A "REAL GOOD" having power to communicate itself...

Dear Donovan
Thanks for starting this up for us.

I would like to join in the discussion as well. I am not a deep
student of Spinoza nor of philosophy. I am a beginner as we will all
see.

I have read this beginning paragraph many times over the years and
certainly find it to be one of the most thrilling of opening lines in
all literature, not just in the field of Philosophy. It rings of the
opening lines of an adventure story, albeit, a Great Adventure.

Spinoza clearly says to me he is seeking something new in his life.
My question for the group rests in the middle of the paragraph where
Spinoza tells us he is seeking something that he describes as:

some real good having power to communicate itself

We may be able to leave the nature of A REAL GOOD to see later how
the story unfolds... BUT, what do you think he means by the phrase.

Having Power to communicate itself.

Thanks to all...dgf


**********************
I'm most grateful to have dbf contributing.  I'm still sort of biding time to gather in all interested parties, so in the meanwhile, I've written a bit in an endeavor to discuss dgf's question, which I think Spinoza will answer much better in due time as we get into the heart of the treatise.

The note to me was published originally on a web list which dgf and I subscribe to.  I place it here before you now because it is as germane as ever.  And here's to the GREAT ADVENTURE, which begins anew each moment.  This time around we may be able to learn more of what Spinoza means about this "Real Good" and its "power to communicate." My fingers keep wanting to type "Real God," as if my computer were a sort of Ouija Board. Hmmm, it is, come to think of it. The problem with the word "God" (one of them, anyway) is that it cannot be used correctly, because it sets off different associations in different people, some of whom end up wanting to kill each other.  Perhaps the Buddha and Jesus might walk along arm and arm talking about it, and meaning by "God," much the same Cosmic Omnipresence, but if we use the word, I think it is full of confusion.  So, I don't think we are going to study "God" directly very much here, although Spinoza DOES MEAN that GOD HAS THE POWER to "show Himself" to human beings. But Spinoza doesn't mean anything like what the Old Testament prophets describe; angels, burning bushes and other "revelations" that seem "supernatural," the products of vivid imaginations.  Not to say that these sorts of "inperiences" might not be indicative of of truths--but to me they seem to obfuscate rather than illuminate.  Some people want, even CRAVE, mystical experiences.  And, they may get them.  However, these do not measure up to Spinoza's standard of the HIGHEST and BEST which the human soul may have communicated to it-the "adequate" or "true" idea.  Spinoza says that we will strive for union in our totality with the ONE PERFECT OMNIPRESENT BEING.  We shall be aware when this Ultimate Being is communicated to us, oh yes, very much so, the epitome of clarity and certainty, yet our "ordinary mind" will be so tiny…just enough to register that we are still an individual--perhaps a logical impossibility when ALL IS ONE INDIVISIBLE BEING. Logic obviously has its uses, and, as the famous Mr. Spock character epitomized, some people need to see what these are and what they are not. Spinoza says that logic is like a medicine for the mind, and that it may be applied to the emotions so as to reduce them to simple components.  TEI is about teaching us to think better.  Do we care to?

And again, Spinoza is concerned with the Nature of God as being perfect, and therefore the alpha and omega of all that can be called "really good." Spinoza is not satisfied with an abstract cypher or paradigm put together by his formidable reason.  Something "made up" out of scientific thinking, such as Leibniz's "Monads," may win great esteem from brilliant intellects for centuries, but they are scant comfort to the suffering soul. The sufferer can hardly care about being shown later by science to be "sort of right," like Democritus and his atomic theory.  Not that I'm knocking it. These abstract insights are not devoid of all intuitive power and display intellectual fireworks if we want to try to follow along. Getting back on topic a bit, how can Spinoza hope to "inperience" this Real Good if it has no power to communicate itself? He wants to be spiritually wedded to this Being.  But must he or God be both bride and groom, so to speak? Seems to me that it would take a God to know a God, yet, are we not always joined with our cause?  How can we be without being able to look within for the inner cause of our own being?  Is it when we look in such a way the "the power to communicate itself" is exercised?  Where is the line of demarcation between the "I" who looks, and its cause?  To discover the highest degree of human action--utter acquiescence into the Luminous Emptiness is the Way. "To See." The Yin and the Yang are One?  What does it mean?

There are a number of sayings attributed to Jesus in which he describes the union with the "Real Good" as analogous to a wedding night.  There is a passage in "The Short Treatise" in which Spinoza makes a clear analogy between A] the uniting in mind/soul with this Omnipresent Perfect Being with B] the union of human love. We are reminded that the quality/bliss of the lover's experience is proportional to the Indivisable/Perfection of the thing loved. Indivisibility is the apex of integrity. How often in the great Sufi poets do we hear of "The Beloved?" That Lover who leaves us wanting for nothing, for THERE IS nothing more to want. Ah, but we need to be communicated to.  Can we be still, inwardly, devoid of thought?  While alive, we retain a shard or diamondlike trace of "I."  Patanjali knew this well when he set it down in Part 3 of the Sutras, which deals with the powers the Yogin will attain to.  The Yogi has the power of becoming extremely minute/tiny.  Not like a Lilliputian, but rather, this last simple atom of "I" which remains to understand nothing but the recognition that indeed we "COMMUNE." We go on communing in death, but are not aware of it because this fragment has passed from existence.  

Someone once said, "Well, you can't boss God around, or call Him like a dog."  No, it's something sort of the other way around, so when you see a dog, imagine that God is endeavoring to communicate. LOL.  I mean only as a reminder, a "self-remembering exercise."  Gurdjieff might enjoy such a practice. If you hear a voice telling you to do bad things, go to the hospital, please…. Picture the dog in the Odyssey, just waiting and waiting until at long last, rejoicing. The Master has returned. I think it helps to devote oneself as sincerely and fully as we can, where we are. If we climb the mountain high enough, lightning may strike.  My job is to climb.  If I come to a lovely meadow with an incomparable view, will I have the clarity and fortitude to lace up the boots, grab the pack, and turn my back on what seems like a paradise?  Yes, because I have learned in TEI and elsewhere that the good is the enemy of the better.  Spinoza is well able to impart to some sensitive souls a real sense of the most high standard, even as we have not attained to it--and so we keep going, knowing that we have attained something very REAL, that has communicated itself to us, but not enough to truly say we love God alone, and nothing else.  If we love our wife, our child, it is through God as cause, and we are grateful.  If there is such a thing as reality, or infinite realities, taken altogether, what IS?

Some person once described this "event" of "power to communicate" to me as "like an orgasm, but with your whole mind, body and soul peaking into this perfect bliss for all eternity and seeing that all things are simply Godness;" the modifications of matter/mind that are so mysterious, yet so simply divine.  Well, well.  Does this mean anything?  Not to a logical positivist, who might say, if he were in a friendly mood so as to speak at all about such things, "that means nothing to me, it's nonsense.  It may seem important to you, but what do you mean by "perfect bliss?" How does it compare with (thus and such, fill in the blanks)? I understand "eternity" from theoretical physics, but what does that have to do with feeling good, or something communicating itself?  It all sounds like a lot of secret, cultish nonsense, sorry.

To this I say that it is not my purpose to dissuade anyone from scientific rationalism, physicalism, or any other intellectual "ism."  If only we could live according to the dictates of reason without this great power of Love that is communicated to us intuitively. Such is the ideal of the Stoics.  But anyone observing herself with any attention for more than a day or so will find instances where emotions trump reason unless the emotion is feeble, or is based on mere faulty data which reason can correct immediately. I am mainly going to slowly present the words and ideas of a man I know to be wise.  I claim that much, to understand that Spinoza is most wise and rational, and only offer him up to you with full knowledge that intuition comes from within.  No one can give it to you just like that, bang, done.  Spinoza offers help to those desperate to find "some real good, with power to communicate itself."  It must therefore be knowable in the most certain and perfect sense, better than I know the back of my hand; and so it is, even all the while remaining ineffable.  The unfortunate thing, I think, is that, while people who might otherwise be candidates for essence growth have the intuition to recognize that they must indeed come to the truth by their own light, not by anyone else's, they don't seek real help.  That is so good to know, that we must be a light unto ourselves.   But then, we must avoid missing out on some very helpful data collected by some very amazing people. Sometimes, instead of using this hard won, precious data, like a scientist might exhaustively study the work of others in the field, as part of original research, individuals will instead set about concocting "opinions."  I have friends, who I know have never troubled themselves greatly to find out what the heavy hitters have to say, who will answer a question I put out there, for inquiry, not for "the answer," with the words "ya know, Donovan, my philosophy is…" or "you know, well, I've thought about it and my philosophy is…." Now, these are actual dear friends mind you, and they do have intuitive insights, but not nearly enough to make the kind of inroads we can make with the help of wiser people, and the aid of each other.  The advanced version of all this opinion-making and "wiseacreing" as Gurdjieff called it, is theology, in which some actual data is used, to give a little "tweak" to the intuitive power of the spirit in man, then infused with superstitions which contain fantasies which people convince themselves are true.  Then, once all Hell has been devised, it is turned loose in a highly organized attack on our sanity and well-being in general.

This is precisely where we step in with "On the Improvement of the Human Understanding."  We are going to learn a bit about what the difference is between a true idea and all the rest, so that as we carry our striving forward, we will do so with much better knowledge of how to avoid the pitfalls and stay in pursuit of the most excellent knowledge: the intuition of "a thing in itself."  Most Western Philosophers espouse that knowledge of "a thing in itself" is impossible.  We tend to look for ideas ABOUT things.  In the East, the existence of this esoteric knowledge of "the thing in itself," which is a perfect idea the very essence of a thing, is taken for granted, it is only then a matter of becoming one of the elect, a real "guru," who attains to this knowledge about their own identity.  Then, they have all manner of "practices." It's a great shame, in my view (and I have gratefully learned a little perhaps from B.K.S. Iyengar, Patanjali, Buddha, Jesus, Krishnamurti, Don Juan, the Vedas, etc, etc.) that Spinoza is so overlooked.  He is among the highest of the elect few, as far as I can tell, and although he is not THE WAY for everyone, his first three paragraphs contain some great hooks, like "having POWER TO COMMUNICATE ITSELF" that some of us find to be like great and mysterious music emanating from beyond the darkened hills, from wild country where only the most adventurous minds dare to conceive entering for exploration.

TEI-More Discussion of PP 1-3

Dear Readers, 

5-6 years ago I conducted a similar study of TEI on a Spinoza Internet List.

My plan here is to edit that material to give it a more vernacular style, if possible, 

and to respond to specific questions and comments of current readers here.  Much

has changed since Jeneth and I have developed contacts among the small group who

call themselves "Biosophers."  It's only a little  like being back in a Gurdjieff style

work group, but clearly some of the individuals we converse with and have visited

are "cut from the same cloth" as our own teacher, at least with respect to his roots.

Gregory went on to emphasize Spinoza's teaching after using Gurdjieff's methods for

organizing the work and for getting started with key ideas.  Self-observation, to repeat,

can be said to be the be all and end all, and Gurdjieff emphasized this.  So, just notice

when a passion comes up, or you see yourself moving in a certain way.  You can 

observe body language.  Just watch it and don't try to analyze too much.

**********

Dear Donovan and anyone else who wants to play,

I am trying to respond as much as I can as though I am reading the Emendation

for the first time. I don't know of any other remedy for just engaging in the

rehashing of previously "self-recorded tapes" that I already have floating

around in my "understanding." One stylistic consequence is that I will try not

to refer to paragraphs that succeed the one under discussion.

STUART

==========

1] (1) After experience had taught me that all the usual

surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none

of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either

good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them,

I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real

good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the

mind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, there

might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would

enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness.

==========

"...seeing that none of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything

either good or bad, except as the mind is affected by them...."

==========

What is the exact content of this recognition? That there are no human values

independently of how things affect us individually and collectively? He refers

to the fearfulness with which he responds to these objects. Which objects or

events are objects that are normally feared? What is the precise significance of

the qualification "except as the mind is affected by them....?" What else would

anyone fear other than the painful or negative effects external events would

have on one's experience? What alternative point of view is he actually ruling

out here with this qualification? It is clear that the antidote would be an

experience that is not sporadic (continuous) nor of partial value (supreme) nor

is it finite (unending). Does the third characteristic imply transcendence of

some sort? At first reading this seems an almost childish quest since the goal,

the antidote to the vanity and futility of things, seems so escapist and

fanciful. At first blush, even if not sheer fantasy, it certainly seems

improbable that it could be attained.

Nevertheless, it seems the intent of [1] is nicely captured by Donovan's phrase

that the "...aim is to rejoice inwardly." And Donovan's remark, "....if we have

not learned to a large degree about the "futility and vanity," we may lack a

certain prerequisite for giving our hearts and our minds to the inquiry..."

seems perfectly to the point. Why would anyone want to fix something that he/she

does not perceive as broken?

==========

[3] (1) I therefore debated whether it would not be possible to

arrive at the new principle, or at any rate at a certainty

concerning its existence, without changing the conduct and usual

plan of my life; with this end in view I made many efforts,

in vain. (2) For the ordinary surroundings of life which are

esteemed by men (as their actions testify) to be the highest

good, may be classed under the three heads - Riches, Fame, and

the Pleasures of Sense: with these three the mind is so absorbed

that it has little power to reflect on any different good.

==========

Donovan asks: Are my surroundings and my daily routines so engrossing that I

have no hope of devoting myself to such an enquiry? Let us suppose that the

answer to this question is "no." The western path seems very democratic and

scientific in this way. Democratic, since while contemplative time is probably

required, there is no push to separate enquirers from their "normal" daily lives

in any permanent way. Scientific, since how else could one test his real

relation to the vicissitudes of life without actually having to undergo those

challenges? Perhaps the solution is to read the phrase "......Riches, Fame, and

the Pleasure of Sense: with these three the mind is so absorbed that it has

little power to reflect on any different good....." as a reference to that good

ole' workhorse of a concept, viz., the concept of attachment. Especially since

in [2] he mentions that he "...could see the the benefits which are acquired

through fame and riches...." If he is not being ironic in this remark, then such

things do really have some benefit. But if our mind is affected in such a way

that we become "absorbed" or "attached" by them, then the vicissitudes will, by

definition, take us on a trip that is sporadic and constituted by less than

fully satisfying pleasures both as to content and "duration." Of course, I

could be defending the idea that Spinoza thought one could, in principle, embark

upon and negotiate the path without disengaging from life since I have no

intention of becoming a "monk." Beware of self validating interpretions.

So do we have two points to begin with? (1) Things seem pretty pointless if

there is no possibility of inwardly rejoicing in a manner that is continuous, of

the highest quality, and in some way or other is unbounded; in short, a

rejoicing not limited by the "ups and downs" of life. (2) The first step is to

recognize the futility and to see that whatever is the possibility or

probability of attaining the desired awareness, it will certainly be impossible

to attain if one remains attached to the pursuits of the three categories of

human "goods."

TEI The First 3 Paragraphs with Commentary

I am looking chiefly for the particular actions Spinoza

suggests to his readers. so I may go too quickly for some through

some parts. On the other hand, I may accede to the desire to

ponder and savor this or that sentence along the way in this banquet

for the soul. But, a main theme, in addition to ferreting out the clear

instructions Spinoza is offering, I will also be discovering whether the

text itself can give us clues as to why the work was left

languishing, incomplete…Is there some insoluble main problem 

which Spinoza had not yet been able to conceive in such a way

that he could sensibly write it down?  I think so, but we will get to

that later.

Let's look at the first 3 Paragraphs in TEI.  Please read the material slowly

and make notes of of any sentences or ideas you don't understand.

If you would like to join a conference call to discuss the study, send

me an email.  I have read these paragraphs many times, and never

fail to feel vivified, and I will usually ponder anew to discover what

fears are ruling parts of my life, etc.

==========

[1] (1) After experience had taught me that all the usual

surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none

of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either

good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them,

I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real

good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the

mind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, there

might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would

enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness.

==========

I sometimes wonder if many students of the Ethics (especially those

focussed on the ontological aspects) are able to bear in mind that

Spinoza's aim was to rejoice inwardly. From the gate here, he is

talking about fear and joy, etc. He doesn't say that his aim was to

propose a solution to the "mind-body" problem, as such, although

he does accomplish this in Ethics.  Many are unable to see that. If he

sounds to anyone here at the outset of his treatise as if he is

concerned chiefly with abstractions of philosophical speculation (I

don't say he is never concerned at all), then I can only say that our

readings are very different.  Spinoza wants to discover the great joys

in life: conceiving "the true idea" is both the means and the end.

Implicit here perhaps is the imprimatur that, if we have not learned

to a large degree about the "futility and vanity," concerning the ordinary

pursuits people give their efforts to, leaving little time and energy for the

fundamental inquiries, then we may lack acertain prerequisite for giving

 our hearts and minds to those inquirieswith sufficient desire. Everything 

about the manner in which Spinoza described the object of his inquiry is 

profound and highly specific,worthy of considering every phrase and word.

So, here in this study, little by little, we have the opportunity of really en-

hancing our understanding of this consummate spiritual master who also

happens to be one of the chief architects of "The Enlightenment" which

profoundly altered the trajectory of the octave of Western history.

==========

[2] (1) I say "I finally resolved," for at first sight it seemed

unwise willingly to lose hold on what was sure for the sake of

something then uncertain. (2) I could see the benefits which are

acquired through fame and riches, and that I should be obliged to

abandon the quest of such objects, if I seriously devoted myself

to the search for something different and new. (3) I perceived

that if true happiness chanced to be placed in the former I should

necessarily miss it; while if, on the other hand, it were not so

placed, and I gave them my whole attention, I should equally fail.

[3] (1) I therefore debated whether it would not be possible to

arrive at the new principle, or at any rate at a certainty

concerning its existence, without changing the conduct and usual

plan of my life; with this end in view I made many efforts,

in vain. (2) For the ordinary surroundings of life which are

esteemed by men (as their actions testify) to be the highest

good, may be classed under the three heads - Riches, Fame, and

the Pleasures of Sense: with these three the mind is so absorbed

that it has little power to reflect on any different good.

==========

Spinoza seems to say he had to make some changes in his lifestyle. I

don't know all the particulars he means, although he could be referring

to his transition out of the Jewish community, etc. Has anyone studied 

the life of Spinoza so as to add some comments here?  Are my own

surroundings and my daily routines so engrossing , am I so habituated

to a routine, mechanical existence, perhaps as a barrier to keep doubt

and wonder away, that I have no hopeof devoting myself to such an inquiry? 

After all, Spinoza says that we must direct all of our thoughts and actions to 

the end of attaining to a certain character. Notably, Gurdjieff advised his

students to just begin observing themselves in their present circumstances rather

than trying to change behaviors or suppress emotions.  That is the way I began

in this work.  As the sorcerer Don Juan Matus said truly, the aim of the man of

knowledge is only "to see."  Krishnamurti called it "choiceless awareness."

Can I quietly observe the mind as if merely gazing at the surface of a passing river?

-DR

Our Study Begins: "All Ashore that's Goin' Ashore!"

Stuart said:

"Without going back and trying to justify, confirm, or explain the following

rough opinion at the moment, my recollection is that I thought Spinoza painted

himself into a kind of stylistic corner in the Emendation and essentially began

over again (with The Ethics) in such a way that the Emendation ends up

functioning as an intro to the Ethics. In short, I think I saw The Ethics as the

finishing "touch" the Emendation left out. The key evidence if I remember

correctly is that the Emendation ends at the point Spinoza has made the case for

a true idea that is needed to begin aright. He doesn't name that idea there. But

the Ethics begins with it (definition of 'substance') and continues on. Just a

suggestion at the moment."

=================

To repeat, the citation above was made by an online Spinoza friend, known to me as "Stuart."  Please use the abbreviation "TEI" in the subject line of any emails or comments you send to me.  That way, the material will automatically land in a folder here.  Send email to "seriousinquiry@roadrunner.com."

I agree with Stuart that TEI makes a good introduction for "Ethics."  I don't see it as a stylistic matter, but rather that we get to know a bit about how Spinoza got into "the Master Game" in the first place.  Also, what was it like for him to make a bit of progress, and toward what?  Did he ever "name" the true idea, or say exactly, in so many words, what it is?  There is a good deal of TEI that is duplicated, more or less, in Ethics, but there are some interesting differences.  For example, in TEI there are 4 kinds of knowledge, which is reduced to 3 in Ethics.  However, it is not our purpose to compare TEI with Ethics, or other works per se.

I think that TEI is mainly concerned with the endeavor to supply the serious student with tools of the mind, such as consciously conscious reflection,  before delving into this "difficult and rare" philosophy of Mr. Spinoza's.  It's in the title.  If we cannot discriminate the nature of a true idea from fiction, hearsay, opinion, or even practical or pure reason (as Kant might mention), then we will have no foundation for a true philosophy. Without the true philosophy, no supreme happiness. What is going on in the mind when we feel the sense of doubt?  Is there any real basis for most of our fears?

The greatest philosophers, like Krishnamurti and Spinoza, realize that we must indeed BEGIN from "the other shore."  But, isn't reaching that far shore our aim?  Without a true idea of our nature, insofar as it may understand this or that thing or idea, we don't know anything "in itself" but only second-hand, by the impressions something makes upon our senses, or by inferences which the mind makes from what it set forth as axiomatic.  Such knowledge is not adequate for objective consciousness.  So, we are going to find out what Spinoza thinks is a "method" for getting at the whole truth regarding our own nature, which for him is inseparable from knowledge of God.  The proper order for Spinoza is reasoning from cause to effect, not the other way around as is the common manner.  This way of moving from the intuitive to the reasonable occurs in us now unconsciously, but we need to blow the covers off of what is going on, and magnify it.  Every day in the media we see the results of reason in service to the passions.  It's not a pretty picture.  How can we come to love truth such that our desires spring from truth rather than chiefly from instinct?  Spinoza, as we see from the very first sentence of TEI is interested in "a love supreme," not just some abstract cyphers such as the Monads speculated about by Leibniz or Kant's categories.  I appreciate the intellectual acumen of such men, but they seem to be pursuing a much different aim that Spinoza.  To me, Spinoza is more akin to Patanjali, the great "keeper" of the Rajah Yoga.

We are going to endeavor to get in touch with the fundamental questions, such as why we think as we do and how more adequate thinking brings joy into our life of a kind previously only glimpsed in the most elated moments.  All the while reflecting on that remark of Krishnamurti's that "it is Truth that frees, not your efforts to be free."  I think it would be vital to include some phone discussion time, so please let's do that.  I'm waiting to see how many individuals wish to make this journey before pulling the parking break and moving ahead into the next few paragraphs.  I would like to know what others think Spinoza meant by fears which contain nothing in themselves either good or bad except insofar as the mind is affecting by them.  Do we harbor such fears, and if so, how do we react to them?

Complete Elwes trans. of Text Now Avaliable

Please pass the word that we will all be on the same page.  That is, the Elwes trans. of TEI.  I have added a link on the blog page which will take you to the free Project Gutenberg site's rendition of "The Improvement," complete with very useful paragraph and sentence numbers for reference.

Download the treatise and put it in a binder. It is about 44 pages in my Dover edition, so, not a long piece.  I believe there will be room to the side of each page for any notes you may wish to make.

I want to be sure everyone gets prepared before we start as a group.  Those who are already set to go may reflect on Spinoza's remarks which have already been posted.  I think the first sentence is very challenging, for example.  Do we feel so sure that experiences of the kind ordinarily portrayed as the means to happiness are vain and futile?  What does Spinoza mean by a "true good, with the power to communicate itself?"  It sounds like he is talking about something we may definitely come to know.

We need to have a quorum of say 10-12 individuals to get this started.  I don't think that should be too difficult, as I am counting on most, if not all, of the Biosophers and those who participate on the Creative Conversations to take part, etc.  We will try to move at a pace that is comfortable for most, which we can gauge during our phone talks.  This is a good opportunity to get a toehold on this Master's ideas.

I hope the storm wasn't quite as devastating as was feared by some, as I know we have many friends in the area affected.

Namaste, d.

"After experience had taught me..."

Here is the first sentence of "On the Improvement...." which happens to be, for me, the most intriguing, fascinating, and succinct statement of purpose ever written, and after decades of reflection upon its meaning, I have not always been able to connect with the meaning of "affecting the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else...." etc.

==========

[1]  (1) After experience had taught me that all the usual

surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none

of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either

good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them,

I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real

good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the

mind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, there

might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would

enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness.

===========

So, Spinoza, unlike most other Western philosophers, is interested not so much with an elegant and plausible speculative deconstruction of "what is" as his heart yearns for....a love supreme.  We'll be looking into the ideas in this sentence in detail.

New "Subscribe by Email" feature

Thanks for your patience as I learn how to simplify the process of making it easy for you to subscribe to this blog.  I will be checking to see how this works.

Donovan's Spinoza Blog-New!

I decided to start a separate blog for our Spinoza studies.  The following is the same as what I sent before-I'm excited about the prospect of sharing this study with friends across the country and around the globe. ==========

Dear friends:  I'm going to begin today a study of Spinoza's "Improvement of the Understanding." How far it will proceed, and at what pace, I don't know!   Obviously, you may read these occasional installments, or not.  I hope you will.  If we have been friends, I ask that you take this journey with me to the end, for friendship's sake, even though it is going to be difficult.  Please forward the work to anyone else you think might be interested.  This will be something of a "primer" for some of Spinoza's basic ideas.  Einstein devoutly loved Spinoza, and it is widely known that Einstein proclaimed his belief in "Spinoza's God."  What that means, we may never know.  My main purpose in writing this commentary is to find out if Spinoza has any suggestions for things we can do to help ourselves out of this awful predicament of confusion.  I have savored his words again and again, yet I still find new meanings.  Let's dig in!  I will separate Spinoza's text from my comments by a series of 10 "equals" signs thus: ========== [15] (1) We must seek the assistance of Moral Philosophy [d] and the Theory of Education; further, as health is no insignificant means for attaining our end, we must also include the whole science of Medicine, and, as many difficult things are by contrivance rendered easy, and we can in this way gain much time and convenience, the science of Mechanics must in no way be despised. ========== Okay, we need to look to our health (ouch!) and try to keep ourselves free from moral quagmires.  Need I explain?  For Spinoza, "Good" is what helps us get free and happy, "Evil" is what hinders this.  Of course, he wants us to adopt his ideas of what happiness is, which in essence is the knowledge of God, the wide awakening of our spiritual nature.  Obviously, machines can make our lives easier if we use them wisely. ========== [16] (1) But before all things, a means must be devised for improving the understanding and purifying it, as far as may be at the outset, so that it may apprehend things without error, and in the best possible way. (2) Thus it is apparent to everyone that I wish to direct all science to one end [e] and aim, so that we may attain to the supreme human perfection which we have named; and, therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to promote our object will have to be rejected as useless. (3) To sum up the matter in a word, all our actions and thoughts must be directed to this one end. ========== Spinoza is talking about an utterly single-minded determination to attain the highest degree of spiritual excellence that we can.  He feels that even if we bring every asset to bear on our quest for breaking through to the higher dimension of mind by which the intuition that suffices for abstract reasoning, as in mathematics, geometry and logic, can be brought to bear in considering real, individually conceived things, it is still going to be a hard climb to the point at which we may meet with the grace that frees us for the most part from the suffering that we endure as a consequence of mental confusion. Of course, I wish to perfect my own understanding of what Spinoza means throughout this unfinished treatise. But also, I am interested in coming to ideas about why he didn't finish it, or do something with it besides leave it idle in his desk. I have some feelings about this, but I want to see if these can be brought up to the level of reasonable hypothesis.  The notion of "self-evident" truth (at least with respect to the idea of God, goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica," and probably beyond.  Yet, it remains a conundrum as far as I know.  Aren't we still forced to fall back on some mysterious "intuition" when asked how we know, for example, that, given two parallel lines, that a new line parallel to one must likewise be parallel with the other?  It is not easy to divine what Spinoza's "innate true idea" is, even though he claims we all are born with it, unconsciously one must presume. I'm not well versed at all in Prof. Curley's editions (my friends and family know that I'm  a retired contractor with a bad back, not a professional academic), hence this notice cited below  has only recently come to my attention. I don't have time to research who in particular wrote it and what their relationship with Spinoza may have been, but I would like to know, if anyone can offer information about this. ========== [Notice to the Reader.] (This notice to the reader was written by the editors of the Opera Postuma in 1677. Taken from Curley, Note 3, at end) *This Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect etc., which we give you here, kind reader, in its unfinished [that is, defective] state, was written by the author many years ago now. He always intended to finish it. But hindered by other occupations, and finally snatched away by death, he was unable to bring it to the desired conclusion. But since it contains many excellent and useful things, which - we have no doubt - will be of great benefit to anyone sincerely seeking the truth, we did not wish to deprive you of them. And so that you would be aware of, and find less difficult to excuse, the many things that are still obscure, rough, and unpolished, we wished to warn you of them. Farewell.* ========== So, with this in mind, what, if anything, is "rough, obscure, and unpolished," even "defective" in the work? Can we find out? Perhaps some "fine finish work" can be brought to bear on such ideas from expressions found elsewhere in Spinoza's works...