Posts by Julia

Quote from kochiekoch

Yeah, but they'd mostly know an image of Jesus.

Well, yes. Like mostly everyone anywhere in the world knows Coca-Cola now, nobody knew Coca-Cola on day one. Today's organised Christianists operate something similar to an international corporation, which, in the past, was an integral part of the military-industrial complex and even operated a private military for aggressive conquest… I mean. I don't know. I think we should define our target audience.

What I am looking for is something that clicks with Epicureans, and which can be used in the manner of the Star of David, a cross, and so on -- as a symbol around the house, as a piece of jewelry, and so forth. To this end, it shouldn't be overly lewd, offensive or anything else that would make it hard to fly the banners due to backlash from the general public. I can see myself wearing or publicly displaying a 20er moon with four dots on it, for example.

But other than that, I really don't care if non-Epicureans know what it means. They will know with time, just like we all know what someone means when he says "In the Meditations, it says…" -- the Stoics have sort-of captured an ordinary English word. What if that diary was commonly known as "Aureliatum"? Well, then you'd know that word. What if that somehow clicked with them, and they'd all start using that word starting today? You'd learn it with time.

Quote from Don

the majority of humans - or at least *many* humans - don't like ambiguity. It's easier to live a world with cut and dried rules. Rules also make it easier to enforce a structure, a hierarchy, and in-group and an out-group.

I agree. (This also applies to modern wild Gorillas and Chimpanzees, as well as pre-historic humans, from what I know.)

Quote from Don

Who gets to name the "true Epicureans"?

I'd like to counter by example: Two anarchists meet by chance, they recognise each other by use of the anarchist's symbol of an A in a circle Ⓐ. They might exchange numbers, meet, and discuss anarchism, often in a heated debate, often disagreeing on what the right way is -- but they'll still be connected. Two christianists meet by chance, recognise each other by use of a cross. Two judaists meet by chance, regonise each other by use of a star of david. Same thing. Just because we look for and propose a symbol that we hope will click with most Epicureans of the general persuasion we have on this forum, as you outlined does not mean we register a trademark and start policing who calls themselves Epicurean… (Even though I'd love to make all those overpriced "Epicurean" wineries pay trademark royalties into a fund towards preserving the Herculaneum papyri )

Quote from Kalosyni

an Epicurean symbol must have an interface between feeling and usefulness.

Quote from Cassius

There are all sorts of combinations that apply in different contexts.

Quote from Cassius

As to the bracelets and symbolism I see that as useful but differing widely by context.

Quote from Don

From what I understand, Epicurus calls us:

to see […] to understand […] to judge […] And so on...

In my opinion, these aspects are all symbolised in the waning gibbous (20er moon) with four atom dots. Let me recap, in no particular order, the symbolism as far as it was outlined:

• The four dots represent the atoms, and the space between/around them, is the void
• Historically, the moon and the stars (which the four dots can also be) have provided literal guidance to traveling humans, just as they provide figurative guidance to us
• The celestial bodies have inspired art, poetry, and scientific research
• The four invisible lines between the dots represent the quadrifugaco, the lines of the tetrapharmakos
• The four lines are invisible, because abstract concepts stem from the biochemical reality material atoms form in our brains, but they don't have a literal, direct existence in the sense of a Platonic realm of ideal forms
• The space between and around also points to where the Gods live.
• The different size of the atoms alludes to both the Epicurean ideas about not every atom being equal, as well as the shibboleth about the size of the sun
• It could also be seen as an eye, as in Sic Fac Omnia Tamquam Spectet Epicurus.
• The moon ties back to an ancient tradition as well as The Man himself, and…
• also to the Epicurean emphasis of friendship and community, and with that, it ties into
• to Epicurean ideas of justice (because without it, we couldn't be friends for long…)
• The dots can be a birds-eye view of four people in the garden (represented by the moon)
• Because they're "on the moon" an emphasize of lathe biosas can be seen, too
• The points at the top (a triangle pointing up) and bottom (a triangle pointing down) of the diamond shape represent Pain and Pleasure.
• The points to the left and right (triangle pointing left and right) represent Choice and Avoidance
• They can also be Right and Wrong, as in ethics and justice
• The four atoms can be: Physics, Atomics, Canonics, and Ethics
• The lower three atoms can be Sensations, Anticipations and Feelings, leading to the upper one: our Judgement about what is true in the world
• The four atoms are arranged in a diamond, the most durable natural physical substance (we currently know of), representing for the unshakable enduring trust in the Canon and the physical nature of the Cosmos with no supernatural intervention.
• The 20th moon is perpetually "born", "grows up" and "dies" again, which can be seen as a circle of life
• However, in moving through it's cycle, moon might fade from view, but it never truly disappears: nothing comes from nothing.
• It can also represent the linear, steady, forward-only passage of time (we cannot turn back time, not can we pause it)
• The space around the moon is as infinite as the universe itself
• Three atoms can be the canon, with the fourth being
• Even on nights we cannot see the 20th moon, anywhere on the night sky we can usually find four stars roughly arranged in a diamond on both hemispheres; this symbolises the eternal wisdom in what the four atoms represent, how they're there every day of the week, at any time of the day, and can offer us guidance through life even when it's not a time to celebrate
• This is also represented by the earth's moon looking that same way on earth practically forever (100 million years from now, human descendents will look back at me with an amused chuckle)
• because any constellation will do, it also says that there is no special meaning to the stars, symbolising the stance against superstitions (as can be found in like today's zodiac signs, ancient Babylonian / Hellenistic astrology, religionism, etc)
• …

That's a total of 27 interpretations already (I'm sure more could be found), and I argue that is not a weakness, but a strength: The symbol offers something for everyone, making it viable for broad adoption, and leading to the 28th interpretation: There is no universally agreed-upon authority issuing decrees about what "a true Epicurean" is. The symbol itself is a space for exploration, it is what your senses and judgement tell you it is, and that meta-level is itself Epicurean

(Copy & Paste from Don in this post.)

Quote from kochiekoch

I don't think most people would have a clue that the waning moon is Epicurean. Also true of the four atom dots arraigned in a diamond.

Why is that so bad? I could generalise it, and it would remain true: "most people would have no clue what Epicurean philosophy is" — and, as far as the general public is concerned, the same would also hold true for Epicurus' face.

I don't think that – with regards to finding a symbol – this a problem, or if it is, it isn't one we can solve. You see, it's probably true that in some parts of the world most of the local people there would have no clue what the christianist fish symbol means — but some people would know, some people would recognize it, and it could be the beginning of a bond over shared values. Some other people might not recognise it, but get curious and ask, which could be the beginning of a nice conversation, the beginning of a connection over something more than the weather.

And also, those who use the symbol would know what it means to themselves, it would be a reminder, a little non-supernatural ritual or charm, which is also something valuable.

That's enough for me

Quote from Kalosyni

Here is something I made using Canva layers (for the shapes and colors) together with a text-to-image (the woodcut).

Hmmm… I think – and y'all might disagree – but I think a symbol should be so simple that an average 8yo child could reproduce it. It shouldn't be harder than learning by heart how to draw a specific Chinese character (正体字), and I think this simplicity is actually an important aspect of these types of symbols

I feel like I'm saying "No" to everything, but I don't do that for the sake of it, nor do I mean to be confrontational, and I sincerely hope I'm expressing myself well. I do appreciate everyone's opinions and thoughts on finding a good symbol!

Quote from kochiekoch

I prefer roses. Also symbolic of Venus and a lot more common and easily obtained.

Roses are, indeed, more easily obtained, but roses are so very common and as a symbol are so heavily pre-charged already, that I wonder if they would serve a symbol's purpose of providing recognition with a reasonable amount of certainty…

I remain skeptical regarding whether Venus Physica is the way to go. I think there is a difference between "metaphorical" and "symbolic", and to me, Venus is more metaphorical than symbolic, which remains true, whether or not she was Memmius' and Lucretius' favourite. Venus as a metaphor can be exchanged for something else, without changing Epicurean philosophy as such. On the other hand, the atoms, the tetrapharmakos, the 20ieth, and so forth, are fixed — they will exist practically forever, and even if we live on Mars someday, moon on earth will still look the same on that day. I think that's beautiful and poetic

And also: In my opinion, what Lucretius expressed in those lines Don cited is that everyday language need not be relegated (lest one annoy people), so long as people don't take it at face value; just because Lucretius made explicit that the focus is on what people believe, not how they phrase everyday things — where I live, they say "Oh my god!" and "Inshallah!" all the time without thinking much about it… —, that doesn't make it an ideal or something aspirational. Lucretius doesn't say "Do use names of gods for things!"; he says "Let people stick to their old habits, as long as they know it's not real." Doesn't he?

So far, my personal favourites are still the waning gibbous (20er moon) with four atom dots arranged in a diamond, and the sideways rhombus with an atom in the middle

I also liked the visual of the common myrtle, but I was skeptical as to its symbolism, because — well… — Epicurean philosophy is not primarily about Venus or Aphrodite, so it would, in effect, place a rhetoric device, a poetic figure at the centre of things. See what I mean? It would be sort-of similar to using Iphigenia as a symbol, would it not?

What I thought could be done is, one could interpret the anther of the myrtle flower as atoms flying into mostly one direction, the filament of the stamen would be their past flight path through the void. It could also be interpreted as the pistil being Epicurus and the stamen being people at the garden. One could arrange the stamen such that they shape the four lines of the tetrapharmakos, as in the diamond/rhombus symbol. But then what are the petals? There might be three in a drawing, showing the three-legged canon of truth.

A flower, just like anything else, should, in my humble opinion, have a good amount of symbolism to go with it; symbolism which is Epicurean in a more narrower sense of the word than Venus or Iphigenia would be on their own.

Quote from Eikadistes

Quote from Kalosyni

But I like this concept that Eikadistes made some time ago... I've made it as a plain symbol without words:

In the even that anyone else wants to play with the gibbous moon design, I'm happy to share with you high resolution versions of the wordless transparencies I created for the Hedonicon and elsewhere.

I would appreciate that, Eikadistes!

Don, do you have a vector file of your Four Atoms version of it? If not, that's okay, too: The picture you uploaded is quite high resolution, and looks like it should be easy enough to trace

If y'all would like to release any file/symbol into the public domain, you can do that using the following template (for example). This effectively voids your own copyright to the specified file/symbol, thereby granting perpetual unlimited usage rights to anyone and everyone. To illustrate: The original text of De Rerum Natura and classical music are in the public domain, but Stallings' translation of DRN and today's number 1 pop song won't be in public domain for many years to come. Template:

This work (the file & symbol uploaded in this post by myself) is dedicated to the public domain and is marked with CC0 1.0 Universal. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

(Happy Birthday To You is a well-known example for why this can matter. Please know that I do not assume ill-intentions by anyone here. Copyright is just a topic that is very present in my mind in general )

Don: Is there an astonished / surprised superman in here, too?

Of what we have so far, I still like this symbol best.

Quote from Don

My major misgiving about the moon I'm using is that it can be interpreted as a moon with a surprised look on its face. (Once you see it, you can't unsee it.)

I still don't see it. I mean, I can cognitively suppose that the two atoms left/right could be eyes, and the atom at the bottom could be a mouth, like with this smiley "" but then what's the one at the top? The 3rd eye? And how come the right eye is bigger than the mouth? I really don't see it! Is Don the only one who sees it, or am I the only one who doesn't?

Quote from Don

I'll post it to my profile wall.

Somehow I can't see it (on your wall)? Can you please also post it to this thread? Judging from memory, I imagine the "Oh!" could be solved by rearranging the sizes / atoms a bit: by putting a small dot at the bottom and/or by rotating the atom-formation a little, or making it a bit more into a rhombus than a perfect square. And also: That face-in-the-stars didn't occur to me when I first saw it. From memory, I still like your design from yesterday / couple hours ago best!

The atoms could also represent any of a number of square/diamond-shaped star constellations which move across the northern/southern hemisphere night sky throughout the year, symbolising that there is no special meaning to the stars, symbolising the stance against superstitions, like today's zodiac signs, ancient Babylonian / Hellenistic astrology, all the religionist's stars, et cetera.

And (from memory) the "Oh!" could just as well be an "Ah!", as in an epiphany, when making an important discovery about the nature of things

I like how easy it is to interpret many different meanings into that symbol, allowing it to represent so many key aspects at once.

I very much like the variant of the moon Don currently uses! I also like how the four lines of the Tetrapharmakos are invisible: abstract concepts, ideas -- they stem from the biochemical reality of material atoms, but they don't have any direct existence in the sense of a Platonic realm of ideal forms. The different sized atoms can have an additional layer of meaning, alluding to the shibboleth of the size of the sun.

I think it is visually very pleasing, pragmatically it could be made into pendants, rings and those sorts of things, and it is unique (I don't know of anything else like it).

A sideways rhombus with a dot in the middle would still make use of all the interpretations offered for the ⟐ symbol. It can be found ready-made without being prohibitively expensive, but it isn't a common fashion item in and of itself. This makes it more distinct, ensuring those who use it are much more likely to do so because of this particular meaning. The two products I linked to are more feminine, but I think with different styling, it would work equally for men. It is more reminiscent of an eye than the ⟐ symbol with 90° angles, giving more weight to the interpretation: "Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus." In effect, benevolently saying some thing like: "I might not be the Hegemon in the flesh, and I might not be a fully-fledged bust of him, but I am one of his eyes, and I am – figuratively, metaphorically – watching the actions of the wearer, such that they might find it easier to act wisely," invoking (figuratively/metaphorically/psychologically/subjectively) a sense of a benevolent presence, if you will, without losing any of the other interpretations: the atom, the void, the four lines of the tetrapharmakos, and all the other things which have already been mentioned early on in this thread.

Quote from Don

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their reference to Epicureans in particular going around with Epicurus face on rings, cups, etc, as if it's an idiosyncrasy of the school?

And because this variant of a sideways rhombus would entail a stylised aspect of the bust / face, it would connect to the historical tradition of showing the bust / face.

I think it really hits that sweet spot between being a simple geometric shape, yet still carrying meaning through symbolism; and between being very recognisable and very inconspicuous at that same time

The same holds true for rings: While it can be found incorporated into a rings in a number of ways, it is far less common to find a rhombus with the sides pointing left-right to the neighbouring fingers (see picture below). (In contrast, rings with squares that have a stone set in the middle are quite common, and so is a rhombus pointing to the fingertip / knuckles; so they would be much more likely to just be intended as general fashion items.)

Quote from Don

then roared back onto the backs of cars in the 1970s

Seems to me like it also started showing up on some Western European storefronts.

Quote from Don

That said, I do have a small plastic piglet on my desk at work

That's cute 😁

Quote from Don

Two stylized Ps back to back = Pleasure and Pain

That only works in English, so I don't think it would be a very good idea. Greek and Latin are languages too, of course, but they hold a different status, in my opinion. (As do proper Names, like Epicurus, Ἐπίκουρος.)

Quote from Cassius

agreed and I hadn't noticed that myself. But I am not sure there is much variation in the appearance of pigs(?)

They can be newborn, piglet, or adult. Boar or sow. Boars might show tusks. Sows might be pregnant or have visible teats. Position could be lying, wallowing, standing, or leaping. Could be furry or bare skinned, and fat, lean, or medium. So…there is /some/ variation, but of course they'll still be pigs 🤷‍♀️

But regarding the leaping piglet, I'm not convinced mammals can be stylised like a fish? There's Picasso's bull sketch (Le Taureau), but I'm quite certain that if didn't have his name attached, it would be considered utterly unremarkable. Plus, for a symbol, there's no symmetry or anything in it -- unlike the Christianist's stylised fish, which is quite geometric as a shape. A pigs face would be an easier, more symmetrical shape overall.

I think it is interesting there never was a symbol other than the bust, which I'm sure not just anyone could afford to own or put on display.

Quote from Don

I love the pig woodcut design as artwork. Epicurus' bust is great as artwork.

But you have to hand it to the major religions for having easy to spot, easy to draw symbols:

☦️☪️☯️☸️🔯🕉️✡️✝️🪯

That's what we're looking for.

I agree.

Quote from Don

Getting people to agree and use it, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

This seems to imply getting agreement before actual usage, and I don't think that's how it works. Symbols like these are adopted and used without asking for universal agreement, let alone permission, and they either make it or they don't. As such, the process is an evolutionary trial & error cycle through the court of public opinion, until something just happens to be found that clicks with enough of a majority to catch on. So the trick, in my opinion, is not to make the entire world agree. It should be enough if we can come to reasonable level of agreement amongst each other, and then just try and see what happens.

Quote from Don

There are things like the leaping piglet silhouette, Eikadistes ' 20er moon, graphic representations of the Epicurus bust, etc. But for sheer basic graphic symbols, ya gotta hand it to the cross, crescent, Star of David, et al.

I agree. I think it should ideally be a very simple geometric shape, and if it is to be based on letters, I think it should be stylised (like the tau-phi mashup, like ℅, @, &, 𝄞, etc). So, for example, I like the shape of the 20er moon, but I think the four letters "20er" spelled out are already too much writing to make for a good logo / symbol / …

Quote from Eikadistes

I do like the idea of a symbol reflecting the Hegemon, himself, in the spirit of consistency with the ancient tradition. This is what I came up with a while ago to place focus back on The Man:

I agree that having some continuity would be good. But I wonder, pragmatically: How would you turn that stylized E into, for example, a necklace pendant? The lower half would have to be connected somehow.

Quote from Wikipedia

"Uncial is a majuscule script (written entirely in capital letters) commonly used from the 4th to 8th centuries AD by Latin and Greek scribes. Uncial letters were used to write Greek and Latin, as well as Gothic, and are the current style for Coptic and Nobiin."

"After the establishment of the canonical Ionian (Euclidean) Greek alphabet, new glyph variants for Ε were introduced through handwriting. In the uncial script (used for literary papyrus manuscripts in late antiquity and then in early medieval vellum codices), the "lunate" shape (ϵ) became predominant."

This variant of the Epsilon is quite symmetrical, and moon-shaped ("lunate"), alluding to the 20th / moon-based calendar. It can be modified with an "atom" dot (like this Ė character) which – to my limited knowledge – would make it quite unique. I didn't mean for it to be off to one side / asymmetrical, I just didn't know off the top of my head how to get it right in the middle using only Unicode.

Lunate Epsilon: ϵ (Unicode U+03F5)
Combining Dot Above: ̇ (Unicode U+0307)
Result: ϵ̇

I don't actually know that I would prefer that over the ⟐ symbol. The most visually pleasing icons, in my opinion, are symmetrical (left-right, up-down, both, in diagonals, …), which makes any E variant tricky.

I think, my overall favourite so far would be a rhombus ◊ (instead of an equal-angle diamond ◇), with a dot in the middle. Any thoughts on that?

Quote from Don

To repeat and expand on michelepinto 's and others' proposals:

• The four sides = The four lines of the Tetrapharmakos
• The dot = the atom (or whatever basic building block of matter you want in modern terms)
  • The space around the dot represents the void.
• The points at the top (a triangle pointing up) and bottom (a triangle pointing down) of the diamond shape represent pain and pleasure.
  • Additionally, the points represent the choices we make based on pain and pleasure. Which way will we decide to go? It's up to us!
• The symbol is an abstract eye to represent the motto SIc fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus. You could even include the letters SFOTSE in some arrangements around or inside the diamond.
• The diamond shape with dot is an abstract representation of a walled Garden with a group of people inside.
  • For those Epicureans who want to emphasize lathe biosas it can represent that but doesn't need to.
• The two sides of the diamond represent two people facing each other with outstretched arms < > joining hands in friendship.
• The diamond itself represents the most durable natural physical substance which stands for the unshakable enduring trust in the Canon and the physical nature of the Cosmos with no supernatural intervention.

I'm blue-skying here but just wanted to provide in how many directions you can go with a simple figure. I agree with Cassius that the most traditional "symbol" was the bust of Epicurus but that's hard to capture graphically (unless someone is up for a challenge).

I very much miss having a universally agreed upon symbol for Epicurean philosophy, and I quite like the many ways in which this can be interpreted.

One practical problem is, of course, having actual space between the four sides and the dot in a real-world pendant like a necklace, but I think an diamond-shaped piece of gold/silver (ideally with raised edges) with a stone set in the middle should do fine?

What would we call this symbol?

Quote from Kalosyni

You might look onto "Compassionate Communication" (NVC) by Marshall Rosenberg:

Mm, this is still at cross purposes: In general, when faced with a task one doesn't like doing, one can either use willpower and try to "just power through", but the kind of willpower available to "just force oneself" is a very limited resource. The other option is to speak to oneself compassionately, more akin to talking to child ("I know this sucks, but once it's done, this and that will be really good, and I'll can even reward myself with something or other"), and this is typically much more sustainable. My problem arises when neither of those are happening, and I'm either outright not thinking at all or am, by force of pre-conscious habit, shoving aside whichever faint notion of consequences might have bubbled up for a split-second; I tried to express this in a number of ways above: trance, autopilot, not thinking, mindless, sleepwalk, unaware, ….

That's why I've been looking for a question which forces me to bring to the forefront of the conscious mind the predicted consequences of my actions: "Name what about this will bring satisfaction/relief?"

Quote from Godfrey

VS71. Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?

Thank you so much for pointing out that connection!

I'm glad it says "every desire" – not "a desire" or "your desires". There's no debating what "every" means. I'm also glad it asks to name or describe the consequence ("what will happen"), so one cannot fall into the habit of nodding it off with a mindless automatic ever-same "Yes", as would be all too possible with a closed Yes/No question. I shall pay heed to that it is phrased generically, that it isn't narrowed to any particular (set of) pleasure and pain, and try habituating myself to a more openly phrased "What will happen?" instead. Let's see how that goes

Thank y'all for bearing with me, I do appreciate it

Quote from Godfrey

So in this way selecting isn't either/or, it's actually choice and avoidance. In selecting one thing, you reject another, and vice versa. This relates to the idea that there's no neutral state

However, extending the "no neutral state" analogy once more, then every single point in time one is never honoring both sides of the same coin with perfectly equal strength. For example, even though they both exist on a continuum, "working against the risk of getting fired" is Avoidance, because one conceives of it as actively moving away from something, whereas "pursuing a promotion" is Choice, because one conceives of it as actively moving towards something. If I try, in my mind, to conceive of an action as being perfectly equally both αἵρεσις (hairesis, Choice) and φεύγω (pheugo, Avoidance), I fail. I always gravitate to one or the other reference point as my anchor: either the reference/anchor is where I want to be, or the reference/anchor is where I do not want to be, but it is never equally both. Not in my mind, anyways

Quote from Kalosyni

In this example, you eating the ice cream is "doing" and so by default that is a "choice" that you made.

It is not an upper-case Epicurean Choice, because it is quite obvious to me that, all things considered, this would cause way more pain than pleasure. I'm only talking about upper-case Epicurean Choice (and upper-case Epicurean Avoidance), not the lower-case casual choice or lower-case casual avoidance.

Quote from Godfrey

For example, a bowl of ice cream at 9 in the morning might bring an excess of pain over pleasure.

Because it was just a lower-case casual choice, it doesn't bring satisfaction, it brings regret, so the suggested Choice/Avoidance-test of "Can you name the expected satisfaction/relief that'll come from this?" would have failed, because the answer would have been "No, I'm gonna regret this…"

Quote from Kalosyni

There is a reason behind the action - possibly the desire for "entertainment" (novelty) or a desire to remove anxiety (through distraction).

Virtually all the ridiculous things I do are due to procrastination, which I have the conscious and emotional tools to bisect and deliberately counteract. However, I have to pause for a second and really be deliberate about it ("Human freedom involves our capacity to pause between the stimulus and response and, in that pause, to choose the one response toward which we wish to throw our weight." – Rollo May). Because of how things are, I need to artificially create an interruption to have a pause for thought (→ countdown timer), and I also need to force myself to use it, not just nod off whatever I was doing (→ write it down).

I don't pencil into my planner "9am: eat box of ice cream". The act of writing it down is what ensures I'm mentally present enough to not do dumb stuff — but living by the commands of my planner, having to write everything down, that is itself (well worth it, but also) a pain. Having a generic, universal question to check up on myself would be a great assistance, especially when I'm away from my timer/planner desk. I could ask "Will I regret this?" but that has the down-side of being negatively framed, of not doubling as a motivator. When I ask "Will this bring satisfaction/relief?" it is too easy to just answer "Yes" to everything, so it wouldn't be effective. Only when I ask "Name the satisfaction/relief this will bring" am I forced to actually think about the consequences, and because they're positively framed, it also motivates me to follow through: "I'll have a clean mirror, and I love that" makes it easy to just do it real quick.

So all I wonder about is if anyone can come up with an upper-case Epicurean Choice (or Avoidance) where one would be unable to name/describe beforehand the satisfaction (or relief) this action will bring…

Quote from Godfrey

For me, the immediate pleasure of choosing is that of agency.

Yes, but this regards the mental operation of Choice/Avoidance itself, whereas…

Quote from Godfrey

And this can build upon itself with tiny successes such as choosing to take a break, then taking it when the time comes.

…whatever you Choose or Avoid will bring satisfaction and/or relief, won't it? Seems to me that

• Choice: to do something for satisfaction and other pleasures
• Avoidance: to do something for relief and other pleasures

are indeed valid definitions.

Quote from Cassius

would you ever be able to get anything done if you were trying to actually live this way?

I already am living this way as best I can. The reason is that as soon as I stop doing this I end up living similar to what Rand describes here:

Quote from Ayn Rand

Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make.

My days work like this:

I decide on something (Choice/Avoidance), write it down, set a timer (5-60 minutes), and start doing what I decided upon. Once the time is up, I do that same thing again (which might result in simply continuing what I was doing). Without the timer, I get distracted with something different entirely, or lose myself in a pointless detail, so it acts as a fail-safe (worst case I lose 59 minutes). Without having to write down my Choice/Avoidance result, I lie to myself, and pretend that eating a box of ice cream was my Choice, even though it's 9am, I'm not hungry, and know full well I'll only regret it before I'm even half done. Or I'll lie to myself, saying that my Choice is to now research window wiping techniques on Youtube for three hours (which I'll only regret), instead of just cleaning my bathroom mirror (which would have brought me satisfaction plus other pleasures).

I'm not writing an article, I am trying to get my head straight and relearn how to function properly as an adult human. The point is not to turn myself into a robot, either. For example, I often write down: "Take a break" and set the timer to 30 minutes. The point is to stop sleepwalking through my life, drifting from one Pavlovian conditioning or object-action association to another, like some kind of zombie seeking immediate gratification, which in the vast majority of time ends with me doing things that I regret as soon as I dare to think about them -- such as wasting countless hours on nonsense, eating because I'm bored (instead of because I'm hungry), or doing something that doesn't need doing simply because the object caught my eye's attention ("Oh look, the vacuum cleaner. Haven't used that in a while!"). Most things worth doing require some level of delayed gratification (putting in a little work to make a pizza from scratch; actually cleaning the mirror), and most things that offer immediate gratification aren't worth doing (calling for delivery; the dopamine release of watching a mind-numbing infomercial).

I'm dotting my I's and crossing my T's for purely personal reasons, to make sure I'm not somehow breaking the Choice/Avoidance by checking for "What's the expected satisfaction/relief that'll come from this?"

Quote from Eikadistes

I think that the pleasure that is having choice can be properly called freedom.

In that sense, the pleasure of having freedom is different from the pleasures had from doing things while free. In that regard, I might argue, then, that freedom is a katestamatic pleasure.

I very much agree. My problem is, that I have the pleasure of a lot of freedom (but I won't have that forever, so it pains me to not be using it), and instead of using it to my advantage, I waste it with things I regret, because I simply don't think and am not deliberate in my actions. I'm technically conscious and aware, but I'm also…not. It's a very odd thing, that happens due to a virtually complete lack of outside interruption, outside demands, external structure. How would you keep yourself from wasting your time on immediate gratifications, if there were zero demands? There is no boss, no people, no pets, no deadline, no nothing. I suppose a lot of people fall into a slumber when they retire for that very reason, and unless they can find something external to structure their days, it'll be a tough nut to crack. I haven't retired, and there's no fishin' buddies to hang out with, either, so I need to keep myself on track, and this is how I do it:

By anchoring myself around a timer and a daily planner, and asking: "Will this bring either satisfaction or relief?"

I'm sorry, I was somewhat ambiguous as to how I mean my question(s); please allow me to clarify:

I don't try to control everything; I try to not mindlessly go about my days doing random things which I'll only regret. In that process, I'm often stuck in that middle-ground of dioko/kleros: Despite not having anything better to do, merely wishing my bathroom mirror was clean (dioko), instead of consciously deciding to clean it and committing to that decision (Choice), and instead I sleepwalk to the kitchen, get a snack despite not being hungry or go back to staring at the ceiling or doing something else that's at best useless, at worst self-sabotaging.

This is why I am so keen at finding something to habitually check for. Such as "name the satisfaction/relief that will come from this" and if I cannot do so, I see that I didn't actually do proper Choice/Avoidance.

This is why I wonder if there is a case where proper Choice/Avoidance has been done but there's still no anticipated (in the lower-case casual sense of anticipation) satisfaction/relief to come from the current action. It's really not that deep, and very pragmatic hands-on. I just want to make sure I'm not missing an edge-case or something, because I certainly cannot think of any Choice without foreseeable satisfaction (among other pleasures), nor can I think of any Avoidance without foreseeable relief (among other pleasures). Because the other pleasures are variable, simply checking for "What's the satisfaction/relief that'll come from this" is a dumbed-down, fool-proof, simple yet effective a "Did I really do Choice/Avoidance, or am I fooling myself, or in an autopilot trance?"-test as I could come up with.

Quote from Cassius

to suggest to someone that exercising choice is going to produce immediate pleasurable "stimulation" in the sense of eating candy

That's not quite the way I meant it. More like: Exercising Choice is going to produce an immediate pleasure because 1. the pain of being in a state of indecision ends and 2. the pain of being in a state of lack-of-agency, a state of letting life happen to oneself instead of taking control (in so far as is possible) ends (that 2nd point is what differentiates Choice from dioko in the sense laid out in post #27).

Quote from Cassius

Probably not directly on point but also relevant to this is the vatican saying -- Necessity is an EVIL, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.

To me, that's a statement that the ability to choose and avoid is a good, which means it is a pleasure.

To me, this is the rejection of fatalism, the rejection of preordained fate; I agree with it, but that alone doesn't necessarily make me take charge of my life (which is an unhealthy behaviour on my part), nor does it help me assess or continually check for whether or not I have truly made a Choice or Avoidance (rather than living through my day in a sleepwalky autopilot trance, largely devoid of deliberate action).

I aimed more at where Kalosyni is going:

Quote from Kalosyni

"For he remembers the past with thankfulness, and the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness, nor is he in dependence on the future, but awaits it while enjoying the present;"

So this would be about a kind of satisfaction because of the agreeableness of the present moment. And it seems like it would be a kind of a feeling of flow, not striving over things, not worry or ruminating, because one's "house" (life) is set up properly and in order.

Yes, and this is the compounding result of lots of Choice and Avoidance (plus following through on it). Sort of like: I chose to wipe my bathroom mirror. I don't like doing it, but I know the result will be satisfying. I can assess that I have indeed made a Choice if I can name what will bring me satisfaction in the future and am able to visualise it or "bring it into the present" as I said above.

I very much like the line "the present is so much his own that he is aware of its importance and its agreeableness" because for the present to be able to be my own implies that I have taken charge of my own life in the past (Choice/Avoidance plus following through) instead of letting it happen at me (dioko/kleros).

To rephrase it all: "When there is no anticipated satisfaction nor an anticipated relief, which I could specifically name, I cannot possibly have completed the Choice or Avoidance operation in my mind yet."

Would you agree that this rephrased statement is correct?

(Of course, after having Chosen / decided to Avoid something, I also need to follow through; that's not what I am wondering about, though. I'm specifically looking at what happens beforehand.)