COOKING AS
ART
IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY
(THE
ORIGIN OF LAUGHTER)
By Constantinos Maritsas,
MA in Philosophy, kmar@abv.bg
The problem of human cooking is studied in the context of the
definition of ‘civilization’ on the basis of Darwin’s theory. The author
defines civilization as ‘survival of the weak’. The author supposes that
cooking was invented by men for women in order to be selected by them for
reproduction. In other words, cooking became a selection criterion. Therefore
to show her approval of a particular man, the woman created the love dance and
laughter – imitations of the love act.
Keywords: civilization, cooking, laughter, love dance, evolution
Στην εργασία αυτή μελετάται το πρόβλημα της μαγειρικής του ανθρώπου στο
πλαίσιο του ορισμού του «πολιτισμού» και της θεωρίας του Δαρβίνου. Ο συγγραφέας
ορίζει τον πολιτισμό ως «επιβίωση του αδυνάτου». Ο συγγραφέας υποθέτει ότι το
μαγείρεμα εφευρέθηκε από τους άνδρες για τις γυναίκες, προκειμένου να επιλεγούν
από αυτές για αναπαραγωγή. Με άλλα λόγια, το μαγείρεμα, ως τέχνη, όπως η
ζωγραφική, έγινε κριτήριο επιλογής. Ήτοι, το μαγείρεμα δημιουργήθηκε
ασυναίσθητα. Αντίστοιχα, για να δείξει την έγκριση της για ένα συγκεκριμένο
άνδρα, η γυναίκα δημιούργησε το χορό αγάπης και το γέλιο - απομιμήσεις της
ερωτικής πράξη.
Introduction
“Given
the current level of our knowledge, I do not think that the question of the
origin of language may find an answer” (McMahon, 2001, p. 440). The same could
be said about every demonstration of human civilization. It is valid for
cooking as well. The author believes thet through civilization men looked for ways to
illustrate their feats to women, so that women could choose men for
reproduction. First we have to determine the meaning of civilization.
In
the book is analytically traced
the transition of man from nature to civilization (See Maritsas, 2007). In the book the author gives a brief description of this transition. Only man himself, as is common
regarded, thanks to his brain, has abolished the coercive intraspecific
competition and consciously terminated the process of natural selection. Having
abolished the coercive struggle, man has created a society of similar organisms
— human society. But man has to find a substitute for the coercive
intraspecific competition, in which male individuals have been selected by
women. Since his appearance, man is the weakest and the most helpless living
creature in our planet, but he has the largest brain. However, there are also
many animals that are “biologically weak”: rabbits, frogs, lambs and goats.
None of them has created a civilization! And man has survived, creating one!
How did he do it? The author would like to stress two important steps on the
way toward civilization: (1) replacement of the coercive intraspecific
competition with non-violent fights; and (2) replacement of the coercive
struggle for survival with a non-violent one.
So
the author proposes definition of civilization which he treats as
non-anthropocentric: Civilization is the
survival of the weak. This definition can be applied to man, animal and
every living being.
Since civilization is the survival of the weak the weak
had to find ways to seduce the woman in order to copulate with her. The only
way was to present himself as strong. The same holds true for animals: “Messrs.
Wallace and Trimen have likewise described several equally striking cases of
imitation in the Lepidoptera of the Malay Archipelago and Africa, and with some
other insects. Mr. Wallace has also detected one such case with birds, but we
have none with the larger quadrupeds. The much greater frequency of imitation
with insects than with other animals, is probably the consequence of their
small size; insects cannot defend themselves, excepting indeed the kinds
furnished with a sting, and I have never heard of an instance of such kinds
mocking other insects, though they are mocked; insects cannot easily escape by
flight from the larger animals which prey on them; therefore, speaking
metaphorically, they are reduced, like most weak creatures, to trickery and
dissimulation.” (See Darwin Ch., The
Origin of the Species, Chapter XIV Recapitulation and Conclusion).
In his effort to successfully imitate the strong one,
i.e. to mislead the woman, the weak man discovered lie and lying: „Following
the need to create it, we can already give the definitions of lie and lying:
(1) The lie is the someone else’s truth; and (2) The lying is the usurpation of
someone else’s truth.“ (See Maritsas, 2011).
While lying the weak man invented language and art. How
did this happen? The author guesses the process of art development
is as follows: The
first weak man had to illustrate
the false fact with the lie, “I killed the bear”. The man had gestures, yelling, masking, and natural materials
at his disposal. The weak man must pretend to be the strong one, the one that
really killed the bear. A generation comes, however, where the weak imitate the
previous generation, not the powerful. Thus, the principle according which the
weak man imitated the powerful one disappeared. The weak men prevailed, and the
phrase “I killed the bear” has lost its necessity. Thus, gestures, shouts and
masking became a dance, a song and clothes.
The
truth: The powerful male kills the animal (see
Figure
1).
The
lie: The weak male presents himself as powerful (see
Figure
2).
 |
| Figure 1. The truth of the powerful male. |
 |
Figure 2. The lie of the weak male as the truth of the powerful.
|
And
the weak male always wanted
to find and usurp the truth of the strong male with
the purpose of being selected by the female for reproduction.
Thus the weak male created language and art:
„Language:
Usurping the truth by the weak male from the strong male with the purpose of
being selected by the females for reproduction using its own body organs as
instruments. Art: Usurping the truth
by the weak male from the strong male with the purpose of being selected by the
females for reproduction using the nature materials as instruments. Here art is
the painting, the sculpture, etc.. This definition is for every living being,
animal or human.” (Maritsas, 2011).
As can be seen from the definitions, the difference
between language and art is only in the materials which the weak male uses to
conquer the woman.
Therefore the only criterion for whether a
creation is a piece of art is its goal. If the goal is the survival of the
species, than it is a piece of art, if not – then it is product of labor. The
only person, who can judge if a certain product is a piece of art or not, is
the female. If she falls in love with the creator, then he is an artist, if not
- he is simply someone doing physical work. “A piece of art, according to the
common understanding, is a product of the master’s activity. Who can define,
however, what master means? This is the
piece of art, as the fact that “the creation raises the master’s reputation”
means: the creation shows for the first time that the man of art is a master
(Heidegger, 1986: 29). The carpenter is also a master, but only an artist will
become the father of the female’s children.
But who is the real creator of the human
(and animal – Maritsas, 2007) civilization and art? Who is the artist? The
human, man or woman? Male or female? In the article Civilization and art the author defends the hypothesis that the
creator of civilization and art is the weak male (See Maritsas, 2010).
Moreover, the strong male did not have time and energy to waste over
unnecessary activities such as art: “The deadly sin of laziness was excused
too: in order to provide the catch he had to make so much effort that it was
wise not to spare energy unless it was absolutely necessary”( Lorenz, 2008,
p.34) The strong male had to ensure his own survival, this of the female and …
the weak male. It is namely the weak males who are the creators of art.
Therefore, the woman was not interested in the
work of art. She was interested only in the artist; the work of art was a proof
that its creator was an artist. As already mentioned, through art the ‘weak’
male tried to attract the woman and copulate with her. Thus the ‘work of art’
had to bear his own ‘signature’, to be marked as his own. The female would
recognize and choose him by his work.
‘Food’
was a favorable field for art expression. All men offered food to women, but
the artist, the creator … cooked! The clean-cut piece of meat, the washed
fruit, the laying of the table were an art.
The first generation of weak men just heated
the meat, the second – reheated it, the third – burned it. This was how the
unconscious cooking of food began (See Fig. 3). The good ‘cook’ was more likely
to be chosen by the woman for reproduction. Thus, cooking as an art, became a
selection criterion: “Food in Copper. Gourmet recipes used by affluent
households from the prehistoric settlement of Akrotiri on the island of Tira in
the Age of Copper. Dried fish, snails, skewers, which might have been
accompanied by beer once Tireans had links with Egyptians in the 3rd
and 2nd millennium BC and might have been able to bring the technology
to make beer from barley. Snails were brought from the island of Crete and were
much appreciated. This was said by the honorary professor of Athens University
and director of the excavations of Akrotiri on the island of Tira Mr. Christos
Dumas, speaking in Athens Opera on the topic: "From need to pleasure.
Culinary habits of Akrotiri in the Age of Copper.”[1]
That is the reason why the best cooks today
are men. A restaurant menu is a theatre program. The cooks and waiters are the
actors, the scene is the stage. The menu and the design are ‘the front and centre’.
The clients come to the restaurant to take pleasure in a taste experience and
the menu is impressive.
In other words:
Human cooking is unconsciously developed by the positive feedback:
more lies => more cooking, more cooking => more lies.
Origin of Laughter and Erotic
dance
Therefore, by means of language and art the weak man demonstrated
his (false) abilities to the women. However, how would a woman show her
preferences for one particular man? The woman did not have language or art.
How? So the woman found decision: by imitation of the erotic act in front of
him using sounds and movement. Thus she created the ‘love dance’ and laughter.
In other words, laughter is imitation of
orgasm, a signal that the man has been chosen by the woman. To this day laughter
and love dance are indicators of the woman’s acceptance of a man.
For example, these young Maasai ladies are performing a love dance
before choosing someone for the night; the choice is demonstrated by putting
their foot on the shoulder of one of the men watching. (See Fig. 4).
 |
Figure 4. Love dance of Maasai women - Figure 5. Greek love dance ‘susta’.
|
“Susta”, the erotic face-to-face dance on the island of Crete is
performed by one or more couples (a man and a woman). Facing each other they act
the battle for conquering each other’s love. Using animated gestures and steps
full of masculinity and desire, the man is trying to make the woman respond to
his call. The woman at times encourages him, at others disappoints him with her
attractive jumps full of joy, with beautiful gentle movements of the hands and
passionate inclinations of the head. (See Fig. 5).
Conclusion
No man, from the caves or modern times, no living being, starts a
procedure which will be beneficial for his species after 1,000, 10,000 or
100,000 years. No man ever thought of cooking, of taming plants and animals, of
creating a language which will improve(?) people’s life in 10,000 years! Then,
how did this all happen? How did man managed to tame animals and plants? Why
does he speak; why does he cook? According to Richard Wrangham, homo habilis consciously decided to
evolve into homo erectus, as
described in his book: "I believe the
transformative moment that gave rise to the genus Homo...stemmed from the
control of fire, and the advent of cooked meals. Cooking increased the value of
our food. It changed our bodies, our brains, our use of time, and our social
lives. It also made us consumers of external energy and thereby created an
organism with a new relationship to nature, dependent on fuel… The transition is first signalled at 2.6
million years ago, by... cobblestones deliberately clashed to produce a tool knife-making suggests planning, patience, cooperation, and organized
behavior… Between 1.9 and 1.8 million years ago, the second critical step was
taken: some habilines evolved into Homo erectus... These weaker mouths cannot
be explained by Homo erectus's becoming better at hunting. Something else must
have been going on. Cooking food does many things. It makes our food safer,
creates rich and delicious tastes, and reduces spoilage. Heating can allow us
to open, cut, or mash tough foods. But none of these advantages is as important
as a little-appreciated aspect: cooking increases the amount of energy our
bodies obtain from our food. The extra energy gave the first cooks biological
advantages… Their genes spread, [and] their bodies responded by biologically
adapting to cooked food, shaped by natural selection to take maximum advantage
of the new diet. There were changes in anatomy, physiology, ecology, life
history, psychology, and society.... We humans are the cooking apes, the
creatures of the flame." (Wrangham, pp.2-14)
As I have already shown in this article, contrary to
Richard Wrangham, first it was man who became civilized and then created
cooking as an unconscious process of selection of the male by the female. Cooking can be explained on the ground of Darwin’s
theory. But it is necessary to define the concept
of civilization and its selection criteria. On the basis of the Darwinian
theory I define civilization as “survival of the weak”. I have shown in this
article that cooking, as art, have been created unconsciously by the weak male.
The aim was for the weak male, the creator of civilization, to survive by means
of the lie. Cooking created as a form of art, of lying.
The female, accordingly, in order to show her choice of male
created the laughter and the love dance. To this day the men show himself in
front of the women with their works of language and art and the women show
their approval by means of laughter and love movements as an imitation of
orgasm, of the love act.
References:
Darwin, Ch..
(1997). The origin of the species (Η
καταγωγή των ειδών). Patra Greece: Patra University Press.
Heidegger,
M.
(1986). The origin of the work of art
(Η προέλευση του έργου τέχνης), Athens: Dodoni.
Lorenz, K.
(2008). On aggression (Так называемое
зло). Moskow: Culturnaia Revoljutsia (Культурная Революция).
Maritsas, C.
(2007). Civilization and natural
selection 2 (Πολιτισμός και φυσική επιλογή). Sofia: Sofia University Press.
Maritsas C. (2010). Civilization
and art, International Journal of Arts & Sciences, Vol. 3, Number 15,
ISSN: 1944-6934, 97-104.
(see http://openaccesslibrary.org/images/BGS113_Constantinos_Maritsas.pdf).
Maritsas C. (2011). Definition of Language and Art in the Context of the Evolution Theory,
Journal of Literature and Art Studies, ISSN 2159-5836, Vol. 1, No. 3, 219 -
225.
McMahon, A.
(2001). Understanding language change
(Ιστορική γλωσσολογία). Athens: Metechmio.
Wrangham R. (2009) : Catching Fire: how cooking made us human, London:
Profile Books.
ΣΧΟΛΙΑ
ΣΧΟΛΙΑ ΜΕΣΩ Facebook