It seems odd to me to characterize Fisher as attempting "to draw an analogy between Stoic and Buddhist mindfulness" since in his essay he is simply pointing out that the comparison exists out there in the common opinions of people. But his very next efforts are meant to draw how Stoicism has the concepts of self knowledge and attention to the present independently of Buddhism or Eastern philosophy in general, and later makes it clear that they're very different from each other altogether despite some surface commonalities.
It's only useful to use the term "Stoic Mindfulness" if it's directed at people who have some idea of what mindfulness is, to differentiate it from the common variety. But I don't think it's a necessary term without that baggage. I think of the two points, the first is right and the second is a stretch. The "and it is useful to translate it as mindfulness" is only qualified by the fact that it is a way to present the idea to those already familiar. It could be obviated altogether otherwise.
I prefer the simple translation of "attention" since it really is nothing special or different from simply paying attention. Having the precepts at hand (procheiros) to not forget your moral purpose. Not letting the mind wander erratically. That is not anything special that couldn't be called "paying attention". Hard as it may be to sustain. Lopez's argument that it isn't used in a special way is a bit of slip, since it isn't special. The point Epictetus makes is one that any teacher of any practice or craft would make to any pupil - pay attention and remember your training. But it doesn't make it not a Stoic practice either. It's just that it's been overhyped a bit.
It seems odd to me to characterize Fisher as attempting "to draw an analogy between Stoic and Buddhist mindfulness" since in his essay he is simply pointing out that the comparison exists out there in the common opinions of people. But his very next efforts are meant to draw how Stoicism has the concepts of self knowledge and attention to the present independently of Buddhism or Eastern philosophy in general, and later makes it clear that they're very different from each other altogether despite some surface commonalities.
It's only useful to use the term "Stoic Mindfulness" if it's directed at people who have some idea of what mindfulness is, to differentiate it from the common variety. But I don't think it's a necessary term without that baggage. I think of the two points, the first is right and the second is a stretch. The "and it is useful to translate it as mindfulness" is only qualified by the fact that it is a way to present the idea to those already familiar. It could be obviated altogether otherwise.
I prefer the simple translation of "attention" since it really is nothing special or different from simply paying attention. Having the precepts at hand (procheiros) to not forget your moral purpose. Not letting the mind wander erratically. That is not anything special that couldn't be called "paying attention". Hard as it may be to sustain. Lopez's argument that it isn't used in a special way is a bit of slip, since it isn't special. The point Epictetus makes is one that any teacher of any practice or craft would make to any pupil - pay attention and remember your training. But it doesn't make it not a Stoic practice either. It's just that it's been overhyped a bit.
I would add that the concept of Sati also includes accepting the natural order in things (according to nature), that also links to Stoicism.
Also that to be able to judge, you must first put yourself in a attentive, "mindfull" state. The one requires the other.
Thanks for lifting the issue.
Pål Melin, Sweden