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!