Where to start...

[Faust]

hmm, just curious where did you get this from? Because it seems to be oh...so very true.

is that a fucking joke or do you live in a cave?

[Lane]

I'm a firm believer that you can't disassociate "self" from "society" - it's the concept of seperating "self" and "society" [dualistic philosophy] that is outmoded and leads people to spend their lives in a frivolous manner trying to acquire wealth, goods etc. in an attempt to prove their worth to a higher power or possibly worse [the herd]. Living ones life in an authentic or original manner is not something that can be seen or proven. Life is a state of being and constantly in flux. When you take a passing moment and try to reflect you look up and seemingly everything has changed...

hmm, just curious where did you get this from? Because it seems to be oh...so very true.

[Faust]

Beardown, unfortunately, we live in the US where there is a distrust in the intellectual. But it's not like that in the rest of the world. So while we are actively shooting ourselves in the foot, the rest of the world is either bemused or laughing.

Sorry to derail this, but it's a discussion worth having.

[Faust]

I thought the point of people working on Wall St. is an inspiration (sometimes actual, sometimes delusional) to become filthy rich. At least it seems it's like that here in the UK where everyone and their mom wants to work in the City to get sizeable wage and some bonuses to boot. And if they want to have steady income and safe job they'd seek employment in an abundance of public non-jobs.

And to answer the question of this bumped thread - start with shoes.

They (and by extent you) have no idea what they are talking about. It's a tiny percentage that gets filthy rich - the rest are soldiers.

[gavagai]

Some very interesting conversation going on here.


When I started lurking these parts I quickly realized the starting place for my wardrobe was boots (or shoes). Guidi was my choice and I roamed through this site as well as the internet investigating leathers. A great pair of boots should be able to go with all manners of wardrobe changes. On the other hand, a terrible pair of boots/shoes can absolutely ruin a great outfit.

Regarding some of the philosophical talk above, I'm a firm believer that you can't disassociate "self" from "society" - it's the concept of seperating "self" and "society" [dualistic philosophy] that is outmoded and leads people to spend their lives in a frivolous manner trying to acquire wealth, goods etc. in an attempt to prove their worth to a higher power or possibly worse [the herd]. Living ones life in an authentic or original manner is not something that can be seen or proven. Life is a state of being and constantly in flux. When you take a passing moment and try to reflect you look up and seemingly everything has changed...

[beardown]

do you really think there is a sharp distinction between the inner self and the social game?

Most certainly. I know there is. Are there not leaders? Are there not those who follow? Are their not innovators and those who buy into innovation?

Rational vs. irrational? Intellect and blatant ignorance? Apathy vs. passion?

The entire idea of enlightenment was about embracing science, philosophy and critical thinking. Society and culture have turned the clock back on all of these things because they have little value in present day society. But they still exist and will continue to exist; they're just not the norm.

Some people accept what is handed to them without question; others accept the challenge to grapple with philosophical problems and potential answers.

When embraced, all of those ideas not only affect who you are but how you behave and interact with society and others.
Faust, you mentioned the idea of elitism. At this point in culture, I rather feel like that's an admirable trait. Certainly not as pretension...but in an era where (at least in the U.S.) education and critical thought are demonized, I'm on the side of those who take pride in intellect and intelligence and those who realize that reason and logic will always trump disinformation and the hive mind of 'I know because I know.'

The media plays a bigger role than ever before, unfortunately. There was a time when people just admitted they don't know what they fuck they're talking about. You never get that these days in terms of politics, the economy, the environment, etc. Everyone has become armchair experts it seems. They've eschew years of higher education but bestow upon themselves this idea that they already know everything they need to know.

How do they know? They saw it on TV. Or my favorite: "I just know."

I'm speaking mostly in terms of America because that's probably the most extreme example currently. Debates don't take place anymore...you just get yelling matches. And those who are uneducated and uninformed yell just as loudly (or louder) than those who have taken the time to understand the topics being discussed.

All of this plays a role on how society moves forward or stands still. All of it plays a role in how people interact with one another and it also effects how individuals develop in my opinion. And as we as a culture continue to slide and pile into the mire, I wholeheartedly believe that some individuals accept the lowest common denominator while others will challenge themselves and those around them.

Sorry...I'm not a philosopher or a sociologist but I have studied both fairly rigorously.
Even in a day and age where apathy and ignorance are rewarded and even revered, there is still a place for the philosophy of how people live and behave. There's not a thing wrong with disassociating yourself from the hive so long as you feel a genuine pull away from it.

I'm not suggesting that all people who step out of the herd are complete originals; I think we've decided that most things are derivative in nature in terms of art, music, literature, etc.

But it's a step in the right direction when mediocrity has become the latest plague and the term, 'innovation' seems to currently only apply to technology rather than the arts.

[eat me]

I thought the point of people working on Wall St. is an inspiration (sometimes actual, sometimes delusional) to become filthy rich. At least it seems it's like that here in the UK where everyone and their mom wants to work in the City to get sizeable wage and some bonuses to boot. And if they want to have steady income and safe job they'd seek employment in an abundance of public non-jobs.

And to answer the question of this bumped thread - start with shoes.

[Lane]

Oh, I very well understand this. I hope to choose an occupation where I not be apart of what I perceive is a problem. In fact I quit being an economics major two years in knowing what would would become of me. Want to separate myself from everything of society that boils my blood Would like to find something I can be proud of doing, and not avoid looking at myself in the mirror. So, my style is heavily influenced by this since I am trying to stay true to the self while being surrounded by what is expected of me.

[Faust]

I question the worth of such an endeavor if as you say, society only looks at these little rebellions as fruit flies they can easily swat away. I think in the end its best to do you, as long as it doesn't bring you any suffering.

Like you said society is more tolerable of these deviations from the norm, but at the same time I don't think anyone should pursue a search for the self if its only gonna bring them pain and suffering. Maybe its just part of the journey though because those that truly moved things forward for society weren't exactly considered "normal" in their day.

The point is that it is your own endeavor, that you do what you feel is "you," even though you operate in and are undoubtedly influenced by society. For example - I know very well that I don't want to work on Wall St. (anymore) - that everything it does has been slowly killing me for a long time - mediocrity, lack of creativity, no cultural underpinnings, and most importantly no cultural appetite or any desire for intellectual growth. Yet many (including myself in the past life) will bear the brunt of mind-numbing work and constant frustration because society approves of a desk job, a steady income, social security.

[Faust]

faust what i'm saying is that this distinction is literally meaningless. but we obviously don't speak of the same thing: you say there is a public discourse/train of thought which is difficult to go against at an individual level, maybe i agree with that (it's rather vague to speak of 'society' and 'self'), but what i'm trying to say is that there is no pure self (empire inside an empire?), and that the pure self against social influence thesis is a rather simplistic one, and one which is strongly based on an individualist and egotistic view of the world (which BTW is the most widespread view today).

Naturally!

[Lane]

Syed, I am sorry to hear about your health. I hope you pull through. SZ is on your side.

BSR, I think there is a distinction between the self and the social game, and I am going to sound elitist here, but I think that only a very small % of population achieves it. It is incredibly hard to go against the grain of society and incredibly easy to give in to the main stream - it floats and cuddles you, it's instant approval, it's avoidance of criticism - in short, conformity takes off immense pressure off an average person. For all the Pixar cartoons and Jeep advertisements that tell you to go your own way, cowboy, few people do. But it's nice to have that illusion - than everyone is safe and society operates with less friction.

The only catch is that average people don't move culture forward.

It is true that society has become much more permissible and constantly yells at you to express yourself. And you can - do a mawhawk today, where pink pants tomorrow, but it's only because it's figured out that these pseudo-rebellions are really harmless and can be good business to boot.

I question the worth of such an endeavor if as you say, society only looks at these little rebellions as fruit flies they can easily swat away. I think in the end its best to do you, as long as it doesn't bring you any suffering.

Like you said society is more tolerable of these deviations from the norm, but at the same time I don't think anyone should pursue a search for the self if its only gonna bring them pain and suffering. Maybe its just part of the journey though because those that truly moved things forward for society weren't exactly considered "normal" in their day.

[BSR]

faust what i'm saying is that this distinction is literally meaningless. but we obviously don't speak of the same thing: you say there is a public discourse/train of thought which is difficult to go against at an individual level, maybe i agree with that (it's rather vague to speak of 'society' and 'self'), but what i'm trying to say is that there is no pure self (empire inside an empire?), and that the pure self against social influence thesis is a rather simplistic one, and one which is strongly based on an individualist and egotistic view of the world (which BTW is the most widespread view today).

[Faust]

Syed, I am sorry to hear about your health. I hope you pull through. SZ is on your side.

BSR, I think there is a distinction between the self and the social game, and I am going to sound elitist here, but I think that only a very small % of population achieves it. It is incredibly hard to go against the grain of society and incredibly easy to give in to the main stream - it floats and cuddles you, it's instant approval, it's avoidance of criticism - in short, conformity takes off immense pressure off an average person. For all the Pixar cartoons and Jeep advertisements that tell you to go your own way, cowboy, few people do. But it's nice to have that illusion - than everyone is safe and society operates with less friction.

The only catch is that average people don't move culture forward.

It is true that society has become much more permissible and constantly yells at you to express yourself. And you can - do a mawhawk today, where pink pants tomorrow, but it's only because it's figured out that these pseudo-rebellions are really harmless and can be good business to boot.

[BSR]

do you really think there is a sharp distinction between the inner self and the social game?

[beardown]

i don't know how you know what fits you - you just know, a lot of times it's just a visceral reaction that you should attempt to analyze.

I think this is what it all boils down to.

How do people know what kind of art they like? How do they know what kind of music they like? If people still read, I'd say the same about literature.

It speaks to you on the deepest level. It either intrigues you or repulses you or seduces you in some way. You can feel it, you can relate to it. The most disappointing thing about the internet is that it creates this network where, in theory, people can scour the earth for things they relate to and are moved by.

Instead, it seems like every category of culture has been boiled down to the lowest common denominator and people end up choosing A, B or C.

Am I styleforum dude who wears sweater vests, smokes cigars and frets over the most effective way to mince a clove of garlic? Am I a sufu dude who brags about how long it's been since I've last soaked my denim and about my collection of unworn Dunks?

My point is that despite all of the options in the world, people still generally gravitate to be part of the pack and are quick to categorize themselves rather than seek out the things that they're naturally drawn to via some kind of emotional response.

Where the internet offers a literal world of choices and exposure to new, varied ideas, the average person uses it to decide if they're more drawn to those choices of A, B or C. Sometimes it seems like people wear what they feel they're obligated to wear, listen to what they're obligated to listen to ("You ride a fixed gear bike, wear Vans AND listen to Animal Collective? I'm shocked"!)

I realize that this is stereotyping and the same thing can be said about other eras in culture to a degree but it was lessened pre-internet. It came in waves when it had to move geographically from larger cities to more rural areas via print and broadcast.
And the idea of the internet connecting the world seemed to be one of progress and change but it just multiplied what has always gone on....it just sped it all up to where everybody is doing it at the exact same time.

I understand when kids mimic what they see because part of developing your own tastes is exploring and experimenting. But when I see an army of full-grown adults wearing crocs and Ed Hardy, it just reinforces this idea that very few people really know what they like. They take the path of least resistance and they want what will make them socially/culturally acceptable.

/End culture rant for the night.