Voxsartoria's Weekly WAYWRN Subjective and Totally Unfair Digest - Page 12

A distressed plane landed in my foyer today. None of the passengers was hurt.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think you are selling my position short. I don't have a particular time in mind, and I clearly have my own eccentricities that betray past norms. As I'm sure you will agree, postmodernism has changed the reasons why society rejects and adopts new norms. Regardless of whether you think that's good or bad, it is a real phenomenon. I reject changes that are purely postmodernist in nature (I know, I'm being sloppy with the term, but please be charitable). While that appears to make my preferences correlate with a point in time, I wouldn't make too much out of it.

This is a fascinating way to look at it and even suggests ideology over aesthetics, function, purpose etc.. But there are definitely periods of heightened creativity that people draw on more than others like Brummel's England, The sixties. I know that with military uniforms certain periods are considered classic in spite of their antiquity because the length of the conflict led to perfect cross sections of aesthetics and practicality. I think the 1920s are probably more creative than the 1930s but the 1930s was the time that set about codifying and standardizing the innovations of the previous decade's break from rigidity.

My 'foyer' is about five feet wide. Even I could not lie down in it without bumping my head. And I'd like to note on another matter: you still haven't said sorry for insulting me.

It is a philosophical controversy at the heart of this: does rationality (or ideology, values, etc.) govern or predict aesthetics, or are they two unrelated matters?

I am not sorry. I am sorry if you feel bad, but I believe the word I used was apt. Perhaps I should have qualified it with "dense in this instance," and indeed I will do so now.

That said, I don't want to fight with you, or join the anti-foo anvil chorus, so we may as well let it drop.

First, rationality and ideology are only dimly related. Second, values is a fraught term in and of itself. Third, to some extent aesthetics are rational, in the sense of understandable because operating on natural principles, but I don't think clothing aesthetics make the cut. There is too much arbitrary variation which cannot be explained by any transcendent standard.

But I have had my say on this at length in another place.

I don't feel bad. I just think calling me dense in response to a polite post addressing you was uncalled for, no matter how wrong you thought I was.

I'm pretty sure most didn't give a fuck.

As for the pinnacle it was togas, made things so much easier when it was time to party like it's 1999.

Deeming it irrelevant sorta makes it irrelevant and it is to most.

I don't let manton put words or anything else in my mouth. You had me at hello.

Why does Manton have to apologize to you?

What is an anvil chorus?

Is it better to be a smart stupid person or a stupid smart person (like me)?

You don't think many people divine certain impressions about a guy in a carefully tailored jacket or suit? Even in my own family, the way I dress sometimes becomes a source of argument.

Are you saying changes before were made for rational reasons and now, due to postmodernism we became irrational (so now that we live in postmodernity we have "irrational" fashions). I posit we were never rational and never will be.

What do they argue about? I think I read a Gore Vidal short story like this.

Are you saying I let Manton put words in my mouth, or that I let you put words in my mouth? Clarity, RJ, clarity.


He doesn't have to. But I would apologize for calling someone 'dense' because I didn't like or agree with his politely conveyed opinion.

In the sense that they didn't study AA or aspire to dress that way, aside from vague yearnings for the lifestyle that could have included seeing them in a fancy suit (the way would have been cut=irrelevant, the status it denotes=important).