Modern Neuroscience And The Katastematic / Kinetic Debate

I would say that “atoms” (subatomic particles, energy, space, etc. – the basic physics of the universe and the combinations that define our world: emerging molecules, neuro-chemical processes, etc.) are the fundamental facts of the case. Such facts are neither good nor bad – they just are.

Such things as consciousness, pathe, the ability to choose, etc. are emergent phenomena from those fundamental facts that are facets of what it means to be a human being.

Talk of “the good” is ethical discourse (which is not the same as Stoical/Kantian/Christian moralistic discourse). And so, the “highest good” remains eudaimonia – which, from an Epicurean perspective, is defined by hedone/aponia/ataraxia.

++++++++++

I realize there are a number of etcs. in this post: I am not a scientist. ... etc. ...

Don I've added those articles to my reading list as well

In the meantime, here's my latest line of thinking. It's rather stream-of-consciousness, but at least it's a starting point. I've come to think of the natural and unnecessary (extravagant... how about "mahvelous"?) desires as the "sweet spot", the place where we do most our personal ethical work. We try to set up our lives so that the natural and necessary ones are for the most part taken care of (stable?). We root out our toxic desires. This leaves us in what we might loosely call a katastematic state with regard to both the natural/necessary and toxic desires.

The reason that I bring this up is to suggest that katastematic pleasures may be the "sweet spot" for working with our pleasures. (As I said, I'm figuring this out as I write...) Take hunger as an example:

- I'm hungry (a state of pain)

- I eat (a kinetic pleasure leading to a change of state).

- I'm nourished (a state of pleasure)

How do I add to my state of pleasure regarding hunger? Eating nourishing food, and eating food that doesn't spike my blood sugar are two ways: they each increase the duration of my state of nourishment. If I'm well nourished, then every now and then I can enjoy an extravagant meal without causing much disruption to my state of nourishment. But every few hours I'll be hungry again. That gives me regular opportunities to make choices and avoidances that will increase my overall pleasure.

Suppose I'm terrified of dying and going to hell.

- I'm terrified (a state of pain)

- I study Epicurus (a kinetic pleasure leading to a change of state)

- I'm no longer terrified (a state of pleasure)

This pleasurable state my last the rest of my life, or I may need to periodically study and refresh my understanding of why I shouldn't be terrified.

Both of the above states of pleasure are stable, but their duration varies. If we treat this state as a "sweet spot" to work with, we would search out various fears and desires that we experience. Then we would determine how best to work with each one so as to spend the greatest amount of time in a stable state of pleasure regarding each particular fear or desire. Further, we might begin with the ones that cause us the most distress. We would try to make wise choices regarding acting on each fear or desire, so that we maximize the resulting state of pleasure. Thought of in this way, katastematic pleasures serve as the major guide to well-being. Kinetic pleasures are then both a means to that end and a way to add variety to our pleasures, depending on the circumstances in which they're chosen. It seems to me that this presents kinetic and katastematic pleasures as functional parts of a unified system for maximizing pleasure, which after all is what Epicurus was attempting to create. This is unlike the Cyrenaic system, which only accepts kinetic pleasures and therefore lacks the sophistication that Epicurus brought to living a life of well-being.

OK now things may be getting clearer but more confusing at the same time....

Now I understand where the table in post #30 comes from; it sometimes takes a few repetitions for an idea to sink in. So, as I interpret this, all Epicurus is saying is that kinetic pleasure (which he defines as joy, delight, merriment: totally counterintuitive to me) is more intense than katastematic pleasure. And perhaps more observable because you're smiling and laughing. That seems to me to be rather banal, not very useful, and I think different from most of the academic interpretations. Not that the academic interpretations agree on much. But I readily admit that I may have got lost in the weeds and am totally missing the point.

I'm curious how this relates to PD09:

If every pleasure were condensed in <location> and duration and distributed all over the structure or the dominant parts of our nature, pleasures would never differ from one another. Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)

I never considered that this could be referring to kinetic and katastematic pleasures. If so, is it saying that worrying about the difference between kinetic and katastematic pleasures is rather banal and not very useful? I've got to let this percolate Maybe for a couple of weeks

Quote from Don

the katastematic pleasure is the preferred background condition of being. Kinetic pleasure is the moment by moment awareness of individual pleasures. Katastematic pleasure is the calm ocean, kinetic pleasures are the waves.

Don This metaphor of yours is pretty similar in essence to how I understand katastemic pleasure. My understanding is probably not even close to what Epicurus had in mind, but I kind of like it. Especially, because I came up with my metaphor thanks to one of my favourite dreams from the past. Anyway, here it is (the metaphor for katastemic pleasure, not the dream).

I like to imagine myself as a lonely child in a deep forest for the first time. Inexperienced, ignorant and scared of my present surroundings. The forest is full of ghosts, screams and shadows. Everything seems hostile to me. Everything wants to hurt me. So I crouch up trembling next to the closest tree, praying for my life. And it seems to work. I'm still alive. And I eventually stop praying and I'm still alive. So I get up and get the courage to open my eyes and look around. I forgot for a moment that I'm scared and I start to investigate my surroundings. Enough time passes and I know now that the ghosts and shadows are caused by the sun and leaves. They are quite beautiful, in fact. Screams don't come from human flesh hungry beasts but animals living peacefully in the forest. I know the forest. I understand it. And one day when I'm comfortable and confident enough I close my eyes, spread my arms, smile and inhale in awe my beautiful forest. And from now on nothing is going to take that feeling of connection, harmony, inner peace and joy from me until I die. I know how to sustain that feeling because I know and understand enough.

This is how I imagine katastemic pleasure and the ideal progress in life. It's quite close to ataraxia, I guess. As you said Don, katastemic pleasure is ever present background and it's there for grabs if one puts enough effort to understand how to get it. Kinetic pleasures are all the little things in between. In my metaphor, these are trees, leaves, sun and animals. They are temporary excitations that bring variety to life. And maybe I'm wrong imagining it this way but even then, it's a pleasant thought.

Just finished reading this article from post #48: https://cup.columbia.edu/wp-content/upl…-Appendix-6.pdf

Quote from Don

the katastematic pleasure is the preferred background condition of being. Kinetic pleasure is the moment by moment awareness of individual pleasures. Katastematic pleasure is the calm ocean, kinetic pleasures are the waves.

This (current ) interpretation seems to be the author's conclusion as well and makes a lot of sense to me. In the article she gives the idea some context wrt Plato, Aristotle and Cicero which is helpful. Plus, this interpretation has the virtue of simplicity. It seems that it may have been Cicero who made such a complex and confusing issue of it. Imagine that!

This article addresses what has really been bugging me: the precise meanings of khara and euphrosyne in Fragment 2 from Epicurus. I just can't wrap my head around these terms in the context of this discussion, and they seem to be the source of what I find "off" in the chart in post #30. (BTW, apologies for "banal" and "useless"; I didn't mean to sound so harsh.)

https://cup.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Philosophies-of-Happiness-Appendix-8.pdf

I'm not sure that it provides a satisfying answer. But there is this:

[footnote] xi However, we should allow also for another possibility. Epicurus is not a systematic philosopher in the same way as Aristotle. We have seen that in his use of the term pathos he slides from a generic sense to a more restricted, technical sense. Likewise, although he may say that animals experience hedonê, while joy is a rational emotion (and thus imply that pleasure is a function of the non-rational soul), he may use the terms somewhat interchangeably. Thus he may not always parse out the precise distinction between pleasure and joy; he may see the katastematic condition as a fluid conjunction of pleasant experiences of both the rational and non-rational dimensions of the soul.

I've been meaning to address this from another angle but haven't made much progress. So, rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I'm just going to put some thoughts down in a rather stream of consciousness fashion.

It begins with thinking about the practical implications of katastematic and kinetic pleasures. Why separate them, in addition to a philosophical argument? What use can we make of this distinction in terms of living our most pleasant lives?

The "fancy pleasures" theory would have one believe that katastematic pleasure is something special. Maybe a particular absence of a particular pain. If I reject that idea, where does that leave me? My answer is the same as it always is: the guides to living are pleasure and pain. Pain includes fears and desires, and Epicurus developed the three categories of desires. You might say that these are a more detailed way of understanding the guidance that we get from pain. Running with that for a moment, why would there not be a similarly more detailed way of understanding the guidance we get from pleasure? And since choosing/avoiding pleasure and avoiding/choosing pain are, to some degree, ways of achieving the same result, wouldn't it be logical to have categories of pleasure analogous to those of desires? If this is so, then I'm next suggesting that katastematic pleasures come from natural and necessary desires and that kinetic pleasures come from natural and unnecessary ddesires . OK, but how is this useful?

Pondering this leads me to thinking about the 80/20 principle: 80% (give or take) of a particular set of results tend to come from 20% (give or take) of a particular set of inputs. Applying this to pursuing pleasure, I'm suggesting that katastematic pleasures and natural/necessary desires are simply the 20% of things that an individual can choose to pursue, based on their individual circumstances, that will result in them achieving 80% of their pleasure. For instance, putting together and following a well-researched financial plan is something that will potentially result in a lifetime of pleasure while taking a relatively small amount of effort. Or, gazing at the stars each night can, bit by bit, result in a baseline of pleasure and of belonging to the material universe. What do these have in common? They are both effective ways of achieving a baseline of pleasure. Kinetic pleasure would, at least in this train of thought, be the 20% (+/-) of pleasure achieved by 80% (+/-) of actions.

This is unorthodox but, with further development, might provide a useful alternative to the primrose path of Ciceronian obfuscation that we now have. I hope it makes a certain amount of sense.... Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts: let 'er rip!

Here are some texts that may reinforce my post to some degree....

Diogenes of Oenoanda fragment 34:

• Let us now investigate how life is to be made pleasant for us both in states and in actions.
• Let us first discuss states, keeping an eye on the point that, when the emotions which disturb the soul are removed, those which produce pleasure enter into it to take their place.
• Well, what are the disturbing emotions? They are fears -- of the gods, of death, and of pains --and, besides these, desires that outrun the limits fixed by nature. These are the roots of all evils, and, unless we cut them off, a multitude of evils will grow upon us.

PDs:

• PD15 Natural wealth is both limited and easy to acquire, but the riches incited by groundless opinion have no end. St-Andre
• PD21 One who perceives the limits of life knows how easy it is to expel the pain produced by a lack of something and to make one's entire life complete; so that there is no need for the things that are achieved through struggle. St-Andre
• PD26 The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm. St-Andre
• PD30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind. St.-Andre

You make some good points Don ... I'm definitely still percolating as well!

The 80/20 part needs a lot more explanation and clarification and is probably best left out for now. It also is a modern idea and is just confusing things at this point. (Having said that, the 80/20 Principle by Richard Koch is an excellent book on the subject, and one theme of the book is maximizing happiness.)

Quote from Don

the one thing that strikes me as askew is comparing desires with pleasure. Desires to me are one thing; pleasure and pain are another thing. Desires imply cognition and rational decision-making, whereas pleasure and pain are sensations which we can't decide not to feel.

Excellent point! I'm basically seeing the pursuit of pleasure and analysis of desires as two mental models to help achieve the goal of pleasure. In order to maximize our pleasure, we can focus on either or both. For the moment let's ignore the categories to get to the "higher level" thoughts. Thinking out loud, the moment that we "pursue" a pleasure we have created a desire that we are attempting to satisfy. By experiencing the pleasure, we have satisfied the desire. So any choice or avoidance is, I think, subject to this process as you rightly describe.

OK, so, working with choices and avoidances, let's now look at categories. I guess what I'm trying to get to is using PDs 15, 21, 26 and 30 as a boardwalk to the ocean of katastematic pleasure, and in so doing to demystify katastematic pleasure and make it a practical idea. The way that I'm trying to do this is by thinking in terms of efficiency: thinking through the things in our lives that give us the most lasting pleasure and/or the most nagging pain, and determining the most effective ways to address these things so as to maximize our pleasure. By no means would this mean eliminating the "icing on the cake" (or the cake), but it's a way to organize our time to provide the greatest pleasure, whatever that may be for each of us. It's also a way to dig into some of these issues like pleasure v desire, katastematic v kinetic, intensity and duration of pleasure....

Quote from Don

you're proposing that the bulk of our "baseline" pleasure is going to come from meeting our "natural and necessary" desires, but the kinetic pleasure is ...to make up a new metaphor... the icing that really makes the cake delicious?

Yes, but I'm reading natural and necessary as defined as "those that bring pain when unfulfilled and that don't take undue effort to fulfill." There is no pre-determined list of these things, they are only things described by this definition. And, to me, this definition describes desires that, when fulfilled, give us "a lot of bang for our buck", that bang for our buck being katastematic pleasure. So Epicurus isn't laying down some mystical dogma, he's describing the most efficient way to maximize our pleasure. Very practical and medicinal.

Katastematic pleasures then are those that result from specific (to each individual) natural and necessary desires as just defined. Referring to the examples in post #57 above, two of these could be (for a particular individual, and possibly changing over time) the pleasure of financial stability, and the pleasure of awe combined with a sense of belonging in the material universe.