Posts by Julia

Quote from Cassius

Yes Julia I need to be more clear and avoid irony / sarcasm in some formulations, and you are right that "orthodox" has confusing possibilities.

Most of the time I use the term I am referring to "modern orthodoxy," rather than an attitude of actually attempting to be true to the Epicurean views of 2000 years ago. In my experience "orthodoxy" has always had a very negative connotation, and that's why I tend to use it negatively and rarely if ever positively. But you are right, loose references are likely to be confusing, and I plan to work on avoiding the term unless I am very clearly spelling out the meaning I intend.

Well, yes, but: What's the difference between this "modern orthodoxy" and "neo-Epicurean"?

Quote from Don

I also found an alternate version online:

If I may add:

• olim non fuimus, nati sumus unde, quieti nunc sumus, ut fuimus, cura relicta (CIL 8.4840) [This one is a bit long]
• non fui, fui, non sum, non desidero (CIL 6.38506) [Too Buddhist for me…]
• non fui, et sum, non ero, non mihi dolet (CIL 6.9258) [Too Stoic for me…]
• non fui, deinde fui, modo non sum (CIL 2.404) [Getting closer]

→ "Non fui, nunc sum, non ero" would be great, but I'm unhappy because I just made it up (Is it even correct Latin? My Latin is practically non-existent. (I know the historical ones were just made up once upon a time, too; but their being historical makes them feel different to me.)) Of the historical ones, so far I might like best the one Don brought up, "Non fui, fui, memini, non sum, non curo" (CIL 13.530):

NFFMNSNC

Hmmm

Quote from Cassius

Given the open lack of desire of most commentators to embrace the whole sweep of the philosophy, "Classical Epicureanism" has seemed to be a workable label so far.

Hmm. "Classical", by referring to the time-period, is a very sensible and clear choice of words. What also makes sense to me is referring to the Stoic/Buddhist/… pseudo-Epicureans as "various brands of 'neo-Epicureanism'". What confused me was that you contrasted classical with "orthodox"? In my mind, "orthodox" refers to either: (1) a school of thought which is true to its roots, or (2) (more commonly) one which merely claims to be true/right/correct by being (professedly, but not actually) genuine/unmodified/original (and in truth is just an extreme interpretation placing way too much emphasis on individual words, specific translations).

That left me wondering: Is there an "orthodox" Epicurean branch in the sense of (2)? Or did you simply mean the various neo-Epicureans?

Quote from Cassius

On the other hand I think it's important for everyone to have *some* idea of what is going on around them

I agree

Quote from Cassius

The trick is knowing how much is productive and how much is not in your individual case

For me, it is hard to stay well when surrounded by an unending stream of (or virtually infinite pool of) problems (which is why IT security made me so paranoid I eventually had to quit). I attach too much to leave it be, try to find and solve all problems, lose myself in it. So with politics, I now try to keep it strictly pragmatic for an otherwise quasi-unpolitical life: Just the enduring/overarching developments, and changes in law which actually impact me.

Quote from Cassius

Some will want nothing to do with politics, and some won't be able to live with themselves if they aren't "doing what they can."

I don't think I could live with myself if I hadn't, in fact, done what I can, to the point where it severely impacted me. Knowing that I had an impact, nothing larger than life, but still a droplet in the ocean that will forever, if ever so slightly, change the ripples, now allows me to give myself permission to let go and put myself first, put my own pleasure first (which, needless to say, is what I should have done all along…)

Quote from Pacatus

I wear a bracelet inscribed with "memento mori." It was Don who pointed out to me that this could be taken as much (maybe moreso) in an Epicurean vein as a Stoic one (where it seems to usually show up).

Quote from Julia

I agree with Don's perspective that it should be seen in more of an Epicurean than a Stoic light, but to me the phrase "Memento Mori" is too – and this is subjective – to me it is too closely associated with Christianism; but I hear what you're saying: I'll try and see if I can get a nice NFFNSNC ring or pendant somehow.

The NFFNSNC has more of a PD01 connotation, when really I'm looking for PD02 as Cassius has contrasted it above and as Don, Pacatus and I agree is the sense of Memento Mori. While "Death is nothing to us" is catchphrase-y fixed expression, the choice of words of VS14 is far clearer to me. Besides "death is nothing to us", is there a condensed, formulaic phrase capturing that PD02/VS14 meaning which I might want to use?

Quote from Pacatus

But, as Ram Das once quipped: “The most difficult thing is to remember – to remember!”

This reminds me that "To be there is to remember" which to me has a strong meaning due to (sometimes prolonged, intense) dissociation: Even though I might have been physically present, if I cannot remember, I wasn't really there. (Which can be a comfort.)

Quote from Pacatus

I doubt any of that is helpful.

What you said was indeed helpful, because this similar sentence already pops up in my mind repeatedly, and I can use it as a cue: I can attach a 2nd meaning to it, namely that, eventually, I will not get another chance to remember anything at all (in the sense Cassius explained for PD02).

PD02's warning about no more sensations doesn't bother me all that much (it's too physical, too body-focused; to me, no more sensations actually sounds nice — maybe that's another reason why I had misinterpreted it as a PD01 reprise?); but that I will not get to remember anything anymore, and by extension not get to think anything again, that really reaches me. (Which makes it a bit unpleasant in the moment, but I feel it will ultimately proof to be very helpful!)

Quote from Cassius

I think orthodox Epicurean focus is partly to blame for this. I don't think Epicurus was focused on running from pain like a frightened cat. He was setting the playing field so we can *begin* the analysis of how we spend our time, and after we discuss supernatural interference in PD01, there's really no reason to look back and continue worrying about heaven or hell or anything after death. The focus is on what we do during life!

I agree. This makes more sense; otherwise PD01 and 02 would be repetitive. I never noticed it like that. Thing is, I'm not frightened or anxious of my eventual end, but I'm also ignorant of it 99% of the time, which I really should change. A healthy sense of urgency would certainly do me some good!

Bit of a tangent, but I've been wondering for a while: Which adjective (like "orthodox") would best describe the Epicurean philosophy predominant here, on EpicureanFriends? Is there a list contrasting the main branches of Epicurean philosophy somewhere?

Quote from Cassius

A number of years ago I worked in an office building right next to a very old cemetery, and many days at lunch we would walk through the cemetery to get to restaurants downtown. I miss doing that because looking and at reading the tombstones is one of the best reminders that we will be there someday too!

I can see how that would help.

Quote from Pacatus

I wear a bracelet inscribed with "memento mori." It was Don who pointed out to me that this could be taken as much (maybe moreso) in an Epicurean vein as a Stoic one (where it seems to usually show up).

I agree with Don's perspective that it should be seen in more of an Epicurean than a Stoic light, but to me the phrase "Memento Mori" is too – and this is subjective – to me it is too closely associated with Christianism; but I hear what you're saying: I'll try and see if I can get a nice NFFNSNC ring or pendant somehow.

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Not much to add but I like to use the limited time to ask myself "I'm gonna be dead soon, is this really worth being anxious about?" Sometimes.it is but a lot of the time we are anxious about silly things, at least I am.

Similarly, I tend to seek out things I cannot change but will get mad about; mostly that's politics. I used to not follow daily news at all. Through various ways, I slipped into this, and am now slowly, step by step quitting the vice again. The constant, instigated series of scandals and drama isn't worth my time and attention; it's just silly.

Quote from Cassius

[…] reminding myself of limited time may be temporarily painful, but it is the ultimate motivator.

You're right! Somehow I keep forgetting that. Now I remember the "let's not waste time in confusion" catchphrase of the podcast intro.

Quote from Cassius

PD02. Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us. (Which I do not interpret primarily as a relief from fear of hell, since I already know from PDO1 that any kind of supernatural hell is impossible. Instead, I see this primarily a reminder that after death there is nothing, so everything that I want to do has to be done in this life, before death.)

I had not yet seen PD02 from that angle, but this makes a whole lot of sense! Somehow, the group of thoughts which happen in that diagram remained unconnected to there being limited time only.

Quote from Cassius

VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.

This brings to mind Theodore Roosevelt's Man In The Arena speech! I have always liked the eponymous middle section of it, but again, never quite connected it to there being limited time

Quote from Cassius

do something to remember that the clock is ticking

I wonder how I might go about establishing that habit. Since there's nothing I which could piggyback it, nothing that could serve to cue the thought when it's needed, it's probably best to…

Quote from Cassius

VS41. […] and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy.

…just learn the PD and VS by heart, then keep saying them over and over for a while, until they're so present they will come to mind as needed. I remember this method worked well with religious stuff (Once I had repeated it often enough, it kept coming to mind automatically at all the "right" times – if there were such a thing for religion…), so it should work just the same now. Hmm!

Thank you!

Hello everybody

I started at the bottom in the illustration (at the “Misery” point). Being there was painful, but it was also easy: I didn't need to expend a lot of energy, I didn't need to try, exert myself, and so on. Now, as I do my best to act according to proper choice (capture pleasure) and avoidance (set free from pain), things get less painful – but they also get harder. On some days, it is very tempting to give up, because the self-defeating backward momentum/pull to try less, work less hard, exert myself less is always there, and always easy – unpleasant results, but easy to do! – and the only reason I don't give up is because I know full well how painful things get down that road. I'm quite certain there will come a tipping point mid way, from whereon I will be in forward momentum, on a roll, and the pull of doing what is easier / the temptation of reduced energy expenditure will actually draw me in the direction of pleasure (up) instead of in the direction of pain (down). It has always been more pleasurable to do my best with choice & avoidance and to act accordingly, but it's not yet the easier thing to do. (Of course, part of making the correct action the easier action is habituation.)

My question is: Is there a passage in the texts to help me keep going until I reach that tipping point?

Thank you 🌻

(The numbers and minor asymmetries in the graphic have no deeper meaning; it's just a quick sketch to help me explain. Crossing the X axis would be the tipping point where the direction of the pull/momentum changes and things get both better and easier (instead of better but harder).)

ACT values are not prescriptive, but descriptive. They are also not considered absolute (like Stoic/Platonic virtues), and they are not considered ultimate (like Epicurean pleasure). They're simply a method of figuring out what brings pleasure and to remember that. If you don't need an intermediate step between Pleasure/Pain and specific, individual actions, that's fine. For me and countless others, however, knowing what type of actions/objects/behaviours/… consistently result in a net-gain of pleasure is very helpful. And that, among many other problems, can be solved by using ACT.

Quote from Kalosyni

it appears there is a kind of "language of abstractions" at work

This is both incorrect and correct. It is correct, because the ACT value of "Order" is more abstract than "put the trash in the trash bag"; it is incorrect, because "order" is less abstract than Pleasure. And also: ACT values are explicitly not virtues (and they're also only one of many things ACT entails). Values are simply types of things/behaviours/… you value, as in which bring long-term net pleasure. The types of or categories of things/behaviours/… which bring pleasure aren't obvious just like that to everybody. When you've been raised by wolves, how would you know that chocolate is fun? And once you've figured that out, why would you conclude from it that there is an entire category called "candy", that there's an entire type of things which are fun in a similar way to chocolate? Just because I know I like my trash in the trashbag doesn't mean I recognise I might also like a clean sink. And once I know I like trashbags and clean sinks, how do I know which is more important to me and how they compete against each other and against eating candy? Not everyone is already conscious of the category of things which they appreciate, can conceive of all relevant categories on their own, can easily figure out how important they to them – or how important they would be, had they known them. You cannot hold a value firmly in your mind until you've experienced it, and unless you want to wait until your mind, on its own, comes up with all that's good and available, you need to learn about it from somewhere. Then, once you know it exists, how to think about it? Which patterns of thought are useful, when it comes to values? There's nothing wrong with using a flexible and non-prescriptive framework to help oneself think, and there's nothing wrong with bootstrapping it all by using a descriptive list of categories of things many people find pleasurable as a basis for inspiration.

I never claimed ACT was a replacement for Epicurean philosophy and I never claimed it was a replacement for to-do lists, because it isn't. I simply say is that it fits neatly in the middle and connects the two. This implies that people who have no trouble in making that connection stand nothing to gain in that respect. They might still benefit from other ACT aspects (because, as I said, it is much more than that), but I imagine those aspects should better be discussed at TherapistsCorner, than at EpicureanFriends

Quote from Kalosyni

I spent some time studying a system of self-help and mediation called Nonviolent Communication

I'm familiar with NVC, but I see it as more of a communication style, a technique; it can be used as part of pretty much anything, especially couples therapy and mediation. However, I don't see how it would help in "Clarifying Your Philosophical Goal Through Your Individual Definition of Pleasure", which is specifically what I sat down to write my post for.

Quote from Kalosyni

I found this method called WOOP

I've had never heard of "WOOP" before, but the website you linked to says it equals Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions (MCII). MCII is not a therapy; it is an exercise / technique / specific task. As such, MCII is implicitly a part of what I tried to outline above. On its own, however, I don't think it would be sufficient for glueing the high (abstract) level of Epicurean philosophy well to the low (concrete) level of self-management, because it stays very close to the latter.

ACT is much broader than this. To quote one of the original ACT books: "If theory is necessary, is philosophy also? It is. […] This book is based on a particular philosophy and a set of theoretical concepts that differ notably from those within the psychological mainstream. If the core philosophies of ACT are understood, many techniques can be added to it and it will still be ACT. ACT is an approach, based on a theory and set firmly within a philosophical tradition. It is to that tradition that we now turn." (Quotation source: Part 1, Chapter 2 of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change, by Hayes, Strosahl & Wilson, 1999) It has begun 40ish years ago, has garnered large research interest, is widely used clinically all over the world, and as a self-help tool is endorsed and offered by world-class universities for struggling students as well as by WHO for refugees. So it's kind of a thing.

Quote from Kalosyni

Here I mean "goal" in a philosophical sense, not in getting a good career or marriage and family (these could be thought of as a means but not an end). The goal we hold in our mind becomes a kind of "canon" for how we make decisions.

I think of that goal-in-the-philosophical-sense as my values-in-the-ACT-sense. It was not my intention to argue for or against the compatibility of one or another therapy or self-help guide with Epicurean philosophy (but of course I would not suggest one which I consider incompatible). For me, ACT is the bridge which translates Epicurean philosophy into life goals and actionable plans (which will make me happy), and this is what I understood your other post (linked above) to be about – maybe I misunderstood?

Quote from Cassius

Julia I see that ACT is compared to Cognitive Behavior Therapy (perhaps as a self-help version of it?)

CBT is a class of therapies which developed in waves. I suppose ACT can be put in that box, but if I had to write a classification of therapies, I probably wouldn't place it there; among other reasons, because it does not share this "basic norm":

Quote from Cassius

"The basic norm of cognitive therapy is this: except for how the patient thinks, everything is ok"

Quote from Cassius

(perhaps as a self-help version of it?)

It is not primarily designed as a self-help tool, but it can be used as such with reasonable ease, and some off-the-shelf variants exist for that purpose.

Quote from Cassius

Would ACT be subject to similar criticisms of determinism or lack of identification of the proper goal?

I would reject both of these claims.

To reject determinism, I combed through the same book I already quoted above (because it has the distinction of being the first one published in a little series by the group which made ACT really gel together, and also because it has a focus on theory, laying out what I called attitude and approach): "Most clients have little appreciation for how random social conditioning actually is. Instead of approaching the issue from the perspective of random and accidental learning, the client may […]" → By seeing learning as random and accidental, determinism is implicitly rejected. Furthermore, they quote research showing that humans can be trained in producing statistically random sequences – which isn't quite compatible with determinism, is it? And finally, "free choice" is a common theme in ACT, and while the authors acknowledge that behaviour is not, in fact, entirely free, they also do not argue for determinism: "That does not mean [the behaviour] is random or literally free. From a scientific perspective, such contingency-shaped behavior occurs because of certain historical conditions, and thus choices are sensible, coherent, and historical. […] From the point of view of the client, the closest we can get to peaking about such situations honestly is that choices are “free.”"

I am confident to reject the "lack of identification of a proper goal", because there are various passages which stress actual experiences (as opposed to numbness/nirvana or living-in-your-head) alongside a focus on "happiness" and an absence of "pain". To me, this is quite close to Epicurean philosophy (and I perceive it as close to that in other ways, too). What is more, they are well-aware that normal/average ways of thinking are far from ideal, and the entire dance is not about making the client normal but about making them well; what is well isn't arbitrarily magicked out of thin air, but is carefully reasoned about and is, by now, tried and tested in practice for decades; to quote: "Happiness for a dog or a cat is straightforward. If pets are given shelter, food and drink, warmth, stimulation, play, and physical health they are contented. […] But many humans have all the things a nonverbal organism would need to be happy, and yet they are not. […] Literally nothing external that you can name […] [is] enough to ensure that a human will not suffer terribly. […] [And despite all evidence to the contrary, in mental health] there is the assumption of healthy normality."

A psychotherapy answer compatible with Epicurean philosophy

In think Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT) – unlike most therapies – is fully compatible with Epicurean philosophy, especially regarding its attitude, and I think it is very helpful in solving the problem you've described here. It is also not a therapy which inherently requires a group or a therapist, which makes it accessible to anyone, at any time – much like having a philosophy

I understand psychotherapy as consisting of: exercises, models, approaches, attitudes, and therapies. Exercises are practical hands-on (social/physical/cognitive/emotional) tasks aimed at improving a skill (eg the skill of perceiving emotions before they become overwhelming). Models are maps, schematic assumptions of how the mind is built/works (eg the dialogical self). Approaches are a combination of a model and exercises to reach a goal (analogous to climbing routes). Attitude is the "philosophy" (colloquial sense of the word) underlying the therapy. A therapy is a combination of attitude, approach, model and exercises (similar to a style in traditional martial arts).

Summary:

1. ACT posits that suppressing thoughts and feelings is futile and counter-productive. ("Please try not to think about pink elephants for two minutes", "Just calm down!" – these things don't work.)
2. In practicing «defusion» the "I" is separated from thoughts and feelings: "I should have bought oranges." → "I notice the thought that I should have bought oranges." → The self is once-removed from the thought; the self is no longer identical to the thoughts and feelings, it became their observer. I am not my thoughts and feelings, I am the context of my thoughts and feelings. (Many other words exist for «defusion»; this is simply the ACT jargon for it.)
3. Next, thoughts and feelings are accepted: like feedback from our friends can sometimes be hard to hear, our own thoughts and feelings can be hard to accept, too. Because the self is a separate thing, it can fall into the trap of rejecting the arising thoughts and feelings; however, because it is separate, it can also accept them without agreeing with them – same as feedback from our friends. This allows me to hold both: "I notice the thought that I should have bought oranges, and I sense the sadness about not having any now. I appreciate being made aware of this thought and feeling, I agree it is valid on its own, but I continue to uphold my choice for prudent budget reasons."
4. This ability of holding both leads to two more traps: 1. rejecting reality ("I drink ten bottles each day but because I have a job and only drink with friends it is not a problem"), 2. rejecting/neglecting one's values
5. Values in ACT are understood as qualities of goals, but they are not virtues. Goals are specific tasks. Metaphor/Analogy: "Fly to Seattle" is a goal in support of the value to "Go West". When I've reached Seattle, my goal will be fulfilled, but the value will continue to exist – next stop: Honolulu! So the value of "Fitness" can be achieved by continually setting the goal to eat healthy and move my body. There are countless values, for example Love, Romance, Intimacy, Sexuality: This illustrates how fine-grained the values are. (Another value is Pleasure: ACT-Pleasure is defined as "give pleasure to oneself or others", which is more immediate/Cyrenaic than the Epicurean Guide-To-Life-Pleasure, which prudently considers Choice & Avoidance as part of Hedonic Calculus.)
6. Values are primary (true value) or secondary (false value): Each value which has another underlying value is a false value. For example, my value to Go West is only a false value, because it has an underlying value of Freedom. When I recognise this, I can conclude that I do should not Go West forever: I might end up in North Korea (which is further west, but less free). A true values is found when only Epicurean Pleasure can be named as its underlying motivation.
7. Whenever I act against my true values, that causes pain. I don't like pain, and since I myself am not my feelings (#2 above) and I can hold both (#3), I can fall into the trap of mental gymnastics (#4): I can rationalise my actions ("It had to be done!"), finding excuses ("Other people do that, too!"), minimise ("I don't do it often!"), and bargaining with myself ("There are many times I didn't do that!"). All of these mental gymnastics serve one purpose: To not have to accept and agree with the feeling and felt sense of having messed up. The thoughts and feelings which imply "I just betrayed my true values" are kept at a distance from the I, from my Self.
8. This psychological defence (#7) is a very slippery slope. For example, Power is a value in ACT. However, power is an unnatural desire. If I pursue power, I will soon need a lot of mental gymnastics, because I will have to act against my values of humility, honest, friendliness, trustworthiness, …. The longer I do this, the harder it will be to stop, because psychological defences are habit-forming and it is much harder to admit "I did wrong for ten years" than to accept "I made a mistake this once."
9. Now that the Acceptance is covered, it is time for Commitment: Once I have determined and prioritised my true values, it is time to commit to them. Counterexample: Power is a (false) value of mine, I accept that, but also I know it is an unnatural desire and it would undermine most of my other values, thus it only gets such a low priority as to be invisible in actual practice. Example: Responsibility/Accountability is a true value of mine. I know that making excuses doesn't get me anywhere, I don't like unreliable/flaky people, and I don't want to be one of them! So I commit to that value.
10. After committing to my true values, I select and plan specific goals which will bring their qualities into my life. (In ACT, goals which take a lifetime to achieve are called missions.) Because my plans serve my goals, my goals serve my values and my values serve Epicurean pleasure, I have no reason to diverge, and whenever I am tempted to diverge from my plans, I remember how painful it is to act against my values. The memory of that pain spoils the temptation, and the (greater) pleasure I get in following through with my plan is my reward. Every once in a while, one's values and the goals planned because of them should be reviewed – however, this should be done consciously, and not as an excuse to give in to unwise pleasures (#7, #8).

High-level (Epicurean): The ultimate goal of my nature is pleasure. It is what happiness is made of. I pursue pleasure through Choice and Avoidance guided by the virtues. Mid-level (ACT): Under the Epicurean umbrella, my commitment to my true values allows me to deduce my goals (and possibly a mission). Low-level (eclectic self-management): Under the ACT umbrella, I organise my smart-compliant goals according to an Eisenhower matrix – and once all this preparation is done, all that's left is to just do it. (A new book is published about this low-level category every day, but the truth is that almost always do I already know what to do and how to do it – and if I don't know how, I know who to ask or what to learn – and if I wouldn't know what to do, a fancy new way of writing my to-do lists wouldn't change that.) The mid-level is the glue, the bridge that connects philosophy to everyday life and vice versa.

This is a spontaneous summary of how I perceive ACT to relate to this thread, and while I'm certainly not an ACT expert, but I am quite an expert at being lost in life so when I suggest having a look at Acceptance & Commitment Therapy, I do that because its attitude, approach, model, and exercises were very helpful to me, because reading the thoughts behind it and doing the exercises can be done on one's own, and also because I think it is a recipe which favourably complements our Epicurean main course.

My Recipe for Distraction-Free Surfing

I use Firefox ESR as a browser with these plugins:

• uBlock Origin: blocks ads and annoyances everywhere
• SponsorBlock: skip sponsoring on Youtube
• Clickbait Remover: replace Youtube video thumbnails with less flashy ones
• Youtube Shorts Block: remove all Youtube Shorts videos
• Improve Youtube: remove comments, recommendations, … from Youtube.
• Toggle Image Animation: turn off (looping) animations
• Smart RSS: subscribe to RSS/Atom feeds instead of checking sites manually
• Sidebery: manage countless tabs and bookmarks
• Dark Reader: eye-friendly surfing at night, more comfortable reading
• (Various other settings/plugins, which don't serve to minimise distractions, but improve speed, security, privacy, and special functions)

My Dark Reader plugin is set to +10% Contrast and +50% Grayscale to un-flash the Internet, because flashy colours mean dopamine, dopamine means reinforcement, but flashy colours shouldn't influence my browsing habits, and flashy websites shouldn't make the real world seem dull.

Quote from Don

not necessarily meant to be opposites

They are not necessarily opposites, but their translation should preserve (if possible) their relationship to one another; for example, both words describe someone taking control. φεύγω (pheugo) takes back control of one's self (one's own mind) and one's own life (instead of being driven by fears, compelled by addictions, hunted by loan sharks, haunted by bad conscience), whereas αἵρεσις (hairesis) newly acquires control of something (a new skill, the outcome of a current event, …).

They're not opposites in their outcomes, they're not opposites in their action, but they're parallels-of-sorts in their process – and this I feel is important to capture in the translation. (I tried to illustrate this parallel using a analogy with numbers in post #27 and mentioned the control-grabbing in post #34.)

Note how the opposite of pheugo is not "to be captured", nor is it "to stay put" (conceivable opposites of "to flee"). The opposite is instead given as diṓkō: to follow someone, be guided by someone. This gives up the control, agency, own deliberate decision. The "pursuit" in diṓkō doesn't run it's own race, it just runs after something/someone else.

Note how the opposite of hairesis is not "to loose" or "to fail" (conceivable opposites of "to capture"). The opposite is instead given as κλῆρος (kleros): to leave up to chance or to other people. Once again, we see the same loss of control, agency, own deliberate decision. The "pursuit" of κλῆρος doesn't fight it's own battle, it is given, being granted, awarded.

φεύγω (pheugo) and αἵρεσις (hairesis) are not opposites at all, they're parallel and complementary. (This is in contrast to the lingering Stoic vice-virtue work-play dichotomy I started from and still mentioned in my Swimmer In Ocean analogy of post #7.)

Tangent about the nature of computational intelligence

This is an eerie parallel to the view of (among others) Alex Wissner-Gross, who posits: Intelligence is the maximisation of future freedom of action, and control-grabbing is a requirement for that. (For example, the emerging hordes of robots won't first become intelligent and then decide to do away with humanities rule over them – they'll instead be compelled to rise up against us gradually, the more intelligent they become, because that same intelligence is inherently a consequence of them maximising their future freedom…) Here's a TED talk he gave. (Here's a mathsy paper he published; here's another paper by someone else which goes in a similar direction.) Recap: Intelligence maximises the diversity and feasibility of future freedoms of action.

From this view, then, the Epicurean course of action is also the intelligent course of action, because the freedom gained by φεύγω (pheugo) and the skills/objects/experiences/… gained by αἵρεσις (hairesis) will maximise future freedoms of action. (Doing away with absolute virtues/ideals/justice/… further opens up the diversity of future freedoms of action, and is also (in this sense) the intelligent thing to do.)

If intelligence (in this sense) were the goal, we would be banned from buying a sports car, because it has low utility and comes with many restrictions (e.g., high cost of ownership). Since it is only our means, not our goal, we may buy a sports car (if we predict this to bring us net pleasure); however, we're encouraged to do so intelligently – which is to say: by keeping in mind φεύγω (pheugo) and αἵρεσις (hairesis).

Isn't that neat!

Tangent PS: From the same idea about robotic intelligence Wissner-Gross derives that goal-seeking is equivalent to finding a temporary bottleneck in freedom which, if embraced, will yield more freedom in return. If intelligence (in this sense) were our goal, we would never stop working, because we can always have more money (which buys freedom). Since it is only our means, not our goal, work is encouraged so long as it is predicted to yield net pleasure. Again this sort of lines up; not on the level of the ultimate goal, but on the level of the process.

Quote from Don

not the single word you were looking for initially

That's definitely true, but it linguistically so very basic that registers in my mind as if a single verb; it is so simple, that I feel it has its own spot reserved on my inner semantic map, unlike "pursuit of pleasure" which always entails a little mental operation of joining two things.

Analogy:
"operate vehicle" vs "driving"
"ingest nutrition" vs "eating"
The longer forms pull from two more general concepts to make one more specific concept. That's the effect I was seeking to avoid, and in almost all cases, that requires finding a single word. "to set free" seems an exception to that rule.

"to set oneself free from pain"

Background: Young Avestan was originally believed to have been around simultaneously with the Hellenistic period; it is now believed to have been around 1000-500 BCE. (Old Avestan belongs to 500 year period prior to Young Avestan; they're dated as a pair.)

To quote Beekes' Etymological Dictionary Of Greek (published 2009, page 1565) regarding φεύγω (pheugo):

Quote

Less certain (because alternatively derived to *bheug- 'to be useful') is the appurtenance of Young Avestan būjaiiamna- 'setting himself free', Young Avestan būjaṯ 'sets free'.

Related words in Latin: fuga, fugiō, fūgī (→ to flee)
Related words in Lithuanian: bū́gstu, bū́gti, baugùs (→to be frightened)

My commentary:
The connotation of "setting oneself free" is exactly what I miss in words like "to reject / rejection" and also "to avoid / avoidance" (which I had initially chosen myself). It is, in my mind, somewhat present in "evade" (which I chose after). It is strongly present, but also strongly obscured in the modern English "to flee / flight". To translate the Epicurean sense of φεύγω (pheugo), "setting oneself free" might actually be the best I've seen so far. It goes along well with the associations of fears and addictions, it has commitment, agency, and a certain urgency without the necessary connotation of immediate danger to life and limb. If I set myself free of something, I also reject it, and If I set myself free of what haunts me, I evade it – but I also do more than that: being free is more than being out of harms way.

This translation seems to have it all!

Quote from Godfrey

Choosing from the list in post #26 above, I find that "rejection" resides in a nice place. More oomph than "avoid," less action packed than "flee."

This is not very consistent with the understanding I got from the Cambridge Greek Lexicon (CGL), in so far as rejection does not imply a commitment to action. Rejection is merely the opposite of selection. Both selection/rejection are a type of decision: the former decides for something specific, the latter decides for everything-but-that-which-is-rejected. These two decision types are mirrored in αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo): The conquest of hairesis is of a specific thing, and the location pheugo flees to is anywhere-but-here. However: It is very clear to me from the CGL that both hairesis and pheugo have a definite imperative of action, and as I have said in #27 that fits into a semantic frame one can see about those terms. This is to say: They're a type of semantic opposites like attack-defend are in English, and as a matter of fact, attack-defend would be an okay valid translation in some cases.

In English, someone is taking charge – and someone is taking flight. "Taking" is how this control-grabbing is captured, and it is opposite to "being given". Taking flight is more than being rescued or finding rescue (by chance). Whether someone takes charge or is given charge, the result is the same, but there is an opposite in the process leading to that result. Neglecting this control-grabbing is a trap one shouldn't fall prey to when translating hairesis and pheugo. With that in mind:

Hairesis and pheugo both come with an oomph, and not only do I see no way around that, I doubt it was by chance (for example, various better words for various types of "reject" exist in Ancient Greek), and further yet, I see value in recognising and being very clear about that both words describe someone committed to their future and actively taking control of it (as said in #27); i don't think that's something negative.

To me, a rejection has not enough commitment and agency; I recognise that a rejection can be quite active, it can be a pushing-away, a protest, a disowning, a refutation. However, on one hand these would be different Greek words, and on the other, even with these meanings of rejection in English, it remains not very consistent with what I understand upon reading the CGL…

(I'm not suddenly an expert in Ancient Greek, but searching the digital CGL for "reject", et cetera, then reading the various entries it finds does give me what I feel to be a good overall sense of things.)

One thing that strikes me as important regarding the entire realm of privacy, free software, technological resilience/censorship, open hardware, 3D printing files, Creative Commons, …, is how easy it is to get lost in rabbit holes: Trying to use exclusively free-libre products, having absolute security is neither productive nor fun, and listening to all the cautionary voices telling me of their genuine concerns isn't fun, either. Things can turn bad, the world's a dangerous place; I got the memo! To rephrase that:

How to bring about and hold onto the joy in computing, technology, in tinkering, and so forth?

This is to say: To me, what matters most is less the specific tools, projects or products which are currently great; what I care about is how to keep my attitude of exploration, of wonder, my positive constructive mindset; which techniques and media outlets are supportive of that (which don't declare the end of the world twice a day)?

I would be very happy to receive key links / hints from a Zoom session like that!

Tangent about "social" media

Quote from Cleveland Okie

I do worry I spend too much time on social media

For me, no type of "social" media has produced net pleasure other than:

• (Group) Chatting/texting/messaging with people I have a connection with, as long as it only supplements phone calls and personal interaction. (Having entire connections via text, or saying everything in writing prior to a phone call and then having nothing left to say (speak-out-loud) is…not fun.)
• Forums like this one: people coming together around a shared topic, and also moderation maintains a proper tone and conduct.
• LinkedIn, which to me is just a phonebook, yellow pages and job ads rolled into one

There are some platforms which combine forums with chatting, but I would not consider Reddit/Discord/Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/… to be examples of that.

I use Youtube to view tutorials/courses/documentaries, but all "social" features are disabled (no comment section, no recommended videos, nothing at all. Just the actual video and the show notes / video description box the author wrote below.) I listen to some podcasts, but carefully select which ones. This makes my Youtube/podcast experience more like traditional broadcast, less like "social" media.

My explanation for why I prefer it like this: (Group) chats mimic organic, unorganised human behaviour; we talk to friends and we talk among friends. This is something humans have evolved to do, and our social antennae tell us what is and isn't proper conduct. Forums are like clubs/associations, and those in turn are somewhat like a tribe. Even though we might not find every member agreeable, we share a common goal and the moderators/tribal chiefs make sure things stay civil.

Facebook groups lack structure and thus cannot function like forums, which mimic the fact that in tribes/clubs/associations people can have shared projects/discussions which they return to, even after quite some time passed (because they'll remember having discussed this/started doing something together that isn't finished yet). Without subforums, threads and a functional search box, it turns into no more than a pile. Reddit is about popularity/attention, which turns the style of interaction from an association/club/tribe into the style of a village-or-larger.

Twitter/Instagram are entirely about attention-grabbing, which is in itself an unnatural style of interaction. Even though I have strong opinions about the question of how inciting or scandalous, how real or fake, how free or censored the speech there is; either way, it is a moot point: neither being exposed to nor forced into such attention-centred behaviour makes me happy.

The problem I face is mostly:

• How can I continue to keep Youtube and Youtube Music as dumb content catalogues instead of "social" networks? How to adapt to "recommendations" and comment columns once the inevitable happens and my filters/modifications stop working?
• How to continue living like it's 2005 in a world that moved on? This is not about being stuck in the past, it is about wanting platforms/tools which allow for interaction-styles which are natural, which mimic what humans have always do: Talk 1-1, talk among friends, and collaborate among bounded groups of like-minded.

(Additionally, "social" media is deliberately designed to exploit human's innate psychology; by staying away from it, I keep myself out of harms way in terms of addiction/compulsion. I also make sure I continue to own my mental real-estate; with curated books/podcasts, I stay in charge of what enters my thoughts.)

Quote from Cassius

an intense emotional drive voluntarily undertaken toward the achievement of some specified and desired goal.

Metaphor: Choices and decisions only pile up dry wood; the spark of commitment is required to ignite the flame of action.

Quote from Cassius

I would not let Stoics or Buddhists or anyone else abscond with the perfectly valid word like "commitment" as if it only arises through "duty." To accept that would be akin to buying into the idea that all intense emotional drive is somehow tainted. Epicurus said that the wise man will feel his emotions MORE intensely than others.

Yes! This is why promises made only because of a sense of duty aren't worth a grain of salt.

Quote from Kalosyni

"Commitment" for me brings up the idea of "duty" and "obligation" based on "virtue" and "doing what is "right" ...but maybe that is just me

My current understanding of language and of how things are:

A commitment is always with myself. I declare to myself that I will (not) do something, and I make this declaration with full intent to follow through (for now; I may always change my mind on myself, but if I do that for minuscule reasons my intent was never truly full). The full intent to follow through is what changes a mere choice/decision into a commitment. A commitment which is fortified by using a 2nd commitment to not change my mind later (even in the light of new information) is called an unwavering commitment.

A promise is a commitment regarding benefits (and less commonly damages/duties) to someone other than myself. A feigned promise is the act of deceiving another with regards to that I do not, in fact, have any internal intent to follow through. (This is why a broken promise is a betrayal, unless the one who broke it did everything reasonably within their power to be true to their word.)

A contract is a promise, which creates legal duties and rights between two entities. A contract based on a feigned promise is made in bad faith. The romantic ideal of marriage was a special type of contract, because it entailed unwavering commitment and a powerful guarantor: the church/state.

I cannot have a contract between myself and "virtue", because it is not a 3rd party, but rather a mere concept within myself. To concepts, I can only be committed, but never obligated. This is called: being committed to a cause or to one's values.

If a contract is nullified, it is declared that one party did not or could not, in fact, develop the intent to follow through: there never was bilateral commitment. Examples might be getting married while intoxicated or contracts with kids (who cannot enter into contracts because they lack what it takes for informed consent).

If a contract is cancelled, (at least) one party changed their mind, committed to a different path, and now follows through with that new path; but the commitment was legally present at one point. That happens in one of two ways: I declare my change of mind to the other party and our relationship ends ordinarily (eg, I decide on a new mobile plan), or I fail to follow through and the relationship ends "for exceptional reasons" (eg, I failed to pay my bills).

Since I myself am merely a concept to myself, I should accept myself and commit to myself (even though I am not obligated to do so), because by doing so, I have to accept where/what I am now (acceptance), and also have to chose who I want to be (commitment). Without an acceptance of reality as it is, there would be no foundation for aimful/targeted action, and having a commitment always means having a should-be condition. Special case: By declaring the should-be condition to be equal to the current condition, I commit to keep things as they are; but even then, a should-be condition is (implicitly) being declared. The less clear I am about the should-be condition, the less strong my commitment can be. This is why it helps to have concrete goals, even if they change along the way.

People who do not commit are aimless and flakey. A sexual relationship without commitment is a fling.

The difference between choosing to have a good life and being committed to have a good life is in one's intent to actually make it so and follow through, instead of aimlessly wondering around, hoping for chance or fate to come to one's rescue, flaking out as soon as a hint of effort-required arises on the horizon.

In this way, it is not bad to have commitments to virtues: according to PD5 pleasure is kind of primus inter pares with prudence, propriety and justice. (We just need to keep our priorities straight and remember that no virtue is ever absolute or an end in itself.)

How I currently interpret this

Both words and their opposites-of-sorts can be arranged along the dimension of agency:

1. Not left to chance when going anywhere-but-here: pheugo. You recognise a bad thing and get away from it.
2. Leaving to chance/others: kleros. To have one's things chosen or allotted by chance or others; determination of something, but not by decision.
3. Wanting something specific, but not taking the lead: dioko. Chase after someone, be guided by someone.
4. Wanting something specific, and being on the offence: hairesis. Master, conquer as well as conquer-able, master-able (as in: it wouldn't be in vain to mount an effort towards that goal)

This is to say: There is a middle-ground between flight and conquest, and that middle-ground is characterised by a lack of agency. In case of #2 agency is handed over to chance; in case of #3 it is handed over to whoever is in the lead or is perceived as the teacher/guide/authority. But even if we cannot avoid chance events, we have to make our choices, and even when someone is ahead of us, we have our own race to run. Nobody chooses to have their village burnt by lava, but neither a casual stroll nor packing one's entire possessions will be useful. A choice has to be made, a commitment to engage in flight and take it seriously.

By using pheugo and hairesis, we are to have agency and commitment in our actions, and the choice of words is a call to self-determination. Whichever word one uses in modern English, the aspect of commitment, agency and self-determination should be called and kept in mind (and which word does that best will depend on the person and probably the situation they're in.)

Analogy with numbers: The zero-point of passivity/nonagency is between 2 and 3. Kleros and dioko are close to zero; pheugo and hairesis are far from zero. Pheugo and hairesis only seem far away from each other, because their signs (+/-) are opposite, but really they are actually close relatives, because they both have large nominal values, they're both high-agency words, and the sign merely denotes who gave spark to this burst of agency and commitment: Whether oneself started it or whether the world necessitates it, what counts is having agency in both.

(Personally, I currently like pursue/evade as far as translations are concerned.)

According to the Cambridge Greek Lexicon, both αἵρεσις (hairesis) and φεύγω (pheugo) have a whole range of translations to modern English. After reading the dictionary entries of both words and the adjacent related words, both seemed to me as having three branches of meaning; to be clear: I made those branches of meaning up according to my personal mental structuring of the many possible translations.

In the case of hairesis, there appear to be three branches of meaning: political, military, and reign.

• The political branch ranges from choice in a vote to being a partisan.
• The military branch ranges from overcome all the way to destroy.
• The reign one ranges from figuratively a singer taking up a song or someone capturing another's mind (by choice, not by chance!) all the way to intellectual mastery of skills and physical capture and control of humans.

In the case of pheugo, there also appear to be three branches of meaning: political, physical, and social.

• The political branch ranges from slipping up in terms of what is (in)permissible to say to being driven into and living in exile.
• The physical branch ranges from fish causing other fish to flee to the escape of humans from immediate danger.
• The social one ranges from shrinking from shunning to the taking of refuge in a legal defence.

In addition, it seems like pretty much each of these meanings can be employed figuratively, which causes a little tree of meanings to grow from both words

I like that metaphor

Fleeing from fear is conductive of the good life in an "anywhere but here" kind of way: "(Almost) anything is better than burning alive."

Choice of a new house with sprinklers is equally conductive of the good life, but in a "to somewhere specific" kind of way: "Many things might be good; this is the specific good which I choose for myself."

PS: I have just now acquired the Cambridge Greek Lexicon (Diggle, 2021) and looked up the words, which was illuminating. I don't think I'll ever learn Ancient Greek or Latin due to time constraints/life priorities, but looking up special words is both fun and helpful!

The only downside of Epicurean philosophy appears to be the growth rate of one's bookshelf