I think Nerf's comment here is consistent with the guidance provided by Wilson and Tokitsu, to not scheme for pleasure and to not seek pleasure for its own sake.
Pleasure found through "good food, good drink, good company" is the essence of life. I would add to this pleasure through good work, good friendship and good play.
What is the difference between pleasure sought for itself, and pleasure which comes from engagement in life itself? Is this a pedantic or essential distinction?
I think the latter. It is a matter of style, the manner of doing something.
Let's look at the pursuits that Nerf points out, good food, good company...Good food involves more than just the eating. The concept of the meal. The gathering of its ingredients. The attention to preparation, deciding upon flavors. The menu. Condiments. The serving and beverage. Possibly eating with others. The table. And all that goes with that. What gives a meal its distinction and its meaning are stylistic elements. How we set about doing something. How we get there. The means and not the end in itself.
Dining in a restaurant. The ceremony of it. The ambiance. Even finding parking. The pressure. The anticipation. How far to walk? Crowded or not. The diners. Who are they? Choosing. Sneaking to look at other people's plates. Communicating with the waiter. The presentation. The space. Colors. Lighting. Booths or tables. A favorite? Windows or lack of them. Another favorite: The noise of and animation of everybody together. The arriving and departing. Feeling together with strangers. Coming together to eat. Never to be seen again. Gathering ones coats and putting them on to go out into the dark, damp street. Street lights. Walking to the car. Style.
In Guatemala, we loved a small family style restaurant, run by an old woman. Now old, she had been a red head!!! (On re-reading I remembered her nickname: La Concha. And that was what her restaurant was informally called: "La Concha's.")
The restaurant was at the back of a tiny bakery/grocery store. In front of the cash register was maybe 50 sq ft.
The few tables in back were long and family style, where you would sit at the next available space. The walls were lacquered red. Sun streaming in. The food was prepared next to us. Without a separate kitchen. Diners were in the kitchen.
When diners, strangers most of them, finished eating and rose to leave, each would make eye contact with each of the other patrons and say, "buen provecho." Translated roughly this would be, have a good appetite or eat well. I did.
While the food was marginal, I never ate better in my life. (To find food I liked I asked for a large composed salad, vegetables fresh all. Or put another way, with all of the fresh vegetables that could be had. Plenty of fresh chopped boiled beets (remolachas in Spanish), cucumbers, boiled potatoes, and chopped eggs, tomatoes, and iceburg lettuce. With salt and vinegar as a dressing. And a tiny bit of mayonnaise on the side. It was divine. I lost so much weight. That became my principle meal. Twice a day. (I forgot the 2 bottles of Guatemalan beer.)
The point I am making is that some of the most pleasurable meals in my life I enjoyed despite the simplicity of the food.
I have had meals in fine restaurants, the kind that people obsessively seek out and pay hundreds of dollars to enjoy. Restaurants that obsessively fascinate their patrons.
The word fetish comes from the Portuguese word for obsessive fascination.
The pleasure of dining at fine restaurants in a metropolis, I want to enjoy again (with M). I will certainly enjoy the food. But I will be seeking the experience as much as the pleasure. And that is what will make the difference. I will exhilarate in the style and not the substance.
I think this is what Insane meant in her comment about this precept that form follows function. *I am also thinking here about the Slow Food movement.
