35987Re: Stoic philosophical practice in a nutshell
- Aug 14, 2014
Thank you for drawing on our common experience to help me understand FC. However, the math you referred to is mostly over my head. Regrettably, I abandoned my study of math at calculus. I did some quick reading on the topics you referenced and that helped. I understand the concept of morphism as a function from the perspective of computer science; however, I’ve been out of the field for a while so the Comp Sci portion of my brain is a little atrophied. I do recall the concept of classes being introduces as part of the object oriented programming paradigm. That was leading edge in the early 90’s.
Using the paradigm of Stoic physics I understand First Classness would apply to the dyad of Stoic ontology since all ‘bodies’ are comprised of the dyad represented by the two Stoic principles (active and passive). Moreover, all organisms created by the increasingly complex organizations of those FC bodies are comprised of the same stuff. Thus, in essence, they are equal even though their organization is quite different. There is no dualism in Stoic ontology which introduces a higher class. Instead, soul (psyche) and consciousness are organizational structures comprised of elements of the Stoic dyad (or possibly epiphenomena of those structures).
Thus, in Stoicism the concept of oikeiosis is inspired by the fact that all beings, and even the cosmos, are made of the same stuff. If we consider humans as a distinct group of beings, we are equal yet diverse in our makeup. From the cosmic perspective, all are of equal value. From a human perspective, each is distinct. We have equality but not sameness.
Two FC mistakes we make:
- We humans are mistaken when we place ourselves in a different, and higher, class than other creations of nature.
- Our human economic systems tend to gravitate to one of two extremes. Pure Capitalism tends to stratify people into unequal classes, while Communism forces artificial sameness. Both extremes violate FC.
Both of these FC mistakes can be avoided by viewing and treating these systems as a whole.
Is that even close to a correct understanding of FC? If not, please let me know where I’m misunderstanding the concept
p.s. I've been reading the Kindle version of your book, which has some issue with some of the illustrations. I just received the paperback version yesterday, so I'm pushing forward into Kant and Anti-Mathematics.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>