One thing you might try is to do your drawing at a larger, more comfortable scale. Then if you scan it, you can scale it down to actual size digitally using Photoshop, Illustrator, gimp, Autodesk Sketchbook or probably even Paint... any software that you're used to, and print it at the correct size. Or you can do it old school and use a photocopier that has a reducing function.
Looks great!
Speaking "doctrinally," it's pretty explicit. In addition to the doctrines cited above, there is
PD31: Natural justice is a covenant for mutual benefit, to not harm one another or be harmed.
A Google search of natural justice comes up with something along the lines of procedural fairness in the execution of the law. (Cassius this is your area of expertise, I'm just a layman finding my way 
)
Justice is also a rare example of a prolepsis in the extant texts; I interpret the prolepsis as a rudimentary "sense of fairness." I think that this relates to equality.... An equal opportunity to pursue pleasure. But also if someone harms me, that gives them unequal power over me unless the harm is corrected. Which could then impact my safety.
There there is no standard by which you can say that one pleasure is "objectively" more pleasing than another, for all people at all times, and from any "absolute" perspective. The only proper way of comparing pleasures is from the perspective. "I feel this pleasure is more pleasing to me than that pleasure."
I agree but would take this a step further and say "I feel this pleasure is more pleasing to me than that pleasure at this moment." This of course takes into account my goals and my favorite pleasures, and evaluates both the current pleasure and the consequences thereof. This is the "process."
I'd refer that fragment to PD3:
The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress.
The key, I think, is the second sentence. We pursue pleasure, and do it wisely. That's something that we can control. Despite our best efforts we can't assure our good health: Epicurus was an example of that, but he still lived a life of pleasure. If he had had stable health and a firm confidence in keeping it, he would have reached the limit of pleasure.
I'm wondering whether we need to. If the Epicurean life is guided by the pursuit of pleasure, there is no hierarchy of pleasure, and the limit of pleasure is the removal of all pain and fear, then intensity and duration of pleasure are meaningless, practically speaking. They are useful only as rhetorical tools as in PD3 and PD9.
In other words, as long as you are pursuing a life of pleasure, what is most pleasant doesn't matter. And it can't be measured in either intensity or duration. This is why Epicurus could have such pleasure as he was dying in agony: he was still pursuing pleasure, and the pleasure of his thoughts was driving out the pain of his strangury. Similarly for a sage on the rack.
A life of pleasure is pursued moment by moment. So wouldn't the proper measurement be the feeling of pleasure in each moment? That would be duration. Wouldn't the greatest intensity then be the lack of any pain in that moment?
Excellent visual aids Don!
For a different perspective, hopefully not too different, there is the idea of the best life being the pleasantest life. Opposed to that is the idea of the best life as a life of continual recurrence of unsatisfied desire, which would allow repeated opportunities for pleasure if pleasure is considered to be the satisfaction of a desire.
I'm not sure if this adds to the discussion; I'd like to think it through some more but will have to get back to it.
That the wise man, however, cannot exist in every state of body, nor in every nation.
When I read this I think of indoctrination, personality, disability and hierarchy of needs. For example:
A person raised in a culture (or nation) that devoutly follows a particular religion is going to have a difficult time becoming an Epicurean sage.
I know people who honestly believe that reason is the goal of man, and this complements their personality. They will never accept the primacy of the faculties and consider such an idea ridiculous.
Mental disability might present a condition where one is like a newborn or an animal, so while full comprehension wouldn't be available, one might have access to the faculties on some level.
Hierarchically (a la Maslow), lack of access to food, shelter and safety might preclude a focus on philosophy.
I don't think of any of these absolutely preventing sagehood but making it highly unlikely. Also I'm looking at this from a 21st century perspective which might relate to the "outdated" issue.
Thanks for the detailed review Martin! I have a question about one of your comments:
Epicurus denied truthfulness of dreams under the aspect that they create fear in the letter to his mother.
I'm not familiar with this. This might be a stupid question, but what is the letter to his mother and where is it found? Truthfulness or non-truthfulness of dreams is an intriguing topic to which I haven't given much thought; I'd like to follow this up.
So far it's really good. I'm not enthusiastic about the amount devoted to Plato, but based on the first couple of chapters I'm assuming that it will be worth the effort. I bit the bullet and got a used copy from Amazon and so far I'm glad I did.
There's a pertinent discussion of Empedocles in The Greeks on Pleasure, 1.2.1-1.2.8.
He's presented as a link between the didactic and physiological traditions, and apparently considered pleasure as a perception (aisthesis; there's some discussion of the meaning of the Greek). He's also believed to have thought of the "urge toward pleasure... (as) the natural instinct of the organism to seek its own best state."
Pompadour, sorry to hear of Godfrey's demise. We lost our dog last year and it's tough to lose someone who loves and depends on you.
I'm not organized enough to keep a log or diary of my pleasures (or of anything, for that matter). Like many things, that might be useful or pleasurable depending on your personality or specific circumstances. Some people keep a gratitude journal (I've tried 
) and that could be a good model for such an endeavor. Since gratitude is closely related to pleasure, the two might be combined into one log or journal. I could also see where this could be useful on a short term basis: to get through a difficult time, or to help navigate a transition.
Personally, the best way that I've found to reflect on and analyze pleasure is to assume a comfortable supine position in a quiet place, give my thoughts a direction, and watch where they go. But I'm sure that that's not effective for everybody! In terms of putting my thoughts to paper (analog or digital) I tend from time to time to make checklists of general or specific pleasures to pursue. Over time these help me to refine my thinking about ways to use my feelings for guidance.
Cassius when you mentioned diagrams, that got me thinking about intensity in terms of depth and breadth. Depth would correspond to adding "layers" such as in the caregiver example above. Maybe breadth could represent intensity; I'm not so sure about that one. Also intensity could be represented by various colors. Depth and breadth seem to relate to the full cup analogy more so than color....
Excellent article, I've never given much thought to this subject. Though not the intent of the article it also effectively illuminates the counterpoint to the Epicurean gods.
I think that one ingredient that needs to be in the cookbook is:
...The feelings are two, pleasure and pain...
...they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life.
..sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul.
DeWitt points out that the greatest pleasure is escaping from a near death experience and realizing the joy of being alive. Taking this to a more prosaic level I think it, and the above italics, emphasize that we're leaving out the pepper if we focus solely on pleasure and the potential pains arising from overindulgence. We also need to address pain, as Epicurus most notably did in remedying the fears of the gods and of death. Great pleasure comes from removing a pain.
There are lots of everyday pains and fears that we all experience but which are unique to each of us. Many of these are mild and/or habituated and are misconstrued by the tranquilists as a neutral zone. Searching these out and examining their causes gives one the opportunity to remedy them, sometimes by removing the cause and sometimes through the application of a related pleasure.
In other words, focusing on either feeling to the exclusion of the other leads to an unbalanced diet. I'm beginning to realize that if we understand and use the faculty (not sure that's the right word) of the feelings as a continual interplay between pain and pleasure then the apparent chasm between "absence of pain" and pursuing pleasure disappears. It's actually extremely practical advice for daily living.
Sorry if I got off topic.... I'm just suggesting that one recipe in the cookbook might be for a person to explore what brings them pain as well as what brings them pleasure, and to taste test the interactions between the two.
Regarding "cookbooks," I have mixed feelings. I completely agree that there is no one size fits all formula for "how to be an Epicurean." On the individual level I think it can be helpful to have one's own personal go-to "recipes" but there's a danger in mindlessly following them. They can only be one part of the "navigating system" (to mix metaphors).
For my personal context I've come to EP on the verge of a life transition and after several decades of ignoring and/or suppressing pain and pleasure. So this has me 1) re-examining priorities and 2) trying to reawaken to pain and pleasure. I may be unique in this but I would guess that from time to time just about everyone does this to some degree. Also, I was raised as a Presbyterian but long ago left that. I've always lived in the western US so my perspective on religion (and many other things lol) is far removed from what I understand of the South. I get great joy in realizing the folly of gods and idealism but I particularly appreciate that Epicurus came up with an integrated approach to point out that folly and to live a complete life based on this and other observed facts.
In the attempt to fully understand and implement a philosophy, each individual to some degree has a back and forth between the examining the doctrine of the philosophy and examining the conditions of their life with respect to the application of the doctrine. This may be a positive attempt to reach a deeper understanding, a negative attempt to undermine, or anywhere in between.
Regarding the doctrine of EP, there is a tremendous amount of discussion and disagreement about the nature of pleasure (pleasure, ataraxia, absence of pain, etc.). To me, pleasure and pain is the key to implementing the philosophy in one's life, it is the culmination of the Physics and the Canon and it is therefore critical to have a deep understanding of the subject, for which I personally am still striving.
Regarding the practice of EP, specifically with regards to pleasure, there have been a few threads here discussing people's very specific instances of pleasure, and I think that this is helpful to all of us.
Is there a way to examine general frameworks for applying pleasure/pain in our lives without losing sight of the individual nature of experience? Something to bridge the dogma and the specifics. A personal "macro" view to maximize the intelligent pursuit of pleasure. For me as a relative neophyte this seems to be a gap in my understanding. For instance a hedonic regimen is sometimes mentioned, which could be one way of scheduling pleasure into one's life if a person feels that that is useful. A person could also do an evaluation of pains and pleasures in their life as a means to understand for themselves how best to minimize pain and maximize pleasure, if they feel that that is valuable. Perhaps some feel that pleasure is best pursued by following their feelings in the moment. These frameworks would may be different for everybody, but it seems like a fruitful area of discussion and this could be tied in to the texts. Or is this something that everyone needs to do for themselves? I don't know.
One last thought.... Some say that PD 10 contradicts the quote from the letter to Menoeceus: "So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people or the enjoyment of sleep, as is believed by those who are ignorant or who don't understand us or who are ill-disposed to us, but to be free from bodily pain and mental disturbance. For a pleasant life is produced not by drinking and endless parties and enjoying boys and women and consuming fish and other delicacies of an extravagant table, but by sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul." I think that DeWitt makes a good case that such a contradiction doesn't exist. Is it possible that discussing our general frameworks for applying pleasure/pain could help to clarify that these two doctrines are in perfect agreement?
Speaking from experience and not from the sources, I'm finding "intensity" to be an unsatisfying description from a practical perspective, although probably a good description from a theoretical perspective.
Theoretically, pleasure as a faculty is unified. Organisms are biologically guided by attraction to pleasure and avoidance of pain; intensity of total pleasure is what is important for this faculty.
But we are thinking organisms whose thinking often interferes with the pursuit of pleasure. So on a practical level, for guidance in choices and avoidances to live a good and pleasurable life, I think more nuance is needed. We do have natural and necessary v vain pleasures for a starting point for choice and avoidance but, at least to my thinking now, that doesn't go far enough.
That's why I brought up "meaning" for discussion, but that seems problematic particularly because it can so easily be associated with universal principals.
In thinking about my past pleasures, the ones that are the most gratifying often have more than one "layer" to them. For instance studying Epicurus: there's the "layer" of enjoying reading, one of pondering, one of connection to Western history and culture, one of discussing in this forum 
, one of putting the ideas into practice, one of perceiving the alignment of theory and practice, etc. Also there are physical and mental pleasures. So in terms of planning and choosing pleasures, one pleasure might be very intense on just one level whereas another might be more satisfying because it stimulates several levels but perhaps with less intensity on each level. Think of scanning old family photographs and the various "levels" of pleasure involved: organizing a mess, looking at pictures, observing history, connection to family, sharing the results....
Also regarding practical "choice and avoidance" decisions, duration is a factor.
Isn't this type of practical discussion something that would have gone on in the garden?
If we're to be connoisseurs of pleasure we really need to examine the nuances of the pursuit of pleasure in addition to the theory. Maybe we could learn from each other by examining various pleasures from experience. This could give us information to examine our own pleasures as well as the theory.
Laurie Anderson has a lyric to the effect that when her father died, it was if a whole library burned down.
From Google:
PLEASURE: a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.
HAPPY: feeling or showing pleasure or contentment.
I like the circularity of these two definitions. It seems accurate to me.
TRANQUILITY: calm.
Tranquility is something valuable for an Epicurean to strive for. However it is a tool, not a goal. Tranquility allows access to subtleties of sensation, prolepses and feelings, which can lead one to greater wisdom.
MEANING
“They say also that there are two ideas of happiness, complete happiness, such as belongs to a god, which admits of no increase, and the happiness which is concerned with the addition and subtraction of pleasures.” Sayings About the Wise Man, Bailey translation
What exactly is godlike happiness and how does a person achieve it? Could it be that "meaningful" pleasures and "general" pleasures are two types of pleasure equal to these two types of happiness in the above quote? I think that we’ve determined pretty conclusively that pleasure is pleasure. But lately I’ve been trying to dig deeper into how best to pursue pleasure as my primary goal, and I’m noticing that some pleasures fill my cup fuller than others and that these pleasures seem to involve what I see as meaning. For me, this is a sense of understanding and connection, sometimes to the “big picture.” I realized this as I was pondering why some of the things that have motivated me in the past are no longer of interest. Comparing these past pursuits to current interests, the link seemed to be that the strongest desires and pleasures came from activities that gave/give me meaning. This seems pretty obvious. It’s also obvious that each person has things which are meaningful specifically to them, so meaning is not a prescription but something to find for oneself, using the Canon, and to act on using the Canon as well.
Part of where this is coming from is my recent condensed reading of Plato’s Republic. I was thinking about how the Physics of Epicurus has evolved into the predominantly accepted version of science, while the Canon and Ethics have largely disappeared from the general culture. Why? In propagating “noble lies,” Forms and other nonsense, religions and Platonists stole meaning from reality and marginalized any reality-based philosophy. So to compete with religion and Platonism, we need to take back meaning and place it where it belongs, which is in reality and hence in Epicurean philosophy.
This emphatically does NOT imply that there is a universal meaning: that is incompatible with EP. This refers to the meanings proposed by science, by psychology, by Victor Frankl and others who realized that meaning is individual. I’m suggesting that Epicurus recognized this, and that a major reason why his philosophy thrived for so long and so widely is that it gave people a means and a context in which to find and pursue lives of meaning on their own terms.
As a proselytizing tool, "individually meaningful pleasure" might be more compelling than "pleasure."
At the point of individually choosing which desires to prioritize is where it seems helpful to distinguish between meaningful and general pleasures. Beyond that, pleasure is only measured by the fullness of the cup.
Would this be considered higher and lower pleasures? Is that valid? Does meaning usurp pleasure as the goal in this interpretation? Would pleasures of meaning be natural and necessary pleasures as opposed to vain pleasures? No, because vain pleasures/desires cause more pain than pleasure; "general" ones don't necessarily. Isn't that distinction higher and lower pleasures? But higher and lower is determined by the individual their circumstances, not as a universal.
Caring for a parent or spouse with Alzheimer's is a duty, not a pleasure. It can involve random moments of pleasure. It can also involve love and connection, which give it meaningful pleasure. Is this meaningful pleasure a higher or more godlike pleasure than the random moments of pleasure?
