Attention Sinners... Specifically, Gluttons

Attention Sinners... Specifically, Gluttons

I’m doing some research for a potential segment on Chicago Public Radio, so I’m soliciting input, anonymity guaranteed.

This piece will include a series of interviews with self-identified “gluttons.” We associate gluttony with those who eat excessively, but St. Thomas Aquinas, showing true Scholastic exactitude, divided the sin into six subcategories, including eating too much, too finely, too soon, daintily, wildly and burningly (with too much passion). My guess is that many reading this may sometimes eat passionately or in some other way that might be considered by civilians to be “intemperate.”

Anyway, if you feel you may be a glutton – as I here fully confess I am – then please pm, email or call me (708-383-8040). All communications related to this request will be held in strictest confidence; I will not publicize your name under any circumstances, and I will use your words only with your permission.

Hammond

PS. Many medieval theologians considered gluttony and lust to be the least damnable of all the Seven Deadly Sins…

I'd like to be a glutton, but I think I'm a bit too proud of my slothfulness.

I use to be a glutton, but then I had weight loss surgery. Does being a glutton at heart count?

I don't want to publicly admit that I'm a glutton.

Darn that St. Thomas Aquinas and his bad habit of chronicling people's bad habits! And yet, none of the deadly sins involve writing...couldn't he stick with his creative ways to stay up all night writing and leave it at that?

Mhays wrote:Darn that St. Thomas Aquinas...

Not until this moment did I ever realize that the seven deadly sins were just made up by some guy! I thought they just were. Well, screw that.

Not just some guy...a really fat guy (actually, the 7 nasties were sort of a collective unconscious thing that was codified by a 6th Century Pope, but Aquinas felt the need to deal with his own lack of self-esteem by expounding on it)

(PS. I always liked the staying-up-at-night trick: IIRC write with one hand, hold up a very heavy weight with the other. If you nod off, the weight slamming your hand onto the table set you right back to writing.)

Does gluttony towards sweets count, or does it have to be all foods in general?

Pie Lady wrote:Does gluttony towards sweets count, or does it have to be all foods in general?

I'm interested in having people define gluttony however they choose, though over-attachment to any food would seem to qualify as "gluttony" by most definitions.

I have a few volunteers, but could use more. Are you suggesting, perhaps, as your name implies, that you sometimes overindulge in the sweet stuff? May I speak with you before you go to hell?

Sure! Chat away.

Our segment on Gluttony -- featuring Mike G and hellodali -- is scheduled to run tomorrow, November 26th, on WBEZ (FM 91.5), during the 9-10AM and 8-9PM broadcasts of 848, the Chicago Public Radio magazine. You can listen live at http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/program_848.aspx.

After the initial broadcast, the segment will be available on Podcast.

David Hammond wrote:I'm interested in having people define gluttony however they choose, though over-attachment to any food would seem to qualify as "gluttony" by most definitions.

...I have a few volunteers, but could use more.

Hammond,

In case you had trouble finding the quantity of gluttons for which you had hoped, I may have learned the reason from CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters.

Speaking about gluttony, and describing the devil's work in the first-person, Screwtape wrote:
One of the great achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it.... This has largely been effected by concentrating all our efforts on the gluttony of delicacy, not gluttony of excess.

Screwtape then describes a gluttonous old woman who:
...is always turning from what has been offered her to say with a demure little sigh and a smile, ‘Oh, please, please.. all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast.’ You see? Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognises as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others. The woman is in what may be called the "All-I-want" state of mind. All she wants is a cup of tea properly made, or an egg properly boiled, or a slice of bread properly toasted... the particular shade of delicacy to which we have enslaved her is offended by the sight of more food than she happens to want.


I haven't read Screwtape Letters yet, but just saw a production of it at Mercury Theater. There are some fascinating quotes about how food is used to do the devil's work. Some of them shed a different light on what's discussed in your excellent segment.


In the segment, Dr. John said,
"If gluttony is a manifestation of us being focused about our immediate needs, and not being focused enough about what’s healthy for us, and what’s a good example for other people, then when we’re gluttonous. I guess you could say that we’re abusing our spirit."

But Screwtape suggests that a focus on self-gratification is protection from the devil, while being a "good example" is, in fact, the road to hell:
The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence about what other people say about it, is by that very fact forearmed against some of our subtlest forms of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the food or books he really likes in favour of the ‘best’ people, the ‘right’ food, the ‘important’ books. I have known a human defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions.

Kennyz wrote:But Screwtape suggests that a focus on self-gratification is protection from the devil, while being a "good example" is, in fact, the road to hell:
The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence about what other people say about it, is by that very fact forearmed against some of our subtlest forms of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the food or books he really likes in favour of the ‘best’ people, the ‘right’ food, the ‘important’ books. I have known a human defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions.

I'll have to dig up my old copy of The Screwtape Letters to read this passage in context, but it seems as though what Screwtape might be getting at is that if one follows an internal compass (conscience, perhaps, or simply appetite), instead of following the herd (many of whom, or course, are damned), that one will indeed be following the correct path. Being true to yourself is to be, literally, blessed...and thus beyond the reach of Wormwood, et al.

Challenge with satire, of course, is that the satiric target is sometimes unclear. I'm not sure, for instance, how you would "enjoy" anything with "disinterest."

David Hammond wrote:I'm not sure, for instance, how you would "enjoy" anything with "disinterest."

Deferring to the true definition of "disinterest," meaning impartial (as opposed to uninterested, which implies indifference), and reading that passage of Screwtape in context, "[t]he man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence about what other people say about it," [emphasis is mine], I take it to mean that you enjoy something because your enjoyment is neutral, i.e., "for its own sake," as opposed to being initiated or influenced by society. If you can enjoy something for what it is, as opposed to being told to enjoy it by society, you are, in a way, learning to inoculate yourself against falling prey to the more evil aspects of society. My two cents. (FWIW, I've put Screwtape on hold at Chicago Public Library for reading. I'll clarify or correct my comments later, after reading, if necessary.)

aschie30 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:I'm not sure, for instance, how you would "enjoy" anything with "disinterest."

Deferring to the true definition of "disinterest," meaning impartial (as opposed to uninterested, which implies indifference), and reading that passage of Screwtape in context, "[t]he man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence about what other people say about it," [emphasis is mine], I take it to mean that you enjoy something because your enjoyment is neutral, i.e., "for its own sake," as opposed to being initiated or influenced by society. If you can enjoy something for what it is, as opposed to being told to enjoy it by society, you are, in a way, learning to inoculate yourself against falling prey to the more evil aspects of society. My two cents. (FWIW, I've put Screwtape on hold at Chicago Public Library for reading. I'll clarify or correct my comments later, after reading, if necessary.)

If you enjoy something, then you are partial to it; I am not seeing how you can take pleasure from something to which you are neutral; if it makes you feel good, it's not a neutral experience. But this is a quibble (maybe).

I think we're basically interpreting this passage the same way: follow your gut, whatever "society" might be telling you to do.

David Hammond wrote:If you enjoy something, then you are partial to it;

Yes, but your partiality is neutral (or neutralized, i.e., deriving from within). (This is getting very Abbott and Costello-ish.) If I may be so bold to critique Lewis, it's a confusing choice of words to explain what he's trying to say. And yes, I agree that we're interpreting the passage the same way.

David Hammond wrote:

Kennyz wrote:But Screwtape suggests that a focus on self-gratification is protection from the devil, while being a "good example" is, in fact, the road to hell:
The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence about what other people say about it, is by that very fact forearmed against some of our subtlest forms of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the food or books he really likes in favour of the ‘best’ people, the ‘right’ food, the ‘important’ books. I have known a human defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions.

I'll have to dig up my old copy of The Screwtape Letters to read this passage in context, but it seems as though what Screwtape might be getting at is that if one follows an internal compass (conscience, perhaps, or simply appetite), instead of following the herd (many of whom, or course, are damned), that one will indeed be following the correct path. Being true to yourself is to be, literally, blessed...and thus beyond the reach of Wormwood, et al.

I think that's exactly right. When you read the context, I think you'll see that in referencing "our subtlest forms of attack" Screwtape is talking about another deadly sin: envy. We're guilty of envy, and therefore paving our own way to hell, when we let concerns about what other people think guide our decisions on what to read, eat, etc.

Kennyz wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

Kennyz wrote:But Screwtape suggests that a focus on self-gratification is protection from the devil, while being a "good example" is, in fact, the road to hell:
The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring two-pence about what other people say about it, is by that very fact forearmed against some of our subtlest forms of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the food or books he really likes in favour of the ‘best’ people, the ‘right’ food, the ‘important’ books. I have known a human defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions.

I'll have to dig up my old copy of The Screwtape Letters to read this passage in context, but it seems as though what Screwtape might be getting at is that if one follows an internal compass (conscience, perhaps, or simply appetite), instead of following the herd (many of whom, or course, are damned), that one will indeed be following the correct path. Being true to yourself is to be, literally, blessed...and thus beyond the reach of Wormwood, et al.

I think that's exactly right. When you read the context, I think you'll see that in referencing "our subtlest forms of attack" Screwtape is talking about another deadly sin: envy. We're guilty of envy, and therefore paving our own way to hell, when we let concerns about what other people think guide our decisions on what to read, eat, etc.

Staying on the theological (not religious!) track, isn't focusing on one's own tastes regardless of what others think a form of pride, the fundamental sin in many faith systems (it blocks one's way to heaven as well as Nirvana)?

This is a knotty passage, but I'm taking the approach that if I don't fully understand it, it's not Lewis' fault; it's probably mine. We're veering into critical theory here, but one point of critical doctrine that I have believed (on and off) for years is that if a segment of text from a "great writer" doesn't make sense, it's probably because I haven't thought about it hard enough. It's not that this genius made a mistake that I was clever enough to catch. This applies, also, to cuisine. If a chef whose reputation I respect prepares a dish that doesn't make sense to me, I look harder to determine the chef's intent and what I might be missing.

A couple of notes that might explain what seem like contradictions:

In an attempt either to be funny or to cover himself in the event things he wrote seem contradictory, Lewis wrote a preface which says:
"Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar. Not everything that Screwtape says should be assumed to be true even from his own angle."

Screwtape does write about pride, in a passage that might seem especially appropriate for many of us LTHers, he wrote:
"Being a male, he is not so likely to be caught by the "All I want" camouflage. Males are best turned into gluttons with the help of their vanity. They ought to be made to think themselves very knowing about food, to pique themselves on having found the only restaurant in the town where steaks are really "properly" cooked... for then his charity, justice, and obedience are all at your mercy"

I do still see a distinction between pride, or vanity, and the type of selfish enjoyment Screwtape says is protection against the devil. Enjoyment is not about giving yourself a pat on the back. It's not being self-congratulatory, it's being self-aware.

Kennyz wrote:A couple of notes that might explain what seem like contradictions:

In an attempt either to be funny or to cover himself in the event things he wrote seem contradictory, Lewis wrote a preface which says:
"Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar. Not everything that Screwtape says should be assumed to be true even from his own angle."

Screwtape does write about pride, in a passage that might seem especially appropriate for many of us LTHers, he wrote:
"Being a male, he is not so likely to be caught by the "All I want" camouflage. Males are best turned into gluttons with the help of their vanity. They ought to be made to think themselves very knowing about food, to pique themselves on having found the only restaurant in the town where steaks are really "properly" cooked... for then his charity, justice, and obedience are all at your mercy"

I do still see a distinction between pride, or vanity, and the type of selfish enjoyment Screwtape says is protection against the devil. Enjoyment is not about giving yourself a pat on the back. It's not being self-congratulatory, it's being self-aware.

Self-aware...yeah, I see that.

It's a literary convention that Satan and his minions be portrayed as contradictory and illogical, even when they seem very logical (cf. Satan talking to Eve in Paradise Lost). After all, they are by definition out of sync with the truth.

David Hammond wrote:Staying on the theological (not religious!) track, isn't focusing on one's own tastes regardless of what others think a form of pride, the fundamental sin in many faith systems (it blocks one's way to heaven as well as Nirvana)?

I wouldn't classify the downside (if there is one) to focusing on one's own tastes as pride, but rather something that if done to excess, begets stubbornness and ignorance. Stubbornness, because you dismiss other's opinions as being merely inferior (which we do all the time on LTH!), and ignorance, because focusing on what you like exclusively perhaps closes you off from experiencing and understanding new or unfamiliar things. As another counterpoint to Screwtape, you could also argue that focusing exclusively on our own tastes without regard to social convention leads to alienation, depriving us of the very connections with others that we need as humans. However, in reading the passage in question, I guess I don't take Screwtape to that extreme; if you did, wow, its meaning could get way off-track. I find its meaning to be something along the lines of what was discussed above, i.e., self-awareness. Put another way, indulging in something that (cliche alert) "stirs your soul" is a reminder that you have one, and trying to act in conformance with your deeper self is a way to avoid running with a herd that might lead you to your own ruination. (I, too, am trying to keep this very interesting discussion theological.)

aschie30 wrote:Put another way, indulging in something that (cliche alert) "stirs your soul" is a reminder that you have one, and trying to act in conformance with your deeper self is a way to avoid running with a herd that might lead us to our own ruination. (I, too, am trying to keep this very interesting discussion theological.)

Well, I'd certainly agree with that sentiment. I guess the basic and very simple premise behind this passage from Lewis is that going along with the crowd is usually a bad idea (I had a professor once whose two-word explanation for the fall of the Roman Empire was "peer pressure").

David Hammond wrote:I had a professor once whose two-word explanation for the fall of the Roman Empire was "peer pressure".

I love it!

David Hammond wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Put another way, indulging in something that (cliche alert) "stirs your soul" is a reminder that you have one, and trying to act in conformance with your deeper self is a way to avoid running with a herd that might lead us to our own ruination. (I, too, am trying to keep this very interesting discussion theological.)

Well, I'd certainly agree with that sentiment. I guess the basic and very simple premise behind this passage from Lewis is that going along with the crowd is usually a bad idea (I had a professor once whose two-word explanation for the fall of the Roman Empire was "peer pressure").

Well, maybe. The problem with that theory is that in a later letter, Screwtape is distraught over the fact that "the patient" - through his new girlfriend - has "entered the house" of a set of very pure, good people. He fears that all of the devil's work may be lost now that the patient has found this new set. Trying hard to keep this theological rather than religious, I'll say that it seems Lewis is suggesting that as long as you have faith in what the "right" people tell you to do, you're safe. When you start taking the opinions of the "right" people and other people into account, you're in trouble.

Kennyz wrote:Well, maybe. The problem with that theory is that in a later letter, Screwtape is distraught over the fact that "the patient" - through his new girlfriend - has "entered the house" of a set of very pure, good people. He fears that all of the devil's work may be lost now that the patient has found this new set. Trying hard to keep this theological rather than religious, I'll say that it seems Lewis is suggesting that as long as you have faith in what the "right" people tell you to do, you're safe. When you start taking the opinions of the "right" people and other people into account, you're in trouble.

Hmmm, I guess I'm starting to understand the reason for the "disclaimer:"

Kennyz wrote:In an attempt either to be funny or to cover himself in the event things he wrote seem contradictory, Lewis wrote a preface which says:
"Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar. Not everything that Screwtape says should be assumed to be true even from his own angle."

nr706 wrote:I'd like to be a glutton, but I think I'm a bit too proud of my slothfulness.

I envy your pride in your sloth. Man, you make me angry! I lust after achieving gluttony, but my avarice gets in the way of paying the bill.