DM>      Most appreciate the clarifications ...........but additionally 
 DM>      do wonder how large populations of our world (not being "stoic 
 DM>      oriented") could be so convinced of its merits. 
Large populations are irrationally religious, and could not be 
rationally convinced of anything. 
 DM>      Along our 
 DM>      eclectic historical experience, "stoicism" does not seem to have 
 DM>      grown from its own value base (not an overly popular goal of 
 DM>      civilization). How would such "a way of being" be presented? 
 DM>      ......and by whom?  Aside from you, I see very little mention 
 DM>      and no enthusiasm. One might explore the impression that only 
 DM>      very small specific groupings or individuals, prepared for such 
 DM>      a disciplined style of thought, could be happy and successful 
 DM>      within such a "way" of being. Also! you do not elaborate on how 
 DM>      you came to trust Stoicism to being any more than another way 
 DM>      to be i.e. How might one conclude that Stoicism can produce 
 DM>      a better person? For example, looking back through time, it 
 DM>      appears that the Stoic sense of dicipline could be associated 
 DM>      across a range of schooled military leaders capable of ordering 
 DM>      death during the day and reading philosophy at night (Aurelian 
 DM>      types).  I guess the question before the question is how do we 
 DM>      MEASURE the quality of being human. So many are ahead of me in 
 DM>      this opinion dominated department....... 
I choose Stoicism after having read the Bible, Koran, Qumran, and 
the various eastern- Upshanishads, Bagavad Gita, Watts & other of 
the Zen writers, all which are worthy- but: the former meets well 
with findings of sociology and psychology.  Perhaps because both, 
Stoicism, and the sciences, owe so much to Aristotle. 
 
Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" is a famous Stoic work, but I find 
it glaringly obvious that he don't say diddly about slavery.  How 
to be, as he says, in control of oneself, while controlling other 
men for his own benefit, strikes me as oxymoronic.  IIRC, his son 
was an ass, casting doubt on the father's judgement, and- bearing 
witness to the observation of Epictetus, that such sons, who grow 
up controlling others, do not learn to control themselves. 
 
Stoicism, unlike all the religions, precludes the power structure 
the latter use to promote their dogma.  There is no heirarchy for 
ambitious men to use to promote themselves, while promulagating a 
faith for all others.  However: since you see this, you also see, 
a new way to promote a point of view that does not require such a 
power structure.  The argument alone should do the job, and since 
the argument is the only thing that Stoicism has, it has polished 
it up rather better than any other cosmomolgy, and given that the 
net is now global, may do well everywhere. 
 
You refer to this as a 'disciplined style of thought'.  But, what 
Stoicism tries to do, is just be rational.  The typical catechism 
of adolescents into a faith takes a year of study; give that same 
year to Aristotle, Epictetus, Plato, and Seneca, and you will see 
Stoic philosophy, as it was when our founding fathers studied it, 
(as schoolboys) put into *practice* and spirit, if not in name. 
 
In the global technocracy, the scientists will find in Stoicism a 
cosmology not in conflict with the reports of science news, nor a 
religious heirarchy, but a sense of collegiality in the attitudes 
of the ancient authors as well as modern readers, who are willing 
to submit ideas to peer review- not something religions do well. 
 
The measure of the homo sapiens is, as it's name implies, a power 
to be *rational*, Stoicism seeks to maximize that power.  It may, 
religions claim, be that reason is inadequate to reach the truth. 
It remains to be seen if reason can be improved; I mean to try. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------