For this URL re-formatted for eBook Reader conversion see here.
For this URL available for various eBook Readers see here. 

Preface 

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        Dawkins:546
roller-coaster emotions and everyday relationships—you love not out of       Uzgalis - Hobbes
altruism  but  out  of  self-interest.  Now (2006) I have for some sixty-odd       Ridley's Altruism
years  studied  Spinoza  whenever  earning a living, having a family and 
friends permitted.  

As I kept studying Spinoza, I was really hooked when what happened to
me is what Elwes thought happened to Spinoza.  

From "Elwes's Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works". 

[37] 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 con- 
fronted  with the scientific aspect of the world as revealed           {for me it was
by Descartes. At first the two visions seemed antagonistic,       Spinoza and Einstein}
but,  as he gazed, their outlines blended and commingled,     Synthesized, Paradigm Shift,
he  found  himself in the presence not of two, but of ONE;             1D6 = ONE
the universe unfolded itself to him as the necessary result       Spinoza's Pantheism—G-d
of the Perfect and Eternal G-D.                                          Schechinah

This "unfolding itself" was to me an infinite "organic interdependence of 
parts" which led directly to the "Golden Rule";  not out of altruism but of      Uzgalis - Hobbes
enlightened self-interest.  

Now, after some sixty-odd years, I am still studying Spinoza and gaining
ever-new enlightening insights.  

For  excellent  introductions  to  Spinoza  see "Elwes's 1883 Introduction to  
his Translations of Spinoza's Works" and Dr. A Wolf's 1910 Introduction to
Translation of Spinoza's "Short Treatise on G-D, Man and his Well-Being".  

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, and
in many instances, have hypertext links thereto.  

I strongly recommend study of Graetz's 'Censure of Spinoza', Paragraphs
8, 9, and 10, for gaining an understanding of Spinoza's Ideas.  
 
The ideas that I express may not be explicit in Spinoza's Works, but are 
(in my opinion)  implicit  in  his  momentous  teachings.  The  definitions 
offered  are  really working hypotheses and stand in need of correction        Hypothesis
or discarding when a contradiction is found. In any event, partake of the 
ideas and definitions as you would a pomegranate;  relish the flesh and 
spit out the pits. 

  
Shirley's Bk.VII:2513—Idea. 

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. Love and Hate 

1.1.    The  definitions  as  given  in  the  dictionaries  are  the  everyday 
          language usage, and are generally synonyms or properties of the     Working Hypotheses
          word—not the nature thereof. Spinoza attempts to find the cause.            JBY Note 1  

1.2.  E3:Definition of the Emotions XX:Explanation:178—
              "But  my  purpose  is  to  explain,  not  the  meaning  of  words,       Parkinson:2601
               but  the  nature  {and cause}  of  things."  
 
1.3.   Definitions  which  define things by  their causes are hypotheses; 
         they all need be suspect, for they are only congealed hypotheses. 
         They  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 pro- 
         portion to its usefulness in increasing Perpetuation——Cash Value.      Pragmatism
 
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 equivalent terms. 

Everything,  in  so far as it is in itself, endeavours to persist          Everything RATIONAL 
in its own being by perpetuating its genes and succeeding
has peace-of-mind—and by failing, loss of peace-of-mind,
frustration.  

1.7a.  From Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization: Part VIII",
Chapter XXII -  Spinoza. ISBN: 0671012150,1963, Page 644: 

As the endeavor for self-preservation (the "struggle for existence") is the active essence of anything, all motives derive from it, and are ultimately self-seeking. "Since reason postulates nothing against Nature, it postulates, therefore, that each man should love {needs} himself, and seek what is useful to him—I mean what is truly useful to him—and desire whatever leads man truly to a greater state of perfection [completion], and finally that each one should endeavor to preserve his being as far as in him lies (121—4P18n)." These desires need not be conscious; they may be unconscious appetites lodged in our flesh {innate}. Taken altogether, they constitute the essence of man (122—3P59).  

1.8.   I:1.5a—  

°PERPETUATION is that endeavor that causes a salmon          analogies
 to go upstream, spawn and die—the PERPETUATION of          Calculus
 of its genes and thereby, incidentally, the species.                  Perfection  

1.8a.   See E3:Endnote 11:0.—Conatus.                                               Robinson3:59    

        Biology of Emotions—ANS,  'Emotion' versus 'Feelings', LeDoux96:34, William James, Damasio, Being.   
1.9.   °EMOTION is a change in one's probability of Perpetuation.           Roller Coaster Ride
          Its intensity is proportional to the change.   5P17, Being.     Robinson3:15        Russell:238     

1.9a.  °SORROW is a decrease in one's °Perpetuation. Its intensity           Sadness
          is proportional to the decrease.  

1.9b.  BOREDOM is no change in one's °Perpetuation. It marks the           Damasio
          theoretical transition from JOY to SORROW and vice versa. 

1.9c.  °JOY is an increase in one's °Perpetuation.  Its  intensity is             Happiness
          proportional to the increase.                                                            Durant2:647 
 
These definitions hold for a RATIONAL person; not for an irrational person. 
 
1.9d.  The changes are objective, real, because change needs                Damasio
          a force to cause it and the force exists; the human terms 
          (good-bad, perfect-imperfect, beautiful-ugly, etc.) given to               Examples
          these  changes  are  subjective.  The  changes are those
       occurring at any one instant and for a rational person.  

1.9d1.  An active emotion is a clear and distinct, rational emotion.
           Example: You are truly hungry; your body needs fuel.  
 
1.9d2.   A  passive  emotion  is  a  confused,  irrational  emotion.       Hampshire:202
            Example: You are not truly hungry; there is a pyscholog- 
            ical problem—bulimia.  

1.10.  °FAITH  is  belief  that  an  external object will cause a change in         Hampshire:139
          one's  °Perpetuation.  The intensity is proportional to the change.      Calculus Expression 

1.10a.  °HATE  is  belief that an external object will decrease one's          See Sorrow
           °Perpetuation. The intensity is proportional to the decrease 
           feared.  

1.10b.  INDIFFERENCE is belief that an external object will not change       Examples C:(b)
            one's °Perpetuation.  
 
1.10c.  °LOVE is belief that an external object (force) will increase one's       See Joy
            °Perpetuation.  The intensity is proportional to the increase          Hampshire:170
            hoped  for.  

          These definitions help explain the following: 

(a) At a given instant in time, you will love most the one you hate the most.
     Why? Because from someone you hate, you expect a decrease in your
     perpetuation (a sorrow); but when he instead increases your perpetuation,
     there is a great increase (a joy). The hate therefore turns to intenser love
     because of the larger change from a negative.

     A man hates an enemy who he expects to do him harm; if on the contrary
     the enemy does him a great good; he will, at that instant, love the enemy
     more than he would if he had never hated him.

(b) At a given instant in time, you will hate most the one you love most.
     Why? Because from someone you love you expect an increase in your
     perpetuation (a joy); but when he instead decreases your perpetuation,
     there is a great decrease (a sorrow). The love therefore turns to intense
     hate (for the moment). 
 
        Each day your father has let you drive his car; but one day he won't.
     You hate (at the instant) your father more than you would an enemy
     who would never let you drive his car.
 
(c) Substitute the word 'need' for 'love' and you will understand          An unfaced truth.
     'love' in its full dimensions. There is no 'altruism'.  When you              Mark Twain  
     say "I love you" it is a euphemism for "I need you and—if the          Love-loved
     love be healthy and lasting; say then "I will fulfill your needs."               'I-thee'
     When you say "I hate you" you are saying "I do not need you,        Dawkins:546
     you are not fulfilling my needs."   

(d) From Mark Twain's "What is Man?": 
     Love, Hate, Charity, Compassion, Avarice, Benevolence, and so on. I mean we
     attach misleading MEANINGS to the names. They are all forms of self-content-
     ment, self-gratification, but the names so disguise them that they distract our  
     attention from the fact {unfaced glaring truth}. 
  
   "I will fulfill your needs"—means I need you as an 'I-thee' and          Rational Love  
   not as an 'I-It'. This is the Law of Organisms.                            Hampshire:139 

1.10c1.  The Law of Organizations for individuals (and for nations): 
              they grow (rise) when the critical mass of the parts are 
              organically interdependent. 
              They die (fall) when the critical mass of the parts are not 
              organically interdependent.  

1.10d.     °BEAUTY and AESTHETICS.  

1.10d1.  °BEAUTY  is  function.  Its  intensity  is  proportional
              to the increase in °PERFECTION (PcM) caused. (Things 
                  that increase the probability of your perpetuation are to you beautiful.)   

1.10d2.  Nondescript is a thing causing no change in perpetuation. 

1.10d3.  °UGLINESS is dysfunction. Its intensity is proportional
              to the decrease in °PERFECTION caused. (Things 
                 that decrease the probability of your perpetuation are to you ugly.)   

1.10d4.  Aesthetics is the  Peace-of-Mind brought by symbolized beauty.     Truth
             (Aesthetics is tied to 'emotion' and 'love'; from Random House dictionary:
                 "aesthetic—concerned with emotion and sensation as opposed to intellectuality.")            Langer:258-260 

           A  symbolized  beauty  is,  say,  a  musical  chord  or  a  natural 
           flower—all  if  they  strike  you so. In contrast, an actual beauty 
          fulfills an actual need, say, a very warm coat when it is very cold. 
          A musical chord symbolizes order, harmony—an organic totality. 
       A natural flower symbolizes rebirth; an artificial flower, less so.
          Order is peace-of-mind; disorder is chaos, loss of peace-of-mind.  

         That is why, in a very long piece, a gifted composer introduces a
         discord at times—too much order, after awhile, becomes boring.  

 Aesthetics, Religion, and Love are alike—they bring peace-of-mind 
         to those fortunately tuned (programmed) to them.  

           These  three  also  have  their negative—loss of peace-of-mind.
         Art, symbolized ugliness; Religion, religious turmoil; Love, hate. 
      They don't have to result in loss of peace-of-mind if the reasons
         causing them are understood.  
          
1.10d5.  Beauty is subjective. To a hungry man, a luscious steak is beau-  
              tiful. To the same man with a retching stomach, the same steak 
              is ugly. The crucial word is "subjective" in considering beauty.  

                        hypotheses
The above definitions help understand human actions,  your own included. 
The above definitions apply to a rational man: for an irrational man change 
'increase'  to  'decrease'  and  'decrease'  to  'increase'.  We  all  have  our 
irrational moments; smoking, using drugs, drinking to excess, etc.  

1.11.  E4:Prf.27:189—Good and Bad. 

"As  for  the  terms good and bad, they indicate no positive       Subjective Terms
quality  in  things  regarded  in  themselves, but are merely         Prof. Hall:79
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 time good, bad, and          Calc:C(a)
indifferent. ...."   
                                             good and bad
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 {as a model for Human survival},  it  will  be  useful for us to            fishes
retain the terms in question,  in the sense I have indicated.  

1.12.  E3:IX(5):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,    Dawkins2:Genes
or desire it.  

1.13.  A  man, when  rational  and  judging  correctly,  calls  a thing good 
          if it increases his °P—bad; otherwise.   

  1.13a.  A  man is rational when he endeavours to perpetuate himself. 
             A man is irrational when he does not endeavours to perpetu-         suicide 
             ate himself.  

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.  One  of  the  main purposes of Spinoza's Ethics" is to teach        Dawkins2:Genes
          that  you  do not  LOVE  altruistically, but out of self-interest.          Love-Need
          If the LOVE be  rational it leads to an increase in °P for both            I-thee
          the lover and that loved; if not rational, a decrease.  

1.17.  A  sex  act  is sexually moral if the parties are able to provide for 
          the  possible  issue;  able,  both  financially and psychologically    Dawkins2:Genes
          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.  

   1.17a.  E4:Def.VIII:191—Virtue. 

"By virtue (virtus) and power I mean the same thing; that is 
(III:vii.),  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 Shirley's Bk. VII:2719—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 accord- 
ing to reason, and hence attain happiness  { better PcM }."   

     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 gunlovers  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—food when you are starving, sex when
          you want a child.  

1.19.  From 5P10n: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, ....   

 
1.20.  In E2:Prop 48,  Spinoza  returns to his main problem, to show 
          that the will is not free, and with this also to deny the freedom          Mark Twain
          of the other faculties, such as understanding, desiring, loving, 
          etc., all of which, like will, are only modes of thought.   

            1.20a.  Man is a Computerized Machine; a robot caused by G-D.        Data Base

That man is a computerized machine is an important 
hypothesis—it helps understand human actions.            No praise, no blame.
Example: sin is evidence of a bad data base in need
of re-programming. 

 End: Love and Hate.
 

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.       E4:Damasio:170-1
         Survival  of  the  fittest;  there  are  no  laws—power  makes  right.          Robinson3:60

 But technological advancement and training bring "Enlightenment":      Durant95:190 

From The Quotable Einstein, 0691026963; 1996; Page 214: 
SLAVERY—Insofar as we may at all claim that slavery has been abolished                     Oil 
today, we owe its abolition to the practical consequences of science.

2.2.   Societal  (enlightened)  self-interest—Survival  is  proportional  to             Durant2:647 
         playing  by  the  rules  (reason,  keeping the beat in an orchestra).         Dawkins2:Genes
         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.  
               When a man is starving, it is as if he were living in a jungle; where
         there are no rules but one—survival, perpetuation. 

"Enlightenment" removes the taint of "selfishness".                           Ayn Rand

2.3.   To get and not give is selfishness  (extinction—in a body, the body       'I-thee' and 'I-It'
         soon  dies);  to  get  and  to  give  is  enlightenment (perpetuation);         Mark Twain
         to give and not get is altruism (extinction). Healthy self-interest is        Uzgalis - Hobbes
         perpetuation and virtue—you can't have one without the other.         Damasio—biological 

2.3a.  To get and not give is parasitism; to get and give is symbiosis. 

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.}        Analogy 

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 when the slums riot against them.  

2.6.   From Uzgalis—Leviathan 

          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          Mysticism
          in  various  ways.  So Hobbes' egoism is transformed into a 
          doctrine of cooperation.  

2.7.  Altruism never exists, except it be an act of illness. When you say        WikipediA
         "I love you",  it is a euphemism for  "I need you, and the more or       An unfaced glaring truth. 
         less I need you the more or less will love you."   When you say
         "I hate you"  you are saying  "I do not need you, you are not fulfill- 
         ing my needs." That is why there are marriages; that is why there 
         are  divorces.   If  the  love  be  healthy,  both  fulfill  each  others 
         legitimate  needs.  

2.7.1  Evolution does not teach altruism; it teaches how co-operation     Dawkins2:Genes
          and enlightenment helps your very self. 

  2.7.1a  Examples: Division of Labor; Scratch my back and I will
              scratch your back; Stopping at red lights.                                  Mysticism 

  2.7.1b  When co-operation helps us, we act as if altruistically. 


2.7.2  I have read "In all of history, no one ever washed a rented car,"
         and I have added, except when the dirty car reflected on him.   
                                                                    derogatory
2.7.3  I hasten to add that this not pejorative but the Law of Organisms.   Uzgalis - Hobbes
          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        Commandments
         or obligations.   

2.9.   The  Hebrew  word  which  is  often  mis-translated  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  lung-capacity  of the body. 
        It is the Golden Rule in working clothes; enlightened self-interest.  

 2.10.  The  Hebrew  word  which is often  mis-translated as pity (com- 
           passion,  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,       Dawkins2:Genes
           perhaps  varying  in  degree  but  not  in  kind;  it  is  in  no way 
           altruistic; but on the contrary, enlightened self-interest.  

2.10.1.  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        Dawkins:192:Genes[4]
          trade tips the scale toward enlightened self-interest and away       
          from jungle self-interest. 

2.12a.  Technological advancement—fire, wheel, writing, electricity,          Memes
            steam engine, combustion engine, radio, television, computer,           Evolves  
            internet,  nuclear  power,  space  travel, .......... —all  have           Blackmore
            tended (or will tend) to lead people to be more cooperative; 
            enlightened—the coming messianic age.  

2.12b.  Why is it so difficult to apply Spinoza's Dictum and also 'to see
            G-D in everyone'. Intellectually this is very enlightened; but so
            very difficult to apply?
      Answer:  
            Instinct; because we evolved living in a brutal jungle of scarcity and danger.
            As millennium pass we are becoming more and more enlightened because of
            the technological advancement which diminishes scarcity and danger. 

2.12c.  From Wikipedia—Meme:     {Mark Twain: Genes are Hardware; Memes the Software.}     

The term "meme" (rhymes with "theme"), coined by Richard Dawkins, first came into popular use with the publication of his book The Selfish Gene in 1976. Dawkins based the word on a shortening of the Greek "mimeme" (something imitated), making it sound similar to "gene". Dawkins used the term to refer to any cultural entity, for example a song, an idea, {technology}, a religion which an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as replicators. Memes do not always get copied perfectly, and might indeed become refined, combined or otherwise modified with other ideas, resulting in new memes. These memes may themselves prove more (or less) efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a theory of cultural {social} evolution, analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes.  

2.12d.  From Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine 99; 0198503652 p.107—Meme: 

To summarize, there is a memetic solution to the mystery of human language origins. Once imitation evolved, something like two and a half or three million years ago, a second replicator, the meme, was born. As people began to copy each other the highest-quality memes did the best—that is those with high fidelity, fecundity, and longevity. A spoken grammatical language resulted from the success of copyable sounds that were high in all three. The early speakers of this language not only copied the best speakers in their society but also mated with them, creating natural selection pressures on the genes to produce brains that were ever better and better at spreading the new memes. In this way, the memes and genes coevolved to produce just one species with the extraordinary properties of a large brain and language. The only essential step to starting this process was the beginning of imitation. The general principles of evolution are enough to account for the rest.  

The answers to two difficult questions are now obvious, and the same. What is the big brain for? What is the function of language? —To spread memes. 

2.12e.  From Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine 1999; 0198503652 p. 206—
        Evolution of Memes: 

[1]  Many writing systems have taken a starting point from other systems, or even just borrowed the idea of writing itself. In 1820, a Cherokee Indian called Sequoyah observed that Europeans made marks on paper and went on to devise a system for writing down the Cherokee language. Although he was illiterate and knew no English, his observations were enough for him to devise a writing system so successful
that Cherokees were soon writing, reading, and printing their own books and newspapers.  

[2]  I have suggested that human consciousness is not the driving force behind the creation of language (or anything else for that matter) and Sequoyah looks like the ideal case to prove me wrong. In fact, I chose him as a perfect opportunity to explain what I mean. Sequoyah was presumably as conscious as any human being. In discussions about creativity people often assume that consciousness is somehow responsible for creativity, but this view meets with serious problems as soon as you try to imagine exactly what it means. You are almost forced into adopting a dualist position, with consciousness as something separate from the brain, that magically leaps in and invents things. A more common view in science is to ignore consciousness and treat creativity as a product of the intelligence and ability of the individual concerned—ultimately taking the process back to brain mechanisms. This escapes from the dualist trap but leaves out the importance of all the ideas already available in the creator's environment {supplied by Einstein's Cosmic Religion}. The memetic view includes all this. What I am proposing is this.  

[3]  Human brains and minds are a combined product of genes and memes. As Dennett (1991, p. 207) puts it 'a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes'. In Sequoyah's case he must have had an exceptional brain, with exceptional determination and motivation, and he happened to come across a writing system that was already available at a time when his own people were in a position to take up his ideas and use them. Sequoyah's thinking was an essential part of the process, but was itself created out of the interplay between memes and genes. All this is a wonderful example of replicators creating design out of nowhere. As ever, there is really no designer other than the evolutionary process.   

2.12f.  From Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine 1999; 0198503652 p. 241—
        Power and Beauty of Memes:  

[1]  'The "independent" mind struggling to protect itself from alien and dangerous memes is a myth' (Dennett 1995, p. 365). So we must ask who gets to choose? If we take memetics seriously then the 'me' that could do the choosing is itself a memetic construct: a fluid and ever-changing group of memes installed in a complicated meme machine. The choices made will all be a product of my genetic and memetic history in a given environment, not of some separate self that can 'have' a life purpose and overrule the memes that make it up.  

[2]  This is the power and beauty of memetics: it allows us to see how human lives, language, and creativity all come about through the same kind of replicator power as did design in the biological world. The replicators are different, but the process is the same. We once thought that biological design needed a creator, but we now know that natural selection can do all the designing on its own. Similarly, we once thought that human design required a conscious designer inside us, but we now know that memetic selection can do it on its own. We once thought that design required foresight and a plan, but we now know that natural selection can build creatures that look as though they were built to plan when in fact there was none. If we take memetics seriously there is no room for anyone or anything to jump into the evolutionary process and stop it, direct it, or do anything to it. There is just the evolutionary process of genes and memes playing itself endlessly out—and no one watching.  

2.13. From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing,     1965; Page 191.

{Continued from Page 190.} 

 Most men are at heart individualistic rebels against law or custom: the social instincts are later and weaker than the individualistic, and need reinforcement; man is not "good by nature," as Rousseau was so disastrously to suppose. But through association, if even merely in the family, sympathy comes, a feeling of kind, and at last of kindness. We like what is like us; "we pity not only a thing we have loved, but also one which we judge similar to ourselves" {3P22n}; out of this comes an "imitation of emotions {3P27n}," and finally some degree of conscience. Conscience, however, is not innate, but acquired; and varies with geography {4App27}. It is the deposit, in the mind of the growing individual, of the moral traditions of the group; through it society creates for itself an ally in the heart of its enemy—the naturally individualistic soul.  

End: Self-Interest.
 

        By  not acknowledging the religious hypotheses of the countries in which they live, 
        Jews undermine those hypotheses and hence, the peace-of-mind of those holding
        them. Mark Twain's 'Little Story', Anti-Semitism.
                                                                                                                                                    Durant:636 
          Spinoza's hypothesis evolves the Judaeo-Christain-Islamic God into G-D/Nature.  
          The evolving concept of God results in the re-interpretation of Holidays,  
        
        The secret to understanding Spinoza is to accept
        (as a working hypothesis) "POSIT  1D6 = ONE" — Important.                         Speculation  
                                                     The Foundation Rock.                            Importance of 1D6 = ONE 

        First Posit ONE—1D6 and then test for cash values.                                   Simply Posit 
 
        Poor, desperate people are, on the whole, more religious than                Galbraith  
        rich, complacent people—no atheists in foxholes.                                           Russell:13 

3.1a.  E4:Ap.IV:237—Peace-of-Mind (PcM)  

"Thus  in  life  it  is  before  all  things  useful to perfect the
understanding  or  reason,  as  far as  we can, and in this              {Understanding  
alone  man's  highest happiness or blessedness consists,               brings PcM}
indeed  blessedness  is nothing else but the contentment 
of spirit which arises from the intuitive knowledge of G-D"
{The knowledge that comes from a mystical experience;
  i.e. knowing your place as a mode in the Universe}. 

3.1b. °PcM  is being °JOYFUL (when knowing why is not necessary);
          or being °SORROWFUL (say, losing an arm) but understanding        Suffering
          why, or by a leap-of-faith acceptance saying "the understanding     Spinoza's Religion  
          resides  in  the  infinite intellect of G-D—i.e. the chain of natural          1P33—chain
          causes  and  their natural events and the knowledge that things            Popkin:71
          could  not  have  been different than they are. (Whatever is, is
          caused, and by hypothesis, the cause is knowable.)                                  understanding
          The sorrow still remains. It is the will of G-D; that is Life; or that
          is Nature."— all mean the same and bring, somewhat, PcM.             Metaphors 

          As long as people have non-understood wants, they will have 
          loss of peace-of-mind. That is why religion, government, drugs,            3.26a 
          alcohol, opiates, etc. persists throughout the world.  
 

3.1c. The purpose of Religion (Scriptures) is to bring Peace-of-Mind—    Spinoza's Religion
         not teach philosophy, nor to make men learned. The  hypothesis,      TTP1:Divine Law
         that religion is, need not make sense—only deliver Peace-of-Mind.      Mark Twain

3.1c1.  In  the sense that Religion is an hypothesis, I disagree             Einstein  
            that  religion and philosophy (science) have nothing to              Psychology
            do with each other—rather, the two can be synthesized          Durant:641
            and be one.  

3.1d.  A belief (hypothesis) in its varying degrees, can be a guess,  
          a dogma, a hope, an intuition, a leap-of-faith.  

3.1e.  At the limit of knowledge, "Take a leap-of-faith" is equivalent 
         to saying "accept the proposition as a working hypothesis".  
         A working hypothesis is disproved when you find a contradiction. 
         You then have to fix the working hypothesis or totally discard it.  

        Another way of looking at leap-of-faith, see "Cash Value".

3.1f.  Hypothesis, like hope, always involves doubt and constant 
      evolution as it proves and disproves itself.  

3.1g.  From The Teaching Company's "God and Mankind: Comparative Religions" by
          Professor Robert Oden, Ph.D; Lecture 1:2C—Properties of Religion.

C. "Religion is a communication system that is constituted by supernatural beings and      is related to specific patterns of behavior" (H.H. Penner's definition). {Penner's
      definition gives the properties of 'Religions'; not a definition of 'Religion'; Spinozism's definition of
      Religion.} 

1. This definition {Penner's} imparts a definite structure and complexity to religion
    that is systemic {RH—of or pertaining to a system}.

2. A communication system indicates to those within and outside our religion
    who and what we are, as well as what we do and do not believe in. 

3. This definition does not limit religion to verbal communication; ritual is a
    crucial aspect. 

4. One or more supernatural beings must be a part of the system. 

5. This definition implies specific patterns of behavior. As discussed above, all
    religions are ritualistic by nature. Even those that appear to be aritualistic are
    ritualistically aritualistic. 

{6. 1- 5 are properties of Religions; not religion's essence—which is seeking peace of mind.}
 

3.2.  Spinoza's Doctrine: The mind makes no free-will, arbitrary judgments;      Determinism
        but makes free choices (decisions) based on random causes.        Why this doctrine is good.

3.2a.  Just like a Computer, the mind says "yes" or "no" based on 
          its data base and then acts.  

3.2b.  The  mind's  data base  is  filled  by  temperament, parents,             Robot  Rat
          culture,  religion,  prejudices,  education,  reading,  training, 
          life's random experiences, etc. etc., etc.  
 
3.2c.  Therefore  a  person is not to be praised or blamed for any
          action but may be said to sin.  See Spinoza's Dictum.  
 

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.  Abstraction: G-D, Deus, Being, ONE, J---vah, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Mary,                              Hampshire202, Language, Fences, Foundation Rock, Russell:13, 

Hampshire202a: 

The free man therefore will criticize Christian doctrine or orthodox Judaism or any other religious dogma, first, when it is represented as philosophical truth, secondly, on purely pragmatic grounds, if it in fact leads its votaries to be troublesome in their actual behaviour {terrorism, superstition}; but to judge and condemn religious faiths {Mark Twain} by purely rational standards is to misconceive their function. The various religious myths of the world are essentially the presentation in imaginative and picturesque terms of more or less elementary moral truths {and an attempt to achieve peace-of-mind}. The great majority of mankind, who are capable only of the lowest grade of knowledge, will only understand, and be emotionally impressed by, myths which appeal directly to their imagination; the abstractions of page 203 purely logical argument mean nothing to them. They cannot understand what is meant by the perfection and omnipotence {power, will} of G-D, as a metaphysician understands these ideas; they can understand only in the sense that they may imagine a being like themselves, but very powerful and very good; they need a story in anthropo- morphic terms, and this the popular religions provide. {Mark Twain's "Little Story"}

From Popkin's "Spinoza"; 2004; ISBN 1851683399; Page 2: 

Spinoza dispensed with any appeal to the supernatural to account for the world and how it operates. His brilliant system developed a complete picture of the world based solely on definitions and axioms and sought to explain everything in terms of the attributes of a non-supernatural G-D. The attributes that human beings could know were those of thought {mind} and extension {body} and, through these, men can discover how the world operates, what it consists of, and the role of human beings in it. This conception enabled Spinoza to present a way in which people could find their goal {PcM} in non-theological terms. This remarkable break with tradition was one of the most radical innovations in seventeenth-century thought and one that has continued to spawn interesting new understandings and insights in philosophy, ethics, and science.  

From The Teaching Company's Professor David B. Ruderman Lectures on Jewish     Intellectual History:16th to 20th Century.  Lecture 17 - CG2:17—Leo Baeck's
    Mystery and Commandment:

Leo Baeck (1873-1956) was a disciple of Cohen, but unlike him, pursued a highly prominent career as a rabbi in Berlin. In his first major work, The Essence of Judaism, written in response to an earlier work on Christianity by Adolf von Harnack, Baeck underscored, like Cohen, the central role of ethical monotheism in the Jewish religion but departed from him in stressing the role of religious consciousness, as well. Baeck understood Jewish faith as dialectical {RH—pertaining to or of the nature of logical argumentation.}, created by the two poles of divine commandment and religious consciousness, or mystery, as he called it. God makes ethical demands of the believer, but he is also experienced personally; he is transcendent but also personal.  

{The last sentence Spinozisticly amended:
 G-D (the infinite organism, which includes everything) requires all parts to do their duty (perform their  function) for maximum efficiency. Analogy: interaction in the human body. He is immanent and we are all in G-D.}  {See Mysticism.} 

3.4.  Idolatry is taking the infinite as finite.
      Taking the finite as infinite is pantheism. 

      Idolatry is taking an inseparable part of an infinite organism (G-D) as       Interdependent
        finite—and having it (the part, a mode) stand alone finite and supreme       Calculus:3.1c
        without interaction with the other parts. 

                    Idolatry is not an 'I-thee' relation with a thing, but an 'I-It' relation.      Pantheism—G-d 
                Idolatry  and  superstition  are  faulty  hypotheses  designed  to           Religion 
                find peace of mind. The fault is in taking the infinite as finite.             Schechinah  

Three persons have written me to say that they think it should be taking 
the finite as infinite; not the infinite as finite. I have answered thus: 

I think it depends on how you define (hypothesize) 'infinite' and 'finite'; 
my hypotheses are:  

Infinity is the totality of all existence considered as one organism, 
all interdependent.  Except for analysis, it cannot be divided.           Indivisible
No part can stand alone.   The error of Body and Mind Separation 

Finite is thinking that a part stands alone with no interconnection       Robinson3:189
with anything else or eventually the universe (say, money). This, 
I think, is subjective and is an error.  

A particular person or part of a person, (I add, every person, every    {This is Spinoza's
thing) is infinite, philosophically. To think it finite and standing alone   Pantheism—G-d.   
with no connection to everything else is an error and leads to chaos     Schechinah.} 
(which is Idolatry). 

This, I think, is what is behind Buber's 'I-thee' dictum. 'I -Thou' is treating   LT:L3421:336
the person or thing as part of an infinite whole—G-D; while 'I-it' is treating
the person or thing as something finite which has no interconnection with
the 'whole' and that it stands alone and can be taken advantage of. That
would be like the heart taking advantage of the lungs. To love someone,     R. Hillel
is as G-D Intended—the Law of Organisms.  

This has great Cash Value; I must look at everything as G-Dly                 Pantheism—G-d 
(infinite, interconnected) and not cause wars, genocide, corruption,        Schechinah
power struggles, slums, pollution, etc. etc. etc,  Idolizing a part,
ignoring the whole; idolizing money, a golden calf (Exo. 32:4),                      Millennia
farmers who pollute, substance abuse, creating slums, any fixation
to the exclusion of other things leads to chaos.   

Therefore I say taking the infinite as finite.  

3.4a.  Pantheism is false, bad, if each thing is looked upon as a 
          whole—a god, an idol.  

3.4b.  Pantheism is true,  good, if each thing is looked upon as a 
         part of the whole—G-D; holistically, with none of the faults 
         of idolatry.  Holism is the theory that whole entities, as fun- 
         damental  components  of  reality, have an existence other     Spinoza's Pantheism—G-d
         than  as  the mere sum of their parts.  Pantheism is having            Schechinah
         an "I-thee" relationship with every single thing.  
 

3.5.  The misuse (false productivity) of any part 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,  which  then causes 
                 ecological disasters.  

        3.5c.  The misuse of wealth, causing slums, prejudice, and
                 uneducated  masses, is idolatry, which then causes 
            crime, substance-abuse, disease, and terrorism.  

3.5d.  Nationalism  which  impedes  One-world is Idolatry.            Hampshire:203

3.5e.  All the above indicate people who think only of their 
         own money and convenience. They do not consider 
         the  cancer (figurative and literal)  they cause. That 
         lack  of  consideration  is  idolatry and  is a sin. The 
         Sins of the Parents  will  be  visited on their children.  

3.5f.  Economists  who  neglect the horrible effects  (to the          No praise, no blame.
         environment or human values) of rampant capitalism 
         are idolaters.  

3.5g. Idolatry is taking something that cannot stand alone 
         and making it stand alone to the detriment of other                 Buber's 'I-It'
         things (which includes even God).

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.  1:Def. VI:45—Durant:636

        "By G-D, I mean a Being absolutely infinite—that is,                          Deus 
        a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which 
        each  expresses  eternal  and  infinite  essentiality" 
        {and  each  attribute  has an infinite number of finite                         Added by JBY
        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.  

            Mysticism is that interacting TOTALITY that is greater                    An organism 
       than the sum of its parts. 

3.7a.  From Shirley's Bk.VII:249—Thing. 

"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.  G:Shirley:42—Religious Language 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    Wolf:Endnote 4-3a 
prevalent  in  traditional  Jewish  and  Christian  discourse, 
such  as "God,"  "salvation," "faith," "miracles," "divine law,"      Yirmiyahu Yovel
"help  of  G-D,"   "election of G-D," etc.,  but he twists them 
and  gives  them  new, unorthodox meanings that are com-    Spinoza's Religion
patible  with his own philosophy. This is part of his persua-     Paradigm Shift
sive   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":          evolving
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        Spinozism  
of religion"—G-D instead of Nature—are the following:                                    Religious  language 

3.7c1.  The  term  'G-D' is retained because it is fulfilling the same 
function  as  the traditional  God (an evolving religion)—which is,         Mark Twain
to  bring  Peace-of-Mind.  It  is  the  same as when Judaism and        The God Gene
Christianity evolved from Paganism and replaced the term 'god(s)'          Holidays 
with 'God'. Now 'G-D' evolves from 'God'; but go slow for It is cruel     Dawkins129:Genes
to undermine a faith without effectively replacing it with another.      Paradigm Shift

3.7c2.  'G-D'  adds  importantly the ingredient of 'Peace-of-Mind'           Abstraction
which 'Nature' does not.  
 
3.7c3.  There  is  great  "vested interest"  in  the word "G-D"; it is          Isaac
associated, by many, with Peace-of-Mind.                               Bashevis Singer 

 
3.8.  From G:Shirley:235—G-D (Deus)

Although  Spinoza  gives repeated warnings that his "Deus" 
is  far  from  the anthropomorphic conception of God preva- 
lent  in  the  theology of his time,   the reader will find it diffi- 
cult  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 there- 
after  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  G-D  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) so as                Analogy
        to establish the foundation for all his thought.  Establishing the 
        hypothesis of G-D is the entire burden of TEI and Ethics-Part 1.  

3.9a.  Posit Spinoza's G-D as a working hypothesis. 

In order to avoid useless speculation, simply posit Spinoza's G-D as a working hypothesis and then work to find its cash value. Col:Hampshire
 
Hypothesis—1. 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—example; 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.. 2. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.  

This hypothesis helps to understand our universe, society, and ourselves and thus brings peace-of-mind—the goal of all Religions and righteous governments.      The God Gene
 

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".      Law of Organisms
            My  getting  is  my  self-interest; I need it to survive eternally.  

3.10b.  If the organs of your body did not observe the Golden Rule, you
            could not efficiently exist. Likewise the world with its parts.  

3.11.  If  declaring  "G-D is ONE",  does  not  trigger  the  concept  of  the 
          "Organic Interdependence of  all  Parts"  then "G-D is ONE" is just      Spinoza's Religion  
          words without meaning.  

3.11a.  All that is, is ONE evolving organism. The most perfect
            morality is a conscientious loyalty to this whole.                        intellectual love of G-D

3.12.  G:James's ONE:63—Pragmatism                                           William James—Robinson4:172

"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.  G:James: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 "Cash Value"    Pragmatism
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 refer- 
ence  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 philos- 
ophy;  it made survival { °P }  the test of  intellectual { LOVE } 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.    {Scroll down for more.}   

3.12b.  
 
 From The Teaching Company's Tapes; The Great Ideas of Philosophy,
2nd Edition; 2004; Professor Daniel N. Robinson's Lecture 47; Part 4 Transcript, p. 172; William James' Pragmatism—Cash Value.  

The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable {God, free-will, etc.}. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle {until such time there is some new evidence}.   {Scroll down for p. 173.}    

Lecture 47; Part 4 Transcript, p. 173; William James' Pragmatism—Self-Interests.  

Pragmatism on James's account matches up with James on the notion of our interests. The will expresses itself on behalf of what we take to be our "highest interests" {peace of mind}. What we do, we do on behalf of our highest interests. We are not simple reflex machines. There is an incessant stream of consciousness, a stream of thought that relates us to the world around us, that exposes certain possibilities for action, and we have to choose from among those possibilities. The grounds of choice sooner or lafer—and sooner is better—must match up with just what the highest interests of a creature of a certain kind are. For the puppy in front of us, the stick in the air may qualify; given our own nature, it could be the book in our laps, but for the creature whose interests are not served by his {rational} actions, survival is in doubt, and the world becomes a perilous place {jungle}. 
 

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.  TTP3:XII(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        Constitution
          or military law. No explanation of  the  law or command is given; 
         nor any philosophy expounded; just do it—or else.  

3.17.  1P18:62—Cause 

G-D is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.  

3.18.  G:Shirley:2512 - Cause (causa).

"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 Appendix
to   Part I  Spinoza  explicitly claims  that  final  causes  are 
human fictions.  

The  phrases  "immanent  cause"  (causa  immanens) 
and "transitive cause" (causa transiens) appear in E1:XVIII. 
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 "in- 
dwelling 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 never- 
theless 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 God as the creative, tran- 
scendent  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."       Logos - 1 John 1:1 

3.19.  Letter 21(73):298—Pantheism—G-d—Schechinah.

The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the 
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus  the  unity  ]identification[   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 indivisible infinity. That is 
Spinoza's pantheism—G-d.}  

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: ....         The God Gene

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      Law of Organisms
          organism's  perpetuation.   Enlightened  self-interest  is the better 
          reason  for  obeying  the  command,  not  fear  of  punishment.  
 

3.22.  Letter 25(78):306— 

                 "But," you urge, "if men sin from the necessity of their nature,           human action
                  they are therefore excusable."  

3.22a.  The  Hebrew  word  translated  as sin is khate, Strong:2399—      Bad data base
            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        Durant:185
            fever)— by incarceration (or quarantine) and attempts to cure
            by  removing  the  causes  (slums, etc.)  or  by  re-training, i.e.
           re-programming the data base. 

3.23.  TTP3:XIV(17):183— 

"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        Spinozistic Idea
          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.      {Din Medinah Din—
          When   modern   Hebrew  had  to  coin  a  word for "religion" they     The law of a righteous
          chose  the  word  (daht) whose root is "knowledge",  Strong:1847    government is the Law.}
          from 3045.   

3.25a.  From The Teaching Company's Prof. Ruderman's Jewish Intellectual Lectures;
               Transcript Book 1; Page 10—Constitution: 

As you will see, losing that corporate status is a function of the modern era. In the pre-modern world, the nature of Jewish religious affiliation is all-embracing. Jews think about their law not only in terms of their personal lives but how it affects their profession and their community. The entire calendar of the Jewish year, the entire moment that Jews give birth to the time they die, is recognized through a corporate structure of Jewish law. Religion, therefore, is not compartmentalized as we know it today, but indeed is {was} an all embracing kind of affiliation. {in a wider sense, since Religion is an hypothesis designed to get peace-of-mind, anything you do, you do because you think it will bring you peace-of-mind. Spinozistically; Religion, therefore, is not really compartmentalized.}

3.26.  From "Jews, God and History", ISBN 0451628667, Page 368. 

The  founding  fathers and the American people had a steadfast 
belief  in  the {Hebrew Bible}.  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     Din Medinah Din
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     TTP4:17(50):219
            peace-of-mind is their constitution—government. Without it, there             3.1b 
            is no army,  no police,  no fire department,  no schools, no water   
            no garbage collection,  etc., etc., etc.  In truth, our real religion is           Runes 9 
            our government—for it brings us the major part of our peace-of-mind.   Hierachies 

From Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking The Spell; Religion as a Natural Phenomenon; 2006; ISBN 067003472X; pp. 160-1—Our real religion is our constitution; the way
we live:  

.... Unless somebody publishes a study that surprises us all, we take for granted that the common lore we get from our elders and others is correct. And we are wise to do so; we need huge amounts of common knowledge to guide our way through life, and there is no time to sort through all of it, testing every item for soundness. And so, in a tribal society {us} in which "everyone knows" that you need to sacrifice a goat {go to an obstetrician} in order to have a healthy baby, you make sure that you sacrifice a goat {go to an obstetrician}. Better safe than sorry. 

This feature marks a profound difference between folk {real} religion and organized Religion: those who practice a folk {real} religion don't think of  themselves as practicing a religion at all. Their "religious" practices are a seamless part of their practical lives, alongside their hunting and gathering or tilling and harvesting. And one way to tell that they really believe in the {anthropomorphic} deities to which they make their sacrifices is that they aren't forever talking about how much they believe in their deities—any more than you and I go around assuring each other that we believe in germs and atoms. Where there is no ambient doubt to speak of, there is no need to speak of faith. 

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). 

3.26b.  All  organizations  (or organisms)  have  a  certain percentage of 
           corruption (disease). All machines have less than 100% efficiency.       Millennium 
           It  is  only  vital  if  that  percentage is large enough to make that 
           organization extinct or machine useless.  Law of Organisms.

3.26c. All  organizations  have hierachies and holidays: 

United States            Catholic Church                        Our Real Religion
         I                                   I
   President                       Pope
         I                                   I
   Senate                        Cardinals
         I                                   I
Congressman                   Bishop
         I                                   I
   July 4th                       Christmas                                            Holidays 

3.27.  The  Hebrew  word  for  worship  is av-o-daw ', Strong:5656—                  Prof. Hall:79 
          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 enlight- 
          ened 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 derogatory    Dawkins129:Genes[4]
          of  either  Pantheon. It is the evolution of the hypothesis of Religion     Evolving Holidays
          to  purer  and  purer  Monotheism—from  the fetish of a caveman to 
          an  unadulterated  Monotheism to  One  World.   Dawkins129:Culture          Durant:367

3.28a.  god(s) — Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry, Myth. 
            God—Monotheistic; Judeo-Christian-Islamic Anthropomorphic, Transcendent God 
            G-D or G-d — Monotheistic; Spinoza's Immanent, Indwelling G-D. Spinoza's G-D
         {Spelling changes not made consistently.}    Prof. Hall:51, Prof. Hall:79, Spinoza's Religion,
            'G-D', Being, and 'Nature' are interchangeable.   Deus sive Natura, D2:Spinoza's Meaning
            'G-d', being, and 'nature' are interchangeable.    Mode, Spinoza's Pantheism—G-d.  
             I use the words 'G-D', 'Thou' - 'thee', 'Deus', and 'Nature' interchangeably.

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.  

3.28c.  By Spinoza's redefining God, a theistic world view and a non-theistic world
            view  (G-D—chain of natural events) can be synthesized. 

3.28d.  From The Teaching Company's Prof. Ruderman's Jewish Intellectual Lectures;
            Transcript Book 1; Page 2—Evolution. 

After carefully describing the broad setting of modern Jewish life, the course initially looks backward at several radical changes that affected Jewish life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, establishing the context for Benedict Spinoza and his devastating {In the sense that Copernicus devastated Ptolemy. Study 1D6 = ONE to see the evolvment.} assault on the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity {in millennia}. In some sense, the lectures that follow offer a series of responses to Spinoza's challenge regarding the viability of Judaism in the modern era.

 
3.29.  Religion is an hypothesis that constantly evolves to purer and purer forms 
          of monotheism. As an example, study how Holiday themes  were  re-inter-     Synthesis
          preted 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. 
         
                       PAGAN                                       JUDAISM                     CHRISTIANITY               UNIVERSAL RELIGION
 
               CELEBRATION OF LIGHT.                                 LIGHTING THE MENORAH             CHRISTMAS LIGHTS                              LIGHTS
         NOT LOSING THE SUN FOREVER.                                      & GIFTS                                      & GIFTS                                         &  GIFTS      
Pagan Winter Solstice Festival -----> Hanukkah --------> Christmas------> Nature Renewal Day

       RENEWAL AND PLANTING                                                   FREEDOM                          RESURRECTION                           FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY
Pagan Spring Festival ----------------> Passover ----------> Easter----------->  Man Renewal Day

                   TIME FOR                                                        DESCENT OF THE LAW                 DESCENT OF THE                 UNITED STATES OF THE WORLD
    PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION                                            ON MT. SINAI                              HOLY SPIRIT                                CONSTITUTION DAY
Pagan Free Time? Festival --------------> Shavuoth----------> Pentecost------->  United Nations Day
    Between Planting and Harvesting
                CELEBRATION                                                 HARVESTING BOOTHS                            FEASTING                          FEASTING and FORGIVING  
Pagan Harvest Festival --------------> Sukkoth-----------> Thanksgiving------->  Thanksgiving

3.30.  Psalm 92:13, 14, & 15:

13. The righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree;                      Spinoza
      He shall grow like a cedar of Lebanon.

14. Planted (posit-rooted) in the house of the Lord,
      They shall flourish (true productivity) in the
                   courts (work-a-day world) of our G-D,

15. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age;                               Einstein
      They shall be full of sap and richness.

3.31.  I conjecture that the Judaic-Christian God will, in millennium, be overcome by
          the United States of the World and Universal Religion (G-D).

3.32.  Scarcity (oil, for example) causes most dysfunctional practices (war); it cannot
          be avoided until there will be sufficient technological advancement and an
          effective United States of the World. In the meantime however, G-D as a Religion
          is more efficacious (has more cash value) than God, in that G-D stresses the           organic interdependence of all parts of the Universe.

3.33. From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press;
                  18th Printing; 1965; Page 513—William James on Religious Paradigm Shifts. 

A philosophy {or a Religion} may be unimpeachable in other respects, but either of two defects will be fatal to its universal adoption. First, its ultimate principle must not be one that essentially baffles and disappoints our dearest desires {for Peace of Mind} and most cherished hopes.... But a second and worse defect in a philosophy {or a Religion} than contradicting our active propensities {for seeking Peace of Mind} is to give them no object whatever to press against {such as evolving more rapidly to a World State and Universal Religion}. A philosophy whose principle is so incommensurate with our most intimate powers as to deny them all relevancy in universal affairs, as to annihilate their motives at one blow, will be even more unpopular than pessimism. . . . That is why materialism {or atheism} will always fail of universal adoption. {Intellectual love of G-D}

3.34. Morality, Spinoza's Religion, 

Morality is to act so as to enhance G-D, the organism of which you are a part. 

RH—enhance 1. to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify. 2. to increase the value, attractiveness, or quality of; improve. 3. to provide with more complex or sophisticated features, as a computer program.

3.35. Prof. Hall's Philosophy of Religion Lecture 34 - TB3:123—{Organic Interdependence} 

[1] There's another motivational package in there, I think. This is subtler, but I think it's there—I want us to keep our eye on it—that is, in the context of the religious stories, and I think particularly of stories in the Judeo-Christian tradition (they're the ones I'm most familiar with), but I'll bet they're there in the Muslim tradition as well, I just don't know firsthand. I think of those stories that talk to us again and again and again about how we are all God's children, we are all brothers and sisters, that we are all part of a family, and I underscore "all—{in G-D}."

[2] There is a line in the New Testament—when I was 14, I could have told you chapter and verse; I can't do that anymore—that says that there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. We are all together and the same. If one seizes a hold of that in the stories, what that can do is change the way we perceive one another, and, if we change the way we perceive one another, our behavior towards one another may be altered, not out of fear of punishment and not out of greed for reward but out of genuine improved insight into the nature of human nature and the common lot which we all share. {This is what Enlightenment is.} 

[3] You cannot look at a person of another race or ethnicity or even, for that matter, a person of another religious faith or tradition, you cannot look at them, keeping in mind neither slave nor free, male nor female—keeping that in mind—and see them the way you have always seen them {with fences}. This, I think, is why religious people have, again and again, been driven by a concern for human welfare that is driven by an understanding of our oneness in the human family—to go half-way around the world and work in leper colonies and build hospitals and feed the hungry and to do all of those good things—because we see ourselves as part of a common family. That is part of the motivational package in the religious stories that strikes me as positive and worthwhile—and altogether decent. {Wolfson:2:288}

3.36. Prof. Oden's The Teaching Company's "God and Mankind: Comparative Religions"          Lecture One:1A1-CG1:3—What is Religion? 

{Religion is an hypothesis designed to achieve Peace of Mind.} 

Lecture One:5A-CG1:5. None of these four approaches, or any other one, has been able to explain all the fundamental questions about religion. 

{I believe that the above hypothesis explains the fundamental question about all religions—seeking
Peace of Mind.}
 

End: Religion
 

 
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. 
      Fences destroy "I-thee" relationships.  

4.2a.  An "I-Thou" relationship implicates the whole world (Martin Buber)
          Analogy—a single hair implicates the whole body.  

4.3.  The United Nations  is today  in  the  analogous  position  of The United    Durant:367
        States of America at the time of its founding and the Civil War. The USA     Daniel Webster
        had to overcome the power of the individual states to achieve the power 
        it  has  today.  The  United  Nations  will  likewise  overcome  the  power 
        of  the  sovereign  states  in time,  because  of  the inescapable trend of          Oil
        of history; opposers become irrelevant.  

4.4.  I believe socialism evolves as technological advancement and trade            Millennia
        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 evolv-
        ing  technological  advancement  making  products cheaper and main-    Marginal Value
        taining 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      Read and reread 
        management  and  not by their stock owners.  The self-interest of the   "The  Affluent Society"  
        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 Smith's Bk.XIA:109146— Synthesis.        Rosenberg:26, TTP1:Divine Law

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:110147}, 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:110148}. 

4.9.  From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing,         1965;  Page 190.

All political philosophy, Spinoza thinks, must grow out of a distinction between the natural {self-interest} and the moral order {enlighenment } — that is, between existence before, and existence after, the formation of organized societies. Spinoza supposes that men once lived in comparative isolation, without law or social organization; there were then, he says, no conceptions of right and wrong, justice or injustice; might and right were one. 

{See 4P37n2 and TP1:2:8:2.} 

We get an inkling of this law of nature, or this lawlessness of nature, by observing the behavior of states; "there is no altruism among nations," for there can be law and morality only where there is an accepted organization, a common and page 191 recognized authority. The "rights" of states are now what the "rights" of individuals used to be (and still often are), that is, they are mights, and the leading states, by some forgetful honesty of diplomats, are very properly called the "Great Powers." So it is too among species: there being no common organization, there is not among them any morality or law; each species does to the other what it wishes and can. {See 4P37n1; and 4App27.}

But among men, as mutual need begets mutual aid, this natural order of powers passes into a moral order of rights. "Since fear of solitude exists in all men, because no one in solitude is strong enough to defend himself and procure the necessaries of life, it follows that men by nature tend towards social organization {TP2:VI}." To guard against danger "the force or strength of one man would hardly suffice if men did not arrange mutual aid and exchange {4App28}." Men are not by nature, however, equipped for the mutual forbearance of social order; but danger begets association, which gradually nourishes and strengthens the social instincts: "men are not born for citizenship, but must be made fit for it {TP2:V}."  {Continue}      {Technological Advancement}

4.10. From Lederman and Hills "Symmety and the beautiful universe", 1591022428; 2004:          Page 54—Oil.  

Many of the challenges of paramount importance that are facing our civilization today {2005} revolve around the subject of energy. The reason for this is simple: energy is the primary commodity that we consume. Thus the causes of many wars and conflicts {such as Iraq} in which we find ourselves continually immersed have a basis in the need for an abundant and convenient form of energy. In modern times, this has been oil. Energy is the key to our economy and to our future, as well as to our political power and authority. The proper use of energy is, however, fundamental to the fate of our environment. One might say that the two most urgent issues confronting the human species are world overpopulation and energy policy, perhaps in that order, and they are inextricably intertwined. These are the two most difficult issues from the point of view of serious public-policy making—there's no evidence that they can be ameliorated by any nonviolent political system humans have yet designed.
 

End: One World
 

5.1.  No matter the World's evolutionary stage, because of man's desires, 
        he will always have wants {conatus},  hence problems. There are no       {'wants' drive
        ends; no attainment, only attaining because no change is boredom.            evolution}

      5.1.1.  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.     LeDoux96:129

        5.1.2.   Man's  social  organization  evolves over millenniums   just  as    Hampshire:209
      homo sapiens evolved.   It will take millenniums to evolve to the World     Daniel Webster 
      State I conjectured. Technological advancement and natural selection,      Hall:3:16 
      despite  all  the eddy currents, dictate it. To say 'Millenniums' is to say        Conclusion 
      that the coming of the messianic age is a matter of Darwinian natural    Dawkins192:Genes
      selection. 

       The power of Judaism is Certainty the Messiah will come: 
          Establishes the logic to make it happen faster; not randomly.   

      The power of Christianity is Certainty the Messiah has come:              Wall Street 
      The Second Coming brings it back to Judaic thought.

5.1.3.  If social changes happen quickly it gives rise to the totali-                 Evolution
tarianism of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, or Saddam Hussein.
When people would not accept their utopian (any visionary system of
political or social perfection)  idea, the people were forced to accept it or
be killed

 
       What then is Man to do?—Follow Spinoza's Doctrine and: 

5.1a.  E5:X(5):252—Right Way of Living                                   Durant2:648

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, ....                                TEI:Method, E4:Appendix.  


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 there can be no praise, no blame. 
 
         Spinoza's Doctrine—No free-will; Man is a Computerized Machine.      Mark Twain
            therefore
         Spinoza's Dictum—Leads to 'no praise, no blame' of anyone.               John Dewey 

               "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail,   Hampshire—condemn
                not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."   

                                                                                                                                     
           {This is not altruistic, for there is no such thing as altruism (by hypothesis);               Mark Twain
            but for achieving the peace-of-mind that comes with understanding. Thus, like 
            a Religion, the dictum is an hypothesis designed to achieve peace-of-mind. 

            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.}