Thought Of The Moment

218 posts in this topic


I've never seen this video but I'm aware of pretty much all of the other cultural subgroups and that the same features sometimes show up! (More in some groups and less in others.)

Renee Zellwegger and Bjork were two examples that I thought of after I had made the last post. People have been gossiping about Renee Zellwegger's face transformation for years, and I think it's generally agreed upon that the plastic surgery on her eyes (presumably) was a downgrade as it was her most distinctive feature. I think that's the context in which I first learned about the Sami.


There's also this video:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I was sitting here and thinking to myself about how it is very inline with Daoist thought to not at all have a set objective or aesthetic before you reach an outcome (unless perhaps it comes to you spontaneously), perhaps at all, or one that is too forced, too narrow, and too myopic. You do not exactly construct things within the realm of "normal" ideas and -isms and things that fit in in "mind" categorically (as we traditionally define it), but in a state of flow. It is very "process" or being (in a very open-ended way) centered first, whichever way you would like to slice the cake of defining it.

(Lao Tzu said: "the dao that can be told is not the true dao", etc.)

The object picks itself or forms itself through your hands, you don't exactly pick it as some object of mind.  This keeps psyche relatively unburdened, and in this era, managing one's psychoemotional load with good discretion is as important as ever. ** This is generally my preferred creative process: it's significantly instinctive ("gut") as well as emotional ("heart"), and the more cerebral aspect of "steering" the ship comes into play harmonioniously and judiciously, usually on its own. You don't try in the normal sense of expending effort, so it may just as much feel that it "just happened" or "happened through you"; truly, the original distinction collapses anyway. There is a sort of natural, seamless judgment call coming into place in a more ideal state. We call this "flow" also. Though sometimes I do very much have the habit of making it too deliberate in an inappropriate way.

I'm still unlearning this habit in many, many small ways, and some larger ways. Something often feels off in the body and the emotions in this process that alerts me strongly to something not being quite right or balanced (but then, I've always been "sensitive", but at times, also number). You feel a stress, a pushing against the tide, coming up empty-handed (perhaps the gut/heart would tell you if there is nothing there that you're looking for, or that you're mishandling one thing or another), the stress wears on the body and the emotion. You feel fatigue.

In flow,  generally you don't really generate psychoemotional fatigue, you get more energized. If you are, perhaps the bodies needs are not being met in some way or another, but the body must be made a sort of vehicle of Flow (/universal flow) one way or another.

So it would make sense that I start with no specific or obvious object in mind at times, and this may flow towards something or not. And at other times, I remind myself not to "hold" onto things, or anything really, too tightly. This is actually at least partly physiological and tied in with the habits of the nervous system, and are not tied directly to those who have any degree of traditional trauma, whether generally considered minor or major, although these are often sort of operational hinge points for habits which are not strictly "trauma" and unhealthy in those specific ways, but they are adaptations or compensations. (You might ask yourself how much of your own habits or my own habits, still, even, are the result of some original compensation or reaction to something, and that it is by definition makes it not optimal in its present state.) This is why cultivating relaxation and even doing things one loves, enjoys, and values does eventually rewire the nervous system and your emotions and thought processes shift naturally with it, although perhaps not quite enough to really unravel the most deeply rooted habits of this nature. Or perhaps you work on the emotional aspect more directly, and the body/ "mind"/ thoughts also shifts naturally in response.

...the idea of "effort" (or necessary effort) in a mental/ emotional sense is also just as much "invented" as anything else. That we prefer to do certain things and find certain things more intrinsically meaningful and others a complete waste of time or intrinsically unenjoyable (the function behind all "resistance" of any kind) tends to mean that if we do access a greater flow state, it's only while doing the former and not the latter (like described at least partially in its properties in the book by Hungarian psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi). The latter tends to preframe and predicates a mundaneness, so we have already determined how the experience is going to play out the vast majority of the time, unless some unexpected factor presents itself to rescue us from mundanity, boredom, pain, frustration, the acute sense and grappling with our limits.

Or alternatively, the concept of "work" often has an inbuilt concept of resistance in it, which inevitably is related to both cultural and distinct personal preferences and formative experiences, etc. An action is just an action. (...)

I have seen this whole crazy proposition that is psyche both unravelled thread by thread, in different ways, and at other times, cut down completely to the core, flimsy as a torn, worn piece of paper. It is crazy. It's the strongest thing many people believe, in many ways, like its own sort of religion. Even those who say they don't, it's the religion of the No-Mind (which down to its language and its way of employing is a reflection of "thought"/ processing, even if it only used in that context...***), and I suppose this is dictated greatly by some degree of rigidity and adherence to this perspective, this way of approaching; truly being able to take and leave something tends to give one a more cosmopolitan approach unless you truly, actually live in the most simple of ways in isolation, and thus your exposure has been limited, and perhaps maybe you have lost all sense and significance of memory, but this is not our lived-in, collective, world, what we are exposed to on the day-to-day. Perhaps one is also very simple in the more strictly "limited" sense, perspective wise, simply because of a lack of observation or interest. That works too. It is what it is.

***the truth is that "relational thought" can evolve itself without any "thinking" in any normal sense. It's relative discreetness and minimalism can keep you light on your feet. Some people just call this inspiration, or something else. (Whatever you want to call it.)

Another Reflection: something must be a point of value or focus in one's personal practice and speech, including "No-Mind" if that's your thing. What you build around through ritual, repetition, and practice, you inevitably enshrine one way or another.

**Note: The psyche is actually practising its own form of instinctive, automatic management/ regulation by having a short attention span, or filtering out information and stimulus automatically because it's being bombarded with it or we do live in such information and stimulus-complex environments compared to our ancestors. Psyche adapts or we would be WAY MORE STRESSED. (Though we tend to think of this as an acutely contemporary deficiency, and worry about the children, etc.) I remember reading about recently in "A Very Short Introduction Book" on memory that having an excellent, flawless memory in both detail and scope often comes with unintended results, one being sometimes significant emotional stress, like having endless bits of information jangling around in your brain, and sometimes remembering and remembering A LOT and not always how and when you want to. That memory is both intrinsically selective (or skewing overwhelmingly towards such) is very likely necessary so that psyche as we understand it functions at all! (Note: I feel like this point above deserves some clarification. The issue with memory in this case is not having the executive skills to match it with management, which is sort of meta, like it's at least one more "step" up the conceptual hierarchy. It's never actually about the amount or speed of incoming information in awareness itself!)

(Another fail safe in this vein is actually psyche getting bogged down/ or weighted down automatically before one gets excessively stressed. This corresponds to my own experience of being able to override this tendency if I really want to, if it comes up (some condition for "resistance" being met in some way before previously), and then just working through a sort of stress that many people are not able to through "concentration". (It's a balancing act too though.)) Perhaps this is not so unlike the body forming trigger points and muscle adhesions to essentially stop you from injuring yourself through a certain motion pattern; what the body normally does is that it severely limits your range of motion. Your body is protecting you... from yourself. We call this "the wisdom of the body". We might get annoyed with the pain or the stiffness, we might even think some other body part is the cause of the sensation (e.g. arthritis in this case), we might use this to judge ourselves fundamentally and morally on some deep level. Well, there is a sort of "wisdom of the psyche" too in its adaptations, even as we poo-poo on it and blame it directly for our misery. So we must in all ways find ways to work with psyche, to eliminate what is unnecessary, to not go along with psyche/ habits as the default position, and to not turn against ourselves as we can help it (in the truest sense, if not always the most obvious sense).

^aka. the conditions of relative Flow are not being met one way or another; it's not because you're "bad". Often safety/ openness factors heavily into it one way or another. (You can replace "you" with anything else, your mind, your emotions, your trauma, your history, your body, your health, etc.)

Edited by modmyth
Oh, this might not belong here thematically, even though it really was my thought of the moment. It was no/ very little effort to write it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

REBEL (TM) WITHOUT A CAUSE: (Is this not one of the tropiest things that there is?)

I thought that Ladybird was just ok.

I didn't find it uncompelling, but I didn't find it especially compelling either. Just flat and moderately vacuous, like the main character. I mean this in a very literal sense, to live her life seems... utterly devoid of much authentic emotion and feeling, even as emotions and feelings are very much expressed. But it seems that many people find it relatable, so I then tend to wonder if I'm missing something and what.

Personally, I found it completely unrelatable, and in retrospect, if what I was looking to do was to relate to the protagonist's experience, I was approaching it from the completely wrong vantage point (i.e. myself at that age). Also noting that people's experiences not being so easily directly relatable to my own has rarely stopped me from trying.

1) I wondered what it was like being so "privileged" emotionally that has mostly been your idea of what problems are (e.g. not being rich enough to be rich, or conventionally attractive enough to look like a supermodel, not getting into top schools effortlessly, being bored of being in Sacramento and constructing some kind of East Coast identity, awkwardly losing ones virginity, being preoccupied with impressing boys and somehow still so many things effortlessly turning out). I found her self-centered and spoiled (some people insist that all teenagers are that way by default), but rebellion without empathy is a bit sad. I suppose if there is no preemptive empathy for others, than even a little tiny bit of self-awareness? (Some people insist that teenagers also lack this by default; I still can't relate to her, even though I was self-absorbed in my own way.) I don't have much of a negative emotional reaction towards it though, and generally I don't fault people for not having difficult lives in comparison with other people, if just considering raw, technical circumstances and upbringing.

2) I also wondered what it's like to have an adopted brother of a different ethnicity, and to be that completely lacking in empathy to someone that you grew up around, their experiences and their worldview. And all her displays of empathy strike me that way, like performances first. Something often given in retrospect when it's clear one's other options have failed. generally, I consider this "not really empathy" or "situational empathy". And if your empathy is this situational, your personality and way of approaching things would change just as easily as your superficial circumstances change. In highschool, you're the Quirky Girl (because you're trying to distinguish yourself, I guess), when you move, you're the New York College Girl having the New York College experience, and if you get away with being Top Bitch and having Top Bitch behaviour (even if only by association), then you can and will (like when the protagonist becomes friends with the popular girl). Teen or coming of age movies often rely heavily on this sort of thing, but this movie really takes it to an extreme with really no way out, and no pretense of there even being an "out". (E.g. Mean Girls does this have moralistic pretense with Cady self-reflecting in retrospect about the ways she's treated people terribly.) Anyway, I find this sort of transient character and anchoring in morality less appealing in people; these people can and are absolutely atrocious with no self-reflection or feeling in the right circumstances.

3) The point might be made that the film doesn't sugarcoat her less than desirable traits, but I find myself wondering what her redeemable traits are, if there are supposed to be any, and what they are supposed to be. She's certainly not someone I'd have wanted to have as a friend. This reminds me that I have tended to prefer to be friends with people who have "problematic"/ "difficult" traits (which I might actually appreciate) as they're offset by other traits, but not just because they're offset. It's a whole person package. See the point above: these people do tend to turn on you as opportunity/ convenience arises.

4) In general, I try not to crap on people's dreams, so I'm not going to comment on hers. Even as a fictional character.


Yes, Saoirse Ronan is a good actress; she has a certain likeable appeal but not in an in-your-face sort of way. The film is well put together. The means fits the medium which fits the message. And still...

I get much more value from things that are generally, actually considered more vacuous, that somehow give me more to observe and to take in (even if not intentionally so). (End Note: "Mean Girls" is not vacuous.)

Edited by modmyth
Someone who rebels but is a hyperconformist at heart is a sort of teenage trope/ cliche that I guess people can relate to?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"THE SAD WHITE GIRL AESTHETIC", EXISTENTIALISM EDITION: (also the "Politics of Cancelling", early 2010s edition)

Relating to the issues I had with Lady Bird above, it made me think of my shifting feelings towards Savannah Brown. I went from enjoying some of her content years ago (at least a couple years after she had gotten Youtube notoriety from her early slam poetry), to finding her genuine persona (some people believe this to be an inherent contradictions in terms) really irritating, to being solidly ambivalent. Like I have no strong feelings about her either way at this point.

I think in general, the crux of the issue is that I've been repelled by a certain type of "White Girl Sadness" (TM) but not others. For example: Lana Del Rey? I've never had any personal issue with her aesthetic. Lots of people find her highly grating. They think it's inauthentic, highly manufactured (it is, but it doesn't bother me), her Americana centered on a kind of theatrical whiteness (it is, but what is the actual alternative?). So then you inevitably come to the question if something can be both highly deliberately and conscientiously manufactured and still be authentic. And then back to this original question: what does authenticity even mean anyway? (And are we not being constantly encouraged to create and consume prepackaged versions of this both in ourselves and others, even if they are relatively self-aware presentations?)

The thing with Savannah Brown is that I do really think that she is intelligent and self-aware, but she is also really self-depreciating in a very emotionally and verbally stylized way... and that is very much her "brand". The latter part makes her very relatable, and she has a certain charm, for sure. Part of that brand is a little bit of mid-century, continental philosophy (it's always the the damn French), a little bit of German philosophy; you know, all of the philosophy that appeals specifically to the more emotive types and far less of the analytical philosophers; that's not very sexy? Is it? It's hard to present a romantic image of it; it does not seem to come so naturally.

I believe that she's stated that she loathes the idea of being branded; it's a brand, unavoidable so. And yet there is something very real and authentic about it, perhaps she is as "authentic" as she can be in her circumstances in her awareness. But what does that even mean though, substantively???. Is this at the crux of what irritates me? A sort of performative, theatrical empathy that is even more deeply rooted?

And to be honest... can and have I not been that way too, even a bit? Isn't there something about her that reminds me of myself and own upbringing, a certain kind of self absorption that I have tried to distance myself from? I think there might be something. There is some element of this romanticism in my dad's approach towards approaching thinkers, for example. I never got too deeply into it, and not for very long, and I don't think I ever made a WHOLE FUCKING IDENTITY out of other people's work (God!), which is something that I generally I used to find a bit off and repelling, but it's one of those things that the more I focus on it or I can't avoid it in my line of sight, the more I find it a little to moderately irritating. But generally, I mind my own business in this way and I do not go out of my way to find things that provoke me. It's not been a way that I've wanted to live personally or a way that comes naturally to me, to make meaning fundamentally by living my own romantic visions of other people's worlds first. At the very least, not for too long. I find simply that I have tended to be more like a brief tourist, seizing and consuming something wholly when I used to get inspired in that way (it does happen more rarely these days), and perhaps this is my own particular brand of self-absorption (aka. prioritizing myself, my personal inclinations, ethics, and values).

When I was in university, I had some young professors in their late 20s/ early 30s (fresh 'outta grad school) who were prone to this sort of romanticism. Some I was very close to, some not so much, and I also knew some students who were attracted to some literature, philosophy, and art seemingly for this reason. For the students that I knew, I did not hate or begrudge them, or have any particular issue with them, I just observed this trait. I noticed and wondered if this was a North American thing, to romanticize "the European" in this particular way, to have all sorts of ideas in one's head about it without having actually been there, for example. Do the French feel this way about Jean Paul Sartre and Camus? Somehow, I doubt it. They certainly don't have the same beliefs about what Paris represents and what it means to inhabit it, then and now, especially as a sort of conceptual space, an idea and an ideal.

I mean honestly, this is a pretty good example of a slightly more self-aware version of Arty White Girl Philosophical Angst(TM):

It was really easy for people to mock "Emily in Paris" for its childish tropishness and approach towards another culture (all croissants, hot French boys, and red berets), and yet, is this not what's happening in the Arts often enough when it comes to people's emotional motivations and attraction towards it? Except in this case, it wears the garb of being more sophisticated, more artistic, more intellectual, and more Self-Aware (TM), and in many ways, it is. It's a still a romantic commodification with the same base urge and motives, IMO.

I think what really made me snap was hearing her wax in a self-depreciating way about race and class privilege; I didn't care for it in university either, but I mostly I went out of my way to ignore it. There was a push-pull element in the left  especially, at least back then, when it came to the politics of public apologetics that I found quite nauseating the more extreme, theatrical, and obviously put-on it became. This was both because it was expected socially expected of people who had committed various transgressions, including "microaggressions", and if you did not comply, people on social media and internet news sites (the latter of which played a larger role back then) were going to cancel you. (They didn't call it "cancelling", but it was basically that.) And then there were people who seemingly without provocation went out of their way to make displays of themselves; one term for this is "virtue signalling" and it has gotten a very negative reputation.

I had to ask myself though; is it her privilege? (Aka. Honestly... am I "just jealous"? Is this something that I could have been in different circumstances, that maybe I wanted to be, or at least would have liked the option to have been such? A different me, in a different life?) Was I bothered that she had a more privileged background than me in many ways? No, not exactly. I rarely begrudge people their privilege, especially systematically (also known as a waste of time). Is the combination of the privilege as well as a performantive hyper-awareness and self-depreciation about it that really irritated me, especially as it seemed to exist as a thing with no specific purpose and end in sight. The likely end in site is that she's in her twenties and she will likely outgrow it, or else it will very likely evolve into something else. The whole sort of culture of performative apolegetics as I knew it was just that (because let's be real, you can't really extort a true apology out of someone, in the same way that you can't force empathy or bludgeon someone over the head and expect them to truly be understanding; I mean this realistically, it just tends to hardly ever work, and the people it works on? These are the people who would self-depreciate and go along with you anyway, and likely you didn't have to use that much force and emotional violence to make your point, and if you did... is that really the people you want on your side? The point is that many people on the left, the most vocal and aggressive people, they didn't care. They were simply hypermoralistic bullies who couldn't even acknowledge the way they were using their own power.)

Anyway, back to Savannah Brown: honestly, I think that this way of presentation is only "cute" on someone who is already "cute", physically and otherwise. And also probably young and white. The same deal with Lana Del Rey, in that particular way.

In her case with her self-depreciation, don't just talk about how you feel bad about yourself because of all of this privilege that you were born with and had in your upbringing (which then very much fits into you brand), if you honestly, truly, and deeply care. (And I got the impression that she does.) DO SOMETHING. A little bit, fine. But over and over and over and over? Even if it's not something that you do permanently. Just do something that brings you outside your own experience and backstory, even for a little while, and take a bit of a break from your own spiralling if you have some energy to spare. Find a grassroots organization to work with or create your own, for example, when it comes to social issues. Put the energy and attention into listening and learning directly from people and their lived-in experiences, studying it properly, and truly making the attempt to get outside of your own habitual, limited frame. Try to limit or be self-aware about making a performance of this whole thing in a self-indulgent way if possible. Don't just sit there and apologize? What good does your apologies do other than to make certain people, like the people mentioned above, temporarily appeased (if they're even appeased at all. And also, who are often not in direct situations of crisis themselves, let's be honest)? It certainly doesn't actually helped the less privileged, and neither does all of your rhetoric as it stands. A nice side effect:  you might actually feel better about yourself and your role in this world, even if you don't solve "everything". Not that you need to.

But it's the most literal definition of pretentious and self-absorbed. And.... it... is what it is. (And then you talk endlessly about being self-absorbed about being self-absorbed, and honestly I do and have done a some of this myself as well. But... at what point does and should it end? And why? What purpose does it serve? Is it truly a meaningful and enjoyable thing?)

In my own way, I have been privileged in certain ways (materially speaking growing up), and really not privileged in other ways. I tried to do my best of not turning this whole thing into a sort of emotional theatre for its own sake; I think that there are better games to play and better things to accomplish, even if for your own self. But hey, the latter especially is my judgment. I just find this incredibly unproductive culturally. And I really, really don't think that other people's struggles should be fodder for your own self-absorbed narratives and flagellating, especially if you don't give at least a little in good spirit? What do I personally define "good spirit" as? For its own sake, as much as possible, anyway, and to give it away freely and maybe quietly. At least for a while, with the latter thing.

Or... just don't.

Unfortunately, this type of work doesn't square very well with people's romantic ideals about Liking-the-Good-Stuff or being a Good-Person-with-the-Good-Intentions, does it?

Edited by modmyth
FYI I've always liked Lana Del Rey and her music.// wowww, typos.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


So the question is, why resurrect this critique in a slightly different form, even if slightly more complete, more thorough way? Why re-articulate what I've already made sense of? There is a strain here of something that I was heavily invested in especially in my early 20s, and when you become that invested in something, it does tend to become an identity. A social identity, a working identity, there are many different aspects of it that you can pick out to focus on.

And while I could leave it be and perhaps cease to consider it from this perspective, I feel somehow that there is still something to make of it. What it is, I'm still figuring it out, but I try to give it the space to evolve naturally. If it is not active, unless truly I have stopped associating with it and making sense with it in a very absolute way, then it's still an identity, just a latent one that can be recalled.

I often ask myself this question: am I too hard on people just generally? I often find myself wondering when it is both practical for someone's best development and well-being; this can be a phenomenally hard thing to both figure out and negotiate on someone's behalf, even if you have "empathy". The thing with "empathy" is that without understanding what people's terms and respecting them sufficiently, and working with these terms well... well, what is all that blind empathy worth?

Previously especially, I've sometimes found it to be a tricky thing and often a balancing act, balancing "respect" with "empathy". Not that these traits need be framed in opposition. (And not that framing them pre-emptively is the way that you ought to deal with the spirit of it all.) Respect is often tied with "understanding", which does tend to make it more conceptual in nature.

It's the kind of thing you can really fall down the hole with getting preoccupied with: whether you are constantly treading on others with your choices, expressions, and actions, and to think about it in an equally circular way (see the video above for good example) over and OVER AND OVER.

Just generally: I am mindful of the use and abuse of overt thought and introspection and the impulse for such, which is partially why I tend to confine it to a written space such as this. Or, sometimes I write poetry.

Anyway, I find that the more I think someone clearly has potential, the harder I tend to be on them. A lot of people don't appreciate this at all or care, which means that offering it to them is of no particular value to them. And yet, I try my best to respect people by not pushing this on them if they're not up for it, if it's clearly not working for their personalities.

I'm also pretty aware that not everyone gets or appreciates this kind of respect. But regardless...

At the end of the day, intuition really guides me in my discernment. Intuition and the refinement of perception/ judgment, in various ways. Maybe less so in the core instinct of it, as its been always present my whole life, but in the expression and applications of it.

Edited by modmyth
Very Important Note: I totally got bored while writing this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

CASUAL JUDGMENT, PERSPECTIVE, FRAMING UNDERSTANDING WITH THE LIMITS OF LANGUAGE: (practical examples of the deliberate use of "strange loop" type thinking (aka. circular, multihierarchial, etc.))

I have been thinking about the judgment I have written and laid bare in my most recent journaling and have been sitting illy at ease with it. The process of judging people and making assessments about them in relation to myself: it doesn't trigger me deeply, and I don't feel "upset", exactly. For example, judging some fictional character in that movie mentioned above ("Lady bird"); what does it actually mean and do? There is something about it now that doesn't quite sit right in the way it feels; it's not a space to rest in, and it's the sort of thing that you can spin with around and around, making it more complex and more rooted until it can so easily become a new sort of personal orthodoxy. A new kind of personal prejudice. Prejudices don't have to be large ones, and blunt and heavy like a hammer, or even so obviously sharp and divisive like a knife, in order for it to have its effects. But from where I am, it seems impossible to look at it without it being tied directly to the "judgment against judgment", whether a sort of anxiety or uncertainty, or a pushing it away or condemning it. Either way; it's deeply rooted in moralism; and when there is moralism, it tends to block a more comprehensive understanding as well as psychoemotional resolution as well, obviously. And you see both examples of these abound especially in spiritual and personal development circles, don't you? People tend to focus more on the latter in these parts.  (And this judgment against judgment, does this too not have as equally a profound an effect? Is this judgment not often met with an equally rigid and aggressive judgment back, if not sometimes more? We call this "reactiveness", and this is basically "attitude" at its root.)

I myself do not tend to see most "spiritual circles" as great bastions for the spirit of understanding in certain ways, but it rarely tends to present itself as such in the intellectual sense; it tends to be seen as a perpetual sin and pretense (or else both elements tend to be heavily segregated in their understanding and therefore expression, this modularity has tended to be a direct feature of being a "modern person" who has a modern identity, and was taught to operate in appropriately modern ways). The process of understanding, especially when it comes hand-in-hand with articulation, as I am doing here. But that tends to be a consequence of this notion of "right brained heaviness" and a particular fixation on empathy and feminine qualities. What about the pretense of empathy? What about the pretense of nonjudgmental (and the accompanying doctrine"? Generally: this part is pretty simple: attitude ("feeling") is intention and is dictates absolute everything that flows forth.

We keep framing things awkwardly and confrontationally (creating "segregation" as a direct reflection of our lived-in experience of "self") against each other because we're taught to do that or something, I guess. Or else we just put it all down, and then how do we talk about it? How do we learn to talk about it? How do we communicate?  Do we not need to make something from the same building blocks, ultimately (spoken/ written language)? Indeed, probably it's easier to not attempt to communicate at all and to have these silent understandings and feelings mostly wholly without the pretense of human communication, unless all you need is the feeling/ vibe of being in a certain person talking, their words evocative to your imagination only in a more purely emotional sense. But it has not been my understanding that understanding/ awareness necessitates perfect communicability, and so I have spent almost two years learning how to write and how to think ontop of whatever might have come before. And I wonder sometimes about the end result, here and there.

An example of pre-emptive segregation: I am a woman, and I have deeply felt into my feminine qualities, but I'm really not a fan of this "left brained" vs "right brained" stuff, or "masculine approach" vs "feminine approach" as if this whole thing is not a cultural conflict that people involved are waging themselves in when they participate, in some way or another? (So we all get ourselves indited if and however we get pulled in.) I try not to go along with it just because, though I... get it. I myself often favour and choose to go along with the analytical approach for a number of things.

There is often this notion that has a certain validity: if you find yourself pre-emptively judging, you might as well go along with it at that point. You already did the judging thing. But to cover it up, to lie to yourself especially, that's to walk backwards, is it not? Maybe there are some circumstances where it makes senses to walk backward deliberately. But generally? ... Why walk backwards unless you have a reason to do so?  To project onto others and then to disguise the ways in which you are ultimately judging yourself, is this not a waste of time in the end?

I think I've written more than enough about how judgment often presents it's as very subtle thing, and often it doesn't at all explicitly. Sometimes it disguises itself.... (And in the vein of "personal responsibility", I would say something like: no, you disguise it in subtle ways to stop framing reality as something simply happening to you. But truthfully: slice the pie anyway you want... or don't.)


And then as always, there is the aspect of myself that is intent on understanding and making sense of things which is almost always a more roundabout process (until it is not: gnosis is "skipping necessary steps", pre-emptively framed and accessed awareness/ knowledge). I see in myself there is the desire and the impulse for the hands-on knowledge and experience, the messy working through process, perhaps something a bit like struggle and effort, or perhaps more of a FLOW experience (which at least takes place via the experience of time). The part of me that is not satisfied with simply having an issue over and done with, to dissolve and disappear just as senselessly as it might have originally appeared; I know better than to argue with that part of myself by pushing against it, and to by this means, directly limit myself. I have done quite a bit of this in the past. I have called it arguing with myself, a lack of integration, or a lack of profound clarity and vision. To this I affirm: there is one vision, one will, unbound and unsegregated. To see and to embody this wholly, as much as I can in every possible way.

My roundaboutness: there are reasons why I write like this, at least when I write more analytically. I often find that I am writing something which seems to be falling apart and deconstructing itself very soon after it has left my fingers. It shows many of the same elements of shifting around and recombining and reconstituting into something legible we might call a pattern, like turning a kaleidoscope over and over. Some elements are more and less visible, some elements are not visible at all in certain moments of turning the kaleidoscope. Well, there is no meaning-making without patterns. Humans: you could say that we are pattern-making animals as well as meaning-making ones; it is in every level of our constructed sense of reality and lived-in experienced.

I myself often find that I am writing out these elements like ingredients on a recipe list: I might be very well aware of what I am not describing so directly if at all, I might lose track sooner or later if I find myself moving and thrashing around more haphazardly especially if should somehow fall into a greater relative sense of unpresence and unobservation and unawareness, but I also very much feel that people need to be reminded of these elements via language at least just as much as I do, and that it also makes my writing more complicated and probably more difficult to read and understand by default.

But a structure that keeps coming up both explicitly and more suggestively in my writing it like this: one thing or the other, both, or not.... as a choice, or not.

E.g. here's an example of the above structure used in a way that I have found appropriate: you can focus on understanding which is a more roundabout path, or you can resolve an issue more directly and instantaneously without understanding it (for example, should you simply manage to truly "not judge" in the first place and therefore not suffer any consequences of it, rather than simply bypass it). Or (aka. AND/both) you can have instantaneous understanding potentially, like gnosis, or you can frame it as neither (it's a matter of perception, frame the picture how you want, slice the pie however you want it's still Reality, etc.); it's your choice. Actually, "choice" as we understand it doesn't really exist meaningfully in the greater scheme, does it? ("NOT") (And neither does "no choice", really.) It's a process that expresses itself more like going up an ascending matrix with at least a few options at each "level", because it's at least a bit better at accounting for complexities and navigating around such (while also playing along with the duality that language as we know it tends to embed, because language is just really a direct reflection of conceptualization as it stands, even before it legibly becomes a thing vocalized or conceived as words). Perhaps there are other, potentially better ways to frame this all and express myself; but this is the way that I do it now and some version of this has been perpetually in the works since I was an adult.

It reads in a roundabout way because it is.

Do I actually think this way in my brain, with thoughts, concepts, words? God. Fuck no. Only if there's some reason or desire to do so. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, thinking or conceptualizing is something to "bring out" (like a tool in the toolbox) or to do for some reason or another, not a chronic thing or a habit. Not only do I not enjoy "thinking on purpose", I don't enjoy "thought happening to me" (in the common perception of thought), as in I don't prefer stuff floating around in my perception or "thought" in a cluttered way. And yes.. I do frame this as an aesthetic preference. Which then is a sort of judgment, inevitably (but not how it is commonly defined in the classic sense of judgment in this point), but might be something closer to "universal judgment" (judgment that approaches greater universality). 

Is this still not judgment though? This brings me closer to something like "universal cause and effect" (and the consequent collapse of necessary cause and effect bindings, which has some direct relationship to karma in the most classical understanding of it, but it is not entirely it.) And up we go, up the matrix of relative embodiment, and here we are absolutely all that we can be that we ARE, right now too.  Once again: one thing or the other, both, or not.... as a choice, or not.

And once you are back at "not", you may easily enough go back into focusing on some other "one thing", and then now we are back at the distinguishing one thing as distinct thing from all other things.

And why? Why do this? (...but why not, really?)

There is a picture frame with a painting it in. In it, there it presents itself to you as a whole, perhaps a cohesive whole. Maybe it's one object, or there's one perspective or focal point. Maybe it's made up of many distinct but complementary perspective. Maybe there is one dominant colour scheme or concept. For that moment that you focus on it wholly; it's the whole world, isn't it? The whole universe. In it, you see and feel everything that there is, all in that moment, in that one particular thing held in open consciousness. And in a way, it's more literal than the most literal words ever are, because it's more direct. (Aka. "we were never really gone.", and for at least a few moments that feel that they stretch into forever, we might be reminded again, the One is brought into focus.)

Have you noticed that the more literal and descriptive words tend to get, the longer the words get, the more complicated definitions tend to be, then oftentimes, the more words it takes to describe something directly in great detail? Or else it straight up tends to be poetry (which tends to be fundamentally associative and therefore metaphorical by nature), and sometimes stories get a point across more directly by "being less literal", not by describing something too directly, or by creating fictions about a scenario that never existed in tangible reality. Both rely extensively on the use of metaphor in one way or another (I know I'm really stretching the technical definition of metaphor here); metaphor is said to be at the heart of our understandings and misunderstandings, especially socially speaking, between each other. The point of poetry is essentially to say more with less, or say what cannot be said otherwise.


Edited by modmyth
... andddddd .... back to focusing on a one thing right now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


So... why even bother to map out thought like this and to write about it in the way that I do?

It isn't even intended to be a representative of all that is possible with thought (human thought and language or otherwise) by any means, but a reasonable approximation of what is, or a map of the lay of the land. Things that are simplified and are repeatable tend to lend themselves to becoming laws, systems, or codes quite easy, especially if all the parts are easily and directly relatable to each other enough so that it might read in understanding as one single thing. In this way, conceptual understanding may hopefully be open and in directly alignment with all understanding, feeling, being, and all perception and action. (Interestingly, I feel like I am stating a very obvious thing here, but a thing being indistinguishably "one thing" to the mind makes it so that it can perceptually be grasped in any sense, on any level...)

I tend to have this perspective or attitude, for instance: that matrices can be constructed in multiple ways especially with multiple objectives and pre-emptive perspectives in mind.

It is actually a practical thing with one's lived-in experience, and not just mental masturbation. That is.. if you can make all of these aspects and processes and ways of thinking reconcile with each other one way or another. This does tend to require at least some synthesis or effort involved, even with very large doses of inspiration (/"gnosis"); I tend to consider this as a sort of constructive or generative process.

For example: back to Byron Katie's "The Work" for a moment; I had intended to use it on some of the judgments I had about people above. It works on this premise: you are attached to one specific premise which you are heavily emotionally identified with, in blaming someone, in some judgment or another. You manually go through the process of unravelling the judgment by looking at various elements, associated feelings, projections, and thoughts, and what should or shouldn't happen, and what that other person should or shouldn't do or be. Then, you consider about 3-4 alternative perspectives even if just from the open possibility of them being true. The premise is that the "emotional issue" or judgment here releases or dissolves through this process, through considering multiple perspectives. That you now are in something more like an open understanding or consciousness as things are.

Alternatively, you could also conceptualize and frame all of the other perspectives plus your original one as a sort of psychoemotional-matrix that you explore quite thoroughly and then leave. I presented all of the possibilities as a number of choices (which ultimately just dissolves into "everything that is", undifferentiated). In my own (still private) work, my way of seeing and approaching these things factors into the creation of minds (or possibilities for minds, not just how they actively manifest or appear which might most easily be compared to a path way, at least as one obvious approach). It does not seem very intelligent to me to model minds only after how they appear and manifest right now though, even, in the same way that it doesn't seem intelligent to only insist on modelling after nature directly, period.

I had a side thought about Nietzsche's preoccupation with the presocratics. If you've ever read snippets of the presocratics and you get the sense of actually sinking into their perspective, you get the sense of a world and reality that is very open, almost wildly and rawly so, and the sense of First Choices made (for which they cannot understand the significance of their perspectives and "choices" in retrospect which may not even be perceived as choice at all, which are not perceived as choice in our modern understanding of choice at all, even if their thought is very much proto-scientific). There is a strong sense of wanting to go back to the beginning of human thought, or a beginning, and to make sense of it all. As have I too in this whole life; very much so. (A Related Tangent: Keep in mind my understanding of Nietzsche, while I do take into account a myriad of other perspectives about how he has been interpreted, my impressions of him are mostly rooted in reading him at around 13. My precocity isn't the point; it's that I came into his work without that many preconceptions about how I should read it and makes sense of it all, and if you look at the way people interpret his work, you might also notice these things: 1) there are a bunch of cliched ways in which he has been interpreted that gets him the reputation of Rebel Angst-Philosopher extraordinaire, Philosopher King of Douchebaggery (...), but there is enough meat to work for people who don't and who are not inclined to take him this way. If you look at the way professional thinkers have interpreted him, it's actually quite a kaleidoscope. In a way, he stretches to meet you and his thought lends easily to elaborations and meldings with other people's approaches likely without him having intended to do such at all, apparently, and I find this interesting.)

WHY USE THOUGHT???? Why work with it when one could just put it down?

Well, the latter is perfect for living in a cave somewhere and not talking to anyone and never talking to anyone ever again (because if you do, guess what you're going to have to pick back up? language = thought, though you could keep it as simple and direct as humanly possible, and practically speaking, this tends to make less problems as it also raises less questions). Working with the former builds and has built everything that we see around us, for better and for worse. No one is exempt from working with it even if one takes the most direct. most instantaneous route possible, especially if you want to construct relatively new and novel things with it. (You might just say that you are remixing old things, whatever. Go slice that pie however.)  To do this requires direct and manual handling of "thought" at least at some point; there is at least one "point of contact" where this occurs, so to deal with this, whatever means you have at hand that you can and have adapted, that you are adapting and are continuing to adapt in the flow of action and being, that is what you pick up automatically and work with, whether you are aware of it or not. Or else you would not have the now simple privilege and bane of opening your mouth and it being coherent to anyone, haha (aka. "language is a technology"). And there's some serious stuff to be done here.

Whether it's an invention, or a thought system or a philosophy, science or some field of knowledge (as its been, or what doesn't exist yet or will), whether it's the art and decor filling your house, or anything filling your house, really. The roads and the layout of a city, the very concept of a city, the concept of a human being, a society, and all the possibilities that have ever been and things that haven't been, that might be, that definitely will be....

It goes on and on.

Edited by modmyth

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A SECONDARY THOUGHT ABOUT METAPHOR, LANGUAGE + PARADOX: Metaphor is making things "equal" or "on par" by relating them directly, essentially, you are saying that one thing IS the other thing most literally when actually, you are also implying that they are not exactly quite the same (but close enough!)... and by all ordinary standards of conception and distinguishing (one thing is not the other by object of reference in language, if nothing else). You could say that language sets up duality in perceived reality in this way as a preframing condition (and one of many possible apparent paradoxes. probably). And after a while, we take thing for granted, we grow up conditioned into this way of seeing, reality becomes solid and "real" on this basis. You see lots of people playing around in this particular fun-land, while clearly having left the sort of language/concept fun-land that came before it. Out of one and straight into another! ( it worth it? Do you wanna stay where you are? Is it... "The Place"? Yea. That's a FEELING.)

You could say that metaphor is a very "human" way to remind ourselves of the unity and direct relationship in all things existing (and "not"). And poetry (at least when it comes to human written/ spoken language) makes this relation most direct and explicit, in the fewest words or with added surrounding narrative.

Thankfully, at least poetry and art doesn't have the pretense of escaping or "transcending" anything in this way. And yet... it does and really can, can't it?

Edited by modmyth
Duly noting: what and when escaping/ transcending comes loaded with all sorts of Intention. A whole universe's worth of Intention, truly... Intention plays itself out, etc. EMBRACE LIVING/ METAPHOR ART ETC.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, look at all these serious posts up there about very serious things. ^^^

This post isn't going to be that serious.


So my partner and I watched the movie "8th grade"; he recommended it to me since I said that I didn't like Lady Bird that much, and he said that I thought I'd like this movie a lot better because I'd find the protagonist far less annoying. But he warned me that it would be some concentrated cringe though.

It was.

It was written and directed by Bo Burnham, who I believe also started off on Youtube in the early era originally...

For anyone who was anywhere near that anxious and uncertain about the opposite sex growing up like the protagonist in this movie, especially around the questionable ages of 11-14, I am truly, truly sorry. (Even though I could relate to it directly. I guess never was anywhere near that uncertain about myself.)


I got a matcha roll cake (again), burgers in bed, and this pin because it made me laugh (and yea, that about sums it up, at least at this very moment, but I feel it passing on out ..). This may or may not be the start of an enamel pin collection.


We also spent at least half an hour looking at pictures of AI generated dicks (because I asked aloud: I wonder if that's a thing??? Oh yea, it's definitely a thing) , so it was just me dick pic-ing myself (and him watching me dick-pic myself) and laughing hysterically, as there were a lot of horrifying absolutely hilarious and amazing AI generation mishaps. It's on the level of "this horse does not exist"... but with dicks. I find it very imaginative if you just consider it from a sort of creative perspective: floating fleshmonsters, disembodied parts that look like they're transforming into something else, malformed hands, etc. It's the fact that I probably would not have imagined it like that myself which makes it interesting.

udv4pyh1r7x41.jpg, we've always been weird together? Like we can show each other pretty much anything. He's never gave a shit about seeing dicks even when we were way younger, for example. It just doesn't do much either way. Likewise...

...honestly, I'm not sure what the point of this is other than to find someone who vibes or who can acclimatize to your particular brand of weirdness, as well as humour?


Edited by modmyth
I thought I would take this moment to let the internet know that I find dick pics to be very neutral (unless I know and am already attracted to you), which includes unsolicited ones. Which probably has always made me a super boring person to send to. ....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I like how his questions progressively get deeper and more unpredictable.

If I had to sign up to be gaslit, it would be by Jonathan Frakes smiling at me and telling me that I'm completely full of shit over and over like this.

Or alternatively:



Edited by modmyth
J's input to this post: if Jonathan Frakes has no beard, he loses his power of authority just like that.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


And here's my stupid shower thought for the day (which pretty much never actually happens in the shower anyway). I was playing the new expansion for Rimworld (a sort of survival SIM?) called Ideology which came out earlier this summer for the first time; you get to make your own religions/ ideological factions. The first one I made was a group of tree-hugging cannibals (TREES: GOOD, HUMAN: BAD!). For my next roll, I did underground cave-dwellers with a side of technocentrism, but there just happened to be one natural cannibal in the group. The results were pretty funny. This one guy is just going around happy all of the time, butchering, eating, and wearing people, and everyone else is creeped out, disgusted, and made unhappy by him. He's living his best life and doesn't give a shit; the mood boost makes him super productive too. What I find a bit strange though is that wearing human leather garments doesn't give specific debuffs because it disturbs non-cannibals. (Also, his religion as a techno cave-dweller forbids cannibalism, but it's his natural orientation and it overrides religious/ ideological doctrine in this game, apparently.)

If only people in and out of SIMs were so easily made happy and they knew what they wanted.

In a survival SIM, especially in a harsh environment, being able to eat people who would die anyways because they're attacking you is super efficient. (...) It saves burying them and leaving their dead bodies around with also disturbs most meeples (unless they're also cannibals, sadists, or have some kind of morbid orientation). (... is this not like an archetypal Jonathan Swift in "A Modest Proposal" type of situation? Eat Irish children: solve overpopulation, poverty and starvation all at once!)

(WTF?: I googled "A Modest Proposal" and this was in the first few search results. Okay, a few thoughts here.... 1) What's with the racially diverse cover? Is this meant to be inclusive to all demographics of children now? (...) 2) What's with the cutsey cartoon style? Is this somebody's oddball sense of humour (as in, it was still intended for adults or at least teens), or is having people close to the target age demographic written about in the original essay (kids) the same people we want to be reading this now too?)


(This is effing weird...)


(Is this like one of those United Colors of Benetton ads but with children and a pot instead?)


Anyway, in this context, I had been thinking a lot about cannibalism (...), and I asked J (because for some reason we had been casually discussing human lactation and this topic occasionally comes up): if a human cannibal consumes breast milk, categorically speaking, does that make them a cannibal vegetarian?



(not sure if at least somewhat astute or completely fucking stupid.)


This game has a lot of funny, ironic moments (as in, a sense of universal irony). Semi-recently, an animal-loving vegetarian (as its part of their religion) stepped outside my underground base and got murdered by 4 crazy manhunting monkeys. They could have went after someone else, but that situation happened. Of course she could not attack them back.

Then there is regular stupid in this game where people do things like eat something with human meat in it, but they're not cannibals by preference. They had other options but chose to for some reason, and then gave themselves a massive mood debuff because of it.

Anyway, finding this funny reminds me of seeing Soylent Green in a university class. There were serious, worthwhile points being made in this movie allegorically speaking. And still, I had to suppress my laughter at this last scene here:

It was memeable before internet memes were a thing.

Edited by modmyth
In Rimworld, you got your people pemmican.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

SOMETHING I THINK ABOUT SOMETIMES: Young Dave Mustaine (MEGADEATH) and his luscious locks

As in, can we trade hair?? (Even though red doesn't really work with my skin undertone and/or features, and that makes me a bit sad.)




EDIT: I just remembered that my dad had this hair colour when he was much younger growing up (strawberry blonde), and then it darkened to an auburn shade. Sometimes I forget because he's had grey hair for as long as I ever remembered; he greyed completely either in his late 20s or early 30s and he never dyed it. Those old photos where he still had his auburn hair almost never seemed real.

I remember when I was very young and I wanted either my dad's hair or my mom's jet black, straight, Asian hair. I got neither (to my great disappointment then)

(My mom told me to stop complaining and be grateful that at least my hair was very thick, and that if my hair thinned out, at least then it would be a normal thickness. She also told me that my hair might go grey at a young age like my dad. Thanks for originally giving me that anxiety about aging, mom. :P)


Unrelated note to the post above: morbid humour and irony is one my way of dealing directly with the brutality in the world, but I've become aware that it can be misdirecting emotionally, at times. Probably because it can still be a bit of a cope. Especially in the past: it beats getting morose and hopeless about it all, which is a profound sort of self absorption (can't really get around that one no matter how you slice it, who are you helping with that attitude, least of all yourself, anyway?)

People who take causes super seriously in an active way (as in, they actually strive to make some sort of change in this world) can get super serious sometimes. Hypercriticalness at the very least needs some sort of balance, even if that balancing act is temporary. For your own sanity too, really.

Edited by modmyth
When men have nicer hair than you do, especially with very little effort. (It happens!)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
THE 2000S NOSTALGIA (and some anti-nostalgia): .....
I watched the first MV in this journal, and I felt a sudden pang of nostalgia for the early 2000s. The singers look is SO early 2000s! So it seems like my relationship with the time period has changed a lot in the past couple years. First: it was the tight denim jacket the singer's wearing. (We didn't do oversized back then, everything was either fitted and/ or cropped.) Then it was the spaghetti strap tank top and what appears to be a halter top. (I came of age when tween girls would wear halter tops but no bras because of the lack of boobs/ puberty situation, but I was never allowed to wear halter tops. My mom would barely let me wear tank tops without telling me to cover my arms all the time, though she didn't exactly shame me for that, just the showing bra straps.) Finally, it's the frosted everything: silver frosted eyeshadow, frosted lips, and what appears to be copious amounts of body shimmer or illuminator, possibly in a lotion or spray.
Makeup wasn't like how it was now, there was no contouring vs. illuminating (the latter which is generally more strategic rather than just applying it everywhere. It was not subtle. You can get much subtler body shimmer now.) I googled for an example: here is Y2K era Britney looking super duper shiny.
(Also, there were no Youtube beauty wizards, arguably we were all much worse at applying makeup back then as all we had was sheer volume of practice plus maybe some advice from friends and/or magazines. I don't think we could have handled contouring anyway.)
Or the Olson Twins:
The makeup is bright, and the eyeliner was always black and super tightly rimmed around the eye in the waterline, or else there was a lot of smoky eye makeup.
My best friend in grade 8 LOVED Britney and she often either wore a greyish smoky eye with and a more pale or coloured shiny/ shimmery lip gloss to school (like the look on the right). She especially emulated Britney's eye looks.
It was part of the typical sort of teenaged girl uniform back then (if you were non-Asian, anyway, as we usually wore less or no makeup. That many of our parents forbade us from wearing it probably had something to do with it). This look also included flat ironed (even if your hair was already straight) or curled hair, meticulously, finely plucked eyebrows (bushy eyebrows were absolutely not a thing then), and at the very least: mascara and lip gloss. For some girls: the one "must have" item was the mascara, they would not be seen without it ever. For others, it was the lip gloss.
Even if you showed up at school wearing your actual pyjamas, which wasn't that uncommon.
It also didn't matter if your hair was bleached the lightest shade of blonde humanly possible: it was out of the ordinary to not wear jet black eyeliner if you were going to wear any. I recall my mom commenting on this trend and saying that it looked terrible (aka. very unnatural and obvious). A lot of this makeup was shamelessly obvious in its own way; it was makeup that wanted to look like makeup.)
For example (but this is by no means a comprehensive example):
HOOP EARRINGS = SLUTTY?: And yes... about the hoop earrings.
So I used to go to school in a city that had a reputation for being super trashy, as in, it was supposedly known for having trashy girls (as in low class, poor, promiscuous, uneducated, etc) compared to the surrounding municipalities in the Greater Vancouver area. After I finished high school, I had this joke that I would sometimes make about very large hoop earrings as they had this sort of subverted and unspoken reputation for being something that only trashy girls wore. It was something like the size could be measured by how many dicks you could fit through it diameter wise. (You know, based on the statistically average size.) So I would look at someone's earrings and say: those earrings are like... at least 3, bare minimum. (They probably almost graze your shoulder.) And unless I had explained it to you, you would have no idea of what I was talking about, but if I did, you might be able to picture it in your head. (...)
I actually really like hoop earrings too (and I don't believe there's anything intrinsically "trashy" about it, it's just an item of clothing). This includes the really large ones, but that particular association has unfortunately been burnt into my mind. Thanks, tween and adolescent conditioning.
Anyway, it seems like I've been going through a long phase of either embracing or at least re-evaluating things that I formerly found cringey and discardable within my own past.
Other anti-nostalgic moments: those baggy button up shirts/ pants with the flame logos....
For example:
These are still... nope. 
Neutral moments: 1) SO much fringe. 2) shorter tops or crop tops plus low rise pants.(not that I would have been able to wear that). 3) Ruffles on everything, including short skirts. 3) nude strappy/ platform or wedge sandals
NOSTALGIC: 1) short denim skirts forever. 2) baggy ass jeans/ cargo type pants on women + a tight/ short shirt. 3) bangles, either one or two or wearing a whole stack of them. 4) tight denim in general, even though I'm happy how things have shifted back to oversize for a while, or at least... it's been very polarized one way or another. 5) the singer's red studded belt, though I would not wear it now.
I owned at least 3-5+ belts with various styles of studs and decorative grommets like the one below. I don't think it was that uncommon, most girls I knew owned at least 1-2, I think?
(I totally forgot about my belt and accessory collection...)
VINTAGE?: I also owned this one belt that I got from my Chinese grandparents, of all people. It was THE most aggressively heavy metal looking belt I have ever seen in person. It appeared to be vintage, and I had no idea where they had found it, and I often wondered where they found their peculiar vintage finds. I wore it occasionally, but it was pretty heavy as it was entirely made out of metal and thick pieces of leather, and normal jean belt loops could barely sustain them. I usually wore it over them, but most of the time, I didn't wear it at all because it was not very discreet.
Like it was just short of wearing something like this and giving off classic metal, Motorhead vibes:
Edited by modmyth
Ladies and proper girls only wear very small hoops, or no hoops at all (like rings, tiny studs, etc.) Seriously... where did these unspoken rules come from?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BUNNY CAFE: Apparently Vancouver opened the first North American Bunny Cafe this summer, owned by the same people who started the Catfe. The rabbits are adoptables that come from Rabbitats, which is a really solid local organization that I've volunteered with a handful of times. They take stray rabbits and house them in colonies of about 30-40.


Overall, the rabbits there always struck me as really well socialized, both with other rabbits and with people. I wonder what their approach is, as rabbits are notoriously fickle with bonding (and by extension, tolerating the physical presence of other rabbits), but they're also a social species, so...

Often rabbits in public settings aren't that well taken care of, as in, if you know rabbits; it's pretty clear by their body language that they're some combination of shut down and stressed. For example, the PNE (or any kind of public exhibition or fair, or say, having rabbits as a "class pet" which isn't something that we really have here).


It seems like the cafe is doing pretty well with getting the rabbits adopted so far, which is a major purpose of the cafe. It's not to have permanent residents.

I've read that some people have been able to take their rabbits there on "dates". I've also heard that the new rabbits are pretty friendly.

@Myioko :o I'm excited to go this.


Edited by modmyth
My partner is afraid that I'm going to come back with new rabbits.... adoption isn't that easy!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


That's so exciting :P, I didn't know rabbit cafes were that rare (even though I've never been to one/hear of one nearby). I'm glad to hear they're doing well, I wonder where and how the rabbits sleep at night/day nap. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

FASHION HISTORY: "KINDERWHORE" EDITION: I didn't put this in aesthetics because I don't know if I actually like it. I don't dislike it though.

Today I learned that "kinderwhore" is a proper term for an aesthetic, and not something that someone made up ironically and posthumously. Example: Courtney Love in Hole, which immediately evokes a very specific mental image. I know exactly what it is. She herself used the term and was one of the originators of it (along with her roomate Kat Bjelland), and in general, it's associated to female bands in the whole 90s grunge era.

She said of the aesthetic:


'I would like to think—in my heart of hearts—that I'm changing some psychosexual aspects of rock music. Not that I'm so desirable. I didn't do the kinder-whore thing because I thought I was so hot. When I see the look used to make one more appealing, it pisses me off. When I started, it was a What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? thing. My angle was irony.'

It looks like the aesthetic has had a revival in the last couple of years with fashion designers and also on Tik Tok and whatnot.


(It's impossible to picture her with a clean room.)


It actually has its own wiki page. It's been described also as:


"intentionally taking the most constraining parts of the feminine, good-girl aesthetic, inflating them to a cartoon level, and subverting them to kill any ingrained insecurities."[5] She further noted that although the look was very feminine, when its exponents performed onstage they "stood tall and confident, they threw their guitars around like weapons, and screamed out whip-smart feminist lyrics. These women were questioning the cultural importance of typical beauty through costume and the stage."


(Kat Bjelland, 1992):


It's a bit strange seeing pictures of Courtney Love dressed "normally", which happens once in a while. For example, obviously a very old one:


Another interesting article about the aesthetic:       (this website looks like it's going to be a rabbit of hole of articles to go down.)

EDIT: I think Hong Kong was doing something like this in the early 2000s to my memory, because that's what Japan was doing. Minus the "hot mess" makeup because people tend to be much more conservative about makeup there. And interesting thing is that the aesthetic reads differently there; I would say that it wouldn't be assumed to be lolita-esque in a sexually provocative way by default. Alas, the trend of anything ripped and vaguely sloppy looking was something I was not allowed to participated in then.

Edited by modmyth
How did I even get here?? Oh yea, I was wondering if there's any context in which you can wear a tiara casually without feeling like an absolute troll. The answer is: no, probably not. Courtney love sometimes wore tiaras with babydoll nightgowns (IDGAFF).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

PLAID, SILVER, AND LACE: Some things, at a certain point, are not worth the effort and energy to react to, let alone write. Don't need that here.

Thanks YT recommendation! Big jewellery and outfit synchronicity vibes.

This is the amount of jewellery that I feel like wearing aspirationally lately (but I've been restraining myself with both the buying and the wearing, because I've been focusing on constructing my "battle necklace"/ charm necklace). Also: the start of the battle jacket. It's nice to have a project that feels a bit crafty; I always tend to miss working with my hands in a visceral, tangible sort of way. Stuff that is more conceptual or digital doesn't create that same sense of satisfaction. (In my free time growing up at home, by myself: I was usually either reading, writing, drawing, or doing something crafty. If I was allowed to game more of time away, I might have.)

When I was 14: I really really wanted to learn how to both make and alter my own clothes. Probably at some point I mentioned that my mom detested the whole DIY, ripped aesthetic and she wouldn't let me participate because she thought it made me looked sloppy/ poor/ homeless. She bought me a full-sized, basic sewing machine that I never ended up using too much. The needle always made me nervous (and so I still opted to hand-sew for small repairs even though it wasn't very pretty), but somehow I was able to survive highschool home ec....

I'm under the impression that sewing isn't the most difficult thing to learn, but still I've been slightly intimidated (and is also one of many many things that I would like to learn). But to do it well? I imagine that's much more difficult? And also: how much will I ruin/ waste if I mess things up? But still, simple sewing (like sewing on patches) or doing based alterations and hemming; I was under the impression that these are much more simple tasks, and that it's not at all like constructing an item from scratch, and I was setting my sights on becoming a couture wizard.

Lace camisoles and bodysuits have been a preoccupation since the summer - but also I have been dialing that back as well. I really don't miss the way most tight, especially synthetic clothing feels.

My idea of "luxury" is something that feels at least as good or better than it looks... so like, pure silk or something. Or cashmere, linen, or cotton. It could be more or less expensive. Mostly, traditional, organic materials do tend to feel better against the skin, and are generally considered healthier in various ways as well.

Edited by modmyth
Bamboo fibre is underrated as a "luxury" fabric, and normally just thought of in terms of its practical benefits.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woke-Ass Olympics// "EGO": ...just commenting on this one in passing. My first reaction was that I found it grating to observe, and then that feeling passed pretty quickly. It's just... not very important. It's a bit like the medieval peasant equivalent of saying you've been visited by God. It only matters in "the real world" if people believe you and they care. If you're Jeanne D'Arc, it matters (whether your wokeness is ""true"" according to whatever or any standard or not), if you're not, it really doesn't.  (And you're probably not, statically speaking, but if you believe this, you probably also believe you're beyond statistics.) So why do I even care?

My second reaction: well, I'm glad to be out of dealing with caring the vast majority of times. Like... this is a dick-measuring game, for certain young-ish people. It's not the type of thing which is liable to survive into old and middle age and you don't see it that much either, especially if you're actually maturing emotionally and "spiritually"... unless you're somewhere in the ballpark of being a classical narcissist, one of the hallmarks being emotionally immaturity and hollowness, arrested developed, etc. (>insert habitual note questioning the value of these narratives/ labels in the long term vs. the short term (say: just keeping yourself away from people with certain traits, or why you're drawn to or interact with people with said traits).<)

Personally speaking: classically narcissistic traits are dull rather than threatening. It often is the essence of speaking but not being able to deliver. If you can deliver (as in, value), then you might question whether your self-image is actually not out-of-line with your working capacity. (For example, if you think you're the best artist in the world, and you actually are world-class in a way that is not that disputable, skill wise. In a modern context, this is pretty meaningless though. Photorealism as a painter (as an example) is more obtainable than its ever been.) So, someone can still be annoying and grating because you find them to be TOO MUCH, but that's a separate thing from classical narcissism.

"Maturing emotionally": are you just "getting better" or are you just getting bored of doing and being preoccupied with the same thing? There are only so many ways you can measure your dick with the same proverbial tape measure in the same limited sort of way before it gets repetitive and pointless.... right?

It doesn't even matter if in normo-land, I wouldn't be witnessing that. It all just doesn't matter.

1) I recall starting to post on this forum and feeling like I had co-opted into caring about this dynamic default, likely due to a state of greater openness. Openness = sheer impressionability even if I have at least equally strong ethics/ priorities to match. Sometimes in this state, you find yourself in conflict by default: pushing one way and pulling the other.

2) I find uptalking myself excessively and watching other spending too much time overtly uptalking themselves not very interesting overall now.

I recall when I was trying it on for size here in my way of talking about myself. Before, I would have described my feeling about it ultimately as more of a sort of neutral outlook, and also leaning into it. There are good reasons to uptalk yourself overtly sometimes, so I thought. For example: 1) not having the freedom to uptalk myself before, not giving myself that freedom, and ultimately not seeing the purpose, meaning, and practicality in it as my default position (aka. DO, why bother talking so much unless it serves a clear purpose??). 2) Explore the opposite limits of my own personality... and by extension, personality in general (not that I would have ever explicitly defined or thought of myself as humble as I didn't explicitly value it either as a sort of hypermoral, exemplary trait.  But there is some truth to the notion that secure people don't "brag". Sort of. It depends. Well, if someone uptalks them, what's their emotional attitude and delivery about it? What's their cultural/ individual value system in relation to this? (Also: what are they trying to accomplish with their behaviour, either in a more overt/ "conscious" way, or in a more subverted way all across the board?) It's usually pretty obvious listening to someone talk how they actually feel about themselves, but sometimes words are just words on a paper or a screen, especially if you don't get intuitions about it either way.

Things that are heavily externalized because they have not or cannot take root aren't that strong, generally speaking. But it isn't ALWAYS true, especially in the past. (And I have made notes about pagan societies where explicit "pride" was a virtue; this is a good example of an exception.) But as a modern rule of thumb, unless there is some specific context or "conscious reason" for that sort of overtness/ externalization, it's probably: the gentlemen dost protest too much. (And no one even accused him, let alone asked him anything either.) (Done playfully (aka. "not too seriously" ) and in good spirit, I suppose it can be endearing. mostly anything else. Or coming from the perspective of someone who clearly has internalized it, so it's a sort of complete non-issue emotionally speaking. Like stating a "fact" which doesn't need to projected, defended, or repeated constantly as if you need to convince (don't believe yourself?) or remind your own self (do you have short term amnesia?). I suppose this is a good example too of how attitude can almost completely trump content, because EASE aka. "grace" is actually what communicates confidence, security, etc.)

Or alternatively, no one: ____

You: MAH DICK. (So Huge.)


And also, I have had this perspective/ belief for a long time: very few people are actually humble in any meaningful way, like they are really consistent and embody that ethic in a sort of honest, radiant way across the board. I know like one person I've met ever, that's my mother's "godfather". Everyone else mostly just talks... and the people who talk and fixate it on it the most generally tend to be the least, in my observation...

And the thing is, I'm not even necessarily on board with that specific ethic as a value, but I respect people who are consistent and live by their ethics in a conscious and naturalized way. Probably like mostly everyone else who tends to naturally respect the same type of thing. (Probably I shouldn't assume this, yea?)

Anyway, I have tended to find "fake humility" more distasteful than garish pride, but the latter doesn't matter much either. You're the one who has to live with inconsistency and irresolution in your value system first before I even have the capacity to think about it, notice it, let alone make some ultimately, equally meaningless judgment about it in the long run. Does it feel like a good thing to live with ultimately? My experience says no, and neither does doing the judging, really. And if it doesn't: ultimately, you move on, and you find some better things to do with your precious time, energy, focus, etc.


Overall though, it's a weight off my shoulders. Yep. Not woke, not hyper-conscious, didn't buy a ticket and I'm pretty sure no one else bought me one either, not playing roulette and not performing and so I'm not "winning anything".

(Tell me though, what prizes are there to win?)


TLDR; who cares??

Edited by modmyth
Prizes: you standing there holding your imaginary medal. >>>insert comment about how --well all things are imaginary ultimately anyway!--- ...yes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now