Thank you for following the discussion to the last diary on this topic for now. If you'd like to catch up, see it in my blog. So far we have looked at a number of building blocks of the Stoic way of life.

1. What is the goal of life? Stoicism says it is to flourish.
2: What is good? Stoicism says there is a third category in the moral universe, namely “neutral.” Good and evil reside only within us. Neutrals – preferred and dispreferred – are things and events external to us.
3. What is within our power to do? We talked about what is within our power, our character.
We went over the proper use of sensory impressions. We discussed how to use new scripts to override poor thoughts brought on by neural pathways created by trauma reactions.
In this part, we discuss two last questions:
4. How should I act?
5. How should I live?
Part 1/3 is here: http://caucus99percent.com/content/stoicism-trauma-survivors-part-13

Might as well listen to some more music from home: Johnny Clegg, with Savuka

Here is Part 2, if something here don't make no sense :=) http://caucus99percent.com/content/stoicism-trauma-survivors-part-2

4. How should I act?

First a bit of background. Stoicism says that the outcomes of actions are not wholly in our power, but our impulses to act one way rather than another is within our power. The excellent archer does all within their power to shoot well at their target, knowing that this is the best they can do and will not be disappointed if they shoot well but fail to hit the target. Popular culture of all ages views success as hitting the target. The Stoic views success as having shot well.

Society generally judges us by the success we achieve in life. It teaches us to always compare ourselves to the Joneses next door. Who has the nicer home? The better cars? Who goes on the coolest vacations? Stoicism says all that is bunk. The reason is the simple fact that these are external things that are not within our power. (Stoicism agrees with the old saying, “Never judge a book by its cover.”)

The only thing that is within our power is our impulse to act.

A question to myself: "Are my impulses directed at mainly at improving my character or mainly at those external things that society says is good?"

Now, there is nothing wrong with wealth per se, as an example. It is simply a preferred neutral; it is neither good nor evil. Having wealth does not make me one whit better or worse than the next person; no matter how much society worships wealthy people. It is the same with health.

Having or not having health has nothing to do with success in life. I am a trauma survivor who is doing my best to flourish in life. Because of my less than good memory, energy limitations, problems with people, trauma reactions, struggles to focus, etc., etc., there are some jobs I cannot do anymore. I used to be able to do anything I wanted; nowadays I have to aim at different targets.

Stoicism says that these targets are external things and morally neutral.

My task is to aim at an appropriate target and then shoot as well as I can. That alone, is my measure of success.
Given what I am and what I have, did I shoot well?
It does not matter whether I can hit the bull’s eye or not. What matters is whether I shoot well.
Given this context then, how should I (know how to) act in general life?

Stoicism has a clear formula for knowing how to act in any given situation.

The key is to understand that I am a person-in-relationships.

Stoicism disagrees fundamentally with the post-enlightenment atomization of human beings from “persons-in-relationships” into “individuals.”

The malaise of modernity and postmodernity, the funk within all our societies, the heart of darkness in our western culture is the ideological worship of the “individual.”

There is no such thing in reality.

We are persons-in-relationship from birth to death.

For example, the Vietnamese Zen teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, uses the intriguing phrase interbeing in his book Living Buddha, Living Christ.
One these fine day we're gonna have a conversation about interbeing, eh.

Reconstructing our culture upon the sound, natural basis of people as persons-in-relationships is western society’s only hope for wholeness and wellness. Continuing a culture built upon the mythical “individual” is folly, as we know so intimately within our own beings.

According to Epictetus, my relationships should determine my actions; for example, “as a man who honors the gods, as a son, as a brother, as a father, as a citizen.” (Discourses 3.2.4)

Notice how Stoicism defines our human relationships in concentric circles:

• the “gods” within my being
• the child of those who parent me
• the sibling of my brothers and sisters
• the parent of my children
• the citizen of my society

The first relationship circle lies within my being: my first relationship is with my “gods.” My first task is to honour the gods “as I understand them.” I have to examine constantly those “gods” – especially the false “gods” - whom I worship in fact and deed.

“He is your father”…
“But he is a bad father.”
“Nature did not provide for you a good father, but a father…well then, maintain your relationship to him.” (Handbook 30)

“To know how to act is to remember who we are, and what relational ‘name’ we have” (daughter, sister, mother, friend, citizen) (Discourses 3.2.4)

“Each of these ‘names,’ if rightly considered, always points to the actions appropriate to it.” (Discourses 2.10.11)

A basic rule of Stoicism is that we should act as nature demands of us, and not as society says we should (except of course when society is in accordance with nature).

Now, nature has made me a made me a person-in-relationships, not an individual. I try to be someone whose character is what defines me, someone who honours what is best in the world. I am also a son, a brother, a husband - these are some of my primary relationships. Nature has made me a citizen, first of South Africa and then of Canada, and a member of various communities – my town, my associations, etc.

These relationships - naturally - dictate how I should act in all circumstances. My problem is that, because I have been immersed in the modern ideology of the “individual,” I have to overthink my every action to fumble towards acting in a natural manner.

A quick example: consider how difficult our culture makes it to be a “child” or a “sibling.”
Our warped culture pushes us to consider an out-of-area career over our natural relationships. So then we have to invent technologies to be close to those with whom we are related. And so the complexity builds. And for what?

"Qui bono" - who benefits? - in the immortal words of Cicero.

Epictetus gives us this key to knowing how to act:
“Excellence is realized by those who remember who they are, and pursue only those things within their power, and all else only so far as it is given to us.” (Discourses 4.12)

Stoicism says to know how to act is first to remember who you are. All right then, let us consider the last and broadest topic.

5. How should I live?

What does Stoicism mean by “living in accordance with nature?"

We maintain harmony with nature by knowing what our appropriate actions are and accepting what fate brings.
Epictetus says “If my brother accuses me unfairly, then becoming angry with him is contrary to nature, for nature has determined how brothers should rightly act. My task is to act appropriately to my brother despite all and any provocations.”
“Be ready to say, ‘Oh well, it was not only this that I wanted, but to keep my character in accordance with nature, and I cannot do that if I am irritated with things that happen.’ (Handbook 4)

“It is circumstances which show what men are.” (Discourses 1.24)

Stoicism says that when I am uncertain how to act, I should simply remember what ‘name’ (or, title) I have in the situation.

For example, in my dealings with my father, the name I have is that of son or daughter. That implies a number of things, like:
• respect for his role as father
• obedience to good commands, proposals, suggestions and advice
• caring for him in his old age, appreciation for the good things he gives me
• support against his enemies
• maintaining our relationship
• assisting him in family matters, etc.

Now, my dealings with my father are reasonably straightforward if he is a reasonable man.
It becomes problematic if I have a difficult father. In today’s throwaway society, it is considered OK for me to simply distance myself from him: "He is dead to me."
Apart from the instruction of culture, my trauma reactions also will push me towards cutting off any contact.

But Stoicism says that nature calls me by the ‘name’ of ‘son’ in my dealings with him, despite that he is a bad man.
I should therefore maintain my relationship and perform my duties as a son to the best of my abilities according to what the situation permits, despite the fact that he dishonours the ‘name’ of father that nature gave him. It’s not about him; it’s about me, about my character, about my archery.
(BTW, my father died when I was a kid, I'm not bashing him :=)

The same goes for my other relationships and ‘names’ (titles): brother or sister, husband or wife, father or mother, friend, member of…, citizen, etc.

Those titles naturally show how we should behave.
Except, we live in a barbaric culture that is ideologically fixated on the “right” of the “individual” to act primarily as a “consumer.”

Consider what Stoicism would make of a supposed “inalienable right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.”

Another way of stating this constitutional (Jeebus Murphay, what a monstrous perversion!!!) right would be: every “individual” is entitled to all preferred external things that are not within their control.

There’s your real “entitlement” culture.

Stoicism has its own chain of causation: act in accordance with nature, which leads to excellence of character, which leads to flourishing, which is the goal of life.

Remember these three cues:
• we are always “persons-in-relationships”
• pursue those things within our power, before the externals of society
• pursue externals only insofar “as it is given to us” (not fatalism, but realism).

Conclusion: the advice of Epictetus

“From this moment commit yourself to living as an adult, as someone who is making progress, and let everything that appears best to you be a law that you cannot transgress. And if you are presented with anything laborious, or something pleasant, with anything reputable or disreputable, remember that the contest is now, that the Olympic Games are now, that it is no longer possible to put them off, and that progress is won or lost as a result of just once giving in.” (Handbook 51.2)

I look forward to your comments, images, and music.

Peace be with us, if we learn and persevere in stoic principles, (nbo disclaimer, I work damn hard at it)
gerrit