nor how, nor by whose advice it has been
received....
========

 Attempting to study the order and connection of Spinoza's
particular life experiences as they were affected by the conditions around him has
nothing to do with the Ideas expressed in the Ethics. The subject
matter and the Ideas expressed in the Ethics remain the same even if the author
had been unknown and the book had been left on the doorstep of a library or
some such.

> Also, in 8/2002 Israel embraced Spinoza by publishing a philosopher's
> stamp saying he was one of the Isralites greatest philosopbers ahead
> of his time.  Also he might have been beyond his time:)

 I do not see what this has to do with understanding the Ideas
Spinoza expressed in the Ethics. The fact that some particular group of folks
condemned Spinoza or hailed him as though he were "God" is irrelevant
to the Ideas he expressed.

> You realize that the curve in global knowledge follows the frequency
> wave and sometimes dips below "zero" IOW goes into a minus
> direction :)

 I realize that Spinoza himself shows that:

======== E2: PROP. 41:
Knowledge of the first kind [Imagination] is the only source of falsity,
knowledge of the second [Reason] and third [Intuition] kinds is necessarily
true.
========

and...

======== E2: PROP. 44, Corollary 2:
--It is in the nature of reason to perceive things under a certain form
of eternity.

Proof.--It is in the nature of reason to regard things, not as contingent,
but as necessary (E2P44). Reason perceives this necessity of things
(E2P41) truly--that is (E1A6), as it is in itself. But (E1P16) this necessity
of things is the very necessity of the eternal nature of God; therefore,
it is in the nature of reason to regard things under this form of eternity.
We may add that the bases of reason are the notions (E2P38), which answer to
things common to all, and which (E2P37) do not answer to the essence of any
particular thing: which must therefore be conceived without any relation to
time, under a certain form of eternity.
========

 Look in particular at the proof he offers above and then think about
what it is that you are referring to as "global knowledge". Is such "global knowledge"
of the First, Second, or Third Kind? (Hint: It can't be the
Second or Third kind if it varies over time which itself belongs to the First kind.)

> So perhaps you should be comparing the Talmud Torah with Indian philosophy. -

 Or perhaps we might begin to Understand the difference between our own
Imagination and Intellect or Understanding, and begin to see that all these various
writings and philosophies are only particular treasure maps to
what their authors thought of as a treasure and which they apparently wanted to
share with their readers. The Actual Treasure itself is not found in or
changed by any particular map, even though some different maps may
refer to the same Actual Treasure. So, comparing one map with another as an
exercise in itself, apart from searching for the Actual Treasure, is of no real
value useless perhaps it leads one to realize that these are only maps, not
the treasure. And to insist that only one map is the true map is
meaningless once one begins to uncover the Actual Treasure within their own Being.

 Anyway, Hans seems to me to have expressed a useful way of thinking about
Spinoza the man when he wrote:
Spinoza was a Buddhist, a Talmudist, a Cabbalist  why not a Sufi (if he had lived in
Baghdad in 1000 "AD"), a shaman 1000 BC, some kind of healer or self-management
guru today?

 Best Regards,
     Terry

Non Duality in Vedanta and Spinoza--the Buddha's Negation

Subject: Upanishad (Vedanta)

Dear Gary,
following your instruction, yesterday I have started to read Indian
philosophy. I myself am from the Indian subcontinent. Last night I
was reading the Upanishad ( I am not sure about the English spelling
of the name, western people call it usually Vedanta). And I found
that Upanishad is telling the same thing Spinoza teaches us.
There are 12 parts of Upanishad. I have so far read two of them.
In Koth-Upanishad, the teacher (it is a kind of a dialogue between a
teacher/sage/guru and his disciple) tells the disciple that the
Brahma expresses himself in the world, which is a continuous process.
Brahma loves us, while we love Brahma (this is not what Spinoza
tells, Spinoza tells that we should love God, but should not expect
that God will love us). there is no personal consciousness which is
independent, but all the consciousness are derived from the great
consciousness, that is, consciousness of consciousness, mind of the
minds........
Now, the writing style in Upanishad is rather easy to
understand/follow, while Bertrand Russell accuses Spinoza for an
abstruse style of writing.
Upanishad is interpretted in many ways. This is actually an age-old
eastern philosophical tradtion that the great and popular
philosophical books will be used to propagate new philosophies, that
is interpretting the old and popular philosophies in favour of the
new philosophy. Thus Shankar, a great sage in the 8th century
AD,interpretted Vedanta as monistic, which sounds similar to
Spinoza's monism.

Cheerz !
-Tahmidal
Message: 3 
   Date: Wed May 31, 2006 4:09 am (PDT) 
   From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com  
Subject: Re: Upanishad (Vedanta) 
 Hi Tahmidal,
Naturally, the God in the Upanishad "loves us" because the Upanishad 
is exercising a dialectical logic, where we become more real than we 
are to ourselves by our entering the opposite to ourselves which is the 
One of which we are a finite expression.
Spinoza, however, exercises a logistical logic of 0 and 1. (We see 
this in Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, and Hume). But Spinoza peculiar to 
himself, reasons that man is a complex of modes, and he subsists insofar 
as God is affected by a further modification of his substance in the 
order of extension or thought taken to infinity.
The principle loss when we pass on to Buddhism, is that the Buddha 
disgarded the dialectical logic in the Upanishad. Buddhism exercises an 
agonistic logic of 1 and -1. 
For example, the Upanishad says there is a soul, and the world is an 
illusion. So the soul rises up to the One which is itself, as both the 
One and the soul are dead, i.e. dreaming is left of what is real. So 
there is the dialectical process of a unity of opposites: the soul and 
God's dream of which we are a part, and how our perception of its 
ultimate unreality, wins us our return to the One. 
OK. But the Buddha exercises an agonstic logic: he argues that there 
cannot be a soul if there is no world, so he "proves" that there is no 
soul, because there is no world. These two opposed terms are 
IRRECONCIABLE (1 and -1), and so they are proven both to not subsist!
  

More on Spinoza and Music

Message 1
From: "ethel jean saltz" nietgal@yahoo.com

Date: Fri May 19, 2006 9:25pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Music

Actually, the Torah Scrolls is the musical rendition of the Pentateuch.
So yes Spinoza knows music.
Today the Pentateuch can be rendered by a jazz trio: keyboard, bass, drums.
It is now transliterated into Western notation.
There always has been music, it's a form of accoustics, of sounds and silences and it's an ancient form of communications.
It's the pulse of the Earth.
When I took those two years of college music ed, starting in 1998,
the hardest college subject I ever took, I asked how music "played" in the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum.
No one could really answer me.
Recently I purchased a more intensive poster of the EMS and the creator had added music to the poster with this caveat: Music, ocean waves, brain waves
are not part of the spectrum because they require a medium in order to exist.
That improved my understanding of physics.
Just think about it.
One cannot do rock'n'roll in Iraq or Iran.
It's constituitonally prohibited.
Hitler used music politically and so did Stalin.
So did the Church from 450 to 1450.
Poetry and music have been considered a "couple," haven't they?
So I agree with Spinoza, it's that simple.
By the way, what got me to take music in the first place is my voice teacher trying to explain the Circle of Fifths.
Really magical.

Ethel Jean (Kowan) Saltz
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED -- Y'H'V'H Only!

Ontological Questions

There are 2 messages in this issue, both from Gary Geiser aahouse10@yahoo.com. Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Metaphysics 2. Re: Digest Number 333
Message Date: Tue May 16, 2006 10:27 pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Hi Tahmidal,
Don't forget that for Europe to secularize its institutions during the Age of Enlightenment it borrowed considerably from the East. In fact, the West is largely now a culture of the East: ruled-based behavior raised to an impersonal discipline, physical and mental hygiene, atheism, strong State authority, as against the superstition and aristocracy of Old Europe.
We can find in Spinoza - who is the architect of the Radical Enlightenment, the basic idea of detachment. This is deeply Eastern.
Further, Hume's subjectivist philosophy served to defend the atomization and subjectification of the individual against feudal hierarchy and bigotry.
md_hannan_05@yahoo.com wrote:
Gary,
(I am not much knowledgeable about western philosophic tradition. So, it is a kind of impertinence that I am joining and giving my opinion. This is, I would like to say, a kind of realisation of the self of an eastern human in western way, that is, putting my self in a historical realisation process with which it is difficult to identify with.)
I remember that many days ago I read an article by A. N. Whitehead where Whitehead wrote that Spinoza did not follow the path contemporary western philosophers took. Instead of subjective thinking, he followed the objective way of philosophising, like ancient Greeks.
Now, Gary, the point I want to make (which Whitehead also made) that in his Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume determinedly differentiated between `natural philosophy/science' and metaphysics, in many cases, whenever his discussion seems to go beyond subjective thinking, he readily stops to continue on and justifies it by saying that, `but this is not a matter of us, this belongs to the field of natural philosophy bla bla bla.........'
On the other hand, this is not true about Spinoza's doctrine of knowing. But well, I have to admit that I have not fully comprehended Spinoza's doctrine of knowledge. What is knowledge? Making a system, connecting things in a system (by cause and effect, which has been described by Hume as nothing but a tendency of human mind)? Is this the way the modes come to know?-Tahmidal ---
In spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com, Gary Geiser wrote:
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules (admittedly through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so to get beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic conception of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a hard Parmenidean ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist ontology of subjectivity and accidents, yet was essentially concerned with breaking through every metaphysical standpoint, and just living life.
md_hannan_05@...> wrote:
Gary, I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think about it? - -Tahmidal

Barenboim and Spinoza

From: "hans19682000" hans68@eunet.at

"For a more distinguished view on music and understanding and a certain applied Spinozism see Daniel Barenboim--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/lecture1.shtml
"Barenboim's engagement for a real peace process in Palestine/Israel is an additional aspect of the ethico-political potential of non-esoteric Spinozism. "

more postings

see below for claims about these postings
15 May 2006 15:58:13 -0000
From:
spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:
spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spinoza-ethics] Digest Number 333

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/VHeqlB/TM--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Metaphysics
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
2. Re: Metaphysics
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
3. Re: Metaphysics
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 1
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:19am(PDT)
Subject: Metaphysics
Gary,
I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl
before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In
Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised
Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think
about it?
-Tahmidal
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 2
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:02am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Hi Tahmidal

I took a course on that work by Hume. As I recall, Hume has laws of
association, but he's comparing simple ideas to one another in ways that
are descriptive, like with contrast, contiguity, and so on.

Spinoza is starting from association as metonymy strictly. X subsists
insofar as God is affected by Y, and not insofar as X is about Y, or Y
about X.

Thus, X is envious, not because Y is beautiful, but because the state
of X's body is affected by both himself and Y, and the confusion
produces the impression that Y is beautiful (a purely subjective
construction). X perceives God affected by Y on the same spot X does for every
perception, where X imagines the world to be about himself.

Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules (admittedly
through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from there.

Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the
dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so to get
beyond Kant's impasse.

It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic conception
of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a hard Parmenidean
ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist ontology of subjectivity
and accidents, yet was essentially concerned with breaking through every
metaphysical standpoint, and just living life.




md_hannan_05 <md_hannan_05@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gary,
I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl
before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In
Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised
Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think
about it?
-Tahmidal
This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@egroups.com

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "spinoza-ethics" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

---------------------------------


---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 3
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Gary,
(I am not much knowledgeable about western philosophic tradition. So,
it is a kind of impertinence that I am joining and giving my opinion.
This is, I would like to say, a kind of realisation of the self of an
eastern human in western way, that is, putting my self in a
historical realisation process with which it is difficult to identify
with.)
I remember that many days ago I read an article by A. N. Whitehead
where Whitehead wrote that Spinoza did not follow the path
contemporary western philosophers took. Instead of subjective
thinking, he followed the objective way of philosophising, like
ancient Greeks.
Now, Gary, the point I want to make (which Whitehead also made) that
in his Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume determinedly
differentiated between `natural philosophy/science' and metaphysics,
in many cases, whenever his discussion seems to go beyond subjective
thinking, he readily stops to continue on and justifies it by saying
that, `but this is not a matter of us, this belongs to the field of
natural philosophy bla bla bla.........'
On the other hand, this is not true about Spinoza's doctrine of
knowing. But well, I have to admit that I have not fully comprehended
Spinoza's doctrine of knowledge. What is knowledge? making a system,
connecting things in a system (by cause and effect, which has been
described by Hume as nothing but a tendency of human mind)? Is this
the way the modes come to know?
-Tahmidal
--- In spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com, Gary Geiser
wrote:
Hi Tahmidal

I took a course on that work by Hume. As I recall, Hume has laws
of association, but he's comparing simple ideas to one another in
ways that are descriptive, like with contrast, contiguity, and so on.
Spinoza is starting from association as metonymy strictly. X
subsists insofar as God is affected by Y, and not insofar as X is
about Y, or Y about X.
Thus, X is envious, not because Y is beautiful, but because the
state of X's body is affected by both himself and Y, and the
confusion produces the impression that Y is beautiful (a purely
subjective construction). X perceives God affected by Y on the same
spot X does for every perception, where X imagines the world to be
about himself.
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules
(admittedly through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from
there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the
dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so
to get beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic
conception of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a
hard Parmenidean ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist
ontology of subjectivity and accidents, yet was essentially concerned
with breaking through every metaphysical standpoint, and just living
life.

This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home
of Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Spinoza: Tranquility

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: ethel jean saltz
Subject: Re: Digest Number 327

I'm not Gary, of course, but it would be helpful for
the group if you would cite a particular usage by
Spinoza of the word "tranquility" and tell us how you
interpret it. Especially interesting in using more
than English versions to talk to each other and
understand each other.

It's effecting my whole life now, the use of words
that are translated into many languages, like the
Bible. Especially now that I have had my DNA
analyzed by National Geographic and I find there is
such a thing as an Ashkenazi Jew. I am one in my
blood line. Guess that makes me a tranquil racist?
Guess Spinoza would be delighted with all this brand
new knowledge. Guess he would have tranquilly asked
back in 1600, asked his fellow Christian scholars, now
we can test God's DNA, even find out if he's male or
female :) Remember Spinoza was only 400 years ago.
Look at how the universal human knowledge base has
expanded since then. It's really all quantum theory
now.

Remember also, the Baruch/Benedictus means "blessed"
and so this is one more quantum that points to Ego in
Spinoza. When he delights in the word "blessed",
isn't it self-promotion? With his Jewish education,
he learned how to use a word the way the standup
comedians do today.