Skip to main content

Reflections on Spinoza


The metaphor of the sea and waves is misleading because it offers no readily accessible analogy for separateness and intention. People are vastly complex systems of systems. Intention and thought are emergent properties of these complex systems. The metaphor of the ocean is unhelpful. In the end most metaphors are misleading, but if we are going to use them, lets be more picky.

The dependence connectedness and implied causality discussed here are of course not linear at all, and only makes sense within rich systemic hierarchies. How can something be connected to everything unless that connecting all embracing something is wholeness – the theory of everything.

For humans we should use the analogy of gravity, perhaps. Gravity is a that relatively weak force that connects the Earth to the rest of the cosmos, but it also allows separateness. Somehow gravity is a product of matter which is, in turn, a product of subatomic forces and particles that build up in different ways and quantumly. The analogy to God here, is the undiscovered force that connects up atomic forces and planets; the life of a humans and that of a single cell.

Humans are bound to nature more freely and loosely than a single cell. Separateness here is merely an emergent property of a complex system. The more complex, the more ‘angelic’ and separate. The more complex and cultured we are the more we act independently and the less connected we are and the less we allow ourselves to be acted upon.

'Quasi' is the key word when talking about Spinoza's deductive logic. It is notional and therefore all encompassing. We appreciate Spinoza in the same way that he appreciates himself and what surrounds him. What he says 'feels' right. Feels 'modern'. And yet so does Newtonian physics, but only within a certain domain.

people say that our life is made up of choices and that each choice splits a universe. But behind each universe is no split. When you look back into the past there is continuity, a spurious reverse aeteology.

It's laughable really. Things that cannot be explained forwards, being explained backwards - and even then the relations are not understood. And even then there is no insight into the feedback and reverb and creation of complex systems - and even then there is no understanding of what really constitutes the aeteology of life mediated by sentience.

Embed three thoughts and you loose the lazy empiricists.

To say that mind is a substance different but related and of the same stuff as matter, is a mere hunch.

Th 'quasi' deductive thought processes of Spinoza that reflect his hunches about how thinking works can be taken only as seriously as the hunches of some new age guru propounding his or her own enneagram or Bible code or Dianetics, now.

Retrospectively the proponents of the current paradigm - which has failed miserably to explain the complexity of the mind from the outside, objectively - like Spinoza because retrospectively they pretend that his insight means that ultimately, the brain is the mind.

And so, retrospectively, we place Spinoza in a pantheon because we contextualise him in terms of modern debates.

I don't like this reading - forget being fobbed off by Spinoza's quasi rational morality - because the true import of the philosophical attempt to give Spinoza a semiological meaning he does not have is to justify scientific materialism. Because the absolute wetness of quasi rational morality without any fundament except for Spinoza's intuitions, is that this is then the perfect counterpoint to a hard and useful nugget of philosophy that ends up being used to support people like Singer.

I am sure Singer likes this modern reading of Spinoza. And Singer is for Euthenasia and embryo selection. For a modern version of eugenics.

Perhaps I am leaping to conclusions, but my hunch is that if Spinoza knew that his views were being used to give succor to eugenecists, then he would not be happy about that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov...

The Guardian books bloggers' poetry anthology

There more to composing poetry online than this. ..isn't there? I don't really like conventional poetry of knowing. I love the poetry of words coming into being. The Guardian is going to publish a printable book online with our poems in it and the Irish poet, Billy Mills is getting it together with Sarah Crown, the literary editor. Good for them. Let's also remember that Carol Rumens got the ball rolling. Does Des feature in this anthology? Taboo-busting Steve Augustine decided not to join in. So what are we left with? In the anthology we will be left with a colourful swatch of well-meant, undeniably conventional, occasionally clever, verses - some of them. But there could be, there should be and there is a lot more to on-line poetry than this. Than agile monkeys, koalas and sad sloths climbing up word trees. Perhaps we should focus in on translation, because in translation there is a looseness of form and a dynamism such as, it seems, we can't easily encounter in our...

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-...