# Style



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

*S T Y L E* 

Style is the answer to everything.
A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without it
To do a dangerous thing with style is what I call art

Bullfighting can be an art 
Boxing can be an art
Loving can be an art
Opening a can of sardines can be an art

Not many have style
Not many can keep style
I have seen dogs with more style than men,
although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.

When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun,
that was style.
Or sometimes people give you style
Joan of Arc had style
John the Baptist
Jesus
Socrates
Caesar
García Lorca.

I have met men in jail with style.
I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
Style is the difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.
Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water,
or you, naked, walking out of the bathroom without seeing me. 

- *Charles Bukowski*

How do you interpret this? What is your Enneagram type?​


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Style, to me, isn't about flowery language, 'the moves,' and presentation. It's about being true to yourself. Anyone who expresses something honest is bound to touch on something universal. Great art will not reveal the artist, but rather, will serve as a mirror to reveal the spectator to herself. The same goes for clothing, conversation, loving, or any action or expression. Animalism, humanism, and a unique voice exist inside every individual. If someone taps into her true self and explores her own potential, then her honest expression and communication will naturally have its own style, and her very existence may become a symbol in the eyes of others; as she may symbolize their own potential.

What some people might call 'style' I would call integrity. Integrity involves honesty as well as commitment. If a person is dedicated to her craft, she can express herself more honestly in the moment. For instance, if a musician puts in her "10,000 hours" practicing, then the minute she is moved to express her deep emotions, she can go to the piano, close her eyes, press the 'record' button and let the song write itself through her. If she rehearses a lot, then when she's on stage, she can let herself go and trust the music to pour through her limbs as a numinous force that moves her on its own. If someone does something with such ease that her body is a vessel through which honesty is expressed, then she probably put a lot of time into honing that skill. In this manner, style develops from within.

Wrapping something up in an attempt at 'style' impedes communication. A lot of music, art, conversation, loving, or day to day expression is caked in makeup, bullshit and selling-points that mask the raw humanity that could otherwise be expressed. The most beautiful outfit looks dull on a person who doesn't _breathe_ its colors, and an eloquent political speech is made of dust if the politician has no past actions to back up his words. People use skimpy attempts at 'style' to compensate for a lack of hard work and self-awareness. This is the trap of 'aiming for style' that people fall into, rather than simply _being_. If someone is brave enough to define and pursue her passion and purpose, and puts blood, sweat and tears into her life and work, then even if she is a garbage woman she will automatically collect that garbage with style. But ironically, she who is concerned with style is unlikely to have much style at all.

Cats have more style than dogs because they aim to please no one.


----------



## QueenOfCats (Jan 28, 2011)

Anything can be style as long as you feel it within you.


----------



## Napoleptic (Oct 29, 2010)

Oak said:


> *S T Y L E*
> Cats have it with abundance.
> 
> How do you interpret this? What is your Enneagram type?


 
I'm a sp/so 9w1 and I interpret this with a generous dash of sarcasm:



































​


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Animal said:


> Style, to me, isn't about flowery language, 'the moves,' and presentation.


I think it's about the presentation. :tongue:


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> I think it's about the presentation. :tongue:













Vs.











Whos got more style?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Animal said:


> Vs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They got different kinds of styles so I don't know if I'd compare them.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> They got different kinds of styles so I don't know if I'd compare them.


Ahh, what can I say.. I like my steak bloody and my art raw. :kitteh:


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Animal said:


> Vs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Marie Antoinette.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Oak said:


> Marie Antoinette.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Animal said:


>


Sexy not stylish.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Oak said:


> Sexy not stylish.


 @_Oak_ 

Here's sexy, stylish, & _Blingee_ to boot:


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

In case anyone didn't catch the sarcasm, I *HATE* bling. People use it on the internet to ruin perfectly beautiful pictures. I hate bling in New York City too. That's why I'm so averse to overdone style. Try living near Williamsburg Brooklyn for 5 years. I've never seen more tight-jeaned, oversized thick-framed bespectacled stripey-shirted twerps competing for shock value in my life. :bored: And so much BLING in all the windowsills in Manhattan.  

When I was a young tween, Greenwich village looked sort of like this:






























But now Greenwich Village (which expanded to Williamsburg) looks like this:






























The only redemption is the Renaissance cos-play or ethnic people





















I used to see Fiona Apple hanging out there. Any thoughts on her latest style?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Oak said:


> *S T Y L E*
> 
> Style is the answer to everything.​


​
Style is appearance, and sometimes acts as a veil over the truth. Appearances and veils do not entrance me.




> A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing



That isn't necessarily referring to style at all. I read it as being about divergent thinking.




> To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without it



Can't agree with the statement and don't resonate with the intent. When dangerous things gotta get done, they gotta get done, there is no room for preference there.





> To do a dangerous thing with style is what I call art



Perhaps. 




> Bullfighting can be an art
> Boxing can be an art
> Loving can be an art
> Opening a can of sardines can be an art



I don't typically think of life in terms of art, but it can be true.




> Not many have style
> Not many can keep style
> I have seen dogs with more style than men,
> although not many dogs have style.
> ...



I don't think death or suicide are stylish. Both are just part of gritty reality, and both have meaning in both the personal and the broader scheme of existence.




> Or sometimes people give you style



That's an odd way to view it, but it might hold true depending on what you mean. 




> Joan of Arc had style
> John the Baptist
> Jesus
> Socrates
> ...



I would rather say this that these people's lives had _meaning_.




> I have met men in jail with style.
> I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
> Style is the difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.



Now I'm starting to see what's irritating me about this whole work. I consider style as the antithesis to meaning - one resides on the surface, the other underneath, and I prioritize the underbelly at the expense of the surface.

This author, I suspect, would disagree with me, be it on the front that style and meaning are separate, or on the front that meaning holds priority over style. The idea that a way of doing things can make a difference hints that he is considering style itself as depth, which is a somewhat strange thing to think of having an impact - but given the way people work unconsciously, definitely can. I attempt to ward against this unconscious effect with the way I reason about the world and the attitudes I hold toward it - I know the power that illusion can have over a person.




> Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water,
> or you, naked, walking out of the bathroom without seeing me.
> 
> - *Charles Bukowski*
> ...


I am a 5w4 sp/sx, and since it might be relevant, an INTJ 528.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't consider suicide stylish.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Animal said:


> The only redemption is the Renaissance cos-play or ethnic people


What a cute demon chick!



> I used to see Fiona Apple hanging out there. Any thoughts on her latest style?


Her style looks stinky. Personally, I prefer to look at cephalopods alive in their natural environment, not slung over somebody's head.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

@Flatlander
You likely put more thought into it than me, but that sounds similar to how I feel about it. Like I said earlier, I think of style as a presentation, and personally I can appreciate a good presentation, but it's not the same as meaning.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Animal said:


> I hate bling in New York City too. That's why I'm so averse to overdone style. Try living near Williamsburg Brooklyn for 5 years. I've never seen more tight-jeaned, oversized thick-framed bespectacled stripey-shirted twerps competing for shock value in my life.


[lives near Williamsburg]
[Knows exactly what you mean]
Style for me is synonymous with fashion and clothing in general. That's all it is. It's fickle, superficial, and imbued with far too much significance than it deserves.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Flatlander said:


> ​
> Now I'm starting to see what's irritating me about this whole work. I consider style as the antithesis to meaning - one resides on the surface, the other underneath, and I prioritize the underbelly at the expense of the surface.
> 
> This author, I suspect, would disagree with me, be it on the front that style and meaning are separate, or on the front that meaning holds priority over style. The idea that a way of doing things can make a difference hints that he is considering style itself as depth, which is a somewhat strange thing to think of having an impact - but given the way people work unconsciously, definitely can. I attempt to ward against this unconscious effect with the way I reason about the world and the attitudes I hold toward it - I know the power that illusion can have over a person


What I think he is saying though is that style is the unconscious symptom of meaning. That style is being. That style isn't surface deep, but rather that style is a result of having meaning, of being, existing without thought in the direction of appearance.

To me this poem is an iconoclastic finger to those who "wear" style. Kind of like Bukowski is saying "hey all you shallow liars & fakes, you have no idea, style is doing - a way of being done, it cant be worn, it just is & it is the sprout of meaning & being". He's saying that style isn't presentation but rather action, living, doing, being.

-So 5w4.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Oak said:


> What I think he is saying though is that style is the unconscious symptom of meaning. That style is being. That style isn't surface deep, but rather that style is a result of having meaning, of being, existing without thought in the direction of appearance.
> 
> To me this poem is an iconoclastic finger to those who "wear" style. Kind of like Bukowski is saying "hey all you shallow liars & fakes, you have no idea, style is doing - a way of being done, it cant be worn, it just is & it is the sprout of meaning & being". He's saying that style isn't presentation but rather action, living, doing, being.
> 
> -So 5w4.


The way something is done is different from the deed itself. I find meaning in what is done, and why it is done, not how it is done, unless the 'how' suddenly becomes relevant to the rest of it. You can say that style is the sprout of meaning, but at best that simply leaves it as a potential clue of meaning, not meaning itself.

Then again, I'm not starting at the point where I do wear style. I never was. I went my whole life simply existing and doing what I do as a default; I don't think in terms of myself as a style, even if I might put thought into how my writing sounds. So perhaps this poem wasn't meant for me.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Animal said:


> *Bows*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I've never figured out the tritype, the most I can do is take a gander at your "first" Enneagram.
I dibs Enneagram 4 with mixed 3 and 5 wings (the flair is 3, but the analysis, and -- pardon me while I purr with joy -- sheer grace of the language with which you imbue the description, simply drips with 5).
For the MBTI, INXP (I guess INFP since that correlates with E4; but I think you have a strong "T" thrown in with all that "F" or you wouldn't write so *connectively*. I've seen another famous PerC member who's a 4w5 but their posts, while very insightful, and while each sentence is clear, don't have quite the mellifluous quality of effortlessly flowing out of the keyboard and into thoughts as elegant, and as beautiful in their clarity, as the _Aurora Borealis_, as yours do.)

(Wipes Hershey bar off of nose.)

Thanks very much for posting. Now I've gotta go read the remainder of this thread, which I've missed.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

g_w said:


> Well, I've never figured out the tritype, the most I can do is take a gander at your "first" Enneagram.
> I dibs Enneagram 4 with mixed 3 and 5 wings (the flair is 3, but the analysis, and -- pardon me while I purr with joy -- sheer grace of the language with which you imbue the description, simply drips with 5).
> For the MBTI, INXP (I guess INFP since that correlates with E4; but I think you have a strong "T" thrown in with all that "F" or you wouldn't write so *connectively*. I've seen another famous PerC member who's a 4w5 but their posts, while very insightful, and while each sentence is clear, don't have quite the mellifluous quality of effortlessly flowing out of the keyboard and into thoughts as elegant, and as beautiful in their clarity, as the _Aurora Borealis_, as yours do.)
> 
> ...


You have no idea how much you're making my day =) Thank you!!!!!!

Good guesses! When people ask me my e-type, I tell them 8w4-4w4-4w7 :tongue: My cognition is pretty clear Ne-Fi, and I've typed ENFP until recently when a great argument was made for INFP - and it makes sense in a way because I'm very much a loner, not a social butterfly like ENFPs. *shrug* 

My core issues are related to lust & denial but I am a life-long writer, musician, self-expressive, _more 4 than a 4_, so I have been very seriously considering 4 core, even though every time I really get into it, everything leads back to 8. So, for now 8w4 it is. And I don't say this lightly either - I am a major enneagram enthusiast who reads all the classic authors and studies it deeply! But my case is unique.. aahh, damn, that was a pretty 4ish thing to say. :kitteh: 

Anyhow you are superduperly awesome for making me smile and blush so much.. thank you :happy: I will respond to the rest of your brilliant posts in full very soon.. I promise! But I am half asleep. Hope you enjoy the rest of the thread.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> The way something is done is different from the deed itself. I find meaning in what is done, and why it is done, not how it is done, unless the 'how' suddenly becomes relevant to the rest of it. You can say that style is the sprout of meaning, but at best that simply leaves it as a potential clue of meaning, not meaning itself.
> 
> Then again, I'm not starting at the point where I do wear style. I never was. I went my whole life simply existing and doing what I do as a default; I don't think in terms of myself as a style, even if I might put thought into how my writing sounds. So perhaps this poem wasn't meant for me.


Try it this way: 
clarity of _thought_ vs clarity of _feeling_
denotation vs connotation
_savoir_ vs _connaître_

Another way to consider it, is that style is the panache, the_ je ne sais quoi_, the *air* with which something is performed.
Consider for example William Shatner as Captain Kirk vs. Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. 
Or how Sean Connery played James Bond vs. how Timothy Dalton did it. Connery was far more *manly* and yet was able to peek out from the mask during a scene and engage the audience with a sh!t-eating grin. Timothy Dalton just couldn't, and came across as too much of a goody-two-shoes and touchy-feely.
And that style can be the revelation, or the seeping out from within, of the essential character and motives which a person brings to an activity.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

LeoCat said:


> You're talking to someone who owns three belts, and two of them are this in brown and in blood red:
> RAWR. *I am more the black studded metal type, chains, coin belts..and hello kitty.* I like to express my punk girl slutty belly dancer on occasion.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

g_w said:


> Try it this way:
> clarity of _thought_ vs clarity of _feeling_
> denotation vs connotation
> _savoir_ vs _connaître_
> ...


I don't understand. 

And that is something I don't admit lightly, but I don't see a point. Are you trying to illustrate what you mean about style with your own?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

INTJ 5w4 dual :angry:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Animal said:


> What?
> 
> That is not what I said. I didn't say someone dresses to communicate to _me_. It has nothing to do with _me_... where did that come from? I don't assume someone's style exists to send a message to me personally - that's beyond arrogant to the point of paranoid. :laughing: What I said is that everyone makes a choice to get dressed in the morning and put on what they put on, and that is a choice. Whatever message people interpret is their subjective interpretation. All communication involves subjectivity; nobody is perfectly objective and unbiased. So everything we do sends out some message to the world about who we are, and people respond to that message in their own personal way. We are what we do, what we say, what choices we make. That is all. I did not presume that everyone gets dressed attempting to communicate something consciously. I sure as hell don't. I also don't consciously interpret a 'message' from someone's outfit. If I respond to it at all, it's unconscious; I _feel_ it. As a person very in tune with my instincts and feelings, this language may communicate and arouse a reaction in me, but I'm not presuming someone else's specific intent. It's not something I break down logically and try to 'figure out.' It just is.
> 
> ...


 @_Animal_, @*Bluity*, @_Flatlander_ --
this speech by Meryl Streep nails it. Watch the whole thing.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@g_w love it. I want to see that movie now. =P Speaking of style, Meryl Streep has it in spades! She is hilarious.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Animal said:


> INTJ 5w4 dual :angry:




Maybe.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> I don't understand.
> 
> And that is something I don't admit lightly, but I don't see a point. Are you trying to illustrate what you mean about style with your own?


No, I'm not trying to illustrate with my own: but if you watch film clips of Dalton vs. Connery, Stewart vs. Shatner, you can see the very words they choose to communicate a point; the abruptness of a command vs. deliberation in giving an order; the very tension in the trunk as they sit up or turn to face a threat -- the concatenation of these and a hundred other unspoken factors, combine to communicate something about them: and it is the choice of which of these hundred factors to emphasize, and under what circumstances, and to whom, which constitutes one's *style*.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

g_w said:


> No, I'm not trying to illustrate with my own: but if you watch film clips of Dalton vs. Connery, Stewart vs. Shatner, you can see the very words they choose to communicate a point; the abruptness of a command vs. deliberation in giving an order; the very tension in the trunk as they sit up or turn to face a threat -- the concatenation of these and a hundred other unspoken factors, combine to communicate something about them: and it is the choice of which of these hundred factors to emphasize, and under what circumstances, and to whom, which constitutes one's *style*.


I know what style is. Still not seeing a point.


Perhaps you misunderstood. I see the potential utility in examining style but it isn't what I care about directly - to me it represents superficie. 

Can't exactly watch a video right now, I am out with people.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood. I see the potential utility in examining style but it isn't what I care about directly - to me it represents superficie.


Style is what determines why a person gets a certain *social* or *psychological* response for his efforts, that the person next to him does not -- style (non-verbally) communicates to others what you hold important, what your boundaries are, what the consequences will be to them for violating the boundaries, how likely you are to fight, retreat, or negotiate; in short, what kind of person they have to deal with, how you're likely to act.
And that in turn affects how they think of you, how they feel about you, how they will treat you, and if they will still treat you the same if you are alone with them or out in public.
So -- if you are concerned with objective factors which are immune to social pressure -- like if the engineer's spreadsheet calculating the stresses on a girder holding up a bridge, has errors in it -- style is immaterial. But if you are trying to WORK WITH PEOPLE to address those objective features -- like how to communicate to the construction crew, or the engineer's boss, that they should stop building the bridge until they fix the errors in the spreadsheet -- then style becomes *VERY* important.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

g_w said:


> Style is what determines why a person gets a certain *social* or *psychological* response for his efforts, that the person next to him does not -- style (non-verbally) communicates to others what you hold important, what your boundaries are, what the consequences will be to them for violating the boundaries, how likely you are to fight, retreat, or negotiate; in short, what kind of person they have to deal with, how you're likely to act.
> And that in turn affects how they think of you, how they feel about you, how they will treat you, and if they will still treat you the same if you are alone with them or out in public.
> So -- if you are concerned with objective factors which are immune to social pressure -- like if the engineer's spreadsheet calculating the stresses on a girder holding up a bridge, has errors in it -- style is immaterial. But if you are trying to WORK WITH PEOPLE to address those objective features -- like how to communicate to the construction crew, or the engineer's boss, that they should stop building the bridge until they fix the errors in the spreadsheet -- then style becomes *VERY* important.


Are you, perchance, a social dominant? I mean I get it, and the psychological importance of style is so established it is a truism by now, but it holds no priority in how I consciously look at the world - I just don't care about it much and I don't think it, in its own right, provides a meaningful basis for looking at people. In other words, people aren't their style, style is just a superficial extension of what is inside, which is what concerns me - I look for content with which I can connect.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Are you, perchance, a social dominant? I mean I get it, and the psychological importance of style is so established it is a truism by now, but it holds no priority in how I consciously look at the world - I just don't care about it much and I don't think it, in its own right, provides a meaningful basis for looking at people. In other words, people aren't their style, style is just a superficial extension of what is inside, which is what concerns me - I look for content with which I can connect.


No, I'm SX/SP.
I'm just VERY INTJ so that when I think someone doesn't understand something -- whether or not said impression is accurate -- I try dozens of ways to rephrase it in the hopes that they'll "get it". Not recalling that most people are nowhere near as obsessed as I am with getting "it"...therefore getting the person mad at me.
If you think style does not provide a meaningful basis for looking at people, you are only partly right: it's not meaningful for YOU to do so, you have other tools in your toolbox.
But other people can mine and intuit the daylights out of people based on style. Sometimes they're right; sometimes the intuition on style is just a "guidepost" to help form a framework within which to interpret the other signals a person gives off.
But I prefer both style *and* content...call me an odd duck.
Have a good night.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

g_w said:


> No, I'm SX/SP.
> I'm just VERY INTJ so that when I think someone doesn't understand something -- whether or not said impression is accurate -- I try dozens of ways to rephrase it in the hopes that they'll "get it". Not recalling that most people are nowhere near as obsessed as I am with getting "it"...therefore getting the person mad at me.


I don't think that's an intj thing. It has to do with your motivations, and cognitive functions are a somewhat separate affair. I would ask how you figured your type, but sharing is up to you - your cognition does not strike me as ni te fi se, but some type with Fe. So far.



> If you think style does not provide a meaningful basis for looking at people, you are only partly right: it's not meaningful for YOU to do so, you have other tools in your toolbox.
> But other people can mine and intuit the daylights out of people based on style. Sometimes they're right; sometimes the intuition on style is just a "guidepost" to help form a framework within which to interpret the other signals a person gives off.
> But I prefer both style *and* content...call me an odd duck.


You odd duck.



> Have a good night.


You too.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

EDIT: When it comes down to it, I don't know what any of you guys mean by style. So until someone gives a concrete definition, I'll bow out.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Bluity said:


> EDIT: When it comes down to it, I don't know what any of you guys mean by style. So until someone gives a concrete definition, I'll bow out.


I read it as the way in which something is done?

For instance, the kind of language you use when you write - how does your wording differ from another person's.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> I don't think that's an intj thing. It has to do with your motivations, and cognitive functions are a somewhat separate affair. I would ask how you figured your type, but sharing is up to you - your cognition does not strike me as ni te fi se, but some type with Fe. So far.


Precision and clarity of thought above all else. But to be fair to you, I do have a large stripe of INFP from childhood which is re-awakening.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> I read it as the way in which something is done?
> 
> For instance, the kind of language you use when you write - how does your wording differ from another person's.


The way style is viewed in this thread is more vague then that. Not just the way you write, but the way you talk, walk, dress, the way you use your body. And it's also an art form, apparently? To me, that's just personality.

For example, someone says "That girl's got style." And someone else says "That girl carries herself proudly, and has a swing in her step. She wears very bold colors and loves to flirt." I have an idea of what that girl looks like from the latter, but the former leaves me scratching my head.

All I know is that style is something, but no one explained what that something is, except that Meryl Strep has it in spades.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Bluity said:


> EDIT: When it comes down to it, I don't know what any of you guys mean by style. So until someone gives a concrete definition, I'll bow out.


The OP asked for an interpretation of the poem. What does it mean to_ you_?


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Flatlander said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood. I see the potential utility in examining style but it isn't what I care about directly - to me it represents superficie.


You have established a perception of style. To you style represents superficie. Bukowski aims to overthrow such a perception & reason that it is not superficie. You reject this on basis of having made your mind up that it is indeed superficie & that style does not extend it's roots into being. My perception is that your perception is style's equivalent of a fake tan. Shallow. How ironic.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Animal said:


> The OP asked for an interpretation of the poem. What does it mean to_ you_?


Flatlander already said what I wanted to say, and I've already made my response.

To go further, I understand that style is someone's attitude, their approach to life, their art of living. What I don't understand is how some dogs have more style then man, or how cats have it in abundance. How do you quantify style? How does one have more style than others, when style is simply a signature, an expression of personality? I can see how some styles are bolder, more flamboyant than others, but to say one has more style implies that one has more personality. It also implies that someone with no style has no personality. Even the most generic person has personality.

Also, for me style has to have intent. If style is an art, a language, then it must partly be conscious. A plant would not have style. A cat would not have style. Humans have style, and do not lose it; it merely changes.

If style is an art, it must have intent.
If style is attitude, it cannot be given. 

This poem is using style in a wishy-washy "it means whatever abstract concept I want it to mean" way. I can't argue for or against style when it's defined as art-beauty-novelty-suicide.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Oak said:


> You have established a perception of style. To you style represents superficie. Bukowski aims to overthrow such a perception & reason that it is not superficie. You reject this on basis of having made your mind up that it is indeed superficie & that style does not extend it's roots into being. My perception is that your perception is style's equivalent of a fake tan. Shallow. How ironic.


I'm not going to accept a new conception I don't see reason in, or value for the way I consider the world. Separating style and meaning in my head makes sense to me and gives me clarity. Making style part of an organic mess in this way and hence conflating it with substance does not. I explained this too many times, but I guess it's hard to explain why to someone who doesn't share my mental priorities so that it's accepted as a rational premise (that'd be why you view me as shallow).

Call me obstinate if you like, but you did ask for my perspective.



g_w said:


> Precision and clarity of thought above all else. But to be fair to you, I do have a large stripe of INFP from childhood which is re-awakening.


Anyone can be precise and clear in their thought, especially to themselves. And anyone can lack precision and clarity, too, especally to others. That is not an argument for a type.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

g_w said:


> My God, that was awesome. I'm an INTJ and it moved *me*.


You are a passionate INTJ. I like it.



> Absolutely true. A quote from Madeleine L'Engle, the last sentence of her novel _A Severed Wasp_, a retrospective novel of the life of Katherine Vigneras, a concert pianist:
> 
> "_When the music had fully entered into her, she began to play._"


This is an extremely pertinent quote. It reminds me of this:






I share Fiona's sentiments to the bone. I've written songs all my life, but I don't mind if I don't write a song for five years. I don't worry that it'll never happen again. When I am overflowing with emotions that are too big for this world, I pour them into the piano and trust the piano to catch me. Without that desperation there is, as Fiona said, "Nothing to give."



> _"True. But, you see, this tin tyrant person had a fascinating female in tow, and he wanted the
> portrait for the lady. He thought that, by making the painter do it, he would get a good portrait
> at a starvation price. But unhappily he'd forgotten that, however much an artist will put up with
> in the ordinary way, he is bound to be sincere with his art. That's the one thing a genuine artist
> ...


Lol. This is why I have made grown men cry by showing them stories or songs I'd written about them. Muahahaha? Well they asked to see it so it's their own damn fault.



> Even when pushing a watermelon out of a lake! (See my avatar.)


Cute 



g_w said:


> I've seen another famous PerC member who's a 4w5 but their posts, while very insightful, and while each sentence is clear, don't have quite the mellifluous quality of effortlessly flowing out of the keyboard and into thoughts as elegant, and as *beautiful in their clarity, as the Aurora Borealis,* as yours do.)


One of the best complements I've gotten in my life. Thank you. This came at the perfect time because I am struggling with writing a very difficult fantasy novel, and I am stuck at one of those "ouch, how the fuck do I clean this up?" stages. It really touches me. Aurora Borealis... what an image. Nothing is flowing out of the keyboard so smoothly now because words have evaded me. :blushed:


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Flatlander said:


> Call me obstinate if you like, but you did ask for my perspective.


Dude you have the right to any perspective you please. It's just a little disappointing see someone discard such an iconoclastic piece of writing without good reason. In my mind that is the same as discarding art, music, or any form of expression or individuality. Do you fancy a bleak and award wasteland? That's the word without style.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> I'm not going to accept a new conception I don't see reason in, or value for the way I consider the world. Separating style and meaning in my head makes sense to me and gives me clarity. Making style part of an organic mess in this way and hence conflating it with substance does not. I explained this too many times, but I guess it's hard to explain why to someone who doesn't share my mental priorities so that it's accepted as a rational premise (that'd be why you view me as shallow).
> 
> Call me obstinate if you like, but you did ask for my perspective.
> 
> ...


Ability to do something is not the same as making it the highest priority. You moved the goalposts to something I never said.
Nice try, though.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Animal said:


> One of the best complements I've gotten in my life. Thank you. This came at the perfect time because I am struggling with writing a very difficult fantasy novel, and I am stuck at one of those "ouch, how the fuck do I clean this up?" stages. It really touches me. Aurora Borealis... what an image. Nothing is flowing out of the keyboard so smoothly now because words have evaded me. :blushed:


*blush*
You caught me in white-hot artistic appreciation/E4 metaphor imaging -to keyboard mode.
I've only allowed it to occur maybe a half-dozen times in my life without filtering.
*blush*
***INTJ SYSTEM FAILURE***
commence manual reboot (y/n) ?


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bluity said:


> Flatlander already said what I wanted to say, and I've already made my response.
> 
> To go further, I understand that style is someone's attitude, their approach to life, their art of living. What I don't understand is how some dogs have more style then man, or how cats have it in abundance. How do you quantify style? How does one have more style than others, when style is simply a signature, an expression of personality? I can see how some styles are bolder, more flamboyant than others, but to say one has more style implies that one has more personality. It also implies that someone with no style has no personality. Even the most generic person has personality.
> 
> ...


Ehh, in the words of Isaac Asimov in _Victory Unintentional_, "_It's like trying to describe gamma light to a robot unequipped for gamma ray reception_."
Or, as one of my grad school profs said of group theory, "Either you get it or you don't. There is no middle ground."
Style is the projection INTO the outer world, of dress and body english and movements and facial expressions and words chosen and pregnant silences...OF one's values, feelings, self image, and how that image chooses to present through the facade of the external self, in order to communicate those values and desired appearance to others.
When one says "Style doesn't matter" -- that is *itself* a choice of style; a negative one. Watch the end of the Meryl Streep clip again, she spells it out in a way that even I could grok the concept.
A cat having *style* whereas a dog NOT having style connotes two things:
1) being a cipher, a cookie cutter, a cog, with nothing of moment to differentiate oneself from "the maddening crowd" *or* from others of one's own "class" ("class" being in an object oriented, Java kind of sense) : yea, verily, the constructor is the same, the placement and size and type of each data element is the same, but the values within are *different*.
2) a conscious knowledge or affirmation of one's own choices


And 2) is exactly why "having no style" *is* really itself a form of style: like Ann Hathaway, her choice of clothes indicates that she thinks of "fashion" as "all this...stuff" whereas she sees, values, and projects herself as concerned with more substantial, intellectual issues. So her rejection of fashion IS a statement of who she is. Even though, on the surface, one would say she rejects "style" (in the "fashion" or "haute couture clothing" sense), still her "style" (the vibe of who she chooses to be) appears and is reflected by the type of clothes she does wear and her attitude towards *others' * focus on clothing.

The analogy is obvious to other areas of life and other disciplines.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

g_w said:


> Ability to do something is not the same as making it the highest priority. You moved the goalposts to something I never said.
> Nice try, though.


Restating for the nitpicky.

_Anyone of_ _any type_ can make it their goal or priority to be precise and clear in thought or expression. Every type will have a somewhat different picture of what this means, and when there is a clash in how the data is perceived, one type's clarity can be another type's mess.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Restating for the nitpicky.
> 
> _Anyone of_ _any type_ can make it their goal or priority to be precise and clear in thought or expression. Every type will have a somewhat different picture of what this means, and when there is a clash in how the data is perceived, one type's clarity can be another type's mess.


You could not be more wrong.
It is not that one type's clarity is another type's mess.
It is that even one's own clarity cannot render those blind to his values, able to speak or interpret the language of those values.
The opposite of clarity is not mess, as you think: it is opacity, the inability to see at all.
A "mess" is only a functional approximation of blindness -- akin to mispronouncing a language or having the syntax correct and getting the meaning of certain words wrong; or having the meanings of nouns right and screwing up the tenses and subject-verb agreement.

Classic example being the scene in Darryl F. Zanuck's _The Longest Day_ where American soldiers, having crested the cliffs at the Point du Hoc, are moving inland and pass a German pillbox. A German inside raises his hands in surrender and calls out "_Bitte! Bitte!_" only to be machine-gunned by an American soldier...who then turns to his buddy and asks, "What does 'bitt" mean?"
Blindness.
Compared to a German U-boat attacked by a British Destroyer during World War 2 and frantically signalling the message:
"We are sunking."
Mess.
Again, nice try.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

I love this argument :laughing:

I don't care about the video but the lyrics of this song describe a girl with *style* and I picture the bass line following her around while she struts







Style is when people hear music in their head when you walk. Style is synesthesia. roud:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Private message on its way on both difficult fantasy novel, and the Aurora (the internet cooperating, that is).


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Oak said:


> Dude you have the right to any perspective you please.


So I do.



> It's just a little disappointing see someone discard such an iconoclastic piece of writing without good reason.


It doesn't matter to me whether something is iconoclastic. It matters to me whether the meaning is something I can get behind. I don't find a meaning that is important to me in the concepts in the poem, in fact I disagree with looking at it that way, so I don't exactly like the poem. This is what I consistently prioritize when I read things, experience art and so forth - I need to find a meaning in it that I connect with, otherwise I'm not going to find it worthwhile.

It just so happens that this piece hit antipodally on this topic. I think it would have held more personal meaning for people who already find meaning in style and holds the potential to deepen their conception to something more meaningful, but for me it's kind of pointless because I see through style and hence it doesn't hold meaning in my head; it exists on the outside of what I'm really looking for.

I told you I didn't prioritize style. Here is a representation of that attitude. 

Why does it matter to you, though, what I think in this regard?



> In my mind that is the same as discarding art, music, or any form of expression or individuality.


That is a massive conflation. People can do what the hell they want and I'll appreciate whatever I like for my own reasons.



> Do you fancy a bleak and award wasteland? That's the word without style.


As you said, there doesn't exist a world without style, right?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

g_w said:


> Private message on its way on both difficult fantasy novel, and the Aurora (the internet cooperating, that is).


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

g_w said:


> You could not be more wrong.
> It is not that one type's clarity is another type's mess.
> It is that even one's own clarity cannot render those blind to his values, able to speak or interpret the language of those values.
> The opposite of clarity is not mess, as you think: it is opacity, the inability to see at all.
> ...


Dude, your thinking is like a whirlwind. It is unclear. TO ME. You make a point, sure, and then you go everywhere else like a tornado. It's reminiscent of what Gulenko termed Vortical-Synergetic thinking, the type I tend to get least of all.

The opposite of clarity, to me, is _you_.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

I've got style, and I always have. It's your approach to life, how you approach adversity as well as triumph. It's how you enter a room, how you act when no one's around, how you dress, how you make love, how you endure pain, how you take on the world. It's the act of not settling for anything but your own way, forging your own path, rising above the herd. It's doing the things that others won't or can't do, doing the things that are scary, and doing them with grace. 

I remember wanting to put my fist through a wall and being so frustrated with life when things weren't going my way, and I went out for a run, and focused on my goals instead of crying and feeling sorry for myself.

I remember when I beat out alot of the competition and won a trophy for being one of the top people for my job, and I went out, smoked a cigar, had some oysters and a nice steak and a bottle of champagne. 

I remember asking to speak to a manager just to tell them how impressed I was with the barista who took my order. 

I remember drinking straight whiskey and bare knuckle boxing my friend just for the hell of it. 

I remember talking for hours to an old woman I had just met, just because she needed a friend. 

I don't wear anything particularly outrageous or unique, but none of my friends or anyone I know really could pull off what I wear. And I dress to impress. 

When I pick up the guitar, when I sit down to write, the way I go about it is my own.

That's style. It's like a sort of charm almost, and some people don't have it. You can just kind of tell when someone has it, it's hard to put it into words. It's visceral, shocking, unassuming, bold, impressive, and just plain cool. It's like listening to a Miles Davis album. And Miles Davis had style! It's pretty much this:  all day every day. 

Ohh, I'm a 3w4 too.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

KindOfBlue06 said:


> I've got style, and I always have. It's your approach to life, *how you approach adversity as well as triumph*. It's how you enter a room, *how you act when no one's around*, how you dress, *how you make love, how you endure pain*, how you take on the world. It's *the act of not settling for anything but your own way*, forging your own path, rising above the herd. It's doing the things that others won't or can't do, doing the things that are scary, and doing them with grace.


I fucking love this!



> You can just kind of tell when someone has it, it's hard to put it into words. It's visceral, shocking, unassuming, bold, impressive, and just plain cool.





> It's pretty much this:  all day every day.
> 
> Ohh, I'm a 3w4 too.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Dude, your thinking is like a whirlwind. It is unclear. TO ME. You make a point, sure, and then you go everywhere else like a tornado. It's reminiscent of what Gulenko termed Vortical-Synergetic thinking, the type I tend to get least of all.
> 
> The opposite of clarity, to me, is _you_.


Right. You *DON'T* 
*SEE*
*IT*

Which was just what I pointed out in my last post. It's not unclear: it's INVISIBLE.
May I suggest gently that you forgo your attempt to play "five blind men and an elephant" about the topic of style for now.

It's not the elephant's trunk you have ahold of at the moment.

Or, to use an analogy from optics.
Colors do not have objective existence: objects reflect and absorb light of different wavelengths; in some fashion not completely understood, the eye and the brain interpret the incoming waves (or photons, natch) as a "color".
Except, some people are color blind.

Doesn't mean we should abolish traffic lights, though.
Accept your inability to distinguish or assign relative importance to style, or to interpret it, as a defect of your own, and not as a necessarily significant indication about the essential nature of the universe.

Peace out. I meant none of the above as pejorative, merely descriptive.
I will refrain from further comments on your posts on this topic to save my time and energy and your weatherstripping.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

g_w said:


> Ehh, in the words of Isaac Asimov in Victory Unintentional, "It's like trying to describe gamma light to a robot unequipped for gamma ray reception."
> Or, as one of my grad school profs said of group theory, "Either you get it or you don't. There is no middle ground."
> Style is the projection INTO the outer world, of dress and body english and movements and facial expressions and words chosen and pregnant silences...OF one's values, feelings, self image, and how that image chooses to present through the facade of the external self, in order to communicate those values and desired appearance to others.
> When one says "Style doesn't matter" -- that is *itself* a choice of style; a negative one. Watch the end of the Meryl Streep clip again, she spells it out in a way that even I could grok the concept.
> ...


You misunderstood my post.

Everything you have stated, I understand.

There are two sources of confusion regarding style: How meaningful is style and what definition of style we are using.

I understand that style is the expression of All That You Are. My concern is the definition is so vague and general that all it amounts to is "You have your own unique way of things." Which frankly, amounts to fuck all. Ok, we all have personal ways of doing things. Now what? If someone said "She's got style," it tells me nothing. What about her style? Is it the way she talks, walks, how she approach people, how she chews her gum, what? Instead of packaging all her attributes into a big black box called style, we should be examining what the style means. Ann Hathaway's ignorance of style is still style, but what does that style tell us? That she doesn't care about fashion? Well duh. What else? 

That's the problem. We're all talking about style IS and not what it MEANS. In fact, we're assuming that they're one and the same, and that's where my second confusion lies.

The poet in the OP states that:


Not many have style / Not many can keep style
I have seen dogs with more style than men / although not many dogs have style. /Cats have it with abundance.
Or sometimes people give you style
These phrases indicate that style is


Not something everyone has
Is a quality that can be given
quantifiable
Can be fleeting
Animals can have it
These are fundamental differences between the author's view of style and the definition of style put forth in this thread. 

Your definition of style is a quality that is innate, universal. "Even negative style is still style." The author's definition of style is fleeting, not-universal, and a quality even animals can posses. "Not many have style, not many can keep style." Your definition is maintains that everyone has a style. The author's definition says that not only do not many people have it, but you can have more or less than others, and some people have none.

The author implies that style is doing. You are implying that style is having. Animal said that style is being. These are three different definitions of style but people are conflating them together.

It's the difference between doing and having and being.

It is the difference between calling someone beautiful (a reflection of your perception of beauty), thinking someone has beauty (implying it is an innate quality belonging to the person), or calling them Beauty Itself.

And none of the three answer if beauty is even meaningful.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bluity said:


> You misunderstood my post.
> 
> Everything you have stated, I understand.
> 
> ...


Thank you for parsing carefully, *@Bluity.*
I think I'd say pretty close to you, but in slightly different language, as you pointed out :

_The author implies that style is doing. You are implying that style is having. Animal said that style is being. These are three different definitions of style but people are conflating them together._

Doing, having, and being are all manifestations of style.
Another way to put it would be -- style is how you manifest in your behaviour, speech, actions, attitudes, and responses, your concern for those things which matter to you: either to reflect to yourself as a beacon, or to others, as a lighthouse, the information that "Area of life [X] matters to me, and I'm [email protected] good at it."
Perhaps cats and dogs would furnish a good illustration.
To say a cat has style, but a dog doesn't, means that a cat "cares" about appearing dignified, unique, "making an individual statement," a dog doesn't. A cat is *above* the opinions of others, a dog is *below* it. So the cat "has style" BECAUSE it CARES about projecting an image; but cats also have *a* style of their own -- extra aloof, curious, finicky, affectionate. A dog does not have "style" since the dog is not taking care to choose to make an individual impression; but it has *a* style (keep your mind out of the gutter :laughing since everything it does is thoroughly "doggy" in character: but it didn't choose the elements which make up the statement of doggyness in order to appear doggy, it did so because those elements were the best way to accomplish the things the dog *was* interested in anyway, and would continue doing if nobody were watching.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

g_w said:


> Doing, having, and being are all manifestations of style.


This is the crux of disagreement. For me, doing and having are manifestations of being. Style is not how you manifest behavior, it IS the manifestation of behavior. It is the presentation. Being is that which is behind the presentation.

Style is the way of communication. Being is what is being communicated.



> Perhaps cats and dogs would furnish a good illustration.
> To say a cat has style, but a dog doesn't, means that a cat "cares" about appearing dignified, unique, "making an individual statement," a dog doesn't. A cat is *above* the opinions of others, a dog is *below* it. So the cat "has style" BECAUSE it CARES about projecting an image; but cats also have *a* style of their own -- extra aloof, curious, finicky, affectionate. A dog does not have "style" since the dog is not taking care to choose to make an individual impression; but it has *a* style (keep your mind out of the gutter :laughing since everything it does is thoroughly "doggy" in character: but it didn't choose the elements which make up the statement of doggyness in order to appear doggy, it did so because those elements were the best way to accomplish the things the dog *was* interested in anyway, and would continue doing if nobody were watching.


At the expense of sounding obvious, cats and dogs give no damns about the opinions of humans. All they want is food, shelter, and affection. To imply that cats have style implies that they have concerns about their image, which they don't. 

Aloof, curious, finicky, affectionate, are human traits coined by humans used by humans to humanize animals. You are projecting our anthropomorphic tendencies to nonanthromorphic creatures. This is the difference between perceiving and possessing. The cat does not own the quality of style. You are perceiving style in the way the cat acts, which is wholly a reflection of your beliefs rather than the cat.

This is why I find style to be useless. It is so subjective that it has little meaning.

Style requires a human sophistication of personality, hence why I do not believe cats have it. Unless you are suggesting that style is merely the expression of life; in that case any being - plant, mushroom, bedbug - has style, which goes back to my first point of the word being so vague that it means nothing.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Flatlander said:


> So I do.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter to me whether something is iconoclastic. It matters to me whether the meaning is something I can get behind. I don't find a meaning that is important to me in the concepts in the poem, in fact I disagree with looking at it that way, so I don't exactly like the poem. This is what I consistently prioritize when I read things, experience art and so forth - I need to find a meaning in it that I connect with, otherwise I'm not going to find it worthwhile.


I don't see what's to protest then. Style I riddled with meaning. Tear down the all that bias & you might actually see it.



Flatlander said:


> It just so happens that this piece hit antipodally on this topic. I think it would have held more personal meaning for people who already find meaning in style and holds the potential to deepen their conception to something more meaningful, but for me it's kind of pointless because I see through style and hence it doesn't hold meaning in my head; it exists on the outside of what I'm really looking for.


That's like looking at a woman & saying you have nice face but I'm not interested in your face, I'm interested in your internal organs.

Besides(on a different note) the behaviour, mannerisms, presentation, etc is a reflection of what's on the inside. I'm sure you've heard about Graphology, you can tell allot about a person just from their handwriting. The way they walk & talk, colours they like, etc. I'm talking identity, expression, actions, vibes, lifestyle, territory, preferences. It's all style dude.

Style is the external being, it stems from the internal being which has it's roots in meaning, experience, perhaps even owing to divine inheritance( if you believe in fate, karma, & that sort of thing). 



Flatlander said:


> I told you I didn't prioritize style. Here is a representation of that attitude.


Your understanding of style. My understanding is that style has it's roots in meaning & shameless being, it cannot be worn. You disagree, so be it. I can't help if you are restrained by a shallow understanding. Obstinace is your free choice man.



Flatlander said:


> Why does it matter to you, though, what I think in this regard?


I dislike perceptions that are opposed to mine, if I had to be blunt. Also I love an argument & human nature seems to like besting others. If you gave me enough kindling I would gladly start a fire. Noting personal, just a wage of perceptions.



Flatlander said:


> That is a massive conflation. People can do what the hell they want and I'll appreciate whatever I like for my own reasons.


As you were. I was wrong to judge you. It is not my place to assert my understanding upon others. I have issues with that, please understand.



Flatlander said:


> As you said, there doesn't exist a world without style, right?


Much of the modern world has turned bleak & pointless, wars break out, people become stuck in the system slaves to petty routines, fear & mass paranoia. You could say that the world seems soulless. "Style" is worn to hide the bleak, awkward & brutal truth. The insecurity is hidden under a false sense of security. I sum you up as a realist, someone who doesn't care for the "cloak" that style has become. In that context you are right.

Just one question man, when was the last time you visited the mountains or wandered through the woods?


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Bluity said:


> That's the problem. We're all talking about style IS and not what it MEANS. In fact, we're assuming that they're one and the same, and that's where my second confusion lies.



The externalisation of the internal being which has it's roots in meaning, purpose, experiences(/conclusions). It's what you bring from the deep internal realm into the outer(physical) realm(reality).


When someone compliments your style what they are saying is - I dig your being(or an aspect thereof).


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Oak said:


> I
> That's like looking at a woman & saying you have nice face but I'm not interested in your face, I'm interested in your internal organs.


*rolls on the floor laughing*












> I dislike perceptions that are opposed to mine, if I had to be blunt. Also I love an argument & human nature seems to like besting others. *If you gave me enough kindling I would gladly start a fire. Noting personal, just a wage of perceptions.*


:laughing:


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Oak said:


> When someone compliments your style what they are saying is - I dig your being(or an aspect thereof).


They are digging an external aspect which may or may not be an accurate reflection of my being. It is as much as projection of their internal being as a reflection of my own.

Take writing styles. Have you ever read a book from a favorite author and thought "Wow, I love it, I really get how this person thinks" only to meet the author or read a bio and realize they are nothing like you'd imagine?

Or have you met a person who misconstrued you so completely you wonder if they're talking about the same person? I once had interviewer tell me "You know, I can really tell you're a people person," which is absolutely antithetical to what I am. I've also been called bitchy, sweet, assholish, modest, religious, analytical, quiet, attention-seeking. If my style is innate, shouldn't there be consistency? Unless my style, my being, is so changeable that even defining it is an exercise in futility.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bluity said:


> This is the crux of disagreement. For me, doing and having are manifestations of being. Style is not how you manifest behavior, it IS the manifestation of behavior. It is the presentation. Being is that which is behind the presentation.
> 
> Style is the way of communication. Being is what is being communicated.
> 
> ...


You're wrong. I've seen cats act embarrassed, jealous, trustful, and rebellious over various things.
The reason you *assume* cats don't have these feelings is that you assume such things are only true IF and ONLY IF you can verify them as you would with humans (speech, writing, music, etc.)
If you can't verify them, you default not to "there is insufficient evidence so I declare it *undetermined*" which is the correct conclusion, but "there is no such thing, cannot be any such thing, and must not be any such thing."
(Also, you are judging entirely from cats' interactions from humans: you can see anger, affection, and the like, among cats interacting among themselves.)
There's such a thing as Type I *and* Type II category errors.
And Occam's razor and the null hypothesis do a piss-poor job of protecting against false *negatives*.
They are good for constructing parsimonious models to control mechanistic systems, but they suck at describing anything approaching personality.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Oak said:


> I don't see what's to protest then. Style I riddled with meaning. Tear down the all that bias & you might actually see it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like looking at a woman & saying you have nice face but I'm not interested in your face, I'm interested in your internal organs.


Being that I work in the (alternative, but still) medical field, for now..well. Let's just say that a face carries implication in the measure of its current state, the objective properties you can view of it, but the subjective impression, for instance, the beauty of it, is not what really interests me.

To add to that, I rarely am interested in people's faces directly like that anyway. I'm mostly interested in gleaning if they have something to offer me in connection, and the cues that help me figure it out stay in my subconscious where they belong because otherwise they would be distracting. I often interact best with people through text, too, where physical cues and presence don't confuse the issue of reading purely what a person has to say - the level of information involved in processing physical style is highly distracting from what I find the main point.



> Besides(on a different note) the behaviour, mannerisms, presentation, etc is a reflection of what's on the inside. I'm sure you've heard about Graphology, you can tell allot about a person just from their handwriting. The way they walk & talk, colours they like, etc. I'm talking identity, expression, actions, vibes, lifestyle, territory, preferences. It's all style dude.


Yes, I've heard of graphology, though I'm a little dubious that it's quite as specifically meaningful as some would have you believe. And yeah, I get that you have a unified concept of style - it's still not really what interests me about a person or a thing.

I'm a fairly existential thinker, and so when I talk to a person I try to get a sense of what is their foundational basis rather than caring about all these superficial things they evidence in their life. The 'why', if you will - their internal structure and purpose. Something like the Enneagram fits nicely into my thinking for this very reason - it's a set of classifications, patterns, connections that you can use to map out a significant part of what is going on at a person's depth, which I was already invested in reading. 



> Style is the external being, it stems from the internal being which has it's roots in meaning, experience, perhaps even owing to divine inheritance( if you believe in fate, karma, & that sort of thing).


I don't buy mystical terms but I entertain mystical ideas in my own way. The part of my thinking that brings in an idea of 'soul' rests starkly on what is sensed - let's just say that I seek a sense of both what basic physical mechanics are and what informs them - what they imply - because I think they need to be understood to their depths to get to an understanding of the consciousness-bearing nature of reality. I've always felt at one with bare consciousness, it's where I reside as a being, and so I seek my own basis.

So I'm not overly interested in the human side of things in this way. The products of consciousness are not what hold the most meaning to me in their own right - the fact of consciousness and its very implications, those are. I understand that you can read style to get meaning for your own purposes but it's not the way my mental ordering works. 



> Your understanding of style. My understanding is that style has it's roots in meaning & shameless being, it cannot be worn. You disagree, so be it. I can't help if you are restrained by a shallow understanding. Obstinace is your free choice man.


I don't feel restrained by my understanding. It suits my purpose to look at it this way.



> I dislike perceptions that are opposed to mine, if I had to be blunt. Also I love an argument & human nature seems to like besting others. If you gave me enough kindling I would gladly start a fire. Noting personal, just a wage of perceptions.


The bit about human nature strikes me as a fellow statement on your own nature. Human nature is a curious thing to talk about as a lump sum.

I think you and I have some fundamental oppositions of a type I have encountered with people before. I've been down this path and basically, we both end up with ego invested in it, and nobody wins - I'm thinking to save both of us some trouble. We could go into it all in depth if you want but you're not going to get me invested in style any more than, I think, I will draw you down to my place of fundamentals.



> As you were. I was wrong to judge you. It is not my place to assert my understanding upon others. I have issues with that, please understand.


No worries.



> Much of the modern world has turned bleak & pointless, wars break out, people become stuck in the system slaves to petty routines, fear & mass paranoia. You could say that the world seems soulless. "Style" is worn to hide the bleak, awkward & brutal truth. The insecurity is hidden under a false sense of security. I sum you up as a realist, someone who doesn't care for the "cloak" that style has become. In that context you are right.
> 
> Just one question man, when was the last time you visited the mountains or wandered through the woods?


I currently live in Boulder, which is a city in Colorado well up above sea level. I am surrounded by mountains and inlets into nature, if not always the greenest, most foresty type. I enjoy nature, especially at some of its fiercest and darkest moments. I hike quite often.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

g_w said:


> You're wrong. I've seen cats act embarrassed, jealous, trustful, and rebellious over various things.
> The reason you *assume* cats don't have these feelings is that you assume such things are only true IF and ONLY IF you can verify them as you would with humans (speech, writing, music, etc.)
> If you can't verify them, you default not to "there is insufficient evidence so I declare it *undetermined*" which is the correct conclusion, but "there is no such thing, cannot be any such thing, and must not be any such thing."
> (Also, you are judging entirely from cats' interactions from humans: you can see anger, affection, and the like, among cats interacting among themselves.)


You misunderstood my post again. Also, you are wrong on all accounts.
I believe cats have emotions.
I do not need to verify my experience with other humans.
I do not say "there is insufficient evidence" the same reason that I do start every sentence with "My opinion is" : because that should be understood. If there is evidence available I will look at it.

Back to this:


> The reason you *assume* cats don't have these feelings is that you assume such things are only true IF and ONLY IF you can verify them as you would with humans (speech, writing, music, etc.)


I volunteer at an animal shelter. Cats are sentient creatures who feel. What they are feeling, however, only they can surmise. To say that they are feeling happy, or sad or angry should come with the caveat that we are looking through a human lens, using words that describe human emotions, and that the sensation they are feeling may or may not be approximate to their human equivalent.

I acknowledge that what I see with cats is my subjective bias. You however insist that you are not projecting, that cats really are the quality that you see in them. Do you think that style is something they have and you see it clearly? Or that style is something you perceive, and is shaped by your lens? Once again, it comes down to perceiving a quality and possessing one.

I have no reason to believe cats care about image, not with the meta level awareness of I'm speaking of. They are doing what is natural to them, and not at the expense of projecting a certain image or caring about opinions.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Bluity said:


> They are digging an external aspect which may or may not be an accurate reflection of my being. It is as much as projection of their internal being as a reflection of my own.


Well pretention can fool the best of us, nobody said anything being accurate. Blame judgement not style.



Bluity said:


> Take writing styles. Have you ever read a book from a favorite author and thought "Wow, I love it, I really get how this person thinks" only to meet the author or read a bio and realize they are nothing like you'd imagine?


Never happened to me. Sorry. 



Bluity said:


> Or have you met a person who misconstrued you so completely you wonder if they're talking about the same person? I once had interviewer tell me "You know, I can really tell you're a people person," which is absolutely antithetical to what I am. I've also been called bitchy, sweet, assholish, modest, religious, analytical, quiet, attention-seeking. If my style is innate, shouldn't there be consistency? Unless my style, my being, is so changeable that even defining it is an exercise in futility.


Can't comment, I have never met you before. Just remember that...
-People change
-Mood affects behaviour & judgement
-Not everyone is a good judge of character
-Most people play themselves up or down(therefore your judgement of yourself can be off)
-People can only judge you by you actions(& words)
-Time changes peoples minds


Trends my change & fashions come & go, but what was stylish ten thousand years ago is still stylish now. Mountains, sex, violence, drums, symphonies, wheels, eyes, rabbits, dust, clouds, tits, lost cities, crawling up a hill, dancing, martyrs, integrity, tearing bread with your teeth, defeating your enemy with wit, doing the unexpected, milk. These things all have style. You may have style in a moment or over a lifetime. Style is absolute.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bluity said:


> You misunderstood my post again. Also, you are wrong on all accounts.
> I believe cats have emotions.
> I do not need to verify my experience with other humans.
> I do not say "there is insufficient evidence" the same reason that I do start every sentence with "My opinion is" : because that should be understood. If there is evidence available I will look at it.
> ...


Laughably wrong.

Counterexample 1: Pinky is feeling (choose ONE) 
a) romantic
b) bored
c) socially curious
d) afraid







Counterexample 2:
The vocalizing cat is
a) companionable
b) hungry
c) overjoyed
d) angry
The black-and-white cat is
a) celebratory
b) seasick
c) apologetic
d) homicidal





You're right. There's just no way we can ever tell what a cat is feeling.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

@_g_w_

At the top of the previous page I outlined the origin of your disagreement. You responded by talking about cats.

I then explained that cats are sentient creatures who feel and that I work with them. You responded by posting cat videos.

You mistook my elaboration of my opinion on cat feelings as disagreement. Fine.

So let's go back to the heart of the matter:

Do you think style is an innate quality, or a product of your perception?


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bluity said:


> @_g_w_
> 
> At the top of the previous page I outlined the origin of your disagreement. You responded by talking about cats.
> 
> ...


Whoa, there. I won't let you get away with it that easily.
I first talked about cats (and dogs) to illustrate the difference between different usages of the word 'style'.
"Style" (leaving aside the usage as more or less synonymous with "fashion") can be applied to a class, or group (Szechuan-style dining) *or* to an individual, to indicate how they seek to manifest their identity through social signals.
"Doggy style" (no, not the sexual position) is warm, friendly, subservient, protective, with very little concentration on individuality EXCEPT as manifested by one's social rank in a group.
But *indivdual* dogs don't in general have the same *obvious* differentiators one from another.
"Kitty style" is to be aloof; but each cat has its own personality.

Back to your point. Think of the old chestnut, "if a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

That depends on whether sound is defined as 
periodic rarefication/pressure waves (longitudinally propagated)
or "what a person experiences *when* these waves hit the ear."

Similarly, style can be, and is, the social manifestation of one's values:
but this is only "detectable" by other people, who process and interpret
the social signals.

"Lack of style" means one does not take essential care to significantly,
deliberately differentiate oneself *intentionally* from the crowd:
but one can still be different due to random variations, or by responding
*less* enthusiastically to an event or social construct than the rest of 
the crowd, thereby sticking out like a sore thumb.
(Like someone in Oklahoma or Texas *not* liking college football.)
You might not be doing it in ORDER to make a statement, but if people
pick up on it, it becomes part of your style.
Having style means deliberate signals "loud enough" that people more or
less both notice and guess the (positive) value you espouse; "your style'
is a matter of semi-random differences, not the exhibition of positive choices,
which still serve to mark you socially as an individual -- "different" but not
DIFFERENT, if you catch my drift.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Thank you. I have a better understanding on what you mean by style.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

g_w said:


> Back to your point. Think of the old chestnut, "if a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
> 
> That depends on whether sound is defined as
> periodic rarefication/pressure waves (longitudinally propagated)
> ...


Profound and poignant angle.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Animal said:


> Profound and poignant angle.


Flattery will get you everywhere!
(...or would, if I were single. Married 27 years this month.)


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Bluity said:


> They are digging an external aspect which may or may not be an accurate reflection of my being. It is as much as projection of their internal being as a reflection of my own.
> 
> Take writing styles. Have you ever read a book from a favorite author and thought "Wow, I love it, I really get how this person thinks" only to meet the author or read a bio and realize they are nothing like you'd imagine?


I've met a lot of musicians and this has never happened to me. If I have any preconceived notions or ideas about what this person might be like at all, they tend to be perfectly in line with how the person is. 

That being said, I don't make it my business to analyze an art piece and pick it apart to make presumptions about the artist. I don't try to figure out how they think, but rather respond to the piece because it reflects something inside myself. Call me selfish but when I am experiencing something it's my experience, it's not up to me to determine what the artist might have meant by it or what her intentions were. If we had a conversation, I might _ask_ her, but I would not presume that my interpretation was the same as her intent. 

As a musician, the most helpful kind of critique or response I've ever gotten was for someone to tell me what the song did for her, what it meant to _her_. Is it always the same as what it meant to me? no. (Although, very often someone's reaction to my song reveals something about myself that I didn't even realize which is so fucking beautiful, I can't even explain.) But either way it meant something to her and thats all that counts. I would feel the same about anything I did, though of course, if someone proposes their view of "who I am" or "what I meant by something" to my face and I feel it misrepresents me, I will clarify.



> Or have you met a person who misconstrued you so completely you wonder if they're talking about the same person? I once had interviewer tell me "You know, I can really tell you're a people person," which is absolutely antithetical to what I am. I've also been called bitchy, sweet, assholish, modest, religious, analytical, quiet, attention-seeking. If my style is innate, shouldn't there be consistency? Unless my style, my being, is so changeable that even defining it is an exercise in futility.


Lol, this tends to happen to me more on PerC than in real life, but I know what you mean. However I know why it happens on PerC. It's because I'm using enneagram for self-study, and trying to fish for my worst compulsions and pitfalls and explain who I am to figure myself out analytically, instead of just_ being_.

Once a person starts self-reporting and self-analyzing to figure out 'where they fit in' based on a number system, what REALLY drives them, what all their worst mistakes and compulsions have been and the nature of them, things can get messy. This is why type-me threads can be more effective for getting the typee to think about herself than to show others what her type might be. Nobody *is* a certain way all the time. Things change throughout your life, evolve, reshape. Self-reporting might work for some, but for me it's clumsy because I'm accustomed to _being_ and not attempting to _define_ myself in words or justify my actions. My actions speak for themselves and if I have to make excuses for them, then I'm going about things backwards and dishonestly. Thus when I try to explain "who I am" in words on PerC, my explanations can appear to contradict each other - not because of dishonest intent, but because self-reporting isn't how communication is most effective. Not to mention, once someone starts poking at "who I am deep down" as it pertains to my worst compulsions, I can get defensive and snappy due to discomfort about these topics.

In any scenario where I've just worn my clothes, done my work, and spouted my ideas & reactions, my personality & intentions speak for themselves, and communication is pretty easy. I feel no need to say, "I am this way or that" ... I just am. Someone else's reaction or interpretation is part of who they are, and for communication we would both have to be open to listen to the other even if we don't agree. Those who misunderstand each other tend to part ways, and those who can communicate will be more likely to continue communicating.

(As a side-note, this is why I hate most modern art. If art can't speak for itself, and needs a plaque or a tour guide to explain its intent..... ugh don't get me started)

If there's a lot of misinterpretation going on, then there might be something incongruent in the message being sent, or there might just be a lot of people who are 'thinking too much' and trying to figure each other out instead of asking & responding & being open. It can be for a lot of reasons but it goes beyond the merits or demerits of the mechanism of style itself. We then venture into communication issues between people which can be faulty for a myriad of reasons and that's why people pay tons of money for therapy.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bluity said:


> Thank you. I have a better understanding on what you mean by style.


Shake hands all round, then.
(And...sincerely, I thank you for pressing through and not letting it degenerate into mere mutual vituperation and name-calling.)


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Animal said:


> I've met a lot of musicians and this has never happened to me. If I have any preconceived notions or ideas about what this person might be like at all, they tend to be perfectly in line with how the person is.
> 
> That being said, I don't make it my business to analyze an art piece and pick it apart to make presumptions about the artist. I don't try to figure out how they think, but rather respond to the piece because it reflects something inside myself. Call me selfish but when I am experiencing something it's my experience, it's not up to me to determine what the artist might have meant by it or what her intentions were. If we had a conversation, I might _ask_ her, but I would not presume that my interpretation was the same as her intent.
> 
> ...


Sigh. There's a TON of stuff to mine here. Are you game? 
I am asking permission. Be prepared to be INTJ lasered. :ninja:


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

g_w said:


> Sigh. There's a TON of stuff to mine here. Are you game?
> I am asking permission. Be prepared to be INTJ lasered. :ninja:


Lol sure. I love arguing. ;D

I edited the post since you quoted it >.> I have a bad habit of posting impulsively and then editing to clarify; chalk it up to habit from writing books. But yeah feel free to scrutinize me all you want  I have some work to do so if it's deep & involved I'll answer later but yes! Have at it


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Animal said:


> (As a side-note, this is why I hate most modern art. If art can't speak for itself, and needs a plaque or a tour guide to explain its intent..... ugh don't get me started)


Oh yeah, I agree with that. I mean, I think it can be interesting to hear the artist's intent. I enjoy listening to the director's commentary for movies and such, for example. However, I don't think it should be _needed_ to understand a piece of art. And if the viewer's/viewer's/listener's interpretation is different from what the artist intended, maybe the artist should have done a better job express what they meant to express. If it even is important for them that their work is interpreted a certain way. One of the things I find so appealing about art is that there's more than one "right" answer.


----------

