waywt? saved my life

[Sayword]

does not look good.

[Guest jmatsu]

lol wut. Only from a totalitarian point of view could this be viewed/dismissed as liberal/romantic.

So, I understand my talk on food was flawed because gado gado is served with rice instead of partly consisting of it.

I'm so hungry.

totalitarianism has nothing to do with this and is not part of my agenda in the context of this conversation (if that is what you are infact attempting to imply).

no group of people just sat down with their secretaries and decided on a bunch of rules and their enforcement. again, for this convo there'd be no point because shit is common sense. there is shit that just simply "is what it is." innate etiquette.

anyway a funny thing that i've surmised from this is that lr's consumption and dress execution do not even take either side of what we are debating. he is not even deliberately pushing the envelope. if one consciously tried to push boundaries (within in reason/methodical madness) and even failed, i might be able to squeeze them out a fart of respect. i could fathom one such as cottonduck doing this because of his background, but he would probably take no part in such unholy madness.

i.e. take the totally different aesthetic of the alter ego de gute.

[Guest bambam]

Peanut butter is actually just peanuts. Sushi without the wasabi is mainly rice.

oh come onnnnnnnn man. sushi is mainly rice like a nice sub is mainly the crust of the bread. u take this analogy way too far du

[semper]

Forget it then. As an analogy it doesn't seem to produce much result anyway, so it doesn't work.

"A nice sub..." O wait I get it

[M.O.A]

its really fucking hot in the nw.

eg

tg

cutoff dickies

vans

[zoylxide]

whoa dont fall

[Fabulaz]

[Sayword]

cutie patootie

[malaesthetique]

Shortened the quote a bit, although I mean to answer all of it.

(don't read this if you're tired of this discussion)

I agree with a lot of this. But. Peanut butter is actually just peanuts. Sushi without the wasabi is mainly rice.The two combined come quite close to Gado Gado then, which is a traditional dish: (usually) cold rice with peanut sauce and some cabbage. Still calling it sushi would probably be seen as an outrage by many people, but essentially there's nothing about it that's impossible. Whether it's good taste is something else, and as much as you can try and describe taste, it's hard to fit it into rules. You can put down some principles for yourself and share them with others, like on sufu, but starting to treat them like mathematical laws is ridiculous, and anyone doing so is making a complete fool out of himself.

Being all in one concept, with matching musical taste, political views etc, is a teenager thing, like deciding to become a gothic. At that age, it's very useful as a framework, a starting point from which you can mature as a person. Nothing wrong with it. But by the time you're well in your 20s, it'd better have dissolved into something less schematic, and more individual, wit all its paradoxes. To me that's what style is all about.

But then, I'm not a teenager.

Thank you.

Lowrider, now sell me those high ann dem boots you posted about a year ago.

you call it a framework, i call it an ideology. the main difference is that yours was less fortified and has already crumbled. Instead of rebuilding you've simply allowed your morality to lapse into cynicism. Having ideals is not some puerile phase out of which we should seek to grow.

Don't try to lecture me on the inherent chaotic principle of nature. I'm not lobbying for a full blown science of fashion. Its on a different ontological plane altogether. But reductionism in general is the best tool we have for gaining a deep and critical understanding of any complex phenomena--why certain works of art are valid/invalid, why an outfit works/doesn't work. Its not all a game of chance. Although it is more romantic and easy to simply assent or dissent at the level of the whole, your subconscious mind is going to be applying "rules" anyway with or without your explicit awareness. Better to come to terms with that. Maybe then your universe will start being more ordered and sensible.

[Sayword]

sup verbal diarrhea

[JackPhotography]

I disagree, some good points there if you're willing to read it.

sup mal

[Guest jmatsu]

sorta disappointed...

guess semper don't want none of that.

[malaesthetique]

sayword- STFU

Jack, cant rep but thx for being literate

[semper]

sorta disappointed...

guess semper don't want none of that.

hey hey

I should be in bed. 2.30 in the morning here.

Said what I meant to; it still stands

Sleep tight.

[djrajio]

you call it a framework, i call it an ideology. the main difference is that yours was less fortified and has already crumbled. Instead of rebuilding you've simply allowed your morality to lapse into cynicism. Having ideals is not some puerile phase out of which we should seek to grow.

Don't try to lecture me on the inherent chaotic principle of nature. I'm not lobbying for a full blown science of fashion. Its on a different ontological plane altogether. But reductionism in general is the best tool we have for gaining a deep and critical understanding of any complex phenomena--why certain works of art are valid/invalid, why an outfit works/doesn't work. Its not all a game of chance. Although it is more romantic and easy to simply assent or dissent at the level of the whole, your subconscious mind is going to be applying "rules" anyway with or without your explicit awareness. Better to come to terms with that. Maybe then your universe will start being more ordered and sensible.

A little less superfluous use of the thesaurus and verbatim and this would have been golden.

Abridged version:

Man uses patterns and rules to break-down complexity.

You state that nature is too complex and can't follow rules/patterns.

You'ze stoopid.

[termitezee]

t_z

[haptronic]

A little less superfluous use of the thesaurus and verbatim and this would have been golden.

actually using that many big words when smaller words would be clearer, is the intellectual equivalent of buying and wearing expensive labels just because they are expensive.

the problem with the way that malaesthetique chooses to express himself is a lack word synergy.

edit: nice fit zee

[roflobster]

you call it a framework, i call it an ideology. the main difference is that yours was less fortified and has already crumbled. Instead of rebuilding you've simply allowed your morality to lapse into cynicism. Having ideals is not some puerile phase out of which we should seek to grow.

Don't try to lecture me on the inherent chaotic principle of nature. I'm not lobbying for a full blown science of fashion. Its on a different ontological plane altogether. But reductionism in general is the best tool we have for gaining a deep and critical understanding of any complex phenomena--why certain works of art are valid/invalid, why an outfit works/doesn't work. Its not all a game of chance. Although it is more romantic and easy to simply assent or dissent at the level of the whole, your subconscious mind is going to be applying "rules" anyway with or without your explicit awareness. Better to come to terms with that. Maybe then your universe will start being more ordered and sensible.

this post reminds me of a movie review i read earlier..

"The phony mythos turns into equally spurious pathos that plays like bathos because not one iota of the sentiment or sympathy has been earned."

[cyberPUNK]

yo the females rub my pathos in the bathos while reading some mythos. ya dig?

[femelle]

[dbk4sf]

actually using that many big words when smaller words would be clearer, is the intellectual equivalent of buying and wearing expensive labels just because they are expensive.

the problem with the way that malaesthetique chooses to express himself is a lack word synergy.

Haptronic just destroyed it right here. Semper's txt rings inherently true, despite attempts to side track the analogy with verbal diarrhea.

[16steps]

/\ i felt the same way trying to comprehend all of the words robbie was using

edit: @ femellestoneface.jpg

[malaesthetique]

A little less superfluous use of the thesaurus and verbatim and this would have been golden.

Abridged version:

Man uses patterns and rules to break-down complexity.

You state that nature is too complex and can't follow rules/patterns.

You'ze stoopid.

glad you were able to glean at least that much but your abridged version totally missed some other valid points and direct responses to semper's comments. I just chose not to express myself in the typical sufu-hoodrat fashion.

show me where a simpler word could have been substituted form something more exact. This is simply the language I am used to, no thesaurus necessary.

[Analog]

yo the females rub my pathos in the bathos while reading some mythos.

= singularity + wrinkled pathos

[willy cheesesteak]

femelle bout to optic blast a dude

[Guest jmatsu]

Haptronic just destroyed it right here. Semper's txt rings inherently true, despite attempts to side track the analogy with verbal diarrhea.

why are you of the opinion that "semper's txt rings inherently true?" with this very post you could have just said "yeah!" or "i agree w/ semper."

stfu.

i don't speak/write like malaesthetique, but follow his logic just fine. i don't see why he has to dumb shit down for all the people here who can't comprehend his posts. some people make use of extensive vocabs and some don't, what of it??

[malaesthetique]

actually using that many big words when smaller words would be clearer, is the intellectual equivalent of buying and wearing expensive labels just because they are expensive.

the problem with the way that malaesthetique chooses to express himself is a lack word synergy.

edit: nice fit zee

lack of word synergy-LOL@ this concept. as if single words were aesthetic entities on their own. Your analogy breaks down old man. this purely objectified treatment of fashion goods is exactly what I'm responding to. Putting together an outfit is nothing like writing a poetic verse. completely different games. putting together a decent outfit is more akin to compiling an anthology of poetry. Coherence or an overarching theme is key.

Sorry you don't dig the way I chose to phrase my response, but I wont compromise precision for the sake of "clarity" in your uneducated opinion.

[Guest jmatsu]

actually using that many big words when smaller words would be clearer, is the intellectual equivalent of buying and wearing expensive labels just because they are expensive.

the problem with the way that malaesthetique chooses to express himself is a lack word synergy.

edit: nice fit zee

i dunno hap...

basically what you and a couple others are getting at is that you just don't like the way he expresses himself and that he does it just for the sake of using a big vocabulary. thing is, you can't buy words/terms.

though i do not choose to speak/post like malaesthetique i agree with what he has said. wondering if u have comprehended his post(s).

if so, do u not agree?

[Leonard Leroy]

Yo, dude, this is cool

[malaesthetique]

i dunno hap...

basically what you and a couple others are getting at is that you just don't like the way he expresses himself and that he does it just for the sake of using a big vocabulary. thing is, you can't buy words/terms.

though i do not choose to speak/post like malaesthetique i agree with what he has said. wondering if u have comprehended his post(s).

if so, do u not agree?

exactly. His argument only stands if the logic does not compute.

We don't dress up so that other people will understand us. In fact quite the contrary. I use big words to alienate the inarticulate and stupid, the same way I wear nice clothes to alienate tasteless plebes.