<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Great question Dharma<div><br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 21-Jan-2022, at 5:57 AM, Dharmalingam Vinasithamby via Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Dear colleagues,<br><br><div><div>I need help with an idea I’m trying to sort out. If you have the time and inclination, I would love to hear from you on the following: <br><br></div><div>Saying Yes to life and Stoicism. Stoicism seems to be understood as a relationship to life where you keep going on despite the odds. There is also an inuendo that this may not be humanly possible and that internal pressures will eventually cause the person to crash. What I want to know is, was that the Stoicism that Zeno founded or merely a degraded understanding? Why did we as an Order cast it in a negative light? What was our beef with it? Was it a reaction to the degraded form or were we looking at it in its original sense?</div><div><br></div></div>regards</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Dharma</div></div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Dialogue mailing list</span><br><span>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</span><br><span>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>