Spinoza's God: what is his model and why don't we hear about it more commonly?

[Malthus]

@DSeid

What I think does happen, for better or worse, is that many of take from Spinoza the parts that appeal to our extant ways of thought and choose to interpret his writings parsimoniously with those extant ways of thought.

Lord knows that’s what I do.

To my mind, people come to Spinoza because of stuff they have thought of elsewhere already. I don’t think it is too common for someone these days (if ever) to read Spinoza ‘cold’.

Parallelism? I think of “thought” and the activity of the mind, and the activity within the body (in particular but not necessarily exclusively of the brain) as different levels of analysis and description of the same thing, again, similar to the parallel of understanding water molecules interacting with each other under various conditions and thinking about the dynamics of water as a population of molecules and the characteristics of ice, steam, and fluid dynamics. They are in reality different attributes of the same substance. Neither is a more valid or objectively true level of analysis. Each has its utility.

Is that what he meant? Or nothing of the sort? I don’t know.

Anyway, moving on … I don’t think that a Spinozan view of God precludes a God with a consciousness by the way, even if it precludes it being a consciousness that is comprehensible to our minds. To his phraseology Thought in our minds is a finite mode of the infinite Divine intellect. To use imaging that was outside of his time, it is very much akin to saying that our neurons process information, integrating various dendritic inputs and resulting out various axonal outputs to hosts of other neurons, as part of higher levels of information processing, which altogether result in a brain which does information processing … with what know as “consciousness” as we understand and perceive it being an attribute at the individual level … and that together individuals process information in greater and more complex ways with larger results up to levels of global societies … which could theoretically have some Thought attribute incomprehensible to our level of analysis just as much as what “consciousness” for the brain is incomprehensible to the level of a neuron. Continuing that line of thought, one way that some theoreticians are looking at the nature of the universe today is that the universe is, at it most fundamental core, all most primarily just information … or minimally that the patterns of information are a/the fundamental attribute … thus all of the universe to this way of thinking is processing information at grander and grander levels and our little brains are just one small aspect of that experiencing that level of information processing as we do, very differently than the greater whole does, but consistent with a concept that the greater whole does as well. Support for that conceptualization comes from what we know about the behaviors of many complex chaotic systems: the tendency of such systems to develop self-similar patterns on different levels of analysis (popularized by the imagery of fractals and the ubiquity of that repeating self-similarity of such systems within the natural world, which Spinoza would describe as Extension).

But that concept of a conscious/aware God is a very different one than that articulated within most religions, and is very divorced from a transcendent personal one. And while fun to think about ultimately matters naught. It does however raise the mind/body duality problem to the Divine level: the immanence of incomprehensible Divine Thought as a parallel process to physical Extension of the universe, including all those physical aspects that are in very real ways unknowable to us.

To cite an example upthread: when I read of the beavers’ collective efforts over centuries transforming the landscape in ways that regulate the hydrology of watersheds to make them more conducive to habitat formation for a large number of other species… the beavers are thinking at, well, the level of beavers; but they are part of a grander pattern, a ‘design’ that isn’t actually ‘designed’ by anyone or anything but that simply emerges out of itself.

That’s how I picture the consciousness of the divine. Human minds, over centuries, are of course part of that - though we have the spark or potential for self awareness that we are (moreso than a beaver, or at least, I would assume ).

[DSeid]

Ach. I meant to include this link re the ubiquity of repeating self-similarity at different scales of analysis (fractals) in the natural/physical world (Extension). Again the spin of how I understand Spinoza suggests that information processing (Thought) as parallel Attribute (of Substance) would behave the same way.

On preview, yes, Malthus. Me too!

And the rest gets very "Godel Escher Bach"ish with Doug Hofstadter’s “strange loops” … does an ant colony have a mind? If these strange processing loops are self-similar at increasingly grander scales does something in the Thought attribute exist on an equally but parallel grander scale? To some degree is God as immanent vs transcendent of the universe a very similar discussion to the Mind/body duality question, just at different scales, one very finite and one infinite?

[DSeid]

Sorry for the multi-post but for those who are are not familiar with Hofstadterthese links might help explain about how he proposes consciousness arises from tangled hierarchies of strange loops of information processing … with difference being that in a Spinozan mindset (or at least the one I choose to take) Consciousness/Thought is not an “illusion” but a parallel Attribute. Add in self-similarity of complex chaotic systems at higher levels and the “Mind of the Divine” logically and deductively follows.

That’s the God I believe in. Not a God of the Gaps, not a personal God, not a creating or destroying or judging God. But pretty dang awe-inspiring to me.

[WordMan]

@DSeid

Sorry for the multi-post but for those who are are not familiar with Hofstadterthese links might help explain about how he proposes consciousness arises from tangled hierarchies of strange loops of information processing … with difference being that in a Spinozan mindset (or at least the one I choose to take) Consciousness/Thought is not an “illusion” but a parallel Attribute. Add in self-similarity of complex chaotic systems at higher levels and the “Mind of the Divine” logically and deductively follows.

That’s the God I believe in. Not a God of the Gaps, not a personal God, not a creating or destroying or judging God. But pretty dang awe-inspiring to me.

Wonderful. Thank you for sharing that.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Stoneburg

(snip)
No, I very specifically pointed out that the author can not be confirmed, only the content. My ”opinion” on the matter is that I don’t care who wrote it, but it’s good at describing how this process works.

No, you did no such thing. This is what you did say:

@Stoneburg

And even though it may be very controversial to someone who is Christian to hear, Christianity is a complete misunderstanding of Jesus realization. He was saying the exact same thing as Buddha and Plato, but was basically hijacked after his death and used to prop up a pre-rational mythological world view that very much went against everything he taught. And the controversial parts of his teachings were either edited out or banned altogether. But if you have understanding of the non-dual and trans-rational world view, you can see that it is exactly what he is saying in the unedited scripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, here are a few quotes from the Gospel of Thomas to clarify the split:

Bolding mine.

Now, maybe you meant that the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas said all these things, and they were the same things that Buddha and Plato said (another claim I’m suspicious of, but lack the detailed knowledge of Plato or Buddhism on which to form a competent opinion), but you very clearly implied that Thomas was the “unedited” teaching of Jesus.

I pointed out that Thomas is no more likely to be the actual words of Jesus - if he existed - than are the Synoptic Gospels. There’s just no certainty about what Jesus actually taught.

You responded thusly:

There is very much a reason to believe it because it is both verifiable and is in consensus with other non-dual teachings. (snip)

Sounds to me like you’re claiming that the Thomasine Gospel is the true teaching of Jesus. But now you’re moving the goalposts and saying that you were actually talking about the the similarity of Thomas to Buddhism and Neo-Platonism, and the “verifiablity” of the mystic experience:

The author is irrelevant (to me), I’m only interested in the content. I am saying that the content (what is pointed towards in the allegories) can be verified by following certain injunctions (such as meditation, self-inquiry, or big amounts of psychedelic drugs). Whether there ever was a guy from Nazareth named Jesus said it is not really relevant unless you are religious, I’m not religious so I don’t really care, and I think the debate about “literal truths” always miss the point. When Jesus says ”The kingdom is within you…” I don’t think he meant that if you cut yourself open with a knife you will find a nation ruled by a monarch in your bladder.

And Buddhas statements can be verified as well. As can Platos and the others. I assume the main reason that not everybody is non-dual already is that people are too damn lazy to do the work, expecting someone else to explain everything to them and then complaining when the explanation either doesn’t fit their current world view, or contradicts their current perspective on experience.

Now, you’re probably wondering why I’m making such a big deal about a relatively minor point, like the man in the Buddhist koan who points at the moon but only sees the end of his finger, but there is a larger point:

We naked plains apes are very good at spotting patterns. Very, very good. Not surprising, because every one of us is descended from an ape who was able to recognize the pattern big paw prints around waterhole => stink of cat piss => Grandpa Unk’s not around anymore.

We are in fact so good at spotting patterns, that we’re even able to spot patterns that aren’t even there, like constellations in the stars, and how crazy everyone gets during a full moon. We can find meaning in all sorts of random phenomena, and make up all kinds of stories to explain them. What we’re not really good at is figuring out what is actually real, and what is just our overactive pattern-finding minds at work.

That’s why the tools of rationality – the “formal operational level”, in your terms – are so important. Questioning everything, not completely trusting an idea until it is demonstrated objectively, being willing to admit that you don’t know and may be wrong – these are not just ways to explore our reality, but also checks on our arrogance. We must heed the words written over the door of the German Naval Officer’s School in Kiel: “Say not ‘This is the truth’ but ‘So it seems to me to be as I now see the things I think I see.’ ”

“Nondual thinkers” may have come up with similar insights across the human race, but that only suggests that human brains all work pretty much the same way; humans across the planet have also come up with astrology and storm-gods, and we’re confident that they’re bunk. Mystics say they have the truth; rationalists are not so arrogant.

[Stoneburg]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

Now, maybe you meant that the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas said all these things, and they were the same things that Buddha and Plato said (another claim I’m suspicious of, but lack the detailed knowledge of Plato or Buddhism on which to form a competent opinion)

Yes that is exactly what I was saying and is pretty much my whole point regarding the Jesus character.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

but you very clearly implied that Thomas was the “unedited” teaching of Jesus.

I pointed out that Thomas is no more likely to be the actual words of Jesus - if he existed - than are the Synoptic Gospels. There’s just no certainty about what Jesus actually taught.

Ok, I accept that. Obviously I was not communicating clearly and gave a confused message, my bad.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

Sounds to me like you’re claiming that the Thomasine Gospel is the true teaching of Jesus. But now you’re moving the goalposts and saying that you were actually talking about the the similarity of Thomas to Buddhism and Neo-Platonism, and the “verifiablity” of the mystic experience:

You say ”moving the goal post” but I’m not playing football, I’m simply trying to clarify what it is I mean. Someone who moves a goal post is cheating, and that is not what I am doing here. I’m trying to communicate and share information as clearly as possible.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

Now, you’re probably wondering why I’m making such a big deal about a relatively minor point, like the man in the Buddhist koan who points at the moon but only sees the end of his finger, but there is a larger point:

Yes I am wondering that actually… and to me the finger/moon example seems relevant at this point.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

We naked plains apes are very good at spotting patterns. Very, very good. Not surprising, because every one of us is descended from an ape who was able to recognize the pattern big paw prints around waterhole => stink of cat piss => Grandpa Unk’s not around anymore.

Yes this is the ”pre-rational” modes of cognition working their magic.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

We are in fact so good at spotting patterns, that we’re even able to spot patterns that aren’t even there, like constellations in the stars, and how crazy everyone gets during a full moon. We can find meaning in all sorts of random phenomena, and make up all kinds of stories to explain them. What we’re not really good at is figuring out what is actually real, and what is just our overactive pattern-finding minds at work.

Yes this is when the pre-rational modes of cognition fails and we end up with volcano gods and rain dancing.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

That’s why the tools of rationality – the “formal operational level”, in your terms – are so important. Questioning everything, not completely trusting an idea until it is demonstrated objectively, being willing to admit that you don’t know and may be wrong – these are not just ways to explore our reality, but also checks on our arrogance. We must heed the words written over the door of the German Naval Officer’s School in Kiel: “Say not ‘This is the truth’ but ‘So it seems to me to be as I now see the things I think I see.’ ”

Still not finding anything I disagree with… formal operational transcends the previous operating systems. Specifically it helps us clear the issues with the previous ones, such as syncretism.

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

“Nondual thinkers” may have come up with similar insights across the human race, but that only suggests that human brains all work pretty much the same way; humans across the planet have also come up with astrology and storm-gods, and we’re confident that they’re bunk. Mystics say they have the truth; rationalists are not so arrogant.

Actually I disagree completely here. I would suggest that most rationalists think they have the truth, but because of social convention they do not say it. The post-modernists tend to claim there is no universal truth, but fail to see that the very claim that there is no universal truth is their own claim of an universal truth.

But essentially the question of arrogance is a complete red herring. That’s a moral judgement on someones behavior and has nothing to do with content. I can arrogantly claim that 2+2=4 and it is still correct. I can humbly claim that 2+2=5 and the fact that I am humble about it has nothing to to with the truth value.

Just as the formal operational mind (or operating system) is more powerful than the previous ones when it comes to attaining the truth, it makes sense that later operating systems will be even more powerful. The rationalist response to this seems to be to claim that there is nothing more powerful than the formal operational system, which is exactly the claim that every operating system that preceded it has made and which has always been shown to be incorrect (of course a lot of people still cling to lower operating systems for cultural and social reasons and in order to defend their volcano gods).

To me the whole issue is completely uncontroversial and I now see how it has all played out, including how it has manifested itself in the evolution of this current body/mind system of mine. But I am also sick to death of trying to explain this to people and I rather ”hang” with others who have vision logic activated and who have come to the non-dual insight. Just like rationalists look for other rationalists and pre-rationalists look for other pre-rationalist, the few people who are trans-rational look to each other for communion. It’s not a question of arrogance but of convenience, it’s simply not worth the time and effort to go through all the same stuff again and again, and if you want to discuss something from a certain perspective you need to find people who have access to that perspective.

Do I secretly wish that everyone would become a trans-rational non-dual holonist? Yes, I really, really do. Am I willing to do anything to make it that way? No, I’m really not. I’m done, I’m out of the ”converting people” business. Totally fed up. It’s not worth it and it doesn’t work anyway. Either people get there or they don’t. I’m just trying to find those who are already there, so I have people to hang with.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Stoneburg

Yes that is exactly what I was saying and is pretty much my whole point regarding the Jesus character.
Ok, I accept that. Obviously I was not communicating clearly and gave a confused message, my bad.

You say ”moving the goal post” but I’m not playing football, I’m simply trying to clarify what it is I mean. Someone who moves a goal post is cheating, and that is not what I am doing here. I’m trying to communicate and share information as clearly as possible.

Yes I am wondering that actually… and to me the finger/moon example seems relevant at this point.
Yes this is the ”pre-rational” modes of cognition working their magic.
Yes this is when the pre-rational modes of cognition fails and we end up with volcano gods and rain dancing.
Still not finding anything I disagree with… formal operational transcends the previous operating systems. Specifically it helps us clear the issues with the previous ones, such as syncretism.
Actually I disagree completely here. I would suggest that most rationalists think they have the truth, but because of social convention they do not say it. The post-modernists tend to claim there is no universal truth, but fail to see that the very claim that there is no universal truth is their own claim of an universal truth.

But essentially the question of arrogance is a complete red herring. That’s a moral judgement on someones behavior and has nothing to do with content. I can arrogantly claim that 2+2=4 and it is still correct. I can humbly claim that 2+2=5 and the fact that I am humble about it has nothing to to with the truth value.

Just as the formal operational mind (or operating system) is more powerful than the previous ones when it comes to attaining the truth, it makes sense that later operating systems will be even more powerful. The rationalist response to this seems to be to claim that there is nothing more powerful than the formal operational system, which is exactly the claim that every operating system that preceded it has made and which has always been shown to be incorrect (of course a lot of people still cling to lower operating systems for cultural and social reasons and in order to defend their volcano gods).

To me the whole issue is completely uncontroversial and I now see how it has all played out, including how it has manifested itself in the evolution of this current body/mind system of mine. But I am also sick to death of trying to explain this to people and I rather ”hang” with others who have vision logic activated and who have come to the non-dual insight. Just like rationalists look for other rationalists and pre-rationalists look for other pre-rationalist, the few people who are trans-rational look to each other for communion. It’s not a question of arrogance but of convenience, it’s simply not worth the time and effort to go through all the same stuff again and again, and if you want to discuss something from a certain perspective you need to find people who have access to that perspective.

Do I secretly wish that everyone would become a trans-rational non-dual holonist? Yes, I really, really do. Am I willing to do anything to make it that way? No, I’m really not. I’m done, I’m out of the ”converting people” business. Totally fed up. It’s not worth it and it doesn’t work anyway. Either people get there or they don’t. I’m just trying to find those who are already there, so I have people to hang with.

You see how your “trans-rational” thinking resembles a religious “pre-rational” faith? Only those who accept it will get it.

There’s more I could say in defense of rationalism, but it doesn’t feel fair to do so when you aren’t able to respond, so I’ll forbear.

[Affectivity]

Having troubled myself the past eight or so years with the substance of Spinoza’s metaphysics, psychology and ethics, I’m going to throw my two-cents in with you. I differ with your choice of terms describing Spinoza’s reality though. I don’t find a “core/system from which Reality emanates,” as far as I read. As far as I read, and I’ll make the analogy: as we don’t emanate our cells and organs, nor are they separate from us; neither would I say that Nature or God emanates us, as we are simply one of the modes of existence. Existence simply is and continually modifies itself. It is for us to understand existence. For us is the study, through maths and sciences, the laws at work in the ratios of movement and rest in which it operates. That’s what I get from books I and II of The Ethics. After that comes III—Mind, IV—Affects/emotions, and V—(for lack of a better word) Behavior.

It’s taken me this long to reach an intuition of this notion of God/Nature, the infinite, absolute, eternal totality. But I still wonder. And so, yes, I agree with you that “God is not personal, and not influential - Reality will never be modified or engaged by a personal God.”
I’m with you that “there is stuff we can’t know.” Spinoza cites that Thought and Extension are the only attributes through which we understand existence but that in God there are infinite attributes.

I came to my study of Spinoza when stumbling on his wonderful difference with Decartes: The mind is an idea of the body; the body is the object of the mind: they are one and the same. So, yes, no duality.

Spinoza protested that he wasn’t an atheist. Some critics found him an obsessive pan-theist. He troubled my early reading of his work with his focus on God, but once I came to a grasp (of sorts) of the whole of Existence, or Nature, of Substance as an intelligence, then I understood his deduction of it as divine. (Polish cyberneticist, philosopher, novelist, Stanislaw Lem in his novel Solaris presented the eponymous planet as an indecipherable brain/mind.) So I’m going to differ with you here too that God=Nature is too simple. As we earn from Occam’s Razor, the simplest is usually the best explanation.

Coincidentally, recently I too wondered about Einstein’s believing Spinoza’s God as his. One of the great difficulties I encountered in understanding Spinoza was his theory of parallelism especially as it applied to Thought and Existence. Spinoza deduces that, no, there is no duality of mind and body; but, that, simply (I hope) no body, no mind, simple. What struck me was Einstein’s conclusion on matter and energy. Just as for Spinoza the attributes of Thought (intellect) and Extension (things) are one and the same that continually modify as motion and rest alter. Einstein saw that Matter and Energy are conserved though continually modify as motion and rest alter.

So why don’t we more generally even universally accept Spinoza’s world/life view? Spinoza doesn’t argue toward any conclusion; Spinoza sets out Euclidian-like (geometrically) his grasp, understanding, vision of existence from premises made of a substance lacking nothing modifying itself through motion and rest. It is logically deduced. We as a species are not ready yet to give up our “Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and god-like technology” (E. O. Wilson). Furthermore, as Spinoza deduced and modern studies show, facts and truths don’t rouse people to change their ways unless it triggers an altering emotional response as well. In fact actual facts or truths (round earth, fossils older than 6K years) without that emotional power, likely arouse further entrenchment. On the basis of Alt-facts & Fake News.

Let me make this disclaimer: I’ve read and studied enough Spinoza to know that I may not know what I’m talking about. I started reading/studying him because his mind/body unity and monism made a sense I found exciting. But following his logic, as terrifically powerfully as it is, is terrifically difficult. And in my excitement I likely presume too much of my comprehension.

I don’t know what your references are but Eugene Marshall’s The Spiritual Automaton is a powerful if difficult source.

I thank you for your indugence.

[coffeecat]

Spinoza’s model, as I understand it, is that the universe is a thinking being, and that’s what God is. God is no less personal than we are. He isn’t free to choose—He can’t be other than what He is—but then, we’re not free to choose, either. We just think we are, because we’re not aware of what’s influencing our behavior.

Mind and matter are two different ways of looking at reality, a.k.a. God. For example, you can understand the mind in terms of thoughts, or in terms of brain function.

Why isn’t he more popular? Well, like the Man said, excellence is as difficult as it is rare. It took me ten years of picking up The Ethics, feeling like I was banging my head on a wall, putting it down, and picking it up again months later, before something finally clicked in my head and I read it, and maybe half understood it. That’s not conducive to becoming a best-seller, but if you want the answer to life, the universe, and everything, The Ethics is probably as close as you can get.

[jtur88]

As for the second part of the question, “Why don’t we hear about it?”.

We "hear about "only what the media-industrial complex disseminates to us. And nobody with access to the media has a personal interest in fostering this conversation.

[Voyager]

@jtur88

As for the second part of the question, “Why don’t we hear about it?”.

We "hear about "only what the media-industrial complex disseminates to us. And nobody with access to the media has a personal interest in fostering this conversation.

The way we could all hear about Spinoza is if they put on a reality show where someone playing Spinoza (a hunk) had to choose among gods all of whom were represented by hot women in bikinis.

They might be able to get a philosophical thought in there somewhere.

[WordMan]

@Affectivity

Having troubled myself the past eight or so years with the substance of Spinoza’s metaphysics, psychology and ethics, I’m going to throw my two-cents in with you. I differ with your choice of terms describing Spinoza’s reality though. I don’t find a “core/system from which Reality emanates,” as far as I read. As far as I read, and I’ll make the analogy: as we don’t emanate our cells and organs, nor are they separate from us; neither would I say that Nature or God emanates us, as we are simply one of the modes of existence. Existence simply is and continually modifies itself. It is for us to understand existence. For us is the study, through maths and sciences, the laws at work in the ratios of movement and rest in which it operates. That’s what I get from books I and II of The Ethics. After that comes III—Mind, IV—Affects/emotions, and V—(for lack of a better word) Behavior.

It’s taken me this long to reach an intuition of this notion of God/Nature, the infinite, absolute, eternal totality. But I still wonder. And so, yes, I agree with you that “God is not personal, and not influential - Reality will never be modified or engaged by a personal God.”
I’m with you that “there is stuff we can’t know.” Spinoza cites that Thought and Extension are the only attributes through which we understand existence but that in God there are infinite attributes.

I came to my study of Spinoza when stumbling on his wonderful difference with Decartes: The mind is an idea of the body; the body is the object of the mind: they are one and the same. So, yes, no duality.

Spinoza protested that he wasn’t an atheist. Some critics found him an obsessive pan-theist. He troubled my early reading of his work with his focus on God, but once I came to a grasp (of sorts) of the whole of Existence, or Nature, of Substance as an intelligence, then I understood his deduction of it as divine. (Polish cyberneticist, philosopher, novelist, Stanislaw Lem in his novel Solaris presented the eponymous planet as an indecipherable brain/mind.) So I’m going to differ with you here too that God=Nature is too simple. As we earn from Occam’s Razor, the simplest is usually the best explanation.

Coincidentally, recently I too wondered about Einstein’s believing Spinoza’s God as his. One of the great difficulties I encountered in understanding Spinoza was his theory of parallelism especially as it applied to Thought and Existence. Spinoza deduces that, no, there is no duality of mind and body; but, that, simply (I hope) no body, no mind, simple. What struck me was Einstein’s conclusion on matter and energy. Just as for Spinoza the attributes of Thought (intellect) and Extension (things) are one and the same that continually modify as motion and rest alter. Einstein saw that Matter and Energy are conserved though continually modify as motion and rest alter.

So why don’t we more generally even universally accept Spinoza’s world/life view? Spinoza doesn’t argue toward any conclusion; Spinoza sets out Euclidian-like (geometrically) his grasp, understanding, vision of existence from premises made of a substance lacking nothing modifying itself through motion and rest. It is logically deduced. We as a species are not ready yet to give up our “Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and god-like technology” (E. O. Wilson). Furthermore, as Spinoza deduced and modern studies show, facts and truths don’t rouse people to change their ways unless it triggers an altering emotional response as well. In fact actual facts or truths (round earth, fossils older than 6K years) without that emotional power, likely arouse further entrenchment. On the basis of Alt-facts & Fake News.

Let me make this disclaimer: I’ve read and studied enough Spinoza to know that I may not know what I’m talking about. I started reading/studying him because his mind/body unity and monism made a sense I found exciting. But following his logic, as terrifically powerfully as it is, is terrifically difficult. And in my excitement I likely presume too much of my comprehension.

I don’t know what your references are but Eugene Marshall’s The Spiritual Automaton is a powerful if difficult source.

I thank you for your indugence.

Well, hey - thanks for waking up this zombie. I am always up for a revisit to Baruch the Lensman and his thoughts of the day.

As I have come to think about it since this thread was posted and I have continued to ponder, I would say that Spinoza’s God is not more well-known and popular because:

• It is hard to understand: it is a different starting point to ground one’s definition of God. First you have to establish a *need * have a different starting point, then agree with Spinoza’s, then agree with all of the implications that differ. It is a heavy lift.

• It argues against mind/body duality - folks like having isolatable souls within their religious dogma. Because afterlife, reincarnation and stuff.

• It is easy to dismiss as pantheism - his assertion that Nature is an emanation of God would sound like frickin’ animism to the Christians of his day, at least to those not willing or able to understand how it is a conclusion from his starting point.

Spinoza basically says:

• “God” is everything.
• How Humans perceive what we can in our reality is all part of God, but limited by how we perceive and process it.
• Thought, and Matter (Extension) are aspects of God that we can perceive and process given our limited capabilities. Within that context, Science fits within Spinoza pretty well, because however Humans can better perceive and process our Reality is fine within the context of being an aspect of God). That is why Einstein said he believes in Spinoza’s God.
• Thought and Extension are not the totality of God. They are the scope of Human perception, but not God’s problem

[LSLGuy]

IMO …

As probably said repeatedly in this thread’s first incarnation, Spinoza’s main failure in marketing was to choose the word “god” to stand for the thing at the center of his conception.

He may have been trying to build a bridge between his philosophy and other philosophies either historical or current in his time. But his main consequence was to drag a massively baggage-laden and wholly inappropriate term into the center of his ideas.

This defect can be overcome by diligent study. But few people bother to read a book with an incoherent off-putting cover. Hence most of his unpopularity.

[QuickSilver]

@WordMan

Well, hey - thanks for waking up this zombie. I am always up for a revisit to Baruch the Lensman and his thoughts of the day.

As I have come to think about it since this thread was posted and I have continued to ponder, I would say that Spinoza’s God is not more well-known and popular because:

• It is hard to understand: it is a different starting point to ground one’s definition of God. First you have to establish a *need * have a different starting point, then agree with Spinoza’s, then agree with all of the implications that differ. It is a heavy lift.

• It argues against mind/body duality - folks like having isolatable souls within their religious dogma. Because afterlife, reincarnation and stuff.

• It is easy to dismiss as pantheism - his assertion that Nature is an emanation of God would sound like frickin’ animism to the Christians of his day, at least to those not willing or able to understand how it is a conclusion from his starting point.

Spinoza basically says:

• “God” is everything.
• How Humans perceive what we can in our reality is all part of God, but limited by how we perceive and process it.
• Thought, and Matter (Extension) are aspects of God that we can perceive and process given our limited capabilities. Within that context, Science fits within Spinoza pretty well, because however Humans can better perceive and process our Reality is fine within the context of being an aspect of God). That is why Einstein said he believes in Spinoza’s God.
• Thought and Extension are not the totality of God. They are the scope of Human perception, but not God’s problem

Here’s my problem with this - and it’s entirely likely due to my lack of understanding Spinoza’s God: If god is everything, then doesn’t that ultimately mean that god is nothing?

In terms of our understanding of “everything & nothing” in the known universe, there is the slow agonizing entropy/death (fade to nothing) and the inherent quantum instability which, theoretically, gives rise to something (existence of everything).

Thus, god too goes from everything to nothing; rinse and repeat.

If that’s the case, what is the utility of Spinoza’s God other than some abstract concept that does not explain anything or add value to our understanding of everything/nothing?

ETA: I think LSLGuy ninja’d the answer before I posted my question.

[coffeecat]

@WordMan

. . .Baruch the Lensman . . .

Snerk!

• It argues against mind/body duality - folks like having isolatable souls within their religious dogma. Because afterlife, reincarnation and stuff.

Spinoza said there is life after death. Because God thinks eternally about everything, He has an eternal, perfect idea of each one of us. Kind of like when we die, the music stops, but God keeps a perfect copy in His CD library. True, that’s not the same as most people’s idea of heaven, where we chill on chaise longues with the angels.

LSLGuy: I don’t think “God” is an inappropriate term for what Spinoza’s talking about. Spinoza’s God thinks, is everywhere, and causes everything. Yes, it’s different from the Christian God, but it matches up quite nicely with the Hindu Brahman.

Does anyone besides me think mathematics is a third attribute of God, because we can express reality in terms of equations?

[WordMan]

Math is a distillation of Plato’s Ideal Forms. I think geometry is so appealing to Pythagorus and some philosophers like Descartes and Hobbes is because if its visualization of ideal points, lines,planes and shapes. I started a thread on the need for a third plane of reality for Ideals and didn’t really win the day. I’d have to go find it.

QuickSilver - sorry I am not following you. We have levels of reality we as humans perceive - though, matter/extension and perhaps Ideals. The point is, we are started with Stuff and trying to 'splain it. Spinoza asserted that all we perceive is part of the same Stuff.

If there is an order/entropy cyclicality or eventual fade-out to our universe, how does that challenge Spinoza’s assertions about the shared God-ness of thought and extention?

[QuickSilver]

@WordMan

Math is a distillation of Plato’s Ideal Forms. I think geometry is so appealing to Pythagorus and some philosophers like Descartes and Hobbes is because if its visualization of ideal points, lines,planes and shapes. I started a thread on the need for a third plane of reality for Ideals and didn’t really win the day. I’d have to go find it.

QuickSilver - sorry I am not following you. We have levels of reality we as humans perceive - though, matter/extension and perhaps Ideals. The point is, we are started with Stuff and trying to 'splain it. Spinoza asserted that all we perceive is part of the same Stuff.

If there is an order/entropy cyclicality or eventual fade-out to our universe, how does that challenge Spinoza’s assertions about the shared God-ness of thought and extention?

I guess I don’t understand what value Spinoza’s God adds to his view of the human condition and our inability to 'splain all the Stuff (thus far).

[WordMan]

@QuickSilver

I guess I don’t understand what value Spinoza’s God adds to his view of the human condition and our inability to 'splain all the Stuff (thus far).

Spinoza’s God is, in contrast to the Christian God dominant in his world at the time, very different. Not Personal and Active in individual’s lives, not managing the Body and the Soul as separate-able components. Nature is one manifestation of his God, instead of a Christian God, who is outside/above the reality “he reigns over.”

Really different and really controversial at the time. And, per Einstein, comfortably compatible with Scientific perspectives, since scientific insights fit within his model.