We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
I'm late to the game here but I'm crafting a response to some of this... Just haven't had a chance to get it finished.
It's possible we should wrap this one up for now and move to discuss PD02. Comments?
LOL!
"wrap this up" Oh, Cassius is so optimistic. Maybe with the addition of "... For now"
Let's do it! I'm ready with a new line:
"The afterlife in no way exists for us; for, the sense faculties disintegrate; but the afterlife that is insensible in no way exists for us.”
What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?
"The blessed and imperishable [being a god] neither troubles itself nor others, as neither anger nor obligation afflict it; for, all of this is weak. <In other places, however, Epicurus said the gods are reached by reason, that, on one hand, [the gods] exist partially distinct; those [gods], however, made of the same consistency exist due to the continuous stream of similar images upon the self, personally, in the form of humans.>”
How's that?
If I might take a whack at the task ... “The blessed and imperishable [gods] neither trouble themselves nor others, as neither anger nor obligation afflict them; for, all of this is weak. <In other places, however, Epicurus said the gods are reached by reason, that, on one hand, [the gods] exist partially distinct; those [gods], however, made of the same consistency exist due to the continuous stream of similar images upon the self, personally, in the form of humans.>”
Generally, I like where you're going, but the insertion of [gods] disguises the fact that Τὸ μακάριον and (Τὸ) ἄφθαρτον are singular, not plural. This may not be significant but then again might be. Sedley seems to imbue those singular references to the gods as referring to one's individual conception of a god.
I think I know what you're trying to convey with the ending but I got a lot lost myself there.
What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?
If I might take a whack at the task ... “The blessed and imperishable [gods] neither trouble themselves nor others, as neither anger nor obligation afflict them; for, all of this is weak. <In other places, however, Epicurus said the gods are reached by reason, that, on one hand, [the gods] exist partially distinct; those [gods], however, made of the same consistency exist due to the continuous stream of similar images upon the self, personally, in the form of humans.>”
We don't make a super big deal about birthdays here at Epicureanfriends but we do mark them in this thread. Today's birthday - Nate - is that of someone who plays an important and highly-appreciated role here, so please check out his timeline as a place to mark it - Nate
Thanks to my herd for the kind remembrance. 
It is nice to have a Garden to which one belongs.
Speaking of Epicurean tombs, I came across another inscription that incorporates the "fui, non fui, no sum, non curo" epitaph. This inscription comes from the tombstone of a Greek Gladiator named Antiochas (c. 2nd-century BCE)
ANTIOXAΣ O ΠPIN EΦEΣIΣ.
OYK HMHN KAI ΓENAMHN·
OYK IMI KAI OY MEΛI MOI·
XAIPETE ΠAPOΔITAI.
Ἀ̣τιοχᾶ[ς] [ὁ πρὶν] Ἐφέσις.
[Ο]ὐκ ἤμην [καὶ] γενάμην·
οὐκ ἰμὶ καὶ [ο]ὐ μέλι μοι·
χ̣[α]ίρετε παρoδῖται.
Antiochas formerly named Ephesios.
I was not alive and was born.
I am no longer alive and do not mind.
Hello, passers-by!
I lean toward an excerpt from the last 10 KDs
MH BΛAΠTEIN MHΔE BΛAΠTEΣΘAI
μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι
neither harm nor be harmed.
Just a loose thought: there seems to be a general accusation of (ignorant or insensitive) inerrant Epicurean fundamentalism expressed by Philodemus taught by his teacher Zeno of Sidon. By this time, all the original Epicureans had died and the remnants of the tradition were being preserved in memory, so the question of literary canon became (inevitably) a point of question and contention, and it seems that there were those, like Zeno and Philodemus, who accepted a "nuanced" and "between-the-lines" sort of interpretation of Epicurus, versus those "fundamentalists" who (according to Philodemus) over-relied on an unnecessarily-literal interpretation of Epicurus' vocabulary ... so in accordance with Philodemus, perhaps "Bibliakoi" is inappropriate since Philodemus seems to be using it as a derogation or slur.
All of this (again) brings me back to phantastiken epibolen tes dianoias and the question of canonics.
A footnote on page 299 of the translation reads as follows: "215. The βιβλιακοί are 'Epicureans by the book,' or at least so they claimed. The school encouraged verbal disputations over the texts of the founders like those of Demetrius Laco's Textual Problems. See Sedley 1998, 62-93; and Del Mastro's (2014, 184-87) reconstruction of the title Πρὸς τοὺς φαςκοβιβλιακούς A, in P.Herc. 1005/862 (partially published in Angeli 1988a" (Armstrong and McOsker).
It corresponds with the following text from On Anger (Columns 45.16 – 46.12):
"... [45.16] so that I amazed at those who want to be textbook Epicureans [βυβλ'ι'ακοίc], that they ignored these and the things I mentioned before, and as a result tried to demonstrate that, according to our Founders, 'the sage will become wrathful.' [45.23] And their proofs that he will become enraged are very far from establishing that he will become enraged according to every notion of rage, as they ought to have, since nowhere do they establish both anger and rage as separate categories, nor that 'he (the wise man) will become angry' in the sense common (to both words), as we will show. [45.33] It is clear that both in magnitude and quality rage differs from anger and is not natural. [45.37] But they have reasoned wrongly about when anger and rage are referred to the same thing and when they are not just as they fail in their opinion about whether the sage does or does not fall into a 'rage'--I think this clear to those who have followed what we have indicated in our discussion of the subject. [46.6] So, then, having laid down these things on our own behalf and concerning us, with arguments that prove it, in support of there being a natural kind of anger, we have [indeed] replied that the sage will become angry." (Philodemus, translated by Armstrong and McOsker 2020)
I just found a vocabulary word of interest in Column 45 of On Anger: Philodemus contrasts dissident, heterodox Epicureans against orthodox, "textbook [βυβλιακοίς] Epicureans" (coming from the word βιβλιακοί or bibliakoí meaning “Epicureans by the book” according to translators David Armstrong and Michael McOsker 2020).
I think it is appropriate to refer to those of us who are "not neo-Epicurean, but Epicurean" as "Bibliakoi".
Does the philosophy change you?
Epicurean philosophy changes us the same way a pair of glasses changes someone with near-sightedness.
I also note his use of ΣΠEPMATA or σπέρματα (spérmata, "seeds") in The Lives of Eminent Philosopher X.74
This makes Lucretius' use of SEMINA more of a literal Greek-Latin translation and less of a poetic innovation.
The Church of Epicurus online hosts the Inwood & Gerson translations:
I believe I have found several places in The Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book X where atoms are referred to something other than ἄτομος (and declensions thereof). Here are those found in Ep. Her. and Pyth.:
ATOMA — “elements” (Bailey), “particles” (Munro)
ATOMOI — “atoms” (Bailey)
ATOMOIΣ — “atoms” (Bailey)
ATOMOΣ — “atom” (Bailey)
ATOMOYΣ — “first beginnings”, “atoms” (Bailey)
ATOMΩMON — “atoms” (Bailey)
ATOMΩN — “atoms” (Bailey)
ATOMῼ — “atom” (Bailey)
Here are additional words (I believe) used in extant texts to refer to the eternal, indivisible particles, namely, declensions of μέρος (méros or "parts"), ὄγκος (ónkos or "mass"), and λεπτός (leptós or "minute").
ΛEΠTOMEPHΣ — “fine particles” (Hicks)
ΣXHMATIΣMOΣ — “atoms” (Hicks)
ΣXHMATIΣMOY — “atoms” (Hicks)
MEPIΣIN — “certain particles” (Hicks)
OMOYPHΣIN — “certain particles” (Hicks)
OΓKOI — “particles” (Hicks)
OΓKOYΣ — “atoms” or “parts” (Hicks)
OΓKΩN — “particles” (Hicks)
Have you come across any other words in ancient Greek that refer to "atoms"?
Neo Platonism is the singular most impactful philosophy on all the big theistic religions whether they want to admit it or not.
Is it right that there is no writings directly from Epicurus left?
Not at all. Among those works that have survived are his Epistles to Herodotus, Pythokles, Menoikeus, and Idomeneus, in addition to his Last Will. We have a list Key Doctrines from a similarly named work, and two, preserved lists of Sayings. We have several hundred fragments from Epicurus' works, famously organized by Hermann Usener. In addition to those source materials, we have secondary sources from Epicurean opponents who cite Epicurus directly, or else, Epicureans, themselves, who reinforce the original positions of Epicurus. As Epicurus' school is renown for being doctrinally conservative, we find more historical consistency between ancient Epicureans than with their opponents.
Great use of Firefly, Don ! 
Anyway my colleague is willing to do cocaine and will go through the come down afterwards because he argue’s that the pleasure outweighs the pain. [...] It could be argued in this scenario that he is being Epicurean?! Thoughts!
Recreational drug use is a natural desire, though unnecessary. If he has performed the appropriate συμμέτρησις (weighing advantages versus disadvantages) and has determined that the high is worth the crash, then it's worth it.
There are a few considerations to cocaine use. First, Epicurus generally recommends against intoxication:
"The wise man will never indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet." (Wise Man Saying 13)
Cocaine intoxication stresses the cardiovascular system. At the same time, it tends to provide users with more utility than do depressants (like alcohol.) Beyond a heightened state of alertness that can propel someone to accomplish more tasks, cocaine has been demonstrated to enhance creativity by reinforcing divergent thinking. Of course, long-term, habitual use of the chemical can lead to permanent health complications that should be considered, and withdrawal symptoms (feeling like bugs are crawling under your skin) may weigh the scale against usage.
Epicurus provides another parameter we should consider:
"[S]elf-sufficiency we believe to be a great good, not that we may live on little under all circumstances but that we may be content with little when we do not have plenty, being genuinely convinced that they enjoy luxury most who feel the least need of it" (Epistle To Menoikeus).
Unfortunately for users, cocaine is one of the more expensive drugs, and generally harder to acquire a quality product. Unlike alcohol, which is cheap and ubiquitous, a cocaine habit is much harder to maintain due to socioeconomic factors. The habit depends on availability, and the availability is further determined by affordability. While cocaine might stimulate him in a pleasurable way, there are healthier (and cheaper) ways to achieve a similar high. Additionally, withdrawal symptoms make it harder to focus and generally maintain a healthy equilibrium.
There are also legal consequences to consider:
"It is impossible for the man who secretly violates any article of the social compact to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure he will not be detected." (Key Doctrine 35)
"The wise man will not object to go to the courts of law." (Wise Man Saying 19)
The federal statute on limitation for illegal drug use is 5 years, and, depending on your location, and the temperament of law enforcement in your area, using cocaine may make you a target, or an easy arrest. Furthermore, having a record that includes possession charges can complicate future legal struggles. Of course, this is not necessarily a problem if you are a member of the upper class, as law enforcement overwhelmingly targets poor communities.
"[Epicurus] asks himself in his Problems whether the Sage who knows that he will not be found out will do certain things that the laws forbid. He answers, 'an unqualified prediction is not free of difficulty' – which means, 'I shall do it but I do not wish to admit it.' (Plutarch, Against Colotes, 34, p. 1127D)
The law is not absolute and is not necessarily just, and it is up to each of us to determine what is best for ourselves. Overall, I think rare cocaine use is generally fine in healthy adults, of course, to each their own.
"Provided that you do not break the laws or good customs and do not distress any of your neighbors or do harm to your body or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please." (Vatican Saying 51)
