SPINOZISTIC  DIALOGUE - 1
 
Dedicated to Spinoza's Insights


ACT 1 – DEFINITIONS

Setting
Scene 1 - Perpetuation
Scene 2 - Emotion
Scene 3 - Faith
Endnotes

IntroductionPurpose - Browser Notes
Glossary and Index - Citation Abbreviations







ACT 1 – DEFINITIONS

Scene 1 – PERPETUATION



Setting:

The  living  room of a middle class Jewish engineer.  He is in the fifth day          Mark Twain 
of the seven days of deep mourning the death of his father.  He has been        Aged Parents 
reading the Bible.  His wife and a Friend are seated nearby.


In keeping with Jewish custom:

Cast of characters:

1.1 F: It  must  be  very tiring to have callers over a seven day
period.
1.1a W: It is, but it is a wonderful custom and, I think, psycholog-
ically sound.
1.1b M: I am tired but it has been a comfort to us.
1.1c W: I  am  exhausted from these past five hectic days.  You
know, (turning to M) I'm surprised at the traditional way
you have been observing your father's mourning period.
1.1d M: It surprises me too. I have been thinking about it.
1.1e F: I would never have expected to see you in a skull cap,
sitting on a mourner's bench, reading the Bible.
1.1f M: I don't know why it is, but I feel the need for these cus-
toms,  the callers, the Bible, – and yes, Religion.  I am
perplexed,  I can't say I believe and yet, I act as if I do.
1.1g W: You  probably  feel  that your father would want you to
do what you're doing, and out of respect to his memory
you do it.


Rabbi enters room:

1.2 M: Rabbi.
   
1.2a R: Please  accept  my condolences and sympathy in your
loss.  I brought you Job to read.
   
1.2b M: Thanks  Rabbi.   Fitting  that you should bring Job just
now.   My  wife  and  I have just been talking about my
turning  to  my  remembered  religious  customs  in
 my
grief.  It has me puzzled.
   
1.2c R: Has  you  puzzled?   I  don't  know  why it should,  its a common enough occurrence.
   
1.2d M: I mean "why?".
   
   
1.3 R: Oh!  Why.  Define  religion and I think you'll have your
answer.
   
G:Note 1
1.3a M: Define  religion!  Go  to  the  dictionary and the Bible –
isn't that enough?
   
1.3b R: Study Spinoza and find out it's not that simple.
   
1.3c F: Who is Spinoza?
   
1.3d R: He  was  a  Spanish-Jewish  philosopher  who  lived
1632 to 1677.
   
   
1.4 M: How would you define "religion?"
   
G:Note 1
1.4a R: Do  you  remember  when  we  studied  geometry;  we
started  with  simple  theorems  based  on  taken-for-
granted  axioms,  and  then  gradually arrived at more
complex  theorems  and  corollaries.  In the same way,
religion being a complex proposition, an understanding
of it grows from a series of simpler propositions and de-
finitions,  all  growing in turn from a fundamental axiom.
   
I:1.3
I:1.4
1.4b W: Sounds complicated.
   
1.4c R: Not  if  the  ideas are clear and distinct, but it takes the
disciplined thinking of Mathematics.
   
1.4d F: You used the word "theorem" and then used "proposi-
tion" – are they interchangeable?
   
I:1.3
1.4e R: Yes. I think they are equivalent.
   
      
1.5 W: Mathematics?   Religion  is  G-D, love, joy, immortality;
I don't see it as a formula.
   
I:1.3
1.5a R: You  are  right,  not  a  formula,  but  a disciplined way
of defining and building understanding.

So,  as  I  said,  before defining "Religion", many other
words  need  to  be  defined,  if  the  discipline  of  the
Euclidean format is to be followed.
   

D:1.4a
    
1.6 R: (Pauses) Define "JOY, BOREDOM, SORROW."
Spinoza defined them all with one definition. See
if you can. 1.26a
   
I:1.1
I:Table 2
C:Table 1
1.6a W: Feelings like "elation, delight, pleased, bored,
displeased, anguish, panic?"
   
G:°JOY
1.6b R: These are all synonyms or properties
define them.
   
I:1.1b
1.6c M: You said before that the definitions are based
on an axiom.  Shouldn't we find that first?
   
D:1.3
1.6d R: That's right.  The axiom causes "these feelings",
and is therefore the measuring yardstick.
   
I:1.4
1.6e M: (After trying ) Only gives us the axiom,
I want to keep trying.
   

   
1.7 R: OK.  The axiom is that your instinct is to
perpetuate yourself—to be.  Conatus.
   
I:1.4
I:Table 1
1.7a M: I guess that's OK, but what about a hero who
gets himself killed?
   
I:1.5b
1.7b R: PERPETUATION includes in addition to your
finite  life  the  extension of your memory and
influence after your death.  A hero is perpetu-
ated  by  his  glorification, or more profoundly,
the preservation of his society.
   
G:Note 8
I:1.5, D:1.9a
Rational
TEI:[109]:40


1.7c M: I don't think he is conscious of such motives.
   
D:1.8c
1.7d R: Most actions are unconsciously motivated;
they are done by instinct.  If not, the species
would not persist.
   
Conatus
   
1.8 F: I still don't get the idea of PERPETUATION.
   
G:Note 2
1.8a R: Most  people are perpetuated mainly through their
children.  Some try to achieve it through their work,
inventions, poetry, writings; witness Spinoza being
studied  after  300 years; witness Mother Theresa.
   
I:1.5b
Altruism
D:1.32a
Ambition
1.8b M: "Try to achieve!"  I don't think Spinoza or Mother
Theresa  were  thinking  of  PERPETUATION.
  
1.8c R: Perhaps not consciously, but unconsciously, instinc-
tively.  A salmon that goes upstream, spawns, and
dies is acting instinctively to perpetuate its genes and incidentally, its species. Religious philosophers say we
seek eternal life—immortality.
   
I:1.5a
D:1.7b,d
Conatus
   
1.9 W: How about a suicide – doesn't that contradict the
axiom?  E4:XVIII(9):201 , E4:XX(3):203
   
D:1.32a
1.9a R: Yes it does, as I stated it; let me restate it.  When
rational,  everyone  is  determined  to perpetuate
themselves.   Let's  defer "suicides" until after we
have defined "RATIONAL" and "irrational."
  
I:1.4a
1.9b SS How does loving a piece of music or a flower, help to
perpetuate yourself?
   
1.9c R You have hit on a subject I have long pondered.

I think the answer to your question might be in the
hypothesis of 'aesthetics' which is: Aesthetics is the
peace-of-mind brought by symbolized beauty.

Thus, a piece of music or a flower, symbolizes for us,
order, harmony, rebirth, organic totality, etc.
  


Get into the conversation on PERPETUATION by e-mail.




ACT 1 – DEFINITIONS

Scene 2 – EMOTION



1.10 R: Let's get back to defining "JOY, BOREDOM, SORROW."
   
D:1.6
1.10a W: It must have something to do with whether or not you
succeed in perpetuating yourself.
   
I:1.6
TEI:[109]:40
1.10b R: That's it.  When you judge that a change in your ability
to perpetuate yourself has occurred, is it not EMOTION
you   feel?    It   can   be   positive  (°JOY)  or  negative
SORROW),  depending  on  whether  you  judge   an
increase or decrease.
   
Judging
D:1.17
G:Sin
°
Conatus

1.10c M: I don't quite understand that.
   
1.10d R: Well the ability to perpetuate yourself will depend upon
the degree of perfection (°P) of your attributes.    If you
judge your eyesight has improved, that's positive (JOY)
because your chances of living longer are better.  If you
judge  your  eyesight has gotten worse, that's negative
(SORROW) because your chances of living longer are
worse.
   
Attribute -
in its common
meaning
      
1.11 M: Again, not necessarily consciously, but instinctively.
   
1.11a R: Right.  You are continually passing judgment on how
changes  in  your °P of an attribute affects your ability
to  perpetuate yourself.  At any one instant you will be
making   the  judgment  with  respect  to  a  point  of
reference
 of one particular attribute.  Your reaction to
that  particular  judgment  is  your EMOTIONAL state
at  that  instant  and is subject to change the very next
instant.
   
Judging
C:Fig.2
D:1.17
D:1.18
Determination
E3:LI:163
E5:Endnote 18:3

E1:Bk.VII:609
1.11b W: Give an example.
   
1.11c R: You  are  hungry  and  are  happy  as  you start to eat.
As  you  keep  eating  you  reach  a  point  of satiation
and  then  as  you  get  stuffed  you  become unhappy.

The  attribute is your stomach – the point of reference,
how full it is at the instant of judgment.
   

D:I:1.6
   
1.12 M: You said something about measuring the intensity
of the EMOTION. How?
    
1.12a R: Let me first restate the definition this way—EMOTION
is a change in °P.  Now I add—It's intensity is
proportional to the change.

As analogy: VELOCITY is a change in DISTANCE
per unit time, its intensity is proportional to the change.
   
I:1.6
I:Table 2
1.12b W: In the example, the more hungry you are, the more
enjoyment; the more you get sick to your stomach,
the more sorrow—loathing.
   
D:1.11c
1.12c R: EMOTION  is  a  spectrum;  "from  the greatest JOY
through   BOREDOM   to   the  deepest  SORROW"
its array of colors (positive and negative intensities).
   
I:1.6a
C:(a)
  
1.13 R: Again now, how would you define "JOY?"
   
D:I:1.3c
1.13a F: JOY is a good feeling when something good
happens to you.
   
1.13b W: No, In the light of the way Spinoza defined EMOTION,
that  is  not  a  definition. You would have to say what
"good"  is. JOY is having a child, a nice home, getting
a raise, or a shoe shine.
   
1.13c R: (looking toward W) Your definition is better, but they
are only special cases of a general case. What is
common to them all?
   
1.13d R: (Pause)  JOY  is judging that you are undergoing an in-
crease in °P.  Its intensity is proportional to the increase.

       Note that the judgment may be wrong—due to lack        of knowledge or irrationality.  A  drug-addict  judges
       that his fix brings him joy. 

"JOY" is EMOTION with positive changes. Spinoza put
it  this  way  "Pleasure is the transition of a man from a
less to a greater perfection."
   

Intro.


TEI:[17:4]
AA creed


HirPs 1:1
Happy
1.13e W: What  do  you mean when you call Spinoza's definition
the  general  case  of  the  special  cases I mentioned?
   
I:1.3c
1.13f R: Well  having  a new child, a nice home, getting a raise,
or  a  shoe  shine,  all  increase °P, but there are many
others.  Spinoza's definition includes them all.
   
G:°JOY
    
1.14 M: "Degree of perfection (°P)" is not clear to me.
   
I:1.4b
1.14a R: I should say the °P of an attribute.  It is these "degrees
of  perfection"  of the attributes which further (or other-
wise) your chances of perpetuating yourself.
   
1.14b M: Give an example.
   
1.14c R: An improvement of eyesight is an increase in the °P of the attribute of sight.  This improvement increases the
probability of continued existence.  The greater the im-
provement,  the  more  intense  the "JOY" for the prob-
ability is greater.
   
1.14d F: I  see  now  how  the  axiom  is  the  foundation  stone.
   
1.14e R: Yes.   Variation  in  intensities  of  JOY  are caused by
more  or  less  improvement  of  the  same attribute as
in  the  eyesight  example  or  by  comparison  of  im-
provements  of  different  attributes.   Getting  a  shoe-
shine  would  cause  a  
minor JOY; a successful heart
operation a major JOY—elation.
   
C:Fig.1(a)
   
1.15 R: Next is "SORROW."
   
1.15a M: It must be the reverse of JOY.  EMOTION with a
negative change – a decrease in PERPETUATION.
   
1.15b R: Right.  SORROW.  Losing a child, a father,
being fired, a shoe muddied, all cause
SORROW in its varying degrees.
   
D:1.13b
D:1.13f
   
1.16 M: How does the loss of my father decrease my
chances of PERPETUATION?  First my grief
is mitigated by his no longer suffering terrible
pain; second, I have a rich inheritance.
   
1.16a R: Good question.  Unless there be confusion,
your mind can only be occupied by one idea
(judgment) at any one instant.
   
D:1.17
   
1.17 R: So at any one instant, you make a judgment
with respect to a given reference point.  When
you judged "mitigated", at that instant it was a
JOY  because  your  reference point was pain.
When you made the inheritance judgment that
was  a  JOY,  and  the  more  you  needed the
money, the more the JOY.  C:Fig.1(a)
   
D:1.10d
D:1.16
D:1.11c
D:1.24d
I:1.3c
D:1.11a
E5:Endnote 18:3

1.17a M: Is this what you mean by the constantly changing
EMOTIONS?
   
1.17b R: Yes.  I  also  said  in   its  varying  degrees.   With
respect to an elderly father it is in relatively small
degree.   Which  is a greater tragedy, the loss by
accident of a healthy, promising child or an elderly,
sickly parent racked with pain?
   
1.17c M: Of course the child is the greater tragedy.
   
1.17d R: But there is the grief that stems from a "LOVE"
lost.   Let  me  defer  that  until after Spinoza's
definition of "LOVE."
   
D:1.33
1.17e W: I think it is based on "JOY".
   
   
1.18 R: Let  me  restate the definition for "SORROW" in the
language used for "JOY."  SORROW is judging that
you  are  undergoing a decrease in °P.  Its intensity
is proportional to the decrease.

Quoting Spinoza "Pain is the transition of a man
from a greater to a less perfection."
   

D:1.11a



E3:Def.III
1.18a M: I see now what you meant when you said these
definitions are set up like a Euclidean geometry,
one definition being based on the last.

    
1.19 R: Now I give the definition, you give the word.
What is no change in °P?
   
1.19a M: It must be something at the instant in which JOY
changes to SORROW or vice versa.  Like a ball
thrown upward when it changes from up to down.
Or better yet, when no change occurs at all.
   
1.19b R: That's it.  What's the word?
   
1.19c F: "BOREDOM", "ennui"?
   
1.19d R: Right.  BOREDOM is no change in °P.

You seldom think about your eyesight.  Why?
Because unless it has changed, its boring—
nothing new.
   

   
1.20 W: How can you be bored about your eyesight?
   
1.20a R: Your  question  implies  the thought "how wonderful
it  is  to  be  able to  see" – no  matter how constant
the °P; you are right, that is JOY.  But at that instant
you  are  judging  with  respect  to blindness, almost
zero °P, and then any greater degree is a JOY.
   
   
1.21 M: "BOREDOM", implies a length of time.  The way you
defined it and the example I gave with the flight of a
ball, implies an instant of time.
   
D:1.19a
1.21a R: "Boredom" in everyday language, implies lasting
in time.  It is more accurate, after the first instant,
to call it "SORROW."
   
D:1.36e
1.21b W: Why?
   
1.21c R: Since  we  are  in  the constant process of dying.
"No change" is only apparent.  The deterioration
soon  becomes  subconsciously  felt;  this  then
is "SORROW".
   
I:1.6b
D:1.37a
JOY
1.21d SS: An unused muscle, atrophies.
   
   
1.22 R: You now see that "EMOTION" is a spectrum
ranging  from  the  greatest  JOY  through
BOREDOM to the deepest SORROW and
vice versa:  all  based  on  the fundamental
axiom—to be.
   
I:1.6a
C:Fig.1(a)
1.22a M: That's beautiful; and that is Spinoza?
   
1.22b R: As I understand it; but you would have to dig
pretty much in his writings to dig it out.

   
G:Note 8
   

Get into the conversation on EMOTION by e-mail.




ACT 1 – DEFINITIONS

Scene 3 – FAITH

1.23 R: Define "LOVE, INDIFFERENCE, HATE."
   
I:1.7
C:Table 1
1.23a W: They must have something to do with whether
or  not  you  succeed  in perpetuating yourself.
    
Conatus
D:1.2
1.23b R: That's it.  When you believe that an external
object  will  cause a change in your ability to
to perpetuate  yourself,   that's  FAITH;  be it
positive (°LOVE) or negative (°HATE).
   
I:Table 1
I:Table 3

°
1.23c M: I don't quite understand that.
   
 
1.23d R: ACCELERATION  of  your  car,  is  caused by an
external object, more gas.  Deceleration, less gas.

Increasing your °P, also requires an external
object  to  cause  such  increase.  When you
engage a doctor, it is an act of FAITH that he
will help, not harm.
   

I:Table 3,

I:1.12a
C:(b)

   
1.24 M: Again, not necessarily consciously, but instinctively.
   
 
1.24a R: Right.  You  are  continually passing judgment
on  how  external  objects  affect  your ability to
perpetuate  yourself.   At  any  one instant  you
judge  with  respect  to  one  point of reference.
Your reaction to that particular judgment is your
FAITH at that instant and is subject to change the
very next instant.
   
E5:Endnote 18:3

D:1.17
D:1.11a
3P38
1.24b W: Give an example.
   
 
1.24c R: When  very  hungry,  you  LOVE  the food as you
start to eat.  As you keep eating you reach a point
of  satiation,  and  become  INDIFFERENT to the
food.   And  then,  as  you  get  over-stuffed  you
become to HATE (loath) the food.
   
C:Fig.1(b)
1.24d F: What do you mean by "point of reference?"
   
D:1.24a
D:1.17
1.24e R: In the example with the food, the point of
reference  is  the fullness of the stomach.
The more empty, the more you LOVE the
food; the more stuffed, the more you
HATE the food.
   
D:2.20
   
1.25 M: You said something about measuring the
intensity of the FAITH.  How?
   
 
1.25a R: Let me first restate the definition this way—
FAITH is belief that an external object will
cause  a  change  in  °P.  Now I add – It's
intensity  is  proportional  to  the  change
hoped for or feared.

As analogy: ACCELERATION is a change
in VELOCITY per unit time; its intensity is
proportional to the change.
   

I:Table 3
D:1.30a
1.26 R: FAITH is a spectrum; its array of colors (positive
and  negative  intensities)  is  from the greatest
LOVE, through INDIFFERENCE, to the deepest
HATE.
   
I:Table 3
C:Fig.1(b)
1.26a W: We don't use "faith" like that in everyday usage.
Your definition includes "lack of faith."
   
G:°FAITH
1.26b R: Right - this is a semantic difficulty.   When I define
FAITH it is as a technical definition, say like letting
x=y  in  algebra;  it  thus  includes  positive  and
negative  aspects.   The  everyday  use  of "faith"
usually includes only the positive aspects.

Incidentally, that goes for all the other words
defined.
     
G:Note 2
G:°LOVE
1.27  R: Again now, define LOVE?
   
 
1.27a F: LOVE is a good feeling toward someone
doing good for you.
   
G:Note 1
1.27b W: No.  In the light of the way Spinoza defined JOY,
that  is  not  a definition.  You would have to say
what "good" is. LOVE is what you feel for a child,
a  nice  home,  or for your boss who gave you a
raise,  or  for  the  shoeshine  boy  who  shined
your shoes.
   
D:1.13d
1.27c R: (looking  toward  W)  Your  definition is better,
but they state only special cases of a general
case.  What is common to them all?
G:°LOVE
1.27d R: (Pause) LOVE is belief that an external object
will cause an increase in °P.  The intensity is
proportional to the increase hoped for.  

LOVE is FAITH with positive changes.  Spinoza
put it this way "Love is pleasure accompanied
by the idea
{awareness} of an external cause."
   
D:1.30



E3:Def.IV

HirLev 19:18

    
1.28 Why must there be awareness?
   
 
1.28a R: If someone gave you a 100 dollar bill, you would
LOVE that person; if you found a 100 dollar bill,
there would be no one to LOVE, except maybe
the 100 dollar bill itself.
   
 
1.28b W: Why do you say "hoped for?"  I have the love of
my husband, I don't have to hope for it.
    
D:1.27d
1.28c R: You don't!  Taking a loved one "for granted" is
why so many marriages are in trouble.

Taking someone for granted is being bored with
that person at that instant.
   

I:1.13A
Altruism
   
1.29 W: What do you mean when you call Spinoza's
definition  the  general  case  of the special
cases I mentioned?
   
attempt
1.29a R: Well when you said loving a child, a nice home,
a  boss,  or  a  shoeshine  boy,  all are positive
aspects  of  FAITH,  but there are many others.
Spinoza's definition includes them all, and also
all the negative aspects.
   
D:1.27b
C:Fig.1(b)
   
1.30 W: Your use of the term °P is still not clear to me
when you use it with respect to FAITH.  I think
I understood with respect to EMOTION. 1.9b.
   
D:1.25a
G:Note 2
C:Fig.1(a)
1.30a R: When  I explained it with respect to EMOTION,
I said "An improvement of your eyesight would
represent an increase in the °P of your attribute
of  sight.   This  improvement  increases  the
probability of your perpetuation. The greater the
improvement, the more intense the JOY for the
probability is further increased."  Now add "It is
an  external  object, the doctor, who caused the
improvement,  and  the  more improvement, the
more the LOVE for the doctor."
   
D:1.14
C:Fig.1(b)
   
1.31 R: The next word is HATE.
   
  
1.31a M: It  must  be  the  reverse  of  LOVE.  FAITH with
a negative change; a decrease in your chances
of achieving immortality.
   
G:°LOVE
1.31b R: Right.  HATE is belief that an external object
will cause a decrease in °P.  The intensity is
proportional to the decrease feared.
  
 
1.31c R: A  drunken  driver  hurting  your  child,  someone
burning  down  your  home,  your boss firing you,
someone stepping on your toe, are all SORROWS
in its varying degrees.  The thing common to them
is, as you say, that PERPETUATION is decreased.
The   external   objects   that  caused  the  above
SORROWS are all objects of HATE in its varying
degrees.
   
D:1.29
   
1.32 W: Rabbi, these definitions imply that there is no such
thing as altruism!
  
D:1.8a
D:1.34
1.32a R: I  think that is right.  Take even a "Mother Theresa",
she  certainly  is  achieving  more "immortality" than
most,  not  that she is consciously seeking to do so.

Her piety is a demonstration of organic interdepend-
ence
at work.

A  corpuscle  (if healthy) in a body is not altruistic
but practices enlightened self-interest. It takes what
it  needs  and  does its job; and in so doing ensures
its  own  existence.  The  rub  is  "if  healthy".   This
touches on  the  what  was  asked before about the
"suicide."  Again let's discuss this after "RATIONAL"
and  "irrational"  are  defined.
   

Charity
Pity
Mercy
Righteousness




   
1.33 R: (Looking at M)  You  asked  before  "How does the
loss   of   my   father   decrease   my   chances  of
PERPETUATION?   First,  my grief is mitigated by
his no longer suffering terrible pain; second, I have
a rich inheritance." Among other things, I answered
"But  there is the grief that stems from a LOVE lost".
   
D:1.16ff
1.33a R: The  grief  for  your father; or for me, the recent loss of
my beloved wife, stems from memories.  We remember
the good they did us, and the grief comes from realizing, unconsciously,  that  they are no longer here to provide
such good.
   
 
1.33b W: Rabbi, that's terrible!
   
Altuism
1.33c R: Only  if  its  selfishness.  If  we  did not reciprocate
with  enough  good for  them, they would withhold
their  good  from  us.  It is enlightened self-interest,
I am talking of. LOVE is no one-way street—you've
got  to  give,  to  get; and you've got to get, to give.
It  is  not  pejorative;  it  is  the nature of organisms.
If it is otherwise it is illness.
   
I:2.7d
1.33d W: Well, put that way, maybe.
   
 
   
1.34 F: About altruism, how about when you feel pity when
you see a cripple?
   
D:1.32
1.34a R: Pity?  Compassion,  LOVE,  are better.  Pity smacks
of  altruism  rather  than  duty.  The  Hebrew  word,
for pity, has as its root "the womb."   Genesis 43:30.
Based  on  this  etymology, it is what a mother feels
for  the  issue  of her womb.  This is what we should
feel for each other; LOVE, certainly varying in degree,
but not in kind.  It is not altruism, but the realization of
the  organic  interdependence  of parts necessary for PERPETUATION.
   
D:1.35a

HirPent:
Gn 43:14



Cash Value

   
1.35 F: How about when you give a coin to a beggar, isn't
that charity?
   
 Mark Twain
1.35a R: Charity?  Justice  is  better.  Charity  smacks of
altruism rather than duty.  The Hebrew word for
charity, has as its root "to be right, straight, true,
just.  Based  on  this  etymology,  it  is  what one
lung does when the other lung collapses.  It does
double duty for its very own survival.  That is the
way we should treat the poor, the disenfranchised,
It is not altruism, but the realization of the organic
interdependence  of  parts  necessary  for
PERPETUATION.
   
D:1.32
D:1.34a

HirPs 19:10
 

 
Biological
 

   
1.36 R: What is no change in FAITH?
   
 
1.36a M: The instant in which LOVE changes to HATE
or vice versa.
   
 
1.36b R: What's the word?
   
 
1.36c F: INDIFFERENCE?
   
 
1.36d R: Right. INDIFFERENCE is belief that an external
object will cause no change in °P.

You seldom think about your eye doctor.  Why?
Because unless your eyesight has changed for
the worse you don't need him.
   
I:Table 3
I:1.7b
1.36e W: How can you ever be INDIFFERENT to an eye doctor?
   
 
1.36f R: Your point of reference implies "when you need him";
you are right, then it is LOVE.
D:1.17
D:1.24d
C:Fig.1(b)
   
1.37 M: When we use the word indifference, it implies a length of time.  The  way  you  defined it, implies an instant of time.
   
 
1.37a R: INDIFFERENCE in everyday language, implies lasting in time.  It  is  more  accurate, after the first instant, to call it SORROW  and  HATE  if aware of the cause (waiting for someone)  or  just  SORROW  if  not aware of the cause.
   
D:1.21e
G:Note 2
   
1.38 R: You now see that FAITH is a spectrum ranging from
the greatest LOVE, through INDIFFERENCE, to the
deepest  HATE  and  vice  versa:  all  based  on the
fundamental axiom—to be.
   
I:Table 3
C:Fig.1(b)

Conatus


Get into the conversation on FAITH by e-mail.

1.39 R: Its getting late and I'm talked out. I better get going.
   
 
1.39a M: Rabbi, please come back tomorrow or when you
can, I want to know the definition of Religion.
   
D:1.3
1.39b R: Glad too.
   
1.39c W: Goodnight, Rabbi. Thanks.
   
1.39d R&
F
:
May  G-D  comfort  you  together  with  all
the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.
   


ENDNOTES: 
 
                                                                                                  
{ Psalm 1:1Orthodox versions read:
                                                            "Happy, (or Blessed), is the man ..." }
D:Endnote 1.13d— From HirPs 1:1 - "Forward strides that man ... "  

{ The root of awsh-ray' is aw-shar'; Strong:0833to be straight, level,
right, happy; fig. to go forward, be honest, prosper, be blessed, go,
guide, lead, relieve.
}

Awsh-ray'. On one hand the phonetic relationship of the root aw-shar' to:

would indicate a gathering, an accumulation of power and material goods

On the other hand,  there is the meaning of, "ash-shoor',  Strong:0838

"a step," ah-shar',  Strong:0833—to step forward, to "progress"    (Prov.
                                                  {
Ges:90 } 
4:14; 23:19),  as for example, ah-shay-rah', Strong:0839, a tree blossom-

ing forth under the protection of a deity.  This would indicate as the true

meaning for aw-shar' not the possession of faculties and material goods
     {
If the attained is °P, then the progress is the increase in °P. } 
already  attained,  but,  instead, the progress toward the eventual attain-

ment of such material and spiritual wealth.  It is "striding forward."  Even

the  relative  pronoun aw-sher', Strong:0834, which is used to introduce

the  predicate  to  a  subject  or  an  object, expresses a step forward in

thought,  "the vesting of an idea with an additional predicate,  its enrich-

ment  with  a  new characteristic.  Thus  awsh-ray'  denotes all possible

progress,  progress  in every respect.  "Striding forward," advancement

in  all  that which is desirable, is the basic motive and the goal of all the

thoughts and acts of men.

 
{HappyStrong:1525—ghee-law' joy, rejoicing.

 

                                                { Lev 19:18: ".... but thou shalt love thy neighbour
                                                                                as thyself: I am the LORD."
}
D:Endnote 1.27d—From HirPent: Lev 19:18 - "....but thou shalt love thy neighbour's
                                                                          well-being as t'were thine own: I am G-D.
"  

{ Heavily edited to reflect Spinozistic insights.  Compare with Jewish Orthodox original.} 

"... but thou shalt love thy neighbour's well-being..."  is the summarising           Golden Rule
                                                     { self-interest }
final maxim for the whole of our social behaviour,  in feelings, word and 
                                                                        {
 Analogy—you and your parts }
deed.  The  most  noble  fundamental  feeling
 towards G-D and Man is
Strong:0158       givingStrong:3051       { i.e., I give so that I may get }
Love.   It  is  yaw-hab'  with  the  individualising  prefix  'a',  and  means               
'I-thee'

equally giving oneself up for others and bringing others most intimately

near to oneself {in organic interdependence}.  Now here it does not say:
                                           {
the prefix indicates 'belong to' }
{ "thy neighbour", but says "thy
neighbor's well-being."} "Thy neighbour"
                                                      { ^ 
Strong:7453 }
would  entail  the  loving  of  the  person  of  our  neighbour  as  we love

ourselves  which  is practically impossible to carry out, and the demand
                                 {
as a commandment, duty }
is for such love to be given ^ to all our fellow-men.  But what it does say
                                                  {
It is thy own—both are organically parts of G-D. }
here is:—"thy  neighbour's  well-being as t'were thine own".  It is not the

person  himself,   but  everything  that  pertains  to  his  person,  all  the

conditions  of his life,  the weal and the woe which make up his position              
slums

in  the  world.  To this, his weal and his woe, we are to give our love as

if it were our own, we are to rejoice in his good fortune, and grieve over

his  misfortune  as  if  it  were  our  own.  We are to assist at everything

that  furthers  his  well-being  and  happiness  as if we were working for

ourselves,  and must keep trouble away from him as assiduously as if it

threatened  ourselves.  This  is  something  which  does  lie  within  our

possibilities,  and  is  something  which  is  required
 of us even towards

somebody  whose  personality may be actually highly antipathetic to us.
                                         {
need}
For  the  demand  of  this  love is something which lies quite outside the

sphere  of  the  personality  of our neighbour, is not based on any of his
                 {
analogy }
qualities. "I am G-D",  is given as the motive for this demand.  It is some-

thing  that  is expected  from us towards all our fellow-men in the Name
                                                              { 
Strong:7463—intertwined-friend }
of G-D,  Who has given all men the mutual calling of ray-im'.  Everyone
                                                                        
Strong:4829
is  to  find and recognize in everybody else his mir'eh, 'the pasturage of

his  life',  the furthering of his own well-being, the conditions for his own

happiness  in  life.  Nobody  may  look  on the progress of another as a

hindrance  to  his  own  progress,
 or look on the downfall of another as

the  means  for  his  own  rising,  and  nobody  may  rejoice  in  his own

progress  if it is at the expense of his neighbour's retardment. "Love thy

neighbour's well-being as t'were thine own
",  the
 spiritually and morally
                                             {
self-interest }
perfect man only loves his own well-being as serving the same purpose
                      {
 Analogy }
as that of his neighbour.  His own self-love, too, is only a consciousness
                                                       {
 partImportant }
of duty.  He sees in himself only a creation of G-D, entrusted to himself

to  attain  that  bodily,  mental  and  moral
 perfection for which G-D has
immanently }
   ^ designed him and placed him in his earthly existence, and for which
                                                  
Scriptures }
He had given him directions in His Torah.  In exactly the same way, and

from   the   same   consciousness   of  duty  he  directs  his  love  to the

well-being  of  his  neighbour,  loves  him  as  being  equally  a creation
                                                                                      {
organic parts }
of G-D.  He proclaims his love of G-D, by his love to His creatures.

          { 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. }



 
                                                                           { judgments }
D:Endnote 1.35a— From HirPs 19:10 - "..... the ordinances of the Lord are
                                                                truth, and they are universally just
."  

                            { ordinances, Ps.19:9-10 }
The  role  of the mish-paw-tim', Strong:4941, in communal co-existence
                                                     {
moral laws, Ex.18:20 } 
is the same as the function of the chukimStrong:2706, in the life of the

individual  person.   The chukim serve as guides in the individual life of

each  man.  They  point  out  to him the Divinely-set norms within which

all  his  aspirations,  
 even  his  physical  desires,  may  be  fulfilled  and
                                                      {
virtue } 
still  remain  within  the  bounds  of purity.  Any  act transgressing these
                                                                                   {
defiled, unclean } 
G-D-given  statutes  will  degrade  man to the level of taw-may' (Strong:
                                                                       {          
activeness        } 
2931)  at  which  the human being loses his morally  pure  freedom and
                                             {       
passiveness       }               { ordinances }
succumbs to the  yoke  of  his  unbridled passions.   The  mish-pawtim'

are the laws which provide this same guidance for  society  as  a whole.
pure, clean—Strong:2889 
Taw-hore',  moral  purity,  is  the principle that should rule individual life.
     Strong:6666 from 6663                             Strong:4941 
Tsed-aw-kaw', justice,  which  is  realized by mish-pawt', is the cardinal
   { 
incorrectly translated as 'charity' or 'altruism' }            { Strong:4941—ordinances } 
tenet that should govern society. We are told that the mish-paw-tay' of
Strong:3068    Short:0571                                                       
G-D  are  eh'meth, 'truth.'  They emanate from the objective truth inher-

ent in all things and persons, and serve as the expression of that truth.
 Strong:6666 from 6663    { Suggestion—An example of Hirsch's etymological analysis. } 
Tsed-aw-kaw', 'justice,' after all, is nothing else but the reciprocal claim
    { ^ 
righteousness }                                                               Strong:6663
inherent in the truth of persons and things.  The word tsaw-dak' itself is
                                                Strong:8367                     calm 
phonetically  related  to   shaw-thak'   'to  be  silent'  and  to shaw-dach,
                                        
to be quiet, at ease 
which is  the  Chaldean for  'to satisfy'  (see HirGen 15:6).  Through the

realization  of  tsaw-dak' all things will obtain their rightful due in accord-

ance with the truth of their nature and their behavior. Tsaw-dak
 'remains
calm, objective } 
silent';  it  has  nothing  to  say  concerning  its  portion;  it may raise no

claims  or
 objection regarding its just deserts.  Therefore the realization
       Strong:6663              judgmentStrong:8199                                             Strong:8239 
of  tsaw-dak is  in shaw-fat', which is phonetically related to shaw-fath'
                                                                     to ordain           { justice,  Strong:4941 }
'to  put  something  in  its place,'  'to arrange.' Mish-pawt' is the arrange-

ment  or  order  of  persons
 and things in accordance with the standard
     Strong:6664 
of  tse'-dek.   It  is  through  Mish-pawt'  that  everything  and  everyone
                    {  
organic   }                       { Analogy } 
attains  that  place  and  position  which  is  rightfully due  to  it or to him.
                    {  ^ 
This is the Cash Value of this Endnote^ } 

End



Since November 6, 1997 Act 1 hits.


SPINOZISTIC  DIALOGUE - 1
ACT 1 – DEFINITIONS 
Revised: March 9, 2005 


Act 2 - Hypotheses

HOME  PAGE

josephb@yesselman.com