The Terror of the Situation/Root of the Matter

     And so, dear friends, we proceed on to the second part of the introductory 
material in which Spinoza reveals to us his inner life at the outset of his amazing adult life, which, while being brought to an end at the tender age of 44 by lung disease, bore such an abundance of philosophical treasures that it is impossible to imagine how anyone could accomplish so much in a couple of decades.  His observations on the intimate details of human nature, with respect to the mind and emotions, and the nature of enlightenment, and his work in the fields of political theory, study of the Bible, theology and other things, seem to many to be some of the grandest works of speculative philosophy extant.  Some, however, such as Goethe, Einstein and other luminaries of Western culture, feel that Spinoza had indeed conceived a "true philosophy," that is, not speculative, as the works of most other Western philosophers are, but actually objective such that the subject and object prove to be one and the same (cf. "Ethics" Proposition 7, Part 2).  In fact, Kant, who came more and more to discover and admire Spinoza, initially denied that the conception of "the true idea" (which is the main task of our work at hand) was a possibility for the mind/body of a human being.  
     If you will close your eyes for a moment, and simply sense your own body, and observe that the mind seems to be something else, even subdivided into a thinker/what is thought, then you begin to realize that you have never felt completely whole, and at one with whatever is the cause of your being as well.  No one can do this for you, nor can you simply read about it.  It requires a paradoxically simultaneous ultimate effort of the mind and its ultimate acquiescence. Perhaps we will speak more about this later, but for now, let us return to the second part of the introductory material. 

[7] (1) Further reflection convinced me that if I could really get
to the root of the matter I should be leaving certain evils for a
certain good. (2) I thus perceived that I was in a state of great
peril, and I compelled myself to seek with all my strength for a
remedy, however uncertain it might be; as a sick man struggling with
a deadly disease, when he sees that death will surely be upon him
unless a remedy be found, is compelled to seek a remedy with all his
strength, inasmuch as his whole hope lies therein. (7:3) All the
objects pursued by the multitude not only bring no remedy that tends
to preserve our being, but even act as hindrances, causing the death
not seldom of those who possess them, [b] and always of those who
are possessed by them.
==========

     Spinoza experienced what Gurdjieff called "The Terror of the
Situation."  I refer to his perception that he "was in a state of great peril."  There are many facets of the Gurdjieff work that seem very much akin to what Spinoza had in mind.  I highly recommend "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky (sans all the mathematical/physics material, which I can't recommend because I don't understand it very well, if at all) as an introduction to serious attempts to  comprehend the practical aspects of the Spinozist Way. 
     I've been close to quite a few of these deaths that Spinoza mentions (friends lost to obsessive drinking and drugging)…and I believe that, for Spinoza, death can occur to an individual even though they are not rendered a corpse.  When a human being seems to have   irrevocably strayed so far from their essential nature that their being is completely determined by factors external to themselves, regardless of whether they seem "happy" or otherwise, they are devoid of connection to their own soul, hence are organic automata.  For G., these living dead were a fact.  Part of the appeal of vampire stories is that people have a sense that there is something beautiful, perhaps immortal, whose nature requires the acquiescence of the ordinary mortal who previously "occupied" a certain body.  It's interesting how "Nosferatu" has come to be something heroic in today's pop culture, whereas only a generation or two ago it was something monstrous.  I don't know what that signifies for our society, but it seems like something born of desperate alienation and the longing for something like Spinoza's "real good, having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else."  Something beyond the spinning down of the humdrum of dullness which suffocates the living spirit so effectively in our culture of extroverted glad-handing.  Krishnamurti claimed that we live in a state akin to our house being on fire, but we are failing to even realize it.  Meanwhile, we imagine we are "doing something about it" whereas in truth our efforts are mostly the acting out of passions, a form of pragmatism, whereof the issue is merely another cycle of delusional "reforms" beset with seriously problematic unforeseen consequences.
==========

[8] (1) There are many examples of men who have suffered persecution
even to death for the sake of their riches, and of men who in pursuit
of wealth have exposed themselves to so many dangers, that they have
paid away their life as a penalty for their folly. (2) Examples are
no less numerous of men, who have endured the utmost wretchedness for
the sake of gaining or preserving their reputation. (3) Lastly,
are innumerable cases of men, who have hastened their death through
over-indulgence in sensual pleasure.
==========
So ends the overture, as it were.

==========
[9] (1) All these evils seem to have arisen from the fact, that
happiness or unhappiness is made wholly dependent on the quality
of the object which we love. (2) When a thing is not loved, no
quarrels will arise concerning it - no sadness will be felt if it
perishes-no envy if it is possessed by another-no fear, no hatred, in short,
no disturbances of the mind. (3) All these arise from the love of
what is perishable, such as the objects already mentioned.
==========

Okay, but do I see this in terms of facts, in the content of my own
consciousness, my own life, or do I remain abstract in my thinking, as if Spinoza is merely some scholar, theorizing away?   That is not the case, even though most of the individuals who study Spinoza never make whole- hearted attempts to live by his philosophy, which was his expressed aim..Note well the wording "happiness or unhappiness is made wholly to depend on the quality of the object which WE LOVE."  Spinoza is reaching across the centuries, in the field of the immeasurable, to include us as friends and co-students in this effort to raise our awareness to the level of connection, of  union, with both the cosmic consciousness and the consciousness flowing forth to all humanity.  Everyone at some point must have felt that there was "something more" that was quite close at hand.  So near…Why must we leave the stillness so soon?  What is so important that we cannot spend time in silence, observing ourselves with choiceless awaress, then carrying this attention out into the world.  The Yogis say that reunion with Ishvara ought never to be further away than the timespace of three breaths…Of course, to modern Western philosophers, such pronouncements are incomprehensible  nonsense.
This process of attachment to the temporal is going on. And on and on... What is at the root of it? Another musical image...The Titanic is sinking catastrophically, but never-mind the rising waters, that band still sounds first rate…Actually, the music isn't that great, but it's better than thinking about what is happening.

"After arranging the world in a most beautiful and enlightened
manner, the scholar goes back home at five o'clock in order to forget
his beautiful arrangement."

-Don Juan Matus

PP 4-6 Re: Dependence on Pleasure, Money, Fame, etc.

Hello, friends.  For the convenience of being able to abbreviate some words I'm going to use "p" for paragraph, "s" for sentence in concord with Mr. Elwes enumerations  For example, we are now on to p4s1, beginning with "By sensual pleasure…" Before tackling these next paragraphs, I will borrow directly from Gurdjieff's suggestions on how the read the material at hand.  We must, as dgf suggests, get beyond merely reasoning about what Spinoza "means," which generally boils down to a sensation that we have reached a standard of comprehension with  which the mind is satisfied.  Or perhaps we must give up.  It's okay to say "I don't understand."  To say "I don't understand" is a simple, adequate idea.  The writings will serve us best if we use them as guides to self-observation.  Can we see ourselves in what is written?  More about this later.  There are paradoxes we must rise above.  For example, one of Spinoza's chief aims in TEI is to get us to recognize that we need to be consciously conscious of a standard by which to assess the adequacy of any idea.  Offhand, I might say that it is like having a photograph of your own face, then being able to pick yourself out of a line-up. What you need is already within you, but it needs to have everything else removed from it such that it may be discerned clearly.  

As an aid or method of actually just reading and studying the words of the treatise so as to realize the ideas,  Gurdjieff wrote at the beginning of his masterpiece, "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson: 

==========

 "I find it necessary on the first page of this book, quite ready for publication, to give the following advice:

“Read each of my written expositions thrice:

Firstly—at least as you have already become mechanized to read all your contemporary books and newspapers.

Secondly—as if you were reading aloud to another person.

And only thirdly—try and fathom the gist of my writings.”

Only then will you be able to count upon forming your own impartial judgment, proper to yourself alone, on my writings. And only then can my hope be actualized that according to your understanding you will obtain the specific benefit for yourself which I anticipate, and which I wish for you with all my being."

==========

What particular sorts of sensual pleasure is S. citing in p4s1 below?

==========

[4] (1) By sensual pleasure the mind is enthralled to the extent

of quiescence, as if the supreme good were actually attained, so

that it is quite incapable of thinking of any other object; when

such pleasure has been gratified it is followed by extreme

melancholy, whereby the mind, though not enthralled, is disturbed

and dulled. (2) The pursuit of honors and riches is likewise very

absorbing, especially if such objects be sought simply for their

own sake, [a] inasmuch as they are then supposed to constitute the

highest good.

==========

Sentence one (s1) puts me in mind of good sex, except I don't relate to the subsequent melancholy.  Hmmm…. getting sufficiently drunk, so as to suffer a nasty hangover? I begin to wonder then whether Spinoza may have imbibed a fair of amount of drink himself at some point. It doesn't sound like he is speaking abstractly to me. He earned the soubriquet, "The God-intoxicated man," but perhaps in his youth he experimented with less exalted forms of intoxication.  

Did he say somewhere,"Nothing human is alien to me..?" Well, no matter, perhaps I digress in speculations, but just here I wish to point out that in Ethics, we find specific mention of drunkenness.  I think that being "stoned" on other substances would equate to drunkenness for Spinoza.  Please feel free to offer your comments.  Here are a few citations from Spinoza's Ethics.

==========

"Among the kinds of emotions, which, by the last

proposition, must be very numerous, the chief are luxury,

drunkenness, lust, avarice, and ambition, being merely species of

love or desire..."

" For temperance, sobriety, and chastity, which we are wont to oppose

to luxury, drunkenness, and lust, are not emotions or passive

states, but indicate a power of the mind which moderates the

last-named emotions."

"Thus temperance, sobriety, and presence of mind

in danger, &c., are varieties of courage ; courtesy, mercy, &c.,

are varieties of highmindedness."

"Lastly, it follows from the foregoing

proposition, that there is no small difference between the joy

which actuates, say, a drunkard, and the joy possessed by a

philosopher, as I just mention here by the way.

[5] (1) In the case of fame the mind is still more absorbed, for fame

is conceived as always good for its own sake, and as the ultimate end

to which all actions are directed. (2) Further, the attainment of

riches and fame is not followed as in the case of sensual pleasures by

repentance, but, the more we acquire, the greater is our delight, and,

consequently, the more are we incited to increase both the one and the

other; on the other hand, if our hopes happen to be frustrated we are

plunged into the deepest sadness. (3) Fame has the further drawback

that it compels its votaries to order their lives according to the

opinions of their fellow-men, shunning what they usually shun, and

seeking what they usually seek.

==========

What did S. know of riches and fame? I think he learned a good deal

about these in young adulthood, when he was still ensconced within

the community in which he was born and raised, etc. I'm no authority

on his bio, and understand that a mind absorbed in understanding

Reality has no personal history per se, that is, it is not drawing on

experience or remembering anything in the sense Spinoza uses the

term, but I thought that S., in his late teens and early 20's was

headed toward "success" in business and as a "rabbi" or highly esteemed leader in his Temple community.  And he certainly was able

to observe examples of the foibles in cosmopolitan Amsterdam.

==========

[6] (1) When I saw that all these ordinary objects of desire would

be obstacles in the way of a search for something different and new -

nay, that they were so opposed thereto, that either they or it would

have to be abandoned, I was forced to inquire which would prove the

most useful to me: for, as I say, I seemed to be willingly losing

hold on a sure good for the sake of something uncertain. (6:2) However,

after I had reflected on the matter, I came in the first place to the

conclusion that by abandoning the ordinary objects of pursuit, and

betaking myself to a new quest, I should be leaving a good, uncertain

by reason of its own nature, as may be gathered from what has been

said, for the sake of a good not uncertain in its nature (for I sought

for a fixed good), but only in the possibility of its attainment.

==========

Spinoza here speaks in the first person again about his own process. 

He is not didactic in tone, rather he is sharing his experience. I think

this "prelude" part of the Improvement is unique among all of Spinoza's

writing for its autobiographical, down to earth and direct explanation to 

readers about his personal pilgrimage out of society as he knew it and

into the metaphysical philosophy that he was too pronounce "the true

philosophy. However, for me, like the man Spinoza claimed to embody

the idea of God, Jesus of Nazareth, we find that his "yoke is gentle."

In other words, I find Spinoza's simple descriptions of his process contain

little of condescension or a berating of the reader that one finds in some

philosophers and many theologians.  These paragraphs we are examining

bring to mind a passage of the Gospel According to Matthew.  However,

we will find that Spinoza is not so committed to the notions that immediate

and complete renunciation of the worldly is a prerequisite.  More to come 

on that issue.

*****

Matt. 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell

that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in

heaven: and come and follow me.

Matt. 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away

sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Matt. 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto

you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go

through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the

kingdom of God.

Matt. 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly

amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

Matt. 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, "With men this

is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

*****

"The warrior's way offers a man a new life and that life has to be

completely new. He can't bring to that new life his ugly old ways."

-Don Juan Matus

re: "the Objects of My Fears..."

==========

 "...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...."

-Spinoza

==========

Stuart asked, regarding the citation above:

> 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.

In the sense that a child may be simple, the quest is to be made simple
and to live as such, integrating experience into this overarching simplicity
that is The Real.

I think Spinoza agrees that few attain his aims.  At the very end of
the Ethics, he makes it clear that even finding a Way to progress
toward such lofty goals is improbable.  Even so, some of us, seeing
that "all is vanity" as it says in Ecclesiastes (which Spinoza knew well
I expect) and that there are "flashes" of this ecstatic and eternal being,
find nothing so enthralling as endeavoring to come to our own under-
standing of this Wisdom that seems to exist in one form or another in
almost all human cultures.  Spinoza is uniquely Western, not to diminish
the influence of Maimonides, Crescas et. al, but Spinoza attempts a
scientific approach to his subjects, even though their exists an enigma
about the "true idea conceived only through intuition" which seems
doubtful of being studied rationally, with detachment.  More about
this later.

I have the same questions about "the exact content of this
recognition." The best I can do so far is to observe, moment to
moment, for examples within the content of my own thoughts/feelings,
and to realize it when I don't fully understand why I have them,
although I could "explain," or the "explanation" may even be quite
"obvious." They are there, these fears. To say simply, "I don't know,"
is that not a simple idea?  I think we can leave aside for now
fears such as an imminent shark bite, or a close brush with a car collision.
I have imaginary fears, and these are what I am interested in for now,
often concerning things over which I have no control. Do you have
any fears which you realize are useless, either because they are
completely imaginary, or you can't do anything about them, or both?
These fit the bill for me, for openers at least. They are aspects of "me," and 
to understand me,myself, I, is to know a thing-in-itself-the philosopher's
stone, if you will.  Understanding the root of conditioning is something
utterly beyond merely analyzing an experience.  It is seeing "underneath"
all the complexity, as if viewing a great building from beneath the foundation,
which would seem to hide its footprint from all light.  But, underneath, it is
full of Light, regardless of what has sprung up, be it grand cathedral or some
cardboard hovel in the riverbottom where the homeless dwell.  Spinoza, we
will find, states that to really understand a thing, we must understand its 
cause, rather than observing its effects and then inferring the cause.  He
would say, "Where there's fire, there's smoke."  But we get ahead of ourselves,
as this will come out later in the treatise.

I can offer examples of a fear, like the degeneration of my spine.  From a
cosmic standpoint, its condition is just a fact, a material state of affairs.  For me,
subjectively, I fear it may pain me today, or get worse.  But do I say my spine
is something " bad" in itself?  The worry and fear affecting my mind accomplishes 
nothing unless I pay heed to how I get treatment, exercise and so on. That much
is very obvious.  But where does fear come from originally? Aside from the physical
pain, the fear breaks down into material action and psychological action.
This latter action involves meditation upon the marvel of self-preservation.
This desire to be, to persist in being, is something we are imbued with in every moment. 
The imagination works with this desire in highly complex ways.  But the intuition
of the immanent cause of the body lies beyond time, pain and degeneration.

The thing is to observe these fears in the moment, as they are
operative in us, as us. Then we have intimate acquaintance with
them. And then, perhaps, if we realize that an internal verbal
description, explaining to ourselves why we have the fear, or telling
ourselves that the fears are stupid, because we can't do anything
about them, etc., is by no means the same as understanding the fear
to the very root in our essence...we may be touched directly by the
conatus, even before it descends to an object of desire…What I mean
is, when we meditate upon the fear, so as to separate it from how I
imagine it may affect me, I may get in contact with what Spinoza calls
"Providence" in the Short Treatise.  If I can dwell with what the fear means
for me alone, I may see that it tends toward my self-preservation existentially.
In turn, this "desire to be" is kind of a DNA which I share with the totality of
all that IS.  That Being never goes away, it is the essence of Eternity, nothing to do
with time and the "before and after the body," as we imagine it.  Vis a vis this eternal 
creation, there is nothing good or bad, there is only perfection.  Vis a vis my own nature, 
I wish for it to be as much the image of this creator as possible.  For this, we must find 
a place in ourselves which is consciously conscious of our union with our Creator, and to 
acquiesce unto that Eternal Truth.  This is our freedom, our ultimate bliss.  We may rest there,
and our soul is nourished, prepared for the next round of experiences.  There will be
fears again, and again.  But even physical pain can be eluded in this timeless shelter, if only for 
a certain period.  We gather great energy there, to see the objects of our fears, and to see them
as they are, rather than considering how we are affected by them.  Or, we may observe how we are 
affected by the idea of them so as to discover how real these notions we have of other things are.  
How real is the content of my consciousness, or is it all imagination?  If we observe with
sufficient clarity and lack of bias, we may discover that all consciousness is One, the the Observer
and the Observed are One.  With this knowledge, we may inquire into the mind with much
greater objectivity.