On the Nature of Sweet: "Concepts of." One mailer's call for a shift in discourse

See other posts in the "Is this sweet?" series.
See other posts in the "On the Nature of Sweet" series (more focused on the philosophy of sweetness).

This idea has been ruminating with me since I happened upon Epic Mail, in the midst of a torrential debate on the theory of Sweet. I would now like to present my own findings and, by complicating the matter, clear things up completely.

A rudimentary (though initially necessary for the fledgling beginings of so grand an undertaking) handling of The Sweet brought us to a dead end argument on subjectivity which is, of itself, subjective. Would a shrieking Axl Rose think to himself, before bursting into flames "this is actually pretty sweet?" A question whose elements are so varied cannot be successfully answered by so simple an analysis as has heretofore been presented.

The following factor must also be brought into consideration: "The concept of. . ."

In our own case study on sweetness (to paraphrase: an intentionally broken bottle of 90 minute causes a huge tanker explosion) I believe we were lost in the specifics of this particular combination of events. Had we been examining the concepts at work, a fervent though ultimately endless discussion would not have been necessary.

For an initial, separate test I pose the question "Is Epic Mail sweet?" We would find ourselves in the same "can we separate all the non-sweet posts from the totally sweet posts? what is a sweet post? what is The Sweet? What is The?" dead-end trajectory by applying our former methodology. Or we can simply ask "Is the concept of Epic Mail sweet?" Yes. Yes it is. While we may not always live up to our own standard, the concept of Epic Mail remains sweet. A ship whose course can be ever righted. Question answered.

I return now to our case study. I believe it more fruitful to begin by asking not "is smashing a bottle 90 minute sweet? what if a shard severs the head of an oncoming fast-zombie? what if that zombie was a zombie Dave?" Let us begin on more prosperous, not preposterous, ground. "Is the concept of intentionally smashing a bottle of 90 minute sweet?" No. No it is not. You may ask all the "well what if the still attached bottle cap ricocheted several times, and at the end of its journey folded into the exact shape of a walrus?" It matters not. The concept of intentionally breaking a bottle of 90 minute will never be sweet, no matter the specific consequences of any given instance.

Now I know what you may say, "may this not, eventually, lead to the same fuitless path?" Nay. Nay it shan't. Instead of debating the subjective merits of meaningless minutae ("what if Axl wears a Minus the Bear shirt?"), we can truly address the molten center of the issues presented. If the concept of intentionally breaking a bottle of 90 minute is not sweet, then why? Destroying delicious microbrew, environmental waste, public endangerment. Let us come to the argument on these grounds gentlemen. That would truly be Epic.

I leave you with this thought.

The concept of the concept of everything coming up huge is coming up huge, and that is sweet.