Technology Rig Some days you wish had never started, then along comes one you hope will never end. Anything can happen in a day.

When our individual interests and prospects do not seem worth living for, we are in desperate need for something apart from us to live for. All forms of dedication, devotion, loyalty and self-surrender are in essence a desperate clinging to something which might give worth and meaning to our futile, spoiled lives.

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.
There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem.

For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intently discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap.

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.

The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility.

The permanent misfits can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivity of a mass movement.

The total surrender of a distinct self is a prerequisite for the attainment of both unity and self-sacrifice; and there is probably no more direct way of realizing this surrender than by inculcating and extolling the habit of blind obedience. 

He who is free to draw conclusions from his individual experience and observation is not usually hospitable to the idea of martyrdom. For self-sacrifice is an unreasonable act. It cannot be the end-product of a process of probing and deliberating. All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth nor certitude outside it.

It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs.

We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength. 

Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both. 

Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.

The enemy—the indispensible devil of every mass movement—is omnipresent. He plots both outside and inside the ranks of the faithful. It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter, and the deviationists are his stooges. If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing. It is the sacred duty of the true believer to be suspicious. He must be constantly on the lookout for saboteurs, spies and traitors. 

Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer is to the whole — the church, party, nation — and not to his fellow true believer. True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society. 

Glory is largely a theatrical concept. There is no striving for glory without a vivid awareness of an audience. 

Once the stage is set, the presence of an outstanding leader is indispensable. Without him there will be no movement. 

A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action. 

Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to the prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity. 

There is a moment in the career of almost every fault-finding man of words when a deferential or conciliatory gesture from those in power may win him over to their side. 

His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be. 

Theodore Herzl and the Jewish intellectuals were driven to Zionism by the humiliations heaped upon millions of Jews in Russia, and by the calumnies to which the Jews in the rest of continental Europe were subjected toward the end of the nineteenth century. 

In modern times, nationalism is the most copious and durable source of mass enthusiasm, and that nationalist fervor must be tapped if the drastic changes projected and initiated by revolutionary enthusiasm are to be consummated.

This great hype which I consider a part of the American propaganda, has only one purpose as stated by Chomsky in his book Media Control:

The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, because organization just causes trouble. People have to be atomized and segregated and alone. They're not supposed to organize, because then they might be something beyond spectators of action.

Spinoza defines substance as follows: 

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.

so it follows from the definition that nothing we can conceive (all what we can conceive must be formed from atomic facts or atoms) is a substance so our whole world and the things in it aren't substances.

Spinoza defines attribute as follows:

By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence.

Spinoza says that there are an infinite number of attributes, but only two, we can have knowledge. 

1. Thought (mind or idea) 
2. Extension (matter occupy space)

Spinoza defines modes as 

particular modifications of substance, i.e., particular things in the world. 

Then he sets out to prove that God is the only substance and everything is a mode of god. Nature and people are a part of god.

PROP. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common.

Proof.— For each must exist in itself, and be conceived through itself; if they have similar attributes then each substance can conceive the other which contradicts the definition of a substance. So any substance has a set of identical attributes.

PROP. III. Things which have nothing in common cannot be one the cause of the other.

PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

PROP. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of the attributes of the substances, or by the difference of their modifications.

PROP. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance. Corollary.—Hence it follows that a substance cannot be produced by anything external to itself.

PROP. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substances.

Proof.—Substance cannot be produced by anything external (Corollary, Prop vi. also a result of the definition of substance), it must, therefore, be its own cause—that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence belongs to its nature.

PROP. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proof.—There can only be one substance with an identical attribute, and existence follows from its nature (Prop. vii.); its nature, therefore, involves existence, either as finite or infinite. If it exists as finite, it would then be limited by something else of the same kind, which would also necessarily exist (Prop. vii.); and there would be two substances with an identical attribute, which is absurd (Prop. v.). It therefore exists as infinite. Q.E.D.

PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.

Proof.—If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence. But this (Prop. vii.) is absurd, also a result of the definition of substance. Therefore God necessarily exists.

PROP. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived from which it would follow that substance can be divided.

PROP. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.

PROP. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

Proof.—This results from the definition of modes that it needs a substance and since there is only one substance which is god so all modes are in it (everything is in god).

In summary: 

1. No two substances can share an attribute (from the definition of substance).
2. It is in the nature of substance to exist (from the definition of substance).
3. God exists (from 2 and the definition of God).
4. No other substance than God exists (from 1, 3, and the definition of God).
5. Everything that exists is either God or a mode of God (from 3, 4, and the definition of mode).

My main problems with Spinoza's thesis are:

1. He bases all his prepositions based on his definitions with no justification for them, an example is "Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common", this results from his definition of "substance" which Leibniz objected to saying "Let’s grant that two substances cannot share all of their attributes. But suppose that A has attributes X and Y, while B has attributes Y and Z. Then, it seems, we could conceive of A and B as distinct, even though they share an attribute (namely, Y)".
2. His "substance" definition mix between two different concepts, for example a substance is either a building block of the universe like a quark or a super-string or something very different from us so it can't be comprehended by our intellectual like god and mixing between these two concepts in his definition led to the mix between our world or nature or humans and god. 
3. Spinoza's monism supposes that God has infinite attributes including extension? But how can we know if this is true or not? Wittgenstein words ring in my ears now.
4. Men show imperfections, but if they are modes of God, is God imperfect also?

Spinoza's monism is contrasted with Descartes' dualism and Leibniz's pluralism and as a result of this monism:

1. It allows Spinoza to avoid the problem of interaction between mind and body, which troubled Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. 
2. Creation for Spinoza is a natural result from god's attributes : "From God’s supreme power, or infinite nature, an infinite number of things – that is, all things have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite number of ways, or always flow from the same necessity; in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity and for eternity, that its three interior angles are equal to two right angles."
3. The world is deterministic as Spinoza puts it, "A thing which has been determined by God to produce an effect cannot render itself undetermined". "Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non—existence". There is no freedom of the will at all.
4. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension.
5. Spinoza treats God and nature as indistinguishable, by knowing things as they are we improve our knowledge of God. Seeing that all things are determined by nature to be as they are, we can achieve the rational tranquility that best promotes our happiness, and liberate ourselves from being driven by our passions. Sensory perception, which Spinoza calls "knowledge of the first kind", is entirely inaccurate, since it reflects how our own bodies work more than how things really are. We can also have a kind of accurate knowledge called "knowledge of the second kind", or "reason". This encompasses knowledge of the features common to all things, and includes principles of physics and geometry. We can also have "knowledge of the third kind", or "intuitive knowledge". This is a sort of knowledge that, somehow, relates particular things to the nature of God.
6. A better understanding of his own place in the cosmic system and of the place of all the objects of his likes and dislikes, and his insight into the necessity which rules all things, tend to cure him of his resentments, regrets and disappointments. He grows reconciled to things, and wins peace of mind. In this way reason teaches acquiescence in the universal order, and elevates the mind above the turmoil of passion. The active feelings are all of them forms of self-realisation, of heightened activity, of strength of mind, and are therefore always pleasurable. It is the passive feelings (or "passions") which are responsible for all the ills of life, for they are induced largely by things outside us and frequently cause pain. At the lowest stage of knowledge, that of "opinion", man is under the dominant influence of things outside himself, and so is in the bondage of the passions. At the next stage, the stage of "reason", the characteristic feature of the human mind, its intelligence, asserts itself, and helps to free man from the domination of passions. At the highest stage of knowledge, that of "intuitive knowledge", the mind apprehends all things as expressions of the eternal cosmos. It sees all things in God, and God in all things. It feels itself as part of the eternal order, identifying its thoughts with cosmic thought and its interests with cosmic interests. Thereby it becomes eternal as one of the eternal ideas in which the Attribute Thought expresses itself, and attains to that "blessedness" which "is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself", that is, the perfect joy which characterises perfect self-activity. This is not an easy or a common achievement. "But", says Spinoza, "everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare."

The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between Spinoza's religious conceptions and the Vedanta tradition of India, writing that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta,

From Henry A. Kissinger's Years of Upheaval:

On May 16, Nasser withdrew recognition from the government of Chiang Kai-shek, and established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. This was a direct rebuke to the United States but especially to Dulles, who was deeply committed to Taiwan. In June, the new Soviet Foreign Minister, Dmitri Shepilov, came to Egypt with a Soviet offer to both finance and build the Aswan Dam, enabling Nasser to engage in his favorite pastime of playing the superpowers off against each other.

Sadat was determined to end Nasser’s legacy. He would reestablish relations with the United States as quickly as possible and, once that was accomplished, he would move to friendship. Formal diplomatic relations required some pretext, however, before the Egyptian public and his Arab brethren would understand the steps. He would wait for some tangible diplomatic success. But the delay was purely tactical and connected largely with inter-Arab politics; it was not intended as blackmail. He was prepared to announce his intentions immediately — upon the conclusion of our meeting, in fact.

The German expression ‘Tatsachen’ is rendered in both translations as ‘facts’, but the German expression ‘Sachverhaltes’ is translated in Ogden as ‘atomic facts’ and in the Pears and McGinnis as ‘states of affairs’. The philosophical cash value of the different treatments of ‘Sachverhaltes’ is that since atomic facts seem to be a subclass of facts, and since facts (whatever is the case) are of the actual world, Sachverhaltes are also of the actual world. This suggests that Wittgenstein’s ontology encompasses only what is actual and does not include merely possible facts. By rendering ‘Sachverhaltes’ as ‘states of affairs’, the Pears and McGinnis translation accommodates an understanding of Tractarian metaphysics according to which there are merely possible worlds, i.e. worlds composed of states of affairs, which are merely possible facts.

One complication is that Wittgenstein frequently talks of the existence and nonexistence (Bestehen and Nichtbestehen) of Sachverhalten. For example, 2.06 Das Bestehen und Nichtbestehen von Sachverhalten ist die Wirklichkeit. (Das Bestehen von Sachverhalten nennen wir also eine positive, das Nichtbestehen eine negative Tatsache) We may follow Black (1964, p. 39) and render Bestehen and Nichtbestehen in this context as the holding and non-holding states of affairs. Against the Ogden translation, it is natural to regard a “fact that doesn’t exist or doesn’t hold” as no fact at all.

Deception

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy;masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions. Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. By altering his arrangements and changing his plans,he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge. By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes, he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose.

Play your opponent

If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots. A clever general, therefore, avoids an army when its spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish and inclined to return. This is the art of studying moods. When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

How victory may be produced for them out of the enemy's own tactics—that is what the multitude cannot comprehend. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven- born captain. Therefore the good fighter will be terrible in his onset, and prompt in his decision.

Calculation of all outcomes

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is FOREKNOWLEDGE. In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory. Hence in the wise leader's plans, considerations of advantage and of disadvantage will be blended together. The skillful tactician may be likened to the SHUAI-JAN. Now the SHUAI-JAN is a snake that is found in the Ch`ang mountains.Strike at its head, and you will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle, and you will be attacked by head and tail both.

Choose the right moment for you

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are. Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy. Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.  Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.

Attack Preparations

If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us. If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve.

The Supreme General

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.