Preparing an outline and incorporating the resulting feedback was extremely helpful for me, and provided some good guidance in how to proceed with grasping the philosophy. I confess it was intimidating at first, as I'm quite new to studying philosophy. But the exercise was well worth it.
(I should probably take another look at mine and see how my understanding has evolved since then....)
Don your new layout works quite well and the verse links in the text are great! I was able to find verse 131 and the maza recipe very quickly.
This quote from the maza article seems to have some relevance to Epicurus' dietary habits:
"The Ancient Greeks prided themselves on a simple, hearty diet, believing it the source of their strength and, to some degree, their superiority. The varied cuisines of other peoples like the Persians were looked down upon as decadent, diet seen as evidence of moral character (“you are what you eat”). Maza has few ingredients, does not require much preparation, and is quite filling: thus, it checks off all the criteria of an ideal Greek staple."
At least according to this, the references that Epicurus makes to diet seem to be much less to do with radical asceticism and more to do with mainstream Greek culture. Another strike against interpreting him as a minimalist 
And thanks for all you do to keep this going, Cassius!
Don't worry Cassius, the space-time continuum has been warped since March 2020. That would explain any lapses of memory.
Happy New Year, all!
This reminds me of VS11:
For most people, to be quiet is to be numb and to be active is to be frenzied.
I'm not aware of the specific source of this, but it does seem to reinforce Don's post above.
Cassius you've already mentioned this but The Greeks on Pleasure by Gosling and Taylor goes into quite a bit of detail on the discussion of pleasure in Plato and/or Aristotle (I can't remember if it's one or the other or both) as well as Epicurus' take on it. I'm just mentioning this to point out that the comparison of Platonic with Epicurean pleasure is a well developed line of research, although seldom mentioned elsewhere.
As I interpret the argument, the theory was that if something is perfect then why would it increase? Sort of like adding an extra note or phrase to a musical composition can ruin the "perfect" composition. Hence the limit of pleasure as specified by Epicurus.
It might be better to set it up by sources (Pads, letters, DRN &c) instead of months, at least for the collecting of quotations. Then once there are 365 or more they could be sorted into months. This should make it easier to avoid duplicates.
Also, would this need to be older sources that are out of copyright? Newer translations might be more relatable as long as using them doesn't create copyright issues.
So, it would seem as if pleasure exists as a function of pain.
This is incorrect. Pleasure and pain are more accurately thought of as dichotomous or binary; perhaps better still as part of an affective circumplex as discussed elsewhere on the forum. Most importantly though, they are the two components of the faculty of Feelings, and this faculty serves as a guiding function. As Cassius points out, PD3 is a response to the argument of rival philosophers that pleasure can't be the telos because it has no limit. Epicurus in PD3 gives that limit. The mistake that people make is to interpret this philosophical argument (which it is) as practical advice (which it isn't).
...it could be smart to learn what pains are they eliminating, for us to gain more control and understanding over our experience.Going psychological here,if there's a pleasure I constantly seek and indulge in (which is, as accepted before, eliminating some pain) but that overall ends up producing me more pain afterwards (think addiction), it would make sense go try and find what is that non evident pain (most likely mental distress) or the vain desire that I'm eliminating with the pleasure, thus becoming capable of eliminating the vicious cycle in a reasonable manner consistent with the philosophy, rather than brute-forcing yourself out of it without addressing the root cause. What do you think?
I think that what you're describing here is important as it is one aspect of the guiding function (noting that I've struck out some of the quote and added a bit). But you must also be aware of pleasures which are giving you positive guidance, and the niggling unnoticed pains that are by themselves giving negative guidance, as well as vain desires that are contributing to your pain. Following pleasure generally leads toward health and growth, following pain generally leads toward disease and atrophy. But the above edited quote is a good example of the fact that while all pleasures are "good", not all are to be chosen as per the Letter to Menoikeus. And also that ignoring pain is ignoring the guidance of the Feelings. For me, a big part of living this philosophy is being aware, as often as I'm able, of my feelings of pleasure and pain and listening to and evaluating the guidance that they're giving me. But I can't by any means claim to have mastered this!
Maybe they're in Volume 2 
Lucretius would be a very rich source of quotes in addition to Epicurus.
Maybe Online Garden of Epicurean Friends pr something to that effect?
This sounds like a good template for local in-person meetings when they eventually start popping up, so as it develops that would be good to keep in mind. I assume you're already heading in that direction, Cassius.
Another source to consider is David Sedley's book Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. As I recall, in that book he constructed an outline of On Nature and compared it with De Rerum Natura. It's been a while since I read it but at the time it seemed to be something of a treasure trove: maybe not so much for specific translations but as an overall guide to review before starting to compile the fragments.
Just to complicate the discussion....
The statement was made that bodily feelings exist only in the present but mental feelings can be both anticipated and remembered. To my understanding, the body also has memory and anticipation of feelings. As one example, childhood traumas can unconsciously affect a person's health in numerous ways which can last a lifetime.
Although perhaps not available in Epicurus' day, current information indicates that the body and mind are intricately intertwined to the point where it can be difficult to separate mental and physical feelings. However this just reinforces Epicurus' contention that the mind and/or soul is physical. Going into more detail is only worthwhile to the extent that it increases one's pleasure!
Quote from CassiusIf that is correct, then the proper analogy would be that due to your faculty of preconceptions you have the ability to perceive that certain relationships and dealings with people are significant enough to perceive them as falling into a general category of relationships that we choose to call "justice." The particular preconception is a recognition that in the dealings of the people involved there is a relationship that we can expect to be repeated over and over and thus needs evaluation.
Cassius I agree with what you've written but I do question this quote. First, are you saying that we actually categorize something as part of a preconception? That seems to me to be done using reason: I understand a preconception as being more "primitive" than that, more akin to a sensation or feeling.
In your second sentence you seem to be saying that there's a projection into the future, which again seems more like reason to me. But you're also emphasizing relationship, which on the societal level is a component of justice.
But there is an underlying "no harm to me, no harm to you" reciprocity at work, especially in the chimp and monkey examples. If you look at the definitions of δίκαιος, there's a maintaining a certain balance in society aspect. One chimp sees a group member being "harmed" by being denied food etc. Another member shares, maintaining balance in society. The sharing member also sets up the precedent for reciprocity from the other member in the troop.
"No harm to me, no harm to you" seems like a preconception to me, it just doesn't appear to necessarily extend to "no harm to others" unless perhaps one has been raised with that view and therefore it has become a default point of view. Chimps maintaining balance in society seems like it might be such a learned default. Or could it be explained as an innate sense of empathy?
To compare the two quotes, I see Don's as "one-offs" occurring in the present instant, similar to a sensation. There is also memory involved if you consider how one is raised as contributing to a preconception. But my understanding is that any recognition that this is "justice" or may be beneficial in the future occurs after the preconception, through reasoning. Am I mistaken in this?
At first blush, I would say not, that it varies from group to group and person to person. If chimpanzees could speak English, maybe they would say that what they're doing is "sharing". A case could be made that this is "not harming" but that might be a stretch. However it does appear to us to be just.
Another thought is that "justice" often involves harm to a particular party. Every war is considered by at least one side to be a "just" war. Chimpanzees (I think; it may be another primate) use violence to establish and maintain the social order of the alpha male. Corporal punishment is another example (not to be confused with Joshua's example of corporate punishment in the kids for cash scheme?)
Be sure to do your vocal warm-ups!
The point that Martin made about chimpanzees and justice points to a prolepsis of justice, which is one of the few specific prolepseis mentioned in the texts. That adds another layer to the discussion of justice! The discussion is quite enjoyable, by the way.
Addicted to power, addicted to money, addicted to work, addicted to alcohol.... Power, money, work and alcohol aren't bad in themselves, nor are the desires to attain them to some degree. I think part of what she was saying in the podcast is that what is not addictive for some people can be addictive for other people. I would add to that this is where wisdom comes in: the ability to recognize your personal limits (there's that word again!). Knowing these limits can inform one as to what is vain/unnecessary for their own well being.
I haven't yet made it very far into the podcast, but after around minute 23 or so she gave what to me could be a good description of vain or unnecessary desires. Isn't this, after all, what addictions and insatiability are?
