Abridgement
of Spinozistic Ideas
Only links, comments, and endnotes are abridged, not
Spinoza's works.
Abridged and formatted for an eBook
Reader conversion.
E-Book readers see Spinozistic Ideas
for the latest revision.
Preface
Love and Hate -
Self-Interest
Religion - One
World - Conclusion -
Bibliography
1. "Spinozistic
Ideas" was abridged and formatted for conversion to
an eBook.
This abridged
version is available to be read on various
eBook Readers.
2. The unabridged
file has more definitions, much more commentary, many more links,
and the latest revisions.
3. Please report errors or suggestions to josephb@yesselman.com.
4. {comment by JBY}
5. The secret
to understanding Spinoza is its foundation rock.
I stumbled upon Spinoza after I studied Calculus in college. Spinoza's definitions of sorrow, boredom, joy; hate, indifference, love, seemed to me to lend themselves to Calculus expression. The more I studied these equations, the more I realized how important they were in understanding roller-coaster emotions and everyday relationships—you love not out of altruism but self-interest.
As I kept studying Spinoza, I was really hooked when what happened to me is what Elwes thought happened to Spinoza.
From Bk.II:v "Elwes's Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works":
[37]:xxii. The biography of the philosopher supplies us in some sort with the genesis of his system. His youth had been passed in the study of Hebrew learning, of metaphysical speculations on the nature of the Deity. He was then confronted with the scientific aspect of the world as revealed by Descartes. At first the two visions seemed antagonistic, but, as he gazed, their outlines blended and commingled {synthesized}, he found himself in the presence not of two, but of ONE; the universe unfolded itself to him as the necessary result of the Perfect and Eternal G-D.
This "unfolding itself"
was to me an infinite "organic interdependence
of all parts" which led directly to the "Golden
Rule"; the obedience of which is not altruism
but enlightened self-interest.
Now, after some fifty-six years, I am still studying Spinoza and gaining ever-new insights.
For an excellent introduction to Spinoza see Elwes's "Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works".
I show herein a list of Spinozistic Ideas on Love and Hate, Self-Interest, Religion, One World, and Conclusions. These ideas have been edited from the Glossary and Index, Ethics, TTP, TEI, and other Works.
The ideas expressed
may not be explicit in Spinoza's Works, but are (in my opinion) implicit
and follow from his general principles. In any event, partake of
them as you would a pomegranate; relish the flesh and spit out the pits.
In many contexts the term "idea" has the meaning of judgment, or assertion. Accordingly, "idea" is for Spinoza closer in signification to the term "proposition" than to such terms as "concept" or "notion." Ideas will then be true or false— subject to intense scrutiny.
1.1. The definitions as given in the dictionaries
are the everyday language usage, and are generally synonyms or properties
of the word—not the nature thereof. Spinoza
attempts to find the cause.
1.2. Bk.1:178: Def. of the Emotions XX:Expl.— Definition of the Emotions
But my purpose is to explain, not the meaning of words but the nature of things.
1.3. Definitions
which define things by their causes are hypotheses; they all need be suspect,
for they are only congealed hypotheses. Hypotheses need to be constantly
updated as knowledge evolves.
1.4. An hypothesis
is subject to error. Care must be taken to follow the scientific method—a
method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data gathered,
a hypothesis formulated, and the hypothesis empirically tested.
1.5. An hypothesis is
an unproved, but as yet uncontradicted opinion. The truth of an hypothesis
(or speculation) is in proportion to its usefulness in increasing Perpetuation—Cash
Value.
1.6. I:2.5c—
Definitions which attempt to define things by their causes are really hypotheses; they need to be constantly updated as knowledge evolves; likewise, Spinoza's Propositions are hypotheses. To think otherwise is to fall into idolatry—making the infinite finite.
1.7. E3:VI:136—
Perpetuation and Perfection are equal terms.
Everything, in so far as it is in itself, endeavours to persist in its own being and succeeding has peace-of-mind—failing, loss of peace-of-mind, frustration.
1.8. I:1.5a—
°PERPETUATION
is that endeavor that causes a salmon to go upstream, spawn and die—the
PERPETUATION of the species.
1.8a. From E3:Endnote 11:0.—Conatus.
From Wolfson's Book XIV - Volume 2, Page 195.
"But increase and diminution imply a certain standard of measurement. What the standard is by which the affections of the body are measured, to ascertain whether the acting power of the body is increased or diminished by them, is explained by Spinoza in Ethics3 Prop. IV-X. The standard of measurement, he says, is the conatus (effort, impulse) by which each thing endeavors to persevere in its own being. Every affection of the body is said to increase the acting power of the body in so far as it increases that endeavor for self-preservation; it diminishes the acting power of the body in so far as it diminishes that endeavor. This endeavor for self-preservation is the first law of nature and is the basis of all our emotions."
1.9. °EMOTION
is a change in one's °Perpetuation. Its intensity is proportional to
the change.
1.9a. °SORROW is a decrease in one's °Perpetuation. Its intensity is proportional to the decrease.
1.9b. BOREDOM is no change in one's °Perfection. It marks the theoretical transition from JOY to SORROW and vice versa.
1.9c. °JOY is an increase in one's °Perpetuation. Its intensity is proportional to the increase.
1.10. °FAITH
is belief that an external object will cause a change
in one's °Perpetuation. The intensity
is proportional to the change.
1.10a. °HATE is belief that an external object will decrease one's °Perpetuation. The intensity is proportional to the decrease feared.
1.10b. INDIFFERENCE is belief that an external object will not change one's °Perpetuation.
1.10c. °LOVE is belief that an external object will increaseone's °Perpetuation. The intensity is proportional to the increase hoped for.
Substitute the 'love' in its full dimensions. There is no 'altruism'.
When you say "I love you" it is a euphemism for "I need you and—if the love be healthy and lasting—I will fulfill your needs." When you say "I hate you" you are saying "I do not need you, you are not fulfilling my needs for peace-of-mind."
"I will fulfill your needs"—means I need you as an 'I-thee' and not as an 'I-It'. This is the Law of Organisms.1.10c1. The Law of Organisms for individuals (and for nations):
It grows (rises) when the critical mass of the parts are
organically interdependent.
It dies (falls) when the critical mass of the parts are not
organically interdependent.
1.10d. One of the main
purposes of Spinoza's "Ethics" is to teach that you do
not LOVE altruistically, but out of self-interest. If the LOVE be
rational it leads to an increase in °Perpetuation for both the lover
and that loved; if not rational, a decrease. I-thee.
1.11. E4:Prf.27:189— Good and Bad.
As for the terms good and bad, they indicate no positive quality in things regarded in themselves, but are merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from the comparison of things one with another. Thus one and the same thing can be at the same timed, bad, and indifferent. ....
Nevertheless, though this be so, the terms should still be retained. For, inasmuch as we desire to form an idea of man as a type of human nature which we may hold in view, it will be useful for us to retain the terms in question, in the sense I have indicated.
1.12. E3IX:137—What
is a Good?
It is thus plain from what has been said, that in no case do we strive for, wish for, long for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good, but on the other hand we deem a thing to be good, because we strive for it, wish for it, long for it, or desire it.
1.13. A man, when rational
and judging correctly, calls a thing good if it increases his °Perfection—bad;
otherwise
1.14. When a little fish
is eaten by a bigger fish, does not the little fish "think" that's
bad and does not the bigger fish "think" that's good (because
each one seeks to preserve itself)?" We say that is Nature;
if the food cycle stops, all life stops. However, we are like that
little fish—or, like that big fish; abused or abuser.
1.15. When Adam and Eve
started to think in terms of "good and bad", i.e. subjectively;
instead of "true and false", i.e. objectively; they self-thrust
themselves from the Garden of Eden, i.e.
they were subject to loss of °Peace of Mind.
1.16. Omit.
1.17. A sex act is sexually moral if the parties are able to provide for the possible issue; able, both financially and psychologically within the standards of their society. The motive for the society's standard is what best provides for the issue, thus best perpetuating that society—virtue.
By virtue (virtus) and power I mean the same thing; that is, virtue, in so far as it is referred to man, is a man's nature or essence, in so far as it has the power of effecting what can only be understood by the laws of that nature.
1.17b. From Shirlry's Bk.VII:27—
Virtue (virtus)
Spinoza equates this word with "power" (potentia). This usage is reflected in the phrase "by virtue of." Spinoza often uses the term "virtue" in a moral sense, whereby the more we are endowed with virtue the more we act according to reason, and hence attain happiness.
1.17c. 5P42:270—Blessedness
Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwise, because we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts.
1.18. Games
are atavistic play-acting at an activity which in real life is necessary
for PERPETUATION. Examples–sports, boxing, gambling, war-games, fishing,
hunting, (some gun lovers are sublimating their aggressiveness). Sexual
intercourse without the desire for issue is also a game.
Proof.– The more actual the
NEED; the more pleasurable, the success; the more sorrowful, the failure.
1.19. E5Prop.Xn:252—Right Conduct.
The best we can do, therefore, so long as we do not possess a perfect knowledge of our emotions, is to frame a system of right conduct, or fixed practical precepts, to commit it to memory, and to apply it forthwith to the particular circumstances which now and again meet us in life, ....
2. Self-Interest:
2.1. Jungle self-interest—Survival is proportional to your power. A strong tribe in a jungle is more likely to survive than a weak tribe. Survival of the fittest; there are no laws—power makes right.
But technological advancement and training bring:
2.2. Societal (enlightened)
self-interest— Survival is proportional to playing
by the rules (reason, keeping the beat in an orchestra).
Not true when living in a part-jungle society. When a
man steals bread and milk to feed his children,
we do not condemn him.
2.3. To get and not give
is selfishness (inorganic—in a body, the body soon dies); to get and to
give is enlightenment (organic); to give and not get is altruism (inorganic).
Healthy self-interest is perpetuation—you can't have one without the other.
2.4. Rabbi Hillel
(1st Century BCE) taught "If I am not for
myself, who will be; if I am only for myself, what am I? Nothing,
like the lung without the heart.
2.5. Analogy: Unless it is ill, will the heart do anything to harm the lungs? On the contrary, it will do what it can to enhance their performance. Witness what harm whites have done to blacks—to the inevitable harm of whites.
Spinoza shares with Hobbes a powerful negative analysis of popular religion and the view that individuals operate in their own self-interest. Spinoza, however, gives this last doctrine a remarkable twist. He argues that the chief good of human life is knowledge of G-D and that this is open to everyone. To best achieve this goal we need to cooperate in various ways. So Hobbes' egoism is transformed into a doctrine of cooperation."
2.7. Altruism
almost never exists. When you say "I
love you," it is a euphemism for
"I need you, and the more or less
I need you the more or less wilI I love you." That
is why there are marriages; that is why there are divorces. I
hasten to add that this is in no way pejorative but the Law
of Organisms.
Example: Even Mother Theresa
fulfills her inner need first and then those she aids second.
That does not make her work any less meritorious; the poor woman
in Mark Twain's story was aided.
2.8. Self-interest—"you
have to give to get; you have to get to give"
is the nature of organic interdependence. Altruism implies that a person
is not always part of G-D and has, at that time, no duties or obligations.
2.9. The Hebrew word
which is often mistranslated as charity, mercy, pity, etc., is tsed-aw-kaw',
Strong:6666—rightness,
justice, virtue, piety. The root of tsed-aw-kaw' is tsaw-dak',
Strong:6663—upright, just, straight, innocent, true, sincere; (the same
root as for righteousness). Based on this etymology, it is what one
lung does when the other collapses; it does double-duty, not out of altruism,
but for its very own survival. In so doing, it is, if possible, leading
the collapsed lung back to health and thereby increasing the the lung-capacity
of the body. It is the Golden Rule
in working clothes; enlightened self-interest.
2.10. The Hebrew word which is often mistranslated as pity (compassion, love, is better) is rakh'-am, Strong:7355—to fondle, love, cherish, affection. A related word is rekh'em, Strong:7358—the womb (cherishing the fetus). Based on this etymology, the compassion, forgiveness, and °LOVE we should feel for each other is like that of a mother for the issue of her womb, perhaps varying in degree but not in kind; it is in no way altruistic; but on the contrary, enlightened self-interest.
2.10a. Another related
word is raw-khawm', Strong:7360—a kind of vulture (supposed
to be tender toward its young). Imagine what a psychiatrist could
do with this connection; suffocating love.
2.11. The
Hebrew word for righteousness, justice is tseh'-dek, Strong:6664—
righteous, integrity, equity, justice, straightness. The root of
tseh'-dek is tsaw-dak', Strong:6663—upright, just, straight,
innocent, true, sincere; (the same root as for charity). Based on
this etymology, righteousness is the Golden Rule in working clothes—enlightened
self-interest. It is what one lung does when the other collapses;
it takes over, for its very OWN survival.
2.12. I believe society evolves as technological advancement and trade tips the scale toward enlightened self-interest and away from jungle self-interest.
2.12a. Technological advancement—fire, wheel,
writing, electricity, internet, nuclear power, space travel, ..........
—all have tended (or will tend) to lead people to be more cooperative; enlightened,
one-worldish.
3. Religion:
3.1. Religion
is a self-serving, ever-evolving hypothesis designed to achieve °PEACE-OF-MIND,
i.e. by faith, and when fleetingly achieved it is called Bliss, Blessedness,
Grace, Salvation, etc. This definition is in no way pejorative
of religion. On the contrary, it is the highest attainment of the
human mind— Intuition-Revelation-Insight-Hypothesizing.
3.1a. 4Ap.IV:237— Peace of Mind
Thus in life it
is before all things useful to perfect the understanding
or reason, as far as we can, and in this alone man's
highest happiness or blessedness consists, indeed blessedness
is nothing else but the contentment of spirit which arises from the intuitive
knowledge of God: . . .
{knowing you
are bound into an organic interdependence of parts.}
3.1b. °Peace of Mind
is being °JOYFUL (when knowing why is not necessary); or being °SORROWFUL
(say, losing an arm) but understanding
why; or by a leap-of-faith acceptance saying "the understanding resides
in the infinite intellect of G-D—causes
are knowable. It is the will
of G-D; that is Life; or that is Nature."
—all mean the same.
To understand the cause of a thing is
to know that it could not have been otherwise.
3.1c. The purpose of Religion (Scriptures) is to bring peace-of-mind— not teach philosophy, nor to make men learned. The hypothesis, that religion is, need not make sense—only deliver Peace-of-Mind.
3.1d. In the sense that Religion is an hypothesis, I disagree that religion and philosophy (science) have nothing to do with each other—rather, the two can be synthesized and be one.
3.2. A belief (hypothesis)
in its varying degrees, can be a guess, a dogma, a hope, an intuition,
a leap-of-faith.
3.3. A dogma is a useful or non-useful hypothesis assumed true in the face of contradictions or unsubstantiated proof of inferences made. It is true if useful; false and idolatrous if otherwise.
3.3a. Jewish people, no matter their numbers, will never become extinct; Torah keeps them alive and relevant. Torah's message is to know the "ONE' and teaches to keep from idolatry.
3.3b. No. 3.3a above, is the root cause of anti-Semitism (Semitism: Semitic characteristics, esp. the ways, ideas, influence, etc., of the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism: discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.). By not acknowledging the religious hypotheses of the countries in which they live, they, the Jews undermine those hypotheses and hence, the peace-of-mind of those holding them. Mark Twain's 'A little Story'
3.4. Idolatry
is making the infinite finite. Idolizing a part, ignoring the whole;
idolizing money, a golden calf (Exo.
32:4), farmers who pollute, substance abuse, creating slums,
any fixation to the exclusion of other things leads to chaos.
3.5. The misuse of any part (mode) to the detriment of the whole is idolatry and leads to chaos.
3.5a. The misuse of the automobile, causing gridlock and smog, is idolatry
3.5b. The misuse of fertilizers, causing pollution of rivers and groundwater, is idolatry.
3.5c. The misuse of wealth, causing slums, prejudice, and uneducated masses, is idolatry.
3.6. The Hebrew word for
Holy is ko'desh, Strong:6944—a
sacred place or thing, hallowed, holiness. The root of ko'desh
is kaw-dash' , Strong: 6942—to be pure, clean, i.e. right, straight,
true, just. Based on this etymology, what is pure, clean, right,
straight, true, just, etc., is Holy; the test is—that
which PERPETUATES is Holy. If it does
not PERPETUATE, it is unholy—profane.
3.7. Bk.1:1Def.VI:45—Durant:636
By G-D, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality" {and each attribute has an infinite number of finite modes. These modes are you, me, and every other particular thing. G-D is infinite and infinity cannot be divided. The tendency to treat parts as separate entities leads to idolatry—making the infinite finite.} Parts in curly brackets added by JBY.
This is the regular translation of 'res,' but the reader should be warned that Spinoza gives it a much more extensive meaning than is normal in English. He uses it to cover not only inanimate objects, but man, G-D, and sometimes occurrences.
3.7b. From
Bk.XI:42—re-interpreted
The quasi-rationalistic definitions Spinoza sets out in the TTP are related to the final aspect of its character to be mentioned here. This might be called its linguistic play and manipulation. Spinoza employs many of the same terms prevalent in traditional Jewish and Christian discourse, such as "God," "salvation," "faith," "miracles," "divine law," "help of G-D," "election of G-D," etc., but he twists them and gives them new, unorthodox meanings that are compatible with his own philosophy. This is part of his persuasive programme, attempting to bring others around to his own point of view through the use of familiar terms. Using the phrase of the late philosopher J. L. Austin, one could say that here Spinoza is busy "doing things with words": not only using them to try and persuade his audience, but also transforming accepted linguistic conventions.
3.7c. I conjecture the reasons Spinoza continued to use the "language of religion", (G-D instead of Nature) are the following:
3.7c1. The term 'G-D' is retained because it is fulfiling the same function as the traditional God (an evolving religion)—which is, to bring Peace-of-Mind. It is the same as when Judaism and Christianity evolved from Paganism and replaced the term 'god(s)' with 'God'. Now 'G-D' evolves from 'God'; but go slow for It is cruel to undermine a faith without effectively replacing it with another.
3.7c2. 'G-D'
adds importantly the ingredient of 'Peace-of-Mind' which 'Nature'
does not.
3.7c3.
There
is great "vested interest" in
the word "G-D";
it is
associated, by many, with Peace-of-Mind.
3.8. From
Bk.VII:23—G-D
(Deus)
Although Spinoza gives repeated
warnings that his "Deus" is far from the anthropomorphic conception
of God prevalent in the theology of his time, the reader will find it difficult
to bear this constantly in mind. It is not until E1:XIV:54,
that G-D, by definition {hypothesis},
is shown to be identical with the infinite, all-inclusive, unique substance,
and thereafter it is all too easy to lose sight of this, as the religious
overtones of the word "God" keep asserting themselves.
So Spinoza's frequent use of the phrase "Deus
sive Natura"—G-D, or Nature—is intended
as a salutary corrective. For Spinoza God is all Being, all Reality,
in all its aspects and in all its infinite richness.
3.9. Spinoza goes to great lengths to posit G-D—the quintessential pragmatic truth (an all inclusive organic interdependence of all parts) so as to establish the foundation for all his thought. Establishing the hypothesis of G-D is the entire burden of "The Improvement of the Understanding" and "The Ethics".
3.9a. Posit Spinoza's G-D as a working hypothesis.
Hypothesis is a provisional theory set forth to explain some class of phenomena (say, like gravity), either accepted as a guide to future investigation (working hypothesis) or assumed for the sake of argument and testing for its cash value—all things are in G-D, therefore everything is organically interdependent; you know then that you cannot harm one part without eventually harming yourself or your progeny.This hypothesis helps to understand our universe, society, and ourselves and thus brings peace-of-mind—the goal of all Religions and righteous governments.
3.10. Spinoza and Scripture declare that G-D is ONE to establish that everything is bound into one grand ORGANIC interdependence: from this intuition, by deduction, "in working clothes", logically flows the Golden Rule "love your neighbor..." and enlightened self-interest.
3.10a. By analogy, as my heart loves my entire "me", so I love G-D. It is the nature of an organism: "give to get" and "get to give". My getting is my self-interest; I need it to survive eternally.
3.11. If
declaring "G-D is ONE", does not trigger the concept of the "organic
Interdependence of Parts" then "G-D is ONE" is just
words without
meaning.
3.12. James's Bk.X:63—Pragmatism
The only way to get forward with our notion is to treat it pragmatically. Granting the oneness to exist, what facts will be different in consequence? What will the unity be known as? The world is One - yes, but how one. What is the practical {cash} value of the oneness for us."
3.12a. James's Bk.X:xiv— Cash Value
James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their CashValue" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, then scientific truths were just those beliefs found to be workable. And we could investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were.
3.13. D:Endnote
1.27d—Golden Rule
"....but thou shalt love thy neighbour's well-being as t'were thine own: I am G-D."
3.13a. Many blacks hate whites, many whites hate blacks; many Jews hate Germans, many Germans hate Jews. You are not commanded to love each other (it being extremely difficult) but you are commanded to be concerned for each other's well-being. The love may come later.
3.14. Following the Golden
Rule is in your own self-interest; it is not Altruism. The rule
becomes more and more complied with as a society becomes more and more
affluent and integrated (wired).
3.15. Bk.II:TTP312(61):172—Corner-stone of Religion
For from the Bible itself we learn, without the smallest difficulty or ambiguity, that its cardinal precept is: To love G-D above all things, and one's neighbour as one's self. This cannot be a spurious passage, or due to a hasty and mistaken scribe, ...
3.16. The Sacred parts of
Scripture are the ethical and moral parts which demand obedience to commandments—laws. Other
parts may be rejected or interpreted allegorically. This demand of
obedience is the same as required by any governmental or military law. No
explanation of the law or command is given; nor any philosophy expounded;
just do it—or else.
G-D is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
3.18. G:Shirley:25—Cause
The reader will find that Spinoza's "cause" is not quite what he is used to. It need not imply temporal succession: indeed, for Spinoza a cause is more logical ground from which a consequent follows, . . . "For example, it "follows" from the nature of a triangle that its three angles are equal to two right angles. Hence, Spinoza occasionally couples the word "cause" with the term "reason" ("ratio").
By the phrase "efficient cause" Spinoza means primarily the cause that produces the effect in question and is quite close to the notion of a sufficient condition. His theory of causality excludes the Aristotelian final cause, the goal or purpose of a thing or event. In his Bk.1:75, Spinoza explicitly claims that final causes are human fictions.
The phrases "immanent cause" (causa immanens) and "transitive cause" (causa transiens) appear in 1P18:62. A transitive cause is one in which causation "passes over" from the cause to the effect, while cause and effect remain really distinct. Mechanical causation would be an example of transitive causation; e.g. one billiard ball hitting another into the pocket. An immanent cause, however, is an "indwelling cause," one that is inseparable from its effect. For example, the numbers 1 and 2 are immanent causes of the number 4 insofar as they are factors of it. Although 1 and 2 can be separated out of 4 by analysis, they are nevertheless always "in" it. It is Spinoza's thesis that G-D is the immanent, not the transitive cause of all things. This is the denial of the traditional idea of G-D as the creative, transcendent cause of the world. Insofar as G-D is the unique substance of which everything else is a mode, all modes will be in G-D and G-D will be their indwelling cause.
3.19. Letter
21(73):298—Pantheism.
The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the Bk.II:Tractatus Theologico-Politicus the unity of G-D and Nature (meaning by the latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.
3.19a. {When I say "I will make the trip next week, please G-D," the "Please G-D" means: may my health permit; may my car get to the airport OK; may the roads be O.K.; the plane O.K.; etc., etc., etc. All are parts of the indivisable infinity. That is Spinoza's pantheism.}
3.20. 4Ap.4:237—Blessedness
.....indeed blessedness is nothing else but the contentment of spirit which arises from the intuitive knowledge of G-D: ...."
3.21. The Hebrew word for
commandment is mits-vaw', Strong:4687—a command, an ordinance,
a precept, good deed. The root of mits-vaw' is tsaw-vaw',
Strong:6680—to enjoin, bid, send a messenger, put in order, to charge
with. A related word is tsaw-vaw', Strong:6633—to mass an army,
fight, war; army, host. Based on this etymology, a commandment is
an order to a part of an organism to do its duty for the sake of the organism's
perpetuation. Enlightened self-interest is the better
reason for obeying the command, not fear of punishment. Law
of Organisms
3.22a The Hebrew word translated as sin is khate, Strong:2399—a crime, sin, fault. The root of khate is khaw-taw', Strong:2398—to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble. Based on this etymology, one who sins is making a mistake in judgment; because he, if rational, does wants to perpetuate himself. Therefore his mistake is due to some disability or lack of knowledge. This does not mean that society should not protect itself from crime (as for scarlet fever)—by incarceration (or quarantine) and attempt to cure.
3.23. TTP3:XIV(17)—love
to one's neighbour
Moreover, the Bible teaches very clearly in a great many passages what everyone ought to do in order to obey G-D; the whole duty is summed up in love to one's neighbour.
3.24. A part of an organism,
an orchestra, a country, all have their duties to perform for their very
own good—it is not altruism.
3.25. The
word "religion" as we use
it does not exist in Biblical Hebrew. They looked upon the Bible
as we do our Constitution, and took it as a given—a way of life. The
Old Testament was their Constitution
and Legislative enactments; Post-biblically,
the Talmud was, and is, the equivalent
of a modern Law Library. When modern Hebrew had to coin a word for
"religion" they chose the word (daht) whose root is "knowledge",
Strong:1847
from 3045.
3.26. From "Jews, God and History", ISBN 0451628667, Pg. 368.
The founding fathers and the American people had a steadfast belief in the Old Testament. The development of constitutional law through the body of decisions by the Supreme Court has acted, in a sense, like a Talmud in interpreting and clarifying the Constitution, and those decisions have come to function in American political life much as: the Talmud has in Jewish life. "Proclaim liberty throughout the land, unto all its inhabitants," from Leviticus (25:10), is inscribed on the Liberty Bell, which rang out its message at the first reading of the Declaration of Independence.
3.26a. The single
most important hypothesis that people make for their
peace-of-mind
is their constitution—government.
Without it, there
is
no army, no police, no fire department, no schools, no
water
no
garbage collection, etc., etc., etc. In
truth, our real religion is
our
government—for it brings us the major part of our peace-of-mind.
3.26a1. In all the Jewish
dispersals, the righteous laws of their host
country
was Jewish law; as expressed in the Talmudic Dictum—
Din
Medinah Din (the righteous
law of the government is law).
3.27. The Hebrew word
for worship is av-o-daw ', Strong:5656—work of any kind,
ministry, labor, service. The root of av-o-daw ' is aw-vad
', Strong:
5647—to work, labor, serve. Based on
this etymology, everyone doing their duty, practicing enlightened self-interest
is worshipping G-D. Ritual also has its place in adding pomp, poetry,
song, sociability, and pep-talks—school auditoriums.
3.28. The
Pantheon of deified figures of modern world religions is an evolution of
the Pantheon of Pagan gods. This is not pejorative of either Pantheon. It
is the evolution of the hypothesis of Religion to purer and purer Monotheism—
from the fetish of a caveman to an unadulterated Monotheism.
3.28a. god(s) —
Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry.
God
— Monotheistic; Anthropomorphic,
Transcendent God.
G-D
or G-d — Monotheistic; Spinoza's
Immanent, Indwelling G-D.
'G-D'
and 'Nature' are interchangeable.
3.28b. The above stages show
the constant evolution of Religion's
hypotheses. Paradoxically,
worshipping G-D
is like worshipping an infinite number of idols—G-d.
3.29. Religion
is an hypothesis that constantly evolves to purer and purer forms of monotheism.
Study how Holiday themes were re-interpreted
as Paganism evolved into Judaism, Christianity, and, I conjecture,
will in turn (with other Religions of the world) evolve into G-D—"The
Universal Religion and the United States of the World".
4. One World:
4.1. I
conjecture that the holidays of the
coming Universal Religion will be
purged of literal miracles, imagery, and deified figures; all of which
make fences (a different language for
expressing the "Oneness
of G-D")
between neighbors and peoples of the world. These fences are a violation
of the Second Commandment, Deu.5:8—
"You shall not make for
yourself a carved image..."
4.2. It is the increasingly
electronic-age-caused unification that will make these fences (incompatible
protocols) more and more onerous.
4.3. The
United Nations is today in the analogous position of The United States
of America at the time of its founding. The USA had to overcome the
power of the individual states to achieve the power it has today. Likewise
The United Nations will likewise overcome the power of the sovereign states
in time, because of the inescapable trend of history; opposers become irrelevant.
4.4. I believe socialism
evolves as technological advancement
and trade tips the scale toward enlightened self-interest and away from
jungle self-interest.
4.5. Technological advancement—fire,
wheel, writing, electricity, steam engine, combustion engine, radio, television,
computer, internet, nuclear power, space travel, .......... —all have tended
(or will tend) to lead people to be more cooperative; enlightened, one-worldish.
4.6. The misuse of wealth,
causing slums, prejudice, and uneducated masses, is idolatry.
When affluence reaches a critical mass, a decent minimum income will be
guaranteed to all; eradicating slums, prejudice and uneducated masses.
It is not altruism, it is evolution
due to evolving technological advancement making products cheaper and maintaining
aggregate demand.
4.7. I conjecture that
with advancing technology and affluence, there will be a synthesis between
Capitalism and Socialism. As major corporations mature, they become
more and more controlled by their management and not by their stock owners.
The self-interest of the management will begin to coincide more and more
with the unions and the public interest—enlightened
self-interest.
4.8. Spinoza is a harbinger of the coming, however long it may take, of a One-World Universal Religion—the One-World that is evolving as it is being organically bound together by electronic mutations. It is for this reason that I think Spinoza is the quintessential Monotheist as is Einstein—they constantly sought unification; simplicity, efficiency.
4.8a. From Bk.XIA:109note146— Synthesis.
But Spinoza does more than prepare the reader for the overcoming of Judaism by Christianity. As I suggested earlier, he prepares the reader for the overcoming {synthesizing} of both Judaism and Christianity by the secular democratic state. After depicting Christ as the teacher of a universal rational morality (a kind of Spinoza avant la lettre) {Bk.XIA:110note147}, he shows how Christianity did not possess the true moral teaching. In particular, he shows that Christianity, not Judaism, became the cause of the persecution and intolerance to which the Treatise takes itself to be the answer. In Spinoza's recasting of sacred history, if Christ takes the place that Maimonides had accorded to Moses, Spinoza now assumes the place that had previously been accorded to Christ. He {Spinoza} is the bringer of a new theologico-political dispensation every bit as far-reaching as the historical religions that he claims to overcome {Bk.XIA:110note148}.
5. Conclusion
5.1. No
matter the World's evolutionary stage, because of man's desires, he will
always have wants, hence problems. There are no ends; no attainment,
only attaining because no change is boredom.
Analogy: a child, a teenager, an adult, an old person, all
have problems and wants peculiar to their stage in life. The problems of
each stage are, in the main, not solved, but transcended; the car
transcended the inconvenience of the horse-and-buggy. Walk humbly, for
the car brings it's own problems—smog, accidents, and grid-lock.
What then is Man to do?—Follow Spinoza's
Doctrine and:
5.1a. E5:X(5):252—Right Way of Living.
The best we can do, therefore, so long as we do not possess a perfect knowledge of our emotions, is to frame a system of right conduct, or fixed practical precepts, to commit it to memory, and to apply it forthwith to the particular circumstances which now and again meet us in life, ....
5.1b Practice modesty—be objective, enlightened; know how infinitesimal, but significant, a part of G-D you are.
5.1c. Practice
the Alcoholics Anonymous creed:
G-D
give me the courage to change what I can change.
Give
me the faith to accept what I cannot change.
Give
me the wisdom to know the difference.
5.1d. Try to understand
yourself and other persons. There
is no
free-will;
therefore no praise, no blame.
Spinoza's
Dictum—Man is a Computerized Machine.
"I
have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail,
not to
scorn human actions, but to understand them."
{
That does not say that Spinoza always succeeded; but
that, at his
better
moments, he tried. The same can be said of us; at our better
moments,
we try. }
5.1e.
And finally:
5.2.
Micah
6:8. It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and
what
the
LORD doth require of thee, only to do justly, and
to
love mercy, and to walk modestly with thy G-D.
Bibliography:
For complete bibliography and book ordering see:
Book I– Benedict
de Spinoza "On
the Improvement of the Understanding",
"The Ethics",
and "Correspondence".
Unabridged Elwes's 1883 translations (based on Bruder's 1843 Latin
Text,) are as published in Dover Publications, 1951; ISBN 048620250X.
Suggestion: The Books I & II Page Numbers, given for all citations, afford the convenience of using the books for citations while keeping the screen focused on the source. Please, please tell me of scanning errors. josephb@yesselman.com.
Book II – Benedict de Spinoza
"A Theologico-Political
Treatise", "A
Political Treatise", and "Elwes's
Introduction". Unabridged
Elwes's 1883 translations (based on Bruder's 1843 Latin Text) are
as published in Dover Publications 1951, ISBN: 0486202496.
Book VII – "Baruch
Spinoza; The Ethics; Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect; Selected
Letters" Translated by Samuel Shirley; Edited, with Introductions,
by Seymour Feldman; Hackett Publishing Company, 1992; ISBN: 0872201309.
Book VIII (Volume 1) –
"The Collected Works of Spinoza"
Edited and Translated by Edwin Curley; (based on Gebhardt 1925 text); 1985;
Princeton University Press; ISBN: 0691072221.
Book IX – James Strong "Strong's
Exhaustive Concordance" Baker Books,
1997; ISBN: 0801081084
Book X – William James "Pragmatism"
Hackett Publishing Co., 1981; ISBN: 0915145057.
Book XI – "Baruch
Spinoza; Tractatus Theologico-Politicus"
Second Edition; Translated by Samuel Shirley (based on Gebhardt
1925 text); Introduction by Brad S. Gregory; Brill Paperbacks,
ISBN: 9004095500.
Book XIA – "Spinoza,
Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity"
Steven B. Smith; Yale University Press, 1997; ISBN: 0300076657.
Book XII – "Spinoza:
His Life and Philosophy" by Frederick Pollock; Reprint
Edition; Published by Irvington Publishing; Publication date: June 1980;
ISBN: 0697000559
Book XIII – "Spinoza:
The Letters" Translated by Samuel Shirley; Introduction
and Notes by Steven Barbone, Lee Rice, and Jacob Adler. Hackett Publishing
Company, Inc. Copyright 1995; ISBN: 0872202755.
Book XIV – "The
Philosophy of Spinoza" by Harry A. Wolfson Harvard University
Press; Copyright date: 1934; Published September 1958; Library of Congress
Catalog No. 58-11928; Reprint edition 1983, ISBN: 0674665953.
Book XV – Benedict de Spinoza
"The
Ethics" and "On
the Improvement of the Understanding". Translated by
Andrew Boyle 1910 (based on Bruder's 1843 Latin Text);
Revised by G. H. R. Parkinson 1993; with an Introduction and Notes
by G. H. R. P. Everyman Paperback Classics; ISBN: 0460873474.
Book XVII – Stephen Hawking
"A Brief History
of Time". A Bantam Book;
ISBN: 0553380168.
END.