Pleasure: ruminations from sequestration

From Google:

PLEASURE: a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.

HAPPY: feeling or showing pleasure or contentment.

I like the circularity of these two definitions. It seems accurate to me.

TRANQUILITY: calm.

Tranquility is something valuable for an Epicurean to strive for. However it is a tool, not a goal. Tranquility allows access to subtleties of sensation, prolepses and feelings, which can lead one to greater wisdom.

MEANING

“They say also that there are two ideas of happiness, complete happiness, such as belongs to a god, which admits of no increase, and the happiness which is concerned with the addition and subtraction of pleasures.” Sayings About the Wise Man, Bailey translation

What exactly is godlike happiness and how does a person achieve it? Could it be that "meaningful" pleasures and "general" pleasures are two types of pleasure equal to these two types of happiness in the above quote? I think that we’ve determined pretty conclusively that pleasure is pleasure. But lately I’ve been trying to dig deeper into how best to pursue pleasure as my primary goal, and I’m noticing that some pleasures fill my cup fuller than others and that these pleasures seem to involve what I see as meaning. For me, this is a sense of understanding and connection, sometimes to the “big picture.” I realized this as I was pondering why some of the things that have motivated me in the past are no longer of interest. Comparing these past pursuits to current interests, the link seemed to be that the strongest desires and pleasures came from activities that gave/give me meaning. This seems pretty obvious. It’s also obvious that each person has things which are meaningful specifically to them, so meaning is not a prescription but something to find for oneself, using the Canon, and to act on using the Canon as well.

Part of where this is coming from is my recent condensed reading of Plato’s Republic. I was thinking about how the Physics of Epicurus has evolved into the predominantly accepted version of science, while the Canon and Ethics have largely disappeared from the general culture. Why? In propagating “noble lies,” Forms and other nonsense, religions and Platonists stole meaning from reality and marginalized any reality-based philosophy. So to compete with religion and Platonism, we need to take back meaning and place it where it belongs, which is in reality and hence in Epicurean philosophy.

This emphatically does NOT imply that there is a universal meaning: that is incompatible with EP. This refers to the meanings proposed by science, by psychology, by Victor Frankl and others who realized that meaning is individual. I’m suggesting that Epicurus recognized this, and that a major reason why his philosophy thrived for so long and so widely is that it gave people a means and a context in which to find and pursue lives of meaning on their own terms.

As a proselytizing tool, "individually meaningful pleasure" might be more compelling than "pleasure."

At the point of individually choosing which desires to prioritize is where it seems helpful to distinguish between meaningful and general pleasures. Beyond that, pleasure is only measured by the fullness of the cup.

Would this be considered higher and lower pleasures? Is that valid? Does meaning usurp pleasure as the goal in this interpretation? Would pleasures of meaning be natural and necessary pleasures as opposed to vain pleasures? No, because vain pleasures/desires cause more pain than pleasure; "general" ones don't necessarily. Isn't that distinction higher and lower pleasures? But higher and lower is determined by the individual their circumstances, not as a universal.

Caring for a parent or spouse with Alzheimer's is a duty, not a pleasure. It can involve random moments of pleasure. It can also involve love and connection, which give it meaningful pleasure. Is this meaningful pleasure a higher or more godlike pleasure than the random moments of pleasure?

Speaking from experience and not from the sources, I'm finding "intensity" to be an unsatisfying description from a practical perspective, although probably a good description from a theoretical perspective.

Theoretically, pleasure as a faculty is unified. Organisms are biologically guided by attraction to pleasure and avoidance of pain; intensity of total pleasure is what is important for this faculty.

But we are thinking organisms whose thinking often interferes with the pursuit of pleasure. So on a practical level, for guidance in choices and avoidances to live a good and pleasurable life, I think more nuance is needed. We do have natural and necessary v vain pleasures for a starting point for choice and avoidance but, at least to my thinking now, that doesn't go far enough.

That's why I brought up "meaning" for discussion, but that seems problematic particularly because it can so easily be associated with universal principals.

In thinking about my past pleasures, the ones that are the most gratifying often have more than one "layer" to them. For instance studying Epicurus: there's the "layer" of enjoying reading, one of pondering, one of connection to Western history and culture, one of discussing in this forum , one of putting the ideas into practice, one of perceiving the alignment of theory and practice, etc. Also there are physical and mental pleasures. So in terms of planning and choosing pleasures, one pleasure might be very intense on just one level whereas another might be more satisfying because it stimulates several levels but perhaps with less intensity on each level. Think of scanning old family photographs and the various "levels" of pleasure involved: organizing a mess, looking at pictures, observing history, connection to family, sharing the results....

Also regarding practical "choice and avoidance" decisions, duration is a factor.

Isn't this type of practical discussion something that would have gone on in the garden?

If we're to be connoisseurs of pleasure we really need to examine the nuances of the pursuit of pleasure in addition to the theory. Maybe we could learn from each other by examining various pleasures from experience. This could give us information to examine our own pleasures as well as the theory.

Pompadour, sorry to hear of Godfrey's demise. We lost our dog last year and it's tough to lose someone who loves and depends on you.

I'm not organized enough to keep a log or diary of my pleasures (or of anything, for that matter). Like many things, that might be useful or pleasurable depending on your personality or specific circumstances. Some people keep a gratitude journal (I've tried ) and that could be a good model for such an endeavor. Since gratitude is closely related to pleasure, the two might be combined into one log or journal. I could also see where this could be useful on a short term basis: to get through a difficult time, or to help navigate a transition.

Personally, the best way that I've found to reflect on and analyze pleasure is to assume a comfortable supine position in a quiet place, give my thoughts a direction, and watch where they go. But I'm sure that that's not effective for everybody! In terms of putting my thoughts to paper (analog or digital) I tend from time to time to make checklists of general or specific pleasures to pursue. Over time these help me to refine my thinking about ways to use my feelings for guidance.

Cassius when you mentioned diagrams, that got me thinking about intensity in terms of depth and breadth. Depth would correspond to adding "layers" such as in the caregiver example above. Maybe breadth could represent intensity; I'm not so sure about that one. Also intensity could be represented by various colors. Depth and breadth seem to relate to the full cup analogy more so than color....