Body and Motion

According to Spinoza's Lemma III on Body, a Body remains in motion or at rest unless acted upon by an external Body, perhaps anticipating Newton.  It would seem to follow, as has been previously discussed, that Nature considered as an individual Body is, as a Whole, inert, with only its internal parts in motion.  But even if he were satisfied with that consequence of Lemma III, still unexplained is its apparent inconsistency with a more fundamental factor in his doctrine.  For, the cardinal behavioral principle of the doctrine is the endeavor to persist in one's being, from which it would seem to follow that a Body can be moved by that principle, independent of being affected by an external Body.  Now, Spinoza cites Proposition I:xxviii, as the ground of Lemma III, according to which every finite being is a conditioned being, and, hence, is subject to other influences.  However, a Mode is ultimately conditioned by God/Nature/Substance as a modification of it, a conditioning sufficiently expressed in the principle of the endeavor to persist in one's being, i. e. as an instance of the infinite divine vital force.  Furthermore, that principle, which Spinoza calls Appetite, transcends the Mind/Body distinction.  Hence, the fundamental conditioning of the Body of a Mode is internal, and, so, does not necessarily entail that it can be moved by only an external Body.  So, Lemma 3 remains anomalous in the context of the doctrine.