Monday, January 13, 2020

Story image for Victorian Fashion, pearl from Fashionista (blog)

At London Fashion Week, Designers Peer Into the Future, and ...

Fashionista (blog)-Sep. 23, 2015
So said one well-known buyer exiting a show on day two of London Fashion ... the pie-crimped collars and tiny pink florals of Mother of Pearl's Victorian-inspired ...
Story image for Victorian Fashion, pearl from New York Times

Face in the Crowd: Alicia Vikander at Louis Vuitton

New York Times-Oct. 7, 2015
I have a greater depth of understanding of fashion as an art form, I think. ... I bought this outfit a few weeks ago in Cannes; pearls are so pretty. ... At Christian Dior, a sea of Victorian jeweled chokers proved that the neck is the official erogenous ...
Story image for Victorian Fashion, pearl from Financial Times

My favourite pieces: Jane Seymour

Financial Times-Jan. 18, 2015
Even though it was used as part of the costume, I've found a way to wear it in real life and ... Another piece is an absolutely beautiful pearl necklace, that my now ... It's like a Victorian locket but what's great about it is it's glass, I think, so ...


Pearl Necklace said...

If I don't like my boss, always, by definition, are for me dominant, I have full ability to change it, i.e. to leave. But that means I exchanged one dominant to another. And some of them will be better for me. Freedom is infinite inzthe ability to change from one freedom to another freedom by means of tsher freedom. It just refers to the dominant.

Thus the dominant principle, i.e. co-ordination of external objects, the subject area remains unchanged, while themselves are the objects vary indefinitely. So built a system of hierarchical interaction of the functional distribution, respectively, of the objects themselves, (because only they can perform), as the principle of organization of system interaction of domain objects.

The status of the dominant and the concept of dominance are in themselves and in unchanged, changing only, as we have already noted, the subject area of manifestation and the existence of a dominant, i.e., to change the objects. Accordingly, in the human mind the dominant exists in two forms: as a General concept describing the system functional hierarchy, and which is represented as a kind of model situation. And as a specific subject area of the co-ordination of objects in which man has to act and play according to special rules.

But any object in the same time and acts as dominant relative to their elements, i.e., determines the nature of their movement and at the same time itself acts as the element for another dominant. This ratio for every object is stored in the immutability. Can not be so that the object stands or dominant or subordinate.

Of course, in the overall hierarchy functional hierarchy with the need there is a common dominant, or a shared object that defines all at once. As such, in the minds of people and in the literature in the most General form alternately act: Lord, God, Absolute spirit, Cosmic mind, the Laws of nature, the human Will, Consciousness and so on. However, as such, they are described in the framework of the concept of determinism in its various versions.

Pearl Necklace said...

In the scientific literature rightly argues that words themselves do not exist. It is in the context of other words, which determines their content. Of course it is also true that the context has completed part of the text, as well as the entire text, which determines the basic meaning of words and sentences.

Reasoning about some incremental sense, is right only in that part which concerns the General meaning of the words used. This means that no matter which rich content and flexible structure of the word would not be, it still has its limits of use. And whatever context we took every word fits, every sentence can be easily inserted into the text, especially not transforming them.

And how significantly would the basic meaning of the word has not been transformed from the basic essence of the word to go will not be possible. That is why the words are divided into classes, subclasses and so form a structured totality within a certain common sense. The different values they acquire only to a certain limit.

Poet correct in principle, the claim that the context changes and in fact is often a significantly original meaning of the word, however, must be clearly stated, or at least to describe the scope of these the most significant changes, i.e. to what extent it is subject to change and in what contexts it can be put, and which are not.