Nilsi

No idea what the movie is about, but I found this gem in some random Instagram post, and I absolutely love it.

Gotta love the IKEA bag. But you’ll definitely get some weird looks if that’s your luggage of choice when traveling.

I've looked into stuff like this, but to me, it's ultimately just a desperate attempt to ground aesthetics in some particular symbolic system - in this case, one based on insights from complexity science, which, of course, brings its own aesthetic biases into what it claims to objectively describe from the start. I don’t think you can reduce art to complex subatomic and microbiological pattern formation processes, even if you argue that this isn’t a reductionist paradigm and that it operates at every scale. When you're having sex with a beautiful woman, can you really explain the attraction you feel in terms of "local symmetries" and "fractal gradients" supposedly making it possible? Saying it out loud already makes it sound preposterous. In this case, a poem by Rilke would be far more fitting - one that intimately describes the beauty and features of his lover in detail, evoking all the strong emotions and vivid imagery he experiences. Which is exactly why, in my opinion, a multidisciplinary approach is always king. Of course, this doesn’t "solve" the problem or provide any definitive ground for the aesthetic experience - but it intensifies it and gives it a voice. And to me, this is what aesthetics and art are all about - listening. Truly listening to reality. Taking in everything it has to say, not just what you want to hear or what confirms what you already know.

I would say people tend to like whatever they’re repeatedly exposed to. If you grow up in a certain environment, surrounded by certain influences, your taste will probably reflect that - whether it’s music, aesthetics, or even the people you’re drawn to. A girl who spends their childhood watching Disney Channel will likely end up liking girly pop music. A tomboy hanging out with her older brother might get into rock because that’s what’s always playing; and if that makes them an outsider among their peers, they might gravitate toward something like alt-rock because it gives voice to whatever angst or alienation they're feeling. It’s all just contingencies stacking on top of each other. Some people obviously take this further and exercise more conscious agency in the process by actively refining their taste rather than just passively absorbing whatever’s around them - maybe even creating their own art or becoming an object of desire themselves, pushing the boundaries of what taste can even be. But even then, the process remains messy and chaotic. Same goes for everything else. If we take Freud seriously, your taste in women probably starts with your mother - whether you’re drawn to that image or react against it. Depending on your relationship with her and the twists and turns of life, your preferences could end up just about anywhere. In the end, it’s like any other evolutionary process: you start somewhere, and through adaptation, selection, and random mutation, you end up somewhere else.

I’d argue that I have ridiculously high standards myself - but it’s precisely because of that, not in spite of it, that I’m willing to dig deep to uncover the rarest and most beautiful gems. That said, I think we mostly agree. We just have different approaches to what seems like roughly the same goal.

I get that. But I’d still argue that pushing the boundaries of your experience deepens your appreciation for what ultimately sticks with you. How could I truly understand my own taste in music if I didn’t explore what else is out there? Not only do I end up discovering music I never knew I’d love, but it also gives me a better sense of what I like and why. I’m not saying it’s necessarily different - I was just curious about your perspective. In the end, I think it comes down to empathy. Metal still isn’t my favorite genre, but I can now appreciate why people love it. That, in turn, tells me something about the nature of art and aesthetics that I wouldn’t have grasped if I had simply stayed on the outside. Ultimately, this is just a metaphor for a broader epistemic approach that I’ve always found lacking in you - one that also extends to your general suspicion of Western philosophy. Again, I’d argue that if you actually took the time to engage with these texts, you’d find many of them profoundly insightful, offering deep reflections on reality, and even on topics like God, Truth, and Awakening - albeit from a vastly different perspective and in a vastly different language. And to be clear, I’m not saying this to push you into listening to music or reading books you have no interest in. But a bit more empathy - and a willingness to give things the benefit of the doubt - would be refreshing to see.

Vintage Louis Vuitton Duffle Bag Surprisingly, they’re quite affordable at €400-600, considering their craftsmanship. These bags are among the finest pieces of luggage you can own - built to last a lifetime while remaining an iconic statement piece.

Totally agree.

That’s a poor approach to epistemology. To understand a song or album - especially one outside your comfort zone - you have to take the time to listen to it in its entirety. Only then can you start grasping what it’s really about. After all, you wouldn’t expect someone who listens to just 20 seconds of one of your videos, with no prior frame of reference for what you’re doing, to get much out of it.

But don’t you think a robust theory of aesthetics should avoid approaching the subject with a predetermined stance on which genres are worth engaging with and which aren’t - perhaps even seeing this openness as necessary? For most of my life, I couldn’t stand metal. But at some point, I made the conscious decision to explore the genre, listening to its most acclaimed albums. To my surprise, I found a lot to appreciate. What I’m really interested in - and the reason I’m seeking this discussion in the first place - is whether a "post-postmodernist" theory of aesthetics exists that moves beyond the relativist stance of all art is the same yet still recognizes that greatness can emerge in any genre or modality. If such a framework exists, I suspect that to truly grasp it, one must deliberately engage with the most uncomfortable and alien artistic forms.

Starting a family to “get needs met,” whether consciously or unconsciously, strikes me as a rather vulgar reason. Living in pursuit of fulfilling a lack is, in general, a vulgar and ungodly way of life. I’d rather follow a creative and productive vision - which, of course, doesn’t inherently exclude starting a family - than spend my life trying to fill a hole that can never truly be filled.

Does your idea of “great taste” transcend genres and modalities, or is it just about which genre is most tasteful? Again, I’d be interested in what you would consider tasteful rock music for example - or do you find rock as a genre inherently distasteful?

+1 on this being an all-time favorite.

There’s more to music than just melody. Most serious music is primarily conceptual - at a certain point, melodies and harmonies either exhaust their possibilities or reach such heights of perfection that they force the question of whether art has more to offer. Again, Swans are a great example. Their compositions often lack a clear melody to latch onto, yet they evoke a profound sense of existential enormity that simple melodies alone could never achieve. I’ve always felt they tap into themes and insights similar to those in your long-form videos - works that are highly conceptual and resist being reduced to an easily digestible dopamine hit. That’s why I’m surprised you don’t appreciate more radical music.

Also, isn’t it funny that while Swans arguably aligns pretty closely with your values, your actual taste leans toward lighter, more melodic music that mostly revolves around petty everyday themes? Which raises the question: what exactly grounds your aesthetics? Is there really such a thing as “great taste,” or is it just a function of your state of consciousness - one that, by definition, can’t be grounded in anything outside itself?

Purely recreational. Giga bad for your health, obviously.

That's fair, thanks for the clarification. But sometimes it's hard to tell where the line is between hyperbole and literal statements with you. And since I don’t get the sense that you’re just throwing out one-liners for a bathroom calendar, I tend to take what you say at face value - because I genuinely respect your perspective and care about understanding where you're coming from.

I get that. My favorite stack is tramadol, cocaine, and a couple of drinks (of course, all while chain-smoking) - makes me feel and fuck like Superman. But seriously, don’t try this at home. This combo can easily kill you if you don’t know what you’re doing.

My personal highlight from Bowie's glam era.

Who doesn't? I'm more of an opiate guy though. I tend to agree, as I mentioned before - it was more of an argument about practicality. There are no prescription drugs that purely and directly increase GABA neurotransmission. Professional drug user, if i may

The principles of economics aren’t going to change just because of whatever historical moment we’re living through. Only invest money you know you won’t need for at least 10+ years, so you’re not forced to sell at a bad time just because of some emergency. Invest as much as you can comfortably manage under those conditions, and do it as broadly as possible. It’s really not that complicated - just put your money into an ETF that tracks the entire global economy, so you’re not at the mercy of some fleeting trend. The entire global economy isn’t going to crash and burn, and if it does, you’re screwed anyway, no matter what you did with your money. If you’re super paranoid about some global giga-crash, you can buy physical assets like real estate instead, so at least you have something tangible when the fiat system melts down - but let’s be real, that’s not a realistic option for 99% of people.

In theory, it wouldn’t - but alcohol isn’t just a GABA agonist; it wreaks havoc on your brain and body in a dozen other ways. I’m sure there are GABAergic neurosteroids that don’t take the indirect route Lyrica does, but at the end of the day, it’s just more practical to use a patented medication that’s proven to work, reliably dosed, and legally available rather than gambling on some obscure research chemical from the deep web that could be anything. Of course, from a purely idealistic standpoint, I’d rather use the cheap research chemicals instead of paying 100x more to corrupt big pharma, but at the end of the day, it’s just safer and more reliable to go the traditional route.

Wdym "why?" The difference is like performing brain surgery with a precision scalpel versus hacking at it with a machete. Lyrica modulates neural activity with targeted effects, while alcohol disrupts the entire system indiscriminately.

I have a similar issue in that I can’t function without nicotine and coffee. I’ve tried quitting so many times, but after a few months, I always hit this wall where life just feels unbearably dull and unmanageable. That said, alcohol dependence is a different beast - it’s far more physiologically and neurologically disruptive, so finding a safer substitute makes sense. You might consider pregabalin (Lyrica). Like alcohol, it modulates GABAergic transmission, but it does so indirectly by binding to voltage-gated calcium channels rather than acting directly on GABA-A receptors. This means you get some of the anxiolytic and relaxing effects without the neurotoxicity, liver strain, or long-term cognitive impairment associated with alcohol. I also find it feels more natural than antidepressants, as it doesn’t dampen emotions in the same way SSRIs tend to do.