Our famous Corinne Mead... Medw... Mwd... Our famous Corinne, not a long time ago, pointed out in the Forum that people that share the same faith will often flame each other over small differences in details of that faith. The first schismatic dualism that comes to mind about our little passion is the one between Siliconists and Naturalists. Who are they?

"Everything is politics", we used to say in my country in the 70's, and in this case we are in fact facing two political parties. In the Parliament of Boobs, the Siliconists are the Progressive (and sometimes Revolutionary) Left, the Naturalists are the Conservative Right: the former support saline- and silicone-enhanced breasts, the latter only natural ones.  Behind these positions we find two important theoretical systems. Yes, we're facing two ideologies.

The Naturalists base their arguments on the classical concept of "nature", as it was transmitted throughout Western culture. From Plato and Aristotle, through the Middle Ages and Christian theology, up to the rationalism of the 17th century or the laws of classical economy, "nature" means the essence of the thing: ousia, essentia, quod quid erat esse, etc.: that which makes the thing be what it has to be. The nature or essence has the quality of being unchangeable. "Human nature", for instance, is what exists and is embodied in me exactly as it is in an American or a Japanese, or an ancient Greek or an Egyptian.

This said, any attempt to modify nature, is, on the one hand, destined to fail (the unchangeable, by definition, being exactly what can not be modified); on the other hand, it is a violence against reality, like the many violences man practices against the whole earth and the natural environment today. The knowledge of the nature or essence of things is, for traditional thought, the truth (adaequatio intellectus et rei). Given this as a basis, we understand why the Naturalists assert that natural breasts are the only true breasts, and silicone/saline boobs are false, fake, they are a lie and a violence against the nature of things. The conservative shape of this thinking appears in the assertion that all has to remain as nature wants it to be: A-cups have to be A-cups, and D-cups, D-cups.

The Siliconists, on the contrary, are affiliated with some of the main achievements of contemporary thought (from Nietzsche to Wittgenstein to American pragmatism), which is skeptical about the concept of "nature", or any other unchangeable principle. In fact, it is very difficult to say exactly what is involved in this concept: on the contrary, in the name of some determinations that are considered to be "natural" ones, many violences can be committed. For instance, we could say that homosexuality is "against nature" and thus prosecute gays and lesbians. Given the fading of the classical concept of the unchangeable, what rules the world is Technique, i.e. what has the power to change the things of the world. Here we have the progressive side of the position: Technique can certainly commit mistakes, but the general tendency is that it improves the power of man and his life condition.

With this background theory, the Siliconists' position is that we don't care where a woman's breasts come from, we look at the result, and we must bless the invention of saline prosthesis as a miracle of our times. Generally, if Technique can improve the human body and remove defects and mistakes of nature, why should we despise it? And, after all, what is "natural" in a woman today? Women dress in ways that can emphasize some parts of their bodies and hide others, they wear stiletto heels to give the illusion of longer legs; they have bronzed skins, they cut and dye their hair, make up their faces.... Why protest against silicone and not against all this?

But the Siliconists seem to move a step too far when they say: only fat chicks can have big natural tits, since when there's a lot of fat around, some of it has to manifest itself in the breasts. However, this contention falls right into the concept of "nature" this party wants to avoid, since it asserts a necessary, natural, and immutable connection between fat and boobs: we might say that the assertion is empirically refuted by the existence of natural slim- 'n- stacked beauty we can actually see in the real world. Also, Naturalists speak about the defects of implants, saying they're too hard, they don't have natural shapes, they're colder than normal flesh, and so on. Given that all these assertions are true for any kind of implants (which has not at all been established), the Naturalists seem to forget the meaning of Technique, because they think it will be forever confined to the limits it has today. On the contrary, the main point in the development of Technique is the progressive removal of any limit. What we can expect from the future is ever more perfect implants, eventually so perfect that the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" will become meaningless....

Meaningless! Does this mean that these ideological struggles are actually only "details" without importance? I have to say no: underestimating a small fight seems the best way to make it grow. On the other hand, we have seen that each party's difficulties come out precisely when it wants to deny the right of the other, to cultivate its own passion for a certain kind of breasts. Being a convinced Ecumenical, i.e. one who bows in respect (being careful not to knock his forehead against those knockers) in front of Linzi's natural wonders, as well as in front of Lovette's perfect implants, I think that Ecumenism is the right solution: the best way to conquer that strange human behavior that compels some of us to destroy what they don't like and deny it to others as well.

NOTES

Franz75: Everything I know on Ecumenism, I have learned through theological lessons sitting at the feet (phew!) of brother St Stephan in that Carpathian cloister. And, though the scars from the cilice still hurt, I can only thank him for his patience in editing my English.

St Stephan: Don't be cilice!

OTHER COMMENTS ON ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE

To be is to do. (S. Kierkegaard)
To do is to be. (J.-P. Sartre)
Do be do be do. (F. Sinatra)

Franz75@excite.com