That’s not my clit!

MAGNIFICENT LABIA 101

Can there be any simple answer to the question, “What constitites magnificent labia?” How can the question be approached? As with any other serious enterprise, one must seek its philosophical grounding in order to proceed. But before that, certain distinctions must be made.

When we speak of “magnificent labia” we are speaking about the labia majora and not the labia minora. While the former are readily observable in all their glory the latter are not evident on first sight and, indeed, depend on their larger sisters for their proper framing. To speak of “magnificent labia” in respect to the labia minora is therefore odd, even misconceived. Magnificence is clearly not an attribute one might ascribe to them. “A fortiori” (that’s Latin for “even more so”) the same can be said for the clitoris. That it is an elusive appendage, even in cases of heightened states of cunnilingus, is evident from the male’s confusion as illustrated in the bitch. No, we are talking about the labia majora. So, on what grounds might the descriptor “magnificent” be properly applied?

We must now move to the level of philosophy, specifically to the realm of Aesthetics, that study of beauty in all its forms. Central to the enterprise is the existence of objective criteria by virtue of which something might be said to be, or not to be, “beautiful” or, in the present case, to be or not to be “magnificent.” Are there indeed such objective criteria? This is a vexed question.

The options are stark. If there are no such objective criteria does this mean that the appreciation of all art, and by extension all labia, is idiosyncratic? Is is all just a “matter of taste,” so to speak? The mind rebels at such aesthetic chaos but can a counter-attack on idiosyncracy be launched? What about Bach’s “Oratorio,” by all accounts a beautiful piece of music? Can a similar consensus be reached in the case of “magnificent labia?”

The problem with Bach’s “Oratorio” is that it is culture-specific. It is doubtful, for example, if it were played to a group of Hottentots that they would be enraptured, that they be carried away with aesthetic delight. One assumes, insofar as one is familiar with Hottentot aesthetics at all, that they would prefer something on the drums. So, does this mean that the appreciation of “magnificent labia” is similafrly culture-specific? Would the Hottentot concept of “magnificent labia” be of a fundamentally different sort than our own?

This raises the equally vexed question of the inpenetrability of diverse cultures and, “a fortiori,” the diversity of their embedded aesthetics. How, for example, can one penetrate the mind of the Hottentot in order to assess both the quality of his appreciation of “magnificent labia” in comparison to our own? Can the cultures ever reconcile on neutral grounds? Can a convivial rapprochement ever be achieved?

This, of course, raises the further vexed question of the nature of such grounds. What is required, in other words, is some superrogatory, transcendental context by virtue of which such reconciliation might be secured. But to attain the heights of such a superrogatory, transcendental context requires that we leave the realm of Aesthetics as such and embark on that of Metaphysics, the foundational ground of Being (sometimes called Ontology).

But what would this superrogatory, transcendental ground of Being look like? Are there “magnificent labia” which exist, so to speak, in the mind of God? Well, that’s another vexed question.

Avatar #110: The Roman Forum

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!