-------------- Original message --------------
From: "feelosofree" <feelosofree@...>

GOOD VS EVIL
Let's Consider that goodness, growth, and being kind to one another,
is a superior force over the force of destruction, death, and being
mean to each other. (To do this, we consider all possibilities)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let's consider a universe with only the force of destruction. As
death /destruction progress, they take whatever is alive, and kill
it, so that where life once was, now exists (is produced) nothing
and nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Pretty soon, life
becomes scarce, while a whole lot of empty space and inanimate
material is left behind. After awhile, all the life is killed, and
then what? With no life left to kill, the force of destruction comes
to a stop (no more destroying can be done), because from nothing,
this force can go no further from there. Here is a definite bottom
to the universe.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now
consider the force of good-and-growth as being the only force
around. As this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless matter
(dust), and creates life in its place. Soon everything starts to
come alive. Pretty soon we begin to run out of improvements to make.
Emptiness and undeveloped raw material (dust) starts to come into
short supply. If everything is alive, then no more growth can be
done, and thus the force of good is stopped, right? Well, there's
not so much an absolute ceiling, as there is an absolute bottom. You
see, life forms can advance/be advanced and become ever more capable
and alive; and this thus continues the force of growth/goodness.
And, a universe that is alive (full of life), is very capable -able
to do lots of things, (unlike a barren universe consisting of
nothingness). And with that life/capability, it can bridge barriers
and reach raw material (dust) that had previousl y been separated
from it by a barrier. Hence, the force of goodness and growth can
survive by itself much better than the force of destruction/death
can. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or be either the force of
good-and-growth, or the force of destruction. The lack of life can't
do/be either force. Since what the force of good produces is life,
such life can continue to do forces. But since what the force of
destruction produces is death, nothingness, voids in life; since
this cannot do or support either force, then the force of
destruction alone is destined to a quick end while the force of good
and growth alone is destined to continue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALSO,
since only life can do-be either force: When destruction experiences
what it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't grow, but
inst ead shrinks to nothing. xxxxxxxxxx But when goodness experiences
what it produces, (when goodness is good to itself) it does not die,
but instead, grows. So that the force of destruction needs something
other than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force), while the
force of good does not and is self sufficient with just itself. So
that when alone, good survives while destruction self eliminates and
vanishes. From this we can see that good and growth, is a superior
force to the force of death and destruction.

REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and demand; as applied to human
beings. If there is a shortage of humans, then they will have a
higher value and will be treated better. But if there is a surplus
of humans, then their value will be low, and they will be treated
poorly, according to their low value according to supply and
demand. So that when women are considering how many humans to
produce in terms of how large a fa mily to have; collectively, they
have quite an impact on how we all are treated by those economic
forces that rule over us all.
And then there is the conservative, religious rules over our
sexuality. But first let us consider sexual reproduction in
itself. Sexual reproduction produces offspring that are not exact
copies of their parents, but who are different from their parents to
some degree. So, sexual reproduction generates differences between
each of us. Now, if we were all to have sex with each other in
unrestricted sexual reproduction, then those differences would be
spread all back among our population and we would not build on or
accentuate those differences. But that's not the way sexual
reproduction works in our world. Sexual reproduction is restricted
to one man one woman and to form a family grouping to raise the
offspring produced. So that the differences generated by sexual
reproduction are preserved and compounded over eac h successive
generation; so that different groups of people are developed each
being good in one particular area, while not so good in the other
areas. So that as individuals they cannot function well, but only
as a group can they work together to combine their good areas to
make a complete and competent societal whole. Thus the rulers of a
society have at their beck and call, all the humans of the society
to do their bidding, because as individuals they are all unbalanced
in their skills, incapable of being self sufficient as individuals,
who can only survive and excel by joining as a group each to
contribute their best skill. So that what the conservative rules
over our sexual reproduction do is to breed individuals who are
slaves who are easily molded by the rulers of a society, who are
incapable of much independence as individuals, so that we are more
so a commodity to be used by those who rule over us. Sometimes one
may resent being part of this conservative religious breeding
program that has made us to be not free, but slaves to those who
rule over us.
TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, SEE THE LINKS AREA of this group for
the foce of good vs evil

GOOD VS EVIL
Let's Consider that goodness, growth, and being kind to one another,
is a superior force over the force of destruction, death, and being
mean to each other. (To do this, we consider all possibilities)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let's consider a universe with only the force of destruction. As
death /destruction progress, they take whatever is alive, and kill
it, so that where life once was, now exists (is produced) nothing
and nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Pretty soon, life
becomes scarce, while a whole lot of empty space and inanimate
material is left behind. After awhile, all the life is killed, and
then what? With no life left to kill, the force of destruction comes
to a stop (no more destroying can be done), because from nothing,
this force can go no further from there. Here is a definite bottom
to the universe.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now
consider the force of good-and-growth as being the only force
around. As this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless matter
(dust), and creates life in its place. Soon everything starts to
come alive. Pretty soon we begin to run out of improvements to make.
Emptiness and undeveloped raw material (dust) starts to come into
short supply. If everything is alive, then no more growth can be
done, and thus the force of good is stopped, right? Well, there's
not so much an absolute ceiling, as there is an absolute bottom. You
see, life forms can advance/be advanced and become ever more capable
and alive; and this thus continues the force of growth/goodness.
And, a universe that is alive (full of life), is very capable -able
to do lots of things, (unlike a barren universe consisting of
nothingness). And with that life/capability, it can bridge barriers
and reach raw material (dust) that had previously been separated
from it by a barrier. Hence, the force of goodness and growth can
survive by itself much better than the force of destruction/death
can. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or be either the force of
good-and-growth, or the force of destruction. The lack of life can't
do/be either force. Since what the force of good produces is life,
such life can continue to do forces. But since what the force of
destruction produces is death, nothingness, voids in life; since
this cannot do or support either force, then the force of
destruction alone is destined to a quick end while the force of good
and growth alone is destined to continue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALSO,
since only life can do-be either force: When destruction experiences
what it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't grow, but
instead shrinks to nothing. xxxxxxxxxx But when goodness experiences
what it produces, (when goodness is good to itself) it does not die,
but instead, grows. So that the force of destruction needs something
other than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force), while the
force of good does not and is self sufficient with just itself. So
that when alone, good survives while destruction self eliminates and
vanishes. From this we can see that good and growth, is a superior
force to the force of death and destruction.

REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and demand; as applied to human
beings. If there is a shortage of humans, then they will have a
higher value and will be treated better. But if there is a surplus
of humans, then their value will be low, and they will be treated
poorly, according to their low value according to supply and
demand. So that when women are considering how many humans to
produce in terms of how large a family to have; collectively, they
have quite an impact on how we all are treated by those economic
forces that rule over us all.
And then there is the conservative, religious rules over our
sexuality. But first let us consider sexual reproduction in
itself. Sexual reproduction produces offspring that are not exact
copies of their parents, but who are different from their parents to
some degree. So, sexual reproduction generates differences between
each of us. Now, if we were all to have sex with each other in
unrestricted sexual reproduction, then those differences would be
spread all back among our population and we would not build on or
accentuate those differences. But that's not the way sexual
reproduction works in our world. Sexual reproduction is restricted
to one man one woman and to form a family grouping to raise the
offspring produced. So that the differences generated by sexual
reproduction are preserved and compounded over each successive
generation; so that different groups of people are developed each
being good in one particular area, while not so good in the other
areas. So that as individuals they cannot function well, but only
as a group can they work together to combine their good areas to
make a complete and competent societal whole. Thus the rulers of a
society have at their beck and call, all the humans of the society
to do their bidding, because as individuals they are all unbalanced
in their skills, incapable of being self sufficient as individuals,
who can only survive and excel by joining as a group each to
contribute their best skill. So that what the conservative rules
over our sexual reproduction do is to breed individuals who are
slaves who are easily molded by the rulers of a society, who are
incapable of much independence as individuals, so that we are more
so a commodity to be used by those who rule over us. Sometimes one
may resent being part of this conservative religious breeding
program that has made us to be not free, but slaves to those who
rule over us.
TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, SEE THE LINKS AREA of this group for
the foce of good vs evil

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

----- Original Message -----

From: Anthony Callan

To: Stoic_Foundation@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:46 AM

Subject: [Stoic_Foundation] Re: New to the Stoic Foundation

--- In Stoic_Foundation@yahoogroups.com, George Nesbitt
<nesbittgeorge@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> You have piqued my interest here. I have not read Becker. What does
he say is the goal or purpose of life ? Also, could you outline his
morality in bullet point format, if possible, please ?
>
> Thank you,
> George
>
Hi George!

I definitely recommend his book (available in paperback). He can do
much more justice to his own positions than I can do here. I don't
have his book in front of me right now but I will do my best to have
that outline for you by the end of the weekend. Becker's Stoicism is
definitely an unorthodox version but it does contain the main ethical
foundations seen in the classical Stoics: Virtue is sufficient for
happiness, other externals are indifferent to our happiness (but it's
OK to call them external GOODS), emotions are to be controlled by
reason (they are, after all, cognitive in nature anyway) but moral
indignation may be necessary for our humanity.

The bottom line is that Becker asks what Stoicism would be like today
if it wasn't dominated by Christian history and still existed as a
recognizable school. It would have likely changed its physics to
reflect modern understanding and, as the physics changes, the ethics
may likewise be modified.

Becker writes in a way that allows you to have pride in the Classical
texts without having to rigorously defend some pretty shaky positions
i.e., Divine Providence, all emotions are to be purged.

He does, however, still maintain that a Stoic can be happy on the
rack and I agree with him!

Pleasure to meet you,
Tony
>
>
> To: Stoic_Foundation@...: vtcallan@...: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:29:36
+0000Subject: [Stoic_Foundation] New to the Stoic Foundation
>
>
>
>
> My name is Tony. I've been a practicing Stoic for about a year now.
I consider myself a Becker Stoic (according to the ideas of Lawrence
C. Becker in A New Stoicism). In Becker's Stoicism we find the idea
of a Cosmic mind untenable according to the best that modern science
has to offer. Instead of "living according to nature", Becker's
Stoicism "follows the facts wherever they may lead, no more, no
less." If I understand Becker correctly, his version of Stoicism
consistently maintains that virtue alone constitutes happiness but
that there are other goods such as health, an ability to reason,
minimal necessities of living that contribute to the perfection of
our agency.I hope to continue many fruitful conversations with all of
you.Live well,Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/
>

Please note that the following is from the website of Jan Garrett.
He explains in outline form the main ideas to be found in Becker's
book (and he does it much better than I ever could).  I would just
add that among all the talk of norms and normative propositions it is
easy to lose sight of the fact that Becker's Stoicism doesn't eschew
(among other things) human passion, compassion, righteous indignation
and love.  Therefore, Becker's Stoicism, in my view, effectively
counters many contemporary reservations found among ethicists and
moral philosophers.

Here's the outline....enjoy!


Lawrence Becker on the Centrality of Virtue
Lawrence Becker's book A New Stoicism (Princeton U. Press, 1998) is
an important book. What I shall try to do is to discuss parts of it
that I think are important, and in the process I shall try to put it
into language that is a bit more accessible than Becker's.
Tonight I shall try to explain the section beginning on pp. 114-17
entitled "The Argument for Virtue as the Perfection of Agency." As I
see it, this is Becker's version of the ancient Stoic idea that the
proper goal of the ethical life is virtue. The proper goal for an
animal that exercises its power of rational choice is not maximizing
pleasure, as the vulgar hedonists claim, or minimizing pain, as the
Epicureans claim, or maximizing the adulation of all possible
audiences, as some politicians seem to believe, or owning the world,
as Bill Gates seems to think . . .

Becker says that the argument is one that particular agents (persons
as rational choosers) make from the inside, in the first person.

1. "I have many endeavors [or projects]--many things I want to do."
Each of these justifies propositions about what I ought to do or
be, "*nothing*-else-considered." There are always many things I ought
to do or be in this sense.

2. One such project is practical reasoning (reasoning about choosing
or acting) "nothing else considered," that is, reasoning devoted to
the task of carrying out any project I might actually have, including
itself. The point about "including itself" is that you can reason
about becoming a more effective and complete practical reasoner as
well as about staying profitable in your business or getting along
with your spouse.

Practical reasoning about projects leads to the production of norms
governing the effectiveness of pursuit of the ends involved. These
norms then come to dominate further reasoning about the
projects. "What I ought to do to pursue a given endeavor...is to
follow my normative practical reasoning about it."

3. Normative practical reasoning about projects normally creates a
group of conflicting requirements and oughts. Many are mutually
incompatible with some range of my other projects. They will stay
that way unless I sequence them or otherwise modify some of my
projects.

4. Yet no endeavor by itself normally absorbs all the resources at my
disposal during a given day. Each project claims only a part of the
resources and is indifferent to the rest.

5. Thus conflicts will arise between two or more projects that can be
solved only by integrating them so that both can be pursued
successfully. A norm that more success is better than less is built
into the endeavor of practical reasoning itself. "What I am required
to do, as a necessary condition of exercising my agency, is to (try
to) optimize the success of multiple endeavors."

6. I might proceed by trying to resolve conflicts as they arise, but
reflection on the general process of resolving such conflicts
suggests that I am more likely to fail in my local or small-scale
projects if I do not take steps in advance to consider things more
generally. By trying to optimize practical reasoning on local
problems I am led to widen the scope of my concerns to everything
that might be relevant to them. Which is to say, I am led "to do my
practical reasoning *all*-things-considered.

7. But when I reason all-things-considered, I am no longer practicing
local optimization. Every project I have becomes a target for the
work of optimization in general. Now my reasoning is dominated by the
proposition that I ought to optimize "over the full range of" my
actual projects. Soon I am forced to try to consider all the projects
I might reasonably pursue over the various paths my life may take. I
am required, as a condition of being an agent at all, to aim at the
total optimization of my projects present and future.

8. Reflection reveals that if I make my most comprehensive and
controlling endeavor the perfection of my agency based on the
practical reasoning I ought to do, and succeed at it, then I will
succeed in optimizing success in all my projects--over my whole life.
In fact, if I have any other ultimate aim, practical reasoning in
pursuit of it will undercut the optimization I am required to seek.
The conclusion is that I am required, in exercising my agency, to
make the perfection of my agency based on reasoning all-things-
considered my most comprehensive and controlling project.

9. Any proposition about what I ought to do that is correct in my
case is sound for anyone else who is relevantly similar. Thus, those
whose agency (rational capacities, modicum of patience, etc.) is
similar to mine should make perfection of their agency their most
comprehensive and controlling aim.

10. Healthy agents will acquire strong norms approximating the using
notions of wisdom, justice, benevolence, etc. that are typically
called virtues. The proposition that all such agents should make
perfection of their agency their most comprehensive and controling
aim implies that they are required to develop the traits needed to
pursue that endeavor, some of which are commonly called virtues.

11. Since the duty to acquire virtues is based on the duty to perfect
our agency, and the latter has been shown to be our most
comprehensive and controlling project, the duty to acquire virtues
will dominate any conflicting requirement arising from another
project.

Taken from Jan Garrett's website--not my words.

--- In Stoic_Foundation@yahoogroups.com, George Nesbitt
<nesbittgeorge@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> You have piqued my interest here. I have not read Becker. What does
he say is the goal or purpose of life ? Also, could you outline his
morality in bullet point format, if possible, please ?
>
> Thank you,
> George
>
Hi George!

I definitely recommend his book (available in paperback).  He can do
much more justice to his own positions than I can do here.  I don't
have his book in front of me right now but I will do my best to have
that outline for you by the end of the weekend.  Becker's Stoicism is
definitely an unorthodox version but it does contain the main ethical
foundations seen in the classical Stoics:  Virtue is sufficient for
happiness, other externals are indifferent to our happiness (but it's
OK to call them external GOODS), emotions are to be controlled by
reason (they are, after all, cognitive in nature anyway) but moral
indignation may be necessary for our humanity.

The bottom line is that Becker asks what Stoicism would be like today
if it wasn't dominated by Christian history and still existed as a
recognizable school.  It would have likely changed its physics to
reflect modern understanding and, as the physics changes, the ethics
may likewise be modified.

Becker writes in a way that allows you to have pride in the Classical
texts without having to rigorously defend some pretty shaky positions
i.e., Divine Providence, all emotions are to be purged.

He does, however, still maintain that a Stoic can be happy on the
rack and I agree with him!

Pleasure to meet you,
Tony
>
>
> To: Stoic_Foundation@...: vtcallan@...: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:29:36
+0000Subject: [Stoic_Foundation] New to the Stoic Foundation
>
>
>
>
> My name is Tony. I've been a practicing Stoic for about a year now.
I consider myself a Becker Stoic (according to the ideas of Lawrence
C. Becker in A New Stoicism). In Becker's Stoicism we find the idea
of a Cosmic mind untenable according to the best that modern science
has to offer. Instead of "living according to nature", Becker's
Stoicism "follows the facts wherever they may lead, no more, no
less." If I understand Becker correctly, his version of Stoicism
consistently maintains that virtue alone constitutes happiness but
that there are other goods such as health, an ability to reason,
minimal necessities of living that contribute to the perfection of
our agency.I hope to continue many fruitful conversations with all of
you.Live well,Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/
>

My name is Tony.  I've been a practicing Stoic for about a year now.  I
consider myself a Becker Stoic (according to the ideas of Lawrence C.
Becker in A New Stoicism).

In Becker's Stoicism we find the idea of a Cosmic mind untenable
according to the best that modern science has to offer.  Instead
of "living according to nature", Becker's Stoicism "follows the facts
wherever they may lead, no more, no less."  If I understand Becker
correctly, his version of Stoicism consistently maintains that virtue
alone constitutes happiness but that there are other goods such as
health, an ability to reason, minimal necessities of living that
contribute to the perfection of our agency.

I hope to continue many fruitful conversations with all of you.

Live well,

Tony

http://www.artfact.com/catalog/viewLot.cfm?lotCode=8MLC1OYV

If you Love the Julio Claudian Dynasty, you will love the Julio
Claudian Iconographic Association.  You will receive all the latest on
the Julio Claudian Dynasty.............Come join us at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/

Joe Geranio
JCIA

-------------- Original message --------------
From: daniel dunigan <dduniganadl@...>

If you read the Gospel of Mark, it is not hard to believe that Jesus may have been a Stoic that had mastered the ancient arts of healing and what the producers of the Matrix termed THE ONE. Most religions can not measure up on a mass scale to Stoicism because of the complexity of learning to free your mind. The one passage in Gospel of Mark I like is the reference: It is easier for a camel to pass through a needles eye then a rich man to pass through the gates of Heaven. The passage does not say it is impossible but those of wealth tend to become "settled" in the little extras that seem necessary. Similar to how the one that was inclined to the Cynic Path had a narrow-minded view of what it meant and did not see the materials stacking up. It is my belief that only Stoics become the illuminated adepts of the future.

 

Daniel Dunigan

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Kim Brand" <kjbrand33@...>

Hello - new here. I needed an invocation for our Rotary Club in
Indianapolis. This is a large club (400 members) and a diverse audience.

I was put off by too many Christian invocations. I was attracted to
Stoicism and found this forum.

Here's what I wrote:

In the third century BC a philosophical movement known as Stoicism was
conceived in Greece by a philosopher named Zeno. His teachings
ultimately gained popularity throughout Imperial Rome. Much of what
we know about Stoics today we have learned from the diary of the Roman
Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

In those days, religion wasn't helpful to mark the path to a desirable
"good flow of life". Philosophers literally gave such lessons on
porches - the Greek name for which is stoa - thus the first teachers
became Stoics.

Stoics believe that all that is necessary to have a happy life is to
'live in agreement with nature' This included practicing prudence,
wisdom, justi ce, courage and moderation. These are purely internal
prescriptions. Virtue is the sole good. Humans can exercise their
power of choice and decide to be happy. Stoicism shows them how. The
way may be hard, but the rules are simple. A person who achieved the
pinnacle of Stoic virtue was called a Sage.''

Like our Rotary Four Way Test, a Stoic life emphasized Ethics. In
addition to truth, they believed that to conform our affairs with
nature demanded consideration of the concerns of others. Sounds like
'Fair to all' and 'Beneficial to all concerned' to me. Over 2000
years before Paul Harris was born, Stoic philosophy anticipated the
words 1.2 million Rotarians would use to inspire our thoughts and actions.

Least important to a happy life were external attributes that include
wealth, possessions, status - even health. They called these
'indifferents'. As if, with the proper internal focus, these common
measures of success were unim portant to true happiness. So should we
believe today.

Many of you may not have heard of the Stoics, or of their philosophy.
The agreement of their views with our Rotarian motos should give us
confidence in their timeless relevance. But most of us *have* heard
of this prayer that unmistakably encapsulate Stoic beliefs. It's call
the Serenity Prayer:

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be
changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the
wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. Amen.

Got any suggestions?

Thanks,

Kim Brand

Hello - new here.  I needed an invocation for our Rotary Club in
Indianapolis.  This is a large club (400 members) and a diverse audience.

I was put off by too many Christian invocations.  I was attracted to
Stoicism and found this forum.

Here's what I wrote:

In the third century BC a philosophical movement known as Stoicism was
conceived in Greece by a philosopher named Zeno.  His teachings
ultimately gained popularity throughout Imperial Rome.  Much of what
we know about Stoics today we have learned from the diary of the Roman
Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

In those days, religion wasn't helpful to mark the path to a desirable
"good flow of life".  Philosophers literally gave such lessons on
porches - the Greek name for which is stoa - thus the first teachers
became Stoics.

Stoics believe that all that is necessary to have a happy life is to
'live in agreement with nature'  This included practicing prudence,
wisdom, justice, courage and moderation.  These are purely internal
prescriptions.  Virtue is the sole good.  Humans can exercise their
power of choice and decide to be happy.  Stoicism shows them how.  The
way may be hard, but the rules are simple.  A person who achieved the
pinnacle of Stoic virtue was called a Sage.''

Like our Rotary Four Way Test, a Stoic life emphasized Ethics.  In
addition to truth, they believed that to conform our affairs with
nature demanded consideration of the concerns of others.  Sounds like
'Fair to all' and 'Beneficial to all concerned' to me.  Over 2000
years before Paul Harris was born, Stoic philosophy anticipated the
words 1.2 million Rotarians would use to inspire our thoughts and actions.

Least important to a happy life were external attributes that include
wealth, possessions, status - even health.  They called these
'indifferents'.  As if, with the proper internal focus, these common
measures of success were unimportant to true happiness.  So should we
believe today.

Many of you may not have heard of the Stoics, or of their philosophy.
  The agreement of their views with our Rotarian motos should give us
confidence in their timeless relevance.  But most of us *have* heard
of this prayer that unmistakably encapsulate Stoic beliefs.  It's call
the Serenity Prayer:

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be
changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the
wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.  Amen.

Got any suggestions?

Thanks,

Kim Brand

--- In Stoic_Foundation@yahoogroups.com, "tpd1865" <tpd1865@...>
wrote:
>
> Tom Milburn here,
>
> It seems to me that the distinction of Stoicism is the belief that
> actions are shaped by perception.  Like the cylinder, we roll the
way
> we are shaped to roll.  Unlike the cylinder, we have an interaction
> with the world wherein we perceive things that shape our rolling.
> While most stoic writings seem clear that perception of the world
and
> also our place in it will in a sort of deterministic way cause us
to
> behave accordingly, I have never read anything in stoic texts that
> suggests we are bound to a certain perception.
>
> In fact for me the heart of a stoic life revolves around "choosing"
a
> perception of the world that causes a series of actions in response
> to the world.  Presto, a stoic, rolling uphill.
>
> In the words of the street "Thats how we roll".
>
> -- In Stoic_Foundation@yahoogroups.com, "ramstin" <ramstin@> wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering what you all think of this post that was
> > between me and a memebr of a Naturalism blog I post on.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ramstin <ramstin@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I knew Naturalism reminded me of something. Naturalism seems to
> > remind me of Stoicism.
> >
> > "The Stoic view on modality is supposed to make the world safe
for
> > counter-factual possibilities. This means that when we speak of a
> > person's actions, in most cases he could have done otherwise,
given
> > the Stoics' analysis of `could' and other modal concepts. Is this
> > enough? Do the Stoics confront the perceived conflict between
> > universal causation and human freedom? Some Stoic texts suggest a
> > position we moderns would characterize as `soft determinism'.
> > Chrysippus used the illustration of a cylinder rolling down a
hill
> > as an analogy for actions that are within our control (Cicero and
> > Gellius, 62C-D). It is true that the force that starts its motion
> is
> > external to it. This is analogous to the impressions we have of
the
> > world. But it rolls because of its shape. This is analogous to
our
> > moral character. When our actions are mediated by our characters,
> > then they are `up to us'. Thus, if I see an unattended sandwich
> and,
> > because I am a dishonest person, steal it, then this is up to me
> and
> > I am responsible. All things come about by fate but this is
brought
> > about by fate through me (Alex. Aphr. 62G). When, however, I trip
> > and fall, knocking your sandwich to the floor, this is not up to
> me.
> > The chain of causes and effects does not flow through my beliefs
> and
> > desires.-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Phil"
> >
> >
> >
> > <Steve wrote>
> > Therein lies the rub. Did the cylinder freely choose to be shaped
> as
> > a cylinder? Did you freely get to choose to be a dishonest
> > person? "It rolls because of its shape." And it is shaped because
> of
> > what? It wasn't the cylinders doing to be a cylinder. You steal
> > because of dishonesty. And you are dishonest because of what?
> >
> > These views arbitrarily pick how far back they want to go in the
> > chain of events to start assigning responsibility. The illusion
of
> > free will was so strong in them that they had no choice but to
hold
> > that a persons character was their own creation.
> >
> > Seems like the Stoics didn't arrive at NFWism.(Non Free Will-ism)
> > "...because I am a dishonest person..."
> > Steve
> >
>
>>>You steal because it is your percieved advantage to take something
you think you needed. Your perception is misguided into thinking you
needed something you did not currently possess. If you had judged
correctly you would not have stolen the item.The reason behind why
you would not have stolen the item had you judged correctly is the
real question. If you judge the action to be wrong on the basis that
you did not compensate the present owner, you are wrong in your
judgement on whether or not it is ok to determine if it is wrong to
steal. However,if you judge the action to be wrong because it does
not belong to you you are right because it's an indifferent object
and therefore not part of you.

To all that may read:

My name is Daniel Dunigan. I have been attempting to study stoic
philosophy since I first discovered it in 1996. I here detail a brief
history of my past so that it may serve as future context to how I
perceive things to be.

I was born November 1971 as a Roman Catholic and for the better part
of 18 years lived a semi- sheltered lifestyle. I always thought there
was something missing growing up but had very little to relate to so
never knew until college what I was "missing". I found early on while
attending Michigan State University that philosophy was easy way to
relate to the world I did not know yet. It was thru this process that
I discovered Wicca and Druidry and through the better part of 6 years
I studied it. However, after analyzing the eclectic nature of those
arts, I sought a more grounding solution. By this time, I had found
my way into the U.S. Army stationed at Ft. Carson, CO. Later, I was
to learn that Colorado Springs happens also to be one of the largest
communities for Wicca in the United States. At one of the trade
shows, I happened upon a lecture about Freewill vs. Determinism where
the Lecture person happened to be a Stoic. Afterwards that person
turned me on to The Discourses of Epictetus as published by Everyman
Edited by Christopher Gill (University of Exeter) and revised by
Robin Hard (Reading University). I have been using that book ever
since as a basic foundation of my beliefs.

After leaving the Army and several jobs later I find myself in the
call center industry for The Walt Disney Company at Walt Disney
World. Here is the greatest challenge for a stoic. Can a Stoic in
training and possibly on the cynic path survive in an environment
when surrounded by the one basic idea of "selling dreams" on a false
premise of happiness?

My personal beliefs are as follows:

I believe that there is a universal "Force", similar as described in
the Saga of Star Wars, which governs the universe and all of its
indifferent parts.

I believe the Meaning of Life is to perfect ones soul in order to be
accepted into the governing body of the Force.

I finally believe that everything happens as it should and nothing
happens as a matter of coincidence; those that believe any 2 actions
are unrelated do not either understand and/or appreciate the
complexity of the universe. To quote Book 1 Chap 12.3
"Not a move do I make unseen by thee"

This is my understanding and background at the moment and I look
forward to your counsel as I step forward.

There is a" NEW" article by Prof. John Pollini at the Julio Claudian
Iconographic Yahoo Site under Files (Pollini-Article on Death Masks)
The Article is called:  Ritualizing Death in Rebublican Rome: Memory
Religion, Class Struggle, and the Wax Ancestral Mask Tradition's
Origin and Influence on Veristic Portraiture.  New Exclusive article
with Permission by Prof. John Pollini.  This article can be found
under files on the JCIA Site listed below.  By Prof. John Pollini.
This article is used with the permission of Prof. Joh Pollini.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/

This is not spam, but is of interest to any group who values portrait
studies and numimatics.

Joe Geranio- Julio Claudian Iconographic Association
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/

Julio Claudian Exclusive Photos of Rare Maxentius Scepter
Only at  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/
Go to:
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/photos/browse/e855
To see the archaeological evidence and Actual implements of the
scepter
To see 9 exclusive Photos of the RARE scepter belonging to
Maxentius.  These photos include the Findspot and 3-4 globes that
were used for the top of the scepter.  These were sent to me from
one of my friends that teaches Roman Portrait study and Iconography

ROME, Italy, Feb. 24, 2007 (UPI) -- An insignia believed to have
belonged to Rome's last pre-Christian emperor, Maxentius, went on
display for the first time in Italy's capital on Saturday.
A scepter adorned with a carved flower and a globe, as well as a
number of separate glass spheres which are thought to be a symbolic
representation of Earth, are the centerpiece of the spring show at
the National Roman Museum in Rome, the Italian news agency ANSA
reported.

Emperor Maxentius is believed to have hidden the scepter on the eve
of his battle with Constantine in 312 AD, which paved the way for
Christianity to become Rome's official religion, archaeologists said.
"These artifacts clearly belonged to the emperor, especially the
scepter," said Clementina Panella, the researcher who made the
discovery.

"It's very elaborate -- not an item you would let someone else go
around with," she added.
If this is your bag Join The Julio Claudian Iconographic
Association  220 Member Strong!!

The Ara Pacis Museum Site!!

Museo dell'Ara Pacis

http://en.arapacis.it/percorsi/esterno

This is a great resource for all those interested in the greatest of
all Julio Claudian Art.

Posting from The Julio Claudian Iconographic Association
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/

If you love Julio-Claudian Iconography or Roman Iconography,
Numismatics, and Julio Claudian history talk betweeen the reigns of
Augustus-Nero join at:   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/

Foreward from Roman Portraits - Phaidon Edition-Oxford University
Press: 1940 (Public Domain)
By L. GOLDSCHEIDER

Other nations likewise earlier peoples seperated from the Romans by
hundreds or thousands of years, were aquainted with the art of
portraiture. The Eygyptians made likenesses of their kings,
officials,priests and court ladies, magical harbourage for the soul
which had become homeless after the death of the body; structures of
hard stone, composed of seperate facets, of signs commemorating what
was thought essential. Besides this there was a minor art, which
worked with soft fabrics, producing portraits more natural and less
stylized, likenesses of peasants, slaves, prisoners and barbarians.
The Greeks had their art of portraiture, in which a victorious youth
would lend his features to images of the gods, while the portrait of
the general, the philosopher, or the poet was fashioned like a sttue
of the divine, and was given superhuman touches. And just as, for
the hellenes, the divine remained a generaliation and
intensification of the human, so did hellenic art retain the
generalisation of human bodily phenonmena in their quasi-divinity.
The Greeks did not endeavour to reproduce particualr details, but to
present a picture in which had been elaborated the idea they
embodied. Hence arose the contradiction, that the Eygptians, who
regarded the body as no more than a temporary domicile for the soul,
and the soul as the only true reality, tried, in their art, to keep
close to the aspects of the body, whereas the Greeks, for whom the
body was the only reality and the soul nothing more than a transient
breath that inspired the body, did not attempt to reproduce a
fugitive similarity, but to depict an eteranl identity.(1) The
Greeks idealised the body; the Egyptions the soul.
In the past two centuries before Christ, upon Asiatic and African
soil, and especailly in Alexandria, Greek art arrived at its
satryric drama. The naturalism which the Hellenes had been unable to
combine with beauty, became now allied to ugliness. They depicted
old age with its wrinkles and its turgidity, showed withered dryness
or obesity, deformity and disease, the stages of the struggle with
death, without poesy and with all repulsive details, its vulgar lack
of charm, even when their work had sunk to parody and caricature.
But all these statues and statuettes of street arabs, hunbacked
beggars, fat a dwarfed women, dropsical persons, elderly drunkards,
worn out fishermen, have only the physiognamy of their vices and
sorrows, being embodiments of poverty and senility; they have the
characteristics of types not of individuals.-The original home of
true portraiture is the Apennine peninsula; the Etruscans had made
likenesses by following the style of the East and the eastern
Mediterranean, the Hellenic and the quasi-Hellenic style; and,
without undue titvation, they depicted nature in all her whimsies
and irregularities. The sarcophagus-figures with sharply-cut
Cypriote features retained an individual character, however much
distorted. The obese bald men, wearing rings on their podgy fingers
and garlands round their thick, soft necks, assembled on decorations
on cinerary urns and reminding us of Trimalchio at his meal, make us
specualte curiously upon their lives; the terracotta heads of women
and children are packed with the peculiarities of an individual
destiny as if they were little biographies. But the Etruscans
ventured even closer to nature, or did not depart it so far. We see
this in their terracotta masks, whose precision in respect of chance
details can only be explained by supposing them to have been
elaboated from death-masks or modified from casts taken from nature.
(2) But casts from nature were also one of the roots of Roman
Portraiture. Every aristocratic or well-to-do middle class Roman
house in its drawing room, the atrium, a collection of family
statues, likenesses of ancestors; a museum of " sculptured photos"
if one may use the term, to distinguish them from intentional workd
of art-casts in wax, death masks. These wax family portraits were
kept in cupboards, to be opened on feast days, or when the head of
the house died. As the dead man lay in state, his face was promplty
covered with a waxen mask (promptly because of the rapidity with
which putrefaction sets in a hot southern climate), and a waxen cast
was prepared portraying the featrures of the deceased. In the
funeral procession, this would be borne in front of the bier,
preceded by the crowd of dancers and mimes. The actor who wore the
recently prepared wax mask represented the dead man, and moved
onward amid a number of professional mourners. When the processin
reached the forum, this actor would make a funeral oration, as if it
had been made by the deceased himself. The crowd of accompanying
mimes wore the masks of the ancestors(1), which were taken from the
cupboards, so that athe whole series of ancestors of the deceased
accompanied the procession and seemed to be listening to adulatory
oration. Thus, among the Romans, was the art of the portraiture
combined with that of the mystery play, in which the deceased and
his fore-fathers appeared in the dress of life, to represent the
living. Complete statues of the dead were somtimes present, with
head, hands, and feet made of wax, but the body, made of other
material, was shown in the rough, though fully clothed.(2) At the
funeral of Julius Caesar there was a complete wax figure, rotating
on a pivot, with the face and body showing the three-and-twenty
stabs. At the funeral procession of Emperor Pertinax, there was a
borne upon a bier the wax figure of a sleeper representing death as
sleep-an idea shich recurs in the mortuary monuments of the
renaissance. To make such wax plastics imperishiable it was needful
to have bronze casts made of them, and the technique of bronze
founding was already perfected by the Greeks and Etruscans. In this
the way the first Roman bronze heads originated as imitations of
nature, and little scope was left for the scupltor's art with the
chisel. Imitations in terracotta were likewise an easy substitute.
(1) Throughout, for the Romans, the mask representing a man's face
remained of the uttermost importance. In the Flavian period, when
natualism in sculpture had reached its climax, this still only
applied to the face, the body being formed in accordance with the
conventional fourth century types. In contradistintion to this, the
Greeks always treated the face as part of the whole body; and in the
spirit they depicted the elevations and depressions of a back and
prominences of a knee with as much attention to detail as if they
had been portraying a face. That is why we, trained in another
school, that of christian art (the heiress of roman art), find the
heads of Greek statues poor in detatil, whereas the bodies of these
statues are so packed with detatils that our eyes cannot discover
them all, but only an exploring finger. This is why, moreover, to us
Roman statues that have lost their heads seem to lack artistry, and
we often consider that the most beautiful Greek statues are those
which remain merely as torsos. The Eygptians, also, in so far as
they elaborated detatils, gave them only in the face, whereas the
body was treated diagrammatically.(2) But in their mummy masks, made
of painted plaster and papier-mache, the Eygptians, from the
ptolemaic period onward, achieved a verism which can give us an idea
of that of the lost Roman death-masks. The ruthlessly naturalistic
marble heads of the republican period, the earliest Roman portraits
which have come down to us, were obviously direct reproductions of
wax masks.(3) In the course of four centuries, plastic portariture
among the Romans underwent many changes in style, but throughout ,
the realistic trend was preserved. There were two great classicist
epochs, one in the days of Augustus and the other in the days of
Trajan. The Greeks were considered their masters by the Romans, who
collected the works of the Hellenes in the flowering season,
exhibited them, and often copied them. (1) Greek sculptors worked to
satisfy the demand of the imperial court, they had their studios in
Rome and in the provinces, and they took Roman pupils. Their style
was suited to the wishes of their patrons. Nevertheless Franz
Wickhoff could write: " The Greeks in Rome would never have shaken
off this imitative naturalism. It was only when Roman amateurs gave
up their exclusive patronage of Greek artists and began to give
commissions to people of their own race, that a change of style
could take place" (Roman Art, London, 1900, p.46). As an example of
the Greek share in Roman Portrariture may be mentioned the bust of
Pompey at Copenhagen (see web. for this photo), which A.W. Lawerence
(in his Classical Scupture, London, 1923, p. 316) describes
as "purely Greek". But, for the Romans, realism was not a mere
popular fashion, as their Graecism was an aristocrataic fashion; it
suited the tendencies of the national art. THey soon discovered in
what respect their painted busts of wax and stone fell behind
nature. In so far as these plastics were based upon wax masks, they
gave the features a stiffness (no matter whetehr death-masks or life
masks had been the sources). They reproduced proportions and the
underlying bony structure with a harsh exactitude, and even
reproduced chance perculiarities of the surface, such as warts and
scars; but they failed to reproduce the texture of the skin, the
mobility of the surfaces, or to disclose the breathing vitality of
the originals. The Antonine artists (about 160 A.D.), however,
discovered how to reproduce the texture of the skin. They had
developed the the technique of impressionism, a deliberate
inaccuracy and sketchiness, in great measure an indifference to
detatils of form, so that the onlooker is compelled to fill in
imaginatively the details shich the artist's chisel and polishing
have left incomplete. Their sense for the value rough and smooth
increased. They contrasted the polished marble of the flesh with the
roughness of the hair, and they left the depth of the mouth rough so
that shadows might collect there. They worked, indeed, with
intensified shadows, to produce something intended to be viewd from
a distance, in accordance with the principles of the illusionist
style. The black-and -white effects became so powerful, that the
sculptor often expressly renounced naturalistic tinting.(2) After
the Flavian epoch, the drill came to be used more and more as a
tool, for the depiction of mouth and ears, and especially of the
hair. The fantastic Rococo hair -dressing of women could be
reproduced by the use of the drill, the tresses being picked out by
the boring of the holes which cast deep shadows. Since fashions in
hair-dressing changed rapidly, some busts were provided with
removable marble wigs. (This begins with Julia Domna, about 200
A.D.) Towards the middle so the second century A.D., or perhaps even
earlier, about 130 A.D., during the reign of Hadrian, the expression
began to be indicated plastically by drilling out he pupils.(1) The
iris was represented as a segment of a sphere, with depressed
parallel rings; the pupils were hollows, or sometimes a mere notch.
Light and shade replaced colour in these representations of the
eyes. In the later development of the art, the lids were gouged, and
the pupils were drilled. From the third century onward, the eye
became more and more the chief feature in representation; it was
surrealistically enlarged, and borings where made which had the
desired effect. These various ways of representing the iris, the
hair, and the beard enable archaeoligists to date a portrait bust;
but in this matter the shape of the bust is also a help. In the
course of the imperial epoch the amount of the busts increased. In
the Julian-Claudian epoch, it was shown only as far down as the
collarbone; and in the Flavian epoch , it represented shoulders and
the top of the chest; in the Hadrian and Antonine epochs, it has
gone so far as to include the greater part of the thorax and the
upper arms; in the third century, it gave the complete thorax. The
modern form of plastic portratiure, showing no more than head and
neck, did not exist in the days of antiquity. The antique heads of
this sort that we find in our museums were only made to be affixed
to headless busts or statues. Such partial statues were turned out
by the mass, the artist in portraiture being commisssioned to add
the head, and sometimes also the hands and the feet. This practice
was very general in the middle of the imperial epoch, when it became
fashionable for the great to have themselves depicted as gods, as
Apollo and Mars, as Venus and Ceres, as Ariande and Maia. If this is
an obvious exemplification of Roman vanity, we see vanity still more
in the eagerness to have as many portraits of oneself as possible.
The well-to-do had busts made of their friends as presents, or
promised them as bribes. A rich gentlemen in the third century paid
for the portrait bust of a vestal virgin, this being given to her in
return for her patronage when he was elevated to the equestrian
order. Portrait bust would be given to a man who had spent money
upon public purposes; because he had entertained the citizens;
because he had financed plays, animal-baiting, gladatorial shows,
and chariot races; because he had paid for the sending of the
embassies. The right to the public exhibition of a statue was
purchasable in Rome, just as in some countries during the nineteenth
century titles of nobility were purchasable. But, apart from
corruption and the conferring of honour, statues and busts were
multiplied by the thousand. THe guilds gave commissions for the
portraits of their patrons and patronesses; the towns for musicians,
pantomimists, athletes, and circus stars; the bronze busts of
scholars, playwrights, sophists, and leading doctors were placed in
public libraries and in the market-places. No site was thought
unworthy of this mark of appreciation nor any considere too good, so
that the likenesses of gladiators, courtesans, and minions stood in
the temples among the images of the gods. The number of the statues
amd busts of the emperors was legion. The erection of these
memorials began directly a man mounted the throne, so that we have
numerous likenesses even of caesars whose reign lated no more than a
few months. Wickhoff remarks that we should make a mistake if we
should try to study the Roman art of portraiture by looking only at
the imperial busts, for most of these were produced in dozens of
replicas by the copyists. Statues and busts of the emperors were
erected in the temples, and there received divine honours; and there
were other busts in the exchanges, the shops, and the workshops.
Medallions with their portraits were placed on the walls of
goverment buildings and law courts. (1) Ohers were found to be in
schools, barracks, and prisons. These likenesses were multipled in
routinist fashion and sent to all the provinces, so that there were
almost as many if them among the Romans as there are colour prints
of sovereigns in our own days. Augustus had in Rome eighty statues
of silver, a good many of gold, equestrian statues, and likenesses
of him driving a four-in-hand, Thousands were sent to every town of
the empire. No doubt when a detested ruler died, many of these
scuptures were destroyed during an outburst of popular wrath, as
happened after the death of Domitian. Often to save time, or from
thrift, earllier statues were retouched. Pausanias reports how a
statue of Orestes was renamed "Augustus"; while Philo informs us
that event the statues of women were transformed into statues of the
emperors. Pliny speaks of the refurbishing of old statues by fitting
them with new heads and writing new inscriptions; and Cicero refers
to the giving of false names to earlier statues by effacing the old
names and chiselling new ones.(2) On the other hand, we have to
remember that not all statues were made during the lifetime of those
whom they represent, but some of them even centuries later. Thus
Herodianus informs us that Caracalla had statues of Alexander,
Sulla, and Hannibal put up. Coins bearing the head of Augustus were
minted during the time of Tiberius. As material for making the
statues the Romans used not only marble(3) but also softer
materials, such as basalt, porpyry, ebony,ivory-besides bronze,
precious metals, and gold alloyed with silver (which was called
electron, the word also used for amber). Pausanias, speaks of an
electron bust of Augustsus at Olympia, but it is not clear from what
he writes whether this bust was made of amber or of metallic
electron.-A love of art seems to have been widespread among the
Romans, so that there were a great many amateur artists, and some of
these amateurs were emperors. Heliogabalus (HerodianusX,5) sent a
self-portrait to Rome; Nero, Marcus Aurelius, and Alexander Severus
were amateur painters; and Valentinian I was a scuptor. The
paintings of the days of Roman antiquity should be used to throw a
comparative light upon the sculptured portraits of those days.
Portraits from El-Fayum, most of them belonging to the second
century A.D., have little to do with the matter, for, though they
date from the Roman epoch, they were not painted by Romans. More
useful, therrefore, are the portraits of Proculus, the baker and his
wife, and certain mosaics (see Roman portraits-Phaidon Edition).
Though few portraits have survived , we know that a great many were
painted, especially for use as the title-pages of books, but also
other portraits of poets, scholars, and artists. Varro made a
collection of 700 portraits. We read of a colossal portrait of Nero
(Pliny XXV,51), which was 120 ft. high; also of portraits of
courtesans and of betrothed princesses. Lucian tells us that ladies
insisted upon flattering portraits. In the days of Pliny there were
galleries filled with painted portraits. Still, so few of these
remain that for the pictorial history of the Roman people and its
rulers during four centuries we depend almost exclusively upon
sculptures. Between Hellenic portraiture and Roman portraiture
therre is as wide a gap as between the Acanthian capital and the
plant sculptures of the Ara Pacis. The Romans tried to make fidelity
to nature a part of their art. Portraiture is always regarded as the
highest peculiar development of Roman art-with the proviso that
modern "classicism" from the renaissance on into the eighteenth
century clung to Hellenising and Baroque statues of the emperore,
whereas the close of the nineteenth century , which was the period
of impressionism (and of Wickhoff), preferred the illusionist
portraits of the Flavian epoch and of the barbarian emperors; until
our own time (since Riegl), when expressionism developed or art
became unnatural and the portraits of the latest epoch of ancient
Rome were more in vouge. Two recent writers may be quoted to show
their estimates of Roman portraitrue. Wickhoff writes; "One merit
has never been denied to Roman art, and that is the excellence of
its portraiture. Who has not seen, in its collection of antiques,
heads from the period of Vespasian to Trajan whose striking
lifelikeness and apparently superficial technique, adopted for a
distinct purpose, puts one in mind of the best portraits of
Velazquez and Frans Hals" (op. cit. pp. 17-18). In another place
Wickhoff writes that portraits whose boldness in technique outdoes
that of the early painters of the Netherlands and Spain are
described in the catalouges as "hasty work" because the critics
failed to recognise the touch of an experienced master who, thus
showing his vast experience, with broad strokes of the chisel
created vivid pictures in shich his genius manifested itself so
easily that he almost seemed to be at play. Gisela Richter describes
Roman portrariture as "the natural expression of the Roman genius";
and in another place she says, " In one branch art, however, their
own native qualities helped the Romans to achieve real greatness,
viz. that of portraiture". LONDON, JULY 1940- L. GOLDSCHEIDER.

73 new links added to The Julio Claudian Iconographic Association
@ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/links

The links have everything to do with Julio Claudian Iconography,
Numismatics, Military and Art.  There are also public domain files
on the live of the Julio Claudian Caesars.  We also have 376 photos
in the photos file that are dedicated to the wonderful world of the
Julio Claudians.  This is not to advertise my site, but to let other
Yahoo members know about the site.  We have Roman Imperial Statue
Bases used with the permission of Jakob Hotje under "files" tab.

If you love everything Julio Claudian Numismatics, Art, Military,
and discussion join @

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/

Joe Geanio
Julio Claudian Iconographic Association
168 Members

I will be very delighted to discuss the Stoics and in particular the
book of Dr. Keith Seddon. Anthony Hanania Ottawa





--- In Stoic_Foundation@yahoogroups.com, "antonyh2000"
<antonyh2000@...> wrote:
>
> The Stoa is a community dedicated to discussing Epictetus' Handbook
> and by extension the texts of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, Marus
> Aurelius and the other Stoic writings of the classical Greco-Roman
> period. Our primary goal at The Stoa is the practical application
of
> Stoic Philosophy to our lives so that we flourish as individuals
and
> achieve genuine happiness. This is very much in keeping with the
aim
> of Stoic Philosophy itself.
>
> The Stoa discusses one chapter of Epictetus' Handbook each week.
Dr.
> Keith Seddon translation and commentary on Epictetus' Handbook form
> the basis for our discussions.
>
> If you're interested, please visit:
> http://thestoa.googlepages.com/index.html
>

The Stoa is a community dedicated to discussing Epictetus' Handbook
and by extension the texts of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, Marus
Aurelius and the other Stoic writings of the classical Greco-Roman
period. Our primary goal at The Stoa is the practical application of
Stoic Philosophy to our lives so that we flourish as individuals and
achieve genuine happiness. This is very much in keeping with the aim
of Stoic Philosophy itself.

The Stoa discusses one chapter of Epictetus' Handbook each week. Dr.
Keith Seddon translation and commentary on Epictetus' Handbook form
the basis for our discussions.

If you're interested, please visit:
http://thestoa.googlepages.com/index.html