Subject: (urth) Vonnegut (1922-2007)

From: Matthew Groves <matthewalangroves at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:19:10 +0000

I was hoping to find some discussion of Vonnegut on the list today.
It's been too long since I read Slaughterhouse Five for me to offer
anything.  (All I remember is "Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in
time.")  Are there any thoughts on Vonnegut from Wolfe's fans?

---

From: Batrinque at aol.com <batrinque at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:34:48 +0000

In a message dated 4/12/2007 8:20:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
matthewalangroves at gmail.com writes:

I'm still digesting the news to offer any cogent comments.  There has  been 
some discussion of his passing in the Patrick O'Brian mail group to which I  
belong.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070412/91b7c7bf/attachment.htm

---

From: Kurt Schwind <kurt.schwind at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:45:26 +0000

We've lost another master.  Vonnegut's works are a pure pleasure to
read.  A very different style than Wolfes, but Vonnegut is one of my
favourite writers of all time.

I had an opportunity to go hear Kurt Vonnegut speak.  He was as funny,
smart and witty in person as he is in his books.  I'll miss him
greatly.

On 4/12/07, Matthew Groves <matthewalangroves at gmail.com> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

-- 
Kurt Schwind  <kurt at slithytoves.org>
http://kurt.slithytoves.org

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:02:10 +0000

> time.")  Are there any thoughts on Vonnegut from Wolfe's fans?

Overrated.

Whines a lot.

Wrote some OK stuff, but no more than OK.

.

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:09:34 +0000

> Wrote some OK stuff, but no more than OK.

Lived through Dresden.

Buried countless bodies.

Was a charitable enough spirit that he probably
wouldn't be offended by your comments.

____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

---

From: Spencer Hensley <spencer.hensley at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:18:27 +0000

Amen, don.

Brunians, your comments are offensive and unessecary.

"So it goes."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070412/2a04fc78/attachment.htm

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:22:50 +0000

> Buried countless bodies.

Things are tough all over.

> wouldn't be offended by your comments.

No, we'd probably get along.

And I'd tell him to his face that he whines too much, also.

.

---

From: Four Color <fourcolorhero at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:47:38 +0000

I had the good fortune to have lunch with Kurt Vonnegut in 1992. He
was a funny, wise guy. I'll always remember the presentation he made
earlier that day, including a brief deconstruction of the conventional
plot triangle, using Kafka's "Metamorphosis":

[Vonnegut on stage, at chalkboard, mic in one hand, chalk in other.
Audience expecting to see the plot triangle drawn on the board.]

"One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he
discovered that in bed he had been changed into a monstrous bug."

[Vonnegut draws a line going straight down.]

"Oh sh**."

Much my feeling when I awoke this morning and discovered that he had died.

Regards,
Tim

---

From: Spencer Hensley <spencer.hensley at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:49:49 +0000

Brunians, you were pretty curt and rude on the thread I started too.
I guess I can't say whether or not Vonnegut would have gotten along
with you, in particular. But I'm having trouble seeing how ANYone
could stomach your antics.

In any case, your comments neither a) contribute to dialogue about
Veonnegut, nor b)
comment on his death. If you don't like him, that's fine, but at least let
us know why
so that a conversation might evolve from it. Otherwise, why do you think
we want to know what you think?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070412/d924df13/attachment.htm

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:52:32 +0000

You seem to be having a bit of trouble, here.

I hope you do feel better.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. However profoundly I may
disagree with you, I certainly think you have every right to share your
thoughts and feeling with whoever you wish to.

.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:41:48 +0000

> Brunians, you were pretty curt and rude on the thread I started too.

Please do not feed the energy creature.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:32:52 +0000

> Please do not feed the energy creature.

Pardon?

It's remarkable how stirred up people get over a person expressing their
opinion.

I don't think it is right for you to interfere in Spencer's attempt to put
me in my place.

It is obviously important to him, and the sooner he learns to distinguish
between the things that are under his control and the things that are not
under his control, the better off he'll be.

.

---

From: Spencer Hensley <spencer.hensley at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:37:03 +0000

Oh, you...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070412/10cdaf03/attachment.htm

---

From: Spencer Hensley <spencer.hensley at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:39:25 +0000

Don't worry about it. I'm just blocking your email.

No hard feelings.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070412/6a9c5418/attachment.htm

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:42:25 +0000

> Don't worry about it. I'm just blocking your email.

If that's what you must do to retain your self-control, so be it.

> No hard feelings.

Certainly not.

It seems to me, in my ignorance, that the same thing could be accomplished
by not reacting, but what do I know, really?

.

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0000

> time.")  Are there any thoughts on Vonnegut from Wolfe's fans?

An athiest whose beliefs illuminated his writing as thoroughly and wisely as 
Wolfe's christianity illuminates his. 

Very different from Wolfe in every other way, I think, except for being a 
good man. 

 - hartshorn 

http://www.thenightland.co.uk 

01273-488272 / 0777-214-9545

---

From: Cliff Judge <transentient at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:50:18 +0000

You guys don't get out on the internets of the 21st century much, I think.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070413/d305fde1/attachment.htm

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:18:26 +0000

> An athiest whose beliefs illuminated his writing as thoroughly and wisely
> as Wolfe's christianity illuminates his.

Not his fault, I suppose, that atheism is so much less interesting than
Christianity.

.

---

From: stilskin <acronus at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:26:59 +0000

brunians at brunians.org snarked: 

> Not his fault, I suppose, that atheism is so much
> less interesting than Christianity.

To Christians, perhaps.

http://www.sff.net/people/stilskin

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: Jesper Svedberg <jsvedberg at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:33:25 +0000

>>less interesting than Christianity.

Well, I sort of agree with him. But then, I've always prefered fantasy 
to realistic literature.

   // Jesper

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:37:40 +0000

>> less interesting than Christianity.

To people who enjoy stories.

"Stuff happened" is much inferior to "Someone made stuff happen"

Matthew

---

From: Matthew King <automatthew at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:54:20 +0000

The Arma Virumque blog has an interesting note on KV's passing, from  
which:

Surely I'm not alone in having spent much of middle and high school  
reading Kurt Vonnegut and then much of college sneering at anyone  
gullible enough to read him. If Vonnegut’s novels are anything,  
they’re easily outgrown, but what is easily outgrown is very often a  
perfect place to start. I owe a lot to those books, for one thing the  
ability to see their influence on some of today’s worst writing.

http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2007/04/kilgore-trout-was-here.html

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:22:35 +0000

> >> less interesting than Christianity.

This makes me think of the Chinese curse: "May you
live in interesting times."

> On Apr 13, 2007, at 10:26 AM, stilskin wrote:

Oh, I don't know. I have a lot of affinity for
Christianity as my cultural base. It's as good a
religion as any. But it gets to be pretty tiresome in
fiction after a while.

> "Stuff happened" is much inferior to "Someone made

"Stuff happened" is almost everything. "Someone made
stuff happen" is usually laid over it by people trying
to make sense of that "stuff". Christians hardly have
a lock on interesting fiction, nor are athiests
excluded from it.

Don

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:30:25 +0000

I put my comments on my blog at
http://sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com and don't feel a need to repeat
them here.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
http://www.danehyoakes.com
Soon, where Toon Town once stood will be a string of gas stations,
inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food. Tire
salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards
reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:38:55 +0000

> a lock on interesting fiction, nor are athiests

The last point is certainly true; the first has some truth to it -- but,
really, in terms of narrative (and we are creatures of our narrativity),
intentional actions are far more interesting than agentless actions.

One of the most impressive narrative tours-de-forces I have ever
read was _Fire_, by George R. Stewart (author of the SF classic
_Earth Abides_), which took a firestorm as its more-or-less
protagonist, and managed to give it agency without personializing
it. He did the same thing, less successfully, for a storm in a book
called (of all things) _Storm_.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:40:27 +0000

> live in interesting times."

The full curse is 'May you live in interesting times and come to the
attention of influential people.'

The Stoic philosophy (and also Buddhism, coincidentally or not) both teach
how to be happy no matter how interesting your times or personal
situation.

But I digress.

.

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:08:13 +0000

"One of the most impressive narrative tours-de-forces I have ever
read was _Fire_, by George R. Stewart (author of the SF classic
_Earth Abides_),"

Earth Abides was excellent. I'll have to look up Fire. Have you read his non-fiction book on
Pickett's Charge? Excellent as well.

FPK3

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:42:23 +0000

> attention of influential people.'

Ah. Thank you, Josh. That's a nasty curse in any
culture.

> how to be happy no matter how interesting your times

I was under the impression that happiness was
inconsequential to both philosophies. Rather they
teach one to endure such times and situations with
equanimity.

But I digress as well.

Don

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:46:47 +0000

> called (of all things) _Storm_.

After I sent that letter, it occured to me that all
fiction  by nature is theistic, since the writer is
nothing if not God over the page. Perhaps even
polytheistic if there are editors involved. I have a
copy of Earth Abides, but somehow it has fallen into
my backlog and I don't know when I'll get to it.

Don

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:59:07 +0000

>> The full curse is 'May you live in interesting times
>> and come to the attention of influential people.'

>> The Stoic philosophy (and also Buddhism,
>> coincidentally or not) both teach how to
>> be happy no matter how interesting your times
>> or personal situation.

> teach one to endure such times and situations with

Stoicism definitely claims to teach happiness, and also freedom.

Buddhism, well, the Dalai Lama has gone on record as saying that the goal
of Buddhism is to be happy. I suppose I shall take his word for it.

> But I digress as well.

At the risk of an overwhelming chorus of 'Amens', I pray: May the hour of
my silence return!

But not too soon, please God.

.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:06:53 +0000

> Pickett's Charge? Excellent as well.

Are you sure this is the same George Stewart? He wasn't a historian, but
an English prof. at CalBerkeley.

(Goes and looks up Stewart in Wikipedia.)

Wow, it *was* the same guy. He wrote a *lot* of stuff I didnt' know
about.

And (I didn't know this either):

     His 1941 novel Storm, featuring as its protagonist a Pacific
     storm called "Maria," prompted the National Weather Service to
     use personal names to designate storms and inspired Alan Jay
     Lerner and Frederick Loewe to write the song "They Call the
     Wind Maria" for their 1951 musical Paint Your Wagon. Storm
     was dramatized as A Storm Called Maria on a 1959 episode
     of ABC's Disneyland.

Kewl...

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:09:41 +0000

>Well, I sort of agree with him. But then, I've always prefered fantasy

"Interesting" is not a positive value judgment, and I suspect he didn't 
intend it as one.

I sort of disagree, however, on Chestertonian grounds. Christians explain 
the universe in terms of only a few simple beliefs. Atheists, on the other 
hand, have to believe in a much wider and more bewildering array of 
different things.

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as 
$771/month* 
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product0000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&versh9&s@56&pQ17

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:14:39 +0000

> "Interesting" is not a positive value judgment, and I suspect he didn't

It was intended positively, though.

I meant, basically, that there are very few changes to be wrung upon the
theme of atheism. 'The world's all random like, things happen for no
reason, oh it's scary and dark, poor me'.

In contrast to Christianity, which as a relationship between real, living
beings contains infinite possibilities.

.

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:15:41 +0000

> > coincidentally or not) both teach

It depends, I guess. The good life that Stoics (and the ancients in general) 
were after isn't exactly equivalent to our concept of "happiness", but 
that's probably about the closest fit you're going to get. For a Stoic it's 
ok to be happy, just don't let yourself get carried away with it.

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office 
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:02:38 +0000

> It depends, I guess. The good life that Stoics (and the ancients in
> general) were after isn't exactly equivalent to our concept of "happiness",
> but that's probably about the closest fit you're going to get. For a Stoic
> it's ok to be happy,

As long as you are happy about the right things, that is, because the
things under your control (will, desire, aversion, movement towards and
away from an object) conform to virtue, that you do not desire what does
not belong to you.

If you are happy because you are having pleasant appearances (phantasmata,
as they are called: wealth, health a pleasant living situation, a good
job), you are not truly happy, because the things upon which your
happiness depends are subject to others (they are not the things under
your control, as described above).

>                      just don't let yourself get carried away with it.

Not possible, as long as (again) you are happy in the right way.

I'm still learning this stuff. It is just recently, for instance, that I
begin to understand what an 'appearance' is. I am afraid that I am not
explaining it very well. Here is a link to a short file which epitomizes
the Stoic ethic: http://san.beck.org/Epictetus.html. Flavius Arrian, he
author of the 'Anabasis Alexandri' was a student of Epictetus and also
knew shorthand. So we actually have quite a bit of Epictetus' teaching,
although he never wrote anything down himself. At some point, Arrian made
this epitome, with the object that it be bound in a little pocket book
that people could carry around with them.

Incidentally, Epictetus taught in Koine Greek, and is in fact one of our
two major souces for this dialect of Greek, the other being the New
Testament, about that other teacher from around that time who didn't write
anything down.

.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:02:41 +0000

.

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:38:32 +0000

Well everyone, it's been a fun few days discussing everything but  Wolfe, but I'm afraid I have to be on my way. Y'see I just got my hands  on a copy of The Children of Hurin and I plan to be occupied for a  little while. I'll be back later to let you know how it was.
  
  regards
  
  Don

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070413/e64e75c7/attachment.htm

---

From: Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:07:24 +0000

Dang. How the heck? I've had one on order for months and months and I haven't gotten notification
of shipping yet?

Enjoy. Hope it has been worth the wait of several decades!

---

From: Batrinque at aol.com <batrinque at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:12:42 +0000

In a message dated 4/14/2007 7:07:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
recursive_loop at yahoo.com writes:

Dang.  How the heck? I've had one on order for months and months and I 
haven't gotten  notification
of shipping yet?

I believe that the Tolkien book is scheduled for an official release date  of 
April 17.  So, I would expect Amazon and other online services to begin  
shipping in the next few days.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070414/ace7d465/attachment.htm

---

From: Adam Thornton <adam at io.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:37:27 +0000

> reason, oh it's scary and dark, poor me'.

That's odd.

I generally regard the scientific method as the act of trying to make  
sense out of the darkness and chaos without an appeal to the  
supernatural.  I don't think this is particularly in conflict with  
atheism.

Adam

---

From: Matthew Keeley <matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:40:18 +0000

Nice. My copy, alas, won't be here for a few more days. Also, I've got
papers and exams at this point of the year. Once they're done though, I'm
starting in on Children of Hurin. Unless I re-read The Lord of the Rings
first. In any case, enjoy the book. By all accounts, it should be great. I'm
sure Wolfe would approve.

-Matt

On 4/13/07, don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well everyone, it's been a fun few days discussing everything but Wolfe,
> but I'm afraid I have to be on my way. Y'see I just got my hands on a copy
> of The Children of Hurin and I plan to be occupied for a little while. I'll
> be back later to let you know how it was.
>
> regards
>
> Don
>
> ------------------------------
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM->
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070414/38574676/attachment.htm

---

From: Tony Ellis <tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:19:41 +0000

>reason, oh it's scary and dark, poor me'.

Oh, so *that's* the theme of atheism. Silly me, I've been doing it
wrong all these years.

---

From: Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:40:42 +0000

> my backlog and I don't know when I'll get to it.

But what about aleatory literature? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatory#Literature

Or does God really play dice? 

-- 
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:25:01 +0000

>> I meant, basically, that there are very few changes to be wrung
>> upon the theme of atheism. 'The world's all random like, things
>> happen for no reason, oh it's scary and dark, poor me'.

> supernatural.  I don't think this is particularly in conflict with

What, you mean we disagree? Our views of the World are different? Even our
basic definition of terms may differ?

Shocking.

How did that happen?

.

---

From: don doggett <kingwukong at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:50:20 +0000

I work in a bookstore that lets us check out books. We got ours yesterday but can't sell them till tuesday. Low pay, many perks. I'm at work now, but I'll say it was totally worth the wait. I'm halfway through and expect to finish it by tomorrow.

cheers

Don

Batrinque at aol.com wrote:      In a message dated 4/14/2007 7:07:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  recursive_loop at yahoo.com writes:
 Dang.    How the heck? I've had one on order for months and months and I haven't gotten    notification
of shipping yet?

 I believe that the Tolkien book is scheduled for an official release date  of April 17.  So, I would expect Amazon and other online services to begin  shipping in the next few days.

 Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT

See what's free at AOL.com. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20070414/44550b2a/attachment.htm

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:50:35 +0000

> I work in a bookstore that lets us check out books. We got ours yesterday but can't sell them till tuesday. Low pay, many perks. I'm at work now, but I'll say it was totally worth the wait. I'm hal…

Envyenvyenvy 

 - hartshorn  (twiddling thums waiting for Amazon)

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:52:30 +0000

Hmm.  I apologize, but it's been my experience that the things described 
here are often least under our control, anyone else?  Will--I've spent my 
entire life attempting to discipline this unruly and often lazy aspect of my 
own self.  It definitely aint under my control, nor, when dug into, under a 
preponderance of most people's is their own.

Not being 17 anymore, I can occasionally control my desire; however the bulk 
here would be a great deal less if my my desire for food were also a great 
deal less, for example.

Aversion?  While there are definitely people who grow used to working in a 
sulfur mine, I have never met anyone who could choose to not be adverse to 
doing so.  The other virtues listed appear to be variations on the base 
theme.

_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. 
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:18:33 +0000

>>> but that's probably about the closest fit you're going to get. For a
>>> Stoic it's ok to be happy,

> here are often least under our control, anyone else?

It takes work. I have had a fair amount of success. I still fall short often.

I strongly apologize if my faulty understanding of this matter leads me to
communicate inaccurately, and encourage anyone with real interest to check
out the link below, and the (really large amount) of Epictetus' lectures
which have survived.

But it is worth doing. These, our own actions, are the only things it is
*possible* to control.

Also, the terminology is peculiar, or used in a peculiar way. It has taken
me a while to understand, and perhaps I do not completely understand even
now (and I work on this stuff every day). I don't remember if I posted
this here, but this is a good place to start:
http://san.beck.org/Epictetus.html

This translation is different, slightly, then the one I am using (in
hardcover). At some point I will do a translation, which will be better
than any of the three I have been using.

___
Of existing things some are in our power,
others not in our power.
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 think only yours is yours,
and another's, just as it is, another's,
no one will ever compel you, no one will hinder you,
you will not blame anyone, nor accuse someone,
not one thing will you do unwilling,
no one will harm you, you will have no enemy,
for you will suffer no harm from anyone.
---

Or perhaps we are all merely wrong and deluded, and you are correct, and
it is not possible to control one's own actions. I suppose that is
possible. I have certainly been wrong in the past.

Against this, I am not the only person who has achieved some success at
this work, or found it valuable.

On the third hand, there are people (epicureans generally, some others)
who just think that we are Wrong with a capital W (and stoics
traditionally return the favor). There is certainly room for several
opinions in this discourse.

.

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:29:13 +0000

>doing so.  The other virtues listed appear to be variations on the base

It sounds like you may be a hopeless case for the stoics :P

The question is, do you act with rational deliberation? Whether or not a 
stranger insults you, for example, is not under your control. What *is* 
under your control is how you react to it, and what you do as a result. If 
you don't have control over that, then you don't have control over anything.

But generally speaking I have little patience for any point of view that 
says we're sort of chemical robots, acting out inclinations that are 
pre-coded and beyond our control. Whether or not that might be true on one 
level is beside the point; at the rational level, this just serves as an 
excuse to avoid critical reflection and write off any responsibility for the 
way one is.

---

From: brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:01:38 +0000

>>>                                                               For a

>> entire life attempting to discipline this unruly and often lazy aspect of
>> my own self.  It definitely aint under my control, nor, when dug into,
>> under a preponderance of most people's is their own.

>> Not being 17 anymore, I can occasionally control my desire; however the
>> bulk here would be a great deal less if my my desire for food were also a
>> great deal less, for example.

>> Aversion?  While there are definitely people who grow used to working in
>> a sulfur mine, I have never met anyone who could choose to not be adverse
>> to doing so.  The other virtues listed appear to be variations on the
>> base theme.

> excuse to avoid critical reflection and write off any responsibility for
> the way one is.

Also, the Stoics explicitly state that the body is not one of the things
under our control. Also, that this stuff has to be learned. It is not
necessarily easy (though it gets easier with practice, like everything
else) So the stimulus for food or sex or whatever arises within the body.
It is still your choice whether or not you accede to it.

.