Some after-thoughts perculating (post-podcast):
"Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us."
"For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation."...
"...so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist."
Believe that there is no need to be concerned about what exists after death,
because after death there is no consciousness and no sensation.
As I think some more, I still am becoming enamored of the idea that a pleasurable life's foundation is a mind and body free from trouble, pain, and anxiety. Ataraxia and aponia. That's where it starts! That's the foundation upon we can build experiences of pleasure arising from natural desires, both necessary and unnecessary. Without that foundation, we are anxious that we won't be able to fulfill desires we want to choose; we're troubled that our desire won't completely fulfill our expectations; we fear the pleasure coming from our chosen desire won't last long enough. The fears, anxieties, and troubles can spiral out of control. If we have a sound mind in a healthy body, we can pluck the desires we find appealing with no mental anguish, large or small. If your mind is already at peace, sink your teeth into the ripe peach, experience the juice dripping down chin, close your eyes and taste the sensuous sweetness on your tongue. Experience the pleasure undimmed by some mental baggage because you're already at the limit of pleasure and the peach is varying that feeling.
I think that ataraxia and aponia are important, however I view them differently -- because modern life is really at odds with being "pain free or untroubled".
We certainly wouldn't want to wait to be completely untroubled in order to enjoy life. In a given day we might have moments of feeling untroubled, but an active modern life will bring us into "stressful" moments. Also things can be a mix of pleasure and stress -- for example going to a coffeehouse can sometimes be too noisy (or unpleasing music is playing), but as long as there is over-all more pleasure than stress we will choose this activity. Also over time what might originally feel stressful can be adapted to.
Also, it came to me early this morning, that life requires a certain amount of "striving" or work. Most people until they are retired work at a job to make money for the purpose of survival (there are stay-at-home moms which is a big job in itself). Striving brings with it a certain amount of stress, but hopefully we can find ways to adapt which isn't too stressful (or jobs which aren't too stressful). Then beyond this for people who are retired, life still needs some form of striving, or else the will to live diminishes. And the striving could be any type of interest or goal (big or small) which requires some effort but also feels engaging and important in some way. And striving will always bring with it a small amount of mental stress. I would say that it is very important to make sure the level of stress does not become overwhelming.
So then for me "ataraxia and aponia" are focused toward creating more ease and comfort while still engaging in life -- and the amount of ease and comfort needed can vary from person to person, or from week to week.
we're troubled that our desire won't completely fulfill our expectations
This is where I believe that certain "natural goods" are important -- such as the need for friendship/companionship (and all the enjoyments that come with it) which can make life situations feel better or less stressful or less disappointing.
I'm trying to think of ways to get away from the vessel metaphor.
Also I am wondering about getting entirely away from metaphors and just thinking about real life. When I first started studying Epicureanism and bringing some of the ideas into my life (back when I was living on the west coast and during all the earlier Covid uncertainties). I was setting an intention to bring in more enjoyment into my life -- and I would wake up in the morning and ask myself "How can I bring more pleasure into my life?" And it was often very simple things. I think it will also matter how one thinks of pleasure -- is it fun? is it sweetness? is it love? is it satisfaction? is it comfort? is it good health? is it a little food treat? or smelling roses or adding cinnamon to breakfast? (We might want to limit certain food treats/sweets to once a week so that they feel more special). And everyone will come up with different desires. And it is so much easier to seek out things by using a gut-level sense of what is needed for a happy life.
Mythology --The Three Graces --- daughters of Zeus and Eurynome:
"It is traditional to offer them the first draught of wine at a gathering to invoke their blessing and aid.”
The Three Graces are (most consistently named), from youngest to oldest, Aglaia, Euphrosyne, and Thalia (2, 12). Roman mythology depicts these Goddesses as The Graces (The Gratiae), having been previously referred to as the Charities (Kharites) in Greek mythology. In the Roman custom, in addition to their other benefits, The Gratiae signify gratitude (as in gratia), as well as benevolence (9), and according to Seneca, each of the three Goddesses is linked in a chain to causality, which pertains to the divine manifestation of Grace, and as related to their differing ages (15).
- Aglaia – the eldest, (literal: splendor, beautiful, bright) (4), beauty, nature, amusement; sometimes wife of Hephaestus (14), divine artistry; “The Grace symbolizing beauty (9).”
- Euphrosyne – (literal; mirth, merriment, cheerful, or a good mind) (5), good cheer, joy, and being well. “The Grace incarnate of delight (9).”
- Thalia – (literal; luxuriant, blooming) (6), plentiful, rich, festivity. “The Grace of blossoming (9).”
— 365 Goddess
The Graces vs The Muses vs. The Fates
The Graces are most principle in relationship to Venus (15) appearing as handmaidens within her extended entourage, and spending much time at the Goddess's sanctuary at Cypress. It was in this temple of refuge where Venus was maintained in health and comfort, regularly bathed in the divinely anointed oils of The Gratiae, and where for example, the Goddess was presented with a magnificent immortal robe (10). Eros and The Muses (8) were frequent companions of The Graces as well, and they all loved to spend time together, dancing around in a circle to the music of Apollo (8). Another of their colleagues, the Goddess Dike (one of The Hours), often attended The Graces, and particularly in matters of peace and justice (1).
The individual identities of the nine Muses are often intermingled with the three Graces as the two groups sometimes overlap in benefit. However, The Graces and The Muses dwell from slightly different origins. All of the Goddesses share a parent Zeus, though, in some Roman lore, The Graces are instead, fathered by Bacchus. Eurynome an Oceanid - daughter of Oceanus (God of the Sea) and Tethys (fresh water), (an incestuous Titanian brother/sister marital couple), is their mother (14).
PD19 - "Infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time, if one measures by reason the limits of pleasure."
Another twist:
If we are to strive to live like the gods who are immortal, we who are mortal can live equally well because there is no difference in our experience of pleasure vs the god's experience of pleasure -- because "pleasure" functions the same way regardless of time.
Was the word used in this PD "hedone" or "eudaimonia" ?
But since Epicurus used the word pleasure, is he using the word because it is the goal that he is concerned with or is he making a different point than what I'm understanding?
This is a good question, and I think it also depends on how we interpret the word "pleasure".
Infinite time contains no greater quantity of dark chocolate eaten than finite time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of quantity of dark chocolate eaten.
Now you're talking! 
This last Wednesday Zoom (on August 17th) we were still talking about PD19 - and I remember trying out this "word game":
Infinite time contains no greater satisfaction than finite time, if one measures, by reason, the limits of satisfaction.
This shows how vibrantly Greek statues were originally painted:
Ancient Greek and Roman sculpture was once colorful, vibrantly painted and richly adorned with detailed ornamentation. Chroma: Ancient Sculpture in Color reveals the colorful backstory of polychromy—meaning “many colors,” in Greek—and presents new discoveries of surviving ancient color on artworks in The Met’s world-class collection. Exploring the practices and materials used in ancient polychromy, the exhibition highlights cutting-edge scientific methods used to identify ancient color and examines how color helped convey meaning in antiquity, and how ancient polychromy has been viewed and understood in later periods.
Raphael Woolf - "What Kind of Hedonist was Epicurus?"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4182759
David B. Hershenov - "A More Palatable Epicureanism"
In the introduction the author asserts:
"However, Epicureanism does differ in one crucial respect to all forms of modern hedonism, in that it treats pleasure as strictly negative or privative: pleasure is simply the absence or removal of pain. Here, my reading departs from that of Hershenov and Woolf, both of whom try to find a place in Epicureanism for a positive conception of pleasure..."
So we need to track down Hershenov and Woolf's writings -- since we here on the forum have a positive conception of pleasure.
It's almost like the issue is whether the glass is half full or half empty - is the real focus of Epicurean philosophy Pleasure - or Pain?
I don't think it is satisfactory even to say both.
I think it is both pleasure and pain, because "choices and avoidances" are very important.
According to the Epicurean account of desire, achieving one’s heart’s desire is no better than not having one."
This guy can really turn a phrase. He does a great job highlighting the issues!
These interesting excerpts you've posted Cassius (I haven't read the article yet).
What came to my mind after reading this particular one, was a concept from Hinduism - "Divine Lila (Leela)" - which translates as "Divine Play" and in a very simplified sense could be thought of just as in Shakepeare's quote:
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players"
Ultimately there could be a kernal of truth in "achieving one's heart's desire is no better than not having one" -- yet thinking this way about desire makes life not worth living, and misses the point of making meaning out of life and the human condition ---- The show must go on! We must play the play and engage in life fully. And Epicurus says to make choices wisely -- and my own interpretation is to make choices which lead to a "sweet life" filled with joys of the heart.
This article just proves the importance of needing to explain that the Epicurean aim is to live joyfully. And also the need to define what is a joyful life and how to create one.
We can at one and the same time understand that (1) living in a cave on bread and water may in fact be appropriate under certain circumstances but also (2) that such circumstances and manner of living is not the norm nor should it be accepted as a norm.
This may be outside the orgininal subject matter of this thread, however I feel the need to examine more closely this phrase: "living in a cave on bread and water". I know it represents "asceticism", and that an Epicurean would not choose to live an ascetic lifestyle. Yet what about others who are not yet Epicurean or who are new to Epicureanism -- what would this actually look like? What are the ways in which people try to retreat from civilization?
1) Moving to a remote mountain cabin (or to the desert).
2) Someone who is retired and lives alone choosing to live so frugally that they only leave the house for occassional grocery shopping.
3) Seeking an ascetic spiritual life - moving into a Catholic or Buddhist monastery.
Why would someone choose this for themselves? (I doubt anyone would choose an ascetic lifestyle if they could easily live normally).
1) Lack of finances
2) Social anxiety disorder
3) Spiritual retreat for religious reasons or self-reflection (probably caused by an "existential crisis")
Could there be aspects of Epicureanism which could help people who are considering living as an "ascetic", due to feelings of anxiety, etc? Is it possible that Epicurus had teachings on psychological remedies, and those writings were lost? From Book 10 of Diogenes Laertius we know that he wrote an entire book "Of Choice and Avoidance" (and also other books).
The first two-thirds of this chapter (link in the above post) is very good, and highly recommend it -- it brings forward the idea that food, the table, and social eating was of primary importance in Epicureanism. Some excerpts:
Plutarch would describe the Garden as sharing "common meals" or trapezai, literally, "tables" (Clay 2009, 23). A typical meal of this time and place might open with tasty small dishes, resembling modern mezedes (appetizers). A main course combined sitos (the staple of wheat bread, barley mash, or a pulse) with opson (the relish of fish, meat, vegetable, cheese, or just olive oil). Oinos (wine) was the universal drink, famously taken after the food in a drinking party or symposium.
But our interest is not particularly the food so much as its central importance...
...Radically, Epicurean meals were the deliberate reason and means for philosophizing...
...With the stomach foundational, Epicurus gave integrity to the individual. We shall keep finding, nonetheless, that the individual requirement to eat, and to labor to achieve that, necessitaties conviviality...
...Epicurus was irrepressibly social, advising: "You must reflect carefully beforehand with whom you are to eat and drink, rather than what you are to eat and drink." He went on: "For a dinner of meats without the company of a friend is like the life of a lion or a wolf" (Bailey 1926, 101)
Here is an interesting read I just stumbled upon -- chapter four in a book called "Meals Matter: A Radical Economics Through Gastronomy" by Michael Symons. With this link it appears one can also scroll back to the start of the chapter. The author has an interesting way of interweaving the philosophy. (I haven't yet read all of the chapter, but wanted to share it right away).
I just posted a new thread with links to details on Greek gods/goddess, and also to start exploring archetypes:
( Godfrey you mentioned you have an article on Jungian archetypes)
"For verily there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest" (Letter of Menoeceus: Hicks translation).
In a recent podcast the Epicurean understanding of gods was discussed.
And further questions came up for me, including the how to imagine why it might be that Epicureans held the gods to be important.
From Wikipedia "Ancient Greek Religion" "Ancient Greek theology was polytheistic, based on the assumption that there were many gods and goddesses, as well as a range of lesser supernatural beings of various types. There was a hierarchy of deities, with Zeus, the king of the gods, having a level of control over all the others, although he was not almighty."
Here is a website listing and describing the Greek gods (Olympian Gods, Titan Gods, Primordial Gods, Sea Gods, Underworld, etc.) https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/greek-gods.html
1) There was a common understanding of gods in ancient and hellenistic Greece
2) Epicureans saw the gods differently than what was commonly held - as not concerned or involved in the lives of humans, and as not something to fear.
It came to me that maybe the work of Jung or Campbell could help make sense of things -- specifically the idea of "archetypes". I've tried to find an online article which might explain the Jungian understanding of Greek gods, but haven't found one. (Joseph Campbell took the work of Jung further, and somewhere within his four volume book "The Masks of God" it might have something on Greek mythology - but will need to see if I can find it at the library.)
So to explain archetypes -- I pulled out my book by Carl Jung "Man and his Symbols" and on page 67 on The archetype in dream symbolism -- there is not a clear direct explanation so I will attempt to synthesize and explain:
---The mind (psyche) still has "archaic remnants" left behind from our earlier time of development in archaic man whose psyche was still close to that of the animal. These "archaic remnants" are what Jung calls "archetypes" or "primordial images" and these archetypes come to us through dreams.
----"The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif---representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern."
----"They are, indeed, an instinctive trend, as marked as the impulse of birds to build nests, or ants to form organized colonies."
And now to make sense of the Greek gods -- that these were reoccuring archetypal images that came through dreams.
More on an idealist Epicurean view of the gods, by Sedley:
