Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Rolf

Accept what you cannot enjoy

This is very instructive to think about, and first I'd like to second what Cassius had to say.

As to the Tetrapharmakos... for me, there's a big difference between "what's bad is easy to endure" and "Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains." (St-Andre) The first is a pablum, but PD04 offers a guideline with which to examine our pain.

A better way to say this might be that the first offers a way to distract the mind, the second offers a way to engage the senses to arrive at a deeper truth. And, really, this is at the core of Epicurean philosophy.

Relating to this is the experience of intensity, duration and location, which is expressed in other PDs. Examine where the pain resides. Is it physical, mental? Where? Is it an "organic" sensation or a reaction to sensation (fearing, anticipating or dwelling on it)? Are there gaps? Can pleasure be found in the gaps? Can this pleasure be increased? Are there prudent ways to directly decrease the intensity of the pain? Can the pain be expected to subside at some point? &c... The feelings are two, not one, and both are guides to living our best lives.

Living as an Epicurist requires a generally unacknowledged degree of mental and physical strength: we're not offered formulas for living our lives, we have to come to an understanding that we thrive through asking difficult questions and facing difficult experiences. We don't try to cast them off as "indifferents", as some would have us do.

Of course there are different genres, subjects, moods &c of movies, and innumerable but not infinite choices of what to watch. Too, one can enjoy the design, the cinematography, the music, the sound design, the special effects and the computer generated effects and, of course the nuance of the acting and the structure of the writing among other things. A wealth of pleasures are waiting to be had, if one chooses wisely.

Quote from The Dude

The entire cosmos lets its massive balls swing in the intergalactic breeze, man.

What can you say after that? That's quite an image, probably not suitable for the Epicurean symbol discussion going on.

Great letter, dude

I keep leaning toward a field of random dots representing particles. Maybe this could be incorporated into the moon symbol, either on the dark or the light side.

Jumping threads here, but I see that Aphrodite is "Goddess of love, beauty, and desire, embodying grace and passion." Not sure of the relevance to that thread, but that seems to put desire in quite pleasurable company. I admit that's a very shallow view, oversimplifying the matter. But it seems worth pointing out.

Time warping from ancient Rome to the recent past... Several years ago I took some notes from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…58/#!po=31.0811; here are some select quotations:

“From sensory pleasures and drugs of abuse to monetary, aesthetic and musical delights, all pleasures seem to involve the same hedonic brain systems, even when linked to anticipation and memory. Pleasures important to happiness, such as socializing with friends, and related traits of positive hedonic mood are thus all likely to draw upon the same neurobiological roots that evolved for sensory pleasures.”

“We note the rewarding properties for all pleasures are likely to be generated by hedonic brain circuits that are distinct from the mediation of other features of the same events (for example, sensory, cognitive) (Kringelbach 2005). Thus, pleasure is never merely a sensation or a thought, but is instead an additional hedonic gloss generated by the brain via dedicated systems (Frijda 2010).”

“Identification of hedonic substrates has been advanced by recognizing that pleasure or “liking” is but one component in the larger composite psychological process of reward, which also involves “wanting” and “learning” components (Smith et al. 2010).”

“In conclusion, so far as positive affect contributes to happiness, then considerable progress has been made in understanding the neurobiology of pleasure in ways that might be relevant. For example, we can imagine several possibilities to relate happiness to particular hedonic psychological processes discussed above. Thus, one way to conceive of hedonic happiness is as "liking” without “wanting.” That is, a state of pleasure without disruptive desires, a state of contentment (Kringelbach 2009). Another possibility is that moderate “wanting,” matched to positive “liking,” facilitates engagement with the world. A little incentive salience may add zest to the perception of life and perhaps even promote the construction of meaning, just as in some patients therapeutic deep brain stimulation may help lift the veil of depression by making life events more appealing. However, too much “wanting” can readily spiral into maladaptive patterns such as addiction, and is a direct route to great unhappiness. Finally, happiness of course springs not from any single component but from the interplay of higher pleasures, positive appraisals of life meaning and social connectedness, all combined and merged by interaction between the brain’s default networks and pleasure networks. Achieving the right hedonic balance in such ways may be crucial to keep one not just ticking over but actually happy.” [I cringe at the use of "higher" pleasures, but overall, I'm seeing a distinction between pleasure networks and wanting (desire) networks.]

So I gather that the pleasure/pain network is separate from wanting (desire), but that they are integrally intertwined. This makes sense in light of our difficulty in determining whether desire is pain. It also reinforces the idea of desires not being the same as pleasure/pain when considered in regard to the categories of desires.

Another way to look at this might be that ice cream and desire both can lead to pleasure/pain, but neither are pleasures or pains. Ice cream and desire are different types of things from pleasure/pain, as well as from each other.

Is desire really only a function of the mind? Isn't it often physical... maybe even primarily physical? It ultimately has to be as everything is physical, even the mind.

One thing that's important, per my understanding of Epicurus, is to not conflate desires with pleasures. I interpret this, rightly or wrongly, as desires are not feelings and therefore not pains. Pleasure/pain is one biological function, desire is another.

I also think that it would be instructive to review modern biochemistry in this regard; it may or may not clarify Epicurus, but we have more information than he did and so it's worth reviewing the ideas from a contemporary standpoint. It's of note that our contemporary standpoint often validates Epicurus' thinking to a large degree, which is one reason why I for one find EP so appealing.

I particularly like this pig graphic. But of course I'm the guy with a toy monkey for an avatar.

I'm a bit late but, to me, practical v philosophical isn't a useful distinction as they are ideally one in the same for an Epicurist. Maybe surface v in depth, dilettante v serious student or something along those lines provides a better comparison?

I can't help but speculate that the formulation of the categories of desires is a reaction against asceticism and a defense against the enemies of pleasure. To me the categories are an improvement upon the philosophies that seek removal of all desires, which could be the very definition of asceticism.

Quote from Cassius

Neither Godfrey nor Titus have for a moment (as far as I know) entertained the idea of living in cave.

Well I do have a man cave, but I'd prefer not to live in it....

Not sure if this is helpful but, for me, natural/unnecessary desires are the "sweet spot" of living as an Epicurean.

At some point a person has reasoned through what is unnatural for them and ruled those things out for themself as something to pursue. Similarly, at some point a person has (hopefully) secured their natural and necessary desires for the foreseeable future. The natural/unnecessary desires, then, are everything that's left, and these are the desires that we work with every day. Do I want to do something extravagant, just for the fun of it? This is a practical opportunity to examine my desire and evaluate how it might affect me in terms of pleasure/pain. Am I embarking on a large project? Say, perhaps, a home remodel. How can I maximize my pleasure in this instance, both in terms of the experience and the outcome. Am I deciding between two jobs? Do I want wine with dinner? Paper or plastic?

As Epicureans (or Epicurists) we don't just set up our lives and proceed on autopilot. And working with natural/unnecessary desires is one way to intentionally live day to day with the philosophy to consistently and responsibly maximize our pleasure.

I'm asking this in complete ignorance on the subject, but is it possible that ancient Greek wine was made through a different process than today's French and California wines? Some type of extremely strong retsina? Something that needed water mixed in just to be palatable as well as safe to drink?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_G…fore%20pressing.

https://www.badancient.com/claims/ancient…oman%20cultures.

https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/09/why-ancient-greeks-mixed-wine-with-seawater/

And it is of course Cinco de Mayo... bottoms up!

I believe that in the Voula Tsouna article, "Philodemus and the Therapy of Vice", it's mentioned that an Epicurean vice is a type of action which generally results in pain.

Cleaner, Faster, Greener: Rethinking How We Build Websites

Every website we visit carries a carbon footprint, but visionary designers have been rethinking how they can be built and optimized for greater sustainability.

unframed.lacma.org

I just ran across this article, which is interesting but probably only peripherally pertinent. Haven't made it to the exhibition, so I'm not aware of its focus. It does have a catalog, though, for any digital design geeks 🤓

Intensity, location, duration

Might Elayne's article from several years ago be pertinent? She used the term "fancy pleasure" to elucidate the trouble with the common take on katastematic pleasure as I recall.

For me, a way that is is much more useful than kinetic-katastematic in thinking about various pleasures is in terms of intensity, duration and location. This can be found in the PDs, although not without some effort. Another practical way to examine particular pleasures and pains is to look at whether you can expect them to result in net pleasure or net pain, and act accordingly.

Quote from Cassius

And he didn't say "Ever since I was 50 and reached a complete understanding of my philosophy I have never felt any pain" or anything like that. He acknowledged his pain but held that his pleasures far outweighed them and that he was happy to be alive to experience that day.

It's been some time since I read Gosling and Taylor, but if I recall correctly, they consider the understanding of philosophy to be something of a one-and-done pleasure and they call it katastematic. But as you say, that by no means implies an end of pain. Pains and pleasures still come and go (for some reason an image of swirling around comes to mind) but the stable pleasure of correct philosophy can outweigh most, if not all, of the pains.