It's clear that Epicurus makes no distinction between lower animals and humans in this paragraph--both are equally motivated to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. In fact, the reference to fear in the preceding sentence really seems to drive home the point; it is humans and gods even more than animals that are under discussion.
Agreed. Living being means living being. All living beings.
I think another interesting way to look at this is using the title of one of Epicurus's books in that list of Diogenes Laertius:
Περὶ βίων δ᾽
On Modes of Living, in 4 books
Those was a book on the ways to make living a opposed to the physical process of living itself.
I get the idea that living is living for Epicurus, in using ζωή since he can use it for humans and gods.
Diogenes uses ζωή here:
[74] "And further, we must not suppose that the worlds have necessarily one and the same shape. [On the contrary, in the twelfth book "On Nature" he himself says that the shapes of the worlds differ, some being spherical, some oval, others again of shapes different from these. They do not, however, admit of every shape. Nor are they living beings which have been separated from the infinite.] For nobody can prove that in one sort of world there might not be contained, whereas in another sort of world there could not possibly be, the seeds out of which animals and plants arise and all the rest of the things we see. [And the same holds good for their nurture in a world after they have arisen. And so too we must think it happens upon the earth also.]
And here in 34:
They affirm that there are two states of feeling, pleasure and pain, which arise in every animate being παν ζωον, and that the one is favourable and the other hostile to that being, and by their means choice and avoidance are determined; and that there are two kinds of inquiry, the one concerned with things, the other with nothing but words.53So much, then, for his division54 and criterion in their main outline.
OH!! The passage is from Menoikeus!! Egads! I feel dense!
Here's my translation, first:
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.
Here's my commentary on that word in 128e.
τοῦ ζῴου "the living being" genitive singular of ζῷον, the word we met way back in 123b in Epicurus's discussion of the gods. "A god" was described as a ζῷον. So, are we to take the word in 123b as "living being" there as the word implies here in 128b? Or is the ambiguous nature of the word still at play in the description of a god? The debate continues.
The ambiguous nature of the word is:
τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "a god (is a) ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?
ζῷον (zōon) is where English zoology comes from.
LSJ gives two primary definitions:
living being, animal
in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals (or a sign of the Zodiac)
So, unfortunately, at this point in the Letter we can't necessarily resolve the question of what the nature of the gods (or of a god) is according to Epicurus. Some scholars think Epicurus believed the gods were material beings ("living being, animal") somehow living between the various world-systems (cosmos) in the universe. Some think Epicurus believed the gods were mental representations or personifications of the concepts ("figure, image, sign") of blessedness.
Looks sweet! But a monumental task you've set for yourself!
You raise an interesting question about ζωή vs βίος.
It appears entire theses have been written on that very question! Ex...
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/226161443.pdf
An Examination of “Life” in Aristotle Concerning the Distinction Between βίος (Bios) and ζωή (Zoe)
See also
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, βίος
βίος .life, i. e. not animal life (ζωή), but mode of life.
It seems that βίος is more the mode of life, the way of living; ζωή is more the substance of life, the physical processes of life. I can't see this in the references to this in Menoikeus:
124. ὅθεν γνῶσις ὀρθὴ τοῦ μηθὲν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν θάνατον ἀπολαυστὸν ποιεῖ τὸ τῆς ζωῆς θνητόν.
So, correct understanding is that death is nothing for us, and this is what makes the mortality of life enjoyable.
126.
Ὀ δὲ παραγγέλλων τὸν μὲν νέον καλῶς ζῆν, τὸν δὲ γέροντα καλῶς καταστρέφειν εὐήθης ἐστὶν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἀσπαστόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι μελέτην τοῦ καλῶς ζῆν καὶ τοῦ καλῶς ἀποθνήσκειν.
So, the one who exhorts, on the one hand, for the one who is young to live nobly; and, on the other hand, the one who is old to come to an end nobly is a good-hearted simpleton not only because life is to be welcomed but also because the practice of living well, nobly, and beautifully and the practice of dying well, nobly, and beautifully are the same.
Now... Having said all that....I realize I'm not sure if that's helpful at all to you, Joshua 
Feel free to let me know!!
Cassius: Take a look at that pdf I linked to. Some good thoughts there.
And I personally don't have a problem with that line:
Every disturbance and unprofitable desire is removed by the love of true philosophy.
Usener calls that U457. disturbing there is ταραχώδης tarakhōdēs which is related to ataraxia.
It looks like sections 27-31 of the letter are supposed to be from an Epicurean text. Again, check out that pdf.
Checking our copy of Long & Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, entry 25C , is Usener 221. Their note reads:
Context: culmination of a long string of ethical quotations from Epicurus. For the Epicurean medical metaphor, cf. Gigante [271], Nussbaum [270].
So, we should look at the preceding "string" to see if we agree with that context in the letter. The anonymous nature of the quotes just gives me pause.
Gigante is in Italian in Cronache Ercolanesi, 1975, 53-61
Nussbaum is her chapter in Schofield & Striker, The norms of nature: studies in Hellenistic ethics (1986)
Usener fr. 221)
Since we're getting down the thread here, here's a link to the can of worms that got opened on that fragment :
I would laugh and tell the existential, "Pleasure and pain may be the only universals."
(Maybe that's a little harsh, but that was my first reaction.)
So did you experience the world differently prior to reading Epicurean ideas?
Not really having thought about (it just happened gradually), I would say my decision making process has definitely changed.
"does the philosophy change your experience of being"?
If by "experience of being" you mean "how one experiences the world", the answer has to be "yes." One's "experience of being" is inextricably linked to what one pays attention to. By focusing on - seeking out - pleasure in both little and big ways, one's experience of the world is changed.
Here's another from the letter to Marcella:
[ U203 ]
Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 29, p. 209, 1: But insofar as you are in want, it is through forgetfulness of your nature that you feel the want. For thereby you cause to yourself vain fears and desires.
There seem to be quite a few.
Here's the entry in Stobaeus' Florilegium, 82.6 (lxxxii, 6; ΠΒ'.6) that clearly attributes the saying to Pythagoras (Πυθαγόρου ) and cites Porphyry's letter to Marcella.
Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium, recognovit Augustus Meineke ... v.0003.
Well, this is all a bit disturbing 
It appears Usener was *assuming* that Porphyry's unattributed quote was Epicurus and not Pythagoras?? On the basis that it "sounded" something Epicurus would have said??
PS: Honestly, this makes me skeptical of any Usener fragment not specifically citing Epicurus, the Epicureans, Philodemus, or a similar reference within the ancient text. For example,
This is fine:
[ U380 ]
Aetius, Doxography, I.29.6 [p. 326 Diels] (Plutarch, I.29.2; Stobaeus Anthology, Physics 7.9): Epicurus says that chance is a cause which is uncertain with respect to persons, times, and places.
But this now??
[ U533 ]
Uncertain Epicurean Author, Vol. Herc. 2, VII.21 col. XXVIII: The chief of all goods, even if there weren’t any other, is that by which he who possesses it advances toward virtue.
So who knows who wrote U533 and yet it's included in his Epicurea!
By Zeus! I don't know what to believe now!
Welcome! χαίρε! Salve! 
See p.397 in Bailey link.
He references the similarity to VS54:
54. Do not pretend to love and practice wisdom, but love and practice wisdom in reality; for we need not the appearance of health but true health.
οὐ προσποιεῖσθαι δεῖ φιλοσοφεῖν, ἀλλʼ ὄντως φιλοσοφεῖν· οὐ γὰρ προσδεόμεθα τοῦ δοκεῖν ὑγιαίνειν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ὑγιαίνειν.
There's also The Hellenistic Philosophers by Long and Sedley to borrow from Internet Archive for free (one hour at a time):
I mentioned The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 215 in this episode (Internet Archive link opens to papyrus #215):
For a little background on the papyri:
and the WP article to 215 itself:
I'm glad Elli brought up Diogenes Laertius (DL) 10.21. I had been meaning to check that line. This is where Epicurus himself also uses the word παίδων and where it explicitly means "slave" because he is freeing Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and Phaedrium:
DL 10.21.b, Epicurus's Will: παίδων = "slaves" (male and female enslaved people)
ἀφίημι δὲ τῶν παίδων ἐλεύθερον Μῦν, Νικίαν, Λύκωνα: ἀφίημι δὲ καὶ Φαίδριον ἐλευθερίᾳ.
Of my slaves, I manumit Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and I also give Phaedrium her liberty.
Epicurus also uses the word to mean girl and children (girl & boy) in his Will. Nowhere does he use the word to mean exclusively "boys" as most translators want to do in the Letter to Menoikeus, DL 10.132. I see no compellig reason to require the "having sex with boys and women" route there.
DL 10.20, Epicurus's Will: παιδίῳ = "girl" (female child)
τὴν δὲ προῖκα τῷ θήλει παιδίῳ, ἐπειδὰν εἰς ἡλικίαν ἔλθῃ, μερισάτωσαν Ἀμυνόμαχος καὶ Τιμοκράτης ὅσον ἂν ἐπιδέχηται ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἀφαιροῦντες μετὰ τῆς Ἑρμάρχου γνώμης.
And when the girl comes of age, let Amynomachus and Timocrates pay her dowry, taking from the property as much as circumstances allow, subject to the approval of Hermarchus.
DL 10.21.a, Epicurus's Will: παιδία = "children" (girl and boy)
Ἐὰν δέ τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων περὶ Ἕρμαρχον γένηται πρὸ τοῦ τὰ Μητροδώρου παιδία εἰς ἡλικίαν ἐλθεῖν, δοῦναι Ἀμυνόμαχον καὶ Τιμοκράτην, ...
And if anything should happen to Hermarchus before the children of Metrodorus grow up, Amynomachus and Timocrates shall give from the funds bequeathed by me,...
DL 10.22, Epicurus's Will: παίδων = "children" (boy and girl)
σὺ δ᾽ ἀξίως τῆς ἐκ μειρακίου παραστάσεως πρὸς ἐμὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιμελοῦ τῶν παίδων Μητροδώρου.
But I would have you, as becomes your life-long attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."
DL 10.132, Letter to Menoikeus: παίδων (καὶ γυναικῶν)
οὐδ᾽ ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν
I also find Elli's suggestion that we should take γυναικῶν as "wives" and not simply "women" intriguing as well.
I'm still working on the exact connotation of ἀπολαύσεις.
To review, Epicurus is saying in 10.132, that when he says pleasure, he does not mean:
I remain leaning toward the sense of not taking advantage of slaves and women/wives, but now Elli has planted the idea in my mind that... Could the phrase means something like "not enjoying the benefits of children and wives" to go along with an ambivalence toward marriage and children. It seems to harsh, since Epicurus was obviously concerned with the well-being of the children of Metrodorus and was not averse to having children named after him. I don't *think* so... but I'm raising it here for discussion. This continues to be a very illuminating and enjoyable discussion. Would that we just had MORE of Epicurus's writings!!
PS. Even though I brought it up for discussion, I remain highly skeptical of a reading like "not enjoying the benefits of children and wives" as in not being a husband and father. It doesn't fit with the drinking and feasting that bracket ἀπολαύσεις παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν. I still find the possible connotation intriguing but not compelling. Wanted to get that in here.
FYI
One can't read it in an hour, but if anyone is interested in searching it for Epicurus or Lucretius...
One interesting tidbit on NewEpicurean.com is Cosma Raimondi. I don't think I've heard of her before and I'll certainly read her letter.
Turns out Cosma is a man's name. Final a is evidently for male names in Italy.
