Mind-body connection = Thought-extension correlation

Spinoza takes a radical view of expressing the mind-body connection as having no inter-causal relationship between each other, but instead being a correlation between two distinct attributes. These two attributes are ultimately the same thing, the substance of God expressed as the attribute of thought or the attribute of extension occurring simultaneously (3P2). Spinoza believes we err when we conclude our bodies are drawn to move by the command of our minds direction, and that the body also cannot determine the mind (3P2). But interestingly, by 3P1 “Next, from any given idea some effect must necessarily follow, of which effect God is the adequate cause, not insofar as he is infinite, but insofar as he is considered to be affected by that given idea”,  we are left questioning the relationship between the “given idea” and the “affected”. Simply because by D3, Spinoza defines affect as that which affects the body’s authority of acting as improved or lessened. So if the attributes of thought and extension are truly one and have no causal relationship, I’m left wondering how can an Idea affect the affections of the body and that not be considered causal?

 However, Spinoza goes on to explain that if God is affected by an adequate idea and is the cause of an effect, then that same mind (whom has the adequate idea) is also the effects adequate cause. This is interesting because he also says, by this causal-effect relationship, the mind acts (P1). This is all very perplexing to me because he really brings up a fascinating perspective in P2 when he separates the movement of body’s and the modes of thinking as not having a determinate relationship, but I can’t help but question by what he means in P1 when the ideas ultimately act.

               My only solution is that he stresses the importance of seeing thought and extension as not only distinct attributes, but also as the same substance that the order or connection is one. So there seems to be a cyclical-unity between these two attributes that only appears to be different attributes when viewed through the specific attribute, but is ultimately the same thing. It’s very difficult for me to understand thought-extension in this way, but he does have a point in his sleepwalking and other examples, and if anything raises an interesting perspective that perhaps we shouldn’t just assume our thought attribute is ultimately the cause of our actions/extension.