Monday, November 13, 2006
Devil's Food: Cake
So it's my Dad's Birthday today, (Happy Birthday Dad) and that means one thing: cake. Birthdays always mean cake. I'm pretty sure it's a law. So that got me thinking about something that's bothered me for a long time, something that's bothered me about cake.
She wanted to have her cake, and eat it too.
What does this mean? Well I know it means that the phantom "she" was stradling the fence, wanting to not make up her mind about a decision and have it both ways. But what does this mean when actually applied to cake?
How could she eat the cake if she did not already have possession of it? If this is the case, it is not only possible for her to have her cake and eat it too, but necessary. Even if this cake originally belonged to someone else (perhaps my father), which is not the case seeing as the pronoun: "her" is applied to the object: cake implying intrinsic ownership of the cake, she would have to appropriate the cake prior to consumption. Or in the act of eating the cake, be claiming ownership.
Besides, if she does not intend to eat this cake that, for sake of argument she has recently pilfered from my father (and on his birthday no less), what are her plans for this cake? To fence it on the black market? Or perhaps to hide a hack-saw in it to help her arsonist boyfriend Vinny the Flame out of Sing Sing? While these options don't reflect well on "her" as a person, nor "her" taste in company, to use the cake for such things would nessecitate "her" relinquishing possession of the cake. Then she would neither have her cake nor eat.
The only reason to have the cake without eating it is to allow it to exist in a state of perfect quiescence. But is not the purpose of a cake to be eaten? If we take away an objects purpose, does it lose it's identity? If a stapler never staples, can it still be called a stapler? If a bed is used only for sitting, and never for lying down, does it become a couch? Can one ever simply HAVE a cake?
And is it an entire cake, for that matter, or simply a slice of cake. If it is only a slice then she can just cut the slice in half, and in so doing afford herself the opportunity to have her cake and eat it too. This, assuming that cake remains cake if its function is never to be fulfilled. Or if it is an entire cake, can she slice it up? Or in so slicing would she irrevicably transform the cake into a group of slices of cake? If that is the case then to eat a cake one must consume it in its entirity. The image of a snake unhinging its jaw so as to swollow an ostridge egg much larger than the size of its own head comes to mind unbidden. But even the very act of chewing, or in loo of that then the very act of digestion would negate the identity of "cake".
So it all becomes clear. She cannot have her cake and/or eat it too. The concept of "cake" is far too Platonic to exist in reality. Ergo either cake does not exist, or it is reality that is fictional. But I'll go one step farther (or is it further, never quite understood the difference). If there is a law that says you need to have cake on your birthday, and cake and reality cannot co-exist, then reality must be against the law.
Does that surprise anyone?
So Dad, to you on your Birthday I gift to you some advice: treat yourself to a bowl of Carrot Cake Soup. And have a Happy Birthday.
-Tim
She wanted to have her cake, and eat it too.
What does this mean? Well I know it means that the phantom "she" was stradling the fence, wanting to not make up her mind about a decision and have it both ways. But what does this mean when actually applied to cake?
How could she eat the cake if she did not already have possession of it? If this is the case, it is not only possible for her to have her cake and eat it too, but necessary. Even if this cake originally belonged to someone else (perhaps my father), which is not the case seeing as the pronoun: "her" is applied to the object: cake implying intrinsic ownership of the cake, she would have to appropriate the cake prior to consumption. Or in the act of eating the cake, be claiming ownership.
Besides, if she does not intend to eat this cake that, for sake of argument she has recently pilfered from my father (and on his birthday no less), what are her plans for this cake? To fence it on the black market? Or perhaps to hide a hack-saw in it to help her arsonist boyfriend Vinny the Flame out of Sing Sing? While these options don't reflect well on "her" as a person, nor "her" taste in company, to use the cake for such things would nessecitate "her" relinquishing possession of the cake. Then she would neither have her cake nor eat.
The only reason to have the cake without eating it is to allow it to exist in a state of perfect quiescence. But is not the purpose of a cake to be eaten? If we take away an objects purpose, does it lose it's identity? If a stapler never staples, can it still be called a stapler? If a bed is used only for sitting, and never for lying down, does it become a couch? Can one ever simply HAVE a cake?
And is it an entire cake, for that matter, or simply a slice of cake. If it is only a slice then she can just cut the slice in half, and in so doing afford herself the opportunity to have her cake and eat it too. This, assuming that cake remains cake if its function is never to be fulfilled. Or if it is an entire cake, can she slice it up? Or in so slicing would she irrevicably transform the cake into a group of slices of cake? If that is the case then to eat a cake one must consume it in its entirity. The image of a snake unhinging its jaw so as to swollow an ostridge egg much larger than the size of its own head comes to mind unbidden. But even the very act of chewing, or in loo of that then the very act of digestion would negate the identity of "cake".
So it all becomes clear. She cannot have her cake and/or eat it too. The concept of "cake" is far too Platonic to exist in reality. Ergo either cake does not exist, or it is reality that is fictional. But I'll go one step farther (or is it further, never quite understood the difference). If there is a law that says you need to have cake on your birthday, and cake and reality cannot co-exist, then reality must be against the law.
Does that surprise anyone?
So Dad, to you on your Birthday I gift to you some advice: treat yourself to a bowl of Carrot Cake Soup. And have a Happy Birthday.
-Tim
# posted by Mr Tim @ 10:02 AM 
