The Meaning of Life and Other Vegetables

Hello.

Before continuing to discuss Hoffman’s abstract reality, I’d like to mention Spinoza. I encountered Spinoza before I encountered Hoffman; the connection I make between them was not trivial to make and was not immediate – it took me a while, and required a moment of inspiration. That inspiration pushed me from Hoffman’s “basic” theory towards something bigger. Something that is still in the making.

Baruch Spinoza, AKA Benedictus de Spinoza (Baruch means “blessed” in Hebrew), was a philosopher who lived in the 17th century in the Netherlands. He was born to a Jewish family (hence his Hebrew first name) in Amsterdam. His family was originally Portuguese, and they fled to the Netherlands from the terror of extreme religious persecution. Their community in the Netherlands led a Jewish life, but to a degree they had to lay low, and many converted to Christianity – at least outwardly.

Young Spinoza was what’s termed in Hebrew Talmid Chacham – literally, “wise student” (you might substitute “wise” with “clever” or “smart”; maybe it’s all of them together). Essentially, it means he excelled in the study of the Jewish scriptures and showed great promise – a real prodigy. Alas, he was so bright and so independent in his thought, that soon enough he started coming up with his own ideas and takes, and of course the religious establishment didn’t like it… They called upon him to “cease and desist”, to make a U-turn and “come back home” to doctrine; but he consistently refused. He was deemed so dangerous to the establishment, that he was eventually completely excluded from the Jewish community. This might be thought of as the dearest possible punishment for a religious Jew, certainly at that time.

Spinoza didn’t budge. He continued to pursue his own philosophy, and ended up being one of the most significant philosophers in the emerging modern era.

Spinoza wrote several books, and I attempted reading a few of them. Some of them are “pure” philosophy, while others touch on theology and politics. He wrote in Latin and in Dutch; since I read neither, I read English translations. It’s not an easy read, not at all.

His only book that I made it through is Ethica (or Ethics). It is written almost as a layout of a mathematical theory. The structure is logical proofs, presented much like mathematical proofs. The outline is starting from first principles and basic proofs, and then an entire theoretical structure is proven/established, based on the previous “theorems”. Honestly, I forgot a lot of it but some core ideas stuck with me.

One of the first things Spinoza does in Ethica is trying to prove the existence of “God”. He establishes through logic that “God” must exist; that it must be all-encompassing, and hence, there can only be one. The reason I use quote marks is that this does not relate to any specific God (this is one of the reasons the Jewish establishment rejected Spinoza – he dared say that the “God” he was speaking of wasn’t necessarily Abraham’s God). You may relate to that “God” as “Nature”, “The Universe”, or – as I would do here for convenience – “The One”. They are all considered one and the same. Everything in existence is part of that unity, and hence everything is connected. The totality of “everything” is God or Nature or the One (pick a name at your heart’s content).

This idea is very powerful. It means that everything around us and inside us is part of a unity. No duality of matter and spirit. No divisions between people, nations, species, even supposedly inanimate objects. It works great with Hoffman’s abstract reality (which denies matter altogether). It also says we are all inherently connected to nature. We are Nature and Nature is us. Very appealing, if you ask me.

To me, it also speaks to the futility of all wars, disputes and conflicts between people. If I and “my enemy” are part of a unity, I am basically fighting with myself. It’s like the left hand one day declared war over the right thigh. I know some people would respond to that “What?… How can I possibly have any connection with THEM?!?? We are utterly different, and that can never change!” Well, in time, I intend to argue that as repulsive as “the other” might seem, we all ARE connected, and share a lot more than we might find convenient to believe. But first thing’s first. I still have a lot to establish before I can get there. And when I finish, Spinoza and the One, Hoffman and the CA, as well as Hollis and a few others, will all fit in together.

Peace to all.