Aversion and desire of externals sounds like attachment to outcome.  We
hold in our head an image of how we want things to be, and when reality
doesn't turn out that way we are disappointed or deny the evidence.
Denial leads to repression, which is just hidden internalized
disappointment, something that doesn't sound healthy.  So, the
difference between the image of how we want things to be and how reality
actually is leads to anxiety or suffering.  What is easier to change:
our image of reality or reality itself?  This leads right back to
session 1: what is under our control and what isn't.

This "acceptance" all the time of the way things are does sound a bit
passive.  But this acceptance is focused on the current moment and
memory of the past.  The Stoic is fully engaged, energetic, and
responsible about decision making for the future.  For the future is,
especially concerning our responses to new impressions, at least partly
under our control.  The past is not.

Some of these concepts appear counter intuitive at first, they just
don't make sense by themselves.  Larry pointed out in his post a slight
disadvantage of looking at each concept one at a time in isolation.
Apatheia, the Stoic attitude towards aversion and desire of externals,
makes a lot more sense in the light of the two tiered value system of
virtue and indifferents.

Virtue is necessary and sufficient for happiness, the purpose against
which everything else is compared.  But this does not mean indifferents
have no value or are ignored.  The term "indifferent" was chosen well.
For one thing this clearly shows the relative importance of indifferents
to virtue; and for another, this helps us to steer clear of attachment
to externals, wishing reality to be a certain way.

But, the correct selection of indifferents is the grist for the mill of
virtue, as long as we don't desire or wish to avoid a certain outcome.
We make virtuous choices by correctly selecting from indifferents what
is naturally advantageous for ourselves, like good health.  It is the
selection of, not the "acquisition" of, the preferred indifferent that
is the virtuous choice.  Virtue is the process of making the correct
selection, not  the outcome.  The outcome is never completely under our
control.  The process of selection almost always is.  This process
orientation provides the practitioner the opportunity for happiness
constantly, as opposed to a goal oriented individual who is always
dependent on the next accomplishment or acquisition for satisfaction.

The rhetoric of withdrawing one's energy from, what to most people,
sounds like the proper focus of life, constant goal seeking, may sound
like passivity.  What's missing is the other half, the refocus of energy
into an integrated moment to moment process.  This is hardly passive,
despite the unfortunate association of apatheia with apathy and lack of
emotion.  It is the difference between efficient, effective, purposeful
action, and scattered activity, although the second may be more
perceivable in a person's behavior by an outsider.

Our Speaker had some excellent comments:
__________________

But do we not have a will, one which can choose to harbor these things
as secret hungers or one that can drag them into the light of day to be
seen as they are?
__________________

Honesty and clarity.  Peter, you have my vote.

Steve

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Peter:

This passage from Epictetus is an excellent topic for discussion,
partly because it so easily leads to what I think is a profound
misunderstanding of stoicism -- and one that leads many people to
simply dismiss the whole stoic enterprise as absurd. Taken in
isolation, the passage seems to be recommending the sort of timidity
that afflicts someone who never takes risks for fear of failure.  That
is not how I understand the psychology of the stoic.


So to head off that misunderstanding I think it is wise to put this
passage into the context of the familiar stoic distinction between (a)
what is ultimately the only good thing (namely virtue) and thus
perhaps in some ultimate sense the only thing that can properly be
desired and chosen, and (b) the things that are appropriately
preferred (and thus "selected") from among all the things that are,
ultimately, matters of indifference.  Things that are outside our
control are all ultimately matters of indifference, but some of them
are certainly preferable to others. Health is preferable to ill health,
for example, and freedom to slavery.


To prefer something is to value it above something else, and to value
it in that way is (in a perfectly ordinary sense) to desire it or want it
more than the other thing. The basic stoic point is just that with
respect to "externals" (things outside our control, things that are
merely preferred indifferents) none of this should have anything to
do with happiness or good life. That is so because we should never
value or desire an indifferent in such a way that losing it, or not
getting it, compromises progress toward virtue, or makes anything
more than a transient difference in the quality of one's life.


In this connection I like to think of the example of an athlete -- say,
just to be current, a member of the Chinese women's World Cup
team. Surely they all much preferred winning to losing; they wanted
(desired) intensely to win. Surely winning is not something that is
within one's power as an individual, and as it turned out, was not
possible for them as a team.  But for me, whether they violated
Epictetus' advice in this passage depends on whether winning, for
them, was something they desired in an inappropriate way--
whether, for example, the fact that they lost harmed <italic>in the
least</italic> their
chance for a good (happy, virtuous) life. We expect athletes to "get
over it" fairly soon after they lose. That is just commonsense, since
they are just playing games. The genius of stoic teaching is that,
carefully considered, everything except virtue is ultimately in the
same value-category as the athletes' games.


I doubt whether it is possible, psychologically, to both act vigorously
in the world (which stoics certainly recommended) and at the same
time to avoid all forms of disappointment.  But I do think it is possible
-- though very difficult -- to learn to avoid damaging forms of
disappointment over not getting, or not being able to hang onto,
things that are merely preferred indifferents.

Larry

Session Two
   Epictetus' Enchiridion

2.
   Remember that following desire promises the attainment of
that of which you are desirous; and aversion promises the avoiding
that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the
object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object
of his aversion wretched. If, then, you confine your aversion to those
objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties,
which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to
which you are averse. But if you are averse to sickness, or death,
or poverty, you will be wretched. Remove aversion, then, from all
things that are not in our control, and transfer it to things contrary
to the nature of what is in our control. But, for the present, totally
suppress desire: for, if you desire any of the things which are not
in your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and
of those which are, and which it would be laudable to desire,
nothing is yet in your possession. Use only the appropriate
actions of pursuit and avoidance; and even these lightly, and with
gentleness and reservation.........

    By desiring what is not within our power we bring down upon
ourselves the inevitable disappointment when we fail to acquire
it. By desiring to avoid what is not within our power we are enter
into misery when we fail to avoid it.  Our desires are better placed
in pursuit or in shunning those things which are within our power,
namely our inner dispositions and our conduct.
   Even properly ordered conduct is insufficient if our desires
remain askew.  This fact alone gives the term "Ethics" a different
meaning in the Stoic arena than we are typically used to
associating with the term as in "business ethics," "legal ethics"
etc.  In those contexts, conduct is all. In this context, our desires
necessarily form the foundation for our Ethics.

   Until we deal responsibly with our desires, they remain
something of a Trojan Horse into the hidden places of our psyches.
   If we modify our behavior without dealing with the underlying
desires are we not working at cross-purposes internally? Are
we not continually being urged in one direction by our desires
and another by our reason/honor/virtues? From the outside,
there would appear to be no real problem with this (beyond the
question of efficiency) but interiorly, where is the progress in
the life of Virtue? We remain as people who valiantly fight off
disease as it arises without ever dealing with the root cause.
   Failing to examine our desires and ordering them appropriately
would seem to reinforce attitudes and perceptions which are at
odds with truth and the pursuit of virtue.  While discipline can
go a great distance in ensuring the appropriateness of our
conduct, can Virtue be based on this alone? Can
Justice be the result?

   How do we look at those situations where our desires are
for things which are not within our power or are otherwise not
virtuous?  Do we continue to view them as desirable things
that we "shouldn't" have, for one reason or another--like children
who are forgoing the candy we really want so as not to ruin our
dinner?  Or as mature persons who recognize the flawed nature
of our impressions of the desired thing--saying as was mentioned
in the last session "You are an impression and not the good (or
the ill) that you appear to be."



There are many who will say that we have no control over
the desires which rise up within us. Occurring as they do
before the assent of the will. But do we not have a will,
one which can choose to harbor these things as secret
hungers or one that can drag them into the light of day
to be seen as they are?
   Is it not true that for as long as we treat them as secret
desires or fears, they continue to rise again and again only
to be beaten back? Is it not true that when we open them to
the light repeatedly they lose their grip over us? Not over night,
not quickly and perhaps not easily, but ultimately with practice
and discipline.

How then do we see the objects of our desire for what they are?
That is the subject of a later discussion.

Peter
Speaker

Stoics--

    The first session of the Commons closes tonight (Sunday).
I will post the text for Session Two, tomorrow morning.
   I would like to thank you not only for the fact of your
participation but also the quality of your participation.
   Steve Marquis has observed (as did Rev Rigby earlier) that
the injunction against cross conversation may prove to be unduly
limiting and ultimately self-defeating. They are probably correct.
   My primary concern in this area is focus. I would like to
keep our discussion focused on the subject at hand rather
than the tangential issues which will undoubtedly arise. In
order to have a discussion, however, there must be the
opportunity to speak to and with each other.
   I invite you, therefore, to feel free to develop relevant elements
in each others' postings. I do ask, however, that we attempt
to continue to maintain the focus on our current subject.
   I would like to thank Steve Marquis and Rev Rigby for bringing
this item to my attention.
   I look forward to your postings on Session Two.

Peace
Peter

The Serenity Prayer ends with "And the wisdom to know the difference".

Peter added "Take time to learn the difference".

To focus on what is in our control and release our concern over what
isn't makes such good sense one wonders why we don't already behave this
way.  I suspect a lot of the problem lies with many years of
misidentifying what is or is not in my control.  I have built a belief
system based on false judgments, and it is going to take some time to
dismantle it and replace with another one, especially because of my
attachment to the one I have.

My life is so full (so I tell myself) of duties and obligations; things
I just have to get done.  There is no time for relaxing, no time for
reflecting.  It takes a genuine concerted effort on my part to slow down
long enough to pay attention to anything except the latest crisis.  For
those of you familiar with "The 7 habits of Highly Effective People" by
Stephen Covey this is all quadrant 1 activity; everything is urgent and
important.

To learn what is truly in my control and what is not requires some quite
time spent on reflection.  This is quadrant 2 time; what is important
but not urgent.  The Bible tells us to set aside one day out of seven.
Any religious or philosophical practice is going to require some
commitment of time, either daily or weekly or both, to a quadrant 2 type
of activity.  If we cannot break out of our daily routine enough to do
even this, I don't see how we can begin to acquire the skill of paying
attention to our responses to the thousands of impressions we deal with
each day during our normal activity.

The Buddhists call it "nibbling back".  At first, I only noticed the
biggest emotional reactions, such as demonstrative anger.  And then, I
could only reflect on an incident afterwards.  But as I continued to pay
attention my sensitivity increased and I began to notice the emotional
spike earlier and earlier.  When I am able to do this I get another
opportunity to choose if I wish to continue with this emotional
response, or, "give assent" in the Stoic vernacular.  This kind of
sensitivity to one's emotional state can only come with consistent
practice, and that can only happen with a certain commitment.  Its an
every day thing.

It does work.  I have saved myself from regrettable reactions from time
to time.  My self image has improved for I feel more confident and more
in control.  My relationships have improved.  However, I realize this is
just the beginning, and mostly I still ponder reactions after the fact.

What goes along with paying attention is honesty, or, more correctly,
self-honesty.  To "Know Thyself" as the Delphic Oracle insisted requires
the most austere self-honesty.  Denial seems to be one of the first
tricks we attempt to hide from ourselves what we don't want to see in
ourselves.  How can I know what is in my control or not if I continue to
deceive myself?  Healthy relationships help with this, as does the
dialectic process.  My injunctions, habits, fears, and attachments are
so strong collectively that self therapy is very difficult at times.
This certainly supports the Stoic theory that we are social creatures.
It seems we need each other to learn about ourselves.

It seems to me that paying attention and self-honesty are necessary
pre-requisites to learning what is / is not in my control.

Steve

Ken, writing about Erik's "dog" story:
<<We should try to fix things, but if we fail and end
up still taking it, we will be dispassionate about it.>>

I, too, have a dog story.  Years back, in a neighborhood where
I lived, one of the neighbors had a German Shepherd that they
allowed to run loose.  It was illegal, but people were polite
and quiet about this situation.

Eventually this big dog began to go "bad" and chased other
little critters, including cats, that roamed outside upon
occasion.  In due time, the dog started killing these little
critters.  He killed my pet cat.

I talked quietly  to the owner, as other bereaved pet-owners did
as this dog proceeded with its killing.  We accepted the good
assurances of the dog-owner.  It was the rational thing to do,
or so it seemed at the time.

Still the dog roamed--and graduated to attacking a little girl.
The police were called-in, and two officers went over to the
house of the dog-owner.  They found the big dog loose on the
front porch.  It attacked one of the police officers viciously,
and the policeman was forced to kill the dog.

Comment:  Now here was a case of benign neglect on the part
of neighbors, who had been troubled and had even lost pets by
this dog.  We felt that by speaking reasonably to the owner that
somehow things would be set aright.  Even after it was obvious
the dog was roaming again, we remained dispassionate and
uninvolved.  The result was the maiming of a little girl.

Making decisions, taking or not taking action in the Real World
is not an easy business--especially for a Stoic.    :-(

--Beatrix

Greetings to all.

Clearly many things are in my power, tho I do not know what they are until
I take action to find out.

I know in advance that my opinions, impulses and desires are 'up to me'. My
power over these things can be guaranteed. The power I MAY have over other
sorts of things is not guaranteed.

Erik's remarks about the barking dog are very interesting. This is a good
example to use to emphasise the Stoic response of taking charge of the
situation by taking
charge of one's own reaction to it. But it doesn't follow from
this that the good Stoic would never try to take direct action to resolve
the situation. Otherwise Stoics would always fall prey to any bully that
happens to be around.

The point that Epictetus is making, I think, is that if you tried to talk
to the dog's owner to explain the situation, you might succeed in having
the dog brought in at night, but you might not. And there is also the
further point that perhaps the Stoic has a social responsibility to point
out to other people *their* moral obligations, and to persuade people
generally to better behaviour.

Marcus (especially) and Seneca (sometimes) make remarks about the 'reserve
clause', which in the case of the dog would go like this: 'I will explain
the problem to the owner in the hope that she/he understands and will keep
the dog quiet, on the understanding that I may fail: they may not listen to
me, they may reject my complaint, they may insult me (or worse). But
*anyway* I will try to solve the problem, even tho doing so is *not*
(directly) in my power, and even tho I may fail.'

So if the Stoic tries and succeeds they have done the right thing, and if
they try and fail they have also done the right thing.

The fact that 'externals' are not 'in our power' does not mean that we just
sit back and take it. We should try to fix things, but if we fail and end
up still taking it, we will be dispassionate about it.

(Try to explain that to your visiting relative who wants to know what
Stoics do, and you'll need all the dispassion you can muster!)

Live with honour,

Keith

Cyberstoic wrote:

> For the past two nights, a dog in the neighborhood
> has been left out to bark
> quite vigorously all night long
<snip!>
> even at times when I
> am fully awake I am
> capable of dwelling on thoughts that profoundly
> influence my conception.  "In
> our power are conception..." My thoughts are in my
> power.

I'm relatively new to the list, but have been a Stoic for about 15
years.  I've been trying for the same number of years to form a
synthesis of Stoic and traditional Buddhist philosophy, and the example
of a dog barking is surprisingly the same as that used by one of my
favorite Buddhist writers.  I believe that he is saying essentially the
same thing as CyberStoic:

" A dog barks in the distance. The perception itself is indescribably
beautiful if you bother to examine it...We humans tend to ignore it
totally. Instead, we solidify that perception into a mental object. We
paste a mental picture on it and we launch into a series of emotional
and conceptual reactions to it."
( _Mindfulness In Plain English_, H. Gunaratana Mahathera)

Have any of you noticed that at a basic level, Theravada Buddhism and
Marcus Aurelius are in agreement?  In essence, they both tend to say
that the experience is never bad, but it is the way we internally react
to the experience that causes us to suffer.  Comments, anyone?

--Thomas

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Greetings Fellow Stoics,

Serenity Prayer
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
   change,
The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference.

For me the Serenity Prayer has been the best short defination of Stoicism, I
have found.   Especially for those who have never read Epictetus, Senca or
Marcus Aurelius.

It along with the quote from Epictetus that is the subject of this session
and Marcus Aurelius mediation:Med II § 1
Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the
ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen
to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who
have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that
it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me, not
only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same
intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured
by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry
with my kinsman, nor hate him, For we are made for co-operation, like feet,
like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act
against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one
another to be vexed and to turn away.


Take away thy opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint, "I have
been harmed." Take away the complaint, "I have been harmed," and the harm is
taken away. Med IV §7

I have found helpful dealing with to pharaphrase Shakesphere helpful in
dealing with the thousand of natural shocks we as humans are prone.

And allows me to accept the responsiblity for my choices and their
consequences without reservation.

Respectfully,

Ransom

For the past two nights, a dog in the neighborhood has been left out to bark
quite vigorously all night long.  Fortunately, I live at least 5 or 6 houses
from where the dog probably is (I don't know for sure), and the first night I
was only awakened briefly 3 or 4 times.  Last night, the barking sounded much
louder, and at 2:15 am, half awake, I was thinking of what I would do if that
racket were right next door.

I could shoot the dog; I could shoot the owner of the dog; or, I could shoot
the dog AND the owner of the dog.  Just about that time I decided I would not
have to resort to such foolishness, that probably my ear plugs would take
care of the noise at this distance, the dog shut up.

My point has nothing to do with barking dogs or shooting dogs or missing a
good night's sleep.  It is this.  True, I was only half awake when I
entertained these thoughts, but even at times when I am fully awake I am
capable of dwelling on thoughts that profoundly influence my conception.  "In
our power are conception..." My thoughts are in my power.

I don't mean to imply that occasionally a foolish thought is bad or even
unhealthy, but chronically negative, obsessive thoughts are, and we can
destroy ourselves by them.   For me to be able to sustain anger at a person,
place or thing requires that I feed the flames of this anger time and again
by thoughts deliberately chosen to do exactly that.  This is incredible power
-- for good or ill.

Erik

Greetings.

Concerning the first excerpt:

My former "wishful thinking" and attempting to solve other's situations
would involve my "old perceptions" in which I had many mental scripts
constantly written in my mind.  In doing these things I was not seeing
what was, or perhaps should say what IS.

A situation, indeed of needing to practice the Taoist "doing not doing",
not only in
action, but emptying old mental processes.

Session 1
Epictetus' Enchiridion

I.
Of existing things some are in our power, others are not.
In our power are conception, effort, desire, aversion and, in a
word, whatever are our actions; but not in our power are the
body, property, reputation, rulers and, in a word, whatever are
not our actions.

Also, things in our power are by nature free, unhindered,
unimpeded, but things not in our power are weak, slavish,
hindered, belonging to others.

So remember, that if what is by nature slavish you think free
and what is others' your own, you will be hindered, you will
mourn, you will be disturbed, and you will blame both gods and
humans, but if you count only that which is your as yours, and
that which is another's as another's, no one will ever compel you,
no one will hinder you, you will not blame anyone, nor accuse
anyone, not one thing will you do unwilling, no one will harm you,
you will have no enemies, for you will suffer no harm from anyone.

So if you aim for such great things, remember that you must
not attempt to lay hold of them with a small effort, but must give
up some things completely, and postpone others.

Even if you aim for these things as well as to rule and be wealthy,
you may not achieve these latter because you also aim for the
former, and you may fail to get these as well, by which alone
freedom and happiness are gained.

So begin to practice saying to every disturbing impression,
"You are an impression and not what you appear to be."
Then examine it and test it by these rules which you have,
first and foremost of which is this: whether it concerns things
in our power or not in our power; and if it does not concern
something in our power, and be ready to say, "It is nothing to me."

Serenity Prayer
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
   change,
  The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference.

Some things are within our power, some are not.  Wisdom to
know the difference.  Sounds very nice, doesn't it?
    The problem is that we invest a great deal in those things
which are beyond our power. Things within our power require
our active effort. The wisdom to know the difference would, by
extension, require of us to let go (at least to some extent)
of the things outside our power and to accept responsibility for
the things within our power.
   How much of our satisfaction, happiness, self-worth derives
from things within ourselves- 90%, 95%, perhaps? How much
of our energy do we expend on those things within our power?
10%?  Would any of us continue to employ a worker who spent
10% of his time on the tasks of overwhelming importance?
   How often do we hold others, the world, even inanimate things
responsible for our happiness, tranquility and conduct? Are we
willing to accept 95% of the responsibility?  If not, how do we
justify concern over 5%?

   These things do not come about as the result of wishful
thinking.  Wishing to be free from struggling with things
beyond our control does not keep us from doing so. Musing
about taking responsibility for our inner dispositions (or
writing clever postings on the subject) is not the same as
doing so.
    One of the refreshing things about the Enchiridion is that
Epictetus spends little energy saying "Wouldn't it be swell if..."
Instead he says "Say to yourself this...," and "Do this....." One
would be well advised to take his suggestions, they are not
merely for dramatic effect.
    The point of letting go of the things beyond our control is to
allow us to concentrate on those things which are within our
control--namely our perceptions, attitudes, conduct, and our
will.  The point of this is that they are, in fact, "great things".
It is these which make it possible for us to face all things with
the honor and integrity which are our birthright as human beings.
   But the "great things" are not undertaken lightly and rarely
undertaken jointly.   The great things of Virtue are not mutually
exclusive with the lesser things but one or the other must have
top priority. Inconsistency in Virtue, typically in order to pursue
the lesser things, is hardly Virtue at all. If we only pursue Virtue
when we are not tempted by lesser things, our principles are little
more than fashion, a pretty bauble and not much else.
   If we pursue Virtue, we must acknowledge up front that we will
seek the lesser things only sporadically, on a not-to-interfere
basis.  I don't think this rules out the possibility of excellence
or success in other fields. We happen to have in our midst a
number of men and women who could, by any reasonable
standard, be considered successful.  It might be sensible,
however, to recognize  the pursuit of Virtue to be something
of a liability with regard to these other pursuits.....

   We are advised to use the opportunity presented to us by
disturbances of any sort to examine them and our response
to the impression they make on us.
   Some things are, in fact, exactly what they appear to be. My
dog appears to be just that-a dog. An injustice, an obstacle,
an offense, a treasure, a benefit--these on the other hand are
appearances rising out of our impressions of things vice the
things themselves. These are beyond our control (as is my
dog, on occasion) as such, they are as nothing.
   This is not to say that our responses to these things are
nothing. Quite the contrary. As they are completely within
our control, are they not nearly everything (perhaps 95%)?

   Has my brother or sister given me offense?  Is not this
merely an impression? Is not his or her conduct beyond my
control? I, however, have within my power the ability to
respond with honor and integrity.  If I fail to do so, what right
do I have to indict him for failing to do so? And if I do respond
with honor and integrity, what need do I have to indict him?

   Has an obstacle arisen to my success at work? Or is that
merely my value judgment of a mere thing? Is it beyond my
control?  I still can (and must) exercise my right as a human
being to meet this development with dignity and good cheer.
Am I impeded? Not in Virtue, not unless I choose to impede
myself. It is as nothing.

Exercise the things within your control. Be not concerned about
the things beyond your control.  Take time to learn the difference.
Do this.

Peace
Peter
   Speaker

Fellow Stoics--

   The Commons are now open. Please feel free to comment
on the first passage from Enchiridion.
   I am having some difficulties with my e-mail, or so it would
appear. I should have it cleared up in a day or so.

Peter

Session 1
Epictetus' Enchiridion

I.
Of existing things some are in our power, others are not.
In our power are conception, effort, desire, aversion and, in a
word, whatever are our actions; but not in our power are the
body, property, reputation, rulers and, in a word, whatever are
not our actions.

Also, things in our power are by nature free, unhindered,
unimpeded, but things not in our power are weak, slavish,
hindered, belonging to others.

So remember, that if what is by nature slavish you think free
and what is others' your own, you will be hindered, you will
mourn, you will be disturbed, and you will blame both gods and
humans, but if you count only that which is your as yours, and
that which is another's as another's, no one will ever compel you,
no one will hinder you, you will not blame anyone, nor accuse
anyone, not one thing will you do unwilling, no one will harm you,
you will have no enemies, for you will suffer no harm from anyone.

So if you aim for such great things, remember that you must
not attempt to lay hold of them with a small effort, but must give
up some things completely, and postpone others.

Even if you aim for these things as well as to rule and be wealthy,
you may not achieve these latter because you also aim for the
former, and you may fail to get these as well, by which alone
freedom and happiness are gained.

So begin to practice saying to every disturbing impression,
"You are an impression and not what you appear to be."
Then examine it and test it by these rules which you have,
first and foremost of which is this: whether it concerns things
in our power or not in our power; and if it does not concern
something in our power, and be ready to say, "It is nothing to me."

Serenity Prayer
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
   change,
  The courage to change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference.

Some things are within our power, some are not.  Wisdom to
know the difference.  Sounds very nice, doesn't it?
    The problem is that we invest a great deal in those things
which are beyond our power. Things within our power require
our active effort. The wisdom to know the difference would, by
extension, require of us to let go (at least to some extent)
of the things outside our power and to accept responsibility for
the things within our power.
   How much of our satisfaction, happiness, self-worth derives
from things within ourselves- 90%, 95%, perhaps? How much
of our energy do we expend on those things within our power?
10%?  Would any of us continue to employ a worker who spent
10% of his time on the tasks of overwhelming importance?
   How often do we hold others, the world, even inanimate things
responsible for our happiness, tranquility and conduct? Are we
willing to accept 95% of the responsibility?  If not, how do we
justify concern over 5%?

   These things do not come about as the result of wishful
thinking.  Wishing to be free from struggling with things
beyond our control does not keep us from doing so. Musing
about taking responsibility for our inner dispositions (or
writing clever postings on the subject) is not the same as
doing so.
    One of the refreshing things about the Enchiridion is that
Epictetus spends little energy saying "Wouldn't it be swell if..."
Instead he says "Say to yourself this...," and "Do this....." One
would be well advised to take his suggestions, they are not
merely for dramatic effect.
    The point of letting go of the things beyond our control is to
allow us to concentrate on those things which are within our
control--namely our perceptions, attitudes, conduct, and our
will.  The point of this is that they are, in fact, "great things".
It is these which make it possible for us to face all things with
the honor and integrity which are our birthright as human beings.
   But the "great things" are not undertaken lightly and rarely
undertaken jointly.   The great things of Virtue are not mutually
exclusive with the lesser things but one or the other must have
top priority. Inconsistency in Virtue, typically in order to pursue
the lesser things, is hardly Virtue at all. If we only pursue Virtue
when we are not tempted by lesser things, our principles are little
more than fashion, a pretty bauble and not much else.
   If we pursue Virtue, we must acknowledge up front that we will
seek the lesser things only sporadically, on a not-to-interfere
basis.  I don't think this rules out the possibility of excellence
or success in other fields. We happen to have in our midst a
number of men and women who could, by any reasonable
standard, be considered successful.  It might be sensible,
however, to recognize  the pursuit of Virtue to be something
of a liability with regard to these other pursuits.....

   We are advised to use the opportunity presented to us by
disturbances of any sort to examine them and our response
to the impression they make on us.
   Some things are, in fact, exactly what they appear to be. My
dog appears to be just that-a dog. An injustice, an obstacle,
an offense, a treasure, a benefit--these on the other hand are
appearances rising out of our impressions of things vice the
things themselves. These are beyond our control (as is my
dog, on occasion) as such, they are as nothing.
   This is not to say that our responses to these things are
nothing. Quite the contrary. As they are completely within
our control, are they not nearly everything (perhaps 95%)?

   Has my brother or sister given me offense?  Is not this
merely an impression? Is not his or her conduct beyond my
control? I, however, have within my power the ability to
respond with honor and integrity.  If I fail to do so, what right
do I have to indict him for failing to do so? And if I do respond
with honor and integrity, what need do I have to indict him?

   Has an obstacle arisen to my success at work? Or is that
merely my value judgment of a mere thing? Is it beyond my
control?  I still can (and must) exercise my right as a human
being to meet this development with dignity and good cheer.
Am I impeded? Not in Virtue, not unless I choose to impede
myself. It is as nothing.

Exercise the things within your control. Be not concerned about
the things beyond your control.  Take time to learn the difference.
Do this.

Peace
Peter
   Speaker

Fellow Stoics--

Welcome to the Commons.
    Already it is clear that we have among us those
who are new to Stoicism, those who have practicing for quite
some time and those who have extensive educational back-
grounds in Stoicism.  Each has something to offer and
hopefully each can take something away from our gathering.
I invite each of you to participate in the Commons as fully as
you would like with the assurance that your contributions are
valued.
    Stoicism has been called many things "living according to
Nature," "the art of the life well-lived," "the pursuit of Virtue,"
"living according to Reason."  The common thread of all of these
is that Stoicism must be lived in order to be of value, in order to
be real.
   To read and study and discuss Stoicism without making the
necessary decisions to apply it in our lives is to consign
ourselves to being weak and ineffectual. We become persons
poring endlessly over maps on our kitchen tables convinced that
we are world travelers.
   To attempt to apply principles to our lives without reflecting
on those principles and our lives is to move with great energy
in no particular direction.  We become travelers with no clue as to
our destination, hoping that we will recognize it when we see it.
   Our discussions here in the Commons should serve as a
a bridge between our intellectual knowledge and the pursuit of
Virtue in the specific circumstances of our lives.

    We will use the follow guidelines in the Commons:
    Our discussions will be organized into one week sessions.
At the beginning of each session, the Speaker will present a
Stoic text with accompanying comments, expansions and/or
alternate presentation.  Initially, we will be covering passages
from Epictetus' Enchiridion (aka Handbook).
(For those of you who would like to access on-line copies of
some Stoic Classics, Dr. Garrett has an excellent site at
http://www.wku.edu/~garreje/stoa.htm )
   For the remainder of the session, the floor is open to any
and all to comment on the text.  In order to facilitate the
orderly progress through the source documents, a new session
will begin on schedule every week. Should one week prove to
be too short a period of time, we will consider expanding the
length of the sessions.
   In order to maintain focus, I would ask that we direct our
responses to the concepts presented at the opening of the
session.  This also provides an opportunity for our newer
Stoic brothers and sisters to be able to comment without
concern that others will pass judgment. Beyond these two
issues, any manner of input is welcome--insights, anecdotes,
stories, poetry, essays.
   The Speaker's duties are to provide the text for each session,
moderate the discussion and maintain the flow, direction and
cohesiveness of the Commons. With the abundance of
experience in our midst, I will be asking some of our brothers
and sisters to lead some future sessions.

   I am available to take comments or questions off-line, should
that be your preference. I can be reached at pmbaysd@...
I will be posting a personal bio for the benefit of those who
would like to know with whom they are dealing.
   The Commons is more important than the Speaker. Any
problems which any of you might have regarding me in the
execution of my duties can be brought directly to me. If you
are more comfortable doing so, you may take them to one
of the other leaders in the Community, Dr. Jan Garrett, Moderator
of the Forum ( jgarrett@...) or Erik Wiegardt,
Chairman of the Council (cyberstoic@...).
   This is our Commons, it belongs to us as a Community.
Be welcome here.  If there is something that we can change
in how we do things, please let me know.

  Peace--
Peter
  Speaker

Greetings!

Newcomer John now on both lists, still reading and learning for now, but
with you each day!

JKS

Keith--

   I think we are probably still ok as long as we don't have
to read our own messages out loud in order to understand
them.

Peter

Beatrix--


   We are delighted to have you aboard. Welcome

Peter

I don't know if it's any consolation, but I'm aboard
the Commons too!

--Beatrix

Hello Peter,

What are we coming to when we have to send messages to ourselves, eh?

Keith

----------
> From: Pmbaysd@...
> To: stoic_commons@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [stoic_commons] Test message
> Date: 2 July 1999 7.11.pm
>
> From: Pmbaysd@...
>
> Keith
> I just received your test message--I was looking to see
> if my own test message had gone through. Odd the
> way that works, sometimes.
>
> Peter
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> With more than 20 million e-mails exchanged daily...
> http://www.onelist.com
> ...ONElist is home to the liveliest discussions on the Internet!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Everyone

Just testing . . .

Steve

Keith
I just received your test message--I was looking to see
if my own test message had gone through. Odd the
way that works, sometimes.

Peter

Just checking to see if I've self-subscribed to this new list properly.

If I get this message myself, it must be working okay.

Live with honour,

Keith

Andre, Erik, Rev Rigby--

   This is just a quick test to ensure that I can post (and
receive) Stoic Commons messages.

Peter

No thanks Jim,

It's being done with pleasure.

Regards, Andre'

-----Original Message-----
From: HappyStoic@... <HappyStoic@...>
To: stoic_commons@onelist.com <stoic_commons@onelist.com>
Date: woensdag 30 juni 1999 9:11
Subject: Re: [stoic_commons] Testing, 1...2...3...


From: HappyStoic@...

Andre,
    This is to let you know I have received your transmission and to thank
you
for all the work you do for us.

Andre,
    This is to let you know I have received your transmission and to thank you
for all the work you do for us.

Erik,

I missed the last part of your message, so here's the answer:

I'll upload the changed mailing list page tomorrow to the website at
Crosswinds, so after about 07:00 AM CET, they should be able to subscribe
using the following URL:

http://www2.crosswinds.net/~selfaware/newregistry/maillist.html

The URL for the New Stoic Registry is:

http://www2.crosswinds.net/~selfaware/newregistry

Using the buttons on the maillist page, people can sign themselves up.
Currently there are only buttons for stoics there, but after tomorrow there
will also be buttons for stoic_commons there.

Hope this answers your question.

Regards,

Andre' Slabber

-----Original Message-----
From: Cyberstoic@... <Cyberstoic@...>
To: stoic_commons@onelist.com <stoic_commons@onelist.com>
Date: maandag 28 juni 1999 8:58
Subject: [stoic_commons] Testing, 1...2...3...


From: Cyberstoic@...

Hello Andre,

Good work, and thank you again.  If this goes through to you, then I guess
we
can say the Commons is officially born.

I have written to three good people about the possibility of accepting the
position of Speaker of the Commons.  So far, Jim Rigby has responded with
enthusiasm both for the concept and the name of the group and that he would
be willing to be the Speaker if asked. I'm still waiting on the other two,
but in the mean time, please put him on the mailing list.  Then there will
be
the three of us.

I need to know the following: To what address should I direct people who
wish
to join?  I assume you will be signing them up as Webmaster -- is that the
proper process?  I need to know this information both for making the general
announcement Thursday night and for writing the copy for this new discussion
group in the Registry (which I plan to do next weekend).

Again, great job!

Best,
Erik

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Congratulations to "Make_A_Child_Smile," our latest ONElist of the Week.
http://www.onelist.com
How is ONElist changing YOUR life?  Visit our homepage and let us know!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, Erik (and Jim)

This message means that Jim has been hooked up, and so should be receiving
this message also. Welcome aboard!

Regards,

Andre' Slabber

-----Original Message-----
From: Cyberstoic@... <Cyberstoic@...>
To: stoic_commons@onelist.com <stoic_commons@onelist.com>
Date: maandag 28 juni 1999 8:58
Subject: [stoic_commons] Testing, 1...2...3...


From: Cyberstoic@...

Hello Andre,

Good work, and thank you again.  If this goes through to you, then I guess
we
can say the Commons is officially born.

I have written to three good people about the possibility of accepting the
position of Speaker of the Commons.  So far, Jim Rigby has responded with
enthusiasm both for the concept and the name of the group and that he would
be willing to be the Speaker if asked. I'm still waiting on the other two,
but in the mean time, please put him on the mailing list.  Then there will
be
the three of us.

I need to know the following: To what address should I direct people who
wish
to join?  I assume you will be signing them up as Webmaster -- is that the
proper process?  I need to know this information both for making the general
announcement Thursday night and for writing the copy for this new discussion
group in the Registry (which I plan to do next weekend).

Again, great job!

Best,
Erik

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Congratulations to "Make_A_Child_Smile," our latest ONElist of the Week.
http://www.onelist.com
How is ONElist changing YOUR life?  Visit our homepage and let us know!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Andre,

Good work, and thank you again.  If this goes through to you, then I guess we
can say the Commons is officially born.

I have written to three good people about the possibility of accepting the
position of Speaker of the Commons.  So far, Jim Rigby has responded with
enthusiasm both for the concept and the name of the group and that he would
be willing to be the Speaker if asked. I'm still waiting on the other two,
but in the mean time, please put him on the mailing list.  Then there will be
the three of us.

I need to know the following: To what address should I direct people who wish
to join?  I assume you will be signing them up as Webmaster -- is that the
proper process?  I need to know this information both for making the general
announcement Thursday night and for writing the copy for this new discussion
group in the Registry (which I plan to do next weekend).

Again, great job!

Best,
Erik

Hello Erik,

This is my reply to your rename request, redirected to go through the new
stoic_commons mailing list. Try it sometime: the address is
stoic_commons@onelist.com.

Regards,

Andre' Slabber                                                       
http://www.bigfoot.com/~selfaware
================================================================
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss
people
================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: <Cyberstoic@...>
To: <selfaware@...>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: How was the trip?


You're amazing!

Actually, though, the plural form of common is "commons" and becomes a more
honorable word than you may realize.  It often refers to 1., representatives
of the common citizen, as in the House of Commons; and 2., a section of land
used by the community as a whole.  This is the meaning I would attache to the
word, not in any way an inferior Stoic.

I'm glad you pointed out how it may appear, however, and I will be certain to
communicate the more noble usage of the word when it is announced to the group.

Yes, please change the name from stoics_chat to stoic_commons, and don't
forget to include the s on common to make it plural.  The Stoic can be
singular.  Let me know as soon as this is done by communicating with me via
that list.  Then we'll know it's working.

By the way, the leader of the Commons will not be called a Moderator.  He or
she will be called, Speaker, as in Speaker of the Commons.

Gotta run.

Best,
Erik