I have not read that book, but just reflecting...as I was raised Christian so the statement "you will not taste death" meant that the soul does not die when the body dies, because the soul is eternal.
For Epicureans the opposite is believed...in De Rerum Natura, Book 3, the nature of the soul is mortal...it will die when the body dies.
"Happiness for a dog or a cat is straightforward. If pets are given shelter, food and drink, warmth, stimulation, play, and physical health they are contented. […] But many humans have all the things a nonverbal organism would need to be happy, and yet they are not. […] Literally nothing external that you can name […] [is] enough to ensure that a human will not suffer terribly. […] [And despite all evidence to the contrary, in mental health] there is the assumption of healthy normality."
This reminds me of the leaky pot analogy from Lucretius.
This thread was based on some slides made for a First Monday Zoom back in June. It was an attempt to emphasize the abstract rather than the specific.
It says in the Letter to Menoeceus:
"The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life."
So my intention was to highlight the importance of prioritizing the health of the body and happiness of the soul. If we only say "pleasure is the goal" it isn't going produce the same results as prioritizing the health of the body and the happiness of the soul.
Some people may want to discuss this philosophical conundrum (will this lead to "too much tranquility"?).
For me, ACT is the bridge which translates Epicurean philosophy into life goals and actionable plans (which will make me happy), and this is what I understood your other post (linked above) to be about – maybe I misunderstood?
I'm now thinking that my writing clarity may have been lacking over in that other thread. The other thread "Clarifying Your Philosophical Goal..." was likely too vague, and I didn't express my ideas as clearly as I could have. Also the title was an attempt to emphasize an abstract goal rather than specific...just as it says in the Letter to Menoeceus:
"The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life."
So simply the importance of prioritizing health.
the world is not "absolute"
The world is subject to causes and conditions, uniquely specific to a given situation.
Yet we can generally expect that if someone does something unpleasant to another person that causes pain, then the victim usually (with some exceptions) is no longer feeling congenial toward the perpetrator (to put it mildly), and most of the time will seek out justice (either through the law or by other means). So the perpetrator loses out on any future chances to interact with that person in a pleasant and friendly manner. And the victim may also harbor resentment for the rest of their lives, no longer being on speaking terms. The perpetrator will have to suffer the consequences enacted by trial and incarceration. And they will also suffer the internal guilt and regret. It is not a fun way to go through life.
...Thus we have PD 5.
I did briefly glance at the book a while ago (checked out from the library back in Oregon in 2021) but didn't get very far.
Directly reading and studying the Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings seems better.
Yes the book has a very nice cover, and I occasionally enjoy antagonizing myself by randomly looking inside. I just did it again... three pages on saturated and trans-fats (starting at 195). At least it looks like it belongs in my library!
Hi Julia 
Thanks for the explanation about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy! I will need to re-read through that to see if I can fully grasp the system. It sounds like you are saying that this can be done by one's self as "self-help" rather than as a therapy with a therapist, and that is compatible with Epicurean philosophy.
I myself have a prefered way of dealing with feelings, needs, and taking action. I spent some time studying a system of self-help and mediation called Nonviolent Communication (also called Compassionate Communication). I created a blog with notes from a workbook some time ago. And I believe this system is also compatible with Epicurean philosophy.
Also recently I found this method called WOOP -- Wish Outcome Obstacle Plan (on that website scroll down till you see the WOOP Kit - you can preview the WOOP kit by zooming in and clicking through the pages or there is a download button). This method is on how to follow through on things that you need or want to do. These are things which should be under our immediate control but in which may be experiencing some difficulty in sticking to what needs to be done (such as studying more for exams, following through on diets, etc).
Just in case, after everyone thouroughly understands the ancients 
...if anyone wants to read about the modern understanding of atoms:
Thinking further about the "singing as a group"...there likely are very few people who actually want to do that (or would enjoy, let alone feel comfortable singing together). Plus you would need someone to lead and accompany the singing (probably on acoustic guitar).
Also, regarding the song I posted in the previous post, I think it has a melody that leads to "ear worms" (unwanted and uncontrolled mental repetition of parts of a song. It is probably a big reason why people don't like Christmas music, because it often causes this "ear worm" problem due to the very simple melodies). Also, the lyrics imply a "superstitious" cause in the phrase "something in the water" (so that part isn't Epicurean).
So...I am dropping the group singing...now thinking of creating guidelines for how to do "Epicurean philosophy as a group activity", and how to facilitate philosophical discussion when some people do not have full knowledge of Epicurean philosophy (this will go into a different thread).
Thank you Eikadistes for your posts and good information and ideas you shared here in this thread in support of some of these aspects.
In last night's Zoom I didn't get as much agreement/understanding on this topic as I had hoped.
Perhaps the main contention with Jung is that his studies weren't done scientifically enough and some last night seemed to say it is too "woo-woo".
I haven't studied it enough of it myself yet.
Another reason, perhaps, could be due to variations in perceptions of reality and experiences of consciousness -- potentially just as there are different blood types, perhaps there are different brain types...especially the brains of "creatives" compared to brains of "scientists" and "data processors" (just throwing out unsubstantiated hypotheses as to why 
).
And different brains may dream differently. I would propose that the major source of the "images" of the gods is from dreams (or another source is psychedelics as has been posted in another thread).
An interesting idea came to me, based partially on Epicurus...that perhaps even though there are many "images" coming into the psyche, it is only the "blessed and incorruptable" which are those of the gods. So those other images which are dark, painful, and ugly are not considered (or not labeled) to be the gods.
Jung believes that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves. In other words, archetypes are patterns of instinctual behaviour. The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more daring than to assume there are instincts. While many have called this mysticism, Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor a philosophical matter, but an empirical one. The question is: are there or are there not unconscious, universal forms of this kind? If they exist, then there is a region of the psyche which one can call the collective unconscious.
According to the extant texts, Epicurus believed that gods existed and that they are blessed and incorruptable, do not interfere with humans, and did not create the universe. And we are given Epicurus' theoretical understanding of why: "images" of gods are received by humans.
Lately I just can't shake the correlation that I see with this idea of Epicurus and Carl Jung's idea of the collective unconscious and archetypes. (This must have already come up before on the forum).
Here is the opening of the Wikipedia:
Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes) refers to the unconscious mind and shared mental concepts. It is generally associated with idealism and was coined by Carl Jung. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: ancient primal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life.[1] Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He believed that the concept of the collective unconscious helps to explain why similar themes occur in mythologies around the world. He argued that the collective unconscious had a profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
Jungian archetypes are a concept from psychology that refers to a universal, inherited idea, pattern of thought, or image that is present in the collective unconscious of all human beings. The psychic counterpart of instinct, archetypes are thought to be the basis of many of the common themes and symbols that appear in stories, myths, and dreams across different cultures and societies. Some examples of archetypes include those of the mother, the child, the trickster, and the flood, among others. The concept of the collective unconscious was first proposed by Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.
According to Jung, archetypes are innate patterns of thought and behavior that strive for realization within an individual's environment. This process of actualization influences the degree of individuation, or the development of the individual's unique identity. For instance, the presence of a maternal figure who closely matches the child's idealized concept of a mother can evoke innate expectations and activate the mother archetype in the child's mind. This archetype is incorporated into the child's personal unconscious as a "mother complex," which is a functional unit of the personal unconscious that is analogous to an archetype in the collective unconscious.
If I understand it correctly the archetypes are the conscious expression of aspects of the collective unconscious.
I may add more to this thread eventually, and I hope that anyone else with thoughts and ideas on this will post as well.
I just found this song, as a source for modern song creation inspiration:
We already have another thread over in another subform which talks about creating Epicurean hymns:
epicureanfriends.com/thread/?postID=11305#post11305(And here is an article that talks about health benefits of singing.)
And for this thread here, perhaps we can take a moment to think about what to create as Epicurean music with a modern feeling, that the 40 and younger crowd might like to participate in 
.
I had a conversation recently with someone from an evangelical Christian background. I asked her what the draw was. Her answer: "it just feels good."
And further curiosity...what part of it "feels good"?
Perhaps a community of friends with like-minded worldview and shared spiritual practices?
(btw, I was raised Penticostal Protestant but moved away from that worldview at about age 15,...
I still remember a song from church when I was a kid that went this way, with a very happy/upbeat melody:
"The joy of the Lord is my strength"
(repeat 3 more times)
Then:
"He gives me living water and I thirst no more"
(repeat 2 more times, then end with the first line above)
Perhaps this a sort of "ignorance is bliss" situation...requiring a suspension of rational thought processes. But this shows an activity that is enjoyable --singing-- together with "a kind of meditation on positive uplifting thoughts" (if you subscribe to the complete worldview of Christianity).
Perhaps something to consider for Epicurean group activities -- singing! 
I had a conversation recently with someone from an evangelical Christian background. I asked her what the draw was. Her answer: "it just feels good."
And further curiosity...what part of it "feels good"?
Perhaps a community of friends with like-minded worldview and shared spiritual practices?
(btw, I was raised Penticostal Protestant but moved away from that worldview at about age 15, and then later as an adult spent time studying Buddhism with some time of active involvement with Buddhist groups (Tibetan, Zen), but Buddhism didn't work out for me for various reasons).
I would very much like to see an Epicurean movement which provides a sense of community in the same way that I experienced within the Buddhist groups I participated in. However, I am still trying to nail down the nuts and bolts of Epicurean philosophy, and also figure out how to hold in-person meetings.
Very interesting...partly Epicurean: "no spiritual treasure to be found apart from the experiences of human life on earth".
But there is a lot to unpack in the sentence: "My life depends on ignoring all touted distinctions between the secular and the sacred, the physical and the spiritual, the body and the soul."
And in my mind this is still talking about a search for something "supernatural". Then the following sentence says: "there is no way to God apart from the real life in the real world". I would wonder about the idea of "finding a way to God" -- is it some kind of (Platonist) drive to find perfection, or an ideal form, or ideal love, etc ?
(though perhaps perfect and incorruptible, as an Epicurean deity should be)
For myself, I don't think that there is enough within the Epicurean extant texts to flesh out this idea (of an Epicurean deity) into any type of "spiritual practice".
Also, I wonder how to properly define some of these words...especially "sacred" and "spiritual"... which may not have a place within the Epicurean philosophy. But I do think we can look to Lucretius' poem (in Book 3) in order to know how Epicureans conceived the understanding of the "soul".
There does remain the question of what happens to "mystery", the "unknowable", or "magick", etc. for an Epicurean (or in ancient times the Eleusinian Mysteries). But when we consider the Epicurean stance of "death is nothing to us" (which in practice is actually a much deeper and complex idea than the way that it sounds on the surface) then the "supernatural" is no longer needed, as well as the "spiritual" or the "sacred".
Perhaps Eikadistes or Don may like to add some other additional ideas on this.
***
Edit note:
8:02 pm ET
Added reference to Lucretius' Book 3 talks about the nature of the soul.
Also, I was incorrect when I said the Torquatus section contained something on the nature of the soul, and removed that reference from above.
Hi Everyone! Tomorrow night is our First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion...open to all forum members...let us know if you are new and want to come (and have not yet attended) and we will send the Zoom link to you by private message. (For everyone else the link is same as last month).
It seems that lately the subject of definitions has been much discussed...tomorrow night's discussion topic is: Can we label and define the foundational basis of Epicurean philosophy as "naturalism"? Why, why not, and the big "why in the first place" might we need (or want) to pin it down with both a label and an easy summary (yes, this should be easy to do 
). Hope to see you there!
Welcome to the forum Robert!
Hi Everyone, Coming up next Monday on September 2nd is our next "First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Hour - Meet-and-Greet and Discussion" - Via Zoom, 8pm ET.
Open to all forum members!
And we especially invite those who are new to the forum!
This is a great way to meet, converse, and engage with others who are studying the philosophy of Epicurus.
Agenda:
This month's topic: "Naturalism? Summing up and naming the foundational basis of the Epicurean worldview."
We'll be using the same link as last month.
If you have not yet attended a Zoom, please let us know here if you are interested (or send a private message to Cassius or myself) and we will get the link to you by private message (no later than the day before the meeting).
Looking forward to seeing you there!
