Hi Richard,Thanks for that response and the link to the website, which I intend to browse later. I too felt that our comments on Stoicism were intended, as you put it, “to close off escapes that people were trapped in and which prevented real living” and that in doing that, we may have given a wrong impression of schools such as the Stoics. It’s good to be able to now look back and appreciate what both we and those we castigated were after.The issue that got me interested in exploring these ideas is this: How do we talk about caring for the planet when it’s clear that the benefits of our action, if any, will come only after we and our children, and perhaps even our species are gone. How do we describe it in a way that inspires and not dishearten others.RegardsDharma On Monday, 24 January 2022, 10:46:44 am MYT, Richard and Maria Maguire via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism Thanks Dharma for your question about the RS1 comments about stoicism. Yes, the RS1 comments about a number of things were in relation to how they were understood in our current culture. Besides "stoicism" another term was "meditation" (misunderstood as "navel gazing"). Maybe there were others. I also used to think that "stocism" was like the British "stiff upper lip" or the Australian "she'll be right". In the meantime I have learned that it appears to be about being an authentic human being in the situation you are in. People can learn a lot about stoicism and the stoics on this website for instance.https://www.holstee.com/blogs/mindful-matter/stoicism-101-everything-you-wan.... Another term in popular culture that RS1 did not talk about but could have was "epicurean", understood as seeking out the most desirable things for yourself. This was also a misunderstanding of the philosophy, which emphasised that the good life was being in commmunity and living on "enough", rather than luxury and consumption. I learned from a documentary by contemporary philosopher Alain de Boutton that an epicurean king in ancient Asia Minor put an inscription on the wall of the marketplace which is still visible. It went something like this, "Be aware that nothing you can buy here will give you happiness" I realize from things like these that we can have many more "ancient friends" than is generally realized.
From the perspective of 60 years after my first encounter with RS1, I realize that the use of those terms and others back then was polemical, intended to close off escapes that people were trapped in and prevented real living of the life you have now.
Best wishes Richard Maguire On 22/01/2022 6:40 am, oe-request@lists.wedgeblade.net wrote: Send OE mailing list submissions to oe@lists.wedgeblade.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to oe-request@lists.wedgeblade.net You can reach the person managing the list at oe-owner@lists.wedgeblade.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of OE digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Stoicism (Dharmalingam Vinasithamby) 2. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (James Wiegel) 3. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (Dharmalingam Vinasithamby) 4. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (Milan Hamilton) 5. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (Nancy Trask) 6. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (Beret Griffith) 7. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (Jim) 8. Re: [Dialogue] Stoicism (Diann McCabe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 00:27:15 +0000 (UTC) From: Dharmalingam Vinasithamby <dvinasithamby@yahoo.com> To: OE Listserve <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net>, Dialogue List <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: [Oe List ...] Stoicism Message-ID: <1071180527.308516.1642724835413@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear colleagues, 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:? 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? regardsDharma