
This via a friend on Facebook:
Can a woman wear the same dress 365 days a year, and achieve a different look every day? The answer is at The Uniform Project.
Various shots of the Black Dress Project
Interested in whatever is true, good, beautiful, real? Then let's join together in a conversation that began centuries ago, and which will extend throughout eternity, when we feast at the Lord's Table. This blog is born of wonder, but welcomes doubters. So let's sit down and talk...








Some philosophers reserve the word "kind" to refer to "natural kinds," and make a distinction between natural kinds and brands:
According to this view, humans, aluminum and tomatoes may be thought of as kinds, but they aren't brands. Republicans, Pantene shampoo and Nike are brands, but they aren't properly kinds. In other words, one is created by the Creator, the other is a name for something man-made.
In Genesis 2:19-20, God charged Adam with the task of naming all the different kinds of animals, but he was not asked to "brand" them! But we live in a world where God has been eclipsed, and the notion of a natural kind is regarded as quaint, or more frequently with suspicion, so the trend in our culture is to conflate them, or better, to move toward branding things. Branding enables us to own, control and most importantly, sell things. Hence we unconciously begin to conflate "kinds" with 'brands," and speak about "Kleenex," Xeroxing," "Jello," "I-pods," and "Chacos."
It is one thing for the Republican party to be worried about its brand, but what happens when we allow things which are not meant to be bought and sold to be branded? When we are already in the habit of conflating kinds and brands, it makes it difficult to resist this tendency. What Brave New World lies ahead of us, with the "Genentech Mozart Gene," the "Sinovac Energy Embryo," "United Rent-a-Husband," and the "BioCon Delhi Liver?"