Great discussion!
@Susan Hill I add images from my phone or tablet using the paper clip icon (next to the emoji icon) below where I'm entering text and above the "reply" and "preview" buttons. It opens a dialog for attaching files; there is a maximum file size which you need to be aware of.
In the dialog there's a "thumbnail" button to place it in the message like this.
Don as to your comment on that book cover, I will follow up with "Babis" on this and get back to you.
Oh, Babis is their name!! Babis the Epicurean! Now it makes sense! I was trying to figure out what a Μπάμπης was!
If you understand how "Babis" is derived from that Greek word, please explain it to me! Elli tried to several times, but it never stuck with me. 
Thanks, Cassius, re your comment about intelligence/consciousness being eternal and therefore intrinsic to the universe. Very interesting! I have encountered ideas like this - That the laws of physics are such that ever greater complexity is naturally and repeatedly produced, leading all the way up to consciousness. I’ll chew on that one as I continue reading.
It has been a busy day and ever since I typed that I was concerned that I left out this important caveat: that of course we're not talking about individual consciousnesses having any continuance; that's specifically ruled out by other Epicurean theory -- what I am suggesting just applies to life forms as categories, not individuals.
And yes, in the way you stated it, all the way "up" not just to consciousness but to the state postulated to be that of the Epicurean "gods."
If you understand how "Babis" is derived from that Greek word, please explain it to me! Elli tried to several times, but it never stuck with me.
I'll take that challenge too.
μπ mp is pronounced like "b" in modern Greek.
(β b is pronounced like "v" βιβλία biblia "vivlia)
η ē in Ancient Greek is now pronounced like I ("ee")
So, Μπάμπης Mpampes = "Babis"
of course we're not talking about individual consciousnesses having any continuance; that's specifically ruled out by other Epicurean theory
Didn’t Epicurus outline a physics for immortal gods?
Godfrey, it is so odd - I do not have that paperclip icon anywhere anymore on laptop, iPhone, or iPad, except in the private conversations dialog. Instead, I have three buttons: "Smilies", "Settings", and "Poll". Maybe it is an administrator-set permission checkbox somewhere..
Didn’t Epicurus outline a physics for immortal gods?
Yes you are right about that -- that's in the Velleius section of "On The Nature of the Gods." Once again I was not complete -- thanks for catching me - I need to ditch all my other activities so I can spend full time with this! I suppose there's a caveat there, too, however, in that DeWitt parses it to say that Epicurus himself did not directly claim the gods to be immortal, but only deathless, with the apparent distinction that they could die, if they stopped their regenerating activity for some reason.
Godfrey, it is so odd - I do not have that paperclip icon anywhere anymore on laptop, iPhone, or iPad, except in the private conversations dialog. Instead, I have three buttons: "Smilies", "Settings", and "Poll". Maybe it is an administrator-set permission checkbox somewhere..
That is weird, I have not noticed that before -- perhaps you are right it is a levels thing. I am going to move you to level 3, Susan, in just a moment -- so see if that fixes it.
You're now level three -- do you have the paperclip icon now? (spelled out as "Attachments" on the desktop)?
Congratulations, Don! That is every bit as opaque to me as when Elli tried to explain it to me! That means your explanation is every bit as clear to me as that of a natural born Greek! I suppose I was raised on too many "It's Greek to me!'" jokes! OK it is slowly dawning on me - maybe.
Sweeeet... Look who's Level 3!!! <----------
(Notice attachment.)--------->>tenor.gif
of course we're not talking about individual consciousnesses having any continuance; that's specifically ruled out by other Epicurean theory
Didn’t Epicurus outline a physics for immortal gods?
I've found it interesting in my work on the Menoikeus letter (and in KD1) that Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.
You're welcome to see my post and errata on that in the other thread. Here's an excerpt:
ἄφθαρτον = aphtharton LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states Φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος = aidios "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός = thnētos "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is connected to the verb φθείρω = phtheirō "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be Φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental perceptions, because we do have a Prolepsis of them (More on this difficult term later!)
I'm also not entirely convinced that the gods exist as a mental perception only. That's why they'd be imperishable. Still working my way through that!
Congratulations, Don! That is every bit as opaque to me as when Elli tried to explain it to me!
LOL 
Wow! Impressive detail! That's brilliant. Thank you, Don!
Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.
Yep. There's just too many clear statements in the texts to think he was being totally allegorical.
As for immortal and imperishable I suppose part of the issue too is whether they were deemed "eternal" as having existed from the infinite past. I don't know anything clear on that . It's tempting to think that they too "evolved" over time, but we're faced with the same issue of time stretching back into the infinite past, with the implication that whatever is now, could/should have also existed somewhere in the infinite past as well, since there is no reason to postulate (and probably it's the reverse, in fact, many reasons NOT to postulate) a single "starting point" for them.
(Again, as a class, not necessarily as individuals.)
What thread are we in? On trusting emotions, or discussing gods? Well anyway to extend the tangent, I think peoples' positions on the reality of Epicurean gods may relate to the recent excursion I took into Frances Wright's views, where I see she extended her personal position on "no speculation" much further than I think Epicurus himself did.
Some people (Frances Wright) are just not interested in speculating about life in the rest of the universe, since there is so little evidence on which to speculate. They don't see that as necessary or appropriate, and think that Epicurus would have felt the same way.
Other people (me included) think that responding to positions taken by religion are too important to take a total "I don't know and I don't care" attitude, so we extend what we see here on Earth to take a position on what we would expect to see in the rest of the universe, and we think it would be totally natural to find life elsewhere, and that humans are not the most advanced form of life.
I think those who take the position that gods are allegorical only are probably heavily weighted toward the Frances Wright point of view, which I can understand, but don't share. ( I refer here to the true fans of Epicurus, who agree with Epicurus on general but not on the gods. The anti-Epicureans who allege that he was just hiding from the anti-blasphemy rules are outside this analysis.)
I think Epicurus felt there were compelling reasons to take a position on issues about the place of earth and humanity in the universe as a whole. If that's true, then these positions on life on other worlds, and the existence of a class of a sort of "gods" were just the conclusions he reached based on his views of the probable implications of the physics. From my viewpoint, I would expect that Epicurus really didn't see those positions as stretches or overreaches at all, and that he was totally serious about them as the natural extension of his physics.
Epicurus uses "imperishable" specifically to describe the gods. He may use those terms elsewhere, but that's what I'm remembering right now.
Yep. There's just too many clear statements in the texts to think he was being totally allegorical.
Oh, I don't think he was (necessarily) being allegorical. He clearly states in Menoikeus: θεοί εισιν. "Gods exist. There are gods."
But I'm not convinced that the general concept of gods within Epicurean circles was of living beings. Doesn't Sedley talk about the gods being mental constructs? I'm leaning more in that direction. Just because they're mental constructs doesn't mean they don't exist. Natural justice exists. Friendship exists. Why not the gods in the same way?
Talk about a tangent!!
