The Meditations/Being the Friggin' Emperor of the Known World, from Book Four.

"That which rules within, when it is according to nature, is so affected with respect to the events which happen, that it always easily adapts itself to that which is and is presented to it.  For it requires no definite material, but it moves towards its purpose, under certain conditions however; and it makes a material for itself out of that which opposes it, as fire lays hold of what falls into it, by which a small light would have been extinguished: but when the fire is strong, it soon appropriates to itself the matter which is heaped on it, and consumes it, and rises higher by mean of this very material."

     -Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations, 4.1, Long Translation.

"...it always easily adapts itself to that which is and is presented to it."

-This much I find debatable, the adaption of "stimuli" or "circumstance".  It is the goal of the stoic to kind of "absorb" these matters without losing his or her "eudamonia".  Here the Emperor contends that we adapt easily to matters presented to us, which is what I question, for quite often people seem to "lose their sh*t" over the least little thing.  We lose our tranquility so often, is my point, and the process of absorption is not necessarily "easy" but sometimes either automatic or "natural", where the Emperor contends that our conscious reaction be natural, we have already absorbed, perhaps in some instances, and waiting for the next thing.

"....as fire lays hold of what falls into it, by which a small light would have been extinguished....." 

-This much, the absorption of the surrounding materials, as of things falling into a fire, the human fire, is a vague hint of "cosmopolitanism" or "worldliness" that the Stoics are said to observe.  And of course, the fire of the soul is usually not a small light, but a piece of divine glory that we carry around.

This all, this using of the material, hearkens to Ryan Holliday's modern take on Stoicism that so many of the readers of the ancient texts seem to criticize, with sort of a pragmatist's snapshot of philosophy, using a mode of thought, geared toward the efficient perspective, in the sense that so many obstacles and conundrums of life are broken down and tossed onto the hearth at the "fire of the soul".  In defense of the modern pragmatic Stoicism, we need not speak of half-formed ancient notions of "transmutation" or the vaguery of atomic composition, here with the hindsight of so much research that has occurred between then and now.

And we have not seen Stoicism applied through dignity, individual rights, and equality.  We lacked that post-colonial lens, save for some clear deviations in the writings of Thoreau, and instead, we see an MBA-minded venture capitalist take on the philosophy, in the shadow of Ronald Reagan, junk bonds, and shady Saving and Loan practices.  Those underpinnings are more Ayn Rand than Thomas Jefferson.  This is something in tension with the rising collectivism of Web 2.0 "the internet of things".