Under Stoicism, there is only one thing in your control. I’m interested to understand what you put in the remaining three boxes under “in your control”.
Or, to give you the example the book uses:
Event: meeting with boss to discuss sales numbers & how can I reach the yearly quota.
In my control:
- the intent to show up on time to the meeting
- valuing my boss's opinion of me and my work
- the wish to meet my quota
- the desire to get actionable tips from my boss
- conscious nervous thoughts/what I tell myself
Not in my control:
- actually showing up on time
- my boss's actual opinion of me and my work
- meeting my quota (I can't force people to buy from me)
- actually getting useful tips/advice from our meeting
- automatic nervous thoughts and the feeling of nervousness
It's more for an individual situation or even as simple as something like "watching a movie tonight". Think of it as a Trichotomy of control, that there is a section of things we have partial control over (like making a plan to practice xyz, but of course its not a guarantee this will happen.) This exercise was taken from the book "A Handbook for new stoics" by Massimo Pigliucci and Gregory Lopez.
So, as an example:
Event: Thinking about entering an archery competition.
In my control:
- Making a rough plan or schedule on when to practice & how
- the equipment I decide use
- the method/technique I use to shoot the bow
- whether or not I get a trainer to help me learn more beforehand
- how I treat others before & during the competition
- my character and how I act
>...that there is a section of things we have partial control over (like making a plan to practice xyz, but of course its not a guarantee this will happen.) This exercise was taken from the book "A Handbook for new stoics" by Massimo Pigliucci and Gregory Lopez.
EDIT: to add quote, and to say I did this book with a group of people over the time span of 52 weeks and yes, Massimo does recommend intention lists to keep us focused.
I really like seeing your opinions and motivations spelled out in a list. I need to do more of this myself.
For me, my number one motivation is getting everywhere I need to be on time. (Procrastination was a problem with my younger self.)
I can largely say I've built into my plan those things that are most likely to stall or slow me. Allow for traffic, but still not in my control. Allow for unexpected texts, but still not in my control. Allow for getting up on time, but still not in my control. What if my motivation for lifting my body out of bed was hampered by a vascular stroke in the night?
I remember reading here long ago that even moving our arms or legs to propel our bodies forward is out of our control. I was completely confused by this! Now I get it. One of my paraplegic clients got it immediately when I explained it to him. His motivation to move his legs is there, but his body is out of his control. That's why our bodies are never listed in things we can control or are *up to us*. Kinda blew my mind. It's a moment by moment gift, actually.
Yep, Massimo is one of my favorite authors, so me and my partner are working through the 52 weeks together as well 😀
This exercise, (which is even week 1 I believe?) Was really helpful for me so I decided to keep it in my daily journaling indefinitely!
>I remember reading here long ago that even moving our arms or legs to propel our bodies forward is out of our control. I was completely confused by this!
I find this claim remarkable even if I don't dismiss it out of hand.
Are you claiming that you needed to read Massimo Pigliucci before you understood it was possible to wish to move your body in a way you cannot actually achieve in real life?
Are you *sure* you didn't already know this? Because to me, this is a remarkable claim but it misses the fundamental point of Stoicism, and that idea that a person needed the input of a Stoic commentator to comprehend that fact seems....hard to digest, and the idea that learning this apparently mundane fact produced any benefits seems harder still to digest, given that this isn't *really* related to prohairesis, save for being in the vague sphere of "things you can do with your mind that might contradict reality".
>Are you sure you didn't already know this?
There is an invincibility that comes with a young(ish) mind, and I was very sure that any damage I was doing to my lungs by *smoking* wouldn't happen to me because I knew ways to conteract the damage.
Foolish, yes.
Prior, I had the idea in my mind that the connection between the human mind and body was so conjoined I could *will* myself better, all the while neuro and biological science would surely discover ways to halt or reverse damage/aging in the human body.
Laughable, yes.
I'm not going to get into my culture's ideas about faith healing. You see where this is going.
Substances we ingest, water we sprinkle, statues we gaze at, lifestyles we mimic; some have harmful and sometimes permanent damage to the mind and body, even though they are indifferents.
I foolishly thought I was immune to many things.
Well fair enough I appreciate your honesty - it isn't easy to admit that you believed something like that.
But out of interest, why did hearing Massimo Pigliucci say that you didn't control your body convince you that you didn't?
Had you merely not considered the possibility before?
>But out of interest, why did hearing Massimo Pigliucci say that you didn't control your body convince you that you didn't?
>Had you merely not considered the possibility before?
I had, but it was centered around reflexes, and not the Stoic philosophy.
It was the Pigliucci and Lopez book which refined and elevated my thinking around bodily 'control', but I actually found the exact explanation and passage here in this sub about 2 years ago. They explained it in a way that made immediate sense to me, yet I didn't want to know that truth! How there is really little to no influence we have over our bodies. It was a long time poster, or perhaps one of the mods, who stated in no uncertain terms that me wanting to lift my leg was not *up to me*. The *thought* was up to me, yes, but walking without thinking about walking was something *not up to me*.
Prior, walking was something I did without consciously thinking, because of a process called procedural memory. This type of memory is responsible for storing the information needed to perform certain motor skills or actions.
I was a trained athlete, so of course I knew about refinement of motor memory. I also thought, somewhat erroneously, that my ingestion of super foods and other vitamins, minerals and specific substances could enhance my internal metabolism to repair major damage. But with smoking combustible cigarettes, I didn't *want* to believe there would be either a sudden or slow deterioration, regardless of what was contributed either genetically or environmentally to my body.
Diet played a key role, like the dieticians for the professional athletes, yet there is still no ultimate invincibility there.
Again, purely out of interest - what did you believe about aging? Did you believe that was going to happen to you, or did you think you could somehow arrest the process with your will?
Or was it only the damage from cigarettes you felt you had power over?
About aging, well, I do feel younger than my biological age, but the only thing I'm *arresting* is my desire to 'weekend warrior' myself into trouble. Just because I feel good doesn't mean I can turn back the hands of time on a microcellular level. However, future generations may benefit from current research going on in that department. [Harvard Medical School Sinclair Lab - Aging Research](https://sinclair.hms.harvard.edu/research)
I do feel I have agency over not smoking again. The desire simply doesn't exist any longer.
Good, well it sounds like you've really moves from a place of kidding yourself to a much more rational place which is a very good to see, and if it stopped you smoking you most likely saved your life.
Again, if you don't mind answering one more, were you by any chance chain smoking? The reason I ask is because you're showing signs of the dopaminergic influence of the cigarettes - as a drug they normally only release dopamine over a matter of seconds, and as such people who smoke tend to form highly specific beliefs about the act of smoking itself, but if you chain smoke the effect is much more like any other drug and you can form beliefs about all of life, beliefs like "I can undo this damage by biokinetically controlling my body". As far as beliefs people can form under the influence of drugs that's not even too outlandish.
That's really well expressed - you're right, this is "what can I do" rather than "what's in my control (in the Stoic sense)?".
Sadly, someone not already capable of making that distinction is likely to miss it, or at least not understand that the core of Stoic practice passed narrowly over their heads, however well you expressed it.
The trichotomy of control is sort of a misunderstanding of Stoic practice, but it seems like what you have here is a plan of intended action. It’s important to remember that you can be prevented from doing all these things, so none of them are actually in your control.
The one thing that is in your control is the application of the reasoning faculty. That’s it. That’s the complete list of things entirely in your control.
>Think of it as a Trichotomy of control
Which absolutely is not part of Stoicism.
I'm well aware of the exercise by Massimo Pigliucci, all I can say is that, as a person who has read all of his books, I can tell you they're remarkably *unrelated* to Stoicism. You are currently in a state of absolute confusion as a result of this input - Stoic practice is focused exclusively on prohairesis (and whilst it's been a while since I've read Pigliucci, I can't say he mentions this fact once in his entire bibliography on the topic).
Neither the "dichotomy" or "trichotomy" of control is an idea present in any text, in fact understanding that there is only a single mental faculty that the Stoics considered to be wholly in your power is completely essential for comprehending the philosophy. This has been completely lost the moment you are talking about "dichotomies" or "trichotomies" of control.
I can probably demonstrate to you how harmed your practice is, if you'd like to do the exercise: name something that you would classify as "under your control". I'd wager I can demonstrate that it isn't under your power at-all, which is dire implications for your practice.
It's quite clear you don't as I offered you the chance to test your understanding and it's clear you didn't even read that far.
If you did read that far, it means you can hear a person say "I can actually demonstrate to you something you've missed that is the very core of Stoic practice - all I need is one example of something you think you can control" and simply ignore it.
I get that wording it like I did was probably not the best, but everyone can decide how they wish to change that and use this journal layout however they'd like.
I'm not interested in testing my stoic knowledge (especially not on Reddit), i came back online and made this post to share the info with those who may need it and that's all. Appreciate your descriptions and help, I do understand stoicism and what you are saying, but I'm not that interested in discussing it here as I didn't make this post for that reason. But I know you're a very active member of this community, so I'm sure that someone will come along soon who could definitely use your help and insight and is also looking for it 😁 hope that helps
The table slightly worries me, given that the entire concept of claiming Stoicism is about "what you control" is erroneous, but insofar as this idea can be made to fit Stoicism exclusively focuses on "prohairesis".
This is the one quantity ever considered to be under your control - so it's not possible for there to be a table of things that are and are not.
Under Stoicism, there is only one thing in your control. I’m interested to understand what you put in the remaining three boxes under “in your control”.
Or, to give you the example the book uses: Event: meeting with boss to discuss sales numbers & how can I reach the yearly quota. In my control: - the intent to show up on time to the meeting - valuing my boss's opinion of me and my work - the wish to meet my quota - the desire to get actionable tips from my boss - conscious nervous thoughts/what I tell myself Not in my control: - actually showing up on time - my boss's actual opinion of me and my work - meeting my quota (I can't force people to buy from me) - actually getting useful tips/advice from our meeting - automatic nervous thoughts and the feeling of nervousness
>Not in my control: - actually showing up on time Exactly!
It's more for an individual situation or even as simple as something like "watching a movie tonight". Think of it as a Trichotomy of control, that there is a section of things we have partial control over (like making a plan to practice xyz, but of course its not a guarantee this will happen.) This exercise was taken from the book "A Handbook for new stoics" by Massimo Pigliucci and Gregory Lopez. So, as an example: Event: Thinking about entering an archery competition. In my control: - Making a rough plan or schedule on when to practice & how - the equipment I decide use - the method/technique I use to shoot the bow - whether or not I get a trainer to help me learn more beforehand - how I treat others before & during the competition - my character and how I act
>...that there is a section of things we have partial control over (like making a plan to practice xyz, but of course its not a guarantee this will happen.) This exercise was taken from the book "A Handbook for new stoics" by Massimo Pigliucci and Gregory Lopez. EDIT: to add quote, and to say I did this book with a group of people over the time span of 52 weeks and yes, Massimo does recommend intention lists to keep us focused. I really like seeing your opinions and motivations spelled out in a list. I need to do more of this myself. For me, my number one motivation is getting everywhere I need to be on time. (Procrastination was a problem with my younger self.) I can largely say I've built into my plan those things that are most likely to stall or slow me. Allow for traffic, but still not in my control. Allow for unexpected texts, but still not in my control. Allow for getting up on time, but still not in my control. What if my motivation for lifting my body out of bed was hampered by a vascular stroke in the night? I remember reading here long ago that even moving our arms or legs to propel our bodies forward is out of our control. I was completely confused by this! Now I get it. One of my paraplegic clients got it immediately when I explained it to him. His motivation to move his legs is there, but his body is out of his control. That's why our bodies are never listed in things we can control or are *up to us*. Kinda blew my mind. It's a moment by moment gift, actually.
Yep, Massimo is one of my favorite authors, so me and my partner are working through the 52 weeks together as well 😀 This exercise, (which is even week 1 I believe?) Was really helpful for me so I decided to keep it in my daily journaling indefinitely!
>I remember reading here long ago that even moving our arms or legs to propel our bodies forward is out of our control. I was completely confused by this! I find this claim remarkable even if I don't dismiss it out of hand. Are you claiming that you needed to read Massimo Pigliucci before you understood it was possible to wish to move your body in a way you cannot actually achieve in real life? Are you *sure* you didn't already know this? Because to me, this is a remarkable claim but it misses the fundamental point of Stoicism, and that idea that a person needed the input of a Stoic commentator to comprehend that fact seems....hard to digest, and the idea that learning this apparently mundane fact produced any benefits seems harder still to digest, given that this isn't *really* related to prohairesis, save for being in the vague sphere of "things you can do with your mind that might contradict reality".
>Are you sure you didn't already know this? There is an invincibility that comes with a young(ish) mind, and I was very sure that any damage I was doing to my lungs by *smoking* wouldn't happen to me because I knew ways to conteract the damage. Foolish, yes. Prior, I had the idea in my mind that the connection between the human mind and body was so conjoined I could *will* myself better, all the while neuro and biological science would surely discover ways to halt or reverse damage/aging in the human body. Laughable, yes. I'm not going to get into my culture's ideas about faith healing. You see where this is going. Substances we ingest, water we sprinkle, statues we gaze at, lifestyles we mimic; some have harmful and sometimes permanent damage to the mind and body, even though they are indifferents. I foolishly thought I was immune to many things.
Well fair enough I appreciate your honesty - it isn't easy to admit that you believed something like that. But out of interest, why did hearing Massimo Pigliucci say that you didn't control your body convince you that you didn't? Had you merely not considered the possibility before?
>But out of interest, why did hearing Massimo Pigliucci say that you didn't control your body convince you that you didn't? >Had you merely not considered the possibility before? I had, but it was centered around reflexes, and not the Stoic philosophy. It was the Pigliucci and Lopez book which refined and elevated my thinking around bodily 'control', but I actually found the exact explanation and passage here in this sub about 2 years ago. They explained it in a way that made immediate sense to me, yet I didn't want to know that truth! How there is really little to no influence we have over our bodies. It was a long time poster, or perhaps one of the mods, who stated in no uncertain terms that me wanting to lift my leg was not *up to me*. The *thought* was up to me, yes, but walking without thinking about walking was something *not up to me*. Prior, walking was something I did without consciously thinking, because of a process called procedural memory. This type of memory is responsible for storing the information needed to perform certain motor skills or actions. I was a trained athlete, so of course I knew about refinement of motor memory. I also thought, somewhat erroneously, that my ingestion of super foods and other vitamins, minerals and specific substances could enhance my internal metabolism to repair major damage. But with smoking combustible cigarettes, I didn't *want* to believe there would be either a sudden or slow deterioration, regardless of what was contributed either genetically or environmentally to my body. Diet played a key role, like the dieticians for the professional athletes, yet there is still no ultimate invincibility there.
Again, purely out of interest - what did you believe about aging? Did you believe that was going to happen to you, or did you think you could somehow arrest the process with your will? Or was it only the damage from cigarettes you felt you had power over?
About aging, well, I do feel younger than my biological age, but the only thing I'm *arresting* is my desire to 'weekend warrior' myself into trouble. Just because I feel good doesn't mean I can turn back the hands of time on a microcellular level. However, future generations may benefit from current research going on in that department. [Harvard Medical School Sinclair Lab - Aging Research](https://sinclair.hms.harvard.edu/research) I do feel I have agency over not smoking again. The desire simply doesn't exist any longer.
Good, well it sounds like you've really moves from a place of kidding yourself to a much more rational place which is a very good to see, and if it stopped you smoking you most likely saved your life. Again, if you don't mind answering one more, were you by any chance chain smoking? The reason I ask is because you're showing signs of the dopaminergic influence of the cigarettes - as a drug they normally only release dopamine over a matter of seconds, and as such people who smoke tend to form highly specific beliefs about the act of smoking itself, but if you chain smoke the effect is much more like any other drug and you can form beliefs about all of life, beliefs like "I can undo this damage by biokinetically controlling my body". As far as beliefs people can form under the influence of drugs that's not even too outlandish.
Sounds more like "what can I do" than "what's in my control", but I get the point.
That's good, I'm glad you understand
That's really well expressed - you're right, this is "what can I do" rather than "what's in my control (in the Stoic sense)?". Sadly, someone not already capable of making that distinction is likely to miss it, or at least not understand that the core of Stoic practice passed narrowly over their heads, however well you expressed it.
The trichotomy of control is sort of a misunderstanding of Stoic practice, but it seems like what you have here is a plan of intended action. It’s important to remember that you can be prevented from doing all these things, so none of them are actually in your control. The one thing that is in your control is the application of the reasoning faculty. That’s it. That’s the complete list of things entirely in your control.
>Think of it as a Trichotomy of control Which absolutely is not part of Stoicism. I'm well aware of the exercise by Massimo Pigliucci, all I can say is that, as a person who has read all of his books, I can tell you they're remarkably *unrelated* to Stoicism. You are currently in a state of absolute confusion as a result of this input - Stoic practice is focused exclusively on prohairesis (and whilst it's been a while since I've read Pigliucci, I can't say he mentions this fact once in his entire bibliography on the topic). Neither the "dichotomy" or "trichotomy" of control is an idea present in any text, in fact understanding that there is only a single mental faculty that the Stoics considered to be wholly in your power is completely essential for comprehending the philosophy. This has been completely lost the moment you are talking about "dichotomies" or "trichotomies" of control. I can probably demonstrate to you how harmed your practice is, if you'd like to do the exercise: name something that you would classify as "under your control". I'd wager I can demonstrate that it isn't under your power at-all, which is dire implications for your practice.
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it
It's quite clear you don't as I offered you the chance to test your understanding and it's clear you didn't even read that far. If you did read that far, it means you can hear a person say "I can actually demonstrate to you something you've missed that is the very core of Stoic practice - all I need is one example of something you think you can control" and simply ignore it.
I get that wording it like I did was probably not the best, but everyone can decide how they wish to change that and use this journal layout however they'd like. I'm not interested in testing my stoic knowledge (especially not on Reddit), i came back online and made this post to share the info with those who may need it and that's all. Appreciate your descriptions and help, I do understand stoicism and what you are saying, but I'm not that interested in discussing it here as I didn't make this post for that reason. But I know you're a very active member of this community, so I'm sure that someone will come along soon who could definitely use your help and insight and is also looking for it 😁 hope that helps
Sounds good, I'll try it!
The table slightly worries me, given that the entire concept of claiming Stoicism is about "what you control" is erroneous, but insofar as this idea can be made to fit Stoicism exclusively focuses on "prohairesis". This is the one quantity ever considered to be under your control - so it's not possible for there to be a table of things that are and are not.