I still think the emotional circumplex is helpful in these discussions:
Pleasant affect = what Epicurus calls pleasure
Unpleasant= what Epicurus calls pain
Activation & Deactivation equals the level of "excitement"
There's really no 0,0 point .
Jo. raises good points and some interesting ideas.
One important thing to remember is that Epicurus wasn't opposed to education in the broad sense. He often uses words like study or meditate on and the like. The word he uses for what he opposed was παιδεία (paideia), as in:
Fragment 117: μακαρίζω σε, ᾧ Ἀπελλῆ, ὅτι καθαρὸς πάσης παιδείας ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὥρμησας.
I pronounce you blessed, O Apelles! You rush to the study of wisdom pure of all indoctrination (enculturation).
Fragment 163: παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος.
Flee from all indoctrination (enculturation), O blessed one, and hoist the sail of your own little boat.
(My literal translations)
VS45. The study of what is natural produces not braggarts nor windbags nor those who show off the culture that most people fight about, but those who are fearless and self-reliant and who value their own good qualities rather than the good things that have come to them from external circumstances.
οὐ κομποὺς οὐδὲ φωνῆς ἐργαστικοὺς οὐδὲ τὴν περιμάχητον παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς παιδείαν ἐνδεικνυμένους φυσιολογία παρασκευάζει, ἀλλὰ σοβαροὺς καὶ αὐτάρκεις καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀγαθοῖς, οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων μέγα φρονοῦντες.
(Saint-Andre translation)
Paideia was meant to instill aristocratic virtues in the young citizen men who were trained in this way. An ideal man within the polis would be well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, so training of both the body and mind was important. Both practical, subject-based schooling as well as a focus upon the socialization of individuals within the aristocratic order of the polis were a part of this training.
PS. ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὥρμησας (epi philosophian ōrmēsas) from Fr.117: I *really* like the connotation of this phrase! Philosophy is obvious, so however you want to translate that. ὥρμησας conveys a sense of rushing headlong toward something. I get the image in my head of a young kid in a foot race, running with everything they have, toward the goal. Keep that in mind when you read rush or, worse, hasten in some translations. So, maybe: I call you blessed, Apelles! You rush headlong with all you have toward the study of wisdom, free and clear of all cultural indoctrination.
Nicely done. The only line I'd amend is:
--Don't teach Epicurean philosophy publically
Don't teach Epicurean philosophy publically (unless invited)
Rather than harp on "I don't like static" here are some alternatives riffing off LSJ:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, καθίστημι
Restore to balance
Stable
Become quiet or calm
Settled
And so on.
I think this line is good:
Pleasure, that is, consists not in mere lack of pain, but in perceiving in a painless way. When it comes to the specifically mental supreme pleasure, freedom from anxiety, then, its attainment will lie, not in the mere absence of worry, but in perceiving the world with an entirely tranquil and worry-free frame of mind.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I still intensely dislike the word "static" for καταστήματικος katastematic and even Sedley uses stable at the end of this section:
We need be in no doubt that this godlike pleasure is a ‘static pleasure’, in the technical Epicurean sense of hēdonē katastēmatikē. Epicurus himself, if he enjoyed his voyage of discovery as we must assume he did, will have been enjoying a mental kinetic pleasure, the process of freeing himself from his previously painful fear and incomprehension about what the universe might threaten. Lucretius is silent about that kinetic pleasure of discovery, and sticks instead to a single Epicurean tenet: it is not the kinetic thrill of eliminating pain, but the resultant stable pleasure of peace of mind, that can make our own state fully equal to that of the gods.
I also like this:
Epicurus’ excellent point, that a tranquil life depends on the absence of anxiety around the clock, whether awake or asleep, is one that Lucretius takes to heart.
In the end, this paper seems to me to have a narrow (and somewhat disjointed) focus; but there are some good points.
Finally listened to the episode.
Well done!! ΚΥΔΟΣ kudos to everyone!
Well done, Cassius ! I still need to read the paper, but I like Sedleys general point that "in Epicurean doctrine pleasures are divided into two kinds, the bodily and the mental; and within each of those two domains there are short-term “kinetic” pleasures, and static (or “katastematic”) pleasures,"
I'm not sure, however, whether it should be that way or the other way. The way Epicurus states it is there are kinetic and katastematic pleasures, then gives examples. So, I think Sedley has it backwards. In the end, it might be semantic, but, using your (better) rephrasing, I might suggest:
In Epicurean doctrine pleasures are divided into two kinds, short-term “kinetic” pleasures, which lie primarily in processes of stimulation such as eating or learning, and longer-term (or “katastematic”) pleasures which lie primarily in the stable operation of the organism not involving short-term stimulation, such as regular healthy operation of body or mind. In each category, there are both bodily and mental pleasures. (and so on as you stated...)
Could VS11 possibly have any relevance in this discussion? If it does, it's certainly not explicit. It's set up as contrasting to something, but the question is what it's contrasting to. I've typically thought of it in terms of discussing people's actions, but what if it's about k/k pleasures. Admittedly, I'm probably reaching pretty far....
VS11: For most people, to be quiet is to be numb and to be active is to be frenzied.
Here's my take on VS11 that I've shared before;
Translation: For the majority of people, to be at rest is to be bored stiff; but to be active is to be raving like a rabid dog.
Comment: To me it seems to be saying there needs to be a balance of rest and activity, or that stillness is important and that most people don't recognize this. Plus those who don't understand are just running around to appear important or just simply to do something, they can't be alone with their own thoughts… they're not self-reliant.
Plus, again we have active and rest: κινούμενον kinoumenon and ἡσυχάζον hēsykhazon, respectively. The first word is directly related to "kinetic", the second is a new one but means to be still, keep quiet, be at rest. I find it interesting that the "numb" is ναρκᾷ narka, numbness, deadness, from which we get "narcotic."
I think VS11 is a good catch, Godfrey !
Look at that, I'm up to post 53. The rest will have to wait until tomorrow. 
"Normal speed of mind operation" and "standard state of good health and operation of the senses" seem to me as very good descriptive attempts at the act of living. And this is close to my understanding of katastematic pleasure.
I REALLY like and also agree with the rest of your post, too, TauPhi!
When your mind is not being excited, but is operating at its normal speed and doing its normal things, is that something that can be well conveyed in English using the word "static"?
No. I dislike that translation immensely. A better single word would be stable. Static sounds dead. Stable conveys to me something that is humming along, chugging away, working like it's supposed to. They are only "static" in the sense of being associated with a "state" of being.
their standard state of good health and operation
... Like that.
Healthy operation of body and healthy operation of mind are not *that* hard to designate clearly, and we need to find better ways to do so.
How about just that: "Healthy operation of body and healthy operation of mind."
Due to the fact that I seem to be unable to not have an opinion on this thread 
and that y'all have added a lot of interesting and in depth content, I'm going to simply work my way through chronologically starting at Cassius 's post 46. So, I apologize if something got superceded in the interim. I'm looking forward to this! Here we go!
***
"Rest" implies sitting around doing nothing.
To me, "rest" implies relaxation and rejuvenation. It implies taking a break to regroup. Saying it implies "Doing nothing" to me smacks of the Protestant maxim of "idle hands are the Devil's plaything."
"kinetic" is going to evoke frenzy in English-speaking minds, "katastematic" is never going to evoke anything but "woo" or being "comatose" at best.
I have no problem not using the jargon, especially if you're thinking of how to evangelize. Kinetic and katastematic are in-house designations. But it behooves us to keep them in mind since the ancients evidently found them to be useful and important ways to define what they meant by pleasure, on several sides of the issue.
why - if on a particular day we should reach 100% pleasure) we should want to live any longer.
That is a really unfortunate way of stating that question. A better way of looking at it is Fragment 490:
He who needs tomorrow least, most gladly greets the coming day.
It's not that someone doesn't *want* to live any longer; it has to do with gratitude for what you have. Being self-sufficient in yourself. Having the realization that "if this is it, I've lived well and taken pleasure in my life." Then, when the new day comes, being grateful that you have more life to experience. Not clinging to life with worry and anxiety about how long you have. Having more life is good, because life is good, but acknowledging the fullness of pleasure with the health of the body and the tranquility of the mind can be satisfying. Many times we run around, frenzied, trying to fill our day with activities. We need to slow down, rest, breathe, take a break, tune in to what our bodies are telling us.
So then, the wise one neither begs nor craves for living nor fears not living: Neither to set oneself against living, nor to imagine that it is evil to not live. Just as the most food is not chosen but that which brings the greatest pleasure; choose as well not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which bring the greatest pleasure.
That's like asking why, if we climb to the top of Mount Everest, we should want to continue to live at all. No one but a Stoic or other warped personality would conclude that meeting a goal like that "once" is "good enough for a lifetime."
It's not anything like that. Climbing to the top of Everest is a discrete goal, one activity. As you say, it's meeting a goal..once. Maybe it's a lifetime goal to be done once. Then on to the next thing.
If I ever fully eradicate my fears and anxieties (I'm getting there... Slowly!), if I can really have health of the body and the tranquility of the mind, that kind of perspective will change my outlook on my life as a whole. If I truly learn to savor the moment - to really pluck the pleasure from each breath - to internalize and really feel a deep gratitude for my life but not cling to it, grasp, fret when it's going to end, I will no longer be enjoying it. Experience pleasure now. Experience pleasure tomorrow if it comes. That paradigm shift that comes with studying Epicurean philosophy is a powerful antidote to the Fear of Missing Out FOMO and endless rat race hustle mentality pedalled by modern society (and even similar to what Cicero was advocating)
And, in conclusion on commenting on post 46, I fully agree that Philebus no doubt had an outsized influence on any debate about pleasure in the ancient world. Have I read it yet? No I have not. Am I slightly embarrassed admitting that? Yes, yes I am. On the ever growing reading list... And now I have to read that new Sedley article Kalosyni found! Thanks for that one!!
Thus ends random thoughts on post 46 above. Sorry, I appear to be more verbose than I anticipated!
By Zeus! Y'all have been busy! It's gonna take me awhile to work through the posts and listen to the episode... But I promise I'll have thoughts 
I return to this section of Diogenes Laertius (10.136) over and over again when this topic comes up:
(Quote)
[136] He (Epicurus) differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure (περὶ τῆς ἡδονῆς). They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest (τὴν καταστηματικὴν - tes katastematiken), but only that which consists in motion (ἐν κινήσει - en kinesei). Epicurus admits both (i.e., katastematiken and en kinesei); also pleasure of mind as well as of body (ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος),
as he (Epicurus) states:
The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice (and Avoidance) are: "Peace of mind (ἀταραξία - ataraxia) and freedom from pain (ἀπονία - aponia) are pleasures which imply a state of rest (καταστηματικαί - katastematikai); joy (χαρὰ khara) and delight (εὐφροσύνη euphrosyne) are seen to consist in motion and activity (κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ - kata kinesin energeia)."
(End of Quote)
Considering "rest " vs "motion" might be fruitful somehow. I know I'm sneaking in kinetic and katastematic again, but evidently, per Diogenes, Epicurus talked about this distinction in at least four different works. And hammered home that it was a primary difference between his philosophy and the Cyrenaics.
I'd really like to get away from words like basic, normal, non-stimulating, etc. Cassius's bringing up "health" above is a good path, too.
I am not sure exactly what the 'this' refers to there
pleasure coming from outside ourselves and pleasure coming from internal (mental) sources...
... does not equate one to one to kinetic and katastematic.
Maybe "stir" is another word to add to the pot:
Pun intended, I hope
Does anyone not agree that Epicurus is including "all normal non-painful experiences of life" within "pleasure?"
Fully agree!! The experience of life itself, when running smoothly "in the background," is pleasure, too.
That said, words like "normal" to refer to this state still rub me the wrong way, as if "exciting" pleasure is "abnormal."
I would say there is no "feeling" labelled "zero" nor is this likely to be a perfectly-matched "zero" sum of pleasures and pains. The latter might be possible, but still that would not be a third alternative beyond pleasure and pain.
This is the position of psychological research. There is no zero state. If you're zero, you're dead.
FYI
Ηδονή hēdonē
Woodhouse, S. C. (1910) English–Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language[1], London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
allurement idem, page 25.
amusement idem, page 28.
caprice idem, page 112.
cheer idem, page 128.
complacency idem, page 151.
dalliance idem, page 193.
delectation idem, page 207.
delight idem, page 208.
ecstasy idem, page 261.
elation idem, page 265.
enchantment idem, page 270.
enjoyment idem, page 275.
entrancement idem, page 278.
exhilaration idem, page 291.
fascination idem, page 308.
gaiety idem, page 351.
gladness idem, page 361.
glee idem, page 361.
gratification idem, page 370.
hilarity idem, page 400.
idiosyncrasy idem, page 413.
intoxication idem, page 454.
jollity idem, page 464.
joy idem, page 464.
light-heartedness idem, page 491.
merriment idem, page 526.
mirth idem, page 532.
pleasure idem, page 620.
rapture idem, page 672.
ravishment idem, page 674.
rejoicing idem, page 689.
satisfaction idem, page 734.
transport idem, page 889.
treat idem, page 892.
zest idem, page 997.
I would say "floating" is going to evoke "mindlessness" or "total inaction" unless we are careful to exclude that. And that's where the kinetic language gets blurry, if for example savoring memories is kinetic.
I would lean into the "relaxation" aspect of floating, liked in an inner tube down a river, luxuriating in the sunshine, slow motion, float.
For memory:
...so that in old age you can be youthful by taking joy (explicitly a kinetic pleasure per Epicurus) in the good things you remember (letter to Menoikeus)
τῷ μὲν ὅπως γηράσκων νεάζῃ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς διὰ τὴν χάριν τῶν γεγονότων
I don't think "motion" really captures the issue either. Almost like we are talking about "excited" atomic particles.
To me, it's action (kinetic) vs stability (katastematic).
There's also the distinction of pleasure coming from outside ourselves and pleasure coming from internal (mental) sources.
This is not the kinetic/katastematic distinction (I've been burned on making that assumption before!), but it's a distinction that gets discussed in Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus.
I know you're trying to get at the "pleasure when you're not 'doing' something 'pleasurable'" but there has to be a better way than "non-stimulating."
As an adjacent issue that's come up in this discussion, I wanted to see where "mental pain" came up the texts to see what's being conveyed in the texts and/or being obfuscated by translation. Here's a selection:
PD3
Ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις. ὅπου δ’ ἂν τὸ ἡδόμενον ἐνῇ, καθ’ ὃν ἂν χρόνον ᾖ, οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἀλγοῦν ἢ τὸ λυπούμενον ἢ τὸ συναμφότερον.
άλγος pain (of either mind or body), sorrow, trouble, grief, distress, woe; in Homer, mostly in pl., sufferings
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἄλγος
λυπούμενος from verb λυπεω
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λυ_π-έω
[St-Andre note to PD3] The word ἡδονή is often translated solely as "pleasure"; however, depending on the context I also translate it as "joy", "delight", "enjoyment", or even "happiness" in the modern sense because the Greek word ἡδονή refers to any physical, emotional, or mental state that is filled with sweetness (ἡδύς), whereas the English word "pleasure" carries stronger connotations of a purely physical state (although compare phrases such as "the pleasures of philosophy"). Furthermore, although there is no hard and fast distinction between ἄλγος as bodily pain and λυπούμενος as mental distress, the former word tends to be used more in relation to the body and the latter more in relation to the mind or emotions; see also Principal Doctrine #10. For other texts that emphasize the concept of a natural limit to enjoyment, see Principal Doctrines #11, #15, #18, #19, #20, as well as Letter to Menoikos, Section 133, Vatican Saying #35, and Fragment #548.
***
Letter to Menoikeus 128
τούτων γὰρ ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπανάγειν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν <τῆς ψυχῆς> ἀταραξίαν, ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν ἐστι τέλος. τούτου γὰρ χάριν πάντα πράττομεν, ὅπως μήτε ἀλγῶμεν μήτε ταρβῶμεν. ὅταν δ᾽ ἅπαξ τοῦτο περὶ ἡμᾶς γένηται, λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμών, οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ ζῴου βαδίζειν ὡς πρὸς ἐνδέον τι καὶ ζητεῖν ἕτερον ᾧ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἀγαθὸν συμπληρωθήσεται. τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν· <ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν>, οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν.
[128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life. For the sake of this, we do everything in order to neither be in bodily or mental pain nor to be in fear or dread; and so, when once this has come into being around us, it sets free all of the calamity, distress, and suffering of the mind, seeing that the living being has no need to go in search of something that is lacking for the good of our mental and physical existence. For it is then that we need pleasure, if we were to be in pain from the pleasure not being present; but if we were to not be in pain, we no longer desire or beg for pleasure. And this is why we say pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment of the blessed life.
Vocabulary
ἀλγῶμεν (first person plural subjunctive) "if we were to feel bodily pain, to suffer hardship, to feel pain of mind"
ταρβῶμεν (first person plural subjunctive) "if we were to be afraid, to dread" (note: related to the opposite of ataraxia)
"they set free all (πᾶς) the calamity, distress, suffering (χειμών) of the soul/mind (ψυχῆς),..."
χειμών has the connotation of cold and stormy winter weather. This word then takes on the metaphorical sense of calamity, distress, etc. When you read this word, imagine freezing blizzards, blinding snowfall, and howling wind!
128f. τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν·
τότε "then, at that time"
χρείαν (accusative) "need, want, necessity"
"for then we have need of pleasure,"
μὴ παρεῖναι "to not be by, to not be present"
As in 128b. ἀλγῶμεν (first person plural subjunctive) "if we were to feel bodily pain, to suffer hardship, to feel pain of mind"
"Because it is then that we need pleasure, if we were to be in pain from the pleasure not being present…"
128g. <ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν>, οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν.
ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν,
"but if we were to not be in pain,"
οὐκέτι "no more, no longer"
δεόμεθα, here means "desire, beg for, ask for"; shows up in New Testament to convey "implore, pray for, etc."
"we no longer desire/beg for/ask for pleasure (τῆς ἡδονῆς)."
So, it's not that we "don't need" pleasure, it's that we don't desire it or beg for it like we do when it's not present. Why? Because when we are not in pain, we are full of pleasure. There is no need to seek or beg for pleasure when you have a full measure of pleasure.
λέγομεν "we say"
"and that is why we say pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment, the beginning and end (ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος) of the blessed life."
***
Fragment 2.
ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ <ἡ> ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί. ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται.
Epicurus: Lack of mental disturbance and lack of bodily pain are static pleasures, whereas revelry and rejoicing are active pleasures involving movement.
Lack of mental disturbance (ie, mental pain) = ataraxia
lack of bodily pain = aponia (note: I'm not enamoured of that translation, but it'll do for now)
I would agree with your points with an important caveat for me.
But until it is accepted that pleasure includes both stimulating and non-stimulating pleasures, it's not possible to stand up against the argument of Cicero and others that Epicurus is using the term "pleasure" in a non-standard way.
"pleasure" includes two types of pleasures which we can understand in words that mean something to us ( 1 - exciting / stimulating pleasures vs 2 - pleasures of normal living in which we are not stimulated / excited).
I can't quite put my finger on it, but "non-stimulating" and "not stimulated" sounds like falling into a Cyrenaic trap. "Non-stimulating" and "not stimulated" sounds like there's no sensation at all. That's not what you want to convey. Those terms sound like a Cyrenaic argument just waiting in that if it's not pleasure, then you're asleep or dead or, if not in pain, in some third neutral state.
Those what you term non-stimulating pleasures are taking pleasure, consciously, in the stable (NOT STATIC) well-functioning of the body and the tranquility of an undisturbed mind. The pleasure of floating on a calm sea and the assurance of its continuance. As mortal humans, we aren't guaranteed this pleasure forever, if it can be achieved, but we can expect moments IF we accept the fact that we have access to this AS pleasure, as a pleasurable feeling. That was Epicurus's genius in pointing this out.
