I have often wondered as to what can be the greatest bonding between two people. To my pessimistic - or perhaps, highly opinionated eyes, no person is selfless, and any activity - well, most of them at least - that they may involve in, seems either pretentious or one that caters to the selfishness of one or both parties.
A meet - particularly one between two leaders which signifies a link being forged between the groups each represents - should at least be honest, if not entirely selfless. The selfishness, while being minimised to the requisite amount, should be admitted openly - and I feel that no better activity than sharing a meal achieves this.
Eating signifies not only the mortality and, to an extent, the vulnerability of each candidate - it also signifies an honest catering to hunger, that one innate feeling all organisms have, thereby instilling humility in them and subtly urging them to consider the well being of fellow organisms in their decisions. I'm sugar coating it here - some such meetings could result in even terrible decisions like (just picking some extreme examples to defend my claim insensitively) waging wars or killing someone - but there is almost always an element of compassion, however narrow the leaders may be - compassion for their countrymen, soldiers, or for other terrorists in their organisation, for instance.
Another advantage of having discussions over meals is what I like to call satisfaction spillage. Several of our decisions, much like our tone, and, as my father often points out, even our writing, are influenced by seemingly irrelevant factors, one of the most influential one being hunger. The satisfaction accompanying a sumptuous meal is quite overwhelming even to the most heartless of people, and is one that can 'spill' into the purpose of the meet and help mellow down several outbursts, particularly words, and sometimes even major decisions to much less cruel ones. Agreement and settlement of disputes is relatively easier when accompanied by food. Who'd want to go through the trouble to argue with a mouthful of food?
Discussions carried out alongside eating reach the heart, chaperoned by the food that enters the stomach. Further, an inadvertent connection is forged between the people who eat it, and cook who prepares the food. A connection is also established with the land on which and the roof under which, it is eaten, thereby capturing the heart of the visitor(s) among the two (or more), making it a sacred bond that will prevail for all eternity.
Another advantage of having discussions over meals is what I like to call satisfaction spillage. Several of our decisions, much like our tone, and, as my father often points out, even our writing, are influenced by seemingly irrelevant factors, one of the most influential one being hunger. The satisfaction accompanying a sumptuous meal is quite overwhelming even to the most heartless of people, and is one that can 'spill' into the purpose of the meet and help mellow down several outbursts, particularly words, and sometimes even major decisions to much less cruel ones. Agreement and settlement of disputes is relatively easier when accompanied by food. Who'd want to go through the trouble to argue with a mouthful of food?
Discussions carried out alongside eating reach the heart, chaperoned by the food that enters the stomach. Further, an inadvertent connection is forged between the people who eat it, and cook who prepares the food. A connection is also established with the land on which and the roof under which, it is eaten, thereby capturing the heart of the visitor(s) among the two (or more), making it a sacred bond that will prevail for all eternity.
How right it is:when the saying goes, the way to a man's heart is through the stomach.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably another way of looking at it!