That's a great list of important topics Godfrey. Some of the material like the noble lie and so forth seems to be pretty well known, but I don't think Plato's analysis of pleasure is nearly enough talked about in our Epicurean circles.
As I've said before I think it's key to look back at Plato to understand what Epicurus was talking about in "absence of pain" and other passages that seem "stilted" to us.
If we don't understand that Plato had taken these specific positions about there being true and false types of pleasure, then we don't understand the emphasis that Epicurus put on ALL pleasure being desirable, because it is pleasure.
If we don't understand that Plato took the position that there is a neutral state, and the implications of that, then we don't have a clue as to why Epicurus wrote PD3 the way he did, and took the position that there IS no neutral state, and that only the two feelings (pleasure and pain) exist, and that where one is, the other is not.
You made the comment about "Absence of pain" in your original post in this thread and this is why that subject is so maddening to me. "Absence of pain" does make perfect sense as a perfectly valid phrase once you understand the framework of the analysis, but until you see that framework as a response to plato it's pretty much hopefully confusing, and leads you right into Plato's hands because you presume that it has to mean something and you "know" it can't mean pleasure, so you end up being a Platonist by default and think it means some higher type, or different kind, of pleasure, when that is explicitly ruled out in the part of Epicurean analysis that you've never been introduced to if you've only read the letter to Menoeceus!
But CLEARLY, or at least it seems clear to me, that this kind of analysis is the way forward.

