Patrikos unfortunately there is neither audio or video of that available. We opted not to record it so as to let the conversation flow as freely as possible. 
Thanks for asking though - I am hoping that we can do more with Emily Austin in the future.
Posts by Cassius
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
-
-
Additional References from Aetius / Placata:
§25 Epicurus (says that) the gods are human in form, and are all observable by reason (only) because of the fine particles of which the nature of their images consists. The same (philosopher says there are) four other classes of natures that are indestructible: the indivisibles, the void, the infinite, and the similarities; these (natures) are called homoiomereiai (‘having similar parts’) and elements. (P9,S24)
4.8 On Sensation and Sense-Objects (P,S)
§2 Epicurus: ‘sense/sensation is the (bodily) part which is the faculty, and the sensory recognition which is the activity’; so it is spoken of by him in two ways: sense as the faculty, sensory recognition as the activity. (P2,S2)...
§10 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus (say) that sensation and thought arise from images that approach from outside, for neither of these can occur to anyone without the image falling upon him. (P4,S13)4.13 On Vision, How We See (P,S)
§1 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus believe that the visual sensation is the result of the penetration of images. (P1,S1)4.14 On Reflections in Mirrors (P,S)
§1 Empedocles (says they come about) by the effluences that come together on the surface of the mirror and are compacted by the fiery stuff discharged from the mirror, which transports across with itself the air lying before it towards which the streams travel. (P1,S1)
§2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus (say) the reflections in mirrors come about through the manifestations of the images, which move away from us but come to be on the mirror which sends them back. (P2,S2)5.2 How Dreams Occur (P)
§1 Democritus (says that) dreams occur through the manifestations of eidola (images). (P1) -
Lucretius Today Episode 249 is now available: "Are the Epicurean Gods Totally Inactive, And Are We To Emulate Them By Laziness?"
This thread returns to my mind as I am completing editing of Episode 249.
the pursuit of inner peace, the importance of friendship, the value of rational thinking, and the focus on achievable, natural pleasures rather than vain desires. It provides a strong historical and philosophical foundation for our approach to stress management and the pursuit of happiness.
That quote is a pretty good summary of what people generally read about Epicurus. And it is very true, I think, as far as it goals. The ambiguity that I find of most concern when I talk to people (especially when the conversation includes emphasis on such things as "stress management") is often expressed something like:
"What does 'the pursuit of happiness' really mean in concrete terms for what I should do with my time today? Stop talking in platitudes, Epicurus! (... or Aristotle, or anyone else who talks about happiness or eudaemonia. Give me something concrete. Tell me how I myself should spend my own time to achieve "the greatest happiness" or "the greatest pleasure."
The reason this returns to mind in episode 249 is that one statement of Cotta is:
QuoteXXXVII. ... Epicurus truly, like indolent boys, thinks nothing preferable to idleness; yet those very boys, when they have a holiday, entertain themselves in some sportive exercise. But we are to suppose the Deity in such an inactive state that if he should move we may justly fear he would be no longer happy. This doctrine divests the Gods of motion and operation; besides, it encourages men to be lazy, as they are by this taught to believe that the least labor is incompatible even with divine felicity.
This is essentially the charge that is also leveled against Epicurean ethics in general -- that "pleasure" (or any form of"happiness" linked to pleasure) is for the lazy and slothful, fit not as a goal for man, and certainly not fit as a goal for a god, and thus the entire Epicurean position is fit only for the lazy and worthless.
Talking about stress management and balance is all well and good for those who are primarily motivated by escape from pain. But the task at hand that Cicero doesn't allow Velleius to present, and Cicero allows Torquatus only to present briefly, is what kind of action is involved in this best life of pleasure and happiness.
Are we talking the pleasure of indolence, or the pleasures of pleasurable actions, and how do we explain the difference.
Cicero doesn't allow Torquatus or Velleius to say much like this following statement by Thomas Jefferson to William Short, but I think it's an example of how to point in the right direction.
I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up.....
This thread returns to my mind as I am completing editing of Episode 249.
the pursuit of inner peace, the importance of friendship, the value of rational thinking, and the focus on achievable, natural pleasures rather than vain desires. It provides a strong historical and philosophical foundation for our approach to stress management and the pursuit of happiness.
That quote is a pretty good summary of what people generally read about Epicurus. And it is very true, I think, as far as it goals. The ambiguity that I find of most concern when I talk to people (especially when the conversation includes emphasis on such things as "stress management") is often expressed something like:
"What does 'the pursuit of happiness' really mean in concrete terms for what I should do with my time today? Stop talking in platitudes, Epicurus! (... or Aristotle, or anyone else who talks about happiness or eudaemonia. Give me something concrete. Tell me how I myself should spend my own time to achieve "the greatest happiness" or "the greatest pleasure."
The reason this returns to mind in episode 249 is that one statement of Cotta is:
QuoteXXXVII. ... Epicurus truly, like indolent boys, thinks nothing preferable to idleness; yet those very boys, when they have a holiday, entertain themselves in some sportive exercise. But we are to suppose the Deity in such an inactive state that if he should move we may justly fear he would be no longer happy. This doctrine divests the Gods of motion and operation; besides, it encourages men to be lazy, as they are by this taught to believe that the least labor is incompatible even with divine felicity.
This is essentially the charge that is also leveled against Epicurean ethics in general -- that "pleasure" (or any form of"happiness" linked to pleasure) is for the lazy and slothful, fit not as a goal for man, and certainly not fit as a goal for a god, and thus the entire Epicurean position is fit only for the lazy and worthless.
Talking about stress management and balance is all well and good for those who are primarily motivated by escape from pain. But the task at hand that Cicero doesn't allow Velleius to present, and Cicero allows Torquatus only to present briefly, is what kind of action is involved in this best life of pleasure and happiness.
Are we talking the pleasure of indolence, or the pleasures of pleasurable actions, and how do we explain the difference.
Cicero doesn't allow Torquatus or Velleius to say much like this following statement by Thomas Jefferson to William Short, but I think it's an example of how to point in the right direction.
I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that “that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be avoided.” Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well; brace yourself up.....
(I added this post also to the thread for Episode 219.)
Welcome to Episode 250 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.
Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.
Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 37 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity.
For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here at Archive.org. The text which we include in these posts is available here. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.
Additional versions can be found here:
- Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
- Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
- PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
- Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge
A list of arguments presented will eventually be put together here.
Today's Text
XXXVII.
... for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting.
XXXVIII. What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity? Other philosophers call every such conformation of the mind a vain motion; but you term it “the approach and entrance of images into the mind.” Thus, when I imagine that I behold T. Gracchus haranguing the people in the Capitol, and collecting their suffrages concerning M. Octavius, I call that a vain motion of the mind: but you affirm that the images of Gracchus and Octavius are present, which are only conveyed to my mind when they have arrived at the Capitol. The case is the same, you say, in regard to the Deity, with the frequent representation of which the mind is so affected that from thence it may be clearly understood that the Gods are happy and eternal.
Let it be granted that there are images by which the mind is affected, yet it is only a certain form that occurs; and why must that form be pronounced happy? why eternal? But what are those images you talk of, or whence do they proceed? This loose manner of arguing is taken from Democritus; but he is reproved by many people for it; nor can you derive any conclusions from it: the whole system is weak and imperfect. For what can be more improbable than that the images of Homer, Archilochus, Romulus, Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato should come into my mind, and yet not in the form in which they existed? How, therefore, can they be those persons? And whose images are they? Aristotle tells us that there never was such a person as Orpheus the poet; and it is said that the verse called Orphic verse was the invention of Cercops, a Pythagorean; yet Orpheus, that is to say, the image of him, as you will have it, often runs in my head. What is the reason that I entertain one idea of the figure of the same person, and you another? Why do we image to ourselves such things as never had any existence, and which never can have, such as Scyllas and Chimæras? Why do we frame ideas of men, countries, and cities which we never saw? How is it that the very first moment that I choose I can form representations of them in my mind? How is it that they come to me, even in my sleep, without being called or sought after?
XXXIX. The whole affair, Velleius, is ridiculous. You do not impose images on our eyes only, but on our minds. Such is the privilege which you have assumed of talking nonsense with impunity. But there is, you say, a transition of images flowing on in great crowds in such a way that out of many some one at least must be perceived! I should be ashamed of my incapacity to understand this if you, who assert it, could comprehend it yourselves; for how do you prove that these images are continued in uninterrupted motion? Or, if uninterrupted, still how do you prove them to be eternal? There is a constant supply, you say, of innumerable atoms. But must they, for that reason, be all eternal? To elude this, you have recourse to equilibration (for so, with your leave, I will call your Ἰσονομία), and say that as there is a sort of nature mortal, so there must also be a sort which is immortal. By the same rule, as there are men mortal, there are men immortal; and as some arise from the earth, some must arise from the water also; and as there are causes which destroy, there must likewise be causes which preserve. Be it as you say; but let those causes preserve which have existence themselves. I cannot conceive these your Gods to have any. But how does all this face of things arise from atomic corpuscles? Were there any such atoms (as there are not), they might perhaps impel one another, and be jumbled together in their motion; but they could never be able to impart form, or figure, or color, or animation, so that you by no means demonstrate the immortality of your Deity.
Programming note: Production of this episode is almost complete, and it will be out later today. We devoted the majority of this Episode 249 to the discussion on Section 37, so in Episode 250 we will continue into Section 38.
SillyApe You're certainly right that our current situation is going to be difficult to change, and any changes will be slow and come only with lots of effort. But we today have offsetting technologies and situations that have never before been available in human history, so there's good reason to be hopeful that progress can be made. Even the work we are doing here together would have been impossible much more than a decade ago. it's now so much easier to share information and group-source the research and other work that needs to be done that it's a total game-changer. There are dark clouds of censorship and opinion suppression already here and more on the horizon, but they don't dominate yet, and there is hope that we can stay ahead of that censorship through even better technology.
Patrikios It has been a great regret of mine that except for communications with Christos and Elli Pensa and perhaps a few others, we've never been able to establish much communication with the Epicurean activists in Greece. Christos certainly does excellent work and I hope over time that will change too. That said, there are definitely different opinions about Epicurus even among those of us who are "activists" on the topic. Christos is excellent in his medical practitioner approach as to the benefits of balance. From a personal point of view -- almost a "self-help" kind of view - I see appreciate the benefits of that approach. In addition to that, however, I see the goal of "balance" as being only one part of the benefit of Epicurean philosophy. Yes you definitely want "balance" as you live your life and respond to its challenges.
In addition, however, there are major philosophical issues that Epicurus was addressing that tend to get crowded out if one focuses only on "balance" or "tranquility" or any other single tool toward the ultimate goal. I suppose one might say that it is important to take a "balanced" approach even to balance, and to recognize that there are many other day to day decisions that must be made on which Epicurus had very many important things to say.
Many of these are very complicated philosophical problems require very uncomfortable decision-making given our current world circumstances. The more one thinks about it, the more the difficulty that faced Epicurus comes into focus. What single word, with what kind of definition, can possibly express adequately the complete meaning of "the highest good" or "the goal of life?" "Happiness" is far too ambiguous. It is claimed by far too many contradictory schools and viewpoints. Only "pleasure," which is tied tightly to the natural faculty of pleasure and pain, can do that job clearly. And even then, "pleasure" can full that role only if it is adequately placed in the context of holding that life itself is the irreducible requirement of anything that is desirable. Only In the context of seeing that life-after-death and supernatural realms are equally fictitious, can we see that any kind of life at all, so long as it is not dominated by pain, is worthy of being considered a happy one. Of course we each have opinions as to what type of pleasures suit us best, but it is "pleasure" that is the general category that makes life worth living. "Happiness" and many other words can be helpful, but only if they too are tightly tied to the natural feelings of pleasure and pain as Epicurus did. To cite what Torquatus says in On Ends, the wise man always has more reason for joy than for vexation.
I think if Epicurean philosophy is ever to break out of its current "backwater" in popular discussion, we'll need to address the whole spectrum of what Epicurus had to say. There are very many excellent minds in the modern Greek Epicurean world and I hope over time we can engage with more people around the world who are interested in this project. That will involve everyone including especially younger people who are not so easily taken in by thinking that "tranquility" is enough of a goal for their lives. On the other hand, neither will they embrace "Pleasure" unless it is explained to them the sweeping nature of the term in Epicurean philosophy. I am convinced, however, that the texts support ample support for the interpretations of "tranquility," "pleasure," "virtue" - and yes, even "gods," which Epicurus advocated. As SillyApe said, it's not going to be easy, and many texts have been lost, but what remains - combined with the same common-sense reasoning Epicurus exhibited - are more than enough to reconstruct what is needed.
On another note, sadly, I don't think Epicureanism is going to be as popular as Stoicism or Buddhism are nowadays, for the simple reason there's not much commercial appeal to it.
I think you're almost certainly right as a practical prediction, and substantially right that Buddhism and Stoicism appeal to a larger group of people, but I do think it is reasonable to work toward a future in which Epicureanism was as much "a player" as it was in the Roman world of 50 BC and thereabouts.
As I see it the number one hurdle to get across - with nothing else being close - is that of arguing the evidence supporting the view that Epicurus' "absence of pain" does not mean "absence of activity," but instead embraces *every* activity of human life that is not painful. The switch has to be made from thinking that Epicurus was preaching tranquility and asceticism as his goal to understanding it as it appears the ancients understood it: "Pleasure" includes every aspect of life that we find valuable, and given the shortness of life, every mental or physical activity that doesn't lead to "net pain" (when all consequences are considered) is in fact within the term "Pleasure." We even choose pain on a regular basis, when we expect the choice to eventually lead to net pleasure.
There is no reason whatsoever that every normal, vigorous, fundamentally healthy in mind and body, person of any age would not profit from realizing that there is no supernatural god, no absolute virtue, no ideal forms, nor any other supernatural or authoritative force to which we are required to conform, and that our happiness is predominantly in our own hands and within our own control.
Epicurean philosophy will start appealing to a much larger number people when we finally begin to push back against the Platonizing and Stoicizing and Supernaturalizing majority that dominates the world today. As long as the false focus on "tranquility" and "simplicity" and other aspects that are not ends in themselves remains the standard interpretation, Epicurean philosophy will remain in the shadows. However there is no "fate," and the fact that a vigorous Epicurean movement flourished in the ancient world shows that it is possible. What has happened once can happen again, and in fact since we know it is possible, we can infer that it has already happened and will happen in the future an infinite number of times.
I'm going to have to reread this to get the most out of it, but I want to state already:
- I am very appreciative of your going through old episodes and adding commentary like this! We're doing a better job nowadays in discussing the episodes in real time, but there are a lot of old episodes with great material but little commentary, and this helps a lot.
- This post immediately strikes me as similar to your excellent and recent archery post pointing out how the archery researcher went back and looked at very old historical records and reinterpreted them to find out things that most were missing (and how much information had been lost). Developing analogies like this is a great way of understanding the topic and prompting others to think about the parallels and take them even further.
It occurs to me that today is a good time to express my thanks to all of our regular contributors here on the forum. We don't have a super-large group, but we regularly have 20-30 regular participants who contribute some very high-quality material. I am sure that my appreciation is shared by these participants, but it's worth stating explicitly: we've come a long way from when we had to gasp for air on Facebook forums dominated by Stoics and Academic Skeptics and the like, and the freedom we have here to pursue these studies without undue interruption from them is incredibly valuable.
Over the last several years I would argue that we've maintained and improved our quality of discussion and investigation, and I think we're producing some of the most interesting material available anywhere for those who take Epicurus seriously. Yes we have a relatively large "turnover" of people who stay only for a short while, but I think as we find new ways to make the forum ever-more-explicit as to the implications of core tenets of Epicurean philosophy, everyone benefits. No one wants to waste time, and following Epicurus' calls to clarity and frankness is good both for those who stay and those who pass on to something else.
There's always room for improvement, and I want to encourage everyone to write or produce whatever content they can on whatever forums they choose (as per the recent exchanges with Cleveland Okie). But we need to first of all recognize that a large number of people are already investing significant time and resources in their Epicurean posting and writing already, and that we need to be sure they know they are appreciated.
I won't begin to try to list the key people who are making the most contributions, but they know who they are. Thanks to you all, and i look forward to many more years of the same!
In referring to Chios and Lampsacus (and also Samos as to Epicurus) this is the place to refer to my handy "Map of Places of Significance to Epicurean Philosophy!"
Unfortunately, if we have one it's buried somewhere....
I would normally look for a link to something like that here:
- Epicureanfriends.comwww.epicureanfriends.comAnd there we do have this great map by Eikadistes:
But unfortunately it really isn't designed to serve as an "orientation to major places"
So I guess over time we go looking for something additional we can produce or duplicate here on the website as a standard reference.
In our discussions of the "Aetius / Placata" volume we see numbers of references to "Metrodorus" - some of which may be Metrodorus of Chios (a Democritean and predecessor to Epicurus) and some of which are Metrodorus of Lampsacus (one of Epicurus' primary followers). There are huge differences between the two, including Metrodorus of Chios following Democritus' lead toward skepticism and "nothing is real except atoms and void" which Epicurus (and therefore presumably Metrodorus of Lampsacus) vigorously rejected.
It's going to be easy to confuse these two together, so this thread is intended to provide a place where we can post about how they differ and/or resemble each other.
Thanks to Bryan for pointing this out:
When Aetius mentions Metrodorus, it seems he is typically referring to Metrodorus of Chios:
Metrodorus of Chios - Wikipedia
And to Don for additional resources to follow below
Good to hear from you Cyrano -- hope you are well!
Wow that IS a great archery video and I agree a very good parallel to what we need to do in "thinking outside the box" by looking again at the historical record!
We might need to split off the "Daff Moon" appreciation society to a different thread, especially if we add many comments unrelated to Epicurus' birthday like i am about to make.
Maybe I'll turn this into an "Astronomy Software" thread, because I just downloaded the Android app "The Sky Live" and it appears to be both totally free (and without advertising) and very usable for navigating the night sky.
TheSkyLive - Apps on Google PlayA complete guide to the Solar System and the night skyplay.google.comThe web version of this app is here:
Online Star Maps | TheSkyLiveAn online interactive planetarium application to explore the night sky and find constellations, planets, asteroids and other celestial objects visible from any…theskylive.comWe might need to split off the "Daff Moon" appreciation society to a different thread, especially if we add many comments unrelated to Epicurus' birthday like i am about to make.
Maybe I'll turn this into an "Astronomy Software" thread, because I just downloaded the Android app "The Sky Live" and it appears to be both totally free (and without advertising) and very usable for navigating the night sky.
TheSkyLive - Apps on Google PlayA complete guide to the Solar System and the night skyplay.google.comIn fact I do think I'll set up an "Astronomy Software" thread.....
OK an "Astronomy Thread" is split off here:
Please use the Astronomy Thread for general Astronomy or Software discussion, and we can keep this on focused on issues surrounding Epicurus' birthday and/or calculating dates by moon phases.
I've now read through most of the material and I don't see any of it that brands Aetius as a raving anti-Epicurean, so I wouldn't think he would be tempted to misrepresent Epicurus generally (or at least, not more than seems commonly the case).
My first impression is that the whole thing is a fairly small-"a" "academic" recitation of the various positions, not an argumentative piece at all. Early on I noticed some references to some theories about the gods (I think by Plato?) as nonsensical, but not much else in terms of forceful commentary. I don't see that wikipedia brands Aetius as belonging to a particular school, so it will remain interesting to me to try to determine where his preferences are found.
Also do we know anything about the meaning of his name? I doubt it means anything but I see the better known but significantly later ancient by this name was a Roman general:
Flavius Aetius[a] (also spelled Aëtius;[b] Latin: [aːˈɛtiʊs]; c. 390 – 454) was a Roman general and statesman of the closing period of the Western Roman Empire. He was a military commander and the most influential man in the Empire for two decades (433–454). He managed policy in regard to the attacks of barbarian federates settled throughout the West. Notably, he mustered a large Roman and allied (foederati) army in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, ending a devastating invasion of Gaul by Attila in 451, though the Hun and his subjugated allies still managed to invade Italy the following year, an incursion best remembered for the ruthless Sack of Aquileia and the intercession of Pope Leo I.
Aetius has often been called the "Last of the Romans". Edward Gibbon refers to him as "the man universally celebrated as the terror of Barbarians and the support of the Republic" for his victory at the Catalaunian Plains.[4] J.B. Bury notes, "That he was the one prop and stay of the Western Empire during his life time was the unanimous verdict of his contemporaries."[5
I'm going to have to break away from this thread for a while, but if anyone gets an impression of Aetius' own personal views, knowledge, and credibility, please post.
It would be good to get a fix as soon as possible on whether Aetius is a crusading anti-Epicurean in the mold of Cicero and Plutarch, or someone who is more "neutral" (if that's possible) in his reporting and analysis. I gather than he's probably a Stoic or similar, but what I've read so far seems to be sort of like Diogenes Laertius in at least appearing to report differing views "fairly."
Not sure what to make of this "teacher of Epicurus" remark but perhaps the commentary will explain whether it's an error or means something like "teacher of Epicurean philosophy."
Quote§4 Metrodorus, the teacher of Epicurus, says that it is (equally) absurd that a single stalk should have sprung up on a large plain and that a single cosmos should have done the same in the Infinite. That the kosmoi are infinite in their multiplicity is clear from the fact that the causes are infinite in number. For if the cosmos is limited, while all the causes from which the cosmos originated are infinitely many, then necessarily (the kosmoi) are infinitely many. After all, where the causes are without limit, there the products [or: effects] are (infinite in number or without limit) also. (These) causes are either the atoms or the elements. (P4,S3)
Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com
Here is a list of suggested search strategies:
- Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
- Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
- Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
- Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
- Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.
