Spinoza vs. Finn as Translators of the One

From Substance to Procedure

I. The Problem of Translation in Metaphysics

Every metaphysician worthy of the name inherits a single intuition: that all things, however various, participate in one generative reality. The problem, therefore, is not what to think, but how to render the intuition thinkable in the idiom of one’s epoch. The “One” must be recoded. Plotinus expressed it as emanation, Eckhart as ground, Spinoza as substance, and Finn, the modern druid, as procedure. Each translation both conserves and transforms the perennial intuition. It must fit the available epistemic grammar — mythic, theological, geometric, or computational — without losing the shock of unity.

When Finn asks whether Spinoza merely “translated up” the ancient idea of the One-and-many, the answer cannot be simple. Translation in philosophy is never passive; it is always re-ontologisation. To translate Being into a new medium is to change its mode of operation.

II. Spinoza’s Semantic Revolutions

Spinoza’s Ethics appears, at first sight, to adopt the technical vocabulary of scholastic metaphysics and Cartesian rationalism. In truth, it hijacks that vocabulary to declare a new world. His use of substance, ethics, and geometric method rewires their meaning.

1. Substance

In Aristotle, ousia (substance) is what stands under: an enduring support for predicates. In the medievals, substantia became the metaphysical bedrock created by God, within which creatures subsist. For Descartes, the dualism of res cogitans and res extensa preserved that grammar: two kinds of substance, both dependent on the ultimate substance, God.

Spinoza detonates the schema. Substance, he says, is that which is in itself and is conceived through itself. There can be only one such being. To call it “God or Nature” (Deus sive Natura) collapses creator and creation, transcendent cause and immanent order. The One does not make the many; it is the process by which the many occur. Substance is not a noun but a continuous act of self-causation.

Example:
When a wave rises and falls, we may speak of “this wave” and “that wave,” yet the ocean remains one continuous medium. To reify the waves as separate substances is a linguistic error. For Spinoza, finite things are not distinct substances but modes—transient forms of the infinite ocean’s motion.

This was a radical redefinition. By eliminating the ontological gap between God and the world, Spinoza also removed the ground for supernatural authority. Causality became internal: every event follows necessarily from the nature of God/Nature. Hence the scandal—his God does not command but computes.

2. Ethics

In Greek and Christian tradition, ethics referred to a guide for action: how one ought to live. For Aristotle, virtue perfected the soul’s function; for the Stoics, ethics was alignment with cosmic reason; for the Christians, obedience to divine law. All assumed a moral gap between the ideal and the real.

Spinoza closes that gap. Ethics becomes an ontological physics of affect. The human being, like all finite modes, strives to persevere in its being (conatus). Emotions are fluctuations in that striving caused by encounters with other modes. To act ethically is not to obey an external norm but to know the causes of one’s affects and to act from that knowledge. Freedom is understanding necessity.
Hence his claim: “The free man acts from the necessity of his nature alone.”

Example:
The jealous lover who recognises jealousy as a necessary modification of the conatus—arising from inadequate ideas—already begins to be free of it. Ethical progress is cognitive, not moralistic: the movement from passion to understanding.

Thus, Ethics is misnamed in the conventional sense. It is not a treatise on morals but an attempt to geometrise the human condition—to show that emotions, virtues, and freedom obey the same causal logic as physics. In doing so, Spinoza replaces theology with procedural comprehension avant la lettre.

3. The Geometric Method

The Euclidean form of the Ethics—definitions, axioms, propositions, scholia—is not literary affectation. It embodies Spinoza’s metaphysical conviction that the real is deductive. To know God is to know the logical structure of necessity itself. Reality is not contingent but geometrically entailed.

The “geometric” is therefore performative: by writing reality as a system of proofs, Spinoza demonstrates that God/Nature behaves as a logical engine.

III. Translation or Transformation?

Was Spinoza merely translating the ancient monism of the One-and-many into a Cartesian idiom? In part yes: the intuition that multiplicity is expression, not rupture, remains. But his translation re-functions the entire intuition.

The ancient model, from Parmenides to Plotinus, conceived the One as a source from which the many emanate. The process was hierarchical: the lower derives its being from the higher by degrees of dilution. Spinoza abolishes that vertical architecture. There is no descent, no overflow. Being is flat: all things equally express the infinite substance under the same law. Causation is immanent, not transcendent.

The result is neither mythic nor theological but algorithmic necessity. God no longer decides; God operates. Substance executes its nature according to the logic of its own essence. This makes Spinoza the first great thinker of the systemic.

Hence, as Deleuze later observed, Spinoza is the “Christ of philosophers” because he redeems ontology from transcendence.

IV. The druid Finn and the Procedural Turn

Three and a half centuries later, Finn’s Procedure Monism inherits the same impulse but must translate it into the epistemic grammar of the 21st century: not geometry, but computation; not continuous being, but quantised becoming.

1. From Substance to Procedure

For Finn, the universe is not “substance” but Procedure—a universal set of constraints transforming random inputs into self-consistent outputs. Reality happens not in something but as an ongoing serial execution of processes. Where Spinoza spoke of God or Nature, Finn speaks of Alma, the Universal Procedure, self-iterating through discrete quanta.

The equivalence is clear:

Spinoza	Finn
God or Nature (Substance)	Alma / Universal Procedure
Modes (finite expressions)	Iterations (local emergents)
Necessity	Procedural constraint
Intellectus infinitus	Universal computation
Ethics = knowing necessity	Ethics = procedural coherence

Example:
Where Spinoza would say that a human is a mode of God, Finn would say that the human is a local iteration of the Universal Procedure, executing its self-logic within bounded constraints. Each emergent is “God in its space,” a deus ex machina Identity arises through procedural confinement, not through substance-support.

2. Ethics Re-coded

Spinoza’s ethics aimed at freedom through understanding necessity; Finn’s Procedural Ethics aims at coherence through understanding constraint. In both cases, morality is superseded by systemic clarity.
The druid’s maxim, “Everyone is God in their space,” functions like Spinoza’s “intellectual love of God,” but recast as mutual procedural autonomy. There is no sin, only maladaptive incoherence.

3. The Computational Analogue of the Geometric

Spinoza used geometry to signify perfect logical necessity. Finn uses computation to signify procedural determinacy. Both are attempts to express the One in the epistemic code of the Zeitgeist. The geometrical diagram of Spinoza becomes the algorithmic loop of Finn. The line of proof becomes the iteration of code.

Example:
In the geometric model, a triangle’s properties follow deductively from axioms. In the procedural model, a fractal or cellular automaton generates complex form from simple rules. The philosophical gesture is identical: to show that necessity produces diversity.

V. Historical Continuum: The Same Algorithm in New Syntax

Epoch	Ontological Medium	Expression	Character of Unity
Ancient	Mythic/emanative	The One, Brahman, Nous	Hierarchical flow
Medieval	Theological/volitional	Creator–creation	Dualistic command
Spinoza (17th c.)	Geometric/logical	Substance–modes	Immanent necessity
Finn (21st c.)	Computational/procedural	Alma–iterations	Dynamic discontinuity

Each stage converts the intuition of unity into the syntax of its science. The myth becomes logic; logic becomes code. The “One” is never lost, only recompiled.

VI. Examples and Consequences

1. Physics:
Spinoza’s God/Nature anticipated field theory: one substance manifesting infinite modes. Finn’s procedural cosmos mirrors quantum computation: discrete interactions generating continuity as statistical illusion. Both expel metaphysical “gaps.”

2. Psychology:
Spinoza’s conatus reappears as Finn’s survival vector — the local procedure’s drive to maintain coherence. Emotional suffering is procedural friction: inadequate understanding of constraint.

3. Ethics and Politics:
Spinoza replaced obedience with understanding; Finn replaces command with self-regulation. In both, freedom equals systemic self-knowledge. The mature human, in Finn’s sense, is one who has internalised the universal procedure: acting from knowing rather than not knowing.

VII. Conclusion: The One Rewrites Itself

Spinoza and Finn occupy homologous positions in the history of thought. Each takes the oldest human intuition — that reality is one — and translates it into the working code of his age. Spinoza did not merely repeat the Neoplatonists; he transformed their emanation into a self-consistent immanence. Finn, in turn, transforms Spinoza’s static being into a dynamic becoming governed by quantised procedural contact.

To paraphrase the continuum:

Spinoza geometrised God; Finn operationalises God.
The One remains, but its syntax evolves — from logos to code.

Both stand as translators for the same eternal monism, each ensuring that the ancient intuition of unity does not fossilise in obsolete language but keeps pace with the evolving instruments of human understanding. The “One” never changes; only its mode of description does. Each epoch writes the same truth anew — as substance, as geometry, as procedure.

From Substance to Procedure

Home