Happy Birthday Spinoza, Perhaps History’s Greatest Radical
It’s the birthday (1632) of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza, whose most important ideas, according to the Writer’s Almanac, were that “everything in the universe is made of a single substance, and that everything in the universe is subject to natural laws. He also argued that the soul and the body are not really separate, but two parts of the same thing. He believed that God did not stand outside the universe, but rather that the universe itself was God, and that everything in the universe was perfect and divine.”
One can see how radical thinking like this got him into hot water with the church in the 17th Century. But I find it interesting that, even in the face of all our scientific advancements, some of Spinoza’s 350-year-old ideas may turn out to be correct. I’m sure the chemists who developed the periodic table in the 19th Century regarded Spinoza as a quaint old whack-job, but he doesn’t seem so whacky now that we understand quarks and string theory, does he? And obviously, the religious people – of his day and our own – recoil at the notion that the soul and the body are two parts of the same thing. But if you ask a scientist today for the accepted modern theory of human consciousness (or medicine, or any of a number of different disciplines that study how human beings actually function), be prepared for a rude shock: the old dualities of mind/body or soul/body are no longer in place.
Radical thinking, i.e., serious exploration that takes all the paradigms of the day and tosses them out the window, is actually quite difficult, and for that reason, it’s something I deeply respect. This is why I’m always happy to talk with anyone who claims to have an idea that appears to violate the laws of physics as we understand them.
Having said that, I place the bar quite high. Someone who wants to raise money to build a prototype of a machine that spits out more energy than it consumes, thus violating the first and second laws of thermodynamics, merits this extremely quick, 26-word conversation: “That’s interesting, though theoretically impossible. But if you can build a working model on your own, and send me a video, let’s have a follow-on discussion.” Of course, this is seldom the end of the conversation, as, inevitably, the guy feels compelled to convince me that he’s right and I’m wrong. Here, I respond with another 12 words, bringing the grand total to 38: “Sorry. I don’t want to hear it; I want to see it.”
So far, I’m batting exactly zero on those “follow-on discussions,” but I continue undeterred in my quest to find the next Spinoza.
Darn, your email arrived 2 days late! Ah well, the belated birthday cards are generally funnier anyhow.
Ha! Busted. Yes, I wrote that post two days ago, on Spinoza’s actual birthday; I was rather hoping that nobody had his birthday on their calendar, but I didn’t get away with it. 🙂
I also feel that the universe was not created by god but is god. My son told me that is called Pantheonism. Much like the native americans feel that the universe is a living thing.
I think you mean “pantheism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Although Spinoza never used the term “pantheism” himself in his writings, he is held to be a proponent of the view. I don’t regard Wikipedia as the best source for many things, but this article seems to have some interesting and well-sourced information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
You’re not kidding. I was blown away with the discussion of “immanence” vs. “transcendence.”
Craig: As always, good point. I would also add that we are seldom right the first time, and in God’s eyes, not at all; we should always try to express our ideas with the knowledge that we really know so litttle, and that every time we open a new window, there is a whole new world out there. Who said “the more I know, the more I realize I know less?” And we thought we knew all about the atom!
Thanks for the great insights. The answer to you question, as far as I’m aware, is Socrates. If you Google “Socratic wisdom” you’ll see what I mean.
This was a good laugh today, but I laughed most about the Hydrogen Fuel-Cell as that is as ridiculous as the other violations of basic physical laws. Apparently “Big-Oil” is getting more and more desperate. and concerned, about their loss of revenue, from fuel sales, if they cannot continue to sell us a lot of fuel, for a lot of money. And keep us from making and using on site: solar, geothermal, and wind or water turbine. My suggestion to use large Solar installations outside the cities to make hydrogen from electricity and water then compress it and add to the natural gas in the big network of pipelines, there it is compatible with the natural gas already in the line and the gas distribution system includes storage in volume as larger than needed pipelines and some discrete storage tanks while the electric “Grid” does not have any storage capability at all. The higher the percentage of Hydrogen and less Methane the less carbon emissions… The utilities can convert from coal to Natural gas very inexpensively. Cleaning up emissions and Peaking units for those high demand few hours daily can be “Gas-Turbines” fueled by the hydrogen enriched natural gas…
Craig, did you change something? Today it was easy to sign in… Thanks, Dennis, and Happy Hollidays
Hi Craig,
Challenging the common minset requires courage…As soon as you express your thoughs enemies you make…Following Spinoza, God seems to be an emergent consciouness of the universe itself….as for instance one ant is stupid but his colony…
Also, Gods from the past may quite well be ancient astronauts…beings whose advanced techonoloy were, and still are, far beyond our capabilities…
As to energy, it always was, is, and will be forever something I can not define but its effects only….It is everywhere, everlasting, and omnipresent…There´s never will be “lack of energy”….
Best,
Vicente Fachina
Hi,
Melt down proof fission and fusion… until then, we will need fossil fuels… unless machine automation powered by renewables… make themselves and storage. Harnessing the energy required for such exponential growth is next to impossible, because the needs of the society are impatient. Energy is everywhere… but so is entropy.
One law of mind says: you won’t see a thing or idea in you don’t want to see it, or you have no belief system to support it. All seeing is led by will, because seeing is a mental activity, not a function of the body’s eyes.
Because most people identify with the body, or ego, they also believe that God is made in their image. They have made the unconcious leap past the idea that being made, or correctly “Created” in the image of God does not establish what God is. The Escenes of ancient, or biblical times knew that God was an idea, or more correctly, Spirit. Therefor, we are also. Because we, from birth are extolled and expected to see ourselves as bodies, we identify only with that and we support a universe of facts to support it, and have dificulty in seeing, or understanding what Spirit is, and what we are.
One more idea; Accepting this requires not courage, which is of the ego, which, identifying with the body, believes it can be threatened and is vulnerable. Spirit is invulnerable, and requires only understanding. In this we may see that accepting our true identity frees us from fear and want. We become released to higher potential and possibility. We are unlimited in mind because mind is a biodynamic computer that can heal itself from the insanity it thought was real.
There have been many great thinkers in human history. The challenge is identifying what is valuable in their best work, and then preserving and transmitting it so as to be understood and developed by future generations. Many of the best minds in our history stood on the shoulders of great minds before them.
The disadvantages we overcome in that endeavor are our brief lifespan and imperfect communication, whether imperfect by language or by medium – and that’s not even bringing the corrupting influence of greed into the discussion. There are people for every problem who have a vested interest in it not being solved.
There is (or has been) likely a practical and efficient solution already conceived for nearly every major challenge we face in our lives. The difficulties have been in identifying the best existing solutions and – overwhelmingly – putting them into practice in each case.
Society needs a Da Vinci again, that invested his whole life to solve problems. Einstein said once: We should thrive to become men of value instead of aiming to be persons of success; a person of value is the one who leaves more to society than he keeps for himself, but the “successful” person is the one who takes more out of society than he leaves.
Our society is going to learn the difficult way (as always) until we don’t have what we thought was ours and until we realize we should have done what we haven’t been doing.
We are going to learn as the children we are.
We still have enough to discover and develop, and yes, there will be people for every problem who have vested interests in them not being solved; but we have to evolve into a more proactive society, where these people are sorted out for good.(Democracy??!)
We live in a modern feudal world (either we like the term or not) and we don’t own the chessboard.
Steven, your comment reminds me of a couple of things. One is a saying attributed to the Cree: When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will you realize that one cannot eat money. The other is an observation I made years ago concerning political parties: The Republican believes those who own the land should rule it. The Democrat believes those who live on the land should rule it. The Green believes the Land makes most of the rules.
PS – I agree we need more like da Vinci and Einstein. When da Vinci died he had been staying with the king of France, and one of the king’s closest servants said of the genius, “It is not in the power of Nature to create another such man.”
Cameron: I guess we are stuck; we will have to try it on our own.
Or,…. shouldn’t that be what we should be doing?
If we see all this mess, what we have contributed to do…
We already see vast areas of trees cut, rivers poisoned, etc. I guess should hurry up.
Yes, time is growing short on many fronts. For my part, I circulate self published articles to targeted individuals. I go to demonstrations fairly regularly, and I remain as politically active as I can manage. I also try to circulate knowledge about issues generally, and use my voice whenever I feel it makes sense. I have a small car and I recycle meticulously, and I use energy efficient lighting and appliances and work close to home. We should all do what we can, and I respect Craig tremendously for his intellect and motivated spirit, and for providing this venue for discussion.