I. The Nipple.
SEX ADDICT: If you ask me, the most confusing part of it all is the nipple. I mean, a woman goes to high school or to church in a bikini, yeah, of course they're going to consider it indecent. But not immoral. But really, its like restaurants who have on their doors the sign, `no shirt, no shoes, no service', you know? Its indecent, but it doesn't cut deep. Its considered indecent with respect to a particular settings dress code, but its not considered so indecent as to be downright immoral, you know?
I mean, it wouldn't be downright shocking if a guy came into a restaurant without a shirt on, or even without shoes -- but a woman without a shirt, without a bra? That'd be a hell of a lot different, I think anyone in our culture would agree on that. The nipple, that numinous nipple, is considered immoral. The entire breast can be exposed and its not considered indecent, say, on your typical beach or by your typical swimming pool, even though in some places you might be towing the line. But save for a few specified places, if that nipple pokes out a centimeter you've suddenly crossed the line. I mean, almost anywhere. Publicly, I mean.
Its baffling to me, really baffling. It gives rise to the whole chicken-or-egg question in me, really: what came first, the indecency of the nipple or its concealment? I mean, is the nipple indecent, so that's why its concealed, or did years of nipple-concealment eventually produce the conception of it as being indecent? I mean, aborigines walk around in the nude, don't they? So this nipple discrimination, it can't be universal, right? So, I mean, how do you explain it?
ANTIPRIEST: The unmoved mover.
SEX ADDICT: What?
ANTIPRIEST: (Louder, over the music and clinking of glasses.) The unmoved mover. Aristotle, he had a pretty fascinating conception of the divine, and its what we know as the Unmoved Mover.
SEX ADDICT: Terrific. What the fuck does this have to do with the nipple, though?
ANTIPRIEST: I'm getting there. But first: Aristotle. So he pondered perfection, and in the end he came to the conclusion that something perfect would be free of all desire. It could not desire anything more than what it already was, he said, for it was perfect: by definition, there was therefore nothing more to desire. And, while having absolute self-knowledge, this perfect being would, by necessity, have no knowledge of anything beyond itself -- no knowledge of imperfection, in other words. Because to have knowledge of imperfection would constitute imperfection.
SEX ADDICT: So this Unmoved-mover isn't the creator?
ANTIPRIEST: Yes and no. In being ignorant of anything imperfect and in being void of desire, he obviously cannot create the universe in the way we typically think of it -- that is, directly. And it should be understood that Aristotle, as like Plato and many Eastern thinkers, wasn't concerned with how matter came into existence. Matter in its hypothesized primordial, chaotic state, anyway. No, what these thinkers were interested in is how the material universe came to be so ordered. What, in other words, spawned ordered movement in the universe. And Aristotle, in considering what he saw as the necessary nature of the ultimate -- this unmoved-mover -- he became especially interested in what caused motion. His answer was inspiration. Desire.
SEX ADDICT: I'm not getting it.
ANTIPRIEST: Think about it. Though the unmoved-mover has no knowledge of the universe, the universe is compelled to reach toward its state of perfection, this ideal that the unmoved-mover is. Order and motion came to the universe by means of inspiration, and the unmoved-mover is that inspiration. The creator is unconcerned and unaware of the material universe and yet it causes movement, order -- an ongoing process of creation -- through eliciting desire. It might serve as a metaphor for modern-day consumerism: like people nowadays are so deeply moved by the thought of owning material objects and accumulating cash that has no interest in them, no desire for them.
SEX ADDICT: Yeah, and that's why girls are always attracted to gay guys like moths to a fucking light bulb.
ANTIPRIEST: Exactly. And though the unmoved-mover in any case is disinterested and unaware of that which it spawns movement in, it is nonetheless considered the first cause, for it acts as a stimulus: it elicits inspiration. This is the attitude that resides behind a culture that, for instance, forces women to wear veils or walk behind men. Or a culture that conceals the female nipple. Men are considered the desiring, but women are considered the cause of the desire, the ignorant object of desire itself -- it's all very, well, Aristotelean. And its all very sexist.
SEX ADDICT: If you ask me, the most confusing part of it all is the nipple. I mean, a woman goes to high school or to church in a bikini, yeah, of course they're going to consider it indecent. But not immoral. But really, its like restaurants who have on their doors the sign, `no shirt, no shoes, no service', you know? Its indecent, but it doesn't cut deep. Its considered indecent with respect to a particular settings dress code, but its not considered so indecent as to be downright immoral, you know?
I mean, it wouldn't be downright shocking if a guy came into a restaurant without a shirt on, or even without shoes -- but a woman without a shirt, without a bra? That'd be a hell of a lot different, I think anyone in our culture would agree on that. The nipple, that numinous nipple, is considered immoral. The entire breast can be exposed and its not considered indecent, say, on your typical beach or by your typical swimming pool, even though in some places you might be towing the line. But save for a few specified places, if that nipple pokes out a centimeter you've suddenly crossed the line. I mean, almost anywhere. Publicly, I mean.
Its baffling to me, really baffling. It gives rise to the whole chicken-or-egg question in me, really: what came first, the indecency of the nipple or its concealment? I mean, is the nipple indecent, so that's why its concealed, or did years of nipple-concealment eventually produce the conception of it as being indecent? I mean, aborigines walk around in the nude, don't they? So this nipple discrimination, it can't be universal, right? So, I mean, how do you explain it?
ANTIPRIEST: The unmoved mover.
SEX ADDICT: What?
ANTIPRIEST: (Louder, over the music and clinking of glasses.) The unmoved mover. Aristotle, he had a pretty fascinating conception of the divine, and its what we know as the Unmoved Mover.
SEX ADDICT: Terrific. What the fuck does this have to do with the nipple, though?
ANTIPRIEST: I'm getting there. But first: Aristotle. So he pondered perfection, and in the end he came to the conclusion that something perfect would be free of all desire. It could not desire anything more than what it already was, he said, for it was perfect: by definition, there was therefore nothing more to desire. And, while having absolute self-knowledge, this perfect being would, by necessity, have no knowledge of anything beyond itself -- no knowledge of imperfection, in other words. Because to have knowledge of imperfection would constitute imperfection.
SEX ADDICT: So this Unmoved-mover isn't the creator?
ANTIPRIEST: Yes and no. In being ignorant of anything imperfect and in being void of desire, he obviously cannot create the universe in the way we typically think of it -- that is, directly. And it should be understood that Aristotle, as like Plato and many Eastern thinkers, wasn't concerned with how matter came into existence. Matter in its hypothesized primordial, chaotic state, anyway. No, what these thinkers were interested in is how the material universe came to be so ordered. What, in other words, spawned ordered movement in the universe. And Aristotle, in considering what he saw as the necessary nature of the ultimate -- this unmoved-mover -- he became especially interested in what caused motion. His answer was inspiration. Desire.
SEX ADDICT: I'm not getting it.
ANTIPRIEST: Think about it. Though the unmoved-mover has no knowledge of the universe, the universe is compelled to reach toward its state of perfection, this ideal that the unmoved-mover is. Order and motion came to the universe by means of inspiration, and the unmoved-mover is that inspiration. The creator is unconcerned and unaware of the material universe and yet it causes movement, order -- an ongoing process of creation -- through eliciting desire. It might serve as a metaphor for modern-day consumerism: like people nowadays are so deeply moved by the thought of owning material objects and accumulating cash that has no interest in them, no desire for them.
SEX ADDICT: Yeah, and that's why girls are always attracted to gay guys like moths to a fucking light bulb.
ANTIPRIEST: Exactly. And though the unmoved-mover in any case is disinterested and unaware of that which it spawns movement in, it is nonetheless considered the first cause, for it acts as a stimulus: it elicits inspiration. This is the attitude that resides behind a culture that, for instance, forces women to wear veils or walk behind men. Or a culture that conceals the female nipple. Men are considered the desiring, but women are considered the cause of the desire, the ignorant object of desire itself -- it's all very, well, Aristotelean. And its all very sexist.
