Just out of boredom...
...I felt like doing something, filling the emptiness...
...and so it crossed my mind to write about the topic, because I visited these pages yesterday, and got thinking about it afterwards.
I suppose it has to be in the english language, so...
If there are *expressions* of suffering, that means, that suffering is something distinct from it's expressions, in a way.
This is OK. Problematic, in my view, only at first glance.
I think, that this way of thinking, that you have chosen, implies that there is a sort of "binary" level of existence, common to all human beings.
At all times, a person is either suffering, or not, or is suffering a little (or much), or not suffering at all.
I suppose (this is my personal view, that is...) that these two levels could be named, just as well, for instance, *good* and *bad*, or, to take another example, "stress" and "no stress".
I really think, that is a very good way of thinking.
Nice foundation for a positive science of ethics this would make, for instance, I suppose, if it wouldn't be for the unfortunate (individualistic, not relational), understanding of human beings, that the positivists hold. And that the whole western world holds.
The sufferings that we express in our everyday lives, might then, under this scheme, very well hide behind them more complex meanings, and not be mere expressions of tissue-damage, a pathological or physiological state of affairs, or whatever. This would be a very real possibility.
And so a flu could be an expression of loneliness or dissapointment, and so on.
I think, you've got a good thing going on, here.