#PHILOSOPHY

[meanbrownhoe]

When you really think abt it the facts is the billionaire class has engineered social divides to keep us from coming together, and one of the ways they do that is through a piss poor education if any at all.

If I’m rich and I make sure you fear the unknown, you will fear those different than you. Now I won😂

Love that this interaction sparked an educational experience and shoutout to this person for not being a asshole to children like so many adults do.

Edit: Sorry AND the mom for being open to learning.

In a truck stop bathroom washing my hands today and 2 boys, looked about 5 and 9, came in with their little sister who looked maybe 2. The following whispered conversation made my entire day

"We have to wait, there's a lady in here!"

"That's not a lady, he has a mustache! We can be in here!"

"Some ladies have mustaches! And she has boobs!"

"Well some guys have boobs! Like Uncle Jake!"

"Uncle Jake is fat!"

At this point I could not contain a chuckle and both whirled around with identical looks of panic on their faces. I smiled and said "it's alright for you guys to be in here so your sister has help, don't worry. And I'm both! That's why I have boobs and a mustache. Some folks are just built that way"

(In unison) "Ooooooh!"

(older boy) "So do you use Sir or Ma'am or both?"

"Both, but I prefer Sir"

"Cool! Well thanks Sir! We have to help our sister now!"

This was in a small town country truck stop and both boys had "Murica" type stuff on and neither of them had any issue at all with these concepts. Their mom approached me while I was in line about 10 minutes later and apologized for them bothering me in the bathroom (they had told her about the interaction) and she and I had a lovely little chat too. I got to introduce her to the term "intersex" and her reply was "I think I've heard of that before! I didn't know that was the word for it. Amazing how many different ways God can make people!"

Sometimes the world is good. More often than you might think, if you give it a chance. It's not all bad loves <3

[thepersonalquotes]

Very little effort is needed to create a prosperous life. Focus on positivity, prosperity, and love.

Debasish Mridha

[philosophybits]

All human beings are somewhat ludicrous and grotesque simply because they are human; and in this respect too, artists probably are doubly human.

Friedrich Schlegel, Ideas

[liberatingreality]

Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

[suit212]

Is there an essence of consciousness? Yes. In pure awareness. And our pain is part of it.

It is like this paper. The old words shine through, but are difficult to read. The new ones are easy to read. If the old paper were not there, the new words and sentences could not be formed.

The present is therefore part of the future and the past. I´'m sure that if you burn the paper, both old and new sentences will be readable.

Isn't that part of every belief? And if that is the case, then shouldn't there be more love on our Blue Planet Earth? Regardless of our pain?

[noosphe-re]

The very nature of materiality is an entanglement. Matter itself is always already open to, or rather entangled with, the "Other." The intra-actively emergent "parts" of phenomena are co­constituted. Not only subjects but also objects are permeated through and through with their entangled kin; the other is not just in one's skin, but in one's bones, in one's belly, in one's heart, in one's nucleus, in one's past and future.

Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning

[garadinervi]

Titus Lucretius Carus, Of the Nature of Things, Translation by Williams Ellery Leonard, E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1957

Cover Design: Reynold Ruffins

[verytwilly]

This is so precise in its analysis that I can see myself referencing it to help explain my own gender experiences. My explanation to people on my gender identity is always that I simply don’t have one and it’s exactly because I don’t find it useful in understanding who I am. Like, sure if knowing someone’s primary sex characteristics is the only thing you care about go ahead and use my body and facial features to place me as male. I don’t care… that’s your perception. But the second you try to use that information to assume anything else beyond the medical/biological… you’re going to be wrong.

Seeing me as male will not help you know if I’m a potential reproductive partner because I’m overwhelmingly attracted to men (regardless of their particular presentation). Seeing me as male will not help you understand my personality because I’m very emotional and nurturing. Seeing me as male will not give you any insight as to my interests because I’m not interested in sports or any kind of mechanics. I may like woodworking but I’m primarily interested in fiber arts. Seeing me as male will not help you understand what job I have because I’m a teacher (albeit highschool but still, not considered a typically male job). In this way, gender and sex become useless in positioning me in the world for the vast majority of situations. So why should I identify at all with maleness? All the stereotypical associations our current culture still has with men largely do not apply to me. It’s useless to me. And judging by all the tags people have added to their reblogs of this post, it’s failed other people many times too… but that’s not at all surprising.

Gendered parenting is so weird. As a little kid I was a total daddy's girl, I was told I would always try to sneak into the garage, I was always very interested in everything he was doing and would follow him around while he was working, but while my family was never the type to outright say "you can't do that because you're a girl", they simply didn't entertain the idea that I could possibly be interested in cars. Then when my little brother was born, it was just assumed he would become a mechanic like our dad because he was a boy. Even though he, unlike me, didn't like being in the garage much and wasn't all that interested in what dad was doing. Once he got to a certain age, dad started making him help and would drag him away from his actual interests for it, which lead to a lot of arguing and not much actual learning.

Gendered expectations sort of create doubles of children. There's the real child with their actual personality, interests and behaviors, and then there's the Gender Child.

My real brother hated soccer and team sports. The Gender Child that existed only the minds of the adults in his life needed to play soccer because that's what a Boy Child does.

Growing up, I always felt like adults didn't actually know me as a person and they weren't interested in getting to know me. Because they felt they'd already learned everything there was to know about me when they were told "it's a girl".

When I talk about how I never got gifts I actually liked from my relatives (to this day I still don't like getting gifts that aren't something I picked out myself), it isn't actually about the gifts themselves. I don't even remember them. What I do remember is the feeling of being given gifts that were seemingly not bought with the real me in mind. They were for the Girl Child™️ version of me. The me that adults wanted me to be, not who I actually was.

[blackcoffeen]

[yoga-onion]

Heart Sutra ~ A sutra that describes “The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom" (6) 

The Idea of “Prajnaparamita Hridhya Sutra” ~ “All things have no substance.”

The absence of substance, that is emptiness, means that they are both material and spiritual elements.

There is no such thing as my body, my mind, my sense organs, or anything else that is conceived of as ‘mine'. Because there is no substance called ‘I’ in the first place. In other words, since ‘what constitutes me’ and ‘everything that surrounds me’ are by nature insubstantial, it is an illusion and a hesitation to consider them ‘mine’.

The nature of things that exist in this phenomenal world is nothing other than that they have no substance. Therefore, things that exist in this phenomenal world do not have the inherent property of arising or perishing, of becoming dirty or clean, of increasing or decreasing in quantity or number.

From the point of view that there is no substance, this is the material element, this is the mental element, this is the sensory element (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind...), this is the object of the senses (colour, voice, smell, taste, touch, dharma), there is nothing to realise or attach to, such as this is the realm of the sense organs.

Furthermore, there is neither enlightenment to be attained through cultivation nor afflictions to be renounced through cultivation. If you cling to enlightenment, this too is the materialisation of afflictions. If you persistently cling to that afflictions should be dismissed, this is also materialising afflictions.

Both enlightenment and afflictions are inherently insubstantial. Therefore, it cannot be said that enlightenment is lost or the afflictions disappear.

Neither the concept of ageing nor the concept of dying should be held. In essence, ageing and dying have no substance in the first place. Concepts such as old age and death are nothing more than malingering. They are merely ideas that we possess on our own, and there is no such thing as old age or death. Therefore, there is no need to wish for immortality or to be afraid of death.

Nor should one be obsessed with the idea of suffering. Because the substance of suffering is also essentially non-existent. Therefore, there is no cause for suffering. Since there is no cause for suffering, suffering does not arise and there is no need for a method to eliminate suffering.

般若心経 〜「智慧の完成」の精髄を述べる経典 (6)

『般若波羅蜜多心経 (梵: ﾌﾟﾗｼﾞｭﾅｰﾊﾟｰﾗﾐﾀｰ･ﾌﾘﾀﾞﾔ･��ｰﾄﾗ) 』の思想 〜 “すべてのものには実体がない。”

実体がない、つまり空であるということは、それらが物質的要素であると同時に精神的要素であるということである。

私の身体、私の心、私の感覚器官など、「私のもの」と考えられるものはどこにもない。そもそも「私」という実体が存在しないからだ。言い換えれば、「私を構成するもの」と「私を取り囲むもの」はもともと実体のないものであるため、それらを「私のもの」と考えるのは錯覚であり、迷いがあるということだ。

この現象世界に存在するものの性質は、実体がないということにほかならない。したがって、この現象世界に存在するすべてのものには、生じたり滅びたり、汚れたりきれいになったり、量や数が増えたり減ったりするという固有の性質はない。

実体がないという見地に立てば、これが物質的要素であり、これが精神的要素であり、これが感覚的要素 (眼・耳・鼻・舌・身。意) であり、これが感覚の対象 (色・声・香・味・触・法) であり、これが感覚器官の領域であるというように実現視したり、固執するものがないのである。

また、修行してめざす悟りも、修行によって厭離すべき煩悩も本来無いのである。悟りに固執すれば、これも煩悩を実体化したことになる。煩悩は厭離すべきものと執拗に固執すれば、これもまた煩悩を実体化したことになる。悟りも煩悩も本来実体がない。だから、悟りを見失うとか、煩悩が消え去るということもいえない。

老いるという概念も死ぬという観念も所有してはならない。本来、老いるとか死ぬという実体がないのである。老いとか死とかいう概念は仮病にすぎないのである。それらは我々の勝手に所有する観念にすぎなく、本来、これが老いとかこれが死だというものはない。老若・生死という相対的概念は人間の観念から生まれたものである。したがって不老長寿を願う必要もなく、死を厭う必要もない。

また、苦の観念にとらわれてもならない。なぜなら苦という実体も本来ないのだから。したがって苦の原因もないのである。苦の原因がないのだから、苦の生ずることもなく、苦をなくす方法さえ必要がない。

[quotessentially]

From Confucius’s Analects

[sufficientlylargen]

This is true - any explanation you give for it is just a pale shadow of the timeless, perfect Explanation that exists only in the realm of Forms. The Platonic explanation can never exist in the world of the senses because humankind is not yet capable of perceiving them. Only through enlightenment via the study of philosophy can we ever hope to even glimpse a better understanding of the Platonic Explanation For This.

‘There’s no platonic explanation for this’ and it’s just two people caring about each other’s wellbeing

[thepersonalwords]

Always seek beauty to create a beautiful life.

Debasish Mridha

[philosophybits]

I don’t care if I am in a state of contradiction; I don’t want to be a philosophical genius. I don’t even want to be a genius at all, for I have enough trouble just being a man.

Albert Camus, Notebooks, 1942-1951

[liberatingreality]

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.

John F. Kennedy