Panentheism

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Spinoza's conception of God presupposes that man has the capacity to think or to understand the reality of the attributes. The idea of God becomes, then, the idea of the attributes, and as God is substance consisting of infinite attributes, it follows that the understanding of the doctrine of the infinite attributes is of primary significance to an adequate understanding of Spinoza's Ethics. Pure ethics has the idea of God, or the doctrine of the attributes, as its foundation. "Whatever is," says Spinoza, "is in God, and nothing can either be or be conceived without God." (I 15). Also, if we are to understand the idea of God as the key to all the other problems presented in Spinoza's works, we must know that "God and all his attributes are eternal." (I 19).

Pure ethics has the idea of God, or the doctrine of the attributes, as its foundation. "Whatever is," says Spinoza, "is in God, and nothing can either be or be conceived without God." (I 15).

Can we agree that pure ethics exist as attributes or “forms” as described by Plato? If so, is it more advantageous for human "being" to experience pure ethics rather than making up its own subjective ethics?

Spinoza asserts that “whatever is is within God.” He didn’t say that they are God but rather that they exist within God. This strikes me as the same as Plotinus’ description of the relationship between Nous and the ONE. If so, and if attributes exist within God, then Spinoza is describing Panentheism.

[Belinda]

Nick, Spinoza:- God and nature are the same. Human beings, suns, molecules of this and that are modes of nature. There is no thing that is not a mode of nature.

Then I could say that modes of nature are "within God". But I would not say it because the preposition "within" implies position in space. As a metaphor 'within' disfigures Spinoza's simple equivalence of God and nature.

It is true that we often talk of "nature" in the sense of what is what is not human artefacts. However what Spinoza referred to as nature is everything that exists.

“That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV,

[Belinda]

Nick, Spinoza:- God and nature are the same. Human beings, suns, molecules of this and that are modes of nature. There is no thing that is not a mode of nature.

Then I could say that modes of nature are "within God". But I would not say it because the preposition "within" implies position in space. As a metaphor 'within' disfigures Spinoza's simple equivalence of God and nature.

It is true that we often talk of "nature" in the sense of what is not human artefacts. However what Spinoza referred to as nature is everything that exists.

“That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV,

Therefore you, Nick, necessarily exist. And all your ideas necessarily exist as your ideas. The truth of your ideas is that they necessarily exist. What I ask is how adequate are your ideas? Are your ideas as adequate as those of the world's best mathematician when she/he does mathematics ? Probably not.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

Can we agree that pure ethics exist as attributes or “forms” as described by Plato?

If the discussion is about Spinoza’s ethics then the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. Plato’s Forms are not attributes of God or attributes of anything else. There are no Forms in Spinoza’s ethics. Stop throwing everything into the sausage grinder you call your mind and you will see that different things are not the same, even though when the sausage is extruded the differences are no longer apparent.

This strikes me as the same as Plotinus’ description of the relationship between Nous and the ONE. If so, and if attributes exist within God, then Spinoza is describing Panentheism.

Nicky, once again, Spinoza’s God is not transcendent. It may strike you that a bicycle is a motorcycle because they both have wheels, but it is not.Stop throwing everything into the sausage grinder you call your mind and you will see that different things are not the same, even though when the sausage is extruded the differences are no longer apparent.

[Nick_A]

Nick, Spinoza:- God and nature are the same. Human beings, suns, molecules of this and that are modes of nature. There is no thing that is not a mode of nature.

Then I could say that modes of nature are "within God". But I would not say it because the preposition "within" implies position in space. As a metaphor 'within' disfigures Spinoza's simple equivalence of God and nature.

It is true that we often talk of "nature" in the sense of what is not human artefacts. However what Spinoza referred to as nature is everything that exists.

“That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV,

Therefore you, Nick, necessarily exist. And all your ideas necessarily exist as your ideas. The truth of your ideas is that they necessarily exist. What I ask is how adequate are your ideas? Are your ideas as adequate as those of the world's best mathematician when she/he does mathematics ? Probably not.

Leaving the idea of objective ethics alone for a moment. I’d like to read your interpretation of the following excerpt from the linked article:

According to Spinoza, we may form ideas of individual objects merely by using our senses. This kind of perception, of course, does not present things to us in their logical order. Spinoza calls this kind of knowledge "imagination." Yet, it is possible for man to form adequate ideas of the properties of things by understanding what these things have in common. This is the scientific kind of knowledge, or as Spinoza calls it, "reason." Spinoza, however, speaks of yet a third kind of knowledge which he calls "intuition," and which, according to him, helps us to advance from an adequate idea of the nature of God's attributes to the true understanding and realization of the essence of things.

Most students of Spinoza fail to perceive the significance of the central idea of his Ethics because they limit themselves to the first and second kinds of knowledge (imagination and reason), and do not make use of intuition. This last kind of knowledge alone enables us to understand the essence of Nature in the light of eternity (sub specie aeternitatis). Imaginative and abstract interpretations fail to do so, because they explain only the modifications and not the true nature of Substance or God, or that which is the same, the idea of the infinite attributes.

Reason and imagination at best lead to modifications or the “opinions” Plato referred to. "Only intuition enables us to understand the essence of Nature in the light of eternity (sub specie aeternitatis)." Imaginative and abstract interpretations fail to do so, because they explain only the modifications and not the true nature of Substance or God, or that which is the same, the idea of the infinite attributes.

From this perspective intuition does not result from more reason - more facts. Do you agree and if you do, what is necessary to acquire human understanding that is beyond reason?

Modifications are not the same as attributes. We cannot understand man essentially if we understand him only as a finite mode. In order to comprehend ourselves in the light of eternity, we must also understand the doctrine of the infinite attributes. It does not suffice merely to know that man partakes in two attributes; it is also necessary to know consciously that man can make use of the third kind of knowledge, and to understand intuitively that the nature of substance consists of infinite attributes. But again, in order to comprehend the doctrine of the attributes truly or Spinozaistically, we must learn to differentiate carefully between the relative (modal) and the absolute (attributive) points of view. This capacity to discriminate between the modes and the attributes is most essential to the understanding of Spinoza's Ethics. Without this insight we cannot comprehend the biosophical (living) significance of the statement, "the idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect." (V 18 Proof).

Do you intellectually discriminate between the modes and the attributes? If we cannot doesn’t it reveal the limitations of reason for seekers of truth?

[seeds]

Likewise, a fly can look up and see a higher rung in the form of a frog.

As can the frog look up and see a dog.

And finally, the dog can look up and see a human.

However, at this point there’s a problem.

When we look up, we can’t see anything.

Not in the same sense that the lower beings can look up and see us – an obvious higher level of consciousness, encapsulated in matter, looking down at them.

From our vantage point, we appear to be the top rung of the ladder because we literally cannot see anything above us.

Why?

Because in the context of “Panentheism,” God’s consciousness is not encapsulated in matter like we are.

Quite the contrary; matter is encapsulated in God’s consciousness.

Or more aptly stated, God’s consciousness is the living “emulsion,” so to speak, in which matter is suspended.

And that would be similar to the living emulsion in which our own thoughts and dreams are suspended.

Flies probably have no conception of frogs. Even if flies could conceive of frogs those concepts would probably be so alien to ours that they would be unrecognisable to us as frogs.

Belinda, you seem to have completely ignored what I stated in the prefacing of my little thought experiment:

Now in purely fanciful terms...an amoeba can metaphorically “look up” and see a higher rung of the ladder - existing in the form of a fly.

(Emphasis added for clarity)

The “fanciful” and “metaphorical” was also meant to apply to the idea of flies “looking up” to see a physically tangible, higher level of consciousness existing above them in the form of a frog.

Clearly a fly would have no way of determining such a thing, but we humans certainly can. And I am simply trying to formalize the concept by means of an imaginary ladder – a ladder which corresponds with the concept of the “Great Chain of Being” (the “scala naturae”) that Nick and I were discussing.

I tend to use a lot of allegory in the way I present my ideas.

When you call flies and frogs "lower" beings you are presuming that their perceptions are lower than those of men; why do you presume this?

Are the “perceptions” of rocks lower than those of men?

If you can agree that they are, then I am merely treating the lower beings as having a gradually rising gradation of the essence (i.e., consciousness) upon which the ability to have perceptions is founded.

What do you mean by "lower" , apart from your drawings of ladders and stuff? Is your idea of what "lower" means unattached to any evidence or definitions?

Belinda, is your own common sense so unreliable that you actually require some kind of formal “evidence” of the fact that rocks, or amoebas, or flies are lower in consciousness than humans?

The problem with your cosmology is that it lacks any evidence for its truth.

What kind of “evidence” would satisfy your complaints about my cosmology?

And in regards to that question, just out of curiosity, what exactly do you think my ultimate cosmology entails?

In other words, based on what you have read of my ideas, please give me a brief synopsis of what you think I am proclaiming about the ultimate potential of the human mind following the death of the body.

The point being, that if I know that you truly understand the theory, then I will certainly be more open to entertaining your criticisms of it.
_______

[seeds]

Now in purely fanciful terms (and to paraphrase something I have written elsewhere), an amoeba can metaphorically “look upwards” and see a higher rung of the ladder existing in the form of a fly.

Likewise, a fly can look up and see a higher rung in the form of a frog.

As can the frog look up and see a dog.

And finally, the dog can look up and see a human.

However, at this point there’s a problem.

When we look up, we can’t see anything.

Not in the same sense that the lower beings can look up and see us – an obvious higher level of consciousness, encapsulated in matter, looking down at them.

From our vantage point, we appear to be the top rung of the ladder because we literally cannot see anything above us.

Why?

There is a perennial axiom I have learned which states that where the higher can see the lower, the lower cannot see the higher. The lower cannot "see" the essence of the higher but can sense its presence.

Yes, and that is precisely what I was implying in own my little (revamping) interpretation of the Great Chain of Being.

Fallen man cannot "see" conscious man but can experience them as an attraction their higher parts are drawn to.

Nick, you already know how I feel about this “fallen man” business from a conversation we had a year ago in your “Futility of Reason” thread:

In my opinion, there is no “fallen” human condition.

On the contrary, there has been a continuous and gradual ascension of humanity’s general level of consciousness throughout time – an ascension which began from that profound moment in the past when an evolutionary threshold was crossed that established the emergence of humanity itself.

(As a fanciful analogy, think of that moment in the Stanley Kubrick film - “2001: A Space Odyssey” – when the ape-like hominid was divinely inspired via the mysterious monolith (a representation of universal intelligence) to begin the process of inward reflection and the willful grasping and control of the fabric of its own personal mind.)

From that moment on, it has been nothing but a steady upward movement into higher levels of discovery, one of which being Plato’s intuitive realization and formalization of the idea that there appears to be a higher context of reality “above and outside” of this reality – of which this reality is but a mere shadow in comparison.

(What an amazing contrast to that first moment when the alpha human “imagined” an animal bone being used as a tool/weapon, as was depicted in the movie.)

The point is that there has never been a “fall” of humanity as if we have been knocked off of some pedestal of prior understanding of the ultimate truth of reality.

There has merely been a realization that there is an opacity incorporated into the ontic structure of the universe that prevents us from fully understanding what lies beyond what you and Plato think of as being “cave walls,” but I, on the other hand, think of as being “womb walls.”
_______

Again, Nick, ideas such as the “fall of man” is “old paradigm” nonsense and has no place in the “new paradigm,” especially if we expect science and spirituality to have a friendly coexistence.
_______

[Nick_A]

Seeds

Again, Nick, ideas such as the “fall of man” is “old paradigm” nonsense and has no place in the “new paradigm,” especially if we expect science and spirituality to have a friendly coexistence.

I think we would agree that evolution or the process of the movement of elemental forces from diversity in the direction of inner unity is a reality. If so, what is so improbable about the process of involution or unity into diversity creating the fallen human condition? Evolved man is like God "I AM. Evolved man has inner unity. Fallen man lives in diversity or as separate parts lacking inner unity. Conscious evolution for man is the change in being from a plurality into conscious inner unity. It may be an old paradigm but it makes sense to me.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

Imaginative and abstract interpretations fail to do so, because they explain only the modifications and not the true nature of Substance or God, or that which is the same, the idea of the infinite attributes.

As usual your desire to see things according to your opinions blinds you to what is actually being said. Knowledge of God is not the result of intuition, knowledge of the essence of things is the result of intuition.

Once again:

The human mind has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. (Part II, PROP. XLVII)

This knowledge is not the result of intuition it is the necessary condition for intuition as is clearly stated in the scolia:

Hence we see, that the infinite essence and the eternity of God are known to all. Now as all things are in God, and are conceived through God, we can from this knowledge infer many things, which we may adequately know, and we may form that third kind of knowledge …

It is from our knowledge of the infinite essence and the eternity of God that is known to all that we form intuitive knowledge. So, if it is known to all why are we not aware of it? The scolia continues:

Men have not so clear a knowledge of God as they have of general notions, because they are unable to imagine God as they do bodies, and also because they have associated the name God with images of things that they are in the habit of seeing, as indeed they can hardly avoid doing, being, as they are, men, and continually affected by external bodies. Many errors, in truth, can be traced to this head, namely, that we do not apply names to things rightly.

If this is still not clear enough:

Besides these two kinds of knowledge, there is, as I will hereafter show, a third kind of knowledge, which we will call intuition. This kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the absolute essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things. I will illustrate all three kinds of knowledge by a single example. Three numbers are given for finding a fourth, which shall be to the third as the second is to the first. Tradesmen without hesitation multiply the second by the third, and divide the product by the first; either because they have not forgotten the rule which they received from a master without any proof, or because they have often made trial of it with simple numbers, or by virtue of the proof of the nineteenth proposition of the seventh book of Euclid, namely, in virtue of the general property of proportionals.

But with very simple numbers there is no need of this. For instance, one, two, three, being given, everyone can see that the fourth proportional is six; and this is much clearer, because we infer the fourth number from an intuitive grasping of the ratio, which the first bears to the second. (II. prop. IV, scolia 2)

In the mathematical example in the case of very simple numbers we do not have to follow general rules of reason, we can infer the number, that is, the particular thing, from intuitively grasping the ratio. We do not have to find the ratio deductively, we are able to see it. Intuitive knowledge follows from rational (ratio) knowledge. If we In book V he calls the second kind of knowledge universal and intuitive knowledge knowledge of particular or singular things. (PROP. XXXVI. Scolia 2) We cannot have knowledge of particular things without rational knowledge, without knowing what they have in common, without knowledge of the universal, that is, God. Intuitive knowledge of particulars follows from universal knowledge of God.

[Nick_A]

F4

maginative and abstract interpretations fail to do so, because they explain only the modifications and not the true nature of Substance or God, or that which is the same, the idea of the infinite attributes.

As usual your desire to see things according to your opinions blinds you to what is actually being said. Knowledge of God is not the result of intuition, knowledge of the essence of things is the result of intuition.

What is being said is that we produce modifications by imagination and reason but lose the essence of the source. So the result is people arguing modifications or opinions.

The human mind has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. (Part II, PROP. XLVII)

This knowledge is not the result of intuition it is the necessary condition for intuition as is clearly stated in the scolia:

True. Those who are net yet spiritually dead are inwardly aware of a source for existence far greater then themselves the truth of which lies within the depth of their being. It is what makes a person capable of anamnesis.

Hence we see, that the infinite essence and the eternity of God are known to all. Now as all things are in God, and are conceived through God, we can from this knowledge infer many things, which we may adequately know, and we may form that third kind of knowledge …

It is from our knowledge of the infinite essence and the eternity of God that is known to all that we form intuitive knowledge. So, if it is known to all why are we not aware of it? The scolia continues:

No. We don’t form it, we remember it. It is already known. It is part of our being.

Men have not so clear a knowledge of God as they have of general notions, because they are unable to imagine God as they do bodies, and also because they have associated the name God with images of things that they are in the habit of seeing, as indeed they can hardly avoid doing, being, as they are, men, and continually affected by external bodies. Many errors, in truth, can be traced to this head, namely, that we do not apply names to things rightly.

If this is still not clear enough:

Yes, this is how “experts” are created who create all sorts of personal gods. Others can’t take it so their experts make the Great Beast their God. Luckily there is a minority in the world who strive to learn how to intelligently think and feel so as to transcend the influence of all these experts and open to what their intuition can reveal for them. They will serve as a necessary awakening influence if we are to survive technology.

In the mathematical example in the case of very simple numbers we do not have to follow general rules of reason, we can infer the number, that is, the particular thing, from intuitively grasping the ratio. We do not have to find the ratio deductively, we are able to see it. Intuitive knowledge follows from rational (ratio) knowledge. If we In book V he calls the second kind of knowledge universal and intuitive knowledge knowledge of particular or singular things. (PROP. XXXVI. Scolia 2) We cannot have knowledge of particular things without rational knowledge, without knowing what they have in common, without knowledge of the universal, that is, God. Intuitive knowledge of particulars follows from universal knowledge of God.

Yes, this is why IMO Spinoza is really describing panentheism. From the article.

At this point it is most important to understand that the known and the unknown attributes constitute one and the same substance. Since also, besides God, no substance can either be or be conceived, it follows, according to Spinoza, that "the idea of God, from which infinite numbers of things follow in infinite ways, can be only one." (II 4). The oneness of divine nature should be studied first, since it is first in the order of knowledge and in the order of things, but it is usually considered last. On the other hand, those things which are called objects of the senses are believed to stand before everything else. Hence it comes to pass that there is nothing of which men think less, when studying natural objects, than of divine nature; and when afterwards they apply themselves to think about God, there is nothing of which they can think less than those prior fictions upon which they had built their knowledge of natural things. It is no wonder, therefore, if we find them continually contradicting themselves (see II 10 Note). But as soon as we make use of the true knowledge of the divine nature, we begin to realize more and more the importance of the doctrine of the attributes for the Spinozaistic conception of God or Substance.

Since there is but one substance, and since substance is by its nature prior to its modifications, it follows that the many live in the One, and cannot be conceived without the understanding of the One. Also, since the highest thing which the mind can understand is the "One Substance," it is most important for man to gain a deeper knowledge of it. Spinoza demonstrates that everything which can be perceived as constituting the essence of nature pertains entirely to the One Reality, or God. That we have the capacity to understand this Spinoza assures us in the following statement: "The human mind possesses an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God." (II 47). Furthermore, God is the cause of material things in so far as he is considered under the attribute of which they are modes; the ideas of these things, of course, involve the conception of their attribute. And lastly, although there are two kinds of attributes, the known and the unknown, and two kinds of modifications, the infinite and the finite, yet the idea of God, which can be only one, underlies them all and is the fundamental conception upon which the understanding of everything that is in nature depends.

What is the ONE that the infinity of attributes become an expression of? Seems like Panentheism to me. God is more than the attributes which form nature. The attributes have a substance within which the attributes have their origin. The attributes aren't God but rather they are an expression from ONE in which they are reconciled

The experts and their followers have made it so that people argue God from the bottom up as they contemplate attributes. As a result we gradually lose what Simone Weil called the third direction of thought. I repeat from the article

The oneness of divine nature should be studied first, since it is first in the order of knowledge and in the order of things, but it is usually considered last. On the other hand, those things which are called objects of the senses are believed to stand before everything else. Hence it comes to pass that there is nothing of which men think less, when studying natural objects, than of divine nature; and when afterwards they apply themselves to think about God, there is nothing of which they can think less than those prior fictions upon which they had built their knowledge of natural things. It is no wonder, therefore, if we find them continually contradicting themselves (see II 10 Note). But as soon as we make use of the true knowledge of the divine nature, we begin to realize more and more the importance of the doctrine of the attributes for the Spinozaistic conception of God or Substance.

If our thinking is upside down as it concerns our ultimate source, is it any wonder that society has become secularized and is no longer capable of connecting above and below but instead claims the Great Beast for its God?

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

Do you intellectually discriminate between the modes and the attributes? If we cannot doesn’t it reveal the limitations of reason for seekers of truth?

Nick refers to the metaphysics of Spinoza.

Spinoza.

Modes are beings such as rocks, cups, flies, human beings, arms, legs, particles of dust, old coca cola cans, this post, motor cars, pistons, leaves, bees etc etc etc.

Attributes of God or nature (Deus sive Natura) are minds and extended matter. Other attributes of God(Deus sive Natura) are infinite in number and we cannot know those other attributes.

If we don't know the difference between the attributes of God , and the modes of being, then we don't understand Spinoza's metaphysics. It is true that reason is limited. Spinoza's metaphysics is a grand speculation the importance of which is that the several threads of it cohere together . And also Spinoza's metaphysical speculation fits with modern science, international diplomacy, crime and punishment, education, the ethical implications of the liberal wings of major world religions, and human psychology. These seem big claims: if you want to query any one of them I can support that claim with examples.

[Reflex]

Of possible interest:


Spinoza, panentheism and mystical Judaism

[Nick_A]

Of possible interest:


Spinoza, panentheism and mystical Judaism

Thanks for the link. It seems obvious enough. Over the years the word God has developed a negative connotation. Even ideas like Plotinus ONE become offensive. Yet according to Spinoza reasoning should begin at the top and work its way down. But when people deny a top there is nothing but inductive reason and all the animosity its opinions produce. What a mess!

[Belinda]

Reflex, and Nick, according to panentheism is the mind closer to God than the body?

According to panentheism are esoteric experiences closer to God than reasoning?

[fooloso4]

Nick:

What is being said is that we produce modifications by imagination and reason but lose the essence of the source. So the result is people arguing modifications or opinions.

I know what is being said, but it is not being said by Spinoza and in the case of reason is not true.

Those who are net yet spiritually dead …

Spinoza says nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it is a matter of being intellectually dead. It stems, as he says, from having inadequate ideas produced by superstition and the imagination. You will never understand Spinoza because your own beliefs stand between what he says (or more accurately, what others tell you he says) and understanding him.

It is what makes a person capable of anamnesis.

I was wondering how long it would take you to trot this superstition out. We know God, according to Spinoza, because we are of God. It has nothing to do with seeing Forms prior to being born and forgetting them in the process of being born.

No. We don’t form it, we remember it. It is already known. It is part of our being.

You may not agree with him but he says intuitions are formed in the quoted passage. Nowhere does Spinoza say anything about remembering “it”. What is already known is the infinite essence and the eternity of God. That has nothing to do with intuition. Intuition follows from this.

Yes, this is why IMO Spinoza is really describing panentheism.

He says nothing about God being transcendent, so how can this be panentheism? Or are you abandoning the definition of panentheism you provided? Or do you think that the qualification IMO allows you to misrepresent Spinoza?

What is the ONE that the infinity of attributes become an expression of? Seems like Panentheism to me.

Of course it does. You see the term ‘One’, associate it with Plotinus, think Plotinus, therefore Panentheism.

God is more than the attributes which form nature.

Spinoza does not distinguish between God and Nature. Nature according to Spinoza has infinite attributes.He says so many times. Things in nature are finite modes. Human minds are finite modes. It is the idea that you have formed of nature based on things in Nature that you have mistaken for Nature itself. Ironically, you lack the intuitive knowledge that would allow you to see your mistake.

It is also the case that you rely on your own "experts". You cling to Plotinus’ and Neo-Platonist notions of nature as passive matter.