tsuki

http://spinozaetnous.org/wiki/ Here's a wiki dedicated to Spinoza's work. Too bad it's in French, but google translate does a wonderful job.

Has anybody here read Spinoza's philosophy and knows how it compares to Vedanta? I've heard that they are quite similar.

Like I said - they don't decide and they have never been. Reality has a certain momentum to it and all of your actions in the past, now, and in the future are the expression of it. You never made a single choice and you will never make one. To show you the first-person perspective of this experience: let me ask you a counter-question: If reality is non-dual, which implies that good and evil are actually one, then why is there any reason to stop doing what you've already been doing? Your insistence on the fact that people do good because they logically conclude that to do evil is worse is a delusion. People would have not been doing evil if they could. They can't help themselves to do what they are doing and good and evil are fluid categories of their experience. This does not change post-enlightenment. The only difference is that you are aware of it and this is the very nature of liberation (at least in my experience, which may be particular).

My objections towards Spinoza's approach are slowly fading. My main apprehension was that it was a kind of psychologism, but now I understand that from his point of view it would not be like that at all. I was seeing it as a kind of psychologism because his method seems to imply that there are things that can be true simply because I can conceive them. It was a very sneaky thought as it implies that this personal I conceives anything and that I have the free will to do anything at all. In Spinoza's world, everything is determined in accordance to PSR and my free will is just an illusion. This way, the conceiving is something prior to "me", as the personal "I" is simply the necessary conclusion of the causally related world. In this sense, I do not conceive anything - it is God that conceives itself through me. I believe that this is what Spinoza would reply to the objection that his philosophy is simply a study of the way the human mind works. Of course, this argument requires me to first believe in PSR and all of Spinoza's definitions and propositions so it feels like this:

Enlightenment is not about being free from the laws of causation, but about resolving conflicts that make you suffer. If there is no free will, it is equally true for an enlightened person and an unenlightened one.

If reality is the topmost category of existence then, by definition, there cannot be two kinds of it. If there were several kinds of it, then that would imply that there is another, greater category that they belong to. On the other hand, if there is just one reality, then where exactly am I?

The example of the triangle is not correct. Apparently, there has to be a cause for both: the existence of something the non-existence of something A square circle cannot exist, as its nature is self-contradictory. The essence of a triangle however, does not imply that a triangle exists. That is because Spinoza not only believes in the principle of sufficient reason, but also in Occam's razor: So, it does not follow that particular triangles exist from the definition of a triangle. All particular triangles are contingent beings that have a cause outside of it. In the case of square circle, however, there can be no particular square circles, as the essence of a square circle is self-contradictory. Apparently, the only thing from which it follows that it exists is substance. That is because it is defined as something that is conceived through itself, and because substances are disjoint (there are no two substances of the same essence). From these two statements follow that one substance cannot cause another (they cannot interact), so substances cannot be created. Since they cannot be created, and yet are conceived, then it means (for Spinoza) that it lies within their nature to exist. Conception for Spinoza seems to be a sufficient condition for existence. This whole argument just reeks of circularity, which is hilarious because substance is defined as such. It seems like Spinoza lies down the internal logic of his argument up front and proves that it is internally consistent and expects me to just follow his line of reasoning until he fleshes out the definitions with descriptions. I'm kind of hesitant to do that because at the point of fleshing out, I may very well be too invested into what he presents to care whether I can relate to it or not. Again, I seem to be afraid of dying and letting Spinoza in.

Apparently, Spinoza's work is the expression of principle of sufficient reason. This is a form of absolute causality, where things either: are caused by other things cause themselves While the first point is easy for me to understand, the second one is more counter-intuitive. Spinoza seems to be saying that something causes itself if it cannot be conceived as non-existent. This conceiving-of is nothing other than internal logical consistency of a definition, like for example - a triangle. Triangle exists because it is not self-contradictory, but square circle does not exist because it contradicts itself. PSR does not exclude infinite chains of cause and effect as long as we treat these chains as caused by something else. So, if every cause has an effect, then definitions are the terminating conditions for all existence. If this is a correct explanation of his reasoning, then it falls flat on its face for me, as it does not account for ambiguity of language. Of course, that is only if I choose language to be primary to definitions and it may very well be that it is not the case.

By not being an opponent that is worth conquering.

I'm still thinking about how Spinoza approaches God. My internal objection is that he creates a bunch of definitions and axioms that support each other and lead to the conclusion that god must necessarily exist (in the way he describes it). The objection comes from recognition that it is possible to reverse-engineer this conclusion to produce this set of propositions. This whole structure would then simply be a castle made of sand that is supposed to support an ungrounded belief. That objection is just disrespectful towards the author given what he's been through for writing this book in 17th century.

This journal will be a discussion of the above graph. The graph summarizes my experience of the world from the non-dual perspective.

There are various stages of 'getting it' and if you can't relate to what other people talk about, then it is best if you ignore it. If you see value in practices, then do them. If not - enjoy your peaceful life.

Yesterday I started to read Spinoza's Ethics. I've been interested in it for quite a while now, but Corporeal Fantasy podcast finally pushed me to read it. The biggest difficulty for now is the outdated language of my translation, but is is its greatest strength at the same time. I have a looming objection that Spinoza defines god into existence. He creates definitions of what god is and then, out of these definitions - he concludes that it is a necessity. In the postmodern world where truth is relative to the perceiver, it is very easy to dismiss this approach as childish when the child speaks of the absolute. If I were to treat this work in a post-rational way, I would perceive his propositions as the account of experience and interpret them in such a way that they would make sense. I would have to recontextualize reality to fit the book and let Spinoza in to mess with my being. Hmm, should I let him do it? He looks like a wise man... In post-rational world, this book would be a program to be uploaded onto the mainframe. I went through that with Heidegger before. It was the turning point in my life.

No. Sorry.

It's a game you cannot win, but only a fool doesn't play it.

I think that I'm somewhere between the intellectual and zero fool. It's such a shame that corporeal fantasy does not emphasize the zero fool's foolishness like he does with other kinds of fools. It almost sounds like the zero fool is less foolish than the other kinds.

❤️ Hmm, let's try another way. At first: yes. Then, after we experience enough suffering and self-reflection - we grow and react to them successfully. That solves it for a while, but other problems emerge. We start to notice them because we moved the physical elements out of the way. We suffer and self-reflect and fix new issues. Then, new problems arise because we made space for them. Ad nauseam. BTW. The fact that the thread went full circle is just hilarious given the answers that I presented. This is my last post here, I promise!

That's the difference between idiot and a fool/jester. A perfect idiot in @Zigzag Idiot's sense cannot know that he is an idiot, as the notion of idiocy itself is a manifestation of the common delusion he's secluding himself from. A fool on the other hand is self-aware and uses his detachment from society in a constructive manner. A fool is not an idiot as he takes a vital (albeit counter-intuitive) role in the circus of the human affairs. A fool cannot give away too much of the show, however, as that would be destructive. The best fools look nothing like fools. They become Zen masters. Hmm, it is safe to discuss fool's matters with other fools?

Yes, to some degree. I think of it like this: all understanding is local. It's like a linear approximation of non-linear reality. Having a plan and following it is great for some time, but after some point - you have to evaluate its accuracy and be ready to abandon it. If you stick to it for too long, you are bound to suffer. It is not that understanding and growth are necessarily evil, but our clinging to it past its usefulness make them such. This is how Ego ties with intelligence. All of that being said - just try to not understand things and not grow and observe the immense amount of suffering you will experience. So, the only way out is to simply understand the operating system you run on and let it do its thing.

To fuck up is yet another sentiment of the human mind. I'm not saying that it is an invalid sentiment, as there are better or worse ways to spend your time on this planet. Nonetheless - applying strictly human logic of good and evil to something that we are a manifestation of is unwise at best. Think of it like this - if you cut your hand with a knife, blood will run down your arm. It's bad. As you zoom in, a scab starts to build to stop the blood flow. It's good. As you zoom in, the cells in your bloodstream constantly eat each other and fight. It's bad. As you zoom out - without the process in your blood, you wouldn't even be alive. If you stay stuck at the perspective of the mankind - it's obvious that people killing each other is something disharmonious, but harmony and chaos are two sides of the same coin. You can say that god is so perfectly harmonious that it incorporates chaos into its perfection. Or alternatively - god is so chaotic that its chaos is unstable and results in structure. To pick a side and believe that we need to defend against evil is how suffering is born.

Didn't we? As far as I know we all came from Africa and turned against each other out of our own ignorance. Why would god (reality) adhere to rules of minds that it manifests? Common plain field is our ignorant notion sentiment.