In our era, the era of mass consumption and covetousness for the external experience, those that find interest in the external realities of these experiences that, among the multitude of lifestyles, nuances, understandings, and ideologies forced from a uncompromised perspectives, contribute to the internal individuality and superficial contributions to the didactic promotions of the real, turn out to the first of a long series of realities that can be explained only, though not entirely, through mass communication. This is appropriate considering the vast metaphorical pirogues of experimental repertoire and aggressive communicatory virtuoso of the sub-cultural generation. Only those within(or before) the context of the quasi-dogmatic Neo-Cubist understanding of post-war realities fall short in the expression of such impressive chronologies. Perhaps, under fluid recognition of the contextual references and those most interested in the contributions of phenomenologists of the past, contemporary philosophers of the neo-urban existential reality, individualists faltering within the underpinnings of the theoretical understandings of phenomenoformitarianism (a term I will frequently use to avoid misunderstanding), and others concerned with these types of phenomenon will appreciate the sincerity of the uncompromised studies taking place even now. Cultural-factorial phenomena, as experienced by the sub-cultural devices of expression, are also a strong indicator of symbolic or perhaps misunderstood indulgence within the greater urban and sub-urban context. The practice is unprecedented. Oh, the feeling! One cannot explain the immense contentment to be had by the academy of faltering children of American democracy and exploding verses of reality and meaning amid the chaotic and information ridden media. If some in the halls of academe had not been so aloof during the experimental phases of such incredible expressions, we might have a clearer understanding of the experience and phenomena. Only falling short of described graduated principles, the allowance of such misallocations is often considered unusual by critics, anthropologists, and modern philosophers. With this in mind, how can one reconcile the undivided expressions of the spiritual subculture with the supercilious (yet superficially functional) methods of the semi-appropriate academic vandals of theory and criticism? Also, how can this justified belief system be reconciled with the new understandings of phenomenoformitarianism?
Anyone feel the same way I do?
