++> NOTES From Day Brown To David Martorana
 ++> on Slavery and religion
 
 DM>  DB>> If you have seen my posts on Philemon,
 DM>  DB>> slavery, Epictetus, and autocracy... IF not, I will
 DM>  DB>> be happy to oblige since I found more on the issue.
 
 DM>>      Oblige, by all means
 
   ...Read your excellent compression notes and quoted those
   I would comment on....
 
 DB> By 700 BCE.....  the good bottom land in Greece was passing
 > from the hands of the yeomen families whose forefathers had
 > cleared it, to the friends of the guys who ran the county
 > courthouse.  With enough slaves to work the land, consolodation
 > of holdings was a very profitable setup.
 
 DB> Both men saw that a city needed strong soldiers to defend it,
 > and that the tendency to malnourish slave children don't produce
 > any. Nevertheless the powers that be continued to refine their methods
 > of manipulating books, taxes, and deeds to enrich themselves, and
 > by the time of Alexander, many disposessed yeomen sons joined up,
 > and many even got rich on the war path.  But soil/pollen cores of
 > the region showed how the crops changed from food to profit.
 
   Wonder if publicly owned companies will make any difference
   in our times (long term).
 
 > Meanwhile, the cosmopolitan culture of Imperial Rome was bringing
 > new gods and cosmologies into town all the time.  A professional
 > class of bureaucrats, lawyers, and engineers developed which, like
 > we do, sent the college boy off, in this case, to Athens.  Frats
 > still have Greek names.  One of the things they came back with, as
 > Cato, Pliny, Cicero, and numerous others attest, was philosophy.
 
   It is hard to see their study of philosophy translating into
  any measure of Roman betterment..... (crude greed into academic
  greed ??? )
 
 > In one of the greatest cop outs of history, one of his students,
 > Marcus Aurelius became emperor, and did nothing at all about the
 > inconsistency of his personal philosophy and the autocratic rule
 > of the state.  Had he and the Roman power structure been up to
 > the ethical challenge of stoicism instead of using Christian
 > dogma to justify their abuse of power, I think the Roman state
 > would still be a power to be reckoned with.
 
   Marcus was clever enough to "compartmentalize" the focus of his
   self interests, perhaps critical in his colloquial circumstances.
   Being some tiny bit egocentric (he did own a mirror), he probably
   didn't give more than a poetic damn for any long term historics.
 
 > Had they developed stoicism, instead of denigrating this life into
 > a mere preparation for the next one, they would have had to deal
 > with injustice more directly, and worked out ethics more fully-
 > lacking any dispensation from 'God' as to what should be done.
 > So rather than accept misery as just for sinners and payment for
 > entry into heaven, they would have had to deal with it.
 
 ...You have a fine revewrse optimism that stretches back through your
   historical meanderings....  Though skeptical, I do enjoy your take
   on "mind bettering history" ......those prophetic  "might haves".
 
   Would you ...could you, think beyond your "now-life" presence.
   It might be easy to say yes, but history is not fat with those
   in power to do so (with any clarity of benefit). Even with Alexander,
   we have no way of knowing if the world might have been better off had
   he been a farmer or even never born. We still might entertain in
   "mindplay" that nations prosper best when a "biggest", "baddest"
   guardian angel decides to take THEIR hand ...*AND* short of the
   Jewish and Egyptian experience models .....even guardian angels
   grow weary of their wards.
 
                          @@ ... Dave
 
   Many thanks for the replayed notes. It is always appreciated to have
   history essentially clarified in a few very readable straight
   forward words...........
                           \==
                          "00"
                          /||\
                          _||_
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------