My current guess is that non-lotus pleasures are those that have some sort of negative feedback loops in them—e.g. eating isn’t a lotus, because once you’re full, it doesn’t feel as good. On the other hand, work can be a lotus, if you reach a state where you don’t want to stop, and there is nothing negative about such “lotus”. So it’s not exactly “compulsion” but a little more general, though all compulsions are also “lotuses”. Is that right?
The core component of the lotus—the reason why Duncan referred to that in the first place—is that the lotus removes you from the plot. What falls into that category depends on what you think the plot is. Someone focused primarily on their life satisfaction will have different views from someone interested in the march of scientific progress, or from someone who is focused primarily on existential risk, or so on.
So a thing is a “lotus” if you desire it, but would prefer not to desire it? Well, that’s a meaningful category, but it’s very different from the compulsiveness that Valentine seems to describe. Or does a thing need both properties, to be a “lotus”.
More importantly, what is this “plot” and where does it come from? It’s good to have preferences over preferences, but I worry that you’re identifying with them way too much.