Label Under Construction (Luca Laurini)

[DHC]

Hey Fuuma, way off topic, but I was wondering how you're liking the AnnDem lapel piece.

Merz, the Vader sessions are awesome..haha. Never seen that before. Thanks!

[Fuuma]

Hey Fuuma, way off topic, but I was wondering how you're liking the AnnDem lapel piece.

Merz, the Vader sessions are awesome..haha. Never seen that before. Thanks!

Yeha this one is great, had never seen it before either. I kinda feel like rewatching star wars now, haven't done it in years.

I'm McLovin it, no really, goes well with any black jacket.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

You might have a point but how can you dislike the God of psychoanalysis; he made Freud into his own image. He's like the illustration of Oedipal fantasies pushed to their extreme limit.

One of the problems with Lacan when he was looking for
a signifying structure, he did not turn to look at the power-
relations at work through such a structure. He doesn't examine
the pragmatic relations of power and production at work in
the unconscious that might, for example, produce forms of
sexuality.

A tunic ...

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

^yes, It's love. Some of his work makes you speechless.

[Casius]

I love that piece too, I just wish it had a bit more shape to it. Or maybe I would just have to try it.

[Faust]

relax. no one gets upset when you start posting private jokes in Russian, which is equally indecipherable to many here. And no wankery was intended. Some of us just read the same books.

чево???

I must side with Fuuma here. The examples you cite of skirt-wearing traditions seem marginal (you don't exactly see Scots wearing kilts, unless it's some kind of a national holiday). The signifiers are inherent in the language, i.e. "skirt chaser" or the opposite "who wears the pants in the relationship" etc. The pants is another fascinating discussion - even though the pants have been thoroughly incorporated in womenswear, the meaning of the idiom I posted remains unambigious.

[Faust]

Yeha this one is great, had never seen it before either. I kinda feel like rewatching star wars now, haven't done it in years.

I'm McLovin it, no really, goes well with any black jacket.

What's this? A recent purchase unshared?

[Fuuma]

What's this? A recent purchase unshared?

Oh it's one of the Demeulemeester fabric rose brooches with the long dangling threads. Goes really well if you like wearing jackets.

[laika]

чево???

I must side with Fuuma here. The examples you cite of skirt-wearing traditions seem marginal (you don't exactly see Scots wearing kilts, unless it's some kind of a national holiday). The signifiers are inherent in the language, i.e. "skirt chaser" or the opposite "who wears the pants in the relationship" etc.

cha cha cha

For starters, skirt-wearing traditions are only marginal in the west. Sarongs, dhotis, lunghis, etc. are absolutely not marginal. I realize many of us physically reside in the west; and that Fashion as we understand it here is a western institution, but designers draw inspirations from diverse places, in many of which men wrapping swathes of cloth around their waists is common place. I see no compelling reason why the borrowing should stop short at the skirt.

Secondly, why should we necessarily want to reinforce, through our clothing, the norms of power that are embedded in language? We all agree that these structures are there--we've covered this many, many, times--so wouldn't a more interesting discussion be why we choose to maintain or break with them? Is it desirable or even possible to move outside of [common] language, in this sense? Are we interested in being provocative with our clothes? Do people ever think about this when they get dressed?

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Hear hear, Laika!

The signifiers are inherent in the language, i.e. "wool skirt chaser" or the opposite "who wears the red pants in the relationship" etc. The pants is another fascinating discussion - even though the pants have been thoroughly incorporated in womenswear, the meaning of the idiom I posted remains unambigious.

Lets do a simple adding exercise, and see what happens to those
idiom of yours?

Something of importance, beneath subjectivity and signification,
we find a pre-linguistic layer of meaning at the level of bodies.
The two strata of signifiance and subjectification depend upon the substratum of biological organism. A body is stratified by articulating separate organs with different functions.

[Fuuma]

The fact is evident that noematic descriptions, in respect of this evidence, denote the universal primal phenomena of, by a freely actualizable return to noetic acts, the phenomenological epoche.

http://www.tandj.net/~jpoirier/little_hacks/kant/

[Fuuma]

Hear hear, Laika!



Lets do a simple adding exercise, and see what happens to those
idiom of yours?
Something of importance, beneath subjectivity and signification,
we find a pre-linguistic layer of meaning at the level of bodies.
The two strata of signifiance and subjectification depend upon the substratum of biological organism. A body is stratified by articulating separate organs with different functions.

The first part holds no direct relationship to the second part. What you've done is modified an idiom to obscure it or subvert it. Some will see the hidden idiom, others not but it doesn't remove a shred of relevance to the oft-used and original sentence.

During the passion (as in torture, crucifixion and ultimately death) of the Christ, according to the scriptures there was an inscription in Latin, Greek and Hebrew (actually unclear, might have been Aramaic) on a wood panel near the cross. The gist of it is that the prisoner was the “king of Jews”, however, depending on which writer you read (Luc, Marc, etc) you’ll get a different phrasing (say “Jesus King of Israel” or “Jesus the Nazorean, king of jews” or whatever-note I’m working from memory and messing up with the exact phrasing that I don’t know in English anyway). For most this small change is irrelevant and for some quite meaningful (say the mention of Nazorean has nothing to do with Nazareth but with Nazir, a sort of ascetic man or King of Israel vs King of Jews). In the end none of this will remove the possibility that there was an initial phrasing (if there ever was one) and a meaning attributed to that phrasing by its author and readers. Now the meaning has escape us and anyway what could have been a rebellion of Jews against a roman invader is now seen as the death of a human god with the blame squarely landing on the Jewish people. Meaning is like that, it escapes us, transforms and twists on itself while we try to hold on to it's supposed reality. This is not a negation it is a dissemination.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

The first part holds no direct relationship to the second part. What you've done is modified an idiom to obscure it or subvert it. Some will see the hidden idiom, others not but it doesn't remove a shred of relevance to the oft-used and original sentence.

Relationships has to be actively sought out, also in the reading
process. Jumps can occur unexpected. There's no hiding, obscurity
or subversion done here, in this simple exercise, only digression
and alternatives are offered. Thank you for showing me that some
might never see other things than the idiom others might find
possibilities of alternative routes. I'll rest safely tonight.

A little story. For example, enemy soldiers confronting each other
across a battlefield act out a contest that they are required to
fight by distant political and economic entities, supported by
nationalist, racist, or tribalist sentiments; their social relation is
limited to an exchange of bullets, instead broadening out to become
an exchange of jokes, songs, cigarettes, and memories.
The soldier who brandishes a pack of cards instead of a gun
indicates possibilities for a different development of the plot.

A woolen gilet ...

[lowrey]

thread is broken

[DHC]

cha cha cha

I don't know what it is about that response. But it is simply glorious! Made me feel all warm inside.

Hand knit and on sale yo! Kop it if you can rock it!