Hierocles' (c 430 AD) model is a comprehensive way to look at our expanding levels of concern in the maturation process of our moral development. It's a key pillar of Buddhist philosophy (mid 6th century BCE), which, as Peter Singer says, may expand out to include all sentient beings. I wonder if Singer (1975) & psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner influenced each other, or if it's another instance of the multiple simultaneous innovations in history? In the 1970's, Bronfenbrenner formulated the bioecological model of human development (https://www.structural-learning.com/post/bronfenbrenners-ecological-model) which
changed the field of developmental science by positing the interrelated systems and mutual interactions shaping human growth and behavior.
Peter Singer's book The Expanding Circle provides an excellent description of how this process of "outward expansion" works. He posits an "escalator of reason" as the mechanism that guides this expansion. This sounds like something that could appeal to a Stoic, since reason is paramount in the Stoic worldview. I view the book as very useful to Stoic practitioners. even if Singer writes from the utilitarian perspective.
Jim, I agree. I don’t subscribe to Peter’s utilitarian approach, but that doesn’t mean Stoics should care about other sentient beings. As Jeremy Bentham famously put it: it’s not whether they think or talk, it’s whether they suffer.
I’m so grateful Larry Becker has written as prolifically as he did on Stoicism. Reading on the subject of disability today, I came across the word of “stoicism” (not capitalized). I sense emotion in her words that border non-acceptance, and, perhaps, resentment. Though, I do abhor people who disregard and are outright mean to the disabled, and when others offer help the feeling of joy is greater than anyone can imagine.
In the book Power of Disability by Al Etmanski he writes what she said:
“The simple arithmetic of it is that my disability has brought me smartly to all the things I value—my career, my skills, my tenacity, my intimate partner, my world view. And there is no logical reason to believe that this will not continue to be the case for as long as I remain alive. This is not a matter of simple acceptance, of stoicism, of bravely making the best of my sorry lot. It is a matter of growing into and embracing my experience of disability. That is not to say that I embrace the exclusion, the stigma, the devalued status, the abuse, and the barriers that are the constant companions of disability. . .These do not build character. They are as destructive and senseless as war is. I feel as impassioned about resisting these forces as others must feel about their battles to ‘find a cure.’ But let me be very clear: stigma, barriers, and exclusion are the enemy—not my disability.”
-Catherine Frazee, poet, activist, and former chief commissioner of the Ontario, Canada, Human Rights Commission.
As a Stoic, Larry would say that Frazee is half mistaken here: exclusion, stigma, abuse, and so forth most certainly build character, if understood as things outside of your control.
Perhaps a clarification may help? "Larry would say that Frazee is half mistaken here: exclusion, stigma, abuse and so forth (may) build character if understood (and worked with) as things outside of our control." That applies to those who suffer nobly with those challenges, but, there are no guarantees. I'm not sure my character would be strengthened if I had to face the ongoing pain & restrictions that Larry did. I think I'd wimp out.
While the innermost circle is the self, the diagram is not self-centered -- the self is at the bottom and the diagram expands upwards out outwards. What is most inward is not most central. Wonderful!
This is one of the most effective sections for me. I like the pairing of two exercises: one behavioral and the other meditative. The combination of Stoic and Buddhist perspectives sets up a resonance. Theory and practice become connected, my little circle of concern expands into a natural feeling openness and calmness. This is a powerful antidote to the poisoning divisiveness being served up in our current politics.
John, exactly: the starting circle is me for me, your for you, x for x. It’s the starting point simply because it happens to be about us. But as you say, it is not the most important point.
The church I was brought in made the same message. Tim Snyder notes in Fepreedom, true freedom requires looking away from self listen to others . A form of humility and care,
The hierarchical circles help understand farther past to include all sentient beings, that we learn more animals are far more sentient than realized. Ah, but Nature. Do we have a moral duty to protect nature, our world? That some of us do, but others don’t Our role? Again Snyder uses the word sovereign to know and use reason, and the education begins at birth. And lasts well into the full development of the person
Hierocles' (c 430 AD) model is a comprehensive way to look at our expanding levels of concern in the maturation process of our moral development. It's a key pillar of Buddhist philosophy (mid 6th century BCE), which, as Peter Singer says, may expand out to include all sentient beings. I wonder if Singer (1975) & psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner influenced each other, or if it's another instance of the multiple simultaneous innovations in history? In the 1970's, Bronfenbrenner formulated the bioecological model of human development (https://www.structural-learning.com/post/bronfenbrenners-ecological-model) which
changed the field of developmental science by positing the interrelated systems and mutual interactions shaping human growth and behavior.
Peter Singer's book The Expanding Circle provides an excellent description of how this process of "outward expansion" works. He posits an "escalator of reason" as the mechanism that guides this expansion. This sounds like something that could appeal to a Stoic, since reason is paramount in the Stoic worldview. I view the book as very useful to Stoic practitioners. even if Singer writes from the utilitarian perspective.
Jim, I agree. I don’t subscribe to Peter’s utilitarian approach, but that doesn’t mean Stoics should care about other sentient beings. As Jeremy Bentham famously put it: it’s not whether they think or talk, it’s whether they suffer.
Yes! Not to mention Seneca's injunction to follow wisdom wherever we find it!
I’m not aware of any connection between Singer and Bronfenbrenner, but that may just be my ignorance.
No, I did a search & couldn’t see any connection either.
I’m so grateful Larry Becker has written as prolifically as he did on Stoicism. Reading on the subject of disability today, I came across the word of “stoicism” (not capitalized). I sense emotion in her words that border non-acceptance, and, perhaps, resentment. Though, I do abhor people who disregard and are outright mean to the disabled, and when others offer help the feeling of joy is greater than anyone can imagine.
In the book Power of Disability by Al Etmanski he writes what she said:
“The simple arithmetic of it is that my disability has brought me smartly to all the things I value—my career, my skills, my tenacity, my intimate partner, my world view. And there is no logical reason to believe that this will not continue to be the case for as long as I remain alive. This is not a matter of simple acceptance, of stoicism, of bravely making the best of my sorry lot. It is a matter of growing into and embracing my experience of disability. That is not to say that I embrace the exclusion, the stigma, the devalued status, the abuse, and the barriers that are the constant companions of disability. . .These do not build character. They are as destructive and senseless as war is. I feel as impassioned about resisting these forces as others must feel about their battles to ‘find a cure.’ But let me be very clear: stigma, barriers, and exclusion are the enemy—not my disability.”
-Catherine Frazee, poet, activist, and former chief commissioner of the Ontario, Canada, Human Rights Commission.
🤔😬🤷🏻♂️😊
As a Stoic, Larry would say that Frazee is half mistaken here: exclusion, stigma, abuse, and so forth most certainly build character, if understood as things outside of your control.
Perhaps a clarification may help? "Larry would say that Frazee is half mistaken here: exclusion, stigma, abuse and so forth (may) build character if understood (and worked with) as things outside of our control." That applies to those who suffer nobly with those challenges, but, there are no guarantees. I'm not sure my character would be strengthened if I had to face the ongoing pain & restrictions that Larry did. I think I'd wimp out.
Vivian, I was describing the Stoic perspective. That’s precisely what it is for. Of course if one doesn’t buy into it it’s a different matter.
This is fascinating because it exactly the opposite! Really eye-opening. 👍
While the innermost circle is the self, the diagram is not self-centered -- the self is at the bottom and the diagram expands upwards out outwards. What is most inward is not most central. Wonderful!
This is one of the most effective sections for me. I like the pairing of two exercises: one behavioral and the other meditative. The combination of Stoic and Buddhist perspectives sets up a resonance. Theory and practice become connected, my little circle of concern expands into a natural feeling openness and calmness. This is a powerful antidote to the poisoning divisiveness being served up in our current politics.
John, exactly: the starting circle is me for me, your for you, x for x. It’s the starting point simply because it happens to be about us. But as you say, it is not the most important point.
I agree with this (adapted by the xtians as “love thy neighbor “--but I hope we’re not circle-ing the drain thnx to last week’s election. Damn it.
Circling the drain. Maybe an apt metaphor.
Thanks for posting in e nail. Substack difficult for diseased macula
The church I was brought in made the same message. Tim Snyder notes in Fepreedom, true freedom requires looking away from self listen to others . A form of humility and care,
"On Freedom" by Timothy Snyder https://timothysnyder.org/books/
The hierarchical circles help understand farther past to include all sentient beings, that we learn more animals are far more sentient than realized. Ah, but Nature. Do we have a moral duty to protect nature, our world? That some of us do, but others don’t Our role? Again Snyder uses the word sovereign to know and use reason, and the education begins at birth. And lasts well into the full development of the person
Dick, yes, I think it is virtuous to protect nature, not to mention self-serving, since we depend on it.
Thank you Massimo.
In the Italian version: "Stoicismo. Esercizio spirituale per un anno" this can be found on page 218.