This is a statement that is hopeful - despairing - and also generally, and arguably both stupid and brilliant, since man, indeed cannot literally live by bread alone: that is a biological fact.

The implication, indeed meaning in context of the statement is that what is sufficient to sustain the body is not sufficient to sustain the spirit, and therefore that the body and spirit are different and distinct entities of the same "order of ontology". Not very likely.

Bread, however, is never even sufficient for the body, and so the implication begins with a completely false hypothesis. Therefore, as a logical statement, it is stupid. Yet, in its very stupidity is brilliance, if understood more literally that bread is insufficient. Then, it becomes a statement of fact, and not one of pseudospiritual psychosis.

If modern science has shown anything, it has shown exactly how the the classical philosophical divisions between mind and body, spirit and mind are complete mythical nonsense; much of so called philosphy is mythical and confabulated nonsense. All three, mind, body and spirit are quite obviously distinguishable aspects of the same physical reality.

   The purposes of this extended essay on cuisine and its history:

	1. To be useful and enlightening to a practicioner
	2. To be both entertaining and irritating
	3. To work out the Snotty Chef's contention that the world's
	   cuisine really has only two major focalpoints: China and
	   Persia.

   1.


   2.


   3.

   COPYRIGHT NOTICE REGARDING ALL ORIGINAL WORK HEREIN:
            © February 2006 by Bill Hammel (bhammel@graham.main.nc.us).
            Permission to use for any noncommercial, educational purpose.
            This copyright and permission notice must appear in all copies.
            Permission is also granted to refer to or describe these
            documents in commercial books, products, or online services.
            These documents may be freely reproduced, copied and disseminated
            by any electronic, digital or written means, but in no case may
            such copying or dissemination be charged for.  The idea is very
            simple, no person or body has supported any of the original
            works contained in this pages.  They are works of love given
            freely.  I find repugnant the idea of someone expropriating,
            for profit, what I give freely.  If you have a problem with
            this, ask; rules always have exceptions.