Thoughts and Discussion on Organizing Epicurean Community

Quote from Don

When it comes to this topic of discussion of "ethical" behavior, it's more about justice than pleasure/pain.

Yes I agree. What Kalosyni is raising is at least about justice as described in the last ten PDs as anything else

I am reminded of a quote that I came across years ago: “When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”

[Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa” (from the Foreword).]

If one takes PD 31, say, as a starting point for engagement on social (justice) issues, concrete applications – vis-à-vis the complexities of specific context – still are likely to be subject to disagreement even among people who are of like mind on the underlying principle(s); especially, perhaps, with regard to means. And I can see the value of creating a safe place for that kind of discussion (with mutual support and affirmation, even among differences) from a foundation grounded in Epicurus.

__________

I want to apologize if anything I’ve said has offended anyone – especially Kalosyni. Mea culpa, entirely.

We need olive trees!

Quote from Martin

We need olive trees!

and FIG trees!

Thoughts on Organization

The following are loosely adapted (and stripped down) from the “twelve traditions” perspective of AA and other 12-step groups:

1. The Epicurean Community (the “Garden”) exists for the common well-being and happiness of its members, as founded in Epicurean philosophy and based in friendship.
   
   
2. There is only one authority for the Community, and that is the Canon,* as it has evolved and is actively interpreted by the Community members themselves.
   
   
3. The only requirement for membership is the sincere desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy personally in one’s life, according to one’s own circumstances and understanding.
   
   There are no “loyalty oaths” or “pledges of allegiance” required.
   
   
4. The Epicurean Community is a community, not an institution. Hierarchical structure should be minimized – while recognizing leadership roles such as “administrator” or “monitor” or “secretary” and the like (for in-person as well as online groups and meetings) as necessary for the functioning of the Community.
   
   
5. Although professionals in various disciplines (such as philosophy, sociology, physics, neuro-science and the like) may have much value to add to the understanding of Epicurean philosophy – especially its application in modern times – the Garden is not a professional association, but a community of like-minded people, all of whom have a voice.
   
   With that said, individual members have varied areas of expertise (such as translation) and levels of knowledge pertaining to the philosophy itself, which ought to be acknowledged and respected.
   
   
6. No dues or membership fees should be required (as this might effectively deter from membership some who sincerely desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy). But voluntary contributions may be openly welcomed as needed to support the practical functioning of the Community – so long as they are not used to create a “ranked hierarchy” of membership status on that basis.
   
   This is not to preclude membership designations based on such things as participation in the Community.
   
   
7. Both the Community (as a group) and individual members may pursue outreach activities for the purpose of bringing Epicurean philosophy to as wide an audience as possible. But members who prefer to remain anonymous as such, outside the Community, should have that anonymity honored and protected by all in the Community.
   
   
8. No member of the Community should ever, in such a way as to implicate the Community (or pretend to speak on its behalf), express any opinion outside on such controversial issues as those of partisan politics or sectarian religion.
   
   (Anyone may, of course, express their personal understanding of how Epicurean philosophy informs their opinions on such matters – while taking care not to implicate the Community or its other members.)
   
   
9. All discourse among members should be characterized by civility, respect and friendliness – even (and especially) where strong opinions differ.

++++++++++++++++

* “Canon” here could include all of the “classical” Epicurean corpus – such as Lucretius; or only the extant works attributed to Epicurus himself, with others included as “classical” interpreters.

+++++++++++++++

These are my thoughts – but I would not argue them, or make an issue out of any of them. I’m just, personally, not that strongly wedded to the question.

For someone who is not strongly wedded to the question you've come up with a very useful list of considerations!

One big problem with *any* Epicurean endeavor in our times is that, in many senses, we're all making it up as we go along. There is no "apostolic succession," no unbroken lineage, no "authority" to say if we're getting it "right"... especially in light of the potential windfall of Epicurean texts now that reading the Herculaneum scrolls is possibly becoming a reality. We're trying to pick our way through an Epicurean labyrinth using a flashlight in the pitch dark. Maybe there's a couple candles lit in a couple locations, but by and large, we don't really have a guide... okay, we have a guide (pleasure) but our instructions on how we should/could/would apply it - in relation to what Epicurus taught - are only in summary with gaps in the paper and pages torn out of the manual.

Here at this forum we have a group of individuals who want to retain their autonomy, independence, individual interpretations (granted, within certain guidelines) with just enough moderation to keep things civil but with no one/way to "interpret" what direction is more "correct" (orthodox?) than another. Note, I don't think there is anyone who can interpret with absolute authority! However, in some ways and at some times, I find the lack of structure, lack of suggested ritual, and lack of a hierarchy frustrating. BUT I realize this is a discussion forum, and it has served - and continues to serve - a vital, unique purpose online. I wouldn't continue to think of myself as "Epicurean" (whatever that means! See below) without it, by Zeus!

The Athenian group seems to be headed in another direction, sponsoring in-person events - to which Cassius has provided content! But they don't have any more claim to "authenticity" than anyone else. The embers of the Epicurean school were kept barely hot enough to give off the faintest glow for centuries. Just because they're in Greece doesn't imbue them with any claim to preserving some lineage. (Fourth leg of the Canon anyone?)

Additionally, it seems (to an outside observer) over at the Society of Friends of Epicurus, they want more structure, more "religiosity," more ritual, more hierarchy. But the insistence of using Latinized Greek words like hegemon, Kyria Doxa, "One way to meleta on..." and using v in Latin like Liber Qvintvs instead of just leader, Principle Doctrine, "One way to meditate on..." and Book Five seems very pretentious and almost cute to me. I freely admit that I like some of the work coming out of SoFE very much, but the insistence to use these unnecessary Hellenisms and idiosyncratic Latin spellings is an impediment to taking it seriously sometimes. There's no need or reason to be exotic, arcane, or mysterious. From all accounts, Epicurus spoke and wrote plainly. Using those exotic-looking Greek and Latin words isn't necessary if you're targeting an English-speaking audience....well, unless you're talking about ataraxia or eudaimonia LOL but I digress.

So, what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread? Maybe this should have been posted over on the "religion" thread. To bring this back to community building, there doesn't seem one way to do this in the modern world. We do not live in the ancient world. To try and reconstruct the structure of Epicurean communities is a failed endeavor. We simply don't know enough on how they were constructed it seems to me. Pacatus has offered a list of suggestions, some I agree with, others less so. I'm also not sure whether he's offering these as guidelines for *this* specific community or if he feels they should apply to any community calling itself "Epicurean." (I sincerely hope he replies to this rambling post.) There's also no "authority" that could make ANY list of guidelines apply to a group that wants to call itself "THE genuine, authentic Epicurean School." And then there's the issue of marketing. If one "Epicurean" group becomes more well known - a la Massimo Pigliucci's "Stoicism" - do they get to dictate "real" Epicureanism?? Will the real Epicureans, please stand up! Who gets to define who is and who isn't an Epicurean? Who should?

As individuals, we can call ourselves anything we want...but does that make it so? What constitutes an Epicurean community? What constitutes an Epicurean? Would Epicurus recognize the "brand" of "Epicureanism" being "practiced" on this forum, over at SoFE, over in Greece? Before we start laying out who's in and who's out, I think we have to wrestle with: Are any of us actually "in" in the first place...or are we playing a part of our own composition? Have any of us really "earned" the privilege of calling ourselves members of an "Epicurean" community in the first place? Are we really just "hedonists" seeing pleasure as the guide with a thin veneer of Epicurean terminology and the vaguest understanding of what it really meant to be an Epicurean in the ancient world? Granted, in some ways I'm being consciously provocative to encourage discussion - but only in some ways. I find it both frustrating that there's not more structure to this set of practices/beliefs/life philosophy, but I also find comfort in being able to apply a label to a philosophy I *think* I'm trying to structure my life around...even if that label maybe doesn't fit.

In the words of Epicurus, I've "prattled suffice for the present." I certainly don't know if I've added anything to the discussion, but hopefully I've prattled enough to engender further discussion.

A couple of quick thoughts....

To my knowledge, any religion that has been around for 2000 years has divided into numerous (innumerable?) branches. I sometimes lament that EP doesn't have a continuous history, but if it did, it would most likely have many branches as well. In fact they might not all call themselves "Epicurean". Maybe they'd go by "hedonist", "utilitarian", "atomists" or who knows what else.

As for a lack of structure or a lack of exercises: I go back and forth on this, but at the moment I'm thinking that a philosophy is a way of learning how to think about the world and one's place in it. Epicurus lived in a world which laid the groundwork for the world we're living in. What we have from him is a worldview and a way of approaching philosophical problems, and this forum is a great place to study, discuss, and sharpen our thinking. To me that's the main meal, any additional structure or exercises are condiments.

Quote from Don

Here at this forum we have a group of individuals who want to retain their autonomy, independence, individual interpretations (granted, within certain guidelines) with just enough moderation to keep things civil but with no one/way to "interpret" what direction is more "correct" (orthodox?) than another. Note, I don't think there is anyone who can interpret with absolute authority!

I wholeheartedly agree. (Also with your comments on SoFE; I certainly could not squeeze myself into that kind of formal hierarchy.)

My suggestions were aimed at making mostly any developing, more formal, especially in-person, groups safe places for people who want to explore Epicureanism for their own lives, since that seems to be a direction some would like to move in – and I drew on how this forum community operates as well, while using the 12 language as a way to try to express it, since their guidelines made a safe place when I needed it. (I have no suggestions for any changes for here!).

I would never dream of claiming any authority to set out criteria defining what an Epicurean must be – let alone a “True Epicurean™.” Hell, you know that I even feel uncomfortable calling myself “an Epicurean”!

So, if there’s anything helpful in what I posted, I’m glad. If not, that’s okay. Take whatever might be helpful and leave the rest.

Quote from Don

they

I am a formal member of the Society of Friends of Epicurus, so I am happy to elaborate on any points of interest that you, or any other member of this forum have. Furthermore, Hiram the Found of the Society of Friends of Epicurus is also a member, so we are available to be addressed in the first person. Though, I find it cute that you did not feel the need to do so. but I digress.

Just to be clear, I certainly meant no disrespect! "They" was just to delineate this forum from the other platform.

Having more participants on both platforms would be a good thing from my perspective.

And, to repeat, I very much appreciate some of the resources posted by and coming from SoFE members. Heck, I subscribe to the newsletter myself.

As per what Nate said, both he and Hiram and others of the SofE are reachable directly to discuss any points of interest there. As Don said, I too receive Hiram's newsletter and find it useful. Beyond that I think it still makes sense to refer to the FAQ entry I set up on this issue, and suggest that everyone with questions about this refer first to that and then explore the Society of Epicurus to see whether what they find works for them individually. Going through those details here at Epicureanfriends without first reading through the background would not likely lead to anything productive:

What Is The Society Of Friends of Epicurus and What is its Relationship to EpicureanFriends.com? - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

I went back to this old thread, which Cassius had recommended to me way back (well, “way back” for me ). Discussion of the Society of Epicurus' 20 Tenets of 12/21/19

The discussion is wide-ranging, but I think there is a lot of food-for-thought on what criteria one “must” accept to be called “an Epicurean” – and by whom? I want to disassociate my suggestions from anything like that. I especially appreciated Elayne’s and Elli’s and Cassius’ comments in that thread. (I’ve always been particularly attracted by Elayne’s takes. What happened to her?)

EDIT: Oh! I see that Cassius has already linked that thread.

Pacatus it would not be appropriate for me to speak for her or about Elayne's reasons for leaving other than to say that she posted about pursuing her own initiatives, and to say that she would always be welcome back. You are right to point out that her positions in that thread to which you pointed (which is linked in our FAQ on the Society of Epicurus) were very well made.

Quote from Cassius

Pacatus it would not be appropriate for me to speak for or about Elayne's reasons for leaving other than to say that she posted about pursuing her own initiatives, and to say that she would always be welcome back.

Understood!

Pacatus and others -

Let me talk to the other moderators about this and until then please conduct the investigative part of this discussion in private conversations or email or the SofE website or Facebook page. If we get too far into comparing the details of the organizations then we are bound to end up with some negativity one way or the other that won't advance the goals of our discussion forum. Perhaps at some point the moderators can get together and talk about how to present this, but til then let's hold off the public comparisons.

It has seemed to me for a long time - and still does - that the differences between the two approaches are very obvious. All one really has to do is review that 2019 thread as we linked above, and read our FAQ entry, or glance through Hiram's "Tending the Epicurean Garden." Some people will find themselves more comfortable with the eclectic and Humanist/Buddhist-friendly approach they find at Society of Epicurus, and some will reject that and be more comfortable with the approach we spell out very clearly here. Perhaps at some point the FAQ will bear a little more expansion to make the differences easier to find, but negativity from either side is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

One thing that might change my mind is if I heard someone say "Gee I wasted a lot of time that you could have saved me." But that hasn't been raised as an issue yet, and in fact being confronted with the differences oneself is a very educational experience in sifting through the nuances of what Epicurus really taught.

Quote from Pacatus

Thoughts on Organization

The following are loosely adapted (and stripped down) from the “twelve traditions” perspective of AA and other 12-step groups:

1. The Epicurean Community (the “Garden”) exists for the common well-being and happiness of its members, as founded in Epicurean philosophy and based in friendship.
   
   
2. There is only one authority for the Community, and that is the Canon,* as it has evolved and is actively interpreted by the Community members themselves.
   
   
3. The only requirement for membership is the sincere desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy personally in one’s life, according to one’s own circumstances and understanding.
   
   There are no “loyalty oaths” or “pledges of allegiance” required.
   
   
4. The Epicurean Community is a community, not an institution. Hierarchical structure should be minimized – while recognizing leadership roles such as “administrator” or “monitor” or “secretary” and the like (for in-person as well as online groups and meetings) as necessary for the functioning of the Community.
   
   
5. Although professionals in various disciplines (such as philosophy, sociology, physics, neuro-science and the like) may have much value to add to the understanding of Epicurean philosophy – especially its application in modern times – the Garden is not a professional association, but a community of like-minded people, all of whom have a voice.
   
   With that said, individual members have varied areas of expertise (such as translation) and levels of knowledge pertaining to the philosophy itself, which ought to be acknowledged and respected.
   
   
6. No dues or membership fees should be required (as this might effectively deter from membership some who sincerely desire to learn and apply Epicurean philosophy). But voluntary contributions may be openly welcomed as needed to support the practical functioning of the Community – so long as they are not used to create a “ranked hierarchy” of membership status on that basis.
   
   This is not to preclude membership designations based on such things as participation in the Community.
   
   
7. Both the Community (as a group) and individual members may pursue outreach activities for the purpose of bringing Epicurean philosophy to as wide an audience as possible. But members who prefer to remain anonymous as such, outside the Community, should have that anonymity honored and protected by all in the Community.
   
   
8. No member of the Community should ever, in such a way as to implicate the Community (or pretend to speak on its behalf), express any opinion outside on such controversial issues as those of partisan politics or sectarian religion.
   
   (Anyone may, of course, express their personal understanding of how Epicurean philosophy informs their opinions on such matters – while taking care not to implicate the Community or its other members.)
   
   
9. All discourse among members should be characterized by civility, respect and friendliness – even (and especially) where strong opinions differ.

++++++++++++++++

* “Canon” here could include all of the “classical” Epicurean corpus – such as Lucretius; or only the extant works attributed to Epicurus himself, with others included as “classical” interpreters.

+++++++++++++++

These are my thoughts – but I would not argue them, or make an issue out of any of them. I’m just, personally, not that strongly wedded to the question.

Display More

I think this applies more to a discussion group like what we already have, an actually community requires ownership, skin in the game on the part of the community members. As this is an area of interest of mine I have a section in my notes for development of a community in general not necessarily focused on epicureanism that should be applicable if the time every came. Firstly I would point to the historical hierarchy of epicurean communities, having founders and scholarchs. whatever that role may entail I do not currently suppose. Beyond this I have quite a few sections of notes from studying modern intentional community organizational structures, and membership. As much as our strong independence streak may lead us all to desire a situation devoid of hierarchy or that is completely egalitarian, my studies on the subject would suggest that in reality this simply isn't sustainable. But compatible distributive hierarchical systems do exist that give greater stability and utility, without imposing on members self-sufficiency more than is necessary to form, organize, coordinate and maintain community. I think one of these or some adaptation thereof would eventual serve well in the formation of an epicurean community. I would go into deeper detail on the subject but I am not currently in that mindset to dig into those notes.

That being said section 8. is a given, I would say any Epicurean community should refrain from playing politics, except in general conceptual terms.