During my quarantine, I have undertaken a thorough review of basic Latin grammar. In my early days, I was in too much of a hurry to let these grammar lessons really sink in. (It's interesting that I was in such a hurry at 14, but am now in slow motion at 58.)
There are two primary structures that rely on the subjunctive mood in Latin. The subjunctive mood allows an exploration of a hypothetical situation (if I were...). The two primary structures are purpose clauses and results clauses. The distinction between the two has highlighted an underlying distinction for thought and action dynamics.
I can use either a purpose or result clause to answer the question, "Why are you headed to the refrigerator?" My answer of "So that I might get some food" is appropriate and uses a purpose clause. The other answer of "So that I can satisfy my hunger" is equally appropriate and uses a results clause. While both are appropriate, which is better?
In Spinoza's framework, a results clause is less likely to lead to cognitive illusions and a lack of power because it connects to true causal connections rather than artificial teleology. By emphasizing hunger, we focus on the real power or potentia (in Latin) that drives the process. In contrast, by emphasizing the contents of the refrigerator, we focus on that which we control or potestas (in Latin).
It appears that the ego prefers control and seeks the grammar of purpose clauses. It is a linguistic structure that shames the true self. Instead, the grammar of results clauses honors the true self, gains wisdom about causality, opens up more options and alleviates shame.
