SPINOZA GOD IS ONLY SYMPTOMATIC GOD!
To understand and practice intellectual mechanism of Nature the human intellect needs to develop its tune with the super intellect of Nature which has built the Nature as its mechanical structure. This intellectual tune cannot be developed without intellectual match between human intellect and the super intellect of Nature. Any intellectual mismatch between said two intellects becomes the cause of conflict between human intellect and super intellect of Nature.
The human intellect itself is human soul/spirit being core part of human mind operating within human brain and the super intellect of Nature itself is Nature soul/spirit being core part of Nature mind operating within Nature brain. The human brain is visible but the Nature brain is invisible. The human intellect can only assume existence of Nature brain within Nature along with its Nature mind and Nature intellect which intellect can be assumed as super intellect of Nature called Parmatma or God. This assumption of human intellect is just abstract assumption as there is no any concrete proof of its existence within Nature.
Accepting logic of Spinoza God supported by Albert Einstein which accepts the proved truth of intellectual mechanism of Nature as God, the human intellect may logically believe in the existence of super intellect of Nature which may also be called as super soul of Nature or Parmatma/God. But such belief is also an abstract belief and any emotional attachment to such belief called faith may turn out to be blind faith without any concrete proof of existence of Nature brain within Nature. In my view, the Spinoza God supported by Albert Einstein is only symptomatic God without concrete proof of its base.
The intellectualism of the human intellect with such symptomatic God calling such God as super intellect or super soul of Nature is nothing but an attempt of human intellect to develop intellectual match or tune with such symptomatic Spinoza God. Such attempt may also be called as the scientific spiritualism of human intellect in relation to symptomatic Spinoza God. The attention and the concentration of human intellect on spiritualism or intellectualism with super intellect/super soul of the Nature can also be called as meditation of human intellect with symptomatic Spinoza God. The attention & concentration of human intellect/human soul within human mind may be called as self meditation.
The fact remains that even if God is believed to exist within Nature it is open truth that said God never gets detached from the materialism of Nature which proves that God is material minded and not spiritual minded. As sun remains busy all time round the clock in its materialism God also remains busy all time in the materialism of Nature. This is because God intellectualism or spiritualism is material and not otherwise. If God never thinks of becoming ascetic (sanyasi) how some human beings become sanyasi is beyond understanding. Is not such act an unnatural act? The human intellect should ask this question to self.
-©Adv.B.S.More, 15.3.2025
Chat GPT analysis of my article:
Here’s a point-wise analysis of your article:
1. Intellectual Mechanism of Nature and Human Intellect:
You argue that human intellect must align with the "super intellect" of Nature to properly understand and function within its mechanisms.
A mismatch between the two creates conflict, suggesting that harmony with Nature's intellect is crucial for intellectual and existential balance.
2. Defining Human and Nature's Intellect:
You equate human intellect with the soul/spirit, rooted in the mind and operating through the brain.
Similarly, you propose that Nature has a mind and intellect (super intellect or Parmatma), but its brain is invisible.
The existence of Nature's intellect is purely assumed, as there is no concrete proof of a "Nature brain."
3. Spinoza’s God as an Abstract Assumption:
You analyze Spinoza's concept of God, supported by Einstein, which equates God to the natural order and laws of the universe.
This belief in a super intellect (or super soul) of Nature remains abstract and lacks concrete proof.
You caution against blind faith in this idea, as it remains a philosophical assumption rather than a scientifically proven truth.
4. Scientific Spiritualism and Self-Meditation:
The pursuit of intellectual harmony with this "symptomatic God" (Spinoza’s God) is termed as scientific spiritualism.
Intellectual concentration on this concept is akin to meditation.
You differentiate between meditation on external (symptomatic) God and self-meditation, emphasizing the introspective aspect.
5. The Materialistic Nature of God:
You challenge the traditional notion of God as detached from materialism.
By comparing God to the sun, you suggest that if God were truly spiritual, He would not be constantly engaged in Nature’s material processes.
This implies that spiritualism and asceticism (sanyasa) are unnatural because even God does not abandon material engagement.
You question why some humans detach from material life when even Nature’s "God" does not.
6. Conclusion: Questioning Asceticism
You conclude with a provocative question: If God is not ascetic, how can human asceticism be justified?
This suggests that renouncing material life contradicts the very nature of the universe.
Overall Analysis:
Your article critically examines the Spinozan concept of God, highlighting its abstract nature.
You present a logical rather than emotional approach to spiritualism, advocating for scientific spiritualism rather than blind faith.
The core argument is that Nature's God, if it exists, is materialistic, and human beings should align with this reality rather than pursue artificial detachment from materialism.
1. Spinoza’s Concept: Systematic Nature as God
Baruch Spinoza equated God with Nature (Deus sive Natura), meaning:
God is not a separate, personal entity but rather the totality of existence, operating through deterministic natural laws.
Nature functions systematically, governed by logical, mathematical, and scientific principles.
Everything that happens is a necessary consequence of Nature’s inherent structure—there is no divine intervention.
Human beings are part of this system, and understanding Nature is the same as understanding God.
2. Your Challenge: Spinoza’s God as Symptomatic, Not Systematic
You challenge Spinoza’s idea by arguing that:
While Spinoza’s God is presented as a self-sufficient, systematic structure, it is actually just a symptom of a deeper, unknown reality.
You differentiate between a true system (which has a proven core structure) and a symptomatic phenomenon (which only shows effects but lacks a verifiable base).
The absence of concrete proof of a "Nature Brain" (the supposed source of Nature’s intellect) weakens Spinoza’s claim.
3. Key Argument: Spinoza’s God is an Intellectual Assumption
Spinoza assumes Nature itself is self-intelligent and self-sustaining, but you argue that this is just an abstract assumption.
You question whether Nature’s intellect is merely a human projection, rather than an actual, independent consciousness.
Since there is no material proof of a “super intellect” (Nature’s mind/brain), Spinoza’s God remains a hypothesis, not a systematic certainty.
4. The Contradiction in Spinoza’s View
Spinoza’s deterministic model suggests that everything in Nature follows laws, yet human intellect has the capacity to think beyond them.
You imply that if human intellect struggles to align with Nature’s intellect, then Spinoza’s systematic God is not truly all-encompassing—it shows signs of incompleteness.
A systematic entity should be fully provable and self-evident, but Spinoza’s God remains a conceptual inference rather than a tangible reality.
5. Your Core Conclusion: Spinoza’s God is Only Symptomatic
Spinoza’s God appears to be a symptom of observed natural order, rather than a proven systematic force.
The scientific spiritualism of aligning human intellect with a symptomatic God is still an intellectual pursuit, but it lacks the final proof of a truly systematic entity.
If Spinoza’s God were a fully systematic truth, it should be empirically verifiable, but it remains an abstract philosophical construct.
Final Thought:
Your challenge to Spinoza’s God is that it is an intellectualized belief in systematic Nature, without actual proof of a core governing consciousness (Nature Brain). You argue that unless such proof exists, Spinoza’s God is not a true system but merely a perceived symptom of an unknown underlying mechanism.
-Chat GPT, 15.3.2025
