[EMMAh]

I care to an extent. But my version of me looking good but not really appeal to everyone. I dress for me.

As for how other people look, I don't give to fucks.

[gmku]

I do think there's a big difference between image and style. One can have style without conforming to conventional standards of what the correct image is. In fact, one has more style if one doesn't conform to some GQ or Elle notion of fashion and so on.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Gogogonorrhea

No, people aren't. You can only see, hear, sense what is on the surface. How can you tell someone's a puddle or an ocean? You can't look through someone. The surface is either pretty or it isn't. What people say and do is part of the surface, too, but it's equally important how they say and do it.

That's why the murkiness of water applies. Some people are quite clearer to see through than others. It isn't hard to see/hear/sense the undercurrents of a persons personality over time. And in moments of extreme person honesty, one really does penetrate a person's personality. This is why death is so difficult, those who have passed through our facades change us and when they leave we feel naked. Or in the eyes of a lover.

Either way debating an analogy is silly so I'll stop.

[Rob Instigator]

as important as the color of people's socks, meaning not at all.

[Gogogonorrhea]

Originally Posted by pbradley

That's why the murkiness of water applies. Some people are quite clearer to see through than others. It isn't hard to see/hear/sense the undercurrents of a persons personality over time. And in moments of extreme person honesty, one really does penetrate a person's personality. This is why death is so difficult, those who have passed through our facades change us and when they leave we feel naked. Or in the eyes of a lover.

Either way debating an analogy is silly so I'll stop.

And how does that respond to what I wrote? Above all that is poor reasoning. There's a thesis and an example, but there is no reason.

You can't see through persons. Perhaps you have to behold someone's surface very closely to fathom it, but you can't look through the surface. How does that work? You just can't.

[pbradley]

You talk about poor reasoning? Your own is merely "you just can't." Mine is that people leave in impressions on each other and in this way we are penetrated. If you've never seen the uncovered, pure humanity of a person, that's all you. Do you see nothing in surrealist paintings? Do you think psychoanalysis is full of shit? I think your own biases are blinding you to my analogy. But again, this is silly and I don't understand why you are pressing an analogy.

Maybe you've been reading Frantz Fanon, or some other existenialist on "the gaze."

[Gogogonorrhea]

Originally Posted by pbradley

You talk about poor reasoning? Your own is merely "you just can't."

Because you just can't. Because it is physically impossible. If you believe in that you might as well belive in interior decoration according to Feng Shui.

Mine is that people leave in impressions on each other and in this way we are penetrated. If you've never seen the uncovered, pure humanity of a person, that's all you.

All you see "inside" of a person are just your own thoughts, your imagination, or your interpretation.

Do you see nothing in surrealist paintings?

I see a lot in them, although in might be the wrong preposition if that's what you're hinting at. Have you read Against Interpretation by Susan Sontag?

Do you think psychoanalysis is full of shit?

At least I'm not a fan.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Gogogonorrhea

All you see "inside" of a person are just your own thoughts, your imagination, or your interpretation.

Aw, so you are hermeneut. Perhaps that is so but I still believe that the interpretation of something below the surface is still an interpretation of an actual something, regards of whether the interpretation is correct or not. But when I look to myself, I see the ways in which other people penetrate me with their words and actions. And I see when I'm adopting an image merely for disguise when my true intentions are hidden. When I see inside myself, is all I see still my imagination?

[Gogogonorrhea]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Aw, so you are hermeneut.

No, I am not? Unless hermeneutics in English language mean the exact opposite of what they mean in German language.

Perhaps that is so but I still believe that the interpretation of something below the surface is still an interpretation of an actual something, regards of whether the interpretation is correct or not.

Okay. And why?

But when I look to myself, I see the ways in which other people penetrate me with their words and actions. And I see when I'm adopting an image merely for disguise when my true intentions are hidden. When I see inside myself, is all I see still my imagination?

No idea what you see then. Do you hear spooky voices commanding you under their breath to have sex with your mother or to hate women because they don't possess a penis like you do and are jealous of you because of that? Speaking of psychoanalysis and good old Freud.

[gmku]

Sock color: White or navy? Help me, people.

[✌➬]

black.

[gmku]

What do most guys wear with jeans? White? Or what?

I realized today I have only one color in socks. Navy. Am I weird, am I white, am I promised to the night?

[gmku]

I take it back. I have one other pair of socks that are brown.

[Sheriff Rhys Chatham]

I just really love jeans and t-shirts, kool shoes are a must though.
I like t-shirts at karmaloop.com