From: Jussi Karsikas <juskars-AT-jyu.fi> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:43:33 +0300 To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org Subject: Re: [D-G] Fwd: Re: -- Views from a long-time silent reader... I think Deleuze specifically says that Spinoza's "doctrine" has nothing to do with the Plato/Leibniz..... (and yes, I for example don't agree with the viewpoing that Spinoza is bound to the doctrines of the church!) This is from Deleuze's book "Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza" (translated by Martin Joughin, Zone Books, New York 1990), page 253-254: "One may call "rationalist moralism" (optimism) a tradition that has its sources in Plato, and its fullest development in the philosophy of Leibniz; Evil is nothing because only Being is, or rather because Being, superior to existence, determines all that is. The Good, or the Better, *make things be*. Spinoza's position has nothing to do with this tradition: it amounts to rationalist "amoralism". For according to Spinoza, Good has no more sense than Evil: in Nature there is neither Good nor Evil. Spinoza constantly reminds us of this: "If men were born free, they would form no concept of good and evil so long as they remained free". The question of Spinoza's atheism is singularly lacking in interest insofar as it depends on arbitrary definitions of theism and atheism. The question can only be posed in relation to what most people call "God" from a religious viewpoint: a God, that is to say, inseparable from *ratio boni*, proceeding by the moral law, acting as a judge. Spinoza is clearly an atheist in this sense: the moral pseudo-law is simply the measure of our misunderstanding of natural laws; the idea of rewards and punishments reflects only our ignorance of the true relation between an act and its consequences; Good and Evil are inadequate ideas, and we form conceptions of them only to the extent that our ideas are inadequate. But because there is no Good or Evil, this does not mean that all distinctions vanish. There is no Good or Evil in Nature, but there are good and bad things for each existing mode. The moral opposition of Good and Evil disappears, but this disappearance does not make all things, or all beings, equal. As Nietzsche puts it, " 'Beyond Good and Evil'... at least this does *not* mean 'Beyond Good and Bad' ". There are increases in our power of action, reductions in our power of action. The distinction between good things and bad provides the basis for real ethical difference, which we must substitute for a false moral opposition." And as for the use-Fullness of Yoga I&I must say that there is a very concrete pragmatical quality in it in the Sense of "calming down" the body - a coming out of your mind Back To Your Senses.... blowing out the mind to open OneSelf up to the sensoric-spacious awareness of Existence and "it's" infinite modes.... and by this I mean that Yogic exercises can have very concrete application WITHOUT "moral" or "religious" baggage. For me this has meant of calming down the more rajasic (as understood by Ayurveda for example) aspects of my constantly running mind. Balancing the three Gunas (sattvic/rajasic/ tamasic) if you Will.... *8) This is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guna): "In Samkhya philosophy a Guna is one of three "tendencies" or "mental states": tamas, sattva, and rajas. These categories have become a common means of categorizing behavior and natural phenomena in Hindu philosophy, and also in Ayurvedic medicine, as a system to assess conditions and diets. * Sattva (originally "being, existence, entity") has been translated to mean balance, order, or purity. This typically implies that a person with this quality has a positive or even orderly state of mind. Such a person is psychologically kind, calm, alert and thoughtful. Compare also the bodhisattvas in Buddhism. Indologist Georg Feuerstein translates sattva as "lucidity". * Rajas (originally "atmosphere, air, firmament") has been translated to mean overactivity or turmoil: "too active". A person with this mental state has a mind that is ever active, in turmoil, or in a chaotic state. That person is constantly seeking diversions and essentially has difficulty focusing their attention for long durations of time. (Rajas is etymologically unrelated to the word raja.) Feuerstein translates rajas as "dynamism". * Tamas (originally "darkness", "obscurity") has been translated to mean "too inactive", negative, lethargic, dull, or slow. Usually it is associated with darkness, delusion, or ignorance. A tamas quality also can imply that a person has a self-destructive or entropic state of mind. That person is constantly pursuing destructive activities. Feuerstein translates tamas as "inertia". On Jun 1, 2006, at 8:01 PM, hwenk wrote: > > Hello, > > to be a little philosophic historical, the main difference between > Spinoza and Leibniz is, that for Spinoza, the whole > nature, the whole universe is ONE where for Leibniz the monads, > the are also the individual souls as I's, don't have any contacr with > one another "the monads are without windows". > The contact betwee rthe monads is only made throgh god himself. > > Both Leibniz and Spinoza are bound tpo the doctrines > of the curch or the mediaval methaphysics or theology. > As you may have experienced for yourself very often, people with hifh > interst in > one issu, maybe religion or philosophy<, hat almost more another if > they are relatively near than they hate people not interested at in > the > issue. > > There different philosophies or different religions fight very hard > against > one another. > > Being a little bit superficial, both, the catholic doctrine of > (Duns Scotus > for example) and Spinoza and Leibniz > are refinements of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle and as such > have a > lot > of common ground. _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005