Under the eyes of God; A final Catechism.
Why must I understand a body and its essence to be viewed through God’s eye ?.
To understand oneself in the ought of God is to change what one is. one becomes caught in a dual locus. One the one hand one is a body engaged as a body, reflecting and refracting material elements. These elements then express or rather are the tools for an expression of what happens in oneself (as an indvidual0. A face and a brain are the mirror of a mind. One is therefore a thing, a complex whirling construction always happening always acting. But more than that ones also a Minden aged with and through other minds. Ones thoughts therefore include in themes elements that are in many other bodied as well. This any, this being with other is as oneself is a body caught up in the idea of god. Of what is shared by him into others and through other. Both others of ones own species and others of othering other types other kinds of being. One therefore belongs in the sense that one is making a difference a part of something.
But then why is this essence?
It is the essence is a kooky way. the point about such belonging I that it is necessarily shared across… Shared for and across many minds and for every mind.. W are all caught in the same basic essence (or variations of it) and are whatever we are doping. We might then be dragged this way and that, but there is always a fragment of our own acidly to create in a very positive reaction we are in. we are always there. Always whirling around. Always acting. We are therefore truly in the middle of things, and are essentially. The appeal to essence gives the essence its marching feet. As the essence therefore I run out and engage with the world. I make it my middle, I am caught in allowing it to be of my middle. My middle and its become one and the same: God in man , man in God.
But then does this not comprise the essence?
Depends what one means. It does compromise the egoistic and therefore the self conscious account of the essence surely. Hat is I am a part of things in the sense that those things are beyond and around me. In the sense that in another way or at another level these things are to be understood only through the chain of causes. I am not part of the universe as a I as such. I am not immortal. And yet I am a part in things. I am caught up in making or remaking a world , n being of the middle of everything, being caught in the middle for everything. What I am is therefore exploded across the world. a positive I and the world we grow into each other. As my essence eyes doing it grows in the worlds growing. This is intuitive, this is beautiful.
But what about perception?
This is of cores the point of the last remark. Perception gives one a double ended account to the world. The world is the worlds but also mine. As I grown into the world as such I am always enriched. However this enriching might function at numerous levels. I aright directly e caught up in the ideas of the world and spun along God knows where. Alternatively I might be caught by the mechanics of being me in the world, that is in being perception. As a perception I define at least a line I which I am included in the world. a line where somehow at some level a world (not necessarily this one0 is In a me. A fog where I begin
This fog is then pock marked with possibility. That is at certain point the gauze between me and the world will become utterly hollow, and I will tumble into affects, and tumble into elements that spin we around, a participant in all the quiet noise of the universe. A spinner in a world which I reach.
But is this not weird and woo?
Utterly not. Spinoza’s point here is that is the are going to avoid the passionate world as such – that is the world I built from my passion and only my passion, we have to allow not only for the tottering on the edge of the unknown, but aloe the partial being caught up in it and through it. One has therefore to strip being merely what one is. one has to be caught up in the whirligig of reality and spin or refocused this way or that.
Moreover perception is the sense habit does reflect sorting beyond me a hypothesis which the nature of perception we never doubt, Spinoza would add, but work in this manner. That is it places me automatically in a world I do not understand or comprehend. That is what it does. What else can it do? why would it do anything else? Given this then the game is to extend that sharing.
But why the love of God then? Why intellectual
This move is the mot cunning. The point here is that the love f God is not something which is external to me. It is rather the finding of myself in the middle of my perception though the thoughts and feeling I have that bury me in everything else. Here there is an inversion happening. The love of god is complex in that it is permeable That is it is caught as something pitched against the world. It is pitched against the world of passions.
The normal way I understand the world is after all as my own conjuring. A sequence of perception is given a passionate hollow resonance. I cry in the name of… It becomes then as a me, and a passionate me at that. I make a world I either I will make to accord with it – or a will be forced to create a single currency a trick a ruse to keep you in my world.
The passionate empirical world is therefore a world of bullies: THIS ONE IS MINE or a world of complex and intricate threats- however far you escape wherever you run to you will find that this world has a price – that your desires or your body needs define you.
What are these poles?
On the one hand the world is as it appears in a flicker of a situation and the run of a conscious mind. This is my world as my passions are giving it –a and you better agree or else I will attack and attack against
Not the other one might take a very long view of a body. To be in for the long game I to ignore local loses. One play a game in which the biological necessities and long term functions of living and desiring will eventually betray a mind or all mind. People might then ride high an might, might oppose greed in altruism and the body with the spirit but there comes a movement then there courage breaks and they are forced low. I this the law of a world a law observed.
These then are the two option f passions; to o in this world or to create another longer term one .Both options though eventually create or seek to create of force in being the world as I know it, as an I demands of it.
But then what about god’ love?
God’s love is the alternative to these world. this is why it is pitched against the duration of the tone (the imposition of a tense set in the here and how) and the time of another (all times are as a mine) it is another it is eternal. It exists in the left and warp of the moment. Te flicker of a be to be gone and gone for good. I a might therefore a as here, in the flicker of an eye in being as a here. And yet I am also in your mind and in the mind in some sense of that grass Hooper and the any you have crushed and the grasses I chew –and of everything. Stop the woo. What do you mean?
The point of the affect is that instead of a passion which asserts or controls the world as a mine as it must be a s mine I se it rather in terms of essence and the spin and spun of essence. That is in terms of how it is caught up in each other and endless growing, endless in the process of making more of itself, endlessly renewing.
Ad then a part of that renew, as a growth I cannot feel anything other than a joy. God endless grows in creation as a part in that I too grow.
But what love here? And surely this is not an affect.?
It is rather the extreme end of the affect- the point the river leads to. I this not then one of the immediate human affects.
But to answer the first question first. It is not love in the sense that I am assuring myself. I am rather feeling joy simply as a part in something else. I know the perception as it leads beyond a me or an ego is the joy. This is then genuinely eternal. I in making me other allows a difference between me and you to stand. I am enriched. and yet that enrich is not you. Is not me in another name in you. It is rather type of difference to me that enriched a me. That thing then I cannot see in anything other than the joy. The joy is the thing to catch the spirit of the divinity within.
From this point another immediately follows. God is therefore the love I feel in growth. And yet as I am not squeezing that love into my own feeling any ore. As they are not mine, then I am not requiting that love o be anything other than impersonal and growing. It enriches what it is by itself within me. As then it relates to a god, the god’s eye takes on the role of perception. God in perceptive in a me gives the clue to the world which is always to be of and into another. God is that agent that ensures all of creation is always with another… Given this element then the mind is that in which I am trapped across and through others. The joy I feel therefore as it relates to God and initially god’s inclusion of m, we as it is about God alone not necessarily need a me. I do not have to be there as such. The growth the power the essence elf that love is beyond- it reach as beyond and through creation. It I eternal.
Stop the Woo. Have you any practical points here?
There are two point of break. one the one hand affects that is the productive active engages I have with others in which through which I an they grow and change in our nature, need to be hidden and yet all preset. That is they are not to be located in persona as such. They will need rather be understood and an effect which runs across the world and animates it is varying ways and manner. They will have to be in a world therefore beyond any fixed point. To free affects is to tear tem from a series of mying relations. They become other to a me.
One the other handle will have to free expressions from mere humanity, The way I can going to be a part in the universe is actually through these expressions. They will need to become as a me. That is in their relating to the world I grasp it and communicate at the same time as a grasp: We watch thoughts across a fact (but only in part). We mirror then mind in the expression. We participate in each others thought.
To free then the action of perception so that is becomes a force – a point other split of from a point the universe and actsas its mirrior within and acts accordingly – that is the game.And a hard one.
The first point si easy – but what is the poitn in the second where is the meat?
The point si that a face reflects perception. It reflects then the universe that I make and make in my own little passionate world. I see and make and can bee seen reflecting that sight and that making as I look. My mind is therefore permeable in the very act of building a universe for itself. The actual universe that is that which is beyond this mind will then act accordingly. It will react to break into this building. This breaking is can either by duration a tumble which either conform to the bullies of the mind or defy them. But it need not be. Your formation, you ramming is or might be a thing I share. Your licker, the you to me, might be something I can watch over and change. Or better as I read in you a thought or a series of thoughts which might as have or could have had or perhaps will lave or… I am change and challenges. Your formation then becomes an axis to change a me. Your face becomes the whirl of that change. I watching it and the wider way you communicate I am not what I was.
In this being not I they reach or might reach into you. I might see what you are about, what you are doing, and how and when. We might change together in the empathy I feel.
That is the point of expression is that it calls for an empathetic reasons on another who builds upon it as it were themselves. This response need not be communicative need not relate to passions (mines and yours) it might free itself an modify what those passions are. We might therefore grow to be empathetic together.
Themes enough for the next book….