The 4
Thesis of mind in Body
(derived from Spinoza)
Thesis 1:
The intellect is on the side of caused
things. The intellect appease to perceive a worlds a as thing I itself – a
thing alone. I see you, and you know you are, and o we assume the two are
caught together. But Spinoza fairly brutal reminds us the his I not so at the
end of book one. He intellect is among the things caused.
More than that though, the difference
between formal and objective thought demands that one understands caption and
so all ideas that follow from it on the side of caused things. As I have an
idea of something – objectively I understand it perceive it in my mind as a thing in me. And yet his
perception is in me because at some point and somehow (and Spinoza allows allow
of freedom here) it overshadowed me in a cause. It effected what I was. I made
me this and not that. |It formally exists (it is actually there) not as a
perception within me, but rather a formal cause. Or to put it in a latter
manner, case is the consequence paid to perceive a world. What I see within the
stuff of flesh, within being a ode is therefore the effects things have one me
– I have no direct grasp of them
or what they might be at all.
The intellect is therefore only given o
me, as elsewhere I am bound us with, and effected by others. I receive this
affection within me – and God perceive it in me to.
The
corollary of this is that it is clearly bootless to look o the intellect for
deep understanding about the problem of freedom. That is any choice based of a
free will envisaged by the choice between two legatees of the intellect, tow
pint created within objective ideas, is a very false choice. Each of these
elements com with so mutation elements, causes, and feelings, and so one is simply
not choosing between two ;free; element. On the contrary all one is doing is
creating within the mind to causal loop – to effects other have upon it. Is then only natural Spinoza thinks
that the strongest will win in this process. It I worth nothing though h
suggests three is something rather complex here. Contingency, that is no know
whether a thing is actually in a world or in merely my memories of it (the
shadow it cast upon my do has a real effect in this process. Contingency are
less casually powerful, as one can easily cu me of accidentally or
intentionally by movements of the
body. There ability to act – that is their ability to be a part in everything
see is therefore flawed.
Or pout I another way freedom is based
on perceptions an options is on an illusion. – as by the time we perceptive the
causes that the thing has upon us, are fixed. Real freedom lies to within this
perceptions and options of choice, so much with mitigating those things in our
minds. At is we treat ideas not as simply things so much as kingdoms full of
resource o be dwelt upon and used. We are free because these idea can be
plugged into different thoughts or stripped of differing causes – we not free
simply because we have it. Likewise God; freedom is his eternity –t hat is I is
the sense he is, the sense eyes caught up on the middle of a perpetual series
of negotiations, and challenges – he is free in . This change has then many
levels and nuances- including the
chain of causes. The game here is always to understand where God is in these
changes. If one runs with will land intellect then this is a non starter (one
is simply starting in the wrong place), god s in the middle of things only as
they are continued within the infinite chain of causes here , in the middle of
effecting the nt. Ideas of freedom and choice fall then by the image of gods
eternity and wisdom.
To
perceive it is very important Spinoza says to remember where it is that you do
that perception and that it is within a body as I is effected.
Thesis
2;Perceivving.
The
act of perceiving another- that
is being able within the chain of
causes to read the effect of another not as a thing (or simple body0 – that is
as it within ads as a change, by rather as he thing changed is also a property
of the universe. God contains then not merely the ability to change everything
but also the ability to be the thing changed, and to know of that change. A
world defined in the middle of a perception alone; As I am caught up in the
middle of everything, I am constantly being altered by ideas of others or
better effected by their causes, which I experience as that idea.
What
is more this idea as it relate to God is not fixed or even about one manner of
being a middle Attributes are one because they are always within the middle of
doing stuff. Hat is their being, their sense of being there is given because
one cannot escape that being caught up in the next t(Their being and god being
an absolute infinity are one and the same). And yet God himself is not fixed in
the one attribute. He is the being middle itself. He I that which is only
defined within all possibility middles – always constructing and changing(
Spinoza insists on this in a litter).
Infinite perceiving is not then abut
perceiving this o that attribute. On the contrary as one is always simply about
being caught up by others in the action – that is as one is caught up as such –
as the catching is the powerhouse to thinking, an not merely the perceiving
this or that bit in matter, this or that reality, then it allows the power of
god to understand or perceive is not really defined in attribute as such. That
is it is the power to understand one thing in another – this power is not
restricted to one or other middle, one or other perception of a middle
unwinding, but is rather a power relating to the very ability to catch up
things within perceiving. Perception as a power, is then a power suppurate as
itself, as such from one attribute. It is pitched ate n the ability to locate
or understand in one thing what that other has upon it, no matter how that
other is acting (that is no matter how we are unpeeling the sense we are all
caught together in the one thing – in the attribute).
Perceiving has then a very different
rhythm to being as such. Being you rivets in an single attribute, but within
hat attribute one is free to cause as one will. It perceiving one is not free
in to act, u is rather produced, a n yet as one understand perception
directions, in the ability to perceive to relate on to another as such, then
the perceiving itself is open one could always perceived in an
infinity of different way – under an infinity of different means.
The ability then to perceive another is
an ability which necessarily comprehends al possible perceptions, all possible
moves, all taking of the one within the other as seeing..
The infant intellect thereof is not
merely dead lose. On the contrary
it has its own ability to be within things, its own location which is stale and
dead or the last place hat matters to stuff itself, and yet the powerhouse of
what that stuff itself as it is a formal mode cannot comprehend. The intellect
though does thing not as a thing itself, but rather as it is a part of things.
This matters as without it that positioning of the intellect within the world
as a perception as a thing among the caused element would be loosed. The
intellect is then the product of an attribute, that it thog8h To be thinking is
allays to be dewing down thoughts, and the causes to thoughts it is to be in the next thought, as is so
even as the thoughts themselves, could (as their are rethinking or acting)
perceiving or relate o many other attribute.
The
attitude then pulls out a being caught up by being in the middle of things,
where that middle needs o be treated as one thing, one solution; the intellect
does not treat that solution in the unity, bit in then located within things;
It is therefore cause, and perceiving and not directly causing – and yet in
being so I whirls around hooking stuff up, locating stuff.
Or to put it another ay, Spinoza reminds
us, there is a real logic in perceiving that is actually different fro the
logic of thinking. Thinking is active. As I think I make or remake a world. As
I perceive I relate myself back to what it is that has effected a change in me,
and do so from the perspective of that thing. That is I understand the change
not as in me, as is it reached back the changer. It is in me ands that gives
it. It is a weird thing. I changed me, and yet I know it not. Or better only
feel it as that change is the perceiving of it. This flip flop of thinking –
this relating back of one t another, is not then sovereign, it is not cause,
and yet has a power and a rhythm of its own, one other then that simply unfit
in bang in the attribute.
A
mind, is then given in the one attribute (the unity of a being in the middle
and a thought, as the perceiving
of hat attributes. One the systems are located by middles within Spinoza’s
denial of parallelism (he never ever uses the word) is understood for what it
is. What matters are middles – there are powerful (and not stuff). Spinoza is
then only paradoxical if you forget then .the middles are the same as it is the
middle which matters and not the unity of the attributes 9which is merely a
product of that middle). Likewise with perceiving he caused element is not the
importance, it is rather the understanding of one in the other, giving a unity
in perceiver, in spite of change. This ability is then open to all middles.
Thought as an attribute does not containing or less middle than the other, and
the intellect works just differently and
at a differing place.
The
only possible place o confuse is if you sort wit me- and my mind, that is with
humanity., and this Spinoza explicitly warns against. T terms of my poison
within the system, and with the one mind in the perceiving of the one attribute
then this s clearly problematic. And yet to make this move is to miss the
point. Other mess in other attributes are not different to me - they would feel exactly the same in
effect: There existence would be (and no doubt is) identical to mine. These are
not then other worlds, so much as a thing word understood in being a middle
(there it would be paradoxical pooling of things in the one).
Intellect
is then positioned within things, and yet within that within has a power of its
own, and a series of was to think upon its won.
Thesis
3
And
yet this creates a deep problem for finite things 9and the oddity of the
parallelism debate reflects), It is all very well understanding how perceiving
and reality, objective and formal existence work in the infinite, and yet this
does not allow ho they are within m. Together they reconcile in the absolutely
infinite being, and yet the witch around of a middle within is one and a one
that is middle (one is idle here the other is fixed ) is potentially rather
tricky or me. I might like God only perceive things after the event, in middle which is perceived at the end.
And yet then the mind really would be useless. Confine to the one attribute and
determined in he worst predestination way to act within it. Spinoza knows as
well as the next his will not really d. H has then a complex solution: The
finite mode as a essence must define another sense, other than God (although
reflecting that god) whereby in the body as I have a body, my mind, my
perceiving are a genuine attributable middle, which reflects a formal existence
in reality. This pun, this loop is only of cause true as I exist. Is in a sense then the manner, or means
for that existing.
The firs point of this augment s then to
loathe kind of place this being might be. it canon been formal reality- it cannot start there. but as it relate
to a mind, and to a thing perceiving caught up in the raft of causes. My mid is
therefore apperception and so caused.
This of course is hopeful. These cause give the seen that the mind genuinely
perceives (the parallelism of ideas and causes). The one is the sense that he
other rips given. A mind will then be within God same is finite as a sequence
of causes. (2/9)
This
fact then means that every mind will only be a mere mode of God (2/10), that is
the union of min and body, the positioning of a mind inside a body (and not
merely as parallel to it0 demands that the and is mot one with gods stuff. It
union within the whirl of causes needs to be its alone. it cannot share it with
god, and cannot directly relate to God. The problem is different in each case.
The body as I is given must then create the need for the mind to alone, and to
capture some element of that body
within the essence then expressing this sense of being within as a
formal (attributable reality).
That
is to have a mind is going to be within an attributable. This finite thing is
hen clearly the body. It is as I have an actual existence is some attribute (does
into matter which on everyone could be thought to have the stuff of bodies)
that I will have a mind. The mind body problem is then misnamed – is it the
mind within the body problem.
Thesis
four.
But
then this leaves open exactly how this within is orchestrated. Or the side of
perception this ought to be easy enough. The mind will last a perceiving give a
being, a unity to the idea of a thing as it actually exists. The mind is then
looked into not he construction of the body, but its existence. It does this a
s a being that is as a fixed
element- a single loop.
All
things, all torments or engrossing of a middle or en essence can be
comprehended within this one. But this then of course creates ht issue, is this
one itself a middle. Spinoza immediately and civilly answers yes (2/120. This
idea needs to include everything that happens in the body, as it is related to
its whole (that is as it whirl into the next element, and the next of being a
body).
This
idea might then be as a one, and yet as it is capturing body, and that body constantly alters,
shifts and changes, then it will be itself constantly up for changing and being
challenged, and will as it gives the actual existence of that body. It will therefore
shift into a series of movements, where than holding a being down in the one
idea, is itself constantly shifting in the one itself shift. I is a s a body is
not constant – it grows or expands in what it does, that the idea of a one for
that body also shifts and changes.
The actual existence, and the being that
comes of it, as then not a thing fixed but a thing caught up in a challenging
series of changes and shifts in perceiving and perspectives. To understand then
that mood, to capture it in the one idea is to launch ht idea into a middle of a
sequence in changes and shifts in being and meaning for that idea.
I
is hen his shift (2/13 that is the essence of the mind. it is what the minds
actively is. What it can be or can compose itself of. Is what the mind must
be. To have a mind is then to have
a unity which is never simple, but rather is caught in the blood and chaos of
an ever changing body.
Spinoza
then presents a ballet of unity and division. The body is unitised beyond
anything to do with its actual existence. It existence depends on other causes
(which can of course be perceived). The mid is the unity of that body within
existence. I is the unity which as it perceives that body actually existing
includes all the things within it and through it, / And yet that means that
this unity is necessarily, as the body is changing itself shifting, and
altering, it is an idea of on the go – an idea which is not combined to simple
asserting dry existence, but rather will itself change, and will change as the
body itself changes; the two the middle of perceive a body, and the middle of
being within the body itself coalesce: As I actually exist in the action, theme
become as one, and caught together. It I the mind in the body, where perceiving
and being in the infinite meet, an become together.
In
these thesis Spinoza then creates a dual pole for the unit of ideas and things.
On the level of the absolute infinite thee is one rule. This rule ensures hat
everything can on some level understand or perceives other things. I defines
where perception for itself actually is. it creates in as power in the
universe, and yet one that is other to all other things and only reconciled n
the absolutely infinite thing). E might be able to perceive the world but this
perception hardly matters for us.
Is nothing, a it s real, or has a reality to God alone. It then places
all finite modes both a s existing and perceiving things, and yet then put a
price o that perception. I perceive others as others only at a certain point,
only as a consequence of a formal causal chain, it s not something that
creates. Humans it then open to the infinite resource of perceiving (and
Spinoza clearly doe not rule out perceiving as a part in God, this is book after all), and yet then place costs
upon it. This is going to be hard he says.
There
is though an more immediate union with the creator to be found in the body,
where also and for other reasons s a body actually exists, the being of the
body in perceiving and the essence of that mind (which is always in the middle
of what it is, always constructing the next, never ever finished) has a unique
unity of its own. As I am the perceiving of my body, of the changes in my body
(which at another level is all I have) and the change and challenge f being me
within any attribute are given in the one place. I am then a finite unity –
other then God in so many ways, and yet like in that locate
within my own body ea pun of intellect and attribute.
Two
final consequences follow from these theses:
Firstly
it is the case that his union is very specific Am unified in the body alone. and yet this body is not mine
alone. others have a version of it: I therefore in the fixing what I am by
something that carries not a bugger for me, that is extension, extra power.
have a link to others in art or whole. Other experiences is not a all mystery
for me, To be in a bodies then both to be caught in the misery of single
identity.
Secondly
and likewise I might be firmly put in my place in regards to the rest of
reality. The whirl of external causes will cause thing in me, things hat cannot
be directly or simply given, but will exist merely as they cause stuff for me.
And yet is ties causing there will be complex moves. H unity of the idea, the
perceiving, always demands that one element is understood or expressed into
terms of all other or ant least a great many other elements of my mind, of what
I am That unity, that needs o present a single idea is then only punned in my
body. As the attribute so related to things beyond it (perceivings0 there will
be a strain. Attributes respond to the one beyond, and ideas want always to
find a way to relate that beyond within the one thing ( it alone knows).
external reality will then become a perpetual challenge for me, as the idea I
am demands my attribute to form responses o that which was beyond it. I demand
in actually existing then a sense that the mind does not finish with the fact
that the thing is external., but rather endlessly asserts what that external is
for my actual existence. Reality then becomes for me not simply about
perceiving those others outside, or else the attribute as such, so much as an
assertion of that has been as it relates to me actual existing. It becomes then
an assertion of what I am. What s more this assertion will of course be the
sense that i am in the middle as myself. Ideas therefore relating o an actual
existence unifies my effects upon the world, and assets my rights to an actual
existence. As I am a middle I arrange middle in a way, an manner according to
an actual existing, which is unified by the idea. Become hen a strive, an essence.
Ideas there priorities what would
otherwise be lost to the wider attribute. As I have a being, then than being
matters in this unity. It must be perceives within thaw whirl of a body, that
naturally is pulled lost of different ways. I perceive then in the flux, the
staving unity of being. That is the sense that all this worlds and challenges
relate and are caught up with a
counted being. more than in looking to how a body changes in the
external. I create ideas of change and so as I am in the middle of a mind: I
become then a strive. But here of course one needs care. The idea will of
course bee in a sense limited here. I is defined also in the perceiving of
something beyond it, in cause alone. I will not then as it is in God allow for
the body, as it understands the external element. There will be a point within
the attribute then that it ‘forget the mind, a pint which relates to he initial
infinity beyond boldest perceive a thing in the unity of a mind, is then to
have a point related to something, some point beyond my existence (body or flux
in the attribute itself), which cannot be directly comprehended. His element
will then be given not in a simple perception of nature by the mind, so much as
in a flux of differing responses. As the thing is beyond o me, I cannot
directly finish it is any one though – there is always something that escapes,
something I cannot quite comprehend or get the hang of, a difference beyond me
that dances one. The idea of a body then will endlessly create new responses
new perceptions to his external cause as a thing outside it.
The
joy of the striving mind is of course that it must give these two at once, and
in the same breadth. It effect therefore Spinoza doubles time: The intellect,
in the good Aristotelian, who always looks at what has been (the now is the
first moment of the past – the moment beyond); the mind in the body as essence
puts time flowers, it demands change and demands I or the world changes – it
has a time as the fist moment to change with, and yet doe it by paying two
penalties. Firstly the perceptions are as they realer to my body alone; they
are then not pen, but only as they are in his vessel for being (and no other).
But also they are only even together n this unity. The demand for the future
has no ability in itself to resonate in God, it is a one of unity in actual
existence. I might then have a might to a future, but I have no right to that
right, and the future I find is only my own as actually exist (and share that existence within others). It
is this backwards and Forward, this before and after, which surely make Spinoza
the greatest of all philosophers.
Or
to put it another way, as have an
actual existence I will assert an independence from the attribute (2/8) through
having mind in a body unity that is distinct, and this assertion then creates
its own rhythm within me: it unifies or picks out certain thoughts as distinct
and special , and in doing so crates an endless and where that specialises is
never finished or rather is related even as it special of something beyond it,
and incomprehensible to it,
something to which that existence
endlessly responds.
Spinoza
therefore answers the deep problem of how one can have only middles and yet
still live in the world of things, be creating a complex double move: It does
it in one way, and I another. We
meet of course at times (and I remain always part in his manner), and yet the
rhythms of each the reasons why we perceive things and unity, is different in
each case and each part i– a difference that allows a galaxy of meaning and
striving within.
It is Spinoza-s Great power, that he
turns a partial defeat, that perception relates to the orbit beyond us all, and so gives us the elements of
our mind complete with causes and powers, into a partial victory: We have the
ability to rework what that perceiving means to us or better what it is within
us- an ability to regive what it
is, and work its power upon us: Freedom of choice is then nothing when compared
to a freedom to perceive as fresh.