“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.

It’s fashionable, in cognitive science and contemporary philosophy of mind, to take Descartes to task, to bash him, in fact, repeatedly, incessantly, in an effort to divest the study of the brain/mind of the vocabulary and conceptual baggage of Cartesian dualism. Which makes perfect sense. Cognitive science seeks to make the brain-mind relation amenable to scientific investigation. Obviously a philosophy that posits mind and matter as essentially, ontologically distinct, as fundamentally different “stuffs” making up the universe, as Cartesian dualism does, would seem to get in the way of empirical inquiry into how mental phenomena relate to the structure and activity of the brain.

So, as Descartes is generally considered to be the first modern philosopher, and as the newer discipline of cognitive neuroscience sees most of philosophy of mind, particularly in its Cartesian mode, as wrongheaded, unempirical, speculative nonsense, many have sought to cut the nonsense at its source, with Descartes. I’m putting this a bit bluntly, but I think it’s more or less true. E.O. Wilson pretty well captured this derisive attitude towards philosophy, describing it as merely a series of false models of the brain.

Now, Damasio, in the attempt maybe to link cognitive science to the deep tradition of philosophy, rather than have it be a pure, clean break, has taken up Spinoza, who was roughly contemporaneous with Descartes, born thirty or so years after him, as an alternative starting point, as the source of a systematically monistic view of the mind, and of the universe more generally.

But some of what might prove good or useful in Descartes’ philosophy might be hastily thrown out as well. For instance, that what we call the “mind” does seem, intuitively at least, distinct from “matter” as it’s externally observed. That the mental sphere and the physical/physiological sphere, in other words, seem/feel irreducible with respect to one another. Say you attain a complete, exhaustive account of what’s going on in the brain during some mental act, identifying a stimulus on a screen, for instance. Even if all the neural activity is observed and accounted for, something is still left out of the description, namely, the subjective experience itself of seeing the stimulus. A comprehensive, exhaustive account of what’s going on in the brain wouldn’t include, encompass, the experience itself, however much the brain activity may indeed be causing the experience.

I guess my point is, insofar as the mind-brain relation is to be seriously, thoroughly studied, this difference, or irreducibility, of the subjective and objective, internal and external, has to be acknowledged. And so I’d ask Damasio, given a rejection of Cartesian substance dualism (that mind and matter are fundamentally distinct essences), and the acceptance of some sort of monism (which, I’d imagine, the vast majority of scientists and philosophers do), whether strictly Spinozoan or not, does he admit that these two spheres, the subjective and objective, internal and external, are at least phenomenally distinct? And, if so, what would comprise a unifying account of them both?

I’m afraid that may have been hopelessly muddled. Tried my best though, given time/space constraints.

And I’ll throw out the name Benjamin Libet, as a neuroscientist who takes a relatively sympathetic stance towards Descartes. His “Mind-Time” is one of the best cognitive neuroscience books I’ve read.

A few explicitly philosophical questions for ShlomoLeib. While I’m grateful for the historical and religious context comprising a good chunk of this thread, I’d like a little more on Spinoza purely as a philosopher (not that this hasn’t been addressed), as a professional in the profession of philosophy, as it were.

I’m surprised at the scant reference to Descartes in this discussion. It seems to me Spinoza’s monism is in direct reaction to Cartesian dualism. From what I’ve read so far, the only work he published in his lifetime was a treatise on Descartes. How would you describe Descartes’ influence on Spinoza, in its degree and affinity?

In one of your comments you explicitly reject “pantheism” as a label for Spinoza’s metaphysics. But, insofar as pantheism consists in an identification of God with the universe, how is this not apt? Are there further connotations to the term that give you pause?

Do you see an intimacy between identity or dual-aspect theory in contemporary philosophy of mind and Spinoza’s metaphysics? Would you say Spinoza is in some way the source of these more recent theories?

Hmmmmm…had more questions, but they’ve slipped my mind for the moment. Oh, I liked your distinction between “trust” and “faith” in one your posts, by the way. It’s a nice and useful inflection. But you’d have to admit, in loose, everyday, ordinary usage, these terms tend to go hand in hand, if not interchangeably. In personal relations, for instance, “trust” and “faithfulness” are more or less intertwined, no? In the realm of ideas, though, where “faith” does have an explicit religious resonance, your point is very well taken. Thanks again.

Spinoza by proxy?

Keep it going !

Let’s be clear about this. Spinoza managed to, dare I say, intuit, so much in his day that he could not possibly know from the science available to him. His foresight and genius are indeed remarkable and amazing qualities, but nor he or his philosophy were perfect. It was said of Freud that the biggest problem with his theories were that they were too ‘perfect’ and he had an answer for everything. We know today that Freud’s brilliance and his perseverance in establishing psychoanalysis among the sciences is tainted with some glaring and perhaps even dangerous ideas. And yes, even the great Einstein turned out to be wrong a time or two. Infallibility is for Popes; honest knowledge is the domain of the irreverent and often leaves us feeling a little disappointed.

There exists a common danger that devout Spinozists, like myself, in an attempt to reconcile Spinoza to all circumstances, will retrofit later mathematical or scientific discoveries into his philosophy. This is a typical trait of religions and religious mind-sets that view their gods or leaders as infallible and all-knowing. When this occurs, it becomes more of a fan club that a real honest-to-goodness acceptance and analysis of ideas. I suspect that I, too, have been guilty a time or two of this mistake. If you spend enough time with an idea, it becomes sort of timeless. You forget when it started and from where it began in relation to context. One could forget that unlike the late 20th or early 21st century biology student, Darwin, Wallace, or Mendel did not have the broader scope of genetic knowledge we possess today. That they were correct as often as they were, without knowing the true depth of their observations, is still truly amazing!

It is not a brilliant bit of deduction, equation, or experiment that transforms a great thinker into a hero. Our heroes are beloved because they challenged the enforced and regulated status quo of outdated ideas and false beliefs at some danger to their lives and reputations. Men like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes, Spinoza, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, etc. were not angels or divinely inspired saints, imbued each with intellectual prowess unlike any mankind has ever known previously. There were, in fact, men of greater capability that our heroes used as a foundation for their own endeavors. The distinguishing factor was a curiosity so strong that it simply overwhelmed any reservations brought about by external conditions. They, too, became caught up in the idea, so much so that they forgot their own time and place, thus transcending the existing paradigm to such an extent as to shift the totality of human knowledge from one level to the next, in spite of the danger dissemination of that idea may have posed. That later generations become infatuated with these concepts and their authors is no real dilemma at all. It testifies to the man’s overall devotion to a deeper understanding and the roots of discovery. As far as a love affair goes, one could do a whole lot worse.

Yet, with ideas, as in romantic love, there may lurk a dangerous blindness caused by infatuation turned habituation. The psychological associations i.e. culture, behavior, science, etc. that I form when reading the Ethics, while having the benefit of modern neuroscience and psychology at my disposal, are not going to necessarily be the same as those of a 17th century Dutch lens grinder. I should be careful not to project what I know now onto what he knew then. As Spinoza himself would have warned, “Caute!” I can imagine (there I go again!) sitting at a greasy spoon with Benedict while chatting about ‘passions and appetites’, where he strongly disagrees with everything I say in reference to and on behalf of his philosophy, if for no other reason than to keep things intellectually honest. At least I hope that’s what he’d do.

Like a good piece of literature that catches your deepest interests and emotional sensitivity, an idea that takes hold doesn’t easily let go, and those which convey a ‘common sense’ or innovative theory that suits our understanding, can easily transcend time, space, and the accurate, well-placed critique of others. I have to careful to maintain an objectivity and detachment from what Spinoza’s philosophy does for me, as me, from what Spinoza actually said as Spinoza. The question to ask becomes “Is it Spinoza talking here? Or is it Shlomo?” Sometimes we must remind ourselves that heroes can still be heroes and be dead wrong about something very important. We should not instinctively rush to their rescue by changing their meaning or context to suit modern mentalities. That is a job better suited for theologians and fanatical groupies.

Deus sive Natura!

“Authenticity matters little, though our willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility.” (David P. Mikkelson)

This thread is providing more clarity – thanks to you and everyone for taking the time.

Btw, I think that confrontation leads to insight – that’s my excuse.

Like with Adam and the apple, should the steak actually turn out to be poisonous (bad) for the physical Hindu, I would advise him not to eat it, as it might otherwise hasten and aggravate an already uncompromising demise.

Morality leads to falsehoods. It is a stubborn and exaggerated attamept to inculcate a ideal by any means necessary, because the plain truth would debunk the need for such morals from the get-go. Laws concering victimless crimes, anti-gay measures, and medical marijuana are good examples of where lies prevail in order to uphold a moral ‘truth’. One cannot have morality without telling bold-faced lies to support it. If a thing is worthy of doing or not-doing, then the plain truth should suffice in support of it. Spinoza felt that rational honesty was better than opinion.

I am not a moral man. I know that my tastes, experiences, and thoughts intermingle and the more I am self-aware the less influence they unconsciously assert over my actions. I am a Spinozist.

Lumiere,

Good question. Spinoza sees morality as arbitrary. His question to the Hindu would be “Who said that eating the cow was wrong in the first place that you should now even have a question as to whether or not to eat it?” It is not the morally relativistic circumstances we may find ourselves in that Spinoza questions. He goes right to the core of the matter, denying by way of reason any value to morality beyond that which is already established as a practical, ethical matter.

Peace

Allow me to post the best operating definition of consciousness that I have found. This does not mean that Jazzman’s or GvB’s ideas don’t deserve consideration, they most certainly do. What I have been trying to ascertain is a basic definition of what those gentlemen consider as consciousness. Consciousness seems to get to the core debate of Spinoza’s world view.

I spent a couple of years working through Dennett’s heterophenomenology in Consciouness Explained, and I had always wondered why, since Dennett laudibly takes a naturalistic approach to consciousness, that Dennett never mentions Spinoza. Perhaps, it was due to Decartes asking the question and the continued predominance of Dualism in our thinking. As we see form this thread (excellent by the way), dualistic thinking seems to still be alive and well, even (or especially!) in Physics. I will agree that simply to dismiss QM in order to have a simpler system is not a good idea, but that QM has its detractors and should not be portrayed as universally accepted, especially when mixed with TM or, what sounds to me like the channeling of Madame Blavatsky.

To debate the intricacies of EPR, Bell’s Inequalities, and the various refutations thereof would detract from the thread. It’s too bad, because as a former science teacher, I seldom have the opportunity these days to dialogue with a working physicist.

I ascribe to Damasio’s definition of consciousness. http://www.architecture-mind.com/damasio.html

Peace! No War!

I’m starting to see the logic of Spinoza’ determinism – it avoids unresolvable issues.

It is amoral not immoral, no?

If the grain harvest fails, a cow must be eaten.
A moral Hindu would have to accept death rather than make an exception to get to the next harvest.

I’m reading Heideger for Arendt – very amoral stuff

By argument I mean a dialectic by which a thesis is presented and supported (defended logically.) By that definition anytime one presents one’s views on a subject in response to others with whom exception is taken, argument (without its negative connotation) exists. If one is willing to change one’s beliefs and has questions as to the existential nature of phenomena then inquiry is indispensable.

I can’t believe you don’t want to be convinced if you are presented with ideas that appear intuitively or intellectually “right” and a better fit with your current understanding then I’m sure it would take little convincing for their adoption. If one believes their perspective has merit, it is natural to seek those who share that view and one usually hopes that others would adopt it as well. Here’s to the expansion of everyone’s horizon.

Peace

Here is a squib I posted in the Holy Grail of Physics thread
.
ALL THAT EXISTS is comprised of a unified field or force that manifest as Consciousness, Energy and Matter (CEM). Consciousness manifests as energy (3 of the 4 forces have been unified: Electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces which are aspects of what we call LIGHT and energy manifests as matter (solid light). Consciousness manifests as elementary particles (quarks), black holes, viruses and humans.

The phenomenon we call GRAVITY results from the innate gregariousness of consciousness, i.e., the attraction of consciousness to itself. That’s the missing link to a Unified Field Theory but most physicists have a problem with consciousness. Because they haven’t yet figured out a way to measure it with machines (ostensibly to eliminate their own consciousness from contaminating the research but the machines are also composed of consciousness) so many of them ignore it or term it emergent epiphenomenalism and believe it is somehow generated from the complex physical structure called the BRAIN. They use their conscious minds to derive their formulae but deny the mind’s or consciousness’ existence apart from the brain.

Multidimensional mathematical models such as Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation of QM or string theory may be tailored to comport with observations but any unified theory that ignores consciousness as a fundamental property of everything IMO will fail.

BTW Heisenberg’s principle is a subset of the theorem which states that when a member of a conjugate pair is precisely quantified that its complementary member’s attributes are unquantifiable. As to Einstein’s localism, Bell’s inequality theorem which has been scientifically verified to be true that “action at a distance” is demonstrable and appears to violate that principle, realism (critical and naïve) and determinism are necessary to support a mechanistic view of physical reality but it ignores non-physical aspects which is where consciousness bridges the gap.

Peace

No it’s always avoidable and is NEVER justified. This is “the end justifies my means” behavior of a fanatic. A fanatic is one who believes that he/she knows what is right for whatever situation and rather than working peacefully to achieve their goal, does whatever they think is necessary to make it happen ASAP (preferably while they’re alive so their ego can reap the benefits.)

This philosophy is responsible for ALL the atrocities committed by human beings since Cain killed Abel (metaphorically – not literally.) All committed by people who were pursuing their/or their leader’s vision of the “ideal” and were pessimistic that this could be accomplished peacefully or believed that it would take too long.

In principle this is NO different than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Reagan or GW. These leaders believed they were doing the “right” thing for themselves and their cause. Since most of the educated secular world believes in the Darwinistic Model of “Survival of the Fittest” – read dominators of their environment (which presupposes a competitive rather than cooperative paradigm in nature and by extension humankind), it makes it even easier to justify survival at the expense of everything else.

William James would likely say that this is the true danger of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett’s musings notwithstanding, that without a “moral” compass, humans are free to behave in any way that they see fit and rationalize that behavior as their “natural” right to enhance the chance of passing on their heritable characteristics (eugenistically speaking.)

Wars are started by this idea (that the end justifies the means and so war is justified – usually due to FEAR and impatience on the aggressors’ part) and they are stopped by ideas (that peace is desirable and war will not be tolerated.)

Peace to ALL

Excommunicated, he was then free.

One reason why it chilled me is that I have been shunned by about half of my orthodox Jewish family for marrying someone who is not Jewish. To them it is as though I am dead. This caused me a lot of pain but it gave me my spine. . Maybe they did Spinoza ( and us all) a favor by excommunicating him- perhaps this helped focuse his mind, not that I would wish it on anyone. But one does have to ask oneself “what is this for?” and what is it about. I think Spinoza was wise beyond suffering for his thoughts. Excommunicated, was then free.

That said I have been told by learned religious relatives ( the ones that do speak to me) that I can never be considered not Jewish, no matter what I believe, or what I do, I will always be considered a Jew. This is more enlightened; it protects Jews as much, if not more, from assimilation/extinction as one is always welcome back to the fold. Judaism itself also grows and is enriched.

Excommunication comes up again (in a less formal way?) when we talk about Hannah Arendt on ROS topic on Arendt warming up with Amos Elon’s excellent essay The Excommunication of Hannah Arendt