[D-G] Fwd: Re: --
juskars at jyu.fi
Fri Jun 2 01:43:33 PDT 2006
Views from a long-time silent reader...
I think Deleuze specifically says that Spinoza's "doctrine" has
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
"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
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
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
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/
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:
> 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
> There different philosophies or different religions fight very hard
> 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
> of common ground.
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari