Tom Profile picture
20 Nov, 30 tweets, 5 min read
Taking pleasure in food is one of the more forgivable forms of degeneracy, but it is still something to be surmounted. (I'm being a hypocrite here)

All great spiritual leaders agree on this, which is why fasting and gastronomic modesty is an important component of all religions.
It tends to immobilise you, just like all worldly pleasures do (including women). In fact, it's no coincidence that women love to cook for a man they love. They want to see him stalled in his satisfaction, thus making him more dependent on her.
Because I am still a sugar addict, it doesn't yet fall to me to explain the essential nature of gastronomic pleasure.

If I understood it fully, I would not have such a sugar tooth. Still, I have made great strides in this area, so I'll offer some incomplete thoughts on this.
Firstly, all pleasures have the character of *resignation*.

I discussed this earlier today in the context of sexual pleasure, but this is universal.

Take for instance cosiness. You sit back in bed, against a soft pillow, eating popcorn, watching world events unfold.
You don't have to take ownership over what you see, because you are just a helpless spectator. This abdication itself is cosy, and it's the dominant mood of modernity.

The great hope of this era is that we can sit back and do nothing, while the world works in our interests.
Satisfaction in food has precisely this character. You simply receive it, as you perform a mechanical oscillation (i.e. chewing).

As also with sex, you are also satisfied that the organ's purpose is being fulfilled. The nerves are left in no doubt of their utility.
Now, the taste itself is a more complicated perception, which I'm still in a process of figuring out.

It's complicated by the fact that so many foods are mixed with all kinds of food, and it's hard to distinguish a single decisive taste.
This itself is a source of pleasure, because you're enjoying the fact that it escapes your grasp, and yet still works in your interests.

It reminds me of when I used to stare at my dishwasher with satisfaction because it was doing my bidding without my knowing exactly why.
There's a joy in cheating nature.

Related (but not essential) thread attached:
To say that eating nice-tasting food is cheating nature might sound odd, but it's not when you consider that we are no longer eating to prevent hunger, but to have a pleasurable experience.

This is superfluous to what nature intended.
If we ate just bread and meat alone to satisfy hunger, we would be quite clear as to their nature.

By themselves, they don't taste like much, and their only effect is to stop your stomach from hurting. This is not the manner in which we eat today.
The phenomenology of eating bread and carbohydrates in general is the ease with which it is digested in the mouth.

It immediately becomes agreeable to the digestive tract at the very beginning of entry. It soaks up and begins to dissolve after a quick bite.
If you let it sit in your mouth long enough, it breaks down into what is essentially sugar, and it basically absorbs into your tongue, some of it straight into your bloodstream.

You can actually feel this. Sugar tastes nice because it is simply conceived on the tongue.
This is a metaphysical analogy of when we call a dog or baby 'sweet'.

Their simplicity and easily comprehended nature is unambiguous, and it is this total lack of ambiguity that makes it 'sweet'.
The sweetness, by virtue of its affinity with your tongue, penetrates into the tissue, and for this reason is surprisingly powerful.

Your tongue is normally in a sceptical state, but with the appearance of something nice, it becomes incontinent with over-relaxation.
Sometimes this is so sudden that it hurts.

Essentially, the tongue is opening up, and its purpose is being fulfilled. This feeling that things are working in your interests automatically decreases your overall feeling of concern. You relax.
You are satisfied that merely chewing, a simple oscillation, is relieving you of concern. It seems like a good deal.

I should also mention fatty foods, as these have a distinctive sensation. For example cheese. This *layers* your tongue.
It doesn't have a taste, but due to its sludginess, it speaks to a proximately biological origin, and thus announces it's edibility.

Something hard and crumbly, by contrast, immediately provokes scepticism as to its edibility. It must be overcome with, e.g., a sugary taste.
Eating flesh is desirable for a similar reason. We recognise it as biological in origin, and thus containing those things of which we ourselves are composed.

Flesh generally smells like decayed biological material. If the decay is too advanced, we are disgusted by it.
This is because bacteria has got the upper hand. Bacteria comes late to the show, so it makes use of sulphur instead of oxygen (which is chemically/behaviourally similar to oxygen due to its electron configuration), producing grotesque imitations of normal compounds.
When rotten, it smells like a grotesque, twice-biologically processed version of its former self.

Nevertheless, we are content with some decay, because it's inevitable. Meat always has a slight smell of decay. By itself this is disgusting, but we overlook it.
When it's in your mouth, it has juices, which can only be the result of biological material.Again, this sense of proximate biological origin assures us of its edibility

The more related the animal (assuming it doesn't downright resemble you), the more confident you are eating it
Like fatty foods, the taste itself is minimal, if existent at all.

The tongue cares little for it. All that's required is that you chew it so it can be swallowed (by a stomach that's nagging for it).
Regarding salts, I've noticed something interesting. Salt itself is actually a stinging sensation, and not at all unlike the sensation of putting salt on a wound (of course nowhere near as painful).

It's highly soluble, and feels like an unwelcome penetration into flesh.
Bitterness is similar, except it's not so far penetrating. It rummages around the surface of the tongue, and feels incompatible somehow.

It is due, in my opinion, to it being superficially familiar, but lacking an orderly structure. It's like a flat note on a piano.
There is another side to all this, which I forgot to mention earlier.

When you are numerically overwhelmed with sensation, the ambiguity itself can be sufficiently distracting for you to be satisfied. You sort of relish in the randomness, and don't inquire into the reasoning.
Again, it is that *resignation* I speak of (and against which I am constantly in battle).

This characterises a great deal of life. The post-modern world throngs in all kinds of stupid pointless directions, and the average plebs shrugs his shoulders and says, "Let it be."
The sensation of eating is generally along these lines. People like fizz in their drink, a bit of bitterness to line their tongue, an extra dab of spice to burn their mouth.

The slightly painful but distracting ambiguity is preferable to really mastering their consciousness.
In writing out this essay, I am striving for the precise opposite mode of apprehension.

I'm not content with randomness and contingency. I want to know what is going on. I want a perfect alignment with my understanding. I will not relish in randomness.
To achieve such understanding, you must be patient and willing to interrupt your freedom of action.

You must strive for Representation instead of blind Will.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tom

Tom Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tom_username_

21 Nov
Just think, for instance, of how the average person is mortified by the slightest harm done to a dog, but happily eats a burger from a tortured cow.

When you point out the hypocrisy, they lazily—often-times mockingly—gloss over it. They just want their slimy indulgence.
I'm not against eating meat that is properly sourced, but I've always been plagued by contradictions like these in my life.

The modern human is so disgustingly lazy when it comes to ethical output. They cannot for a moment interrupt their freedom of action.
Just think of how addicted the average person is to alcohol. They cannot let go of it for a single evening.

Look at the absolute rubbish they watch on TV. Much of it is borderline pornographic. They're perfectly fine with this objectification of life. Ethics is for schmucks.
Read 17 tweets
21 Nov
The basis for my saying this is two-fold.

a) The problem today isn't that the masses don't have enough bread and healthcare. The average person today behaviourally resembles an Oriental despot in their manner of consumption and attitude toward life. Punishment is required.
For the same reason Jesus said a rich person had a slim chance of getting into heaven, the average glutton today doesn't have much of a chance either.

Punishment requires temporal power, i.e. the state, in order to overcome all this. Temporal and spiritual must come together.
b) Even if this punishment is not forthcoming, the world would degenerate into such a low moral state that only the most radical (and even barbaric) moral reformer could prevail.

In any case, there is no soft-spoken route of this mess. A moral reformer must aspire to power.
Read 6 tweets
21 Nov
This is an important subject, so I'll expand on it.

Firstly, Christ was a philosopher: a genius. He also strikes me as the best recorded example of the Platonic Idea of a perfect human being.

I therefore lean towards Christianity, but I must be frank about my feelings on this.
On this subject, Schopenhauer has put into words what I have long felt.

Essentially, everything with material instantiation has an expiry date—which is why prophets must return time and time again, so to speak. Image
The Christian religion is essentially true, but it is in a "heterogeneous age". This means that the inspiring myths no longer have psychological force, which, like it or not, means people don't believe them.

If this means God's voice isn't heard, something is wrong.
Read 12 tweets
20 Nov
I hesitate to write the following thread, as it is a disgusting topic. But it's precisely on account of this disgust that one can achieve celibacy.

I'm talking here about the nature of ejaculation, and the pleasure one takes in it.

My previous thread was insufficient.
I regard it as one of the great philosophical triumphs of my life that I have phenomenologically understood what is happening during orgasm.

It has greatly diminished my desire to have sex, much less to watch it. A life of celibacy is perhaps the most liberating feat possible.
Something which has so impacted me personally should be shared, even if I find it embarrassing to discuss.

If enough people can be liberated (if only partially) from blind sexual desire, the current system will be in for a mighty shock.
Read 33 tweets
20 Nov
The life review, when you're falling to your death, is phenomenologically similar to when you're reflecting on the stupidity of your youth.

You reflect on how totally governed you were by the desire to fit in the material world (i.e. the will-to-life), and this disgusts you.
When falling to your death, you realise "This entropic descent is not me; it is not who I am. I want no part in it anymore."

This is also what's happening when you reflect on your youth.

You're disgusted by what lies in store if you continue along that path, so you transcend it
Letting go necessarily entails falling back in judgement with regard to your life.

You let go of all your silly investments (because your memory consists only of your investments, aversions and outstanding debts, which is why adrenaline is a correlate of memory).
Read 6 tweets
20 Nov
Also contributing to a well-defined appearance is uniformity of surface.

Taut skin is attractive for this reason, and I also take this to be the reason why people have a fetish for rubber latex.

Wrinkled skin shows that no definite thing is prevailing. It's failing.
This is a general feature of objects.

The ideal object is a circle with uniformly distributed boundary.

I have tried to explain before in other essays that an object is characterised by its *repetitive* qualities, both in space and time.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!