Can We Experience Pleasure in One Part of Our Experience and Pain In Another Part of our Experience At the Same Time?

A great thread Cassius, I've actually been grappling with the concept over the past week and a half, and was meaning to make a thread when I felt confident enough to present it

Quote from Cassius

I think it is correct Epicurean thought to point out that pleasure and pain are separate feelings and do not blend together.

This is specifically what I've been thinking about, and the concept its been has been whether or not pain and pleasure aren't on the black and white axis that almost everybody treats it as such, but rather a polarity where both can attach themselves to a center, what we define as experience. Thus, this leads to the possibility of feeling pain and pleasure simultaneously, hence the multiple interpretations of how we actually achieve pleasure, since it can either be through the removal or fulfillment of desire with that pleasure actually achieved through indulgence (both minimalist or "maximalist" hedonism combined with the calculus, which combines the latter for the calculus removes the pain ie VS 21), or pleasure achieved through the removal of pain and the ataraxia that follows (which I find it can be a slippery slope to asceticism, personally).

We have PD 3 and 4 and the two, at least for me seem to contradict, yet can be mended by VS 37.

PD 3: "The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once."

PD 4: "Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh."

VS 37: "Nature is weak toward evil, not toward good: because it is saved by pleasures, but destroyed by pains."

Now, PD 8 tells us that no pleasure is bad in itself but can lead to greater pain than the initial pleasure. But what about if the current pleasure continues when that new pain arises? A person at a party in the company of friends, could be suffering from mild alcohol poisoning (pain) yet be having the time of their life (pleasure) in the form of the music, atmosphere, the drink itself, or any other number of factors that culminate in a higher sense of pleasure than the pain of their liver and intoxication. The key here isn't determining the measurement of how much pleasure these other factors add up to, or how bad the pain from the intoxication is, its the quantity, as what is more pleasurable is superseding the current pain they are experiencing.

There are of course, a ton of other "situations" both hypothetical and completely grounded in reality, instead of a party-goer, we can look at a mountain climber admiring in awe, the summit they had just climbed and the view afterwards despite their sore feet and immense hunger/thirst. While I disagree that pain and pleasure can blend into a new feeling, we cannot deny that there are many instances in which pain and pleasure are both experienced simultaneously, and its up to us and the quantity, or magnitude of pain/pleasure to determine what we currently experience.

As I mentioned at the start of this comment, my thinking on this hasn't been polished enough, but upon seeing this thread I could not help but share my thoughts. I'd love to hear some feedback on this thread, of what Mike, Cassius, and I have said.

Cassius Thanks for taking time to dig deeply on my post. Here is my response to your concerns:

“Mental pleasure exists only when you have peace of mind.”

Your question in mind is the “only” part of my statement. More or less, you have already answered it by saying “I think it is correct Epicurean thought to point out that pleasure and pain are separate feelings and do not blend together.”

To provide you with the basis of my statement, here is a portion of what Torquatus presented in the Book 1 part 11 paragraph 38 of Cicero’s On Ends: “Epicurus consequently maintained that there is no such thing as a neutral state of feeling intermediate between pleasure and pain; for the state supposed by some thinkers to be neutral, being characterized as it is by entire absence of pain, is itself, he held, a pleasure, and, what is more, a pleasure of the highest order.”

So there is only pleasure when there is no pain. Although I know it is also true when you said “I would think it is possible to experience some feelings of mental pleasure while also having a concern that there are worries that need to be addressed,” this could happen alternatively at a time.

However, I still can’t imagine if it happens at the same time because as far as I know pleasure is a product or result of the removal of pain and not two entities that can take place at one particular moment or state. Here is my basis where I also got from the same book in the paragraph 37: “...the complete removal of pain has correctly been termed a pleasure. For example, when hunger and thirst are banished by food and drink, the mere fact of getting rid of uneasiness brings a resultant pleasure in its train. So generally, the removal of pain causes pleasure to take its place.”

With regard to peace of mind, I understand it to be the absence of disturbance. Here I quote from number 79 of the Vatican Sayings: “He who has peace of mind disturbs neither himself nor another.”

And as far as I know, disturbance, annoyance, and uneasiness are not different from one another. The removal of any of them will result in peace of mind, hence pleasure (Of course it is mental pleasure since peace of mind is a mental state). Still in paragraph 37 of Cicero's On Ends, Torquatus said “When we are released from pain, the mere sensation of complete emancipation and relief from uneasiness is in itself a source of gratification. But everything that causes gratification is a pleasure (just as everything that causes annoyance is a pain).

About my statement “...you are still wanting only when you have no limit to what you want.”

What I am talking about here is that unlimited desire will not satisfy us. I based such statement from number 81 of the Vatican Sayings: “The soul neither rids itself of confusion nor gains a joy worthy of the name through the possession of supreme wealth, nor by the honor and admiration bestowed by crowds, nor through any of the other things sought by unlimited desire.”

I have just mentioned that unlimited desire will not satisfy us because this is what I understand from number 68 of the Vatican Sayings: “Nothing is ever enough for someone who regards enough as insufficient.”

About the limiting part, I am referring to the elimination of false idea of endless satisfaction through endless desire and wants. I understand it to be correct based on number 59 of the Vatican Sayings: “What cannot be satisfied is not a man’s belly, as men think, but rather his false idea about the unending filling of his belly.”

Nevertheless, I do not claim to be absolutely correct or accurate. I just rely so far on some pieces of the original works of Epicurus. You recommended that I read Norman DeWitts’ book which you are probably using as an appropriate gauge to measure whether or not a particular comment on Epicurus is correct. This will make me further understand your observation and comments. But so far, this is what I understand based on the original works. I am starting to read DeWitt though.

Lastly, you mentioned “So I am thinking that some of the points could probably be tightened up to be more accurate to the Epicurean viewpoint (which I am presuming is your goal there).”

Yes. That is my goal. That is the reason why I strive to be as close as possible to what has been originally said by Epicurus himself. The problem is…it is also my goal to bring Epicurean philosophy to lay audience, and this effort will probably dilute the exactness of Epicurus’ thought into ordinary words which may become quite general, vague, and shallow. It is a dilemma that I have to face at the expense of accuracy.

We can also say that the pleasure in the eyes while pain on the toe are happening at the same time, but the pleasure in the eyes can't be pain at the same time. My pleasure in my mouth can be pain in my stomach, but the pain in my stomach can't have any pleasure at the same time.

My point is I can have pleasure while eating and at the same time experiencing a crumbling stomach due to the fact that I am eating something delicious but harmful to my, let's say, stomach ulcer. However, it seems impossible that my stomach pain can become painless at the same time. Otherwise, it is no pain at all.

Quote from Cassius

Maybe the issue is whether for purposes of discussing pain and pleasure (applying computer analogies) human consciousness is single-threaded or multi-threaded (?)

Computer algorithms are without a question multi-threaded. Human consciousness on the other hand is single-threaded. It is like our eyes which can only see whatever is before them. I guess there is a much more compelling thread to discuss, and that is the difference between pleasure and happiness. I guess they are two different things others think of Epicureans to speak of alternately. We can ask "Why should we pursue happiness?", but Torquatus expressed that there is no any other reason to ask why we should pursue pleasure because it is what nature simply necessitates.

This brings to mind studies on multi-tasking. I've not read the studies, but summaries I've seen in articles from time to time generally state that we can only focus on one task at a time. Therefore "multi-tasking" is actually rapidly shifting attention back and forth from one task to another.

Similarly, a perception would include only pleasure or pain but as one's perceptions shift, so does one's experience of pleasure or pain. For instance, right now I've got the flu and generally feel pain. If I get engrossed in a good book I feel pleasure even though the pain of sickness is still there, I'm just not perceiving it.

Which brings also to mind the much more extreme example of Epicurus on his deathbed, where he was enjoying pleasurable memories even while dying a painful death.

Cassius Our sensation such as our eyes must not be discriminated from our consciousness. Here is the evidence I can use so far based on number 24 of the Principal Doctrines: "If you reject absolutely any single sensation without stopping to discriminate with respect to that which awaits confirmation between matter of opinion and that which is already present, whether in sensation or in feelings or in any immediate perception of the mind, you will throw into confusion even the rest of your sensations by your groundless belief and so you will be rejecting the standard of truth altogether. If in your ideas based upon opinion you hastily affirm as true all that awaits confirmation as well as that which does not, you will not escape error, as you will be maintaining complete ambiguity whenever it is a case of judging between right and wrong opinion."

Cassius "Judging between right and wrong" is a clear indication of a single-threaded consciousness unlike computer algorithms which can make a million bits of judgment at the same time without singling out one problem at a time.

When two people are dictating to us two different stories at the same time, there is no way we can memorize all that has been said and have two sets of judgment right away at the same as well.

Quote from Cassius

When you are sick Godfrey are you actually completely oblivious to how bad you feel when you read?

Excellent question!

I just tried an experiment: I went outside and stood in the sun and watched my perceptions. I experienced the sensation of the sun's heat and the sensation of my sore throat simultaneously. In terms of the feelings of pleasure or pain, I experienced pleasure from the sun's heat, but only the sensation of the sore throat.

Another experiment: I've got a very stiff neck, which is more painful than my sore throat. I looked at a picture that brings me pleasure, then while continuing to look at the picture I turned my body into a very uncomfortable position for my neck. I still felt pleasure from looking at the picture, while I felt the sensation of a stiff neck. Continuing to move, I felt pain in my neck and just the sensation of the picture, without the pleasure.

Regarding reading, when I'm totally focused on reading I don't notice any pain, but often I'm in kind of a spacey midway point where I'm experiencing neither pleasure or pain.

What this suggests to me is that there's a subtle difference (which I can't put my finger on now in my spacey midway point) between sensations and feelings. Pleasure and pain are a response to sensations (and to anticipations and to thought) and it's possible to experience a sensation without experiencing noticeable pleasure or pain. If sensations are relatively mild, then feelings are only noticeable by the attention that we give to them. This can be misconstrued as a "neutral state".

Unfortunately I'm in a NyQuil haze so I'm not sure if I'm making any sense