Okay I think I'll leave you to box with those shadows, while I go to playing my flute. I've answered every single one of your questions, you're just pretending I haven't. A simple example: I told you modes are THINGS!! - not activities - and yet there you go peddling something different:

If he is an "activity" that gives rise to the activity which is nature (the modes) then what exactly is that activity beyond the activity of the modes themselves, and if it exists or is real rather than being merely formal, then how would that not constitute a transcendence? — John

Then you have the audacity to claim that my thought is incoherent. When I tell you the tree is red, you say my thought is incoherent because the tree is blue - well done! When you decide to stop straw-manning and want to discuss respecting what I'm actually claiming, please let me know. Until then, there's little point discussing on this subject, if you are determined to continuously misrepresent Spinoza's and my position.

A simple example: I told you modes are THINGS!! - not activities - and yet there you go peddling something different: — Agustino

But I seem to recall I've already explicitly, or if not implicitly, asked for an explanation as to what a "thing" could be over and above modal processes (activities) and I haven't seen a coherent answer to that. If anything, it seems most consistent and coherent to think that the 'thing-ness' of a thing is its substance, identity or being; which would seem to be the very opposite of what you are claiming.

So what are you, Agustino, over and above your being a mode, which consists in activity; the welter of processes that is your body and its interactions with other modes?