Killing time

[colleenparker]

💙 Blue poppies - mixed media

[mothersofmyheart-deactivated202]

“[O]ne of the first questions one could pose is the question of the difference between the who and the what. Is love the love of someone or the love of something? Okay, supposing I loved someone: Do I love someone for the absolute singularity of who they are? I love you because you are you. Or do I love the qualities, your beauty, your intelligence? Does one love someone, or does one love something about someone? The difference between the who and the what at the heart of love, separates the heart. It is often said that love is the movement of the heart. Does my heart move because I love someone who is an absolute singularity, or because I love the way that someone is? Often love starts with some type of seduction. One is attracted because the other is like this or like that. Inversely, love is disappointed and dies when one comes to realize the other person doesn’t merit our love. The other person isn’t like this or that. So at the death of love, it appears that one stops loving another not because of who they are but because they are such and such. That is to say, the history of love, the heart of love, is divided between the who and what. The question of being, to return to philosophy, because the first question of philosophy is: What is it to be? What is “being”? The question of being is itself always already divided between who and what. Is “Being” someone or something? I speak of it abstractly, but I think that whoever starts to love, is in love or stops loving, is caught between this division of the who and the what. One wants to be true to someone–singularly, irreplaceably–and one perceives that this someone isn’t x or y. They didn’t have the properties, the images, that I thought I’d loved. So fidelity is threatened by the difference between the who and the what.”

— Jacques Derrida, from the documentary Derrida (via heteroglossia)

[mothersofmyheart-deactivated202]

“[O]ne of the first questions one could pose is the question of the difference between the who and the what. Is love the love of someone or the love of something? Okay, supposing I loved someone: Do I love someone for the absolute singularity of who they are? I love you because you are you. Or do I love the qualities, your beauty, your intelligence? Does one love someone, or does one love something about someone? The difference between the who and the what at the heart of love, separates the heart. It is often said that love is the movement of the heart. Does my heart move because I love someone who is an absolute singularity, or because I love the way that someone is? Often love starts with some type of seduction. One is attracted because the other is like this or like that. Inversely, love is disappointed and dies when one comes to realize the other person doesn’t merit our love. The other person isn’t like this or that. So at the death of love, it appears that one stops loving another not because of who they are but because they are such and such. That is to say, the history of love, the heart of love, is divided between the who and what. The question of being, to return to philosophy, because the first question of philosophy is: What is it to be? What is “being”? The question of being is itself always already divided between who and what. Is “Being” someone or something? I speak of it abstractly, but I think that whoever starts to love, is in love or stops loving, is caught between this division of the who and the what. One wants to be true to someone–singularly, irreplaceably–and one perceives that this someone isn’t x or y. They didn’t have the properties, the images, that I thought I’d loved. So fidelity is threatened by the difference between the who and the what.”

— Jacques Derrida, from the documentary Derrida (via heteroglossia)

[quotespile]

This is love, she thought, isn’t it? When you notice someone’s absence and hate that absence more than anything? More, even, than you love his presence?

Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated (via quotespile)

[quotespile]

In Arabic, the name Guadalajara evoked a valley of stones, a valley my ancestors had settled more than eight hundred years earlier. They had carried the disease of empire to Spain, the Spaniards had brought it to the new continent, and someday the people of the new continent would plant it elsewhere. That was the way of the world.

Laila Lalami, The Moor’s Account (via quotespile)

[violentwavesofemotion-deactivat]

Yoshino Hiroshi, from “For My First Child,” featured in “The Penguin Book of Japanese Verse,”

[charlesoberonn]

Why do billionaires look like a seventh grader’s first sculpting project?

[chuckle-voodooz-deactivated2020]

[ethantheheffalump-deactivated20]

Haha ugly People bad

[beep-beepster]

original context

[the-lovebug-files]

[gilletteswift89]

Want to know how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is?

See this?

This is called Afrezza. It’s an inhaler for diabetic insulin. That’s right. An inhaler. That means no more needles. It’s only for fast acting insulin, but it could still vastly improve the life of a lot of diabetics. 

Imagine having to constantly prick yourself with needles to keep yourself alive, and then suddenly there’s a new product that could change the whole way you live your life for the better.

And here’s the thing: it works. It works really really well. People with diabetes that have been lucky enough to have used it think it’s amazing.

But sadly, it’s probably going to end up as a failure because the pharmaceutical company (a French company called Sanofi) that was in charge of marketing it didn’t care enough to actually try. Not only that, but they made it incredibly expensive so hardly anyone could afford it. Most people have never heard of it, and the way things are going, no one else ever will.

Please reblog this to raise awareness of this product and hopefully get another company to market it. It could change so many lives.

[montanamusings]

It would change and save my life. If there’s one thing I hate in the top 5 most in this world. It’s the fucking pharmaceutical, money mongering, heartless industry.

[as-warm-as-choco]

[gncrevan]

[Caption: four pictures of mushrooms that are growing in a way that makes them look like 1. fingers reaching up from under a fallen tree, 2. screaming mouths or beaks on a branch, 3. outer ears breaking through bark, 4. a hand coming out of the ground.]

[thebashfulbotanist]

Some names:

1. Xylaria polymorpha, dead man’s fingers

2. Burned seed pod of Banksia, an Australian wildflower

3. Auricularia auricula-judae, the Judas ear

4. Immature Clathrus archeri, Devil’s fingers. When mature, these look like black and red octopuses! 

[powerfulwizard]

Also have you noticed the traditional skills that men are supposed to have are mostly all things that only come up for specific situations, like changing a tire when the tire goes out, fixing the house when it needs to be fixed, fixing the car when it won’t work, and the traditional skills expected of women are things that have to be done everyday and always, like doing the dishes, cooking, and taking care of children.

[bespeckledbauble]

Men’s work is a solution to a problem and when it’s done it’s done. Women’s work is a never-ending tide of tasks that must be accomplished every day.

[postatoflarch]

And the practical result of this is that when a woman doesn’t know how to change a tire or un-clog a pipe, she’s belittled for this apparently gaping chasm in her knowledge, despite the fact that you can go years on end without encountering some of these supposedly-essential skills - while (traditionally) nothing is ever said of men who can’t cook or don’t know how to clean their own clothes, despite having been fully immersed in both since their first day on this earth.

[wnq-writers]

“What I would tell my teen self about mental health 1. Mental health will become a “trend” in a few years but nobody talks about it now. But you need to know it’s just a basic part of taking care of yourself. 2. Stop being a doormat/pushover thinking you’re being “kind” or “nice”. Listen, you can be at peace for a couple of years this way but at some point you are going to burn out and then become the opposite extreme. Don’t let that happen. Speak up. Be kind and be nice but first and foremost to your own self. 3. Love is whatever you let it be. Love can be jealous. Love can be possessive. Love can be abusive. Love can be whatever unacceptable shit you let yourself be subject to. People do unspeakable things on the name of love. Love has no definition. That’s dangerous. Whatever happened happened. But from now on know this, love is overrated. But freedom, joy and safety are not. 4. People say you’re the writer of the book of your life. Bull shit. There’s a lot we have no control over. We are not the writer of our life. However, we can be the editor. Whatever is handed to us, we can edit. That power is solely ours. Even if a chapter is so bad and painfully written, we can somehow salvage it so that it holds the book of our life together, so that we can get through it and still continue. 5. Their mental health is important. But so is yours. So you have the right to leave. It’s okay. It’s not selfish. But if you expect to get back in touch when you see them doing better, that is. Because then you leaving wasn’t for your mental health but because you simply didn’t care enough. 6. People apologize and do the same things over and over and over. They don’t need the benefit of the doubt after the 2nd time. Every other chance you give them is taking away a chance from you for living a better life. Don’t do that to yourself. 7. Don’t take everything you read/hear on face value. But don’t have your eyes on auto eye-roll either. Find that balance between ignoring and believing. 8. Just because you express and feel emotions more intensely than most others doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you or that you’re emotionally or mentally unstable. You’re just more capable of feeling, more aware of everything and more reactive to every word and sensation than those around you. It may seem like a drawback at first but it’s your strength, you’ll realize that in the long run.”

— creatingnikki

[lifeinpoetry]

“I fell to my knees and no one tried to catch me. I fell to my knees and made love to what was there.”

— Paige Ackerson-Kiely, from “Liberation Poem,” Dolefully, A Rampart Stands

[purplebuddhaquotes]

“Hate is a self-destructive emotion. It is how a soul commits suicide.”

—

Michael Faudet

[brutereason]

“Because we live in such a monogamy-centered society, it makes sense that many people can only conceive of non-monogamy in what ultimately still amounts to monogamous terms. There is a common misconception that a polyamorous relationship is really no different from an open-relationship agreement: one committed couple, with some lighthearted fun on the side. But the word “polyamory,” by definition, means loving more than one. Many of us have deeply committed relationships with more than one partner, with no hierarchy among them and no core “couple” at the heart of it all. To me, this notion that there must be one more important relationship, one true love, feels a lot like people looking at same-sex couples and thinking that one person must be the “man” in the relationship and the other must be the “woman.” After all, both of these misunderstandings result from people trying to graft their normative conceptions of love and relationships onto people who are partnering in non-normative ways. It seems that it is somewhat easy for many people to acknowledge that humans are capable of loving one person and still enjoying sex with others (assuming, of course, that the terms of their relationship make such behavior acceptable). But it is much harder for people to think outside the fairy-tale notion of “the one” and imagine that it might be possible to actually romantically love more than one person simultaneously.”

— Polyamorous Relationships Are About More Than Just Couples

[violentwavesofemotion-deactivat]

Voltaire, tr. by Roger Pearson, from Candide and Other Stories: “Candide,”

[love]

Drifting Heavy Weather Clouds by Emily Nolde, 1928

[love]

Love will tear us apart. (Art by Gabriel Picolo)