“The finest emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose primitive forms alone are intelligible to our dull faculties–this knowledge, this feeling… is at the core of true religion.”

To my mind, this not only illustrates Einstein’s spirituality, but adds clarity to the definitions of mysticism, spirituality, and religion in the best sense of those terms; definitions which are necessarily a supreme challenge given the intangible or existential nature of the subject, yet at the same time a critical challenge if humanity is to evolve from material to spiritual beings. In so doing therefore, it seems to raise Einstein’s status in the realm of metaphysics to something on par with his status as a physicist. In any case the views of both Spinoza and Einstein appear consistent with a principle enunciated by the prophet Baha‘u‘llah, that religion should conform to reason.

A similarly pleasant surprise was discovering that the psychologist Carl Jung regarded religious belief to be the foundation of mental health. I first came across this assertion by one of Jung’s biographers. While I didn’t doubt the principle intuitively nor that Jung himself would attest to it, I yearned for more concrete evidence than a biographer’s say so. Although not much of a scholar myself, having been mostly a tradesman and artisan prior to developing what could be described as a political disability, I haven’t read much of Jung’s work per se. But I was aware that the field of psychology has typically been quite hostile to religious belief in any size shape or form. In seeking confirmation from people who are well versed in Jung’s writings, they invariably disputed the existence of such an assertion.

Then in conjunction with a recent MLK day observance, a poster listed a presentation about spirituality in higher education by Art Chickering, Ph.D. who was cited as the author of “Igniting the Fire of Conversation: How To Talk About Hot Topics Without Getting Burned”, which is due out (in the blistering, global-warming heat of) this summer. In the interest of self preservation, I decided to check it out as it sounded about as close to a useful tool for the common man as academia gets. Though informative, it wasn’t quite what I’d hoped, but the organizer turned out to be a psychologist; specifically a drug and alcohol counselor to whom I had the presence of mind to pop the question about Jung. She cited http://www.barefootsword.net/jungletter.html as a source for Jung’s letter to Alcoholics Anonymous founder Bill Wilson, written only a few months prior to Jung’s passing in 1961.

To my mind Jung reveals unequivocally where he stands on the issue of religion, albeit not necessarily in the organized sense, and shares his elucidating insights in support of his conclusion. As if that weren’t enough, he also explains why he didn’t attempt to assert such a position in his earlier work; that in attempting to do so he was too often misunderstood and there is a lack of words with which to discuss the topic without ending up in controversy; the sort of controversy that Dr. Chickering’s work is seeking a means to avoid. To illustrate Jung points out that the active agent in both alcohol and religion have the same root, spiritus. He closes by suggesting a simple Latin phrase as a solution that succinctly summarizes the situation. Readers may note that the original typewritten text of his letter is underlined and reads “spiritus contra spiritum” while two inches below that in the bold computer font is “Spiritum contra spiritus”. As slow as I am at reading and comprehending English, it could be years before I figure out which Latin expression is correct, but just below the latter phrase is a discussion of a similar phrase written by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180 A.D.) which suggests that Jung made a Freudian slip.

(Sorry I didn’t jump back in sooner. Busy at work.)

Re: Descartes

Without Descartes there would be no Spinoza. Descartes made asking good questions, via his methodology, a popular and acceptable pastime. His reputation as a mathematician made people trust in his ideas, major of which was that man is a ‘thinking thing’, that thought defines us, and not necessarily faith. This opened up new chance, perhaps for many that had been eagerly awaiting the opportunity, for thinkers and philosophical dissidents to speak their minds with the waning of the Vatican’s power. Eventually, what Descartes began became his undoing.

Re: Descartes in discussion

I agree that Descartes needs a bit more attention here. Yet, I also find many instances when I would expect to find Spinoza and do not, especially in texts or discussions of behavior, rationale, and consciousness. In “Consciousness Explained”, the entire premise, although Dennett rejects it outright, is based in the assumptions of the Cartesian Duality. (Some of the questions you posed later on concerning subjectivity and experience are covered by Dennett.)

Re: Pantheism

I could be accused here of making a ‘distinction without a difference’, and I suppose, in all honesty, that a guilty plea is in order. Pleading for mercy from the court, however, allow me justify this best I can.

The danger in defining Spinoza’s beliefs as pantheistic tend to associate his view of God/Nature with other pantheistic systems that maintain some variance of transcendental or other-worldly attributes to a deity or spiritual essence of some sort. So, to avoid any possible confusion, I refer to it as ‘substance monism’ and, when I wish to be even more specific, would add ‘physical-substance monism’. I would say that Spinoza does not identify God with the Universe, rather the physical universe as THE overwhelming, yet indifferent and morally neutral determining cause. The Roman Stoics shared a similar, though not exact, sentiment regarding the pantheon of gods in their time.

Re: influence of Spinoza

To my dismay, I don’t see any influence from Spinoza at all. Damasio may be the first to seriously give any consideration to Spinoza in this regard. As I mentioned before, Dennett does a great job without ever mentioning Spinoza, though I would have enjoyed a reference or two, even if only in critique.

I think the influence of Spinoza is not as strong as it could or should be because he just doesn’t fit in anywhere he goes. If you are dealing with naturalism, then you have to overcome his bible speak. Some of my fellow naturalist/determinists do not read Spinoza for that reason. Then, when you get to the spiritualists and religious rationalists, his atheism and determinism becomes another insurmountable issue.

The last problem is one Spinoza created for himself by writing in a language he hadn’t quite mastered (Latin) while trying to convey a radical notion in a manner of speaking (Talmudic logic) that few people, outside of those who wouldn’t read Spinoza for the above-mentioned reasons, would ever grasp. The audiences his method was designed to reach would never touch his stuff. Let’s call it a marketing problem.

Spinoza’s isolation coupled with the sort of ideas he was positing, created a new nomenclature, as well. As we see from some of the questions posed here, all good by the way, ‘Spinoza’ is a foreign language no matter where you come from.

Peace (& thanks for joining us!)

Yes- not bad for a woman.

Good show- and it inspires me to read ( and think). I feel a connection to Spinoza from all this discussion.

Thanks for the book recommendations. ( Stuart Hampshire – Rebeccah Goldstein, and Spinoza’ own “Ethics”)

I think Rebecca Goldstein is a respectable scholar and I enjoy hearing women talk the way she does. I want to respect her even more, but I can’t. Why not? It’s the agenda thing. Bloom also says that “She insists upon a Jewish context”. The oppressed cannot claim exclusive rights to the way history has treated them. In fact, they were under the tutelage of the oppressor but didn’t know it. God helps those who help themselves. In the end the best teacher of all is the reflection in the mirror.