Pleasure vs Happiness (?) Discussion of Hiram's "In Defense of Eudaimonia"

  • I see that Hiram has written an article ("In Defense of Eudaimonia") with which I strongly disagree, but which will provide a great platform for discussing the details of Epicurean philosophy.

    First, I would point to a couple of sources that picked up on this precise point in meeting the arguments of Stoics and others in the years after Epicurus:

    What is Happiness? Let's let Diogenes of Oinoanda explain:

    What is the true end? Let's let Torquatus make the point very clear in "On Ends":

    Given those statements, we need to be very careful in loose use of words that have become associated with anti-Epicurean philosophies, especially when we are talking with people who do not understand the ramifications of the issue:

    Ok - here is a link to Hiram's post:

    I am attaching a full pdf of the article, but there is one clip I want to be sure to emphasize, because I think the writer cited is absolutely correct:

    We can of course cite the many instances in Epicurus' own texts, and in Lucretrius, which precisely point to "pleasure" as the goal and guide of life, but I will add those here later.

    You will also want to reread the arguments on this topic in Elayne's - On Pain, Pleasure, and Happiness Second Draft

    This Epicureanfriends forum is no doubt the "some Epicurean circles" being referenced, so here is a thread to discuss it.

  • Cassius

    Changed the title of the thread from “Pleasure vs Happiness (?)” to “Pleasure vs Happiness (?) Discussion of Hiram's "In Defense of Eudaimonia"”.
  • Agree, Cassius, except that I do not see how Hiram can be talking about us, because we have never been at war with eudaimonia. Only at war with Aristotle's definition of eudaimonia, following Epicurus' lead. Unfortunately, modern dictionaries use Aristotle's definition. One day if we work hard enough, the dictionaries will have Epicurus' definition, that happiness is a life full of pleasure, instead! It is a shame Hiram chose to use the Aristotelian definition instead of the Epicurean one-- lots of people are going to be led astray by that.

  • Also, whichever circles it is he is talking about think eudaimonia and pleasure are mutually exclusive. Definitely not us. We think eudaimonia is made of pleasure.

    What I can definitely say is that Aristotle's definition of eudaimonia is mutually exclusive with a happy life though. Lol. Totally going with Epicurus on that!

  • I’ve been stuck to the word [deamon] that in this article is translated as "spirit". And then, maybe we will invoke the spirit of the great Pan or Zeus to save us in despair? What a tangle, sorry but I do not agree with all these. Our philosophy is not spiritual. It is physical, since it starts from the body and ends to the body that is sacred for Epicurus as the soul and body is one and the same thing.

    For this Epicurus declares in this important saying that includes the greek word "eudeamonia" :

    XXXIII.(33) Σαρκὸς φωνῇ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγουν ταὐτὰ γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν κἀν <Διὶ> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο.

    The flesh cries out to be saved from hunger, thirst, and cold. For if a man possess this safety and hope to possess it, he might rival even Zeus in eudaemonia.

    A real hope to possess the safety gives us also the friendship that when we will be in a great need our trusted friends will help us, as we help them in the same way through self-sufficiency which means generosity.

    Since the basis and the first principles of friendship is the common benefit that leads the friends to the goal of “ηδέως ζην» [hdeos zin] which means = living pleasantly and not to the “ευ ζην» [eu zin] that means = living well.

    Living well with the meaning of prosperity and flourishing are Aristotelean terms that are connected to political and economical definitions that we see with our own eyes where they led and still lead us. And of course, eudaemonia for Aristotle has the virtue as the goal, and above all the contemplation of God. But for us, the epicureans, virtue is not the goal is just a mean, and the contemplation of God is an issue for the querulous old women.

    How many times we from those “epicurean circles” will declare all these ? I do not know. Do we use the Canon to realize that there is no any "happiness calculation" but the hedonic calculation with which a natural human being measures among natural main feelings pleasure and pain to lead to the positive of pleasure ? Finally, please when you use greek words, you have to go and be in consistency of the Epicurean Canon <==> Ethics <==> Physics.

    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

  • Quote

    [...] we need to be very careful in loose use of words that have become associated with anti-Epicurean philosophies [...]

    Do I take your meaning, Cassius, to be that Eudaimonia becomes a problem only when removed from the Greek and set into English? I can certainly understand how the following sentences might be construed to have different meanings;

    1. Someone who says that the time to love and practice wisdom has not yet come or has passed is like someone who says that the time for happiness has not yet come or has passed.

    2. Someone who says that the time to love and practice wisdom has not yet come or has passed is like someone who says that the time for Eudaimonia has not yet come or has passed.

    In other words, Eudaimonia takes on a separate connotative life and power when the word is carried through untranslated. So that happiness in an English sentence is ok, εὐδαιμονία in a Greek sentence is ok, but Eudamonia in an English sentence only invites trouble.

    A question that comes to my mind is this; what if eudaimonia was the word of choice simply because the Greek language didn't offer a better one? I certainly won't be answerable to the accidents of etymology in every word I use.

    When my mother says that "blood runs thicker than water", for example, she means that family is of utmost importance. What she likely doesn't know is that this phrase originally meant something quite different; "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Under this formulation, family relations are actually less important than relations forged by oath, shared faith, or the battlefield. An Arab saying expresses the same concept with slightly different maternal anatomy; "blood is thicker than milk".

    Elli will be of better use than me, but I'll attach a dictionary reference with alternative words for happiness.

  • Do I take your meaning, Cassius, to be that Eudaimonia becomes a problem only when removed from the Greek and set into English?

    Joshua I think there are a couple of levels of problem here. Epicurus used the word eudaimonia himself, but had his own definition and context, just as he had for "gods." So there was potential dispute even when used in Greek among Greek-speakers, and we see that issue going on even today among the supporters of Epicurus in Greece. It is my understanding that even today there are factions within the Epicureans in Greece who engage on this very same issue, with some being much more comfortable with "eudaimonia" and "happiness" to the extent that they rarely if ever even mention pleasure, and spend little if any time examining what "happiness" really means, or how it is connected to pleasure, just as Hiram's article glides over that point.

    I think that debating the meaning of the word even between and among the Greeks is implicit in Diogenes of Oinoanda's inscription, and also in the statement by Torquatus (which is of course Latin), in the examples given above.

    I think the same issue arises when we discuss it in English in translating from the Greek. Pleasure is a feeling for which we need no explanation, as Epicurus held:

    (Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature. What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?)

    ... but "happiness" is a much broader concept which cries out for a precise definition. We generally use Aristotle's "flourishing" as an example of a compound concept that is not at all the same as the "life of pleasure" advocated by Epicurus. As the Wikipedia definition above indicates, it appears that Stoics and others pre and post Epicurus used the term eudaimonia to mean very different things, although I am not proficient in quoting Stoics so I am not able to provide any examples at the moment.

    The ultimate issue in this discussion, as I see it, is the polemical issue of how to explain the ultimate goal of life as clearly as possible. Epicurus clearly held PLEASURE as the single term which fits that single word to describe the ultimate goal, but he also used eudaimonia within his own context, likely to indicate that a "happy" man will also experience some pains at time, and also that the happy man experiences many different types of pleasures -- in the Lampe's words above, "happiness is a collection of pleasures" which I think is correct - a combination of every kind of physical, mental, and emotional pleasure which we can possibly experience. If an experience is deemed by us to be desirable, it is solely because it is, or leads to, pleasure.

    So the real issue is that those who disagree with Epicurus, and who want to appeal to real normal people (we can exclude the Stoics from this) realize that normal people feel instinctively the pull of Nature and therefore want to "be happy." The manipulation and deception game of other philosophers is to pull in an ambiguous concept like "happiness" and redefine it to suit their own tastes in virtue, in nobility, in worthiness, or in whatever other high-sounding word is calculated at the moment to persuade the unwary. That way they deprecate pleasure as the feeling which is the ultimate guide given us by Nature, which is exactly what Hiram's article leads toward in deprecating the role of "pleasure" even though he denies that that is his intent.

    This is an issue that has been discussed at length in public and in private in the past, and that is what I read into the message of the article. Some people believe that "pleasure" is such a disreputable word that they cannot tolerate riding under its banner, and that is in my humble opinion a very huge mistake

  • Excellent clarification! I think I now better understand your position.

    To put the matter succinctly; not "eudaimonia", or "happiness", or "minimalism", or "freedom from pain", or "letting go", BUT



  • Epicurus used the word eudaimonia himself, but had his own definition and context, just as he had for "gods."

    How do you reconcile this with Epicurus' advocacy of clarity of language, and using words in the sense that immediately comes to mind?

    (His refusal to even define pleasure is a wonderful example, by the way.)

    I have no doubt that other Greek philosophers, and maybe even later Epicureans, were debating the definition of eudaimonia, but I suspect Epicurus would not have used it if his meaning was liable to be misunderstood by the average Greek of his day.

    Now, possibly eudaimonia does not translate precisely to what we (modern non-academics) understand by "happiness", but given the usual contexts, that translation seems quite reasonable to me, and unobjectionable in relation to the rest of Epicurus' philosophy.

    As for "gods"...yes, it does seem that he is using that term to mean something rather different than what the average person would have understood. But then, he also wrote entire books to explain his ideas. Also, I've noticed that in some places the translation is "immortal beings" rather than "gods". Could it be that he chose that phrase instead of "gods" deliberately?

    Sorry if this is a bit of a side-track to this thread. I just couldn't let your statement pass without comment! :)

  • The ultimate issue in this discussion, as I see it, is the polemical issue


    Here is a case where the situtation is actually in our favor! Our understanding of happiness is actually very close to that of the average person.

    We should be seizing that opportunity, and I feel like at least the title of Hiram's article is exactly on the right track there.

    It's Stoicism, which despite its current (and hopefully fleeting) popularity, is at a disadvantage. Stoicism seems appealing, until you find out that this thing they call happiness, really isn't what you had in mind at all!

    "Wait. Happiness is Virtue??? WTF?!?! Hey, I heard the Epicureans had some different ideas. (Thank you, Seneca!!!) Maybe I should check them out..."


    Additional thoughts I'm having on this topic:

    I can't help but think of Stoicism as the gateway drug to Epicureanism.

    "Stoicism: Suffering is a Virtue. Happiness consists in Virtue. Therefore, Suffering = Happiness. Got it?"

    The problem of leading with pleasure in our marketing efforts is that we've been so conditioned to think of pleasure as a vice, that there are many people it's just not going to appeal to. But everyone wants to be happy.

    I'm not at all trying to suggest that we should de-emphasize pleasure. More like, "Want to be happy? Try Pleasure."

  • How do you reconcile this with Epicurus' advocacy of clarity of language, and using words in the sense that immediately comes to mind?

    I think that that answer is found in looking at the full context of the texts and seeing the many many references to "pleasure." I don't think that those foreclose the use of terms like "happiness" as well as long as the fundamental statements that "pleasure" is the only thing desirable in itself are kept in mind. I can easily imagine Epicurus believing that he had been so clear in laying down fundamentals that he could not be misunderstood by his own student (who presumably Menoeceus was, not an outsider or someone unfamiliar with the thrust of the philosophy.)

    Your comments are not sidetrack at all ;)

    And as you referenced I think this is similar to the "gods" issue. It is useful to have a term for beings which constitute what we would truthfully consider divine, and Epicurus would also have known that he could not enforce his own terminology on everyone.

    But i don't think this comes down to questioning his use of "happiness" a few times in relation to the many times "pleasure" is clearly designated. It is a matter of starting at the basics, building consistently on them, and keeping the big picture consistent as he surely would have done himself.

    And there's no better example that we need to take things into account than the sentence which reads "By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul." That sentence is as counterintuitive and potentially contradictory to so much else that was written that it demands to be taken contextually and explained by reference to the whole. In that case the issue must be traced to the underlying premises of only two feelings (so therefore absence of one is presence of another by definition) and even further, tracing down why Epicurus was concerned about "only two" in the first place (which I think ties to Plato's arguments against pleasure).

    The "happiness" question is much easier than that one. There are only two feelings, only pleasure is desirable in and of itself, and no one thinking in Epicurean terms is ever going to suggest that "happiness" is ultimately tied to any necessary requirement other than "pleasure."

    All the other tools and alleged requirements of happiness with Aristotle and others alleged to be necessary would, if true, blow the theory of "pleasure as the ultimate good" out of the water. Because if something besides pleasure is required, how do we know what that is? Admit that the goal requires something other than pleasure and Plato will lead you down the primrose path that he led Philebus, and you will end up admitting that knowlege/wisdom that enables you to identify and obtain this non-pleasure element is an essential part of the goal itself, and you will end up admitting Plato's ultimate aim - that "wisdom" is the most important thing in life.

  • To put the matter succinctly; not "eudaimonia", or "happiness", or "minimalism", or "freedom from pain", or "letting go", BUT


    And not just because I am a radical, or I think Epicurus was devoted to radicalism for the sake of radicalism, but for the reason I just summarized to Todd: admit that ANYTHING is a required component of the ultimate good, and you are left drowning without a life-preserver until you admit that REASON/LOGIC/WISDOM is required to identify that good, and probably (if you are Aristotle) money and other accoutrements of being a noble Athenian. You will quickly be led to find that this "art of slicing and dicing" the components of the good is really the essential thing, and you will ultimately (if you are persuaded by "reason") be forced to admit that Venus is held in too high an esteem by Epicurus, as Plato urged on Philebus.

    I wish I were more of an expert on Philebus myself, but I have read it several times and these arguments are indeed there.

    And what we are reading in the letter to Menoecus is essentially a summary letter written to a student who would in all likelihood have been familiar with those Platonic arguments as the "gold standard" on discussing pleasure as a potential competitor for "the good."

  • At risk of deviating off track I want to call in this suggestion / illustration. I think the opening items of the Principal Doctrines are best viewed in the same way we are discussing here: they tied to particular contexts, in which they are "antidotes" to popular misconceptions which Epicurus expected his readers to confront.

    He expected them to confront all sorts of misconceptions about the gods, so instead of dealing with all of them separately he gave them the key to unwinding all of them - by referring to the nature of what a "true god" would certainly be like, and not be like.

    He expected them to confront all sorts of threats and promises about life after death, so instead of dealing with all of them separately, he gave them the key to unwinding all of them -- that death is the end of all sensation, and therefore NOTHING can happen after death.

    And then -- and here is the current issue --

    He expected them to confront all of the Platonic and other arguments about why pleasure cannot be the goal of life, most all of which are based on some version of the "pleasure is insatiable" and "it can't be the best because it has no limit, and so he gave them the key to unwinding all those "logic traps" - he pointed out that human life gives us a limit of how much we can experience, and that the very most pleasure we can experience in life is the amount that we experience when all pain has been eliminated. THAT's the context and the reason for the entire "absence of pain" discussion, and it makes perfect sense when viewed in that context, but seems absolutely inscrutable to us - because we haven't read Philebus, we don't know anything about Plato, and we've totally lost the common context that any educated person in ancient Athens would have learned from childhood!

  • Although I was not around in ancient Greece, from reading, it sounds to me like things were similar to the current situation with the word happiness in English. If you say the word "what is happiness?" to an ordinary person, they will have a _feeling_ instantly, of pleasure. I have tried it, and people instantly smile. It is not whatsoever an abstract thing.

    It's only idealists today who try to define away happiness into something confusing that doesn't mean pleasure. This leads to ridiculous articles with titles like "If you want to be happy, don't seek pleasure"-- and I always want to know, ok, please tell me how this happiness you talk about feels? Is it nice? Why do I want it? Isn't not seeking something in order to get it actually still a way to seek it, lol? Sometimes they have good specific advice, but the title should be "If you want a happy live, choose wisely, because some actions turn out more painful than pleasurable."

    Anyway, if I had to put money on it, I would bet my condo that things were the same then. I betcha normal people knew perfectly well what eudaimonia was, and pleasure-- by their feelings.

    Sometimes I wonder if the idealists go this direction because they don't really experience much pleasure in life? But that's a different issue.

  • Although Epicurus begins his letter to Meneoceus mentioning the greek word "eudaemonia" for which its accurate translation in english is "bliss" and has for its synonym word "makariotita", he continues describing this word so clearly like the clear water springs from a natural fountain on the mountain of Olympus. More high, more clear and more accurate meaning in this word "eudaemonia" that is bonded firmly with pleasure, no any other philosopher gave or will give it in all the eternities.

    I insist our philosophy is not spiritual it is physical, as the body and soul is one and the same thing. And as Nietzsche who was influenced by Epicurus said it : "There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy".

    Lucretius in book III remarks : "The mind is a part of the body. It is not a harmony, but has a specific physical location". As he also says and unites the physics/science with ethics : "Mind and spirit are corporeal – they are also made up of atoms, but extremely smooth, round and small ones".

    Yes, do not be amazing, in these passages Lucretius describes the molecules, the cells. And as in that article there is mentioning of health, in the near future Bio-genetics will offer many beneficial results/cures for the most of the diseases. I imagine the doctors of tomorrow who with their prescription with medicines they will offer the book by Norman DeWitt saying : Hey men, read this book that is for Epicurus' philosophy. Do not fear god and death and enjoy the pleasures of life. These fears and your ignorance what is your ultimate goal in life led your molecules more quickly to cancers, to coronary artery disease, the prostate etc etc. :P

    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

  • And now the real truth what means to connect the word eudeamonia with Aristotelean terms.

    Epicurus addressing to Aristotle :

    Fg. 423. “What brings unsurpassed joy is the removal of a great evil; and this is the nature of the good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about chattering emptily”.

    And now please simply connect the above fg 423 with the epicurean saying 42 and then read the next, in the list, sayings to realize what Epicurus means with the word eudaemonia :

    Fg 423 <==> ES 42. The same span of time embraces both the beginning and the end of the greatest good.

    ...and Epicurus continues pulling out the mask and revealing what means Aristotle with his "eudaemonia" when he connects this word with "prosperity", "flourishing" and the like.

    ES 43. : Hey Aristotle, the love of money, if unjustly gained, is impious, and, if justly gained, is shameful; for it is unseemly to be parsimonious even with justice on one’s side.

    ES 44. Hey Aristotle, the wise man, when he has accommodated himself to straits knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered.

    Do you see the clarity of the word self-sufficiency which means the generosity of a man?

    Well guys, eudaemonia means the freedom to be generous sharing and feelings and things. Generous means also the brave. But when you are stingy and in feelings and in things you will never understand Epicurus' philosophy. And now, hide to your caves little and coward aristotelean kittens. You will never be the pride, generous and brave epicurean lions who know how to share their food. their feelings, and their ultimate goal in life !

    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

  • Here is what I posted from the admins on the Epicurean Philosophy page on Facebook, just now, regarding Hiram's article being discussed in this thread.

    The War on Eudaimonia

    The admins at Epicurean Philosophy have learned from an article by one of our members here, Hiram Crespo, that there are “some Epicurean circles” who are at “war” against the word eudaimonia! People who somehow think eudaimonia and pleasure are mutually exclusive. This is news to us, although we suppose we should not be surprised, considering how often Epicurus is misunderstood in the modern world. We do not know who these circles are, but we are glad to join with Hiram in roundly condemning such a ridiculous war.

    In case any of our other members run across these circles, we’d like to give you some background. Eudaimonia, which in English is generally translated as “happiness”, was used by Aristotle in the way Hiram describes in his article—as “flourishing” or “blessedness”, not as pleasure. In fact, that is what you are still going to find today in all the online dictionaries: Aristotle’s definition. Aristotle's definition should not be taken as the standard of Greeks for all time even though it persists in our dictionaries. This Aristotelian definition is used by many non-Epicurean groups to say that a “good life” is based on factors other than pleasure, such as virtues or ideals.

    But Epicurus did not accept Aristotle’s definition.

    No one can understand Epicurean Philosophy who believes that Epicurus used the word eudaimonia in the same way Aristotle did. We encourage Hiram to consider an addendum to his article to make clear that the modern dictionary definitions follow Aristotle, not Epicurus.

    Here, instead, is how Epicurus saw eudaimonia, as explained through the words of his spokesman Torquatus (from Cicero, On Ends:( “it cannot be doubted that pleasure is the one supreme and final Good and that a life of happiness is nothing else than a life of pleasure.”

    Epicurus was proclaiming something truly radical in his time, and it is still radical today—that we cannot define happiness or a “good life” with abstract or vague concepts but only as one filled with pleasure. The fact that he used two words, eudaimonia and hedone (pleasure) does not mean that he was accepting Aristotle’s definition. It does appear that he used eudaimonia in a more comprehensive, global way—a life filled with ongoing pleasures—rather than to specify a single moment or day of pleasure, but that should not be used to imply that there is some additional element in eudaimonia other than pleasure.

    Epicurus “went to war” on Aristotle’s wrong definition of happiness and on the wrong definitions of other philosophers-- not on happiness itself!

    Even the neo-Epicureans who have made serious errors by thinking Epicurus advised some sort of rarified tranquility which was not pleasure as we ordinarily understand it have not made the error of confusing Epicurus with Aristotle.

    When an error like that occurs, we have to wonder if it was a deliberate mischaracterization, to create a straw man for debate?

    In our group, we continue to be at war with Aristotelians and other conflicting philosophies. Why? Because they lead people away from pleasurable lives. You all have only one life each—to waste it missing out on pleasure would be a disaster, and anyone who tells you otherwise is no friend to you. While we join Hiram in wishing Peace and Safety to all Epicureans and kindred spirits, we do not wish the Neo-Epicureans, Aristotelians, Stoics or other misguided philosophers to continue in their errors, and we will not leave them in peace as long as they spread misinformation. We hope, for their sakes, that they will become Epicureans instead.

    Today we still shout out loudly, as did Diogenes of Oinoanda, "But since, as I say, the issue is not 'what is the means of happiness?' but 'what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?', I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life"!

    If we continue to proclaim Epicurus’ actual philosophy, and if you will join us in doing so, perhaps one day we will find these words of Torquatus in the dictionary for both eudaimonia and happiness: “Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, — and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.”

    This, my friends, is a happy human, possessing eudaimonia, a life full of pleasure, and this is what we want for you.

  • This essay emerged as a result of controversies surrounding Alex’s expulsion from the EP group. It seemed from my conversation with him that this was a key issue. So it needs to be addressed.

    I do not believe that at any point I used the “Aristotelian definition”, in the essay I attempted to apply Epicurus’ criterion from his sermon against empty words of attaching the first meaning that the mind evokes. Since Greek is not my language I looked at the semantic roots Eu (good) and daimon (spirit) and worked from there to deconstruct the word, following the clarity and conciseness guidelines given by the founders.

    I’m happy Eudaimonia is being addressed. It’s in the sources.

    "Please always remember my doctrines!" - Epicurus' last words

  • Hiram I agree that this "eudaimonia" issue is a great issue to discuss. As for issues relating to Alex and the Facebook group, there is a long history there which (at least for the moment) I don't think for many reasons would be appropriate for us to go into in public posts here. We can certainly cover all the philosophic issues of general concern, however.