I want to apologize if anything I’ve said has offended anyone – especially Kalosyni. Mea culpa, entirely.
Oh no, you didn't offend me. I maybe haven't kept up with this thread as much as I ought to -- I probably should be saying something more in response, so I apologize for my lack of additional comments. Sometimes there is so much going on in the number of responses that I then feel like I am not sure if I can say anything new or brilliant, and so then I go "silent" for a time.
My goal here is to seek help in reconciling Epircurean thought, which is very close to my learnt experience, and the modern life
Welcome to the forum! We look forward to any questions or discussion you might like to engage in to gain clarity 
no absolute basis for ethics - that everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain
I feel the need to say something in response to this (and we must have a thread on this already) -- no absolute basis for ethics means that we don't do things to please God or to attempt to prove that we are perfectly behaving according to some ideal standard, but instead we act ethically because it brings pleasure and a happy life. And we make ethical choices based on pleasure and pain -- not just my own pleasure or avoidance of pain, but that if I cause pain in someone else it will usually (but yet not always in every case) result in more pain for myself. Now we can go a step further and apply a kind of heuristic which is that we will more quickly guess (or sense) whether or not we are causing pain to someone, and then be sure to avoid any behavior that might cause pain. The usual impulse is when a human feels pain then a reaction results, as we naturally seek to find a way to end the pain, whether or not the method found to end the pain actually works or not. So if I hurt you in some way, even if it is by accident, then you look around to see who or what hurt you (and then you react in myriad ways in response).
I just think that this ethical understanding needs to be clear. Any thoughts Cassius?
Why is some further organization/organizing needed? Or wanted? How organized is the Garden supposed to be (e.g., to meet modern needs)?
Pacatus it sounds like your focus is on presentation of the Epicurean philosophy, and so this forum is a good way to do that. Would it be correct to say that your desire could be for learning (or sharing); maintaining reference material or literature of some kind; and mainly for sharing the philosophy through written word? And currently this most often occurs in an anonymous format, as we have readers who visit this site who are not members of the forum.
As for myself, I would like to see more social engagement -- both online and potentially in-person, because I have a desire for more social connection and conversation. I don't know if there are any others who feel this way?
Once you're clear that there is no life after death and no supernatural gods and no absolute basis for ethics - that everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain -- that is a very clearly-denominated world view in itself that is more than sufficient to be a basis for "organization" in a world that is very hostile to those ideas.
Belief in these tenets (as listed above) would determine entry into the fellowship (no life after death; no supernatural gods; no absolute basis for ethics (everything ultimately rests on the feelings of pleasure and pain).
Yet, I think there will need to be additional substance to organize around -- the importance of friendship and community within the organization. And this could be expressed through specific "rituals" -- we could celebrate everyone's birthday, we could celebrate holidays together (and need to think about what holidays we might hold as important?). And we could find ways to bring together people within the organization who have common interests, focusing on shared enjoyments such as enjoyment of nature, enjoyment of cooking, enjoyment of study/teaching of philosophy, etc, etc -- so we could create friendship peer groups or affinity groups within the organization which might have monthly meetings to share fun events focused on that particular interest. While of course the 20th would always be reserved for the larger organization meeting.
Thinking further about organization names:
Koinonia of Epicurus
or
Fellowship of Epicurus
Thank you Don for sharing those links, which brings up an important point: the word "Epicurean" is associated with food, and culinary arts/culinary professionals.
So what do you think that means for us moving forward? Does it seem that the word "Epicurean" in some sense is already taken to mean something different. Even if we say "Epicurean Philosophy" the common person will think "Food Philosophy"?
Do we need to use a name that is vastly different?
-- The Society of Volitionary Philosophy
or
-- The Society of Volitionary Enjoyment
It's not that we are trying to convert the whole world, but rather just add a few new friends that most likely already think the way that we do.
And do we want to continue with the "Epicurean" word and be seen as simply food related?
To start the ball rolling...just throwing out some of my ideas.
Who we are?
We share a common world-view based on Epicurean philosophy, and see the world through materialism (a non-supernatural world). We take personal responsibilty as the basis of our choices and avoidances. In life we prudently seek to increase pleasure, and choose ethical and practical actions which lead to a pleasant and happy life.
What might we hope for in Epicurean community?
We hope for a community of friends to join in the study of Epicurean philosophy, and engage in discussion and contemplation of Epicurean principles. We hope to create a place where supportive friendships of like-minded people can develop and be enjoyed.
I am using the word "we" instead of "I" because I want to see a big picture of what community might look like, and also what it is that we all might agree on.
If you think of different phrasing, more to add, or different ideas, please post.
This is a thread to explore ideas about organizing and developing Epicurean community. Any one can add any thoughts or ideas about this.
Who are we?
What do we need or want?
What are we hoping for?
Here is an interesting article excerpt:
What defines a community?
As long as there have been people, there have been communities. People are social animals. In every human civilization groups of people have organised themselves into tribes or societies. A large part of our self-image is derived from the social groups that we are part of. This is where we want to fit in and what gives us self-confidence, comfort, motivation, inspiration and purpose. We all belong to various different communities: Your neighbourhood, sports club, hobby club, student group, work colleagues.
So, what defines a community?
Bind defines community like this:
Social psychologists David McMillan and David Chavis describe a sense of community as:
They argue that without clearly defined membership, an exchange of influence, fulfillment of needs, and a shared emotional connection, it’s fair to assume that the strength of community amongst a group is pretty weak.
Here is what we at Open Social think are characteristics of a true community:
- Members have common characteristics, such as background, ambitions or interests
- Working towards a common interest or goal
- “Mutualistic symbioses”: Members enter in to a social contract of give & take which is beneficial for everyone
- Members have longer-term connections
- Members join voluntarily
- Community is all about enabling connections and many-to-many communication
- It can exist in a physical or virtual location
Unfortunately, social media has contributed to an inflation of the term ‘community’ being used to describe any scenario in which people congregate online. Facebook for instance uses the term community to position its platform as a valuable instrument for a better society, even though it often leads to polarizing its members instead of bringing them together. There are lots of companies that throw around the term community, using it to describe their customers and audience regardless of whether or not there’s an actual deep sense of community amongst the people they’re referring to. Marketers love titles like Community Manager, while in practice their job usually entails broadcasting branded messages from a social media channel to an audience. The word community is thrown around without much thought for its actual meaning.
The Six Types of Communities
To understand communities better, we can categorize them into 6 community types, each with a different common denominator among participants.
What we at Open Social like about using these types is that it forces us to take the community member point of view and think about the purpose of the community, which helps when defining your community strategy and objectives. Working with community types helps us and our clients better understand the unique needs and drivers of members and the common goal towards which they are contributing.
We can identify these six types of communities, each with a different common denominator among participants:
A Community of Action is all about mobilizing volunteers as a movement to jointly make a change in the world
A Community of Practice consists of professionals sharing knowledge and skills, and learning together.
A Community of Circumstance consists of people in the same life stage or circumstance sharing tips & support.
A Community of Place consists of people living or working in the same geographical area, like residential areas, the local bar or a public space, like a park or library.
A Community of Interest consists of people sharing the same interest or passion, always comprising a passion, hobby or interest shared by participants.
A Support Community consists of people helping each other, usually non-professional and non-material, with a particular shared question or problem.
It is good to note that this classification provides theoretical handles for understanding different communities. In daily practice, the different types often bleed into each other or are combined.
Also, groups within a community can be of different types. You might have a Community of Interest to discuss hobbies or a Community of Place with members from one city, country or region within a scientific Community of Practice in which professionals are sharing knowledge.
https://www.getopensocial.com/blog/community…munity-are-you/
In the future we could become a registered non-profit, but we need to clarify what it is we are doing and what we want to see happen within our Epicurean community.
Also perhaps we have differing viewpoints or ideas about what we want?
Who are we?
What do we need or want?
What are we hoping for?
Need to start the ball rolling about talking about these questions, so that we can move beyond our virtual community.
So if anyone has any thoughts or ideas in response to this please post them
Barley was more demanding than wheat. Barley preparations were nutricious but also rather hard to diggest. This is why barley was toasted over a fire before it was ground into flour. Barley flour (alfita) was used to prepare a very basic type of bread, the maza, which is first mentioned by Hesiod (Works and Days):
About the grinding of grains:
"Grinding the grain was no easy task. First it was pounded with a pestle and mortar to remove the shell, then ground in a simple hand mill consisting of two circular stones, a lower stationary one (quern) and an upper rotating one (muller). Later hand mills have a central hole (hopper) for pouring the grain in the upper one. The flour was then sieved and used to make the dough, which was baked in wood-burning ovens.
Bread was made at home and was an important time-consuming and laborious chore for women. Large urban centers also had bakeries, where one could buy bread maza (a kind of barley bread), but this was a luxury..."
This seems to say that the barley grains were roasted and then ground into flour:
So great see your experiment Don -- and just found this -- tried to copy and paste recipe but wasn't able to for some reason. Be sure to scroll down past the covid introduction. Also it has some odd historical facts about ancient rituals which come before the recipe (which needs more research) -- so you have to scroll down the page quite a ways -- but the end result looks beautiful paired with cheese and figs.
“For my part I find no meaning which I can attach to what is termed good, if I take away from it the pleasures obtained by taste, if I take away the pleasures which come from listening to music, if I take away too the charm derived by the eyes from the sight of figures in movement, or other pleasures by any of the senses in the whole man. Nor indeed is it possible to make such a statement as this – that it is joy of the mind which is alone to be reckoned as a good; for I understand by a mind in a state of joy, that it is so, when it has the hope of all the pleasures I have named – that is to say the hope that nature will be free to enjoy them without any blending of pain.” And this much he says in the words I have quoted, so that anyone you please may realize what Epicurus understands by pleasure. (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, III.18.41)
Cassius --It does seem to be listed, and maybe this is the only location?
In other words the highest form of sensual pleasure (at it's height) will also be free from mental pain (we will be free from worry and fear).
Also, this has to do with a certain segment in time -- it isn't going to be at every moment of every day -- But rather it will unfold depending on a given situation. Ideally we will experience some parts of our day in this way -- we will have the experience of situations that feel very sweet and enjoyable.
If "freedom from pain" amounts to the highest sensual pleasure, would you expect that "freedom from pain" or "freedom from disturbance" could just as easily have been listed among these (taste / sex / sound / dance) that Epicurus chose to list? If so, why? If not, why not?
Just to clarify -- I am not saying that when you don't feel pain that is exactly the same as pleasure. What I am saying is that if you have some pain mixed into your experience of sensuality then you are not yet experiencing the most pleasurable sensuality. The best experience of sensuality doesn't have pain mixed in to it.
I am basing this on contemplation of the experience of feeling in the body as it arises. So I don't have any direct Epicurean source for this idea.
But I believe that this is important to think about because I believe that this could be at the source of something getting lost in translation. The goal isn't a kind of "boring existence" of neutral feeling in the body which doesn't have pain and therefore qualifies as a state of pleasantness. But the goal is maximizing the sweetest sensations of pleasure by seeing that we haven't yet reached the "purest" feeling of pleasure if we are also still feeling pain in the body (over-indulgences) or the mind (anxiety/fear).
I don't think I expressed clearly enough in the podcast that removal of pain is the beginning or start of pleasure, and when the experience of pleasure has no mixed-in or co-existing feelings of pain then this is the pinnacle of pleasure and at this pinnacle we are living as the gods. In other words the highest form of sensual pleasure (at it's height) will also be free from mental pain (we will be free from worry and fear).
Here is an interesting link to diet in ancient Greece:
Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all
Epicurus said not to think this way, so guessing it must have been common enough for it to be mentioned.
I found this article:
A philosophy as old as Homer : Giacomo Leopardi and Greek poetic pessimism
Here is another good entry on Cyrenaic philosophy from online Britannica:
Cyrenaic, adherent of a Greek school of moral philosophy, active around the turn of the 3rd century bc, which held that the pleasure of the moment is the criterion of goodness and that the good life consists in rationally manipulating situations with a view to their hedonistic (or pleasure-producing) utility.
The school was called Cyrenaic because Cyrene in North Africa was the centre of its activity and the birthplace of several of its members. Although the elder Aristippus, a pupil of Socrates, was generally recognized as its founder, its flourishing occurred at a later date, probably at the end of the 4th century bc.
According to the Cyrenaics, a man knows that things external to himself exist because they have an effect upon him, but he can know nothing about their nature. All that he can perceive is the way in which he himself is affected by them; how other men are affected is unknown. The fact that two men give the same name to their experiences is no guarantee of identity. Thus, the only admissible objective of action is to ensure that one’s own affections are pleasant. The three possible conditions of the human constitution are violent change, gentle change, and stability. The first is accompanied by pain, the second by pleasure, the last by neither. Man must avoid the first and seek the second; it is a mistake to suppose that the third is pleasant or desirable. Moreover, the pleasure to be sought is that of the moment; only present experience can give present pleasure. Happiness, the sum of pleasures, is to be valued because it includes momentary pleasures, which are like in kind, their relative value depending only on their intensity. Bodily pleasures (and pains) are more intense than those of the mind. Nevertheless, the latter were recognized and even held to include some that have an altruistic aspect; e.g., joy in the prosperity of one’s country. To be stronger than pleasure is a true Socratic ideal and distinguishes the Cyrenaic from the wastrel.
Three Cyrenaics made innovations important enough to give their names to followers. Theodorus denied that pleasures and pains are good or bad. His aim was mental cheerfulness and the gift of wisdom, which he considered sufficient for happiness. Hegesias, like Theodorus, doubted the power of reason to procure pleasures and so advised avoidance of pain; much pain of mind could be avoided by regarding such things as poverty and riches, slavery and freedom, death and life as matters of indifference. Finally, Anniceris revived the original doctrines with some additions.
The ethical doctrines of the later Cyrenaics were, in due time, incorporated bodily into the teachings of Epicurus, founder of a later school of ethical philosophy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cyrenaic
With all this good material, I am thinging a table of comparisons could be created.
