Actual updates to Spinoza’s Definitions of God and Of The Nature And Origin Of The Mind. Introducing a genetic strand of Difference, whereby Identity happens in deliverance:

Actual updates to Spinoza’s Definitions of God and Of The Nature And Origin Of The Mind.  Introducing a genetic strand of Difference, whereby Identity happens in deliverance: Difference is the only known value in any discourse, and it is this value which genetically structures or geometrically gestalts Identity (if only as an illusion) given to the actual:  Illusions are always better than nothing or even a some-thing based on nothing.

The wonderful thing about reading Spinoza is that a reader can begin anywhere or look to any Proposition, Proof, Explanation or Corollary and find an abundant source of food for thought.  And what’s even more wonderful is that although complex and, perhaps, misunderstood (thank Spinoza’s God for that!) his work still lends itself to grounding life, and thus remains a potential source to expanding upon modern systems, ideas, paradoxes and laws in the sciences and their corresponding theories, whether they be mathematical, physical or philosophical.  I will even go as far as to say that Spinoza has influenced Philosophy and Science more than any other modern philosopher.

Now with that being said, and hopefully my appreciation for who Spinoza is and what Spinoza has done, I can state, without angering other acolytes of Spinoza, that there is a flaw, for lack of better terms, in his Definitions of God.  Nonetheless, it is a flaw which plagues philosophy and sciences to this day[1]; the resulting expressions of which can be found, for example, in such things, to name a few, as Higgs Boson particle, Dark Matter and Husserl’s Intentionality[2]…and if one wants to remain philosophical one can find the after effects of said plague in such things as  ideas, forms, nuomena or phenomena…it doesn’t-matter, now does it:  If substance (Difference)[3], as it is defined by Spinoza, is truly anterior to body (Identity) then substance can never limit substance, even when its deliverance is (perceived as) in a ‘mode’.  From The Ethics:

 

“II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature ; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body.  So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.”[4]

 

Granted, this flaw was, in part, apparent even to Spinoza’s contemporaries.  And in the Letter III from Henry Oldenburg in the Correspondence, the flaw is, to Oldenburg, apparent:

“Secondly.  I wish to ask, whether you think it unquestionable, that body cannot be limited by thought, or thought by body ; seeing that it still remains undecided, what thought is, whether it be a physical motion or a spiritual act quite distinct from body?”[5]    

Yet, what one finds, upon closer scrutiny, is that Oldenburg’s understanding of the flaw is already inundated by the flaw itself; fashioning him incapable of formulating the correct critique.[6] 

Of course Spinoza responds to Oldenburg’s criticism, but in essence Spinoza’s response dodges the issue by inversing Oldenburg’s logic and creating a strawman counter-argument.  However, what Spinoza and Oldenburg both fail to recognize is that there is a flaw in the idea of applying limits where God (and/or existence) is concerned.  Although Spinoza grants God the attribute of unmovable and/or static status, as one can see in the Explanation given for Proof VI, it is unclear to him (and Oldenburg) how extension and the resulting Identity (body) can maintain both Difference[7] (substance) and Identity (body) without applying or recognizing limits.  Substance, as it is God’s, in undefined terms, goding through itself (or Difference differentiating or Unmoved Moving), can only enable and never limit or negate —otherwise, as Oldenburg points out, there is a flaw in the experience of Spinoza’s unmoveable moving nature to (when and where) substance (Difference), in that it is prevented from doing its dance of body (Identity).  It is inconceivable for either Spinoza or Oldenburg to understand extension, as it gives rise to body (Identity), in such a way that needn’t set limits. This flaw (as it is built into the Definitions) arises in that Difference (substance) and Identity (body) are an indistinguishable, unified, singular value or essence; the duality in (the nature of) which or the paradoxical essence of which has already been ratified in science through terms such as (for example) complementarity (in quantum physics) and memetic (in evolutionary theory).  However, the illusion (as a body aka Identity occupying time and space), as the subsequent ideas of negation or limit are borne from the nature of the Unmoved Mover[8], and as far as consciousness arises between, as or within[9] an antecedent (to Difference) Identity, is necessary to its very ability to be in deliverance —a deliverance which always finds itself somewhere within the Unmoved moving / Difference differentiating / God goding; or between the Finite and Infinite (mereological).  Science has since given such a distinguishing moment[10]names such as a singularity and Big Bang (to name a few):   Science believes it is viewing something external or of temporality and spatiality.[11] [12]  Such terms, singularity or Big Bang, and the ideas they represent are, when continued to be viewed in the context that they deliver non-illusionary reality, in themselves ridiculous and have their origin, as can be traced back (but not limited) to the flaw as represented in the Definitions, with which (within themselves) there is ordered, by the abstract mathematical relation of approximate backwards-directed inclusion of limits and negation, non-complementarity value:   Identity remains prior and, to the satisfaction of the one doing the inspection, preeminent in the discourse.

This expose recognizes the duality (as represented in complementarity) as being integral to the nature of and in Spinoza’s substance. Difference, although it differentiates in a state of Identity[13], is the only thing happening…every-thing else is in a state of deliverance. (Think of it as the Higgs Field of an actualizing philosophical system)

This philosophical proposal works within a context based on the philosophy of Spinoza as it is understood to be founded in a principle not regulated to and through predicate logic; not representative of a metaphysical system but of an Actuality Model to a Physical System and/or Systems, and is, therefore, not a transcendental philosophy revealing thereness, but a System of Deliverance to ideas and matter…as they are illusionary states based on and reflective of principles of substance.  It is an abstract mathematical relation of approximate backwards-directed inclusion of dower that enables complementarity value. Additionally, substance is considered to be numbers (Cardinal)[14] or the what of differentiating Difference, and, as such, can never be, as pure or anterior (to Identity) Difference, reflective of Identity.  There is order(possible and probable) delivering (Identity) but no quantitative or qualitative value:  Cardinal Numbers are the in-deliverance-building blocks, as they are Difference differentiating, to a  geometrical gestalting, which leads to the illusion of Identity and, hence, all ensuing thereness…as possible and probable states of Difference differentiating.

Difference differentiates (umovedly moves) while differentiating absolutely without need of Identity[15], which in effect delivers illusionary Identity (phenomenon and nuomenon, mater, anti-matter, things-in-themselves and so on) through the genetic gestalting of Difference in a manner that fully embodies Difference as Difference affirming Difference (thaumázein: see footnote 9). Furthermore, even in the A to A (A=A) consciousizing (post Singularity or post Big Banging) one A in the exchange, as it is actual, already embodies a strand of genetic Difference so complex that it is no longer recognizable from any given Identity perspective—which, as it is, is just an illusion differentiating in deliverance.  One might try to argue against the possibility of such a construct, but to do so would also deny the very nature of genetic science revealing credible description of living organisms. Is not a geneticist convinced that the origin of the phenotype is found in the strand itself and the resulting expression (of the phenotype) is found in the cumulation of the complete environment; an environment that reaches into and through all given factors in the known and unknown universe?  Isn’t the nature of particle physics to reveal the underlying structuring to the phenomenon found in the expression of an atom?  So too is the nature of any idea believed to be belonging to any of the aforementioned objects (as Difference has become an object[16]) of investigation of Difference, as Difference is the only known in any conscious state. The only Difference, though, is that the only given phenotype or phenomenon in all and any discourse, scientific or otherwise, is a Difference (A=A) with an A already containing incalculable relations of Difference already doing their (relation’s) genetic strand-dance before even getting transported via “=” into A again. Most philosophers dealing in mereological research are under the assumption that a part (Finite or a Difference) is already a complete unit representative of every part of the whole (Infinite or Differentiations). This is true, but only in the first Acting of Consciousness or the Big Banging:  In such a state there is only one Identity differentiating Difference (see Cardinal Numbers).  By the time one gets to proposing A=A, the experience of the Big Banging or Acting of Consciousness is already a closed system of subject-to-object-inspection.  Understanding this less than subtle difference between A=A as it is occurring in the discourse itself (as pure experience in the actual) and it having become an object-of-one’s subjective inspection[17]  enables one to understand why things such as a Higgs Field or Dark Matter and so on will never be representative of the so-called “objects” or “state of reality” they are describing.  Current consciousness and the ‘scientific perspective’ are under the assumptions that A=A represents a closed system of Identity discourse — there is an Identity, but only in a posterior to Difference differentiating complementarity context... in a thaumazein-sparkler sort of way (pure experience). However, even if the sciences were to grant their trades to be grounded in a discourse of Difference, as it is now found in:  complementarity, Higgs Field, memetic and so on, the discourse would be inadequate because there is the belief that A=A is complete and bracketed set or a closed system of Identity.  The incalculable Difference relations in the A before it even reaches ‘=’ are not acknowledged in any way, shape or form….

For the scientist (or philosopher) Identity can only live or identify when it is the necessitator in the Big Bang or Singularity — And there is (antecedent to Difference) Identity that has its impetus in the Awe – thaumezein – delivering the first banging glimpse or first (and only) singular identifying moment creating the context for difference relating in genetic (to gestalting life forms or Identities), geometric constellation.  However, the essence the initial Identity dowering Difference differentiation does lend to establishing a genetic strand of Difference is that the dowering[18] is always dependent upon the notion that Identity, only in as far as the initial Identity is the only Acting of Consciousness, is prior to Difference in the deliverance of said Identity — Identity is the so-to-say catalyst to the Banging and is what drives the whole of possibilities and probabilities. The illusion of Identity being prior to Difference is what enables Identity to live in and as possibility and probability.

If one has understood this expose then the apparent question from the identity derived reality would be:  How does the author know any of this to be true or valid?  And the author’s response would be:  Do you know me?[19]

The detailed accounting of geometric gestalting of Difference and the illusionary rise[20] of Identity are discussed in great detail in Mereology:  The Origins of Garlic Cures and the Art of Telling a Tale of Ragout.  An electronic version is available for free at birddogbooks.com or a bound version is purchasable online or at your local book store.

 

 

 

 

 



[1] It is a plague which is not necessarily result of the ‘flaw’ in The Ethics but simply a condition of our historical deliverance.

2 See Genetic and Static Consciousness in Relation to Garlic and Husserl: A Spinozan Fairytale at http://birddogbooks.com/bdb/content/genetic-and-static-consciousness-relation-garlic-and-husserl-spinozan-fairytale-0

 

[3] Substance will be referred to, in this discourse, for the sake of streamlining the language of philosophy, as Difference, and Difference is defined as the absolute nature of Finite enabled in its Infinite dimensions and the absolute nature of the Infinite enabled in its Finite dimensions.  Modes of substance will simply be called Identity.  And it will be shown that modes of substance, in that Identity’s precedence, as it is an illusionary state grounding in relationship to Difference, is necessitated by the nature (Finite / Infinite) of Difference itself. How Identity arises in an illusionary state (as ideas or matter -- or as noumena or phenomena) is described as ‘genetic’.  (‘Genetic’ here is used in context of Cassirer more than that of Husserl: The research exploring Cassirer’s conception of genetic scientific knowledge is found in the text Mereology: The Origins of Garlic Cures and the Art of Telling a Tale of Ragout, Bird Dog Books 2015 http://birddogbooks.com/bdb/content/free-digital-version-mereology-origins-garlic-cures-and-art-telling-tale-ragout)

[4] The Ethics, R. H. M. Elwes translation, 1955 Dover Publication

[5] The Ethics, R. H. M. Elwes translation, 1955 Dover Publication

[6] Although Spinoza appears to circumvent  Descartes’ mind-body dilemma[6] this dilemma, as it is a break between Difference and Identity (and a resulting Difference subjugated to Identity), is pushed into ad absurdum reduction of “a thing thinking absolutely, only in so far as he is considered as affected by another mode of thinking; and he is the cause of this latter, as being affected by a third, and so on to infinity.” (Proof. Prop. IX, Of The Nature And Origin Of The Mind).  Spinoza basically says there is no thing that we are talking about…. And this begs the question, as it should:  If one is not talking about any ‘thing’ then what is one talking about?  The most simple and complete answer to this question is:  One is talking about Difference and the Difference relations.

[7] Difference or A=A is a playing field of sorts, whereby ‘A’ already contains incalculable relations of Difference doing their genetic strand-dance before they even get transported via ‘=’ into A again

[8] Difference and Identity as they reflect Finite and Infinite values, are/is an act of consciousness.

[9] Finite is always Infinite in its nature, as Infinite is always Finite in its nature.

[10] It is a moment which science and philosophy recognize as a subject-inspecting-object relation and not yet as an ‘acting consciousness’.

[11] The actuality (ενέργεια and/or ἐντελέχεια) is negated or limited in accordance to the very nature of the illusion of an Identity – in this case the Identity is the scientist’s self. 

[12] This expose asserts that Spinoza substance is based on Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover and actuality qua ενέργεια and/or ἐντελέχεια:  Spinoza’s work qualifies Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover and attempts to quantify actuality.

[13] Difference differentiates in a state of Identity, after the Big Bang, of course.  This Identity, or the ‘what’ that eventually becomes the idea behind God, is just a first moment of Infinite/Finite consciously differentiating and, consequently, a moment fecundated with the Awe revealed in the awareness of that which is both Finite and Infinite, as it expands/contracts towards its Finite and Infinite dower . 

[14] See Guanxi, miànzi, and Garlic Number Theory aka Guanxi Ontology   http://birddogbooks.com/bdb/content/guanxi-mi%C3%A0nzi-and-garlic-number-theory-aka-guanxi-ontology-0

[15] Of course this is a relative approach. Difference needs identity to reveal the Awe or thaumazein, and thus identity has its relative value to this discourse, but Difference is always anterior to identity.  Identity is the result of Difference differentiating.

[16] This historical development of Difference’s transformation into an object to be identified, as in an object that is no longer an agent of differentiation, and the historical relevance of this transformation is in:  Mereology: The Origins of Garlic Cures and the Art of Telling a Tale of Ragout and can be downloaded for free at: http://birddogbooks.com/bdb/content/free-digital-version-mereology-origins-garlic-cures-and-art-telling-tale-ragout

[17] As an object of one’s ‘unique yet universal machine of discovery.’

[18] Endowing, enduring, gifting, girding, investing

[19] If the actual update has been properly received then one would not ask this question, because the author would be, to any reader, vague, at best. Or it could be said that in this actual moment the author is Garlic and Mr. Lyons is, at most, just a delivery person.

[20] This could also be called phenomenological deliverance.