Forgive me if this entry makes no sense, just feel like rambling:
Food has many meanings. With each individual having their own innate interpretation of its raison d’etre and personal experience to reconcile the difference between function and meaning.
Often, I am presented with two general schools of thought. First, food is the form of sustenance apart from water, sleep that maintains our lives. The other, food presents one with a sense of purpose, a motivation to seek out for food as a form of joy. Or in other words, one eats to live, while the other, lives to eat.
It is obvious that this is not an absolute dichotomy and there is much room for debate. I admit that one has to take into account one’s financial situation and accessibility to food. The truth is that a starving child in Ethiopia has little to eat, let alone a choice in the matter. However, for the sake of facilitating my stance, bear with me and allow me some leeway.
Here goes:
Eat-to-Live
A choice of the meal is the determined by factors other than the enjoyment of the meal. One possible factor would be price. Considering that one has the ability to pay more for a meal, one would rather pursue an option which is cheap or rather the minimum cost required to fill one’s belly.
The next would be accessibility/convenience. This suggests that whatever is along the way or the nearest determines the meal location. What is on the plate has no bearing on the decision process, but purely the location at which the meal is consumed at is nearer or easier to reach.
,,,,,,,,,, to be continued
