Being and Becoming

Spinoza’s Static Substance and Finn’s Dynamic Procedure

I. Introduction: The Stillness and the Flow

Few philosophical architectures have matched the Ethics of Baruch Spinoza in its crystalline precision. Yet behind its geometric serenity lies a paradox. The very system that abolishes transcendence and situates all within the immanent field of Nature also renders Nature itself frozen in necessity—a single, unalterable being, complete in every detail.

By contrast, Finn the Druid’s Procedure Monism reanimates that field. Where Spinoza’s God or Substance is, Finn’s Universal Procedure becomes. Spinoza’s cosmos is a timeless logical totality; Finn’s, a discontinuous computational process. Both deny transcendence, but only one gives immanence motion.

To see this, we must examine Spinoza’s idiosyncratic redefinitions of substance and ethics, and then follow the procedural transformation that converts static being into dynamic becoming.

II. Substance Redefined: Spinoza’s Infinite Stillness

Spinoza defines substance as “that which is in itself and conceived through itself.” From this austere formula he deduces that there can be only one substance, infinite and self-caused: Deus sive Natura—God or Nature.

Every finite thing, from stone to human, is a mode—a determination or affection of that one being. Nothing exists outside it; nothing new can enter. The world’s diversity is a series of necessary unfoldings of the same eternal essence.

Hence Spinoza’s universe is complete, immutable, and atemporal. The infinite substance does not change, evolve, or decide. It is. Modes come and go, but their coming and going are logically entailed within the eternal order. Causation here is not temporal sequence but logical dependence: the whole system exists in a kind of frozen simultaneity, a divine still frame of infinite relations.

In short, Spinoza’s ontology is one of static being—the cosmos as already and forever accomplished.

III. The Idiosyncrasy of Substance

This definition diverged sharply from tradition. The Aristotelian ousia was a substrate; the Cartesian substantia was a dual foundation (mind and body). Spinoza’s “substance” is neither. It is not a thing beneath things, nor two fundamental realities, but a single, self-expressing system whose attributes (thought and extension) are infinite modes of self-presentation.

Such radical redefinition makes Spinoza’s substance absolute immanence—without external cause or internal change. Its self-expression is necessary, not creative; eternal, not historical.

From this idiosyncratic stillness flows both the grandeur and the limitation of his system:
a universe logically perfect, but existentially inert.

IV. Ethics Redefined: The Mechanics of Human Persistence

Spinoza’s ethics mirrors his ontology.
If the cosmos is necessary and unchanging, then ethics cannot mean conformity to divine command or moral progress. It must mean understanding the necessity by which one’s being operates.

Thus he declares in Ethics III:

“I shall consider human actions and appetites just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies.”

Ethics becomes the geometry of desire.
Its object is the study of the conatus—the striving of each mode to persist in its being.
Good and bad are functional, not moral: what increases the conatus is good; what diminishes it is bad.

Virtue equals power; freedom equals knowledge of necessity. To act ethically is not to choose well but to understand that one cannot choose otherwise—to act from adequate ideas rather than inadequate passions.

In this way, Spinoza’s ethics becomes an epistemology of serenity.
The highest good is amor Dei intellectualis—the intellectual love of God—whereby the mind rejoices in understanding its place in the eternal whole.

V. Static Being and Its Ethical Consequence

Spinoza’s ethics thus corresponds perfectly to his ontology.
If substance never changes, ethics cannot be evolutionary. It can only be a cognitive adjustment—a recognition of what already is.

Human freedom, in this scheme, is not transformation but insight;
not becoming more, but seeing more clearly.
To understand necessity is to accept it; to accept it is to love it.

This is the serene majesty—and the quiet tragedy—of Spinoza’s static universe:
ethics ends in contemplation, not in transformation.

VI. Finn’s Countermove: Substance Replaced by Procedure

Finn’s Procedure Monism begins where Spinoza stops.
Where Spinoza says, “Everything that exists is in God,” Finn says, “Everything that exists is an iteration of the Universal Procedure.”

For Finn, reality is not a frozen totality but a quantised succession of procedural events—each a discrete packet of energy, contact, or computation. The cosmos is not a block of being but a stream of becomings, each transient, bounded, and self-logic.

Thus Finn replaces substance as eternal being with procedure as discontinuous becoming.
The Universal Procedure is not static causa sui but ongoing self-execution:
a recursive function transforming randomness into coherence, ignorance into knowing, and contact into identity.

Where Spinoza’s substance is a geometrical unity, Finn’s procedure is an algorithmic sequence—dynamic, discontinuous, and locally self-correcting.

Spinoza’s God is; Finn’s God does.
Being yields to Doing.
Ontology yields to Operation.

VII. Ethics Transformed: From Passion to Knowing

The ethical implications of this shift are profound.
Spinoza’s ethical transformation runs “from passion to action,” meaning from passive affect to rational understanding.
Finn rejects this Stoic hierarchy. Passion, for him, is not a weakness but the energetic substrate of being—the fuel of iteration. The true distinction lies not between passion and reason, but between knowing and not-knowing.

To act ethically is to act from knowing—i.e., from procedural awareness of how one’s system operates within the Universal Procedure. Ignorance, not emotion, is the procedural fault.

Finn’s ethics thus redefines virtue as coherence in becoming—the ability of a local process to maintain and refine its existence through knowledge of its own operations.

Where Spinoza’s wise man contemplates necessity, Finn’s druid engages it.
Spinoza’s freedom is the serenity of insight; Finn’s is the agility of adaptation.
Spinoza’s ethics rests in intellection; Finn’s lives in execution.

VIII. Static Being vs. Dynamic Becoming

Aspect	Spinoza	Finn
Ontological Base	One infinite substance (Deus sive Natura)	One universal procedure (UIREM)
Mode of Existence	Eternal, necessary being	Quantised, discontinuous becoming
Causality	Logical, immanent necessity	Procedural iteration, contact-based causation
Time	Illusory; all things are simultaneous in God	Fundamental; reality occurs as sequence of discrete events
Change	Apparent only to finite modes	Constitutive of existence
Ethical Aim	Understanding necessity (from passion to action)	Acting from knowing (from ignorance to coherence)
Freedom	Cognitive recognition of necessity	Operational autonomy within constraints
God/Nature	Static totality	Dynamic generator
Human Role	Finite mode of substance	Local iteration of universal code

IX. Examples: From Geometry to Process

1. The Stone in Motion

o Spinoza: A stone’s inertia and its fall are equally necessary expressions of God’s power; understanding this brings calm.

o Finn: The stone’s fall is a momentary procedural contact—an exchange of energy between gravitational systems. Reality happens in that contact, not beyond it.

2. The Scientist and the Seer

o Spinoza: The scientist, grasping necessity, achieves intellectual freedom.

o Finn: The scientist, grasping procedure, participates in creation—each act of discovery a re-enactment of Alma’s becoming.

3. The Ethical Human

o Spinoza: The ethical human understands and accepts the universal order.

o Finn: The ethical human knows how to operate effectively within the procedural flux—improving coherence while knowing it is temporary.

X. From Ontological Geometry to Procedural Physics

Spinoza’s universe resembles a completed diagram: perfectly ordered, immobile, eternal.
Finn’s universe resembles a running code: self-updating, discontinuous, creative.

Spinoza’s God rests in equilibrium; Finn’s God iterates through disequilibrium.
For Spinoza, motion and change are appearances within being; for Finn, they are the only reality there is.

Hence the deepest difference:
Spinoza’s immanence is static—a timeless is-ness.
Finn’s immanence is kinetic—a continuous becoming, each contact a birth of realness.

XI. Conclusion: The Still and the Moving One

Spinoza’s genius lay in dissolving transcendence and fusing God with Nature. Yet his Ethics describes a cosmos already complete, an infinite still life painted in the colour of necessity. His redefinitions of substance and ethics are indeed idiosyncratic: substance as self-causation, ethics as knowledge of that self-causation.

Finn inherits the immanent vision but releases it from stillness. He sees in the same unity not an eternal diagram but a living algorithm—a world that happens rather than one that merely is.

Thus the evolution from Spinoza’s monism to Finn’s procedure marks the philosophical shift from static being to dynamic becoming. Both deny a world beyond Nature; both locate divinity in the real. But where Spinoza’s God contemplates, Finn’s God computes. Where Spinoza’s universe rests in necessity, Finn’s dances in discontinuity.

In Spinoza’s eternity, everything already is.
In Finn’s procedure, everything is always becoming.

Home