Posts by Condorcet

You're welcome! During the last 4 years I have been learning the definition of "system" and how to apply "systems thinking." As always I can find what I am looking for on the web. I think this is one of the best explanatory sites http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/bees/.

I appreciate what the site says about our inability to "clearly perceive ourselves" in space, through time, and in "our relationships to what appear to be remote "objects, forces, people and events." Because it teaches us how to overcome "spatial blindness", "temporal blindness" and "relationship blindness", systems thinking routinely provides pragmatic ideas and deeper insights so critically needed today.

Excellent! Thank you.

"...

bringing news of what can be

And what cannot, limits and boundaries,

The borderline, the bench mark, set forever.

----

FWIW for several years I have been trying to change public policy based on the FAITH that there are no limits to growth! The faithful say "we either grow or die."

----

"And by his victory we reach the stars."

You might enjoy this "Most Detailed Map of the Universe To date" - https://futurism.com/videos/detaile…80135&exid=2189.

Sure! And I'm assuming "these ideas" are referring to Maslow's theory of human development and Brown's list of human attributes held in common. I wasn't recommending them as a pursuit I just thought they were useful for providing detail to the metaphor.

For me their practical application is that, yet again, inquiry and science give us additional concepts and words that allow us to describe and discuss some of the elements in the metaphor. For example, I believe we can more completely consider what those "guard rails" and "banks" might be. (I find I may have "over focused" on the metaphor!)

I think the "guard rails" and "banks" are not really distinct from the "flow" that inevitably overruns and carves as it anticipates and discovers it's own way.

That we experience so much "one-size" has bothered me most of my life! It is such a pleasure to discover a perspective that confirms what I sensed and felt most of my life. From what little I understand of it Epicureanism is about the way things are and how to live with that truth virtuously.

I very much appreciate the time with you, Cassius!

Thanks very much Cassius! I can’t always timely return to this wonderful site so please don’t feel you have to respond immediately especially if you have had a long day.

C-Paragraph 2, I still think of this in terms...

Me - Right, well-said!

C- Paragraph 3, In the same way ...

Me - Yes and it’s the human “aspect” I want to stay with for a minute. Brown’s list of human universals labels hundreds of behaviors that define “human” experience more individually than “passions.” Group formation is inevitable like the grouping around Epicureanism but individuals still express hundreds of common attributes independently of the group. https://listography.com/ink/people/don…uman_universals

Still Brown’s list is not complete, the brief preface to the list on the Listography site mentions some important human concepts that are omitted or understated. Nevertheless I think Brown’s human universals help identify many of the “currents” in the river metaphor.

Continuing with the metaphor, I considered what the stream bed might be and I think it is "pleasure." Earlier I mentioned Maslow’s theory, that the motivation for satisfying our needs is to “self-actualize.” While Brown lists attributes Maslow lists needs; physiological, safety, belonging and love, social needs, esteem.

Maslow believed “self-actualization” is an inherent goal and psychological and emotional problems arise when that goal is thwarted when needs are unmet. Interestingly Maslow describes how self-actualized people are “strife-free”.

While there is no specific order to satisfying needs, the physiological needs cannot be denied for very long. Perhaps satisfying needs has much to do with where the stream flows.

C - Paragraph 3 cont'd ...the river has banks...

Me -To me this passage suggests that our responses to our anticipations define our currents within the flow.

C - Paragraph 4, So at one and the same time...

Me - Yes and I see the “banks” in the metaphor as the people and institutions that constantly propose the false choices and create much of the “friction” preventing free flow.

C - Paragraph 4 cont'd ...We don't need to choose between radical libertarian individualism and totalitarian authority that suppresses all individual feeling.

Me - I agree although I don't understand most political labels (“libertarian”, “neocon” etc), I do understand government labels like "totalitarian authority" !

C - There's always going to be some friction...wrong to totally take sides.

Me - Yes absolutely “wrong” and confusing and useless!

Thanks

This discussion of "valueless virtue" brought to mind Cassius' excellent piece "The Real Troika" (Jul 7, 2015).

In it Cassius takes justifiable exception to the media's claim that a "troika" (European Commission; European Central Bank and the IMF) is creating the crisis. Instead he asserts the real troika contributing to the crisis is ; 1) that "god" is sovereign so "all things work together for the good"; 2) that "virtue" is the goal rather than the means of a virtuous life.

And third, that the "troika" is founded on the "false social ideal that abstractions such as the 'group' have interests" superior to the "happiness of each individual."

To support this perspective Cassius asks "are the interests of the Greeks the same as those of Italians or Germans or Spaniards or the Irish?" Here I would answer "Yes" because within these groups we all pursue our common interests in health, safety, security, happiness.

I agree when Cassius asserts "individuals have individual interests." When he rightly shows how "group think" represses individuality. Recall Orwell's INGSOC.

When I consider individual interests versus common interests I believe we share far more common interests and that these persist in spite of "group think."

Donald Brown's Human Universals reveal that we share hundreds of human traits; our "humanity" underlying our cultural and political systems. I am also reminded of Abraham Maslow's list of what we need to be fully realized individuals (physiological needs, safety, belonging etc). (Almost as soon as Maslow published this theory critics renamed the list an "hierarchy." This misdirected attention from the benefits of the theory to our pursuit of happiness. Maslow's clear statements that the list was not an hierarchy are still ignored.)

I like to ponder what happens when we follow Epicurus' suggestion that we consider, "both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; for otherwise everything will be full of uncertainty and confusion"? Principle Doctrines -22.

Cassius reveals how the EC, ECB IMF "troika" misdirects attention from the "clear sensory evidence" that we have far more in common than the few who inhabit international institutions and sow "uncertainty and confusion" among us. The work of Donald Brown and Abraham Maslow add to the "clear sensory evidence."

Thank you Cassius! I can respond to the May 15 post, "please drop back and let us know your positions on Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology."

-I know there has been some criticism of Epicurean physics and I concluded the critics might benefit from a more thorough understanding of how Epicurus advanced contemporary physics. How, unlike other commentators, Epicurus' conclusions are based on fundamental scientific reasoning and the limits of unaided perception.

"In the broadest of terms the areas of that will determine your conclusions about Epicurean philosophy in general are your views on the nature of the universe (the existence of supernatural gods, pre-birth or post-death existence of souls, existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe, or "essences" in this one),

-Here I agree with Epicurus. His idea as I recall is that people are welcome to believe what they want but when dealing with unobservable phenomenon it is vital that we don't become so enamored of our ideas that we overlook what we are perceiving in Nature.

"on the nature of knowledge (whether knowledge is possible"

-I believe knowledge is possible, there are facts derived by experience and experiment.

"the role of reason in knowledge, and the relative status and role the senses, anticipations"

-For this I had to turn to Epicurus and His Philosophy which I am just now beginning to read. My sense is that "anticipations" is the Epicurean word that explains how we seem to know things almost without reasoning. After studying Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature I believe "anticipation" refers to what we understand as "genetic predisposition." Maybe "anticipation" is also a way of explaining what we experience as "heuristics."

So good to learn about this forum.

My path to Epicurus started with reading Stephen Greenblatt's, The Swerve, How the World Became Modern, then I found an old (Modern Library?) edition of De Rerum Nature and have since settled on Walter Englert's translation which brings me to my point.

My relief and happiness at finding a philosophy that closely matches my perception and conclusions about the real world lead me to proselytize - I believe Epicureanism is good for everybody.

What complicates proselytizing for me are the commonly used translations of matters Epicurean. I have no judgment about the translations because I don't know anything about Ancient Greek. I do judge that at least two translations of Canonics, generally accepted as the best, still render awkward, stilted syntax.

I appreciate the desire to be as true to the man as possible and I believe Epicurus shared his ideas as clearly and succinctly as possible. He had to keep his students attention and be nimble when engaging them.

I know I can be considered presumptuous as hell but I did some armchair analytics and tried my hand at revising a couple of Canonics, always hoping to hew to the meaning. I hope others will try their own versions because it requires one to really consider meaning.

Doctrine 2. Death is nothing to us, because that which is dead has no sensations, and that which cannot be sensed is nothing to us.

--That which is dead has no sensation, and that which cannot be sensed is nothing to us so death is nothing to us.--

Doctrine 5. It is not possible to live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly. Nor can one live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. But those who for any reason do not live wisely, honorably, and justly cannot possibly live pleasantly.

--Living pleasantly is not possible without living wisely, honorably, and justly. Nor can we live wisely, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. Those who for any reason do not live wisely, honorably, and justly cannot possibly live pleasantly.--

...and so forth.