TLS signed “Love, Phil,” who adds a small heart with arrow, four pages, 8.5 x 11, January 26, 1981. Letter to science fiction author Patricia Warrick, in full: “This may prove to be an important letter. I had a great flooding in of insight into Spinoza's system. First of all, from a scientific standpoint total reality would have to differ in some way from the normal model of objective science --that is, a view of matter and energy which is lawful but not sentient, that does not possess the attribute of mind — for Spinoza's system to be entertained. Otherwise the Principle of Scientific Parsimony is not utilized. Let us start there. But, I think, there is another aspect, one that interests me more: upon deep, long and profound reflection I have come to the conclusion that Spinoza has not really thought through the implications of his own system, that did his system pertained it would not produce precisely the results that he supposes and that we all encounter. At least encounter normally. What we would experience would be different in the exact area where Spinoza considers his system most strong; I mean, in regard to miracles and to their — under his system — supposed impossibility.
I say this because I have decided that March 1974 represents what is commonly meant by a miracle in the sense that it was a violation of a normal rule of the behavior of the world-order; hence the AI voice correctly speaks of it having been ‘a perturbation in the reality field,’ but I also believe (upon lengthy analysis and reflection) that it was due, this miracle, to the internal logic of the world-order and had it not happened, there would have been precisely what Spinoza accuses miracle to be: a demonstration of God's weakness, not his strength (see David Hume and Spinoza both on the topic of miracles).
In my opinion March 1974 points to the truth of Spinoza's system over normal scientific systems of mechanistic physics, yet on the other hand it points away from transcendent deity, theism, away from a loving God such as the Christians and Jews suppose. It is as if Spinoza's system lies in the middle of a continuum at one end of which is normal physics and at the other end of which is conventional theism. Neither extreme (if I may speak of science and theism as that) is indicated, but, rather, Spinoza's middle ground — but only if certain implications of his system are thought through thoroughly, which, in my opinion, they are not, even by, especially by, him. Specifically: If mind is an attribute of substantia equal to that of spatial extension (which is the physical universe as we empirically apprehend it) then physical reality extended in space is going to behave somewhat differently from its manner of behavior were there no inner mental equal attribute. This must be the case; were it not, as I say supra, there would be no point in including this other attribute of mind in our model or picture of the universe. Unless we are going to abandon the Principle of Scientific Parsimony, and I am sure we are not going to do that, nor would Spinoza urge us to.
What must be kept in mind is that I know why the perturbation of March 1974 took place; the I voice recently told me (as I have related in a previous letter). First of all, it was not an accidental perturbation; it was deliberate. It was to rescue me; it had a purpose. And yet this purpose does not point to God's love or God's desire to help me; it does not point to divine mercy or charity, and also it does not point to merit on my part. Paradoxically, this perturbation, this violation of the rule and departure from the norm points ineluctably to logic, which for Spinoza is the very basis of the attribute of mind, the very core of "Deus sive substantia sive natura." But it is not the logic which would pertain in a mechanical system, and Spinoza — for reasons of cultural bias; i.e. due to the Zeitgeist of the dawning of the Age of European Reason — assumed a push-rod mechanical system: universe as machine. Despite the attribute of mind, the system could not overrule itself or in any way suspend its regular causal activity. Now, I worked it out where March 1974 is seen to demonstrate the truth of Spinoza's system but for a reason that Spinoza himself would have considered an impossibility and an internal contradiction, but I say, March 1974 constituted a higher and more consistent logic than would the failure of the overruling have been; I mean to say, had the world-order not overruled itself and deliberately caused the perturbation, the violation of the normal order, it would have indicated that it did not possess the attribute of mind, and Spinoza's system would then not be the case. I will herewith copy out my exact notes; you will see in them several shifts, but notice where the reasoning leads; don't stop short (please) along the way:
Reread letters to Pat. Conclusion: Spinoza's monism — one substantia, two attributes — is the case. The complete case, with no need to bring in Plato, the Logos, Christianity, mysticism, body and blood, etc.
BUT:
March 1974 represented a perturbation (i.e. as Merriam-Webster II defines perturbation: ‘An irregularity, a variation from the normal, a violation of a rule’) of that system (which fits what the AI voice said; vide my 1-23-81 letter to Pat; viz: that March 1974 was an ‘act of God’). Note that I define the Logos exactly the way Spinoza defines Deus. (Reason immanent in the world- order.) So there is no point in my ‘amending’ his system by substituting ‘Logos’ for ‘Deus’ — except: a ‘variation from the normal’ took place in March 1974, which for Spinoza cannot happen; BUT: Spinoza lived in an age (at a time) when a totally mechanistic view of reality was the case. However, modern theoretical physics deals with the possibility of ‘violations’ (i.e. ‘perturbations’).
Spinoza unnecessarily, due to cultural bias, assumes inviolate regularity in the world-order. What if I assume his monism, his ‘Deus substantia natura,’ his "two attributes, the inner one mind, the outer matter extended in space’ but submit that the possibility exists for volitional exceptions to regularity? Hence: Spinoza's total system is the total case with this one proviso: the world-order can violate its own inflexibility based on its sentient appraisal of the situation. Then I readmit Philo's pronoia, a main point of disagreement between Spinoza and Philo. My appeal: to the argument that agape is the einai of God. ‘Esse Dei caritas est,’ dico. Atque providentia. This simplifies my system (in accord with the Principle of Scientific Parsimony). But does this not strike at the heart of Spinoza's whole system? It would, however, overcome one vast defect in Spinoza's system: ‘You can love God but he can't love you in return’; and would I not wish to overturn this in favor agape? Now the value of 11-17-80 is apparent; the agape einai of God is disclosed, and the heartless mechanistic system fundamentally amended and brought in accord with later Judaism and Christianity. Yet in all other respects large and small, cardinal and ancillary, Spinoza is the case. He accounts for everything that is the rule except for exceptions to the rule. The exception I know of (March 1974) is not capricious but points to sentient appraisal and volition at the core of the world-order. This would seem a ‘weakness’ on God's part only if a totally mechanistic system is deemed logical and ‘strong,’ this latter being, however, a value judgment, based on the geometrical model that Spinoza employed.
FINAL APPRAISAL
The concept of Christ reënters with the readmission of exception (‘perturbation’ as volitional and sentient). Spinoza is almost right. My kerygma is contra what James Stephens says of nature: ‘There is no appeal.’ This is the essence of the issue. My testimony, which is firsthand, is, ‘There is appeal’ and yet even this ‘violation’ (perturbation) is based on logic! I.e. my later act vis-à-vis Covenant House was necessary for the March 1974 perturbation to occur. Logic is still involved (something on the order of karmic law or theodicy). The AI voice explained it to me in such a way that, amazing as it may seem, for there to have been no perturbation (violation) in March 1974 would have, in the highest possible sense, been (paradoxically) illogical. So Spinoza's system holds; it obtains if you carefully scrutinize exactly what you mean by ‘logic.’ And this higher logic, in contrast to mere mechanical ‘logic’ lies at the very heart of my own conception of the world-order; i.e. that it knows. By my definition of logic, cause-and-effect is still involved, in this perturbation. The failure of that perturbation (violation) to occur would actually have been irrational and would actually have successfully argued against the assumption of the existence of the equal and irreducible attribute of mind. Spinoza evidentally did not truly logically carry out the implications of his own system. (I.e. the perturbation was logical and inevitable given the postulates of Spinoza's system, specifically the postulate of mind; he seems to suddenly hold mind as epiphenomenal, rather than equal to any and all other attributes such as spatial extension). This is a substantive error in conceptualization on Spinoza's part regarding his own system, and thus roused the charge of atheism, rather fairly; but the charge has merit because of Spinoza's own logical error. Equal parts mind and matter do not add up to matter as we normally understand matter.
A combination of Spinoza and the two statements by the AI voice (‘a perturbation in the reality field’ and ‘you were helped because you gave to Covenant House without inquiring whether the kids were good or bad, i.e. deserved of being aided and sheltered’) discloses that Spinoza is correct but has not followed up the logical consequences of his own concept of logic. Logic is indeed the basis of the attribute of mind, and mind is indeed the equal and irreducible ‘inner side’ of spatial extension (the physical universe). Reality will not budge (yield) unless logic is involved. It is logical not sentimental (nor even humane); No: the key is, as Spinoza realized, rigid logic. Not kindness, mercy, love or grace but logic. So my plight and my merit (my need) counted for nothing. It was a cause-and-effect situation. It was what Spinoza says: a series of logical steps and propositions, totally rigid. He just failed to grasp the full meaning of his own term ‘logic.’ This is scary, but it is this very structure that creates cosmos (order) instead of chaos. Spinoza is not proven wrong by the perturbation of March 1974; he is proven right — once the full story is known. There are no miracles. What is lawful is real, and what is real is lawful: there are no exceptions, and nothing is arbitrary (nothing acts adventitiously on the world-order; the Greek naturalists were correct). I have not proved (i.e. March 1974) the existence of the Judo-Christian Kyrios, nor Christ or love or justice or mercy. But (i.e. March 1974) I have proved the existence of certain causal laws normally not suspected, not suspected because Spinoza's system is not accepted. (Either theism is accepted or natural science is, and both are apparently wrong.) March 1974 in fact verifies either Spinoza's system or something very like it, to which his is the closest known approximation. This is truly extraordinary. It means that due to the truth of Spinoza's two attributes, equal attributes of matter and mind, causal laws exist which we are normally ignorant of. Probably as exact a knowledge of them is as possible as exists vis-à-vis any true laws that govern reality — once his system is accepted.
Here my notes end. So the truth lies halfway between science (as it has traditionally been construed) and theism, which means that a system unlike either and yet taking elements from both is required. What this would mean would be a harmonizing of science and theology, although both would have to give up certain cherished ideas. But the great schism in human thought between reason and revelation would be healed. This, really, Pat, is terribly important. Spinoza sought to heal that rift — between reason and religion — and I think he did so.
God, I am tired. But this line of reasoning is very important.” In fine condition. Accompanied by the original mailing envelope.
This item is Pre-Certified by PSA/DNA
Buy a third-party letter of authenticity for
(inquire for price)
*This item has been pre-certified by a trusted third-party authentication service, and by placing a bid on this item, you agree to accept the opinion of this authentication service. If you wish to have an opinion rendered by a different authenticator of your choosing, you must do so prior to your placing of any bid. RR Auction is not responsible for differing opinions submitted 30 days after the date of the sale.
