Quote from DonEpicurus is on record for including both kinetic and katastematic pleasures within his definition of "pleasure." I have come to understand kinetic pleasures as those arising from factors and circumstances outside of ourselves; katastematic pleasures are those arising from within ourselves (such as tranquility, pleasurable memories, etc.). While Epicurus conveys (along with Metrodorus and Philodemus) that we can be more confident in katastematic pleasures, he clearly says that we should continue to "delight" in kinetic pleasures when they are available. It is the exclusivity of "getting stuck in" only seeing kinetic pleasures as pleasure that Epicurus is objecting to here with τὰς ἐν ἀπολαύσει κειμένας.
Don, just wanted to add in my thoughts here...I think I understand kinetic (moving, rising and falling) and katastematic (static, still, or smooth) in a slightly different manner. I am coming to this with an intuitive approach: both of these labels are describing the feeling nature inside the body-mind. So the experience of eating something with a high quantity of sugar or honey will always be kinetic, but if you only use a very small amount of sugar then it may be not create the same kinetic experience as compared to something with more sugar. Another example: eating whole grain/whole wheat bread with cheese when hungry could lead to more of a katastematic experience compared to eating a big bowl of ice cream which would cause a quick sugar spike and then a quick fall back down in glucose levels as insulin metabolizes the sugar (and thereby leaving you hungry again within a short period of time). So what I am thinking is that the "feeling-tone" and "excitement level" which arises while we partake of various pleasures AND it is up to each person to determine what feels best, such as if it is a dark and raining day then seeking some kinetic pleasures can help a sleepy person to wake up. Other people who feel anxious may need to turn toward katastematic pleasures.