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 finished the podcast. Wonderful! Thank you so much Cassius and Fernando for presenting this, and your fine moderation -- and of course gratitude to Dr. Boeri. 
What has initially piqued my interest is the distinction between "contingent politics" versus "everyday/real politics." I need to take some time to explore and mull over that., and where the contextual/circumstantial lines might be. 
Once again, kudos on a fine presentation! Much appreciated!
Thank you, Cassius! I'll catch it tomorrow -- now I have to watch my Philadelphia Eagles play the Miami Dolphins. ("Fly, Eagles, fly!"). Old Pennsylvania boy, here! 
The more I read of Frances Wright, the more I admire her!
In my perusal of past threads, I came on this post by Cassius – which I reproduce in full:
+++++++++++++
Here's my answer: By no means did the classical Epicureans take the position that we should "never" be involved in politics. Look at the example of Cassius Longinus, and there are others as well.
The caution I always make is that people are individuals and have different programming for pleasure and pain, and by no means do everyone take pleasure and pain in the same things.
Given that difference, I do not think it is possible to take a *Philosophic* position that one view of pleasure or pain is *philosophically* approved by nature for everyone. That is also in my view the clear meaning of the last ten of so, principal doctrines as to justice, which are all about pointing out that there is no "absolute" justice.
I think Epicurean philosophy is hugely helpful in deciding how to evaluate politics and how to take political positions, but I also think that just like in the Roman Civil War it is possible for Epicureans to be on opposite sides of many important issues, so we should be careful not to overstep our bounds and say that Epicurus would endorse only one set of political positions. The clear (to me) import of the doctrines on Justice tells us to expect that people are going to take different positions about how they want to live, so applications of Epicurean philosophy to politics needs to take that into account.
So in my view too the prohibition here on discussing politics is no so much because there are not Epicurean implications, but because here, and at this stage of trying to organize people to discuss and promote the basics of Epicurean philosophy, we really don't want to be drawn into day-to-day disputes that would demoralize and divide and weaken us before we even get started.
No doubt in the future such divisions will occur, as you can already see them on other websites and commentators, some of which are overtly "leftist" and some of which are not (and quite the opposite in fact). But for now, and for here, we want to focus as a group on learning the basics before we go off as individuals pursuing our individual views of pleasure and pain, much as we would, if we were at a convention, divide up into groups to go to restaurants of various types.
+++++++++++++
While I agree with this wonderful post completely, I will add just this caveat:
Under the rubric of “the agreement to neither harm nor be harmed” as the root of Epicurean natural justice, I do not think that one can assent to ideologies or political movements (or parties) that embrace causing harm as a means of securing their own social/political power, without violating Epicurean philosophy on that score. And I think that Epicureanism stands on stronger ground ethically all around than idealist philosophies such as the Stoics or Kantians (or religious/theological “divine command” theories).
LATE EDIT: I should have said "expansion" perhaps, instead of "caveat" given this clear statement by Cassius : "I think Epicurean philosophy is hugely helpful in deciding how to evaluate politics and how to take political positions."
I couldn't find much (and I'm not a chart-maker), but here's a limited one:
“Humanism” is such a broad concept, with many – often conflicting (e.g. theistic and nontheistic) – strands, that I find it pretty meaningless as a catch-all philosophical term in itself. Better, perhaps, to speak of “humanisms” of different sorts.
With that said, if one considers the following definitions (from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism) as valid, then I would think of Epicurean philosophy as a humanism (not necessarily – or perhaps even often – compatible with others):
2: devotion to human welfare : HUMANITARIANISM
"renowned for his humanism"
3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values
assuming I return to myself after this week
Ah, yes! That is an important consideration for this hypothetical! (One which I did not think of in my response. 
)
--Don't get involved in politics (political activites or political debates)
I remain unconvinced that Epicurus thought that being a good Epicurean meant always refraining from political activity, or that he did not recognize the dependency of a society (the polis; Latin civitas) in which the Garden could flourish on politics. Although, Kalosyni's cautions on the matter are well-taken.
Though the book Theory and Practice in Epicurean Political Philosophy. Security, justice and tranquility by Javier Aoiz & Marcelo Boeri remains, sadly beyond my budget (maybe I need to set up a targeted savings plan), I have read their “Cicero and his Clamorous Silences” (https://www.academia.edu/82815606/CICER…MOROUS_SILENCES). A few excerpts below:
+++++++++++
The opponents of Epicureanism in antiquity successfully established a cliché that has remained to this day: the theoretical and practical disinterest of Epicurus and the Epicureans in political communities. The best proof of their success is the transformation of the expressions «live unnoticed» (λάθε βιώσας) and «do not participate in politics» (μὴ πολιτεύσεσθαι) into famous Epicurean slogans.
Nevertheless, Philodemus, like Lucretius and in accordance with Epicurus’ views, in no way condemns the activity of any politician.
The normative or regulative function of the Epicurean political model is embodied in the preconception of the just.
Nor did Epicurus’ conception of justice and law alienate him from his city. Epicurus shares in the rejection of two figures who represent contempt for the laws of the polis: the tyrant and the Cynics.
Indeed, among Epicurus’ friends there were politicians who were influential and close (even very close) to Epicureanism, such as Idomeneus, a prominent politician of Lampsacus, and Mithres, Lysimachus’ minister of finance, who provided financial aid to the Garden.
+++++++++++
The bottom line seems to be that Epicurus supported and relied on the norms and institutions of the Athenian polis – and they necessarily derive from political activity, even if Epicurus himself did not actively participate in politics – at least formally. Today, we also so depend and rely – and so may need to respond politically when necessary if those societal laws, contracts and norms are threatened.
+++++++++++
I also found a Google translation of their essay “¿Cuán apolíticos fueron Epicuro y los epicúreos? La polis griega y sus ilustres ciudadanos epicúreos” (https://www.academia.edu/77829847/_Cu%C…_epic%C3%BAreos) – “How Apolitical were Epicurus and the Epicureans?: the Greek Polis and their Illustrious Epicurean Citizens”. (https://www.scielo.br/j/trans/a/nSSz…qNMPQb/?lang=es)
A few excerpts from that translation:
“In this article we argue that the fact that there were prominent citizens of different Greek cities who adhered to Epicureanism, felt themselves Epicureans and were recognized as such, shows that slogans such as “live hidden” and “do not participate in politics”, which suggest a complete apoliticism on the part of Epicurus and the Epicureans, distort the true meaning of staying away from contingent politics.”
“If, as the title of this article somewhat rhetorically describes, there were prominent citizens of different Greek cities who adhered to Epicurean doctrines, who felt themselves Epicureans and who were recognized as such by their fellow citizens, it does not seem reasonable to infer (from the slogans mostly present in the indirect tradition) a complete apoliticism on the part of Epicurus and the Epicureans nor a “hidden living”. We maintain that there are reasons to suppose that these slogans do not adequately describe the character of Epicurus himself and his practical life (committed to relations of kinship and friendship, philanthropy, the rites of the city, and its legal provisions in the purchase, sale and inheritance of property, etc.), nor that of his followers.”
“It is natural to think that the way of life of those who adhered to Epicureanism over several centuries did not follow a single pattern. Social class, gender, political community and historical context must have led to different modalities of belonging or adhering to Epicureanism.”
“Nor did Epicurus' conception of justice and laws separate him from his city. Epicurus shares the rejection of two figures who represent contempt for the laws of the polis: the tyrant and the cynics (DL X 119).”
“The wise Epicurean, unlike the cynic, is concerned with property and the future; He considers that the property and security of the polis constitute a legitimate means of reinforcing tranquility and minimizing fear.”
+++++++++++++
In sum, it may be a necessity of prudent choice – at least under some circumstances – to forgo the “close” pleasures, and endure some unpleasantness – in order to secure the political environment (laws, contracts, regulations, civic norms) that allows for there to be continued pleasant life at all, where one has at least some hope of neither promoting harm nor being harmed. Just as one might endure the pain of surgery and subsequent physical therapy in order to thereafter enjoy a continued pleasant life. This is the way that I look at my own occasions of political and social activism over the years: I did not particularly enjoy those activities – and they were often both mentally and physically stressful – but they seemed, in the broader view and longer run, to be the prudent choice; and now seem to me to be the prudent Epicurean choice.
Yes, I enjoyed some kinetic pleasure at engaging that kind of formulaic logic (despite my discomfort with the notion of "calculus" when it comes to hedonic choice-making 
).
But I agree with your reservations.
Kalosyni Quote "As for processed fish, such as preserved tuna and anchovies, they were widely consumed by all social classes and were the product of a very flourishing trade throughout the Mediterranean and the adjacent seas."
My only guess is that there was a societal norm aimed at preventing the very wealthy from negatively impacting that wide consumption.
Onenski: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The book is unfortunately beyond my budget for now. I have read their essay "Cicero and his Clamorous Silences" (which can be accessed via the Academia.edu page linked by Cassius above).
“ … in Classical Era Athens, the purchase of all fish by a wealthy citizen was considered an undemocratic act since he left nothing for the rest of the people.” https://greekreporter.com/2022/08/04/anc…rence-for-fish/ cited by Kalosyni in post #43 above.
After reading “Cicero and His Clamorous Silences” by Aoiz and Boeri (https://www.academia.edu/82815606/CICER…MOROUS_SILENCES), I am convinced this criticism would be endorsed by Epicurus and the Garden.
Don: I love the syllogistic (deductive) analysis! Let me see if I can offer a possible solution to your closing “impasse” –
Both A1 and A2 can contain physical and mental components: as you put it, “neither A1 nor A2 map neatly onto mind and body since memories can be a kinetic pleasure.” Let’s call A1p physical kinetic pleasure, and A1m mental kinetic pleasure. Similarly, A2p is katastematic physical pleasure; and A2m is katastematic mental pleasure. So –
A = A1 + A2 = [(A1p + A1m) + (A2p + A2m)].
With that expansion, there seems to be no need to include B2 on the left-hand side. A sum-state of pleasure becomes simply:
(A1 + A2) = [A1p + A1m) + (A2p + A2m)] – (B1 + B2) > 0.
LATE EDIT: And there seems no need to to specify that physical pleasure itself outweighs physical pain, or that mental pleasure outweighs mental pain -- especially since we already know that mental pleasure can potentially mitigate physical pain.
And the daily goal – choice by choice – is to max A – B (with attention to those internal components). And that is how one maximizes A(C) – which we could call eudaimonia?
++++++++++++
Question: Can B1 and B2 also have katastematic qualities? For example, chronic physical pain or clinical depression?
++++++++++++
Okay, my brain is cracked. 
How often is the sum of our experience just what we decide to tell ourselves (or label things as being either "good" or "bad")?
Essentially Epicurus' strategy in his physically painful dying days.
So, yes, there could have been more than one philosophy at play in this letter.
My recollection is that the Greek definite article was also used for emphasis, and not just distinction – as in τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1.
In the Colossians case, it could mean all philosophy in general -- as opposed to proper faith.
Don: "One observation that took me by surprise was that the ONLY place in the Bible where the word "philosophy" φιλοσοφία occurs is Colossians 2:8 where the author is talking about a "philosophy" luring away the Christians in Colossal:
Quote from Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
Lest anyone think this old stuff is not resurrected in modern times: I was warned 30 years ago by a conservative (but not evangelical) Christian pastor that my soul was in mortal danger due to (1) my interest in “philosophy” [his actual word], which he thought was (2) doubtlessly influencing my decision to get a divorce [my wife’s longstanding abusive behavior was, apparently, not a consideration]. He clearly thought that philosophy was at the root of the evil (in his mind) I was about to commit. {Just to be clear, this guy – whom I knew fairly well – was no feminist (as I consider myself to be) concerned with empowering women; no, he was a “man is the head of the woman” guy – though of a kinder, gentler disposition than some of that ilk.}
Hardcore definition of pleasure may not be possible, but "I know it when I feel it."*
However, I think we can generally identify desires in the Epicurean schema of: 1) natural and necessary, 2) natural but not necessary and 3) neither natural nor necessary (and likely harmful: leading ultimately to pain rather than pleasure).
++++++++++++++
* In his concurring opinion in the 1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio case, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart delivered what has become the most well-known line related to the detection of “hard-core” pornography: the infamous “I know it when I see it.” statement.
“I have reached the conclusion . . . that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
“Nobody gives a damn about schedules on Ikaria. Businesses open late. Time slows. Days slide into a gentle rhythm.” https://adventure.com/blue-zones-ikaria-greece/
“My grandmother is 88 and acts like she is 30. She gardens, takes care of her animals, goes out for coffee, jokes about sex, dances at parties. She has even been known to play spin the bottle!” Eftychia Afianes (ibid).
– Sounds exactly like my paternal grandmother, who died one month shy of her 99th birthday. [She is my ultimate Epicurean hero! Her uptight, stoical-virtue-bound son (my father, who didn’t like her much) sadly died at age 59.] She was an avid gardener, who would hoe and grub in the dirt all day -- and then come down the stairs in her evening dress to go play bridge with "the ladies." She normally ate frugally -- but her garlic-stuffed leg of lamb on the occasional family feast was quasi-legendary! She was a feisty flapper-era (as a young woman) proto-feminist. And I will always be grateful to her for how much she shared.
My wife and I recently watched the Netflix series on the Blue Zones – places where a higher percentage of people live to healthy old age: https://www.netflix.com/search?q=blue%20zones&jbv=81214929
We had read the book years ago. I was particularly interested in the Greek island of Ikaria, because of the (loose) connection to Greek culture. Here is the article on Ikaria from the Blue Zone site: https://www.bluezones.com/explorations/ikaria-greece/
I have never been really careful with diet – largely ignoring, for example, my gluten sensitivity (which recently nailed me after a delicious pasta meal). Now, I am trying to cut out gluten-grains – as well as finely milled non-gluten breads and the like (I seem to recall that the rapid digestion of such can spike insulin). Non-gluten, intact grains only. Tonight will be lentils and brown rice, with a side of lean chicken and a small salad.
In recent years, I have also had two or three recurring (mild) bouts of gout – which is tuning me into anti-inflammation considerations, including a host of herbs and spices (e.g. ginger, garlic – of which we are robust consumers anyway – coriander, oregano, etc.: to list the more “Mediterranean” ones, although trade brought in, say, black pepper from India).
Okay, more veggies and fruits! The wine stays! But I am switching to organic wine with no added sulfites (like “Our Daily Red”: https://ourdailywines.com/products/our-d…ganic-red-blend. )
Basically, the “Mediterranean Diet” without the bread and pasta (and pizza – Oh no!).
+++++++++++++++
Disclosure: I’m 72. 
