Epicurean versus deceptive (“modern”) Stoic decision making

Quote from Cassius

If you're NOT careful, then you run into this trouble that plagues Epicurean philosophy today: "Absence of pain" can be confused as referring to a particular experience that nobody can adequately define outside of a particular context, and thus a great source of confusion, rather than being seen as a definition of the "limit of quantity of pleasure" in which context it is a very useful and helpful definition.

To me, the plainest statement of a negative implicitly refers to the broadest interpretation (any → not one).
Example: "There is an absence of food" means that my kitchen is entirely empty. It does not mean "I ran out of rice" or "I have no more soda." Instead, the "absence of food" means I have nothing whatsoever left at all.

The plainest statement of a positive implicitly refers to the narrowest interpretation (some → at least one).
Example: "There was a police presence" only asserts that there was one officer somewhere on the site. There might have been hundreds right on target, but the assertion is only made of one officer somewhere on site.

So maybe I'm just still not getting the point(?!), but I've never understood how "absence of pain" could possibly be referring to particulars? To me, "absence of pain" has always been "absence of any pain whatsoever". Otherwise it would have to be explicated via one of these three options: "absence of a particular pain", "absence of any pain to some extent", or "absence of a particular pain to some extent"…

I should probably revisit this threat after I'm more caught up with the podcast

I might try following this convention

• the pleasures (definite, plural) refers to the category
• a pleasure (indefinite, singular) refers to one particular
• pleasures (indefinite, plural) refers to an undefined group of particulars
• these/those pleasures (determiner, plural) refers to a defined group of particulars

to see if that reduces the amount of confusion, in me, in others, or both

Quote from Cassius

[…] It is impermissable to them to think that when someone says "all pain is gone" that the kitchen is then FULLY STOCKED […]

I think I get it now – thank you for your patience!

Noting that it is seen as the absence of a negative along with using the analogy of physical objects helped me (in establishing an understanding of the erroneous view). Indeed, I can see how "the absence of shortage" might be commonly mistaken for an in-between state instead of being correctly identified as synonymous with "fully stocked". To me, pain has never been a negative; instead:

I view both the pleasures and the pains as things in their own right – like two bacteria strains. Both strains live in the same petri dish (my mind), which is fully covered (no uncolonised space left). The two strains compete for space, such that whenever one is reduced for any reason, the other expands, and vice versa. This way, any would-be empty space is immediately covered by the other colony. In this analogy, the absence of one is not by itself a synonym for the other – it only becomes a synonym because it just so happens that both live in the same dish, all space is covered, and they compete for it.

The root cause and justification for "absence of one is synonymous for the other" lies within neither player; it lies instead within the rules of the game.

Quote from Cassius (emphasis added by me)

Any hypothetical that seeks to be a true analogy has to stipulate that there are only two classes of items possible, and that if you don't have items from class1 then you by definition have items from class2, and vice versa.

That leaves me wondering whether my model is in contradiction with the texts, because it identifies the rules of the game – not the categories of pleasure and pain themselves – as the cause for the validity of the synonym…?

(1) To work using a negative (kitchen analogy: shortage vs food) instead of making pleasure & pain things in their own right (competing strain analogy);
(2) and also to identify a negative-positive duality (shortage and food extinguish each other by their nature) as the cause of an inherent synonymity of absence of one for the presence of the other, instead of identifying the game's rules and playing field (not per se competition against each other, but for limited and exhausted space) as the cause of a de facto synonymity of such same kind;
each of these two aspects (1) and (2) would be in such stark contradiction to my experience that – dare I say it – I don't see myself ignoring the evidence my life's path gathered in their regard…

Luckily, we seem to agree that regarding (1) my model is congruent with the Epicurean view; but what about (2)?

In my view, it is not necessarily a pleasure which eliminates a pain, or vice versa; both pleasures and pains may come and go for any number of reasons. It is merely the case that whatever space is available to hold experience will in fact be holding experience. For example: a single pain may be superseded by a mixture of numerous pains and pleasures of various qualities and quantities, none of which was necessarily a part of the cause for the previously existing single pain to disappear – all provided that the space available to hold experience is, in fact, utilised and holding experience.

Quote from Cassius

(4) But we do not agree that when pleasure is withdrawn uneasiness at once ensues, unless the pleasure happens to have been replaced by a pain: while on the other hand one is glad to lose a pain even though no active sensation of pleasure comes in its place: a fact that serves to show how great a pleasure is the mere absence of pain.

Okay, that confirms the model I use for both directions; especially: The gladness of losing a pain is a consequence of having lost the pain; it is not what caused the pain to be lost in the first place.

Thank you! That's a relief