Join Now!

Community > Posts By > creativesoul

 

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Mon 06/23/08 12:39 AM
Thank you all for responding and entertaining the notion.

flowerforyou

Di,

It is good to see you, my friend! heart

You nailed the only premise. God exists.

I have found that Spinoza's entire construct is a priori. This is of utmost importance, and the very reason why there can be no logical objections, as long as one stays within the parameters of the construct. I like to believe it was intentionally so done. As you mentioned in your first paragraph, he left many fill in the blanks with what you - meaning whomever - deem appropriate. That is his genius! That is how and why he has separated himself from his peers, is it not? Spinoza gives the very first all philosophically encompassing construct of an indivisible 'God' which includes everything. He calls 'God' the only substance which can conceive through itself, therefore 'God' is the only substance.

That is the entire construct in a nutshell. Spinoza's entire construct demands an indivisible 'God', as the original source and/or cause(substance) of all that exists. If that be the quantum field, then so be it.

I also find that he completely dissolved(or ignored) the duality issue with an all-encompassing nature of 'God'. The only real objection that I have to his doing this is the mention during his definition of 'God' of there being no negation. I suppose that defies itself with an indivisible 'God', especially when it concerns our understandings of the nature of opposites. For without one, the other also cannot be defined. They are both of the same conceptional measurement(pole) and cannot exist without the other.

I look forward to your interactions... wink


James,

What I suspect to be the case from my perspective of your understanding is the immediate apprehension of a particular word or set of words. This was obviously the case. Substance being one of these, and cause and effect being another. I found many of the objections you posted to be objections to your own misinterpretations of what Spinoza's words actually are. He defined them, and it seems that you have chosen to redefine what Spinoza meant in order to fit your own preconceived notion which you have substantiated by numerous mentions regarding the collective conscious of the time. What I found to most intrigiuing, was the fact that you made references to Spinoza's writings in Ethics I which are non-existent. You added entire conceptual (mis)understandings which are not contained within what is written.

I appreciate your time and involvement here James, and I would never again want you to walk away from a conversation with myself with any unpleasant feelings. So here is what I would like for you to consider. As Di previously mentioned, your frame of reference for substance is not what Spinoza claimed.

I hold that that the term substance was used with an intentional ambiguity and, therefore, he defined it as he did in order to not fall into the trap of which you claimed he did.

Does energy have no substance? Is there no substance to consciousness? Spirit also has no substance?

Energy can indeed move a physical object, can it not?

Could we not adopt quantum theory without a direct objection to what Spinoza wrote? I am having a real difficulty with your explained objection to this, your supportive element...

QUOTE:
The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.


Are you suggesting that we do, in fact, have applicable knowledge regarding the effect(s) concerning the quantum field?

Spinoza is clearly claiming that when and if we obtain the knowledge of the cause, it is only then that we can have a true knowledge of the effect(s). This is objectionable???

Your are stating then that science now believes that there are effects that can and do exist without a cause, or is it just that we cannot comprehend that cause? If the latter be the case, then I must ask you James, how can we truly have knowledge then, about it's effect(s)?

Congratulations on your piano!!! flowerforyouflowerforyou




JB,

flowerforyou



Howzit Eljay? God to see you again!!! glassesflowerforyouglasses


Wow Artsy!,

I expected you to avoid this thread... laughGreat points though... MMMmmmuuuah!!!

heartbigsmileheart



creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 09:59 PM
Howzit wouldee? flowerforyou

I am still attempting to absorb all that Spinoza's writings have to offer, quite humbly, may I add. I suspect that you may well understand quicker than I.

glasses









creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 07:49 PM
Forgive my recent behaviours which included those deliberate personal remarks. There is no excuse, however, it does not surprise me given the situational awareness regarding my personal state of being.

No excuses... my sincerest apologies!

I violated a rule which I usually keep close at hand...

Take nothing personally, if a reflection seems to be one that is not of the subject in the mirror(myself) then it surely is one of the one holding the mirror.

Rather than go through your post and fault-find that which seems illogical to me, I should and will honour your right to believe that which you may, and hopefully that will allow everyone involved to keep their dignity intact.

flowerforyou

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 07:36 PM
James,

I posted this for the purposes of our discussing the issues of which you have with the writings regarding the quantum side that I do not recognize as existent.

These are Spinoza's propositions, definitions,and axioms, which are still regarded by many as the most inductively sound construct for the existence of 'God'.

flowerforyou
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 06:14 PM
JB...

Regarding those things which you just quoted...

Are you not the pot calling the kettle black.

The only reason that I have not highlighted your negativity towards me throughout the past, is because I could not open more than one page...

wink


I can now though!!!

Wanna call a truce and start over? I would like that!
Edited by creativesoul on Sat 06/21/08 06:17 PM
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 06:08 PM
That was curiously entertaining...

laughwinklaugh
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 06:03 PM
PART I: CONCERNING GOD



Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications

Prop. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common

Prop III. Things, which have nothing in common, cannot be one the cause of the other

Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substance, or by the differences of their modifications

Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute

Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance

Prop. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance

Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite

Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has, the greater the number of its attributes

Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must be conceived through itself

Prop. XI. God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists

Prop. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived, from which it would follow that substance can be divided

Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible

Prop. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived

Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived

Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways--that is, all things which fall within the sphere of infinite intellect

Prop. XVII. God acts solely by the laws of his own nature and is not constrained by anyone

Prop. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things

Prop. XIX. God and all the attributes of God are eternal

Prop. XX. The existence of God and his essence are one and the same

Prop. XXI. All things, which follow from the absolute nature of any attribute of God, must always exist and be infinite, or, in other words, are eternal and infinite through the said attribute

Prop. XXII. Whatever follows from any attribute of God, in so far as it is modified by a modification, which exists necessarily and as infinite through the said attribute, must also exist necessarily and as infinite

Prop. XXIII. Every mode, which exists both necessarily and as infinite, must necessarily follow either from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, or from an attribute modified by a modification, which exists necessarily and as infinite

Prop. XXIV. The essence of things produced by God does not involve existence

Prop. XXV. God is the efficient cause not only of the existence of things, but also of their essence

Prop. XXVI. A thing, which is conditioned to act in a particular manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned by God; and that which has not been conditioned by God cannot condition itself to act

Prop. XXVII. A thing, which has been conditioned by God to act in a particular way, cannot render itself unconditioned

Prop. XXVIII. Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity

Prop. XXIX. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature

Prop. XXX. Intellect, in function finite, or in function infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God, and nothing else

Prop. XXXI. The intellect in function, whether finite or infinite, as will, desire, love, etc., should be referred to passive nature, and not to active nature

Prop. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary cause

Prop. XXXIII. Things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or in any order different from that which has in fact obtained

Prop. XXXIV. God's power is identical with his essence

Prop. XXXV. Whatsoever we conceive to be in the power of God, necessarily exists

Prop. XXXVI. There is no cause from whose nature some effect does not follow


PART I: CONCERNING GOD


DEFINITIONS


I. BY THAT which is SELF-CAUSED, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

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.

III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. BY ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

V. BY MODE, I mean the modifications ["Affectiones"] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

VI. BY GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation.--I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

VII. That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.

VIII. By ETERNITY, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.
Explanation. --Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be explained by means of continuance or time, though continuance may be conceived without a beginning or end.

Axioms

I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.

III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.

IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.

V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.

VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.

VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence.






Edited by creativesoul on Sat 06/21/08 06:04 PM
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 05:33 PM
laugh@ Tribo...

That is great!!! Muchos gracias!!!

JB...

QUOTE:
However, I would suggest that all physical constructs that arise in any creature for environmental sensing purposes, have arisen because of the flow of consciousness through it.


I can go with this... flowerforyouIt would be interesting to consider, however, I would need you to be able to clarify two things.

One, what do you define consciousness as? This is key for my further understanding of your claim.

Two, what constitutes the distinction(s) between the different levels of consciousness? If there are different levels, then there must be something which affects the amount of consciousness that a thing can possess.

What is that?

flowerforyou


creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 04:14 PM
It is all a result of the difference between what one is perceiving and what one is aware of that they are perceiving.

James, once again your response to me regarding what has been accepted as true in another's words...

QUOTE:
I disagree, and here's why,...

You were holding the position that perception leads to consciouness.

Mirror's post (as he posted it) appeared to me to be suggesting various levels of consciousness.

So I don't see them as being the same at all.

Again, there's a difference between something leading to consciouness, and having various levels of conciousness.


I find this interesting. The claim is that the more senses a living thing has, the higher it's level of consciousness.
This necessarily invokes the fact that consciousness is increased according to how many senses a living thing has. There is no way around that notion, if the statement is held as true.

So then, more senses lead to higher consciousness.

No way around that.

If more equates to higher, then less must also equate to lower. If the quantities correlates with each other... they do.

None equates to zero.

If you choose to reject the claim that consciousness is increased or decreased according to the amount of senses that a living thing has, then do so.

For one who often uses the having cake and eating it too allusion against another's argument, you sure seem to be standing directly upon that ground.

QUOTE:
And the difference being that if we take your position that perception leads to consciouness then spirit cannot have any form of consciouness at all.


This is the real issue at hand here.

QUOTE:
On the other hand, if consciouness exists on all levels, then spirit can be the source of consciouness.

So these two views are humongously different.


If a frog has wings...

There is no logical support for that claim.


creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 01:04 AM
http://users.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza.html

axioms, definitions, correlations, proofs...etc.

Lemme know what you would like to focus on...

Must begin with the first, of course!

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 12:31 AM
laughlaughlaugh

QUOTE:
The "amount" is the "degree" of consciousness. I have stated from the beginning that consciousness flows through all things and all things have a degree (amount) of consciousness.
You added a "therefore the existence of" which is not what mirror stated.


I also stated that if one can follow a logical construct, then they can logically and reasonably take it one step farther, evidently you are having problems with that, and there is no surprise here.


QUOTE:
Mirror only spoke of the degree (or amount) of consciousness being influenced (or increased) by the senses. He did not state that the existence of consciousness depended upon the senses, only that they were increased or influenced by the senses.


If it is true that consciousness can be increased resulting from quantity of senses, then must also be true that it would be decreased by the same measure, or neither is held as true. I have no explanation for your inability to follow this logical construct.



QUOTE:
Once again you have added your own words and misquoted someone with your ... "therefore the existence of"...interpretation.


First of all, I misquoted no one. There are Mirror's words which are in quotes, and my own which are not. Your perception is off. Again, there is no surprise here.



QUOTE:
Your ..."Therefore the existence of..." is a conclusion. It is YOUR conclusion, not Mirror's. (If it is Mirror's conclusion, he has not actually stated so.)


Of course it is my conclusion! I never claimed otherwise. It is a completely sound logical conclusion, the ability for making such is gained from having the awareness necessary to think in reasonable and rational ways, to draw a logical inference based upon that which is held as true. His words clearly will logically follow my earlier assertation that consciousness is a result of senses. I just demonstrated the logical construct. If that were not the case then his claim would also be false, which makes no difference to me...

My focus is that an author is being rejected not the content of words. Again I have no attachment to you as a direct result of my value placement regarding that which you have shown yourself to be.

I am merely pointing out the obvious to James, not you, I would not expect you to understand the construct which must follow, based upon Mirror's words being held as true.


QUOTE:
It is you who ignore that which has bee clearly displayed. Mirror's statements as they stand, do not contradict my assessments.


I have never claimed to know what Mirror would logically conclude should those words be continued in a logical construct. I merely stated that they do not logically support what you and James are claiming. You are the one who claimed to explain his meaning. I just held his words as true and then followed the only logical construct accordingly, I can't help it if you do not like it. It follows, none-the-less.

As a matter of fact in order for consciousness to be able to be affected in any way by an external concept such as the senses, then that clearly shows that consciousness is not free, but dependent upon those senses for not only it's increasing, but also it's decreasing would also be true. If it can do either then it can do both.

You can fight about the logic of it all you want, that is just the way it is.

If you agree with those terms mentioned by Mirror, then you would have to logically conclude what I displayed.

I find it humourous how you avoid the substance...

Why not address this directly?

QUOTE:
If A then B

A = quantity of senses

B = level of consciousness

If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so.

It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness.



Mirror's person has no bearing on this. I have nothing against him either way.

This is about a hidden personal agenda upon your part. I am open that there are significant differences between our positions, yours is on a personal level, mine is not. The acceptence of things mentioned by another which were rejected when I said them makes this clear to one who has the critical thinking skills. You reject me as an author, and therefore anything which I write for that reason. The same thing was embraced when another spoke it.

Clear to me. laugh







creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Fri 06/20/08 11:32 PM
QUOTE:
I think to pick a single philosopher and base your world view on that is like putting yourself into a box.


Who said this?

Learn how to separate the author from their writings, and then keep the notions on a separate plane.

I could do this too.

Here I will show you how it is done on an impersonal level...

I think to make this claim implies that ythe one making it thinks they know what my world view is, as well as what it has been based upon.

I think that this clearly shows how assumptive people so often perceive incorrectly as a result of their pseudo-knowledge base.

Therefore, as a result of this assumption being based upon false truthes(that which you mistakenly thought you knew), this also clearly displays a complete lack of the awareness which is necessary to effectively make an accurate and/or valid inference, nevermind the elemental incapacity.

I strongly suggest that you read this carefully.

If you continue to speak nothing but negativity towards me as a person...

I will disect your every response to me or towards me with an impersonal precision that will leave the message without life, and your tongue without substance.



flowerforyou

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Fri 06/20/08 10:41 PM
QUOTE:
You shouldn't be trying to fling mud in the first place.


This is absurd to even suggest. Have you no awareness of the quantity of personal mud that you and JB have slung towards me in recent past?

When have you ever known me to throw mud first?

This unsupported stance that you are taking has been made more than obvious lately James, and it is the sole reason why I have been at a loss for words with you.

I used to believe that we drank from the same well, I no longer think that.

That is truly disappointing.

I am really expecting another completely unsupported rant at this point in time.
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Fri 06/20/08 10:28 PM
James, I am responding here because this thread is the one in which there were words spoken by Mirror which clearly repeated my earlier words. The trouble I had was witnessing your complete acceptance of that notion when voiced by another.

What is the difference?

My purpose is to clarify the irony displayed by your posts in our recent conversations. More importantly, it is not a matter of right and wrong concerning the subject. It is about the evidence at hand which strongly suggests that you have automatically dismissed my words as invalid simply because of their author.

My reason is purely because you are someone who I once held in high regard, and it is very clear to me that your perception has become clouded by some foreign matter, the origin of which I have chosen to not assume.

Now then, I have this clarified below.

Mirror's words were this... exactly... verbatim!


QUOTE:
The more senses a living thing possesses

The higher its conciousness


The exact same thing I initially claimed, when one has the critical thinking skills required to take it a little farther...

If A then B

A = quantity of senses

B = level of consciousness

If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so.

It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness.

Keep in mind that senses are physiological. Mirror even stated "living thing's" without a hint of objection from neither you or JB... huh

That fact alone implies that this has a kinda personal relevence which is completely outside the subject matter to me... wink

In Mirror's conclusion he lends support to this claim which is completely against what you and JB are suggesting. Here are his words again...

QUOTE:
So it stands to reason that consciousness

would be measured by the same standard


According to Mirror's entire post, he attributes the amount(therefore the existence of) consciousness directly to the amount of senses that a living thing has.

For you to react as though you had no idea what I was talking about is a reflection of something, although I am doing my best not to assume to know what that something is.

For JB to ignore that which has been clearly displayed and has contradicted her assessments does not at all surprise me.

For you to follow suit James... I am.
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Fri 06/20/08 08:14 PM
You know what...

Nevermind!

I just read through Jb's so-called consciousness thread again and saw your responses...

You are not who I thought to begin with.

Now you and JB speak for another? I quoted his words.

That is too much... truly too much.

Speak for your self.

I will not respond to you any more.

I have no reason to...

Be well.
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Fri 06/20/08 07:56 PM
I will concede concerning the origin of pantheism. I was referring to the onlysound argument.

I once again state, Spinoza has the only inductively sound logical construct.

James, your opinion differs from many in philosophy and science also.

Differs from Einstein even... huh

Depends upon your circles, I suppose.

Again, your choice to place value where you may is a personal one. As is mine.

I think if you read it and came away with that summary, you either had a pre-conceived bias which smothered your perceptual faculty, or you just did not get it.

You constantly claim quantum mechanics and physics as substantive support for your claims.

Now then, in order to clarify for me, since you have clearly suggested that Spinoza contradicted quantum mechanics and/or physics, could we entertain the following suggestion?


Could we go through the thread I posted in the past which contained Ethics I axioms and the specific defintions for those terms in his construct. This would give me a better idea exactly what you are referring to, and allow further discussion focusing upon that subject.

If you would?

smokin

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Thu 06/19/08 11:46 PM
noway

Life is not serious?

Surely we affect others in serious ways... for the rest of their life.

Seems fairly serious to me.

flowerforyou

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Thu 06/19/08 11:37 PM
The original concept of pantheism James, came through Spinoza's writings, specifically Ethics I. There is no anthropomorphism involved, thus Einstein's claim in not believing in a personal 'God'... He understood what he read.

I am guilty as charged concerning the labels, uncharacteristically so, my apologies. flowerforyou

However, my beliefs are very close to Spinoza's, and therefore for another to mistranslate pantheism and stray away from his meanings is to discredit the validity, and add absolute confusion to the origin of pantheism.

Being who you are James, surely you can relate to this. How many times have you witnessed evolution being carelessly strewn about? That is about how I feel at times when another misconstrues what I believe is a valid inductive argument for the existence of 'God'...

Di even reads Spinoza... wink
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Thu 06/19/08 11:17 PM
QUOTE:
So here you have admitted that you are "at odds with JB." (And so many times you pretended not to be.)
I'm really sorry you feel "at odds" with me.


What I said was because Mirror is not at odds with JB...

Admit that you and I are at odds??? Well of course we are at odds JB, for you to suggest otherwise is for you to conveniently forget all of the sarcasm which you display.

Perhaps your disrespectful nature towards another and their person is normal for you, and therefore your narrow perception does not allow your awareness to develop regarding your inability to allow another to keep their dignity intact.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

I have never pretended to not be at odds with you. I told you that I do my best to not take your jabs personally, and reassured you that my intent was not to dismantle your beliefs. I have clarified things at times, when I felt like applying the energy.


QUOTE:
As for the rest of your post, Mirror was not saying the same thing that you were saying. I will go into it in more detail if you are confused on the issue.


That is too funny! No thanks, I do not need you to clarify Mirror's words to me. He did a fine job in disputing you, all by himself.

Feral's support of your claim did everything but... laugh

I found this humourous!!! I gotta thank feral, although I am quite sure her support was not meant for me... laugh

Regarding the Venus flytrap... and consciousness! wink


QUOTE:
The selection process obviously isn't perfect... The difference is that you are conscious of what you're eating, while the Venus Flytrap is a passive participant...


flowerforyou



creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Thu 06/19/08 10:51 PM
Ahhh....

The unlearning process...

The thinking backwards that leads one to themself...

flowerforyou