"On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions"

[Wisigerno]

In the hope that some of you have dealt with Spinoza's "Ethics" yet, I'd be eager to discuss particularly the third book ("On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions"). Since my thoughts are still too much confused, I'd simply like to start with the issues I can express most clearly.

Proposition XI states: "Whatsoever increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the power of activity in our body, the idea thereof increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the power of thought in our mind."
Thereto in the note: "By pleasure therefore in the following propositions I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection. By pain I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to a lesser perfection."
In the corollary of proposition XIII we read: "The mind shrinks from conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain the power of itself and of the body."
And thereto in the note, Spinoza concludes: "From what has been said we may clearly understand the nature of Love and Hate. Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause : Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause."

What does this mean?
love = pleasure (accompanied by the idea of an external cause) = passive state (wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection)
Love (as an idea) makes the mind pass to a greater perfection, whereby the power of thought in our mind is advanced. Thus an object of love increases the power of activity in our body.
An object of hate diminishes the power of activity in our body because hate is pain.
Let's imagine two people: one in the state of hate, the other in the state of love. Are we able to imagine that both bodies actually have a diametrically opposed power of activity?
Isn't it rather the case that both love and hate "stimulate" the body?
Then even hate would be a pleasure, a passive state wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection.
(Indeed, it could be possible that Spinoza had a more uncommon idea of love - beyond all exciting desire. But according to proposition IX this demur doesn't seem to be true.)

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by Wisigerno

In the corollary of proposition XIII we read: "The mind shrinks from conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain the power of itself and of the body."
And thereto in the note, Spinoza concludes: "From what has been said we may clearly understand the nature of Love and Hate. Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause : Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause."

The experience of pleasure quiets the mind... the mind responds to this. It goes into motion according to its nature: it asks why? It identifies the cause. It forms a mental reflection of the experience which can be remembered. It then holds the image of the cause, unable to hold an image of pleasure itself. In a sense, pleasure and pain are blind-spots to the mind. It can't see them... it can only associate them with cause.

I think there must be a fair amount of translation problems here. In my language, love isn't an emotion. It's the root of all emotion. It's the root of hatred... which is merely love disappointed.

[Wisigerno]

Originally Posted by Arjuna

The experience of pleasure quiets the mind... the mind responds to this. It goes into motion according to its nature: it asks why? It identifies the cause. It forms a mental reflection of the experience which can be remembered. It then holds the image of the cause, unable to hold an image of pleasure itself. In a sense, pleasure and pain are blind-spots to the mind. It can't see them... it can only associate them with cause.

I think there must be a fair amount of translation problems here. In my language, love isn't an emotion. It's the root of all emotion. It's the root of hatred... which is merely love disappointed.

I don't really understand how you'd distinguish between love and pleasure. Do you mean that love could be seen by the mind, whereas pleasure couldn't?
Besides, do you regard love to be the basic emotion, or the root of all emotion? For if it is the latter, I don't see how a lack of a root (disappointment) could yield fruit (hatred).

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by Wisigerno

I don't really understand how you'd distinguish between love and pleasure. Do you mean that love could be seen by the mind, whereas pleasure couldn't?
Besides, do you regard love to be the basic emotion, or the root of all emotion? For if it is the latter, I don't see how a lack of a root (disappointment) could yield fruit (hatred).

I don't think Spinoza did distinguish between them except to say that love carries with it the idea of being affected by something external.

Pleasure itself is direct experience, without thought. Thought is the making of images, relating them according to some pattern, following cause and effect.

Without thought, which involves placing experience in a context of meaning, no experience would be remembered.

Put your foot on the floor and then become aware of the feeling of your foot.

What's happened is that your mind became active: it created the situation, it turned your focus to sensation. It then passively waited as the experience came into being.

On the one hand there is the experience of freedom in this... that your mind can navigate into or away from situations and sensations. But you also know as you've done this, that you were following your nature. The mind can only act according to its nature. Its nature is an aspect of, an attribute of the nature of all things.

So I start with the idea that I'm affected by the world. I then see that I, through the power of mind, can affect my own experience. Then I see how that every step of the way: I was an expression of nature.

What I loved affected me with pleasure. I drew the thing I love closer to me. I eventually see that there is only one love... expressed over and over as a bond to the other. To the extent that I see that it didn't specifically have to do with me, I've experienced God. Through mind and substance, the ways of nature are alive in me. That's how I understood Spinoza. If others see it a different way, I'd learn something by exploring that. Nevertheless, the truth Spinoza drew my attention to would remain. Know what I mean? So what it means to you might be different.

[salima]

Originally Posted by Wisigerno

In the hope that some of you have dealt with Spinoza's "Ethics" yet, I'd be eager to discuss particularly the third book ("On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions"). Since my thoughts are still too much confused, I'd simply like to start with the issues I can express most clearly.

Proposition XI states: "Whatsoever increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the power of activity in our body, the idea thereof increases or diminishes, helps or hinders the power of thought in our mind."
Thereto in the note: "By pleasure therefore in the following propositions I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection. By pain I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to a lesser perfection."
In the corollary of proposition XIII we read: "The mind shrinks from conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain the power of itself and of the body."
And thereto in the note, Spinoza concludes: "From what has been said we may clearly understand the nature of Love and Hate. Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause : Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause."

What does this mean?
love = pleasure (accompanied by the idea of an external cause) = passive state (wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection)
Love (as an idea) makes the mind pass to a greater perfection, whereby the power of thought in our mind is advanced. Thus an object of love increases the power of activity in our body.
An object of hate diminishes the power of activity in our body because hate is pain.
Let's imagine two people: one in the state of hate, the other in the state of love. Are we able to imagine that both bodies actually have a diametrically opposed power of activity?
Isn't it rather the case that both love and hate "stimulate" the body?
Then even hate would be a pleasure, a passive state wherein the mind passes to a greater perfection.
(Indeed, it could be possible that Spinoza had a more uncommon idea of love - beyond all exciting desire. But according to proposition IX this demur doesn't seem to be true.)

I would read it this way:

both pleasure and pain are passive states, they happen to us and we may react or respond
love is the reason the mind makes up when pleasure happens so it can recognize it and maintain and accumulate more of it.
hate is the reason the mind makes up when pain happens so it can recognize it and eradicate or avoid it in the future.
the reasons mind makes up are thoughts, and thinking is an activity, an active rather than passive state.

the sentence I emboldened I cannot understand, I think maybe there is something else in the original that it must be referring to. but life being what it is, and I see more peolple thinking about hate than love, I would think he states that ithe mind imagines itself empowered by thinking hateful thoughts-at these times it senses and feels powerful because that is the nature of hate-it covers fear. however, when the mind thinks about love it becomes vulnerable and insecure...that really shouldnt happen, but it does. maybe because people think of love in terms of being the object of lvoe rather than the one who loves.

[Arjuna]

It would be nice to drag Spinoza up and ask him to address the ideas of Id, Ego, and Superego.... how he would incorporate them into his use of the word mind.

As it is, his usage is suspiciously kin to that of Dominican philosophers... mind is an aspect of everything... a path to recognition of the nature of God.

[Wisigerno]

Originally Posted by Arjuna

I don't think Spinoza did distinguish between them except to say that love carries with it the idea of being affected by something external.

Pleasure itself is direct experience, without thought. Thought is the making of images, relating them according to some pattern, following cause and effect.

Without thought, which involves placing experience in a context of meaning, no experience would be remembered.

Put your foot on the floor and then become aware of the feeling of your foot.

What's happened is that your mind became active: it created the situation, it turned your focus to sensation. It then passively waited as the experience came into being.

On the one hand there is the experience of freedom in this... that your mind can navigate into or away from situations and sensations. But you also know as you've done this, that you were following your nature. The mind can only act according to its nature. Its nature is an aspect of, an attribute of the nature of all things.

So I start with the idea that I'm affected by the world. I then see that I, through the power of mind, can affect my own experience. Then I see how that every step of the way: I was an expression of nature.

What I loved affected me with pleasure. I drew the thing I love closer to me. I eventually see that there is only one love... expressed over and over as a bond to the other. To the extent that I see that it didn't specifically have to do with me, I've experienced God. Through mind and substance, the ways of nature are alive in me. That's how I understood Spinoza. If others see it a different way, I'd learn something by exploring that. Nevertheless, the truth Spinoza drew my attention to would remain. Know what I mean? So what it means to you might be different.

Isn't it possible to imagine pleasure? - similar to the possibility to imagine, say, this white wall in front of me turning blue.
I doubt that the power of imagination has anything to do with causes and effects.
If I complain that I suffer from terrible toothache, you'll most certainly understand what I'm talking about. But do you reallly understand it due to thoughts on causes and effects?
Assuming that I don't have toothache, but was stabbed with a sword: can you imagine this pain (provided you have never been stabbed with a sword)? Yet you know about the causes and effects.
That the cause isn't important until we talk about love or hate, derives, as I think, from Spinoza's definition of these terms.
Besides, Spinoza writes in the second book (proposition XXII): "The human mind perceives not only the modifications of the body, but also the ideas of such modifications."
In my opinion, the effects of love on our activity are of utmost importance for Spinoa. But since he speaks of "the power of activity in our body", I see no difference in love and hate.

The issue probably lies in the idea of "the power of activity in our body".
I suppose salima shares my uncertainty of this idea.
How would you, Arjuna, interpret it? Do we have to examine this idea from the point of view of the unity of body and mind?
Or is "the power of activity in our body" some kind of freedom, as you foreshadowed? Then, this freedom would probably concern both body and mind. But not in the same way, of course, because body and mind are different modifications. And if we divide freedom into these modifications, we'll have a philosophical idea of freedom (mind), and a banal one (body). The latter could be something like health, not being imprisoned, or the like. But I'm quite certain that that's not what Spinoza had in mind, when he wrote about "the power of activity in our body". Otherwise, though, it would have nothing to do with the body at all.
I'm really puzzled right now-for I feel unable to understand this idea clearly.

[Arjuna]

Hi! First of all, I read Spinoza a long time ago during my "read everything related to mysticism" phase. Turn to an authority for a cogent interpretation. All I have is how his writings struck me at that point in my life, muddied now with further life experience.

Think of it this way: any time you turn your attention to your body, you find sensations we could call "body awareness." The more you focus on it, the more sensation you can define... the feeling of your diaphragm, the feeling of your fingers, your neck.. and so on. A person may direct their attention to the body's awareness and discover pain or pleasure... an ache in the elbow, the cozy feeling of a pillow. These sensations don't interfere with thought, and the mind takes no notice of them, but has the power to direct attention to them. In order to receive the content of this awareness, the mind becomes silent.

As pain becomes stronger, it can capture the mind's awareness. Even here, the mind has the power to ignore the pain, to drop awareness of it, ignoring its cause in the process. Ultimately, pain can seize all awareness and halt all operation of the mind including ego, as one's identity becomes simply: pain, an intolerable situation which ideally will be followed by loss of consciousness.

Chronic pain shows another aspect of the mind-body connection: after several months, the actual pain is accompanied by "the pain of the pain." The psyche has become burdened... avenues of action cut off, expectation of pain. Depression now rests upon the mind. If the body's pain were to vanish at this point, the mind would still take time to recover.

One last aspect of the connection is the mind's ability to create the conditions which lead to pain. Psychogenic pain ranges from actual body illness produced by stress (for instance the mind can create stress sufficient to cause the aorta to spasm) to neurological dysfunction related to sleep deprivation. To what extent the mind can produce the sensation of pain by simply believing in it, is another matter.

But the way we usually think of it is this: you can't feel someone else's pain. You can only feel your pain. If a man starts feeling contractions at seeing his wife in labor, he's still feeling his own pain.

In terms of memory, pleasure and pain are symbolized. <-- this is pain. Without words, I could tell you I'm in pain. A more complex message would be that I was in pain. But I have little chance of communicating that unless I point to the cause. So you're right: whether imagination depends on cause and effect, depends on how complex the idea is. Nevertheless, the image of pain is only a symbol.

[Wisigerno]

I really agree with your thoughts, although i think we're missing the point.
It may be a mistake, but I do think the key point is the obscure word (or Spinoza's obscure use of the word) "power".
You write, as it seems to me, merely about mental power, not about physical power (and this probably isn't even a proper term for "the power of activity in our body").

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by Wisigerno

I really agree with your thoughts, although i think we're missing the point.
It may be a mistake, but I do think the key point is the obscure word (or Spinoza's obscure use of the word) "power".
You write, as it seems to me, merely about mental power, not about physical power (and this probably isn't even a proper term for "the power of activity in our body").

I'd like to hear more about how you see it. When you look back on history, you can see special points in time when prevailing viewpoints are changing. There are many in European history... the time of Spinoza was one of them. If you read his works and detect that he thinks like a physicist, you got it. The fact that it's actually hard to read it without laying psychological terms over his, shows that his works reside in a junction between two outlooks. We're actually seeing the medieval become the modern right at the birth of the modern world. That makes it a little trippy to read. It's the experience of evolution itself.

I respond intensely to patterns, and will fit things into a pattern without much concern over whether it's valid to do so. In keeping with this, I looked at Spinoza's works with a question on my mind. Newton and Spinoza lived at the same time. As Newton participated in the evolution of European thought, he was immersed in apocolyptic mystical traditions. Was Spinoza his twin... transmitting the other part... mysticism of the mind?