SPINOZISTIC
IDEAS
Dedicated to Spinoza's
Insights
Love and Hate - Self-Interest
Religion - One
World - Conclusion
Spinozistic
Contributions to Wikipedia
Home Page -
Spinozistic Glossary and Index -
Mark Twain and Spinoza
Spinozistic Scriptural Interpretation -
Graetz's Censure of Spinoza - Durant's
Tribute
Browser Notes—Use
800 x 600 resolution and medium
size text for all pages.
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.
In many contexts the term "idea"
has the meaning of judgment, or
assertion. Accordingly,
"idea" is for Spinoza closer in signification
to the term "proposition" than
to such terms as "concept" or "notion."
Ideas will then be true or false
{subject
to intense scrutiny}.
1.1. The definitions
as given in the dictionaries are the
everyday
language
usage, and are generally synonyms or
properties of the 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).
°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.
1.10d1. °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.
1.17b. From Shirley's Bk. VII:2719—Virtue (virtus)
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. &n