Why Cook?

Sing to me, oh Muse!

Sing fireto me of fierce fire tamed,
      and made to humbly do our bidding;
Of strangers drawn unto its warmth,
      to make and eat and become a people.

 

 

Sing to me of sweet earth’s bounty,
      harvested and shaped and changed;
Of food upon the open table,
      to fill the gut and feed the heart.

salt spiceSing to me of precious salt,
      wrested from deep earth and sea;
 Of herbs and roots, of leaves and spice,
      to season the plate and gladden the sense.

 

 

Sing to me of spoiling turned tool,
     and rot to flavour and preserve; 
Of fermentation in riotous rot,
     bringing bread and beer, pickles and cheese.

Sing to me of roasting and baking,
     of stewing and frying.

cherrypistachio 013Sing to me of bread, precious bread,
    combining fire with plant and salt and yeast.

Sing to me, oh Muse!

Sing to me of the cook.

 

Around the Bistro this week, we have been keeping busy. Wode Toad has been hazing/harassing the new guy, Brandon, we’ve been doing some spring cleaning, and Pierce brought in a new book: Cooking, by Michael Pollan. He is probably the most influential food writer of our times, and a champion of real food as opposed to processed food–both from factories and factory farms. It seems strange that it has taken him this long to establish a connection between food and the cooking of food, but in this lively, entertaining, and occasionally overstated book, he examines cooking and learns to cook. This has generated a great deal of discussion in the Bistro’s kitchen, and it occurred to me that, in spite of the fact that we are a bistro and I share weekly recipes and many of my illustrations center around food, I hadn’t actually written about cooking.

It occurred to Wode Toad that my weekly essays have been Wode-Toad-color-miffed.jpgsteadily growing longer, or, as he says about brevity: “Och, I don’t know abou’ the soul of wit, Bear, but with your writings as with briefs, the less I see of them, the better, Aye?”

Observing that I loved to eat (a doctor once pointed out that my sister as an infant displayed tremendous “hand to mouth coordination”–a family trait), my mother convinced me that there was a natural relationship between cooking and eating, and that if I wished to eat well, I should learn to cook well. I agreed, and asked if she’d teach me. She said yes, the first thing you need to learn is how to wash dishes, which she then made me do.

The lesson, however, was not lost on me; I learned to cook because I wanted to eat. After my first kidney transplant, I had to control my diet (and my budget), so I learned to bake my own bread and to cook from scratch and from fresh ingredients. Because my daughter likes good food, she learned to cook, and will probably soon surpass my skills. With a few exceptions, most of my friends cook, and cook very well.Wode-Toad-color-miffed-150x150

ahem.

I cook because I need to eat.
I cook healthy food because I need to eat healthy food.
I cook well because I like to eat well.

I cook because I need to create.
Most of us work jobs that don’t actually produce anything, and where nothing is actually ever finished–it just keeps starting over again. Most of us live in worlds that our outside of our control. In the kitchen, I have control, I am producing something, and, at the end of it, I am actually done. I can look at it, and–Godlike–say: ‘it is good.’

I cook because it keeps me busy.
Due to a variety of circumstances last fall, I spiraled into a deep blue funk, a slough of despond, a dark night of the soul, a dark forest, a depression. To keep me from sitting and staring, I made myself cook every day, even though I had lost my appetite. Because of this, I gave a lot of it away. “Well,” my friend Amy said, “even if you are still depressed, at least you’ll be very popular and depressed.”

I cook because it is handiwork.
I live in a world of words. I sell words at one job, and guide students through words at the other. Everything I do is so verbal. Don’t get me wrong, I am at home in the world of words. But one of the great pleasures of cooking is that it is working with my hands (and smell, and sight and taste, etc.) rather than with words. It is to me what Zen meditation and running are to many others. Because of this, however, it is hard to explain why I love it so: like music, it defies words. It is my own quiet time.

This doesn’t mean that I would not occasionally like help.
In fact, one of my greatest regrets is that I have never really figured out how to cook well with others. I have worked in commercial kitchens, and I love the camaraderie, but I tend to be alone in the kitchen. Even when I do get a chance to cook with somebody–usually my daughter–we tend to bump into each other because we each are used to having the kitchen to ourselves. If you are just starting to cook, or if you are just starting a relationship, my advice would be to learn to cook together.

I cook because it connects me with our food.
I know each piece, because I found it, brought it home, cleaned it, and prepared it. My food belongs to me, and is not just a product; I know it intimately.

But I also cook because I love.
I am not a person who feels comfortable expressing affection–or even emotion, for that matter–but cooking is an acceptable, safe way of telling somebody that I love them.
There is something strangely satisfying in getting up several hours before I need to in order to cook my wife breakfast for her birthday, or to make muffins for the intrepid New York travellers to take to Brooklyn, or to leave bread on somebody’s mailbox, or lean in and hand it to them in the middle of a conversation. I think of the people I am cooking for, and this happiness permeates the experience of cooking.

So, go cook something yourself.
Make yourself something to eat,
then make someone you love something to eat,
then convince that person to cook with you.

And remember to drop by the Philosophy Bistro for recipes and discussion.

My motto, my creed

My dear friends & gentle readers,
I have, unfortunately, had a cold this week, and, quite fortunately, a house guest, and am, as usual, running a little behind.

being right

I thought this would be a good time to discuss my motto: “Being right is no excuse for sloppy thinking; neither does it excuse unkindness or incivility.”
Originally, it grew out of a bad habit of mine in philosophy. I have generally found that I am much clearer, and argue much more effectively, when I am discussing, explaining or defending philosophical standpoints that I do not share, or ideas which I disagree with. Sometimes, this led to misunderstandings of what my actual positions were. At one particular point in my career, I found myself in a nest of Fichteans—not unlike a wasp nest, except that wasps do perform some sort of useful function in nature. I felt, and still feel, that Fichte’s early 19th century quest for transcendental foundations was misguided, and, even though it purports to be a logical part of the Kantian project…Wode_Toad

Yes, yes, Wode Toad, I know, but…

So, I found that it was difficult to argue against this position on how the mind shapes thought based in a very abstract German Idealism (the heirs of the German thinker Emmanuel Kant), and argue for a position on how the mind shapes thought based in observation of how humans actually function in human cultures and societies (the heirs of the German thinker Johann Gottfried Herder). The root of my problem was that it just seemed so obvious that the way to discuss thought was to actually pay attention to how human beings –in practice—think. Eventually, I asked myself “What would Herder do?” and left historical philosophy for social philosophy.

But, to begin a sentence with a conjunction, while I was still in the thick of this debate, and to remind myself that I still had to carefully argue for and defend the obvious, I put a sign up in my office that read:

“Being Right is No Excuse for Sloppy Thinking!”

A little later, I found myself as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for a wonderful Ethics professor, and was suddenly responsible for 124 students in a Professional Ethics class. The prof, a scrappy East Coast, Irish-American, ex-nun who also raised horses with her partner, was decidedly liberal—not radical, but liberal. One of the brighter students was a young Southern Baptist who had just returned from 2 years of missionary work, and he was, as you might expect, decidedly conservative.
At first, I found myself in the rather odd position of a referee. However, at some point early in the class, I was able to take him aside and sell him on the idea that if he was actually right, then he should be able to prove his ideas—or, at least, present and defend them in such a way as to meet her & philosophy’s standards. I shared my motto, telling him that “Being Right is No Excuse for Sloppy Thinking!” Because Baptists are, for the most part, good modernists and believe in absolute truth, and believe in the idea that truth is, at least in part, knowable and defendable, he accepted that position. As a result, he worked harder and— strangely enough—began to pay better attention to her actual positions, especially the ones he disagreed with. Neither of the two, of course, actually changed their opinions, but both of them started taking the other seriously.

However, there is more to life that rational argument. Many folks seem to believe that if they are right, that also gives them some sort of right and dominion to not care about the other human being them encounter during the average day. Our lives are filled with all sorts of interactions with our fellow human beings—some big and significant, others smaller and less so. Because we are human, we tend to pepper these interactions with kindness and cruelty, civility and rudeness, generosity and sullenness, hospitality and aloofness, patience and impatience, humor and ill-temper. For reasons I cannot explain, although I have given a great deal of thought to the matter, those who believe themselves in possession of some sort of absolute truth seem to be much less patient, and much more inclined to lash out at the rest of us. Once, during a communion meditation, I asked what it is about going to church on Sunday morning that makes Christians the most disagreeable customers to deal with on Sunday afternoon (something asked by almost all of my friends in retail or food).
I understand the temptation of being impatient with fools who do not understand what you understand or know what you know. Who hasn’t, at some point, wanted to, just yell:

You idiots! How can you not see the difference between Yams and Sweet Potatoes! They aren’t the same species; they aren’t even the same family or genus! They aren’t even from the same hemispheres! It’s not a subtle difference only clear to specialists like the designated hitter rules in the American and National Leagues, or the doctrinal differences between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the various Protestant denominations; this is a real, tangible difference! One is a monocot and the other is a dicot!

(Ok, maybe not that, but you get the idea. Insert your own personal hobby-horse, political view point or grammatical pet peeve here.)

The point is, each of us knows some things that other people do not know; each of us is right about something that somebody else is wrong about.

Wode Toad would like to point out that “impact” is not a verb, that you need to use your turn signal before you change lanes, that corporations Wode_Toad2should have reasons for making major changes like removing furniture, that electronic readers and lime in beer are both despicable, don’t even get him started on the difference between a Caffè Macchiato and a Latte Macchiato, and that you should always use the Oxford comma and always write a letter back when you receive one!
Wode Toad says: “thank you for listening.”

Being right about something doesn’t make us better; it gives us an obligation, a Noblesse Oblige, to help those who need that knowledge or to share it with those who would benefit by it. Being right does not excuse us from being kind or civil; it is precisely we who are right who should know better.

Perhaps there is a bit of an ironic tone to my motto, but I am confident in its truth, so confident that I do try to live by it. I am too old, and have spent way too much time among us mortals to have much confidence in our claims to be absolutely right. If it is possible to be completely right, it seems probable that clear, critical thinking, kindness and civility might bring us closer.

Regardless of being right, I am confident that clear thinking, kindness and civility bring us closer to being good, and that just might be all right for now.315signature

Growing up a stranger

Dear beautiful daughter, my dearest Grace,

Tubingen RiverfrontOnce upon a time, there was a beautiful city, over a thousand years old, named Tübingen. It lay surrounded by vineyards along the lazy Neckar River. Beyond it on one side was the dark, primeval and hauntingly beautiful Black Forest. Beyond it on the other side loomed the Swabian Alps, the mountains capped with castles and monasteries and further in the distance, brilliant snow.

The old gray cathedral cast cold shadows about it, especially the window of the martyrdom of St George (one of several, apparently; a durable fellow) showing his limbs being threaded through a giant wheel. But the town hall, with the gilded paintings staring down upon the brightly colored umbrellas of the farmers market always seemed warm. At Christmas, the market would fill with crafts and toys, and the smell of gingerbread and candied almonds and fresh Crepes. In the warm summers, the students would guide long boats up and down the river beneath the ancient city walls with poles, and would sing folk songs.

The narrow cobble stone streets had been tread for hundreds of years by famous poets (Holderlin, Hesse), philosophers (Schelling, Hegel), scientists (Kepler, Alzheimer), Theologians (Melanchthon, Moltmann), students, even a few saints, and one wandering boy.

This was my Tübingen, the city I eventually discovered, and which I return to in my memories, and which I am always embarrassed to talk about because it sounds like I made it up. It was never my own city—it had belonged to others before Christ was born—but because I was my own self we could look at each other, and nod, and grin.

As I said, however, it was the city I eventually found, and the city I remember, not the one I arrived in. I arrived feeling very small, my shirt un-tucked, my dark bangs in my eyes, clutching the only two or three things I owned in a pillow case. The most important thing in that pillowcase, the most valuable thing I owned, was the threadbare stuffed giraffe who would often seem like my last and only friend. Leaving Pennsylvania, I would never again completely feel at home.

The next day, I went to school, only knowing 3 words of German: Schwester, Gabel, & Wohnzimmer (Sister, Fork, and Living Room). Although I could pass for a German—and even for a local, a Swabian—within a year, I never would be; I would always be an alien, a stranger, an outsider. At the time, I was under the impression that returning to America would be like returning home, but it wasn’t. I had become a stranger.

I think that is why I love wandering—that is the place where I am supposed to be a stranger; it hurts to feel like a stranger when one should be settled, but it feels natural when one is a wanderer. In addition, I am good at learning how to adapt to a strange place; it doesn’t feel as foreign because I expect every place to feel foreign, but I also expect to find the stories, the wonders and the sensations I found in that magical city on the Neckar River.

It taught me how to survive loneliness and pain, and to rely upon myself; sometimes, that is good, sometimes I suppose it isn’t. I have trouble trusting people, of relying on them. No, that’s too simple. I don’t trust people, and I don’t make the effort to help them be people I will rely on, to let them know what I need, because I am afraid of needing anything.

Talking to Dwayne, one of the owners of The Beckner on Main, the other day, he said that one of the things he learned living as a child first in New York, then in the Caribbean, then in Southern France was to become an accomplished mimic. For most folks, their voice—the words and persona they present to the world—is an unexplained starting place. For a person living in a foreign culture, the voice is a projection of which one is sharply aware and which one always must strive to control or conform. Your own voice is both your own and the force of a foreigner, a stranger’s voice. It becomes part of a projected you between your private self and the alien world.
Many people who move a lot feel this, this strangeness of who they have to keep becoming; in a foreign language, this strangeness is much more pronounced (a truth, as well as a subtle pun).

Although I could pass for a native, I often chose not to; I knew I was not, and chose be be who I was—I would never feel at home in Lederhosen. Being the foreigner taught me not to fear being weird, because I had no chance to be “normal.” There was a power, almost a magic to being different, to being exotic, like the giraffe who came to Paris in 1825. I could invent stories that were new to them, and, although I was awful at their games (mostly soccer), I was good at inventing games because I wasn’t bound to the world in front of me the way they were.

It taught me German, which is helpful, and which is a beautiful language, and it taught me how to think in German, which is not at all the same as thinking in English. For a few years after getting back into English, I would still reason things through in German which had to be logical and organized. English is a language of daydreaming and imagining, but German is a language of science and philosophy.

When, in a graduate course, Alasdair MacIntyre discussed a topic which was in his then forthcoming book, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? suggested that different languages and cultures actually lived in different worlds, it made sense to me, because I had already lived in a German world and an English world, and I knew they were different, and that the only way one would understand that was to live in each. When I encountered Heidegger’s statement that “Language is the House of Being,” I knew how powerful that statement really was. Eventually, I would choose to write a Thesis on Johann Gottfried von Herder because his Outlines of a Philosophy of History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View explores how languages and cultures form us, but how that ultimately remains untranslatable, and sometimes even incomprehensible to those outside that culture. Later, I wrote my dissertation on Social Practices and Cross-Cultural Understanding.

Although our world is becoming more and more homogeneous, it is also very fragmented. We all move through many cultures—subcultures, generally, but pockets of difference—and we encounter many strangers each day. To recognize oneself as a stranger in a strange place, “a wandering Aramean,” is to open oneself to accepting and offering hospitality along the way—to children and waitresses and all.

The Swabians around Tübingen were direct and blunt, generous and kind, a little vulgar but in an earthy sort of way, and loved to argue—directly, passionately, and loudly. This is southern Germany, and like folks from most southern regions they were proud, but hospitable; they welcomed strangers and enjoyed talking.

They also loved the outdoors, our class was always taking long hikes, and my friends and I spent hours exploring the primeval forest between our apartment complexes at the edge of town and the little monastery village of Bebenhausen down in the next valley. They loved music; because of it’s consonants, German sounds like a harsh language, but because of its vowels, it sings beautifully. Most of my classmates knew old folk songs, and we would sing them on our long hikes. Our congregation sang beautiful harmony, and when we sang in counterpoint, it sounded like alpine shepherds singing back and forth to each other across the mountains. It is no accident that so many great composers—Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and so many others—grew up speaking German.

They also loved good food—and they could make it! The Spätzle and the Knöpfle and the Maultaschen, the Laugen Pretzels warm from the bakers oven with cold butter, the Zwiebelkuchen baked each year as the new wine was sold, a whole universe of soups and fresh vegetables in season, and deserts, wonderful cakes and tortes and chocolates, served with dark coffee in fine china or hot tea in thin glasses.

The University culture was like the intellectuals you see in movies about the 19th century, always arguing about ideas, always protesting something, always reading or writing. The Hippies & Greens of the 70s had the same passion that the students supporting the French Revolution on the same stones had 180 years earlier. Intellectual life was not passive, but passionate.

I have taken all these things, and they are all part of who I am. They form the things I love to this day, my passions and my pleasures.

Most of all, somewhere deep inside me I still often feel that little lost boy clutching his stuffed giraffe, and each time I see somebody lonely or sad or feeling like an outsider or feeling like they are the strange one, I feel him inside me, alone and afraid, raw as ever.

Each attempt to be kind to someone is an attempt to reach that little boy and make him feel welcome.