Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?

I was planning on waiting a little while until a verdict had been passed on the request for a linguistic subforum, but one can never know how long such things will take. So, I figured I’d just voice my thoughts here for the time being. I hope the subforum will be come to be, since the psychology subforum seems a bit too much for some linguistic concerns.

Anyway, to kick it off (In a Lacantian Manner): I would like to discuss the validity of the Latin maxim ‘Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’.

1)The real (Le Réel)
I was reading a little publication of my professor Spinoza Plaatsen (which translates into Spinoza Places) by Piet Steenbakkers. He exclaims to be happy to be writing in Dutch because in Dutch (as in English) he was able to create a double meaning in the title. Spinoza Places refers to the places where Spinoza has resided in the course of his life, but also to certain places in the writings of Spinoza that are of interest. In Latin the words Loca Spinozana (residences/places of Spinoza) and Loci Spinozani (written places of Spinoza) signify different things. Among the Loci Spinoza, there is one in particular that is under suspicion. It is the method of examination of the different versions of the Latin Spinoza texts that caught my eye: by asking the question ‘Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’ ('Of which of the separate readings is it more likely that it will pass into the other by corruption).

2) The Imaginary (L’Imaginaire)
The problem with several sources is that they often have a common denominator and a particular denominator. The particular denominator makes for the question which specific source would be the most likely meaning of the real author, or perhaps the most likely original. The difficulty with this is that if there also is a common denominator, such questions are hard to answer because the difference can be too subtle to judge, but still have great consequences.

3) The Symbolique (Le Symbolique)
Of all the Loci Spinozani the one place in particular that is under suspicion is the following sentence (of letter 76 from Spinoza to Albert Burgh): “Sed Haec ration non pro Romanâ Ecclesiâ, sed pro omnibus, qui Christi nomen (profitentur/profitemur), militat”. As you may have guessed the question is if the original intent of Spinoza was profitemur or profitentur.
The printed version of the Opera posthuma (left works) contains profitentur (which makes the whole phrase translate as “But this argument militates not only for the Roman Church, but for all who profess the name of Christ”), but the contemporary Dutch translation of J.H. Glazemaker (in De Nagelate Schriften) reads “Doch deze reden dient niet alleenlijk voor de Roomsche Kerk, maar voor ons alle, die de Christelijke naam belijden” (Which makes the entire phrase translate as "But this argument militates not only for the Roman Church, but for all of us who profess the Christian name). It appears that this reading is also found in a n apograph Leibniz made of the letter in November 1676 (which is in Latin and contains ‘profitemur’). I will leave the final verdict of Piet Steenbakkers out of this for the moment, because it might spoil many interesting responses.

I wish to determine if indeed the question ‘Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’ is the right question to ask when it comes to examining what exactly the original writer had written (in case there is any doubt) or meant. To me it seems unfitting in this case because it does not address the fact that Spinoza was an excommunicated Jew, but had never embraced Christianity. I would seem strange for him to profess the name of Christ. It seems not to be able to account for meaning. However, a good point in favor of this maxim is that if indeed a corruption has taken place it can rule out many particular meanings.

So, what pro’s and con’s do you see in this? And how would you go about solving this puzzle?

That depends on what you want to answer.
If you want to answer what the opinion was of what occurred, then the more angles of perspective that you can get; the better.
If you want, however, to just have an empirical listing of an historical validation; then you may (depending) only need one source.

Sometimes, you cannot answer the question, “who was the original author?”, or, “what was the original?”
Instead, sometimes, you can only derive what the varying standings were at which specific times in which specific regions.
I run into this constantly working with Greek Papyri of the Bible.

My current work is an attempt to create a hypothetical recreation of a given religious text related to early Judaic followers of “Christianity” that has since been lost to time, but is referred to here and there by others and leaves us with a description of vague sorts to work backwards from.

Now; I can’t EVER claim any sort of originality in this; obviously.
But I can create a possible outcome that may have been akin to what was there for examining the mind of that sub-culture in imagination.

Sometimes when you are working with history, you can’t ever bet on “right”; you just have to accept “possibles” and come to terms that that’s as good as you are going to get unless a shining piece of physical evidence suddenly rears it’s head to someone digging for clay pots.

Yeah, that is exactly what Piet Steenbakkers states. The ‘Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’ is a tool, used to determine likeliness.

Does that mean that you would first examine the sources and after apply the ‘Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’ to the information gained from that examination in the sense of whether or not this is applicable to the rest of the thoughts of the (supposed) source and the spirit of the time? And is that sufficient?

Yep, that’s what it means.
And well…there’s really no better way.
You kind of have to read “everything” if you want to know which is of value to you and which is not unless you are alright with accepting possible ignorant conclusion.

Some things we’re fine with uninformed conclusions.
When it comes to finding the fullest truth we can find possible of what we want to know…humans tend to nag at themselves to explore all the presented options made aware just to be sure.

We usually only have a couple of these in our lives.

For me; one of those involves looking at old shit and having to figure out what applies and what doesn’t.
If I could ever figure out a way to not have to read everything and only pick one and gain the equivalent effectiveness…I would immediately switch processes indeed!

Okay, lets continue with the Spinoza example.

Perhaps I should point out that Leibniz had made several changes in his copies of Spinoza’s work. Some grammatical corrects, some because they would make the work in general be received better (politeness) and some errors. The only one that remains a mystery is the ‘profitemur’. By this even more version came into being.

Anyway, remarks concerning the profession of the name of Christ or the Christian name would be strange for Spinoza to make since he may have been excommunicated from Judaïsm, but he never converted to Christianity. In fact, one of this remarks was that Christians separate themselves from other people by their delusions.

However, there is a passage in Spinoza’s work that refers to two ways being religious:

1. A belief in particular teachings.
2. Understanding (to stand under, agree with) a particular faith as necessary and unavoidable for the society and for that profess it.

However, the ‘profitentur’ version can mean both ‘professing the name of Christ’ and ‘professing the Christian name’ in some cases. So, applying the thought ‘Lectio difficilior potior’ (The most encompassing of the readings is the most likely) Piet Steenbakkers concluded that it most likely concerned a remark (sneer) towards Christians, but that he would not have had trouble with Leibniz’ reading since he, in fact, endorsed Christianity because the society did, thereby adding to its cohesion in day to day life.

I have to wonder though. Leibniz was no dummy and he clearly came to ‘profitemur’, which also seems in line with Spinoza’s thoughts and Leibniz came to that version after having visited Spinoza. So, my objection becomes the same as above: it does not include the particulars of the statement, or the work of the writer. I do agree that it would be almost impossible to accurately judge the work of a writer since it is part of that work that is under scrutiny.

Are these principles you personally apply TheStumps?

Arjen, I think you are on the right track in seeking the more likely of the two words, profitemur or profitentur, by looking at Spinoza’s life and what would have been his own preference.

When it comes to the maxim “utrum in alterum abiturum erat?” (“which reading would be more likely to have given rise to the other?”), the general rule of thumb is to follow “difficilior lectio potior” (“the more difficult reading is to be preferred”). However, it’s good to remember that these are indeed just rules of thumb and not written in stone. Ultimately, you must decide on the “melior lectio potior,” “the better reading is to be preferred.”

Thus, based on the knowledge that Spinoza was originally Jewish and never became Christian, he is more likely to have used “profitemur” which results in "“But this argument militates not only for the Roman Church, but for all of us who profess the Christian name.”

Thanks for the input Jonquil, might I ask what your experience is in these matters?

And might I ask how to decide which is ‘the better’ reading?
-That being my problem and therefore should be excluded as the solution.

I just did a bit of googling and reading excerpts from books and articles on how scholars decide which of two text versions is more likely to be the valid one. It was interesting.

First, there is the question, which one?
Then, there is the rule of thumb that it is usually the more difficult, complex, or elegant version.
And last, if that doesn’t work, you go with the one that works the best based on as much context on the author, the history, and the way the text works best.

Hi Jonquil,

I guess I figured that sort of. It is what Piet Steenbakkers did as well. However, I am wondering if it refers to the writer in question enough and if there are viewpoints that I don’t know about which make this a plausible theory. In the case of Spinoza I think that Leibniz had the right idea, especially when I refer it to Spinoza’s work. However, because the printed version of the ‘Opera Postuma’ can encompass more it seems to be the ‘Lectio Difficilior Potior’. It might be that SPinoza wrote the ‘Opera Postuma’ version to appear more Christian, but if that were the case, why did he never convert? And if that were the case, why publish only after his death out of fear of the inquisition?

Do you see my problem with this?

No.
I don’t care how wide-ranging, or encompassing, a given source is.
That does not determine anything regarding origin.
If anything, in the area I examine, it typically correlates with just the inverse.

Nor can I have any concern over the adoption of accuracy by proxy to cultural normative’s of acceptance.
If I go off of that, then I’m finished before I start; the canon already exists.

Principles that I apply are simple:

1. Propose the question.
2. Survey the texts as they stand.
3. Collect data regarding the culture related to the question and all complications therein surrounding.
4. Collect data related to standing text anomalies and variations for signs of indicators.
5. Identify textual areas of interest from step 4.
6. Collect secondary citations regarding the texts in question (outside source descriptive references).
7. Survey standing text sources for referencing.
8. Apply 6 to 5 and 7.
9. Re-translate from 7 with results of 8 in mind.
10. Check results against “common sense” (does the end result make sense - without stretching the mind at length - to understand the culture of 3 to produce the writing’s of 9 which spawned thereafter 7 and eventually lead to 2).

That’s about it.
Also; overlap is useful.
Multiple documents that carry the same information typically indicates that the information was indeed held communally in regional circulation of whatever breadth the source materials are known to originate from, or hypothetically originate from (where not actually known).

Is this supposing you have the original document or not?

I never assume that I have the original of anything from the 1st and 2nd centuries or older.

A wise position… It amazes me to notice how all original works get lost over time and ‘we’ are lost in our mindsets because of it. Do you remeber how you constructed the first thoughts as a child? I think the first thing we do is define the difference between what we are and what we are not. Do you know Sartre’s ‘L’étre et le néant’ (Being and Nothingness)?

Impulsively.
The earliest memory that I have is getting vaccinations.
Somewhere between 1 and 2 years of age.

I remember it hurt; I screamed; but in my sequential memory, my now more mature cognition translates the impulse of that scream into a word that I did not know then, “FUUUUUUUUUCK!!!”

I also recall that, with language, my first means of comprehending language was by noticing the conjugations and declensions (didn’t know that’s what it was called at the time) and using them freely to build words from words that I knew in my vocabulary.

There was never an “I am” and “that is not me” section of thought at any point in my awareness.
There was an immediate, “Me”.
All that was was as “I” was in it.

I did not, as a 2,3,4, etc… year old, grasp that there was an instance of a given experience that was not including “me” in it.
Football on TV was only football that “I” was watching; it involved “Me” and was immediately grasped that way.

It wasn’t until many years later that there was the grasping that there was an occurrence of an experience without “me” involved that could be imagined by myself.

For instance, “All of the other kids are playing outside”, was a concept in my thought at that age that immediately included the visualization associatively of myself playing in an atmosphere of the playground among the other kids.
It would not be until years later that I could take this further and remove myself from the visualization of such things.

I can only agree with Sartre to a degree.
However, our biological orientation does indeed provide propensity for the advantage of one degree or another.
The underdeveloped brain in kind can provide the sociopathic propensity.

Free will only goes so far.
At some point, your physical limitations and exceptions do come into play; we aren’t gods of cognition.

I wanted to address a little psycho-analysis here:
According to Jacques Lacan there is a difference between ‘I’ and ‘Self’. I believe that ‘I’ is a cognitive construction of what you gather to be ‘you’ and ‘Self’ is that which you are. Also according to Jacques Lacan there is a certain period in every humans life where children start to recognise themselves in a mirror. He calls it ‘Le Stade du Mirroir’ (The Mirror Stage). Although the difference between ‘I’ or ‘Self’ may not have occured to you at that moment I am fairly certain you were able to puzzle together that the little kid in the mirror moved his hand when you did, or more to the point: that the other kids would stop teasing you about something when you changed your behavior.

Other that that I would also like to ask if you know Schopenhauers ‘Über den Willen in der Natur’ (On the Will in Nature)'? Since his entire point is that we form ourselves according to our will. In fact, this has been proven to the point that neural pathways in the brain form and collapse according to usage. However, there are thing we cannot know…such as the noumena.

I’m not versed in either of those names.
That said, I hold to a division between “I” and “Self” in my own view (hell, my spirituality spins on it).
The mirror stage is apparent to anyone that has a child; though now you can see this with the wonder of photography as well as mirrors.
That said, I’m not sure what you were after with this part; I’m not understanding the direct correlation.

I do think we form according to some of our will; but not exclusively; unless you count our reaction (impulsive and meditated alike) as our will.
But it is true, indeed, neurological paths are chiseled away more-so than they are “built” over time.

I think I am playing this angle because embedded in this mirror stage there is also the fact that apparently we learn of ourselves by examining our surroundings. Often times we do not understand that what we understand of our surroundings has to do with ourselves for a great deal. In that sense it is difficult to judge what a certain writer must have meant or which version is the original. Our choice will have to do with our frame of reference. It is an argument against examining the work of the writer to judge I think. The ‘Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?’ and ‘Lectio difficilior potior’ circumvent that. I do remain of an opinion that at least AN examination of the (rest of the) work of the writer should be done though.

To continue the of topic line: You would love Lacan’s ‘The Language of the Self’. It is a hard read, but most definitely worth it. Anyway, I went this way to ask how to construct the proper judgment in this dilemma. This led to how one judges in general. This led to (what I think to know to be) the first judgment.

Schopenhauer’s work refers to ‘The Will in Nature’. This will in nature is the force that thrusts to life: that which wishes to experience. According to Schopenhauer life is an expression of that will and we are the epitome of that. A great read if you are interested.

I disagree, but I get where he’s coming from.
I see life as an exchange between frequencies of various forms.
It just matters which kind of frequency is at hand that determines the kind of reactions possible to move around on that frequency.
Will is nothing but reaction.

A frequency is again a causal representation (embedded in space and time) of what transpires.

BTW, I bet you’ll enjoy this. It is an exert of Piet Steenbakkers analysis of this problem (in English), in his own words:

Why would anything be but causal representation?
Every action is a reaction in itself, and every reaction is an action to another reaction; cyclic, tension weaves, gear assemblies; pick your model.

And agreed; if you have two variants like that; there are 3 possibilities:

1. Two variants from circulation.
2. A mistaken variant from the printer; not the writer.
3. Intentional variant from the printer to meet demands politically for rights to print.

It is possible that 3 occurred as we know such did, and it is equally possible that 3 could lead to 1.
I’m not entirely keen on 2, but it’s always possible; it’s just begging a belief of disregard that would be somewhat unusual for such a specific error.