Actually the probability is 50/50, or 1in 2. Because we have a binary choice here.

I would dispute your assertion that the doors of spirituality are closing irreversibly. Madness indeed :)

Nice account, I appreciate your reference to the pitfalls of sexual, or erotic love and why you brought it up.
I suppose what I am alluding to is a realisation of a Platonic form of good, as you put it. Although in a more physical way (actually on the plane of the soul*) than simply the mental, or intellectual realisation.

The form that my weird shit took was a crisis of the heart brought about by a brief and fleeting recollection of a brief meeting with someone in India 23 years ago and the crushing realisation that this person was a soul mate, a candidate for true love, as you describe. And the pain of the acceptance that I failed to go with this person, but rather turn away for petty egotistical reasons and subsequently regret it ever since.

*i will reference the egoic plane(Alice Bailey) to be more precise.

The problem is, that is just what the materialist account obscures. It is found in traditional wisdom schools and other sources such as those you mention. It is real, but a 'first-person science' - the sacred science, it has been called - is required to realise it. The point is, there are ways to tap into that resource, like digging for gold, or diving for pearls. That's what spiritual paths are about.
an hour ago

Yes, we are left with personal anecdotal testimony. However I do think that philosophy can go further than this, given some preliminary assumptions. Such as the assumption that there is a spiritual reality and that the form it takes can in some way be accurately intuited by people. This then gives us a large amount of material to sift through and come up with some philosophical conclusions. Such assumptions are I suspect problematic to many philosophers, particularly those who haven't looked into it.

Also I do think that there are many people who are philosophically minded, but who are not academically trained who do look into such ideas, or don't rule them out. In fact they probably outnumber academic philosophers. Perhaps an underswell of innate spirituality within humanity, including an innate wisdom and knowing, a knowing which may be more of a knowing than those academics appear to have.

Yes I was thinking this, that all spiritual and religious thought and aspiration can fall within an evolutionary explanation. However, I would not agree that it is born out of fear, but rather curiosity, in the beginning. The curiosity in the minds of the earliest people who found they had a mind and could think, think about themselves and their predicament and the earliest philosophical questions, that these people thought about.

Perhaps the very existence of such beings, realising this capacity and questioning is evidence of something other than the gross physical reality we find around us.

Perhaps, so what is all this religious and spiritual love? What purpose does it have, in terms of survival of the species?

I do know the answer to this question, but I am suggesting it is not required, perhaps it is a byproduct.

I see the examples you give as indicative of a spiritual reality in which the person awakens from ordinary emotional love and realises a more, as you say, transpersonal love and other kinds of spiritual and transcendent love.
By analogy a person in the world is like a plant developing to the point where it develops a bud. When the bud flowers, the flower, awakens, into a rarefied transcendent realm(also inhabited by butterflies, who have undergone metamorphosis).This is perhaps alluded to in the symbolism of the thousand petalled lotus of the crown chakra in Hinduism and Bhuddism.

This is all very well, but can we identify something obviously transcendent, universal in any of this? Something which isn't accounted for in the materialist evolutionary account.

For me this is evident in a sentiment, or experience of, a universal love which transcends the planet. Specifically the planet, because in evolutionary terms the processes are blind to any reality beyond this planet. I describe this as the fixed cross of the heavens(Alice Bailey), which I have been contemplating for some time.

I was not questioning whether we experience love, but rather asking if from your perspective, it is solely within experience? I agree with the rest of your account about this and the ways people can become confused.

Regarding universal love, the way I am treating it in this conversation is in the sense of the principle, the reality and the experience of love and realities of which love might be a derivative, having some real and fundamental presence in the processes of existence itself, or the existence we find ourselves in. For example our existence might be hosted by a demiurge through a process of creative love and life for that demiurge might be all within the realm of mind where intellectual compassion and love is as concrete as physical matter is for us.

I love the King James Bible.
Yes I agree with your observation of a "withered and partial account" and the extent to which who we are is shaped by our experience and the presence of love in our lives. What I am trying to identify is a distinct universal, or transcendent, love in all of this. As opposed to evolved feelings and behaviour.

I bring this up because about 2 weeks ago, while travelling in New Zealand, I had an experience of something which I interpreted as a realisation of universal love and I seek to account for it philosophically.

Quite, the capacity for love in humans does seem to exceed that required for survival of the species though.

What about ones love for existence, the world, is this perhaps misplaced emotion(beyond where it is of benefit in survival of the self, or social group)?

I didn't suggest it is about erotic love. I am refering to the mating/pairing between partners and the bonding process between family members etc, as the basis for the experience of love in humans(and other animals).


Yes universal love might be in some way "Leibniz's teleological dimension of the interconnectedness of all things", etc, or transcendent.

Yes capacity for love, of caring for all, is interesting. I still don't see how this might necessarily be transcendent.

Yes, in true, or selfless love. This is not specific enough though because both forms can conceivably be due to some physical phenomena. Even if an unfortunate predicament of the accidental evolution of intellect.

You mad old fool, you ;)

Yes, I know what you mean. This comes to the heart of the issue I am considering. I am looking for something about loves which reaches, or expresses something, beyond this animal function.

So are you suggesting that all the romanticism about love in the minds of humanity, is a happy accident of physical evolution?

Agreed.

I see how you consider love to be universal, in the expression of experience in beings who experience. I consider the divine, because the divine might be the basis of existence, this would necessarily include the basis of love.

Yes, I am considering the distinction between the perspective of "evolutionism", as opposed to something "immaterial", or transcendent.

I wish to identify something in the experience of love which indicates the later(transcendent), rather than the former(evolutionism).

Regarding spiritual experience, I have experienced something akin to what Bucke testifies to and have contemplated the role of love in spirituality. I am beginning to realise the the presence of wisdom in "love wisdom"(Alice Bailey), which I failed to grasp initially. I perceive this in the inevitable wisdom of the benevolence to be found in love. An expression of the gift of creativity and fundamental in the phenomena of extended existence.

So love is something in experience? and we as experiencers may project it (psychologically) onto the world, imagining it as something, on occasion, external to experience?

But what about a universal love, is this similarly a projection?

Alternative tyrants.

As I watched the towers fall, I recalled the final scene in Fight Club, in which the twin towers fall. Perhaps a movie we should watch again, now.

Yes it is confusing, but I do think Willow understands the idea and to a large extent agrees. But uses a less conventional way of speaking.

Worse than that: you misunderstand the divine. You mistake it for a mere "possibility" that might or might not be, like it was some empirical state.

From what I've said you cannot discern this, perhaps you confuse my personal stance on this with my addressing what I think we can say philosophically about the divine. I have been talking about the philosophical possibilities from the standpoint of rational minds in our predicament. So I have only been discussing what we can or can't say/determine philosophically about these subjects. The only reason that I feel justified at all in describing how I think Jesus was in communion with the divine, is from the historical record of people claiming to have had divine revelation and the descriptions of that experience. This is my evidence for the divine.

The divine is necessary, not a realm or action which might or might not be, but rather a logical expression of the world. The divine realm is of the world. Meaning is not some mere possible state, defined by separation for the world. It is of the world: family, friends, traditions, rituals, belief, life, death, joy and grief etc., all the meaning, found to outside the world, but always through it. The world is where the infinite lives. It is intelligible. Not a Real possibility, but a Real necessity.

Yes I agree, indeed I have been saying just this, in this thread. Although I realise that there is no strict philosophical basis for this position, in the absence of the historical record of revelation.

Now where you use the word "infinite" here, I use the word transcendent. I don't think it is appropriate to use the word infinite, because it has a vague meaning in the minds of the people using it. Also it is directly referencing a human intellectual invention, the mathematical infinity. Something which is inappropriate to use to describe the divine in the world, it is clunky and confusing. By using the word transcendent, I am allowing the presence in the world of both an unbounded potentiality and also an unbounded reality, both which include realities beyond our limited understanding. The word "infinity" doesn't adequately provide for these avenues of thought.

I photographed this duck rabbit recently, I wonder if the graffiti artist was drawing a bird, or rabbit.

It's pointing that difference is incoherent. No doubt there is a difference between the experiences in question, but that difference is worldly. It's the experience of those world people that's different, not a difference in God. And that's what makes it relevant-- it means one person knows God deeper than another, a worldly significance which makes all the difference here.

Yes one can always claim that the difference is worldly because that's how it presents before us and logically. For example, it is the same brain cells and body which is having the experience in Jesus as another person. But what is specifically alluded to in the documented life of Jesus is that he was experiencing, or was in a state of rapture. A visionary state in the world, yes, but in this instance a rapture entailing a direct intervention from an exhalted being in a divine realm. So that, as in the experience of a revelation, the person of Jesus was given access/experience of said divine realm directly. An experience not of this world and that he was in this state at all times.

I presume you are of the opinion that there is no such thing as this divine realm and that there cannot be such an intervention? But as I have repeatedly pointed out, in our ignorance we cannot make this assumption, although it is generally expeditious for pragmatic reasons.

How will it point out and prove this?

I am not an apophatic philosopher, so can only reply in the way it makes sense to me. Also I presume you are asking for a logical proof. Well logically we can't be expected to be able to conceive of this substance in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the conditions of its existence. As the only conditions of its existence we are aware of are those with which we are equipped to detect, or discern due to our evolutionary capacities. We can't expect to discern those circumstances outside this remit, resulting in a partial, or blinkered, limited interpretation. This partial knowledge of our predicament and substance is an impenetrable barrier to the intellect.

The mystic, in my view, is concerned about his relationship with the ground of being instead of with mere understanding.

Yes with the ground of being, however there are those who seek to stimulate and develop the intellect, along with perhaps the creative faculty.

That's an empirical matter.

I used the example of the lottery to illustrate that we may be ignorant of aspects of our world/existence due to circumstance, as I describe above. Ignorance, that were we to know that which we were ignorant of, we would not believe that we could not have known it, figured it out, or realised the nature of our ignorance.

Sure - but this has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is not empirical, so the source of this ignorance doesn't exist.

Metaphysics might go around in ignorance like a person in a room of profound truths written on paper, while wearing a blindfold. As soon as metaphysics is applied in some way to nature the precise impediment of the metaphorical blindfold will need to be determined to screen it out of the intellectual data considered.

It can't dispel our ignorance with regards to empirical matters. No metaphysical insight will tell someone what to do to obtain what he wants in the world for example - and no metaphysical insight could do this, even in principle.

Yes, but do metaphysicians consider the nature of their inherent ignorance?

Okay, so then it seems that the mystic renounces this rationality before his journey even begins

I have not seen evidence of Mystics renouncing rationality. A mystic might conduct an internal enquiry within their own mind and self, in which the ego and/or personality is confronted, or challenged, the entire process being entirely rational, albeit with a psychological dynamic.

What is the eternal realm then?

A divine realm?

it not conceived of itself and in itself?

I don't know, I consider that in that realm there are as many things in themselves and conceived in themselves as there are atoms in our world.

If it is, then that eternal realm is substance - and the so called "multitude of substances" cannot be conceived through themselves, they must be conceived through reference to the one substance - the eternal realm.

As I have already pointed out, this one substance which you refer to (and I do understand the rationale), need not be one substance in eternity, it is only in our degree of limited knowledge and understanding, or circumstance in which it appears a reasonable conclusion.

For example we might, in ignorance, be actors acting out a play, and mistake the plot (which was composed by a being in eternity for their amusement) for the true circumstances of our existence. There might by myriad systems of extension manifesting different realms of different conbinations of divine circumstances or purposes, each a differing substance. there might be other more real forms of dimensionally transcendent, synthetic systems of extension, while by comparison, our known world might be an artificial construct in a dim backwater.

Well Spinoza addresses this very point actually in Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. "I and the Father are One" = One substance (no transcendence)

Yes in the sense rather like my example were I described here and now absent extension, just the same, minus any extension. But there is a critical difference between the experience of an ordinary person, who may be one with God in this sense and a person fully cognisant of God as god is of himself. The sphere of God being immeasurably larger, or simpler than that of the physical Jesus, requiring, for such a synthesis of being as eluded to in the words of Jesus in this phrase, a immanent transcendent relation between the sphere of God and that of Jesus.

Are you telling me that in your experience and knowledge you have not come across, religious teaching, or experience of such transcendence?

Based on what grounds?

For logical conceptual frameworks, arriving at a logically precise statement of the status of said substance is appropriate and enables one to build a coherent framework. This is fine and is what philosophy does (although apophatic philosophy might point out that we can't determine this about the actual substance of which we are constituted). However the mystic is more concerned with this actual substance and so develops a rationale based on a study of the self and the world, rather than logic. This being the case, what a person can or cannot say about the substance under discussion is important.

What ignorance are you talking about? To know the ignorance is already to transcend it.

An example is our ignorance of the lottery numbers which will be drawn tonight. We know almost everything else about the lottery, what numbers are in the draw, how it works, and that we don't know what numbers will be drawn tonight. There is nothing we can do to dispel this ignorance, other than to whatch the draw and observe the result.

There are many things like this about our state of existence, logical frameworks can help us to develop conceptual tools, but it can't dispel our ignorance on many of the issues of our existence. To go further other approaches are required.

This seems like an empty distinction to me.

If it is necessary for our being, and it is nowhere and can't perform its function we don't exist. If it is everywhere, then it naturally performs its function and we do exist. For example some philosophers say god doesn't exist, they often have elaborate logical reasons for saying it and these might be logically consistent. But it might actually be incorrect in reality, God being somewhere might be necessary for our existence, even if it appears to be illogical.

In the sense of the way you experience here and now? No.

In terms of the substance of which we are constituted. Yes I know that it is not in the way that we as people experience here and now, because that is a fabrication of the extended physical structures of which our bodies or constituted.

But to know your limits is already to - to a certain degree - be beyond them.

Only in the knowledge of that ignorance, which is itself useful, but it doesn't dispel the ignorance due to those limits.

Prove it.

Following a rational, reasoned process is the only way in which the mystic can develop an intellectual understanding of their mystical journey. Without it, the mystic might progress, but is lacking this kind of understanding.

Propose an alternative definition then which accounts for all that substance accounts for and improves on it.

Substance is in itself and conceived of itself in an eternal realm in which there is a multitude of substances.

Why would you take those passages as referring to transcendence?

Well with the first example, Jesus is stating that he is, or has equivalence in terms of being, as god has. If God is in eternity, then Jesus is in eternity. There is a transcendence of being in him, in which God is in him and he is in God.

It isn't somewhere. Somewhere is a distinction from somewhere else.

What's the difference between something being nowhere and something being everywhere?

Oh, so by nowhere, you are actually saying it's everywhere?
We can't make this distinction either, it might be useful for a logical conceptual framework, but is better to consider it neither here nor there. It is your statement about what it is that I am disagreeing with. As I have said, in our ignorance we can't assert that it is nowhere.

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere,

If you don't need reasons to hold a certain position, then you are irrational, end of story, and therefore there's no use arguing with you.

It is a position of an acceptance of what we can't say, it is apophatic. anyway for the sake of argument, I will say there is a difference between nowhere and everywhere. If something is nowhere, it doesn't exist(perform a function), if everywhere, it can perform its function.

:-} "here and now" is a temporal distinction and is no different than the previous spatial distinctions you were making. Indeed, it is only from your ignorance and limited perspective that you think the present is any more real (and therefore anymore substance) than the past or future.

Think deeper, here and now can mean much more than that. I am well versed in working from the conceptual position of no extension of space or time. Remove this extension and it is still here and now.

So this isn't "holding" something?

As I said above it is not a positive position, it is more an awareness of our limits in making certain assertions. I am happy to furnish you with any examples of this if required.

:s I suppose "mystical" is codename for irrational. You and John both retreat in mysticism (irrationalism) as you have no other means of supporting your views.

The mysticism I refer to is equally as rational as philosophy. Are you reading a book by the cover?

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself
— Agustino

yes, I know, but this might merely be a naive interpretation of its natural state. It stops further exploration, like a barrier.

So let us see... what is in itself and is conceived through itself is brought forth - that surely makes a lot of sense (N)

It doesn't necessarily present as rational, or logical. Remember I pointed out, that I was referring to a different kind of language, developed to address the transcendent. I expected you to be aware of this, it is used in theology as far as I can see.

No I haven't read about transcendence in the Bible - I've read about a God who interacts with mankind, and therefore acts in the world.

I am not a scholar, so can't easily quote the bible, but am aware that it is steeped in words specifically referring to transcendent, or eternal realities. Take Jesus for example, apparently he said "I and my father are one", does this not refer to transcendence? Or what about messages conveyed in Ezekiel, or Revelation?

Godzilla is code for Tsunami, which is code for seismic activity. It looks as though Godzilla has been woken up.

Thinking about it Trump looks uncannily like Godzilla.

How "might" it be somewhere? The same way the sun "might" not rise tomorrow? :-} Don't you see that you can't even conceive how it "might" be somewhere? If you can't even conceive it, what grounds do you have for claiming it "might" be that way?!

If it is a necessary being and is somewhere, then it can't be denied. You are denying it by stating that it is nowhere.

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere,

No I don't, I am only saying we can't in our ignorance rule out that it is somewhere, even if the logic dictates that it is nowhere.

just as you need reasons to think that the sun "might" not rise tomorrow. You can't doubt in the absence of reasons to ground your doubt in. What reasons do you have for thinking this? Where could it be? You don't know. And the fact that it "might" be different is not a reason. You need positive reasons. To think that the sun will not rise tomorrow you need reasons for this. You have some reasons, however weak, for thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow (it has always been the case, you understand the laws of physics, etc) but you have utterly no reason at all to think or even conceive that the sun will not rise tomorrow. Thus you cannot suspend judgement - if you are to be rational you MUST believe it will rise tomorrow.

As I have already explained, we are in a position of ignorance, as limited intellectual beings. This being the case we should be aware of what we can't assert about nature and allow nature to be illogical, or irrational in our (blinkered) eyes, from our limited perspective.

I've provided you with reasons why it can't be anywhere - in fact you're saying it is "out there" - where the fuck is out there? If substance is all there is, where the hell is "out there"? As if substance was "out there" and not also "in here".... as if you could look at it from outside of it...

Where is it, it is here and now. Touch the end of your nose, it is there, deny its presence and it is itself asserting that denial, because it is you, your body, your thoughts, your being. You are it, if you are somewhere, so then is this substance.

There is no possibility of more than one substance. There have been reasons provided for why this isn't the case. Positive reasons. You have no reason to justify why you think this isn't the case. As you yourself have admitted you can't find fault with the argument. You say "Oh it might be otherwise"? So? That's not a reason. Until you come up with a reason - you can't protest against it. And if you can't come up with a reason, then you have to accept it, because I've provided you with positive reasons for accepting it, so you can't just suspend judgement and still be rational. If in the presence of reasons for holding a certain belief you still refuse to hold it, without having any reason for holding the opposite (and "it might be otherwise" isn't such a reason), then you're irrational.

Im not holding anything, I am pointing out that the assertion, there is only one substance cannot be supported in our ignorance. Even if the logic can achieve it, that might just be a peculiarity of logic(like infinity), rather than some appropriate representation of something in nature.

There is no possibility that this is the case. If God is "transcendent", then automatically you have imagined another "bigger" substance which includes the transcendent God and this world in it. (I'm sorry that I have to so brutalise Spinoza's system but it seems you don't want to understand it otherwise, and these metaphors are useful). So you're only under the illusion that God is transcendent, even in that scenario. You're not actually conceiving a situation in which God is transcendent, because to conceive it, then you need to conceive this world, and an outside of this world. But what is that which contains both this world and the outside if not substance (the whole of reality)? And if it is so, then with reference to substance there is still no transcendence, but only immanence.

No that is incorrect, I have a large and extensive "mystical" philosophy which dispels this view and considers the transcendent in detail in many circumstances and from many perspectives.

For example, I consider that "the world" is a construct in eternity, in which through subtle processes, the so called "substance" of a certain kind is brought forth in concrete form and sustained in the semblance of a physical world, allowing a particular facet of being to be manifest.

Also, I have a vocabulary for conceptualising transcendent beings and worlds. Surely you have read this in the bible, it is there for those that can perceive it.

It's a contradiction in terms. That which is present in the world is, by definition, not transcendent. Unknown processes can't even allow this because that is just some action of the world we don't know. When is logic applied, any "transcendent" force or being merely becomes another worldly actor-- the "supernatural" is shown to be incoherent. The beings of another realm are just part of nature we don't know about. They are worldly with worldly consequences, rather than metaphysical.

Agreed, but you are using "infinite" instead of transcendent and saying the same thing under another guise.

When I use "transcendent", I am referring to what you are referrring to when you say infinite.

For me the transcendent is present in the world and a part of nature, which we do not see. There is no supernatural, because what we label the supernatural, if present, is perfectly natural.

I suspect that Willow is substituting the word "infinite" for "transcendent" and claiming a deeper understanding. An understanding which is already present under the label of the transcendent.

I agree with everything you have said over the last few pages, but my agreement is not evident because I am not writing it and posting it. These boards are by their nature highlighting the disagreement or conflict between posters and the agreement and camaraderie that would be present in a group present in person, is missing.

So please continue posting, it is not only good exercise for your typing hand, but I expect there are a bunch of posters who enjoy and gain something from it.

By breaking with this tradition, Spinoza takes out the transcendent because it is, more or less, the position that metaphysics describe or account for the world. The transcendent God is the metaphysical (outside the world) which nevertheless defines the world. Spinoza is pointing out this is a contradiction. Since metaphysics are never the world, they cannot give the world.

Agreed. Although, as I say, I don't see a justification that "the transcendent" cannot have some presence in the world, albeit via an unknown process.

The absence of anything to observe and test is exactly how we can conclude there is one substance. Since it is not an empirical state, the question of showing it's presence through observation and measurement is incoherent. Substance is purely logical, an aspect of reality "beyond" the empirical, which cannot be identified or measured by observing the empirical world.

Provided it is accepted that there may be a substance out there, a necessary being, which is not necessarily being addressed, then yes it can be discussed logically. But due to our limitations we cannot conclude anything about the real substance, it might be from our perspective, illogical.

What you are attempting to argue here is reductionism. You take substance and insist that it is a state of the world we observe and measure-- much like the reductionist who claims the meaning of experiences are "just brains"-- as if knowledge and understanding were only about giving empirical measurements.

No I am not arguing reductionism, what I will argue, if we get that far is that we know this real substance, we are it.

We can be sure about substance because we know it is not subject to change. Since we know it's not an empirical state, not even one we don't know about, we know it is beyond the question of being an actualised possibility in the contingent world. For substance, there is no "might be" or "might not be," based upon what states of the world do. One cannot coherently "conjecture" about substance.

We only know that it is not subject to change in our experience, our world. We can't necessarily say it is not in some way in this world, as I point out, we do know it, so it has some presence in this world. I agree we can't conjecture.

Ok, I agree (for the sake of argument) that there is an uncaused cause, or prime mover and that this is the substance we are considering, fine. This is what I use in my metaphysics, I agree that one has to, to a certain degree, to conceptualise reality. Also that we can't identify it as a thing objectively.

However I don't think we can say, it isn't anywhere(it might be somewhere in a way we can't understand), also yes we can deal with it as a logical category, but this does not mean that an actual substance isn't out there, as you say, it is "presupposed" to be out there.

I am not expecting Spinoza's metaphysics to tell me anything about reality, as such. I am more concerned about what is being denied in its name, or what Spinoza denies about reality.

The possibility of more than one substance is denied, I see no justification for this.

The possibility that God is transcendent of this substance is denied, I see no justification of this.

Its quite simple, given Spinoza's definition not only can we not conclude that there is only one substance. I don't see how we have any knowledge of a substance in itself and self sustaining. There is no such thing in our world to observe and test, so it can only be conjecture.

"Have you read why there cannot be more than one substance? The reasons are because a substance can be conceived through any of its attributes, there cannot be substances sharing attributes, neither can there be independent substances with different attributes - thus there must be one substance. All these reasons were provided and detailed in my reply to you. I suggest you go back and read it."

This is merely conjecture, we don't know if there is such a substance, or a multitude of substances.

Good if you attacked logical intellection itself, then you have resorted to unintelligibility, so there's no point of arguing with you.

Nonsense, I have said that logic can't conjecture what we are considering, that's all.

This is not an empirical matter - it's a strictly logical matter.

Oh so it's a thought experiment, that's ok. But what does it tell us about reality then? ( or substances, or God)

An argument IS a proof - if it's sound and valid. It remains for you to show how it is not sound or invalid.

Oh, so it is a question of whether a thought experiment is logically consistent. If it is then, what can this tell us about God, for example?

If you reject Spinoza's system, without finding fault in his arguments, that is equivalent to affirming that reality isn't intelligible. Spinoza is just drawing out the logical conclusions that ensue from the attempt to make reality intelligible.

There's that "isn't intelligible" again, where did you pluck that straw man from? I am rejecting the the use of logic in addressing such questions about reality. Spinoza might have come up with an amazing complex all encompassing logical theory, but what does it tell us about reality? diddly squat.

It remains firmly within the remit of ontological arguments, great thought experiments, but they don't actually answer any questions about reality etc.

So to conclude that there is only one substance and to claim that it is in some way a truth, or to conclude that God is this one substance and to claim in some way that there is any truth in the assertion doesn't follow, is unsupported and is susceptible to the charge of solipsism.

You haven't understood what I've said all this time.

I understood that you said there can only be one substance and that God must be that substance. This is all I have commented on, it's not difficult to understand, it amounts to Pantheism as John has pointed out. Now I don't know if Spinoza has proved this using his logic, as I have not studied his work. This is however irrelevant, because I have attacked logical intellection itself, which Spinoza relies on. So whatever argument he provides cannot in principle determine that there is one substance, or anything about God.

Yes and using substence in a way that doesn't follow the use of it that has been philosophically established. You're just redefining words.

My point is equally valid using Spinoza's definition as you have provided it, ""By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself" (E1d3) Spinoza".

I can see of no reason why a substance that is in itself and is conceived through itself, is necessarily a universal, or absolute, unity. I.e, there can/must only be one such substance. This cannot be established, there either are more than one, or only one such substance and there is no way to determine it in the absence of a thorough understanding of the basis of our existence. Which sadly we do not have at this time.

How are they unfounded? Can you explain this when I just provided you the reasons for why there is only one substance, and the reasons for why this substance must be God? :s

I'm sorry but I can't see a logical justification in what you wrote. It only contained some ideas about substances and their attributes. Just because you can define a substance as Spinoza does, or that it is in some way necessary, doesn't establish that it is the only substance. This cannot be established because we are woefully ignorant of the means of our existence, so have no grounds from which to work.

Yes unfortunately Spinoza's ontological argument works - unlike that of Descartes or St. Anselm. Your only option is to retreat into irrationalism if you want to deny Spinoza's point.

So there is a proof in there, is there?

I have nothing against ontological arguments, but I do realise that they don't prove anything. They are useful thought experiments, nothing more.

Reason itself demands that we adopt such a conception if reality is to be intelligible at all.

Nonsense, just by accepting the degree of our ignorance does not mean that what we are ignorant of is unintelligible, merely that we are not in possession of the knowledge of it, for whatever reason.

Of course you can say "fuck it, reality isn't intelligible", but that's your only option. And if you choose that, you're not really doing philosophy anymore. So if that's what you want to do, be my guest.

This "reality isn't intelligible" has not been said, I don't know where you pulled it from.

I suggest you look at what I said again, I said,"one of which is in our case the same substance as that of which the world and or our being is constituted". So I am accepting that substance can be being. Indeed, I allow a broad spread of definitions of substance.

The problem with what Spinoza is saying (as you have presented it), is that there are two unfounded conclusions, conclusions which cannot be supported using logic. Firstly that there is only one substance and secondly that God is this substance. It may be true, but we cannot determine it and logic is unequipped to determine it, because logic is an intellectualisation of knowledge, which are both products of the computation, of a thinking, limited, mind. A thing which is susceptible to solipsism.

You should know by now that we cannot think God into/or out of existence, or think eternity into our own guise.

This notion that there can only be one substance is an unfounded assumption. God may be constituted of a multitude of substances, one of which is in our case the same substance as that of which the world and or our being is constituted. While God also partakes of a multitude of other substances, or unknowns elsewhere in existence.

So the most you can say is that the world or our being is of one substance and God partakes of this substance, but is not necessarily constituted of it.

The problem with the appeal us not really knowing anything is its intent.

Actually its more about a realisation of our limitations, if it is then found that knowing nothing is the consequence, this is a side issue, to be considered separately.

What are we aiming for in making such an argument?

To realise our position.

Some sort of perfect knowledge which gives us all the answers. The limited scope of any instance of knowledge is considered a problem we must get past if we want to understand existence-- it's still aiming for an account of everything, the impossible one, given the uncertainty of the world.

No, as I pointed out, I am not discussing knowledge, this is because knowledge is an intellectual abstraction, taking the form of a linguistic (in the broadest sense) concept. As such it is only an interpretation, an interpretation in and of my category "y". So my point in making these categories is to consider "x", rather than y( I know that intellect and knowledge are required to perform this task, but this can be achieved, by putting epistemology to side for the purposes of the enquiry).

Knowledge is still understood to be some exhaustive account we are meant to obtain, rather than being realised as necessarily limited and incapable of giving a full account. If we are making the demand of an exaustive account, we have failed to understand stand the limit of knowledge and what that means.

As I said above, I am not refering to or appealing to an exhaustive account at all. But rather considering both x and our limited understanding, of our metaphysical, or ontological predicament.

Apo's argument doesn't specifically point out a metaphysicsl point, but there is plenty going on. The understanding that knowledge is necessarily limited is a metaphysical point.

Yes I agree on both points. However I am specifically considering Ontology and as I said, I would expect x to be considered equally as y in such an inquiry.

To set aside the question of an exaustive account, as it's realised as impossible, and point out that knowledge is only ever limited, is a metaphysical culling-- any postion which appeals to an exaustive account is revealed to be incohrent. Logically, we can only have limited knowledge. Not only is our knowledge limited, but there's no exaustive account to aim for.

I don't see that we can say that an exhaustive account is impossible, please explain? Yes I agree that human knowledge is only ever limited, but this does not mean that an exhaustive account cannot be considered, if required. Also you will have to provide an explanation of why you say that there is no exhaustive account out there?