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.

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?