The Wikipedia article on ataraxia describes it, in part, as “a lucid state of robust equanimity” – apparently drawing on Adrian Kuzminski’s book on Pyrrhonism.
This seems closer to Don’s mindfulness than some passive tranquility. I wonder if equanimity could be a better one-word translation? Or just calm mindfulness?
In taking another look at that quote, I would call "a physical undisturbedness" aponia instead of ataraxia.
Yes, I think that makes better sense,
I tend to think of the mind/consciousness as being emergent phenomena/processes/expressions of the brain, which is part of the body. People do respond to stimuli differently, both physiologically and psychologically.
I tend to think that all feelings (pathe) originate from physical stimulus at some time (to be redundant: “originally”) – but can subsequently be re-membered, re-examined, re-imagined by mental processes (conscious or subconscious). And then such brain/mind activities can neurologically produce stimuli in the rest of the body (think imagining a sexual experience, or recalling a past experience of terror in a nightmare).
However, none of that answers the so-called “hard questions” of consciousness – such as intentionality, decision and choice. Again, I just tend to think of them as emergent phenomena/processes/expressions of the underlying physical/neural substratum. And I accept them (as opposed to some strict determinism). [Which is not really an answer, if one can be had.]
~ ~ ~
I have no education or expertise in any of this: it’s just how I work it out for myself – and subject to change.
Comments by Kalosyni on the physiological need for tranquility, especially for some (I would count myself there) and Don’s comments on ataraxia generally, reminded me of this that I came across:
“For ataraxia, ultimately and simply, is a physical undisturbedness.” [That is, not simply a mental state.]
https://www.academia.edu/34402398/What_…card=view-paper (p. 458)
I think that some sharp distinction between the mental and the physical is likely wrong: fear, for example, is manifest in the body as well as mind (say, as a tingling numbness) – as is any disturbance (tarache). Absence of such disturbances I would see as pleasure – and not necessarily strictly “katastemic”: think of the feeling of release/relief when a strong emotional disturbance (say, fear or rage) is assuaged.
[I hasten to add that I’m not implying mind and body are separate – as if the mind were some kind of “ghost in the machine”.]
I am reminded of a quote that I came across years ago: “When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”
[Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa” (from the Foreword).]
If one takes PD 31, say, as a starting point for engagement on social (justice) issues, concrete applications – vis-à-vis the complexities of specific context – still are likely to be subject to disagreement even among people who are of like mind on the underlying principle(s); especially, perhaps, with regard to means. And I can see the value of creating a safe place for that kind of discussion (with mutual support and affirmation, even among differences) from a foundation grounded in Epicurus.
__________
I want to apologize if anything I’ve said has offended anyone – especially Kalosyni. Mea culpa, entirely.
Kalosyni, I think I understand.
My focus here has been to learn from others in a safe environment how to apply Epicurus to my daily life – not to become as fluent in Epicurean philosophy as others on here.
I have tried to keep my social views to myself, even as I once asked for help on here in how to deal with them – and the stress I often feel. I cannot escape from the social issues and conditions by running away to the Garden (here, elsewhere or in my mind – and no one here suggested that I should).
But there is no way to engage in more social engagement without being open about where one is coming from. And I see where that could require a place (format) different and separate from this one. I don’t know how Epicureanism fosters that kind of engagement/activism – or limits it (I just don’t know).
So, I will be open: I am somewhat left of center economically (which is my academic background long ago, and parlayed into work for years, before our big life-simplification experiment – driven, in part, by political repercussions that became untenable); I am way left of center on social issues; and I see the radical right-wing (MAGA) movement in this country as viciously evil and dangerous (and a real, not a philosophical, danger). I am not as active as I once was (no more protests/picket lines or across-the-table confrontations), but I still make small contributions, mostly quasi-anonymously. [What I find in my poetry (I have never been very good at political/social-engagement poetry, except once maybe) is respite from the tempestuous world.]
So, now I will take a break for awhile. I don’t know if I’ve violated anything here. But, in the meantime, be well all.
Re # 3: That makes perfect sense. (Makes it harder, of course 
! )
As a tiny contribution to outreach, I published my poem "A Small Ode to Epicurus" on allpoetry.com -- with reference to this site. (A very small gesture.)
I re-read what is here, and I’m not sure what the point is. Why is some further organization/organizing needed? Or wanted? How organized is the Garden supposed to be (e.g., to meet modern needs)?
Some random first thoughts, and perhaps hard questions that might influence, in part, what kind of further organizing/outreach you want to do – and for what purpose (recognizing my admitted ignorance):
~ ~ ~
Do you just want to attract more people? How “catholic” are you willing to be to attract people who might not find their way here now? Versus keeping (and insisting on) a more pure understanding of Epicureanism?
Is part of your aim to compete with Crespo’s group, or others? Or to help people who may not end up actually becoming “members” – or may just hang out to absorb whatever teaching they can and that feeds them? Are you looking to expand the Garden only to potential “true believers” (True Epicureans™). Or to broaden the appeal to those who might never go there? (I hasten to add that neither is, from my view, invalid.)
How will you reach busy people in a hyper-texting world, who may not want to delve further into the original texts or scholarly discussion? Do you want to? (I remind myself that doing philosophy in Epicurus’ sense was living a way of life based on certain therapeutic tenets, not necessarily continuing intellectual exploration.)
~ ~ ~
A possible analogy: When Arrian wanted to expand the reach of Epictetus’ Stoic teachings, he did not call upon everyone to read the extensive Discourses (even in chewable chunks); he compiled the Enchiridion as an epitome. The Enchiridion is a very popular book. I’m sure many people allow it to inform their lives, and read maybe a little more about Stoicism or neo-Stoicism – but not much else. Bite-size daily meditation books are also popular (there are even AA meditation books for agnostics and atheists to practice “one day at a time”).
Epicurus produced his epitome, and we have some good translations (and Cassius’ “Elemental Epicureanism”), but even that may not be sufficiently accessible to the busy modern reader. There are the PD and Vatican Sayings, bite-size enough for sure: but I note how much discussion takes place on here on questions of translation and interpretation. So anything like the Enchiridion (combining various sources) would need to be put into easy modern English that the reader can interpret (and re-interpret) as needed according to their own life needs. [A foundational assumption here is that Epicureanism is a sound – if not the soundest – way to meet such needs. I agree.]
At bottom, this is a good place that people find their way to now – and that may really be sufficient. Further outreach involves advertising. My suggestion would be to publish something like the Enchiridion or a daily meditation book that is a) non-argumentative (vis-à-vis other philosophies or religions), b) easy to absorb in small bites, c) is inviting but not insistent on any further study/participation, and d) presents the Garden as a safe place, not a strict creedal “church” (you guys already do a good job on that score here 😊 – or I wouldn’t be here at all).
___________________________________________________
I want to note that even allowing a broadly “catholic” membership does not mean, cannot mean, allowing disruptive argument from, say, neo-Epicureans who want to insist on their own way. Some disagreement is fine, but not disruption – that destroys the Garden itself.
Also, unlike Kalosyni, I notice that I have used the second-person plural here; in retrospect there are two reasons: 1) based on my personal history, I always avoid declaring “membership” and 2) I’m not convinced that what is here, as it is (and how people get here), is not good enough.
My bias is: I wish I had an Epicurean Enchiridion. I basically use the Vatican Sayings (selected randomly) and a Taoist daily meditation book. But it would take, I think, at least a year of diligent writing/editing to produce.
I may have misunderstood this whole thing. If so, sincere apologies …
Yes. And it is important, I think (from perhaps a prejudiced view) that philosophy – including Epicurean philosophy, when it sometimes seems to fail to do so – needs to preserve a bountiful place for "the heart" in the midst of scholarly discoveries and delights.
[Which is not to say that the more scholarly pursuits are absent heart – and if they are to be therapeutic, they need heart. And those of us (me) who these days need to simplify our thinking, also need to keep open to the heart-sustaining message of our more scholarly friends. My ADHD (and my refusal to clench tightly my mind – via willpower or medication – as I once did, for years) means that it will take me a long time to finish Lucretius, say – while I am still reading DeWitt! 😉 And here and there some essay that I found. But I can dip in here anytime, and learn things readily applicable to my daily round. I hope that makes sense … ]
Welcome to a safe and congenial space for your thoughts!
Well, LOL always works! 
And thank you, Cassius, for a good-hearted laugh at the end of the day. 
“How Epicurean Science Saves Humanity”
I would understand “mind” (with the so-called “hard questions” of consciousness, such as intentionality and rationality) as an emergent process, arising from the physical construct of the brain. So, there is no “mind/body(brain)” substance dualism.
My immediate reaction to what seems an interesting article.
(I am really just beginning to read Lucretius – embarrassing! ☹ )
I remember Mill only from my days as an economics student – Mill being classified as a utilitarian. “Utility” in economics means – not some measure of particular usefulness (e.g., a serviceable crescent wrench) – but a measure of pleasure or satisfaction (or alleviation of the opposites on a continuum).
Although, in terms of utilitarian social ethics, generally expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number,” it really would mean the greatest happiness/pleasure/satisfaction for the greatest number. But that is not really subject to a strict formulation/calculus. (And I have suggested that Rawls’ theory of justice might provide a useful addendum.)
Modern neoclassical microeconomics followed Mill in its pursuit of “utility maximization.” But Herbert Simon, with his theory of “satisficing” (as opposed to maximizing) behavior, I think comes closer to Epicurus. (As I tried to address briefly in the thread “Natural Wealth and Natural Goods in Epicureanism”.)
The French philosopher Michel Onfray, in his book A Hedonist Manifesto, links Epicurus to the utilitarians (i.e., Bentham and Mill) to move from a personal to a social ethics.
“In this simple extrapolation, time started with that singularity. … That opens ways to speculate about a time before the point in time of the nominal singularity. However, we have no data to support these speculations.”
I understand the point about having no data to support such speculations, but any such data would peel back the singularity itself, would it not? And any speculation about “a time before time” seems to me to be logically incoherent. Why not just accept the epistemological limitations implied by the singularity? Until there may be, in fact, actual data that peels it back?
EDIT: I don't think I'm arguing here -- just asking questions that I suspect are in general agreement with your understanding.
Another practical consideration: health care. We are in our 70s, and my wife has had a heart attack and has some other health issues that make us thankful for a top-notch medical community and (university affiliated) hospital. So, a smaller university town might be a good alternative to a large urban setting, in the U.S. or elsewhere.
My wife and I did 15 years of life simplification in the country: growing most of our own vegetables, some fruit trees, etc. It was wonderful – but it is hard work, and after 15 years the axes and the pick and the chainsaw were 15 years heavier; and my bad back from a youthful injury would no longer take it. (For about the first 10 years we had no TV, no cell phone and minimal, at best, dial-up internet service.) We moved to a small apartment in a quasi-urban, fairly liberal university town, where we have lived happily for the past 9 years; still simple living. I am still a bit of a recluse most days.
I once looked at Uruguay. From Wikipedia:
“Uruguay is ranked first in Latin America in democracy, peace, low perception of corruption,[13] and e-government.[14][15] It is the lowest ranking South American nation in the Global Terrorism Index, and ranks second in the continent on economic freedom, income equality, per-capita income, and inflows of FDI.[13] Uruguay is the third-best country on the continent in terms of Human Development Index, GDP growth,[16] innovation, and infrastructure.[13] Uruguay is regarded as one of the most socially progressive countries in Latin America.[17] It ranks high on global measures of personal rights, tolerance, and inclusion issues,[18] including its acceptance of the LGBT community.[19] The country has legalized cannabis, same-sex marriage, prostitution and abortion. Uruguay is a founding member of the United Nations, OAS, and Mercosur.”
I'll use this opportunity to get back on my desire soapbox.
"A Soapbox Named Desire"?
(Apologies to Tennessee Williams)
Please do not take this Pacatus as critical of you personally -- and if you would like to in fact defend that position, please do, as that would help the discussion move forward too.
No, I think your correction is spot on. 
Thank you for making it. (And no cave with bread and water, please!)
LATE EDIT: I think I've walked into this error before; I am reading the thread "Differences Between Epicureanism and Cyrenaicsm" -- because I think my mistake might stem, at least in part, from an erroneous (or at lest a sloppy) understanding of the distinctions there; and I think I should probably re-read Nikolsky.
To me, the notion of (substantive) universals always conjures some Platonic notion of, say, “redness” as some essence/substance that imbues those things that we see as red – as opposed to some generalization about things that we just see as "red". And as opposed to the fact that experiencing things as "being red" in color simply enables us to generalize to the idea of redness (really a certain wavelength range in the color spectrum, to which we apply the word “red”).
If, as Nate points out, “the only real existences are atoms and void [i.e., the universe is strictly physical in nature], it follows that no abstractions exist” – then, to the extent that they are (and I think they are) abstractions, universals such as “redness” are not themselves any kind of existent.
I wonder if this generalizing aptitude is related to Epicurean prolepsis? If I say I saw a red rose, you have (based on your own memoried experience) an immediate, general grasp of what I mean – without actually seeing the particular rose?
