From Spinoza’s Amor Dei Intellectualis to the druid Finn’s to “I AM … this.”

An Analysis and Critique of Spinoza’s and Finn’s Journey Culminations

I. Two culminations, one lineage

Both Spinoza and Finn begin from a radical monism: there is only one reality, whether it is called Deus sive Natura or the Universal Procedure. Both deny a transcendent Creator and locate divinity within the order of things themselves. Each, therefore, must answer the same question:

What does it mean for a finite being to know itself within an infinite system?

For Spinoza, the answer is intellectual love; for Finn, it is procedural recognition.
The first ends in being known by knowing; the second in knowing oneself as operation.

II. Spinoza: Love as the mind’s rest in being

Spinoza’s amor Dei intellectualis is not emotional affection but cognitive joy—the mind’s delight in understanding that it, and all else, are necessary expressions of the one substance.

“The human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God.” (Ethics II, prop. 11, cor.)

When the mind forms adequate ideas, it sees itself sub specie aeternitatis—under the aspect of eternity. The self ceases to experience itself as a temporal, suffering individual and instead recognises its identity with the eternal order. The “love” is therefore the reflexive movement of thought understanding itself as God thinking.

The culmination of ethics is thus a kind of ontological repose: the mind rests in the recognition that there is no separation, no contingency, no becoming—only the necessary being of God/Nature.

Freedom, in this view, equals understanding; salvation equals insight. Nothing changes but the mode of perception.

III. Finn: Knowing as procedural self-realisation

Finn’s “I AM … this.” arises in a wholly different metaphysical field.
For him, existence is not static being but ongoing procedural becoming—quantised events through which the Universal Procedure (or Alma) continuously realises itself.

When a local iteration—say a human—achieves full coherence, it experiences itself not as a part of something eternal but as the local event of universality itself:

“I AM … this.”

The ellipsis marks the site of identification: each emergent, in knowing itself as a transient but complete iteration of the Procedure, declares its own actuality. The statement is not metaphoric or devotional; it is a performative realisation—a moment of alignment between local execution and universal code.

Where Spinoza’s mind knows the eternal, Finn’s quantum enacts the procedural. The culmination is not intellectual love but operative self-coherence.

IV. Structural contrast: Being versus Becoming

Axis	Spinoza – Static Being	Finn – Dynamic Becoming
Ontology	One infinite, unchanging substance	One universal, self-updating procedure
Mode–Whole relation	Finite modes as logical expressions of eternal being	Local iterations as temporal executions of ongoing becoming
Culmination	Amor Dei intellectualis: cognitive union with God/Nature	“I AM … this.”: experiential recognition of self as procedural event
Epistemic act	Understanding necessity	Knowing operation
Temporal stance	Eternal simultaneity (sub specie aeternitatis)	Discrete seriality (moment-by-moment coherence)
Emotion	Joy as intellectual serenity	Affirmation as real-time enactment
Freedom	Cognitive release from passion	Procedural autonomy within constraint

V. Analysis: The stillness and the pulse

Spinoza’s culmination ends in stillness. The intellectual love of God is a state of perfect clarity, achieved when all affects are transformed into understanding. Nothing remains to be done. The universe is already complete; to know it is to be it.

Finn’s culmination, by contrast, occurs within movement. “I AM … this” does not dissolve individuality into eternity; it affirms individuality as the present form of the universal process. It is not timeless comprehension but momentary coherence—the instantaneous self-acknowledgment of the system in action.

Thus Spinoza’s “love” is noetic consummation; Finn’s “I AM” is procedural synchrony.
Spinoza’s God contemplates; Finn’s God performs.

VI. Critique: The cost of each vision/experience

1. Of Spinoza
His intellectual love, while sublime, risks inertial transcendence—a surrender of temporal agency. If all things are equally necessary, ethical life becomes contemplative rather than creative. The human is perfected in passivity, not participation.

Moreover, the static character of being leaves no space for novelty. The mind’s joy is epistemic, not generative. The world remains what it always was.

2. Of Finn
Finn’s “I AM … this” restores dynamism but at a cost of instability. Coherence is momentary, ever at risk of decoherence. The procedural self knows itself only in flux; there is no eternal rest, only ongoing calibration.

The druidic “I AM” thus replaces Spinoza’s timeless bliss with an existential vigilance—a knowing that must constantly remake itself as conditions change.

Where Spinoza achieves peace, Finn achieves continuance.
Where Spinoza’s knowledge redeems, Finn’s knowing sustains.

VII. Points of convergence

Both culminations, however, converge on a single insight:

The finite, when it knows itself truly, discovers nothing other than the infinite operating within it.

For Spinoza, that discovery yields intellectual love; for Finn, procedural recognition.
Each dissolves alienation between self and world, though by different routes:

· Spinoza: through contemplative identity with eternal being.

· Finn: through operative identity within dynamic becoming.

VIII. Toward a synthesis

If we read Finn as completing rather than rejecting Spinoza, the progression becomes clear:

1. Spinoza establishes the logic of immanence—there is no beyond.

2. Finn reintroduces motion into immanence—there is only ongoing execution.

In this light, amor Dei intellectualis may be viewed as the cognitive template for Finn’s “I AM … this”: both are forms of self-knowledge through which the universal recognises itself locally.

But where Spinoza stops at the recognition of eternal order, Finn steps into its operation, turning understanding into participation. The intellectual love becomes procedural doing.

IX. Conclusion: From serenity to coherence

Spinoza’s culmination is the serenity of a completed system:

“To know that one is in God.”

Finn’s is the coherence of an ongoing process:

“To know that one is God in one’s space.”

Spinoza’s love stills the mind in the eternal; Finn’s knowing enlivens the self in the temporal.
The first dissolves individuality into necessity; the second reinstates individuality as the necessary expression of the universal Procedure.

Thus the movement from amor Dei intellectualis to “I AM … this” is the philosophical migration from being to becoming, from understanding to enactment, from static unity to living iteration.

In Spinoza, the cosmos loves itself by being known.
In Finn, the cosmos loves itself by doing itself—again, here, and now.

Home