Hume's Fork

Philosophers typically classify all knowledge into two distinct groups, a priori and a posteriori. The Scottish philosopher, David Hume, applied these classifications like two fronts in a war against Christianity. Hume's fork, as it is called, is an aggressive attack on the Christian belief in God. Here is how it works.

A priori knowledge is that which is true by definition. The concept is known without previous experience. Furthermore, a priori knowledge cannot be refuted. It is true always. However, a priori knowledge cannot be experienced in a real and meaningful way. What exists only in the mind as a concept does little to influence the world we live in. Definitions, geometrical concepts, and necessary conditions may reflect how we perceive the universe, but it does not determine it. That is to say that I may experience the color red in a meaningful way, say the sight of blood or a red traffic light, but the fact that red is a color is not something I experience meaningfully. This is also known as deductive reasoning.

Examples of a priori knowledge includes such tautologies as:

Red is a color.

Bachelors are unmarried.

Rectangles have four equilateral sides.

Lions are felines.

A posteriori knowledge is true by experience. An individual must witness the event first hand to determine its validity. As such, a posteriori knowledge can be proved or disproved by experimentation. If I tell you the streets are wet, you can look outside your window and confirm or deny my claim. Furthermore, personal experience is more meaningful than a tautology. Knowing whether or not the streets are wet may affect whether or not you drive, mow the lawn, wear a jacket, and so on. That I say all lions are felines means very little to you. Yet, if I say a lion is behind you, that is a more pressing matter. This is also known as inductive reasoning.

Examples of a posteriori knowledge are:

That shirt is red.

John is a bachelor.

This plate is square.

My cat is a tabby.

The problem Hume had with the Christian belief in God is that they wanted it both ways. Christians want to experience God in a real and meaningful way. However, they also want the presence of God to be irrefutable. Hume's fork claims that knowledge must be one or the other, a priori or a posteriori. God must either exist only in the mind as an irrefutable but ultimately meaningless ideal, or he must exist as something to be experienced in a very real way but also as something that can be proved experimentally not to exist.

Of course to accept either claim undermines faith in God. The Christian must accept God as no more than an abstract concept, or something that can be proven not to exist.

This assumes that knowledge can only exist as one of the two classifications. Immanuel Kant suggested otherwise as did Kierkegaard. There could very well be some form of knowledge that fell in between definition and experience. Also, there is the topic of faith - but that is perhaps a topic for another time.

Pop vs. Porn Stars

Soon after man learned to draw, he drew the female figure. Soon after he learned to shape clay, he sculpted the female figure. Soon after the invention of film, he photographed the female figure. Pornography has been with us since early history. Porno derives from the ancient Greek word for prostitute, or more specifically the location in which a prostitute would do her business. Graph means to write, draw, or record. As such, pornography is the depiction of sex. The content is explicit, unlike erotica which is geared more towards artistic merit. Pornography is a lucrative and long standing industry, spanning Japanese prints to Victorian novels, from erotic sculptures to glossy magazines.

It goes without saying that women in the pornographic industry sell their bodies. Merchandise advertises the actress' best or most notorious feature. Porno magazines and DVD cases show off an actresses best assets. Women known for their oral talents purse their lips or suck on a lollipop or popsicle. Biting at the end of a strawberry or other juicy fruit is another frequently used advertising technique.

Large chested adult entertainers, whether naturally so or not, wear attire that best shows off their ample cleavage. This may include corsets, dresses with plunging necklines, snug sweaters, or even just a bra. The actress poses with arms folded under the girls to prop them up or she leans forward to present a deeper valley between her ample mounds. Even the names chosen by these actresses suggests the main attraction. Letha Weapons and Kayla Cleavage are prime examples.

On the flip side, women known for a bounteous posterior (a fairly new trend in porn following the meteoric success of Jennifer Lopez) show off their best assets in short shorts, a thong, very tight jeans, sweat bottoms, and the like. Starlets the like of Katja Kassin look over their shoulder. The backside is the main focus. Although a smaller market, there remains a niche for those with a leg or foot fetish. Nylons, garters, dresses with a slit up to the thigh, these are the techniques used to sell the product. Advertising squarely targets its main demographic. Asia Carrera, for example, is known for her shapely legs.

The most glamorous of porn stars are known not for particular body parts, but for the face or total package. The most stunning and/or exotic porn stars are best represented by showing off their face. Starlets from Seka to Tera Patrick and Taylor Rain are portrayed in this manner.

So, where is this going? Well, the crazy thing about marketing porn is that, even though the product is ultimately sexual, the stars are made up as beautifully as possible. Porn stars, at least for the higher end pornographic product, go for glamour. They are coifed to perfection, the make up is professional, the clothing is well fitted and compliments the starlet's complexion. Moreover, the actress sells it. Whether smoldering or innocent, the actress is more than just a sexual object, she is a fantasy, an ideal.

Sex sells. This precept greatly influences pop music. Look at the CD covers of the various female pop stars. Before Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera, there was another Mouseketeer that moved from Disney to popular music and film. Annette Funicello grew from an innocent teen to a blossoming woman much to the delight of teen boys at the time. Following her success on The Mickey Mouse Club, she made pop recordings and starred in many beach related party films. She posed for several posters as well. Seeing her in something other than a swimsuit was a rarity.

However, one cannot address the sexualization of pop stars without mentioning Madonna. The MTV generation provided pop stars the opportunity to sell themselves like never before. In a tattered wedding gown, Madonna rolls about the place claiming she feels "like a virgin." Boys went mad for it. Madonna continued to push her sexuality whether performing as a peep show girl or dressing in male drag. By the Erotica and Bedtime Stories albums, Madonna had taken it as far as it could go. It went beyond sexy to intimidating, namely bondage videos, a song about cunnilingus, and her book titled Sex. By now Madonna's popularity had started to wane. She had gone from being sexy to just being pure sex.

Enter the second wave. Both Britney and Christina were Mouseketeers. Free of the House of Mouse, they performed pop music. Taking a page out of Madonna's playbook, both pop stars used everything they have to sell more albums. Madonna christened this change of guard with a publicized kiss on the lips to both Spears and Aguilera.

Britney dressed as a naughty school girl, complete with short skirt and bare midriff. Her songs are suggestive, consisting of titles such as Oops! I Did It Again, Hit Me Baby One More Time, Womanizer, and Lucky. Her first tactic is to sell her youth. She wears her hair in pigtails. She dons knee high socks. It proves an effective ploy as she lures an audience with a taboo blend of innocence and sexuality. What puzzles me most is the female fans that flocked to her, followed her, emulated her. Some girls do like to be popular, even if it is for the wrong reason. Observe the CD and magazine covers where she features. Note the short skirt, the sheet or towel so precariously held, the shot in her underwear, the topless lean against a wall.

Christina took an even less subtle approach. Granted she was an outspoken advocate for the expression of sexuality in women. She looked at the men-as-studs-women-as-sluts perspective as a double standard. Reportedly, her career in music was to swing the pendulum the other way. As such, Christina Aguilera often came on like a skank. Her songs include Dirrty, What a Girl Wants, Candyman, and Genie in a Bottle. Her pictures also depict her in her underwear, topless, or holding a sheet over her naked frame. Eventually Christina moved away from selling sex. She adopted the look of Hollywood glamour. During this period, she earned much respect from the entertainment media. As she looked like a lady, they treated her as one.

More pop stars come and go. The Spice Girls, Fergy, The Pussycat Dolls, Shakira, all follow the same basic formula to some degree. Each experiences a flash of success before over exposure turns their success sour. Lady Gaga enters the scene, balancing sexuality with just off the wall madness. Like Madonna, she plays with her image, toys with expectations. Unlike many pop stars, there is some talent there. She sings, plays piano, and writes music. She knows the market. She knows how to sell herself. Also like Madonna, she knows how to work a controversy, how to keep her name on the lips of media moguls. The question is, will she come to the same fate as the many pop stars before her?

So how do they compare, the pop star to the porn star?

Well, a friend of mine tweeted a joke that I feel fits this blog quite well.

What is the difference between a porno movie and a pop video? The porno movie has better music.

I would also accept that the porno movie has a point to it, but I digress. The major difference between the porn star and the pop star is that the porn star actually aims for glamour. The porn star is dressed up for the part. She is made to look as attractive as possible. Meanwhile, the pop star is made to look as sexy as possible. Usually this implies making the pop star look as slutty as possible. The clothes are matted or torn, the body is oiled or made to look sweaty, the hair is wild or matted down. The pop star looks intensely sexual. In short, the porn star looks like the before photo and the pop star the after.

This seems wrong on so many levels. A pop star whose music is mostly geared towards tweens and teens with disposable income should not be presented as sluts. This may come off prudish (especially from me) but you must admit it seems rather - well - unseemly.

Next time you are on Amazon or at your local record store, check out the CD covers of various pop stars. Next time you go to the grocers, look over the magazine covers for various popular magazines. Now, compare them to the glamour shots on the covers of Playboy, Penthouse, even Hustler. Compare them to the covers of high end porn movies. In most cases the pop star will appear the more slutty.

That is not to say all pop star go this route. Hillary Duff and Mandy Moore, though occasionally having posed provocatively, have generally avoided that sort of exposure. Then, neither has reached quite the same level of success as their counterparts. Why is image so important in what is primarily an audio related industry? Judging by a lot of the music, it seems clear that sound is not the priority.

Form and Formlessness

Form is important. It provides structure to our lives. What is a card game without rules? What would the traffic be without lanes and signs? Okay, ignore that last bit. What I am saying is that from is necessary. As children we misbehave in order to push and thereby establish our boundaries. On the job we look for organization and routine. When there is no order, work is sloppy. Deadlines are missed. Structure in a sentence gives it meaning. Form to an essay gives it logic. Form plays an important role in art. In short, form is any three dimensional object. Needless to say, form is an essential element in sculpture and architecture. The long of it is that form unifies all aspects of an artistic piece.

Formlessness also has its place. Daoists call it the unhewn log. That which has shape has been clearly defined. It has been given limits. The formless is limitless, shapeless, without boundaries. The imagination should be boundless. It is ephemeral. It is free. It is unformed. The power of formlessness lives in its potential. Unformed clay may be crafted into any shape. Once shaped, the formless loses that power as long as it has form.

Form provides us the basics. We learn our roles. Once we understand the rules, we can attempt to change them. The best writers know the English language, yet violate the rules of grammar, spelling, diction. In this manner, the form becomes formless. Form plays an importance in the martial arts as well. The martial arts of the Orient tend to be very traditional. As such, they rely upon very specific stances, postures, movements, etc. As a martial art evolves, it moves towards formlessness. The Chen family style of taijiquan depends greatly on form. Proper body mechanics are necessary to apply the fighting techniques. The Yang style is less rigid, less expansive. The Wu style is even less rigid as many of the techniques are internalized. One sees this in karate and boxing as well. Overtime the rigid stances have loosened. What was once traditional becomes freestyle. Form leads to formlessness.

Bruce lee understood the power of formlessness. A fighter should be adaptable. As water shapes itself to fit a bottle, a glass, a tea pot, a fighter should adjust for an open field, a narrow corridor, or a phone booth. Furthermore, a fighter should be ready for any situation whether one opponent or twenty, whether armed or unarmed, whether the opponent is a boxer or knows kung fu. These options are available only if one remains formless at heart.

The Glory of Gory

To borrow the tag line from the horror podcast, Gore Boy Radio, "Always celebrate the glory that is gory." This begs the question. What is it about gore that so fascinates the horror fan?

Take the average commuter. As he rides to work he passes by a car accident. Other people in the vehicle crane their necks to observe the scene. An ambulance is present. A man lay on the asphalt, a stretcher beneath him. The emergency medical technicians work apply first aid. There is a great deal of blood on the man's white shirt. The average commuter at once despises the others for their curiosity. Yet, despite his reservations, he finds himself turning an eye to the gruesome event. A similar story plays out in The Republic of Plato. A traveller returns from the seas. On disembarking, he passes a vessel returning from the war with Troy. On board are stacked the many bodies of the slain. A great sheet covers the morbid pile, yet a split in the seam reveals the bloated corpses of a few slain men. The traveller is torn. At once he knows that to look will sicken and sadden him. Yet, the curiosity is strong. Something wicked commands him to look. Finally he succumbs to desire. He looks full on at the corpses and cries to himself, "See this. Look upon this horrific sight, you fool."

Granted there are those of a petty nature that delight in the suffering of others. A series of documentary films called Faces of Death compiled a number of recorded, actual deaths and dismemberments. In the early 80s, boys at my school discussed these films with morbid passion. A man was attacked and eaten by dogs. Another was decapitated in a motor accident. Another was blown up. I felt curious, yet I never watched these films. A fan of the underground even then, something about it appealed to me. Yet, my better judgment convinced me that such films were the worst of pornography - essentially they were snuff films. I have seen actual deaths on film since then - usually in documentaries or on film. The images always convey the same sensations of disgust and sadness. Most recently, NBC showed graphic footage of the luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, as he flew from the track and into a supporting column. The footage was unnecessarily sensational. In later segments, NBC chose not to replay the footage.

But what does this say about horror movies? Well, for one it says that we as human beings have a morbid fascination with death, particular if that death is gruesome. Secondly, we of a compassionate nature are simultaneously put off by the suffering and death of others. So, how does one satisfy the sick curiosity without compromising the soul? The answer is simple. Provide gruesome images, but ensure they are fictionalized.

Blood and gore go way back to the days of theater. The ancient Greeks applied basic techniques to imply blood. At the end of Oedipus Rex, the titular character gouges out his own eyes. As the Greeks wore masks on stage, it was a simple process to make blood seep from the sockets. The Roman's were less subtle, of course. Instead of using stage tricks, the presenters at the Colloseum would announce some historic battle, then let loose gladiators against armed prisoners. In Shakespearean plays, a simple, red handkerchief would be held to the stomach or chest tom imply a stab wound. The make up and effects have grown more involved over the years. Most notable gore scenes are, I think, the chest burster scene from Alien, the transformation scenes in John Carpenter's The Thing, the shotgun blast to the head in Maniac, the arrow through Kevin Bacon's throat in Friday the 13th, James Earl Jones' decapitation at the end of Conan the Barbarian, the axe to the chest of Scatman Crothers in The Shining, and the laser sequence in The Cube. These are only to name a few.

The average horror fan is not a violent individual. Indeed, actual acts of violence are regarded as disturbing and distasteful. As Tom Elliot of The Gentlemen's Grindhouse podcast puts it, horror acts as escapism. The horror fan knows it is fake. Yet, at the same time it satisfies that morbid curiosity. One gets to see disemboweling without causing anyone actual pain. Knowing that the gore is fake allows certain directors to use gore for comic effect. In Brain Dead, Peter Jackson uses gore for many sight gags, including a floor so slicked with blood and guts that the hero of the film slips. This same movie has the hero taking a lawnmower to zombies, the hero pursued by an intestinal tract, and an elderly woman attempting to swallow a dog. The disgust factor also features in movies like the remake of The Fly.

Other films attempt to present violence and gore in a more realistic matter, thus affecting those sentiments of compassion and disgust in the viewer. The scenes are riveting, yet cannot be called entertaining by any means. Films like Martyrs portray violence in a very real sense, thus evoking the natural response. This makes the film a difficult watch to be sure, but somehow there is a catharsis. The viewer knows the violent images are not to be romanticized or glorified. They are present to evoke true horror and disgust. Art summons an emotional response. The more artistic the film, the greater the emotional response.

Those who seek to ban violent images from film fail to see the point. The gore is there as an alternative to the real thing. Rather than seek actual violent images, the horror fan delights in practical, special effects. I studied biology is school. I have witnessed many gruesome sights. I have dissected a frog, a cow's heart, and a sheep's brain. I have seen preserved abominations such a cyclops cat and a twin headed snake. Toying with pre med, I have seen actual images of bisected human cadavers, a filmed autopsy, and images of various hand injuries. I changed my major to English. I must say I prefer the false images to the real ones.