Stuart's Remarks About the Previous Post Re: "Provisional rules of life..."

What follows are remarks by Stuart treating of the question of the "provisional" nature of the rules of life Spinoza is setting forth.  Why doesn't Spinoza just say, "Here are a few rules I suggest you follow to progress toward our aim...?"

On the "provisionality" of the rules: 

Spinoza has already shown the limitations of the endeavor to obtain, for their own sake, fame, sensual pleasures and wealth and power. The first rule speaks to the acquisition of fame which has the defect of imprisoning one in the passivity of conforming oneself to the opinions of others. But men, even men of unequal clarity, are ultimately dependent on each other. By adopting this rule, the need for acceptance, respect and utility of and by others is furthered while not having to indulge in submissive "thinking" or "actions." Second rule, states the basic minimum principle that follows from his earlier critique of the life denying consequences of overindulgence in pleasures. Similarly for the third rule. In other words, if the dear reader has gotten that far in TEI, then if he has understood what has gone before, he sees these three rules as necessary beginning points. For though one must begin by completely giving up the love of those three qualities as things in themselves, nevertheless a certain cultivation of these same qualities is necessary for one's sustenance and even for one's thriving. Even though the practicality for his project of adopting these rules seems obvious to him, he allows that at the level of mental discipline they also function as practical hypotheses that will be borne out as correct by further personal development. Also, since at this stage of one's development -one is just beginning on the project suggested by the critique of the previous 16 paragraphs - it is unknown whether the sought for selfsustaining Good is actually obtainable beyond being a matter of Platonic principle, one must practice certain dynamics -moderation in the pursuit of pleasure and power and adaptability in the pursuit of good communication that results from mutual respect - one must act "as if" or one may never be able to determine whether the "as if" can be transformed into an "it is." So there is a kind of tension here. On the one hand, the rules are simply distillations from the earlier critique and are certainly correct to that extent. But whether following them as a disciplinary first step will ultimately lead to the place where they are followed by the force of reason is precisely what one must still learn. To that extent there is still uncertainty. That, of course, is almost the entire purpose of the Ethics. To pass from the external necessities of being in bondage to rule governed behavior to the internal necessity of the freedom of behavior based on one's understanding. To that extent there is still uncertainty at this point in the development of the argument in TEI.
=============

Thank you, Stuart.  I wish I could get you to join our conversations on Thursday nights, but I realize you are not on the telecommunication grid at this time.  Do you remember writing this?