Posts by Kalosyni

Just in case, after everyone thouroughly understands the ancients ...if anyone wants to read about the modern understanding of atoms:

Atom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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 @Twentier 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.

Quote

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.

Source

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:

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes

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:

(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 .

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Robert

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!

Quote from Robert

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 ?

Quote from Robert

(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 @Twentier 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:

• Welcome (and introductions)
• Discuss some of the lastest popular threads on the forum
• Special discussion topic - includes a very short presentation to introduce the topic, and discussion questions to spur on the discussion
• Time for any questions from both new and regular attendees

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!

Quote from Don

FYI

From the article:

“We recommend buying it from only a handful of reputable companies, and from their specific website,” Isaacson said.

“The difference in quality between fish oil stored in a hot warehouse that’s close to expiration and fish oil that’s recently been produced, sent directly from the company, and kept in the home refrigerator is night and day.”

(yikes)

Welcome to the forum MaiTaiNye !

You might like this (created by Cassius some time ago):

https://www.epicuruscollege.com/sevensteps/#/

And you may have already seen Cassius' 11 key points with references from Epicurean texts:

https://texts.epicureanfriends.com/Welcome/#/

Let us know if you have any questions

Regarding snake oil...

Quote

One of the most common cure-alls was snake oil, and its less than sterling efficacy soon lent its name as a generic to all such fraudulent hoaxes. The epithet endures: A quick search for "snake oil" on the Internet reveals that it still refers almost exclusively to something worthless and fake. But some of those original itinerant salesmen may have peddled actual Chinese snake oil, and those who did may not have been fraudulent after all.

Real snake oil contains high omega-3's!

This is a good source for reading what his beliefs were:

Giordano Bruno | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Quote

Bruno criticized and transformed a traditional Aristotelian theory of nature and helped revive atomism. His advocacy of Copernicanism and the claim that there is an infinite number of worlds was innovative. In metaphysics, he elevated the concepts of matter and form to absolutes so that God and creation coincide.

Quote from Godfrey

Or maybe better described as an "organizing" pleasure: something that brings one's life into a type of focus, and that serves as a filter for choices and avoidances (commitments and rejections, pursuing and fleeing &c). Actually, I like this take on it better than the multivalent idea.

Yes, I like this also!

And brings to mind this:

VS17: "It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of."

Especially: "the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds" - makes me think of someone who is disorganized and is going in ten different directions and so does not get (or know how to get) what is needed or wanted.

So the "harbor" here could actually be a kind of clarity of mind with regard to what is important in life and what actions to take to bring about happiness.

Another way of thinking about this could be this:

-- I am feeling satisfied with the "story" I am telling myself (internal thoughts) and others (external words). --

So many of the Vatican Sayings touch on this, especially this one:

Vatican Saying 48:

"While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end."

Seems like an Epicurean would evaluate and then take action to make their life better (perhaps based on natural and necessary for happiness).

There are a few other threads and posts that bring up the topic of "meaning", but just this morning I was thinking about it again.

It seems to me that "meaning" and "meaningful" - as in "my life has meaning" or "my life is meaningful"...for an Epicurean could be translated to this:

--- I am feeling satisfied with how my life is going ---

We really can't put the "meaning"-genie back in the bottle, and so we need to reframe it in Epicurean terms.

To start, perhaps the idea "meaning of life" comes to us from the Judeo-Christian purpose in life with the roles dictated by God - serving or worshiping God. And also from society - being a "hero" or of service to others, or roles such as being a parent, etc., and all of these also mostly come through religious institutions.

Now, if you think about it, all of the above tends to increase connection or involvement with other people. And they have aspects which touch on "transcendence of time" and an "extention of consciousness into the future" (working for the good of heaven to "do God's will", working for the good of the community or for the good of children (one's own or other's) -- but ultimately they are also all touching on the desire for an "immortality of consciousness" (even if I die there is something that I have done that will exist into the distant future in future generations of people).

So one way of translating "meaning" into an Epicurean understanding, would be to think of it as a natural and necessary desire for human connection. And if there is a question of whether one's life feels meaningful, an Epicurean could examine whether the basic need for satisfying human connection is being fulfilled. (And this may be where the necessity of creating an "Epicurean Church" might be helpful for some people).

The need for "finding meaning" can come up when bad things happen or big changes in life occur (the need to make sense of things) or when life seems devoid of activity (boring/empty), or a lack of close friends (feeling alone/isolated).

So I would say that if you feel that you are not quite happy with your life, look at how your connections with other people can be improved or increased.

Regarding the desire for an "immortality of consciousness" which I brought up above - I think this may vary from person to person, and whether or not there is a belief that one "should" leave some kind of a legacy (having children is one form of leaving a legacy). Martin  Godfrey  Don maybe anything to say about this aspect of "meaning" (agree or disagree? or change it to an Epicurean viewpoint?)

Also, anyone elses ideas on "meaning" and translating it into an Epicurean frame of understanding? Whether is correlates with natural and necessary desire for emotional/relational connection?