#not plato repulsed culture

[plato-repulsed-culture-is]

Plato repulsion is not something to be "fixed" and it is not reflective of one's character

[aro-culture-is]

Demiromantic Aroflexible, Plato-Repulsed Aplatonic culture is

Person: So you want this? (Romantic relationship)

Me: Mhm.

Person: But you don't want this? (Platonic relationships)

Me: Correct.

Person: Ok so in order to have this (romance) you need to do this (make friends).

Me: >:'(((

[apl-culture-is]

friendship-repulsed apl culture is hating mlp

.

[entropy-sea-system]

Because not many people are talking about it, I'm making a post on what constitutes platonormativity!

Platonormativity here refers to the idealisation of friendship and viewing friendship as essential and mandatory.

Im putting this under the cut as this is a long post

[If this personally offends you or you're an exclus or think I am not aware of how friendship is also deprioritised, etc. honestly this post is not really for you lol]

Things that can be platonormative:

-Assuming that everyone has friends, and viewing it as a red flag or a sign of mental illness if someone doesn't have friends, and/or expecting them to be actively looking for friends

-Claiming that one must be 'friends first' before a romantic or sexual or other relationship in order for it to work out

-Treating friendship as inherently more stable and long-lasting than other relationship types

-Using the term friend for people without considering whether they actually are okay with that term or whether they actually want to be your friend, or otherwise considering someone your friend when they are not explicitly okay with that

-Claiming that aros and aces must "at least have friends" or experience platonic love or platonic attraction because of their 'lack'

-Claiming that everyone should have friends

-Profiling people who don't seem to have friends as a "suicide liability"

-Being ableist towards people whose ability to make or keep friends or want friends or otherwise engage in social bonds is diminished by their (physical or mental) disability and/or neurodivergence

-Assuming that everyone is alloplatonic and friending and plato-favorable

-Assuming that no one is monogamous for friendship

-Considering it inherently "unhealthy" or "increasing risk of abuse" if someone has a partner(s) but not friends

-Forcing friendship as something mandatory even when people are toddlers or very young children

-Assuming a couple/other partners are solely "friends" due to them being polyamorous, queer, or other reasons

-Assuming that people who interact in certain ways must be friends

-Treating friendship as something inherently more "wholesome" or as something that can never be used for harm unless it was a pretence

-Blaming a lack of friendship rather than the harmful behaviour itself when it comes to 'pickup artists' and other people who act entitled to sex, romance, or other things

-Calling aplatonics with a connection to romance "amatonormative" for existing

-Treating the dismantling of amatonormativity, relationship anarchy, and aro activism as an excuse to enforce friendship as something that is mandatory

-Claiming that 'aro culture' is basically (insert alloplatonic and/or plato favorable experience)

-Assuming that ALL demiromantic and/or demisexual people must require friendship as the bond after which it is a possibility for them to experience attraction

-Assuming that every alloaro must want a 'friends with benefits' type of relationship

-Assuming that anything thats nonromantic and/or nonsexual has to be platonic(friendship)

-Reinforcing a platonic-romantic binary

-Claiming that friendship cannot involve sex or romance ever

-Assuming that queerplatonic relationships are friendship or always involve friendship

-Looking down on others for not giving priority to friendship or not engaging in friendship

-Media being saturated with friendship and not many media existing without having friendship in it

-Not understanding that people can be repulsed by friendship and/or platonicism

[artsyaech]

a masterlist of [thing] culture is... blogs!

[PT: a masterlist of [thing] culture is... blogs!]

part 1: orientations and general queerness

queer - general

@queercutlureis

@gay-culture-is

aspec

@ace-culture-is

@aro-culture-is

@autospec-culture-is

@aspec-culture

@questioning-aspec-culture-is

@quoicultureis

@qpr-culture-is

@aroace-culture-blog

@aro-ace-culture-is

@angled-aroace-culture (run by meee)

@tertiary-attraction-culture-is

@omniaspec-culture-is

@aego-culture-is

@aegoromantic-culture-is

@demisexual-culture-is

@demiromantic-culture-is

@aroace-autie-culture-is

@plato-repulsed-culture-is

@atertiary-culture-is

@cupio-culture-is

@demiro-ace-culture-is

@demiro-allosexual-culture-is

@polyam-aro-culture-is

@greyromantic-culture-is

@aplatonic-culture-is

@apl-culture-is

@aspec-sapphic-culture-is

@gray-culture-is

@arospike-culture-is

@abrosexual-culture-is

mlm

@achilleancultureis

@mlm-culture-is

wlw

@lesbian-culture-is

@sapphic-cultureis

mspec

@mspec-gay-culture-is

@bisexual-culture-is

@bi-culture-is

@pan-culture-is

@mspec-culture-is

@gaybian-culture-is

@omnisexualcultureis

@neptunic-culture-is

@uranic-culture-is

[aplatonic-culture-is]

Demiromantic Aroflexible, Plato-Repulsed Aplatonic culture is

Person: So you want this? (Romantic relationship)

Me: Mhm.

Person: But you don't want this? (Platonic relationships)

Me: Correct.

Person: Ok so in order to have this (romance) you need to do this (make friends).

Me: >:'(((

So tru

[aroapl]

Is there an apl culture blog?

There is! There's @apl-culture-is, and also @plato-repulsed-culture-is.

[thethiefandtheairbender]

My homie please don't tell me you tried to equivalate the real life debate and seriousness bof the don't say gay bill to your anti vs. proship bs

Hi, out queer, ace, and trans person here! I also have an honours degree in the study & history of how fiction can influence reality. Let me take you for a walk (and I'll make sure it's short or else you'll pull the "you think I'm reading all that?") I also already know, thanks to looking at your blog, that you’ve decided I - a sex repulsed, ace adult in a relationship with another adult - am a pedophile, so thanks for bringing back the years of harassment I experienced when I was a literal minor but was unwilling to post my age online bc u know, I was a minor who wanted to keep my privacy a mind-whopping... 2.5 years ago. But clearly I’m decrepit and out of touch now. Never change, tumblr.

A lot of current American politics, including the Don't Say Gay bill (and previously the Hayes Code) was derived from puritanical Victorian era leanings and Calvinistic conservative Christianity. This includes: gayness as an identity > an act (trial of Oscar Wilde), idealization of motherhood, and the moral panic surrounding the 'degradation' of the English language that 18-19th century Grammarians were always concerned with (hi Samuel Johnson).

Another thing grammarians and writers have been concerned with since before is what is Okay to be portrayed in art. Plato's The Republic thinks that art is immoral because it may give people unrealistic or unsafe ideas because people are 'unable' to distinguish fiction from reality. He later retracted this, although Aristotle's Poetics was a text where Aristotle disagreed with Plato's prior established opinion.

Re: the past 3000+ years of literary discourse - those who try to restrict the radical aspects of art lose the argument every time, and start it back up 30 years later.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that art has always been very political, as is most things. Fandom, as a pop-junkie transformative spiel, has also been deeply political, particularly for marginalized people.

Fandom nowadays is full of people who believe that, in order to be really sorry about something, someone has to publicly repent per whatever moral standard has been decided to else the congregation - I mean twitter - will publicly shame them for their sin.

Fandom is entrenched in cultural Christianity and the conservative mindsets that come with it. Aphobia in fandom was rampant from 2014-2017; truscum and tucute discourse as well; how prevalent TERF rhetoric can be (women are inherently good, attraction to men is shameful, etc). I've seen all of these things in fandom. All hinge an idea on being able to decode a person's intent (somehow), the rising attachment of morality to genres of entertainment (antis), and how many antis I've seen that are TERFs or Aphobes or guzzling down that rhetoric without even realizing.

Terfs and the Conservative far-right have a long history of working together. Both frame concerns of gay people as pedophiles, being anti sex work (because sex is nasty and a sin), that we must Protect the Children who cannot monitor or make any decisions for themselves at any age. The anti vs pro ship dynamic online is a microism of larger public discussions regarding purity culture - and that includes how queerness is overly sexualized, how queer sex is seen as especially dirty, the "should kink be at pride?" discourse, and issues with respectability politics.

Antis who say we have to harass people to control what exists in fandom to "protect minors" on a moral basis are ideologically adjacent to parents who decry earlier Sex Education for children (which, every time it's implemented, is shown to decrease the amount of abuse children face, not further it). A quick scroll through your blog tells me you're willing to generalize hundreds of people's personal history with CSA because you don't think survivors can 1) vehemently disagree with you or 2) demand disclosure of their personal history to exist online void of that harassment.

Aka to take some tags to the forefront: #like the schools don't want to talk about queerness and are banning books so kids don't get Ideas#and people also don't want 'problematic' fiction in fandom in case kids get Ideas or can't use critical thinking skills#it's not a hard leap to make

It sounds like you're the one who has a problem with reading comprehension and building connections between different kinds of discourse, not me. It's almost like teenagers (queer or otherwise) raised in conservative or culturally Christian homes are more susceptible to puritanical rhetoric, or something... 🤔 (I could also get into just how American the current fandom anti vs pro conflict is, but I think this is long enough, don't you?)

A final note from this article:

Beyond betraying simple art illiteracy, though, these intensely personal, emotional complaints and appeals to public safety have a clear antecedent: religious and conservative opposition to “obscenity.” The centering of individual values and pain, the assumption that a universal moral standard exists which should guide all public or quasi-public art and behavior, and the belief that art can do material harm to both people and culture as a whole unite the two at first apparently disparate groups of angry indie gamers and religious fundamentalists.

The deployment of victimhood as an unimpeachable defense is an old tactic frequently used by hate groups like One Million Moms and its parent organization, the American Family Association, whose rallying cry “think of the children” now echoes through everything from intra-community Gay Pride discourse to the drearily predictable “there’s too much sex on TV” tweets that seem to sweep across the platform on a weekly basis.

[plato-repulsed-culture-is]

sorry if this is a weird question, but um, a girl i know asked me out. Shes aplatonic but alloromantic and allosexual. I do like her back, but im a bit worried.. ive dated a guy before who didnt have friends and what ended up happening is that i had to support him 100% of the time when something bad happened and i had to be with him after school every day because i was the only person he talked to and he would get lonely otherwise. He even threatened to do bad things to himself if i went to a friend's sleepover because it made him feel bad. Im really worried that something like this would repeat... it lowkey traumatized me i think. Is this a valid concern or are aplatonic people different and they dont really need much emotional support compared to non-aplatonic people? Or was my ex just uniquely an asshole? Thank u so so much if u respond

I am prefacing this with a disclaimer that this blog was never for giving people advice, especially when they view aplatonics with such suspicion and are not actually asking any advice related to plato repulsion which is what this blog is about. I can also only go off of your statements here to draw conclusions, and I am assuming you are stating the truth here (especially as this is online, I know there is a possibility people can lie, but may also be telling the truth.). Also, we are not responsible for anything that happens to you emotionally or otherwise if you make decisions based off of this advice, because thats not within our control.

From what you said, your ex sounds like he was being rather toxic and manipulative towards you. That kind of behaviour is harmful (threatening self harm as a form of control, trying to control who someone spends time with, and not respecting peoples boundaries regarding interaction or emotional support, are all harmful actions.) and nobody should be acting that way towards others, we're sorry that happened to you. You also don't need to be concerned that someone will act this way towards you just bc theyre aplatonic. Your concern is valid, but it is in no way something that will inherently apply to aplatonics.

If you are concerned about whether this person has unmet social needs then you should just ask her about her social needs and emotional needs and what she expects in a relationship, and communicate about your needs and emotions regarding these things too. If its possible to, maybe mention that you have past issues or trauma in relationships which is why you want to be careful about dating, while not making it seem like aplatonicism is inherently a reason you think someone might hurt you(because it's not).

Set boundaries about what amount of time you want to spend with someone you're dating, and state your limits regarding how much you are okay with emotionally supporting someone / what topics you are ok with talking about / etc. . Don't assume that someone will be toxic or abusive towards you just because they're aplatonic. Its not really like your ex was inherently aplatonic just because he didn't have friends, and it may even be more likely he was alloplatonic.

Some aplatonics have and/or want friends but some dont, and moreover, if someone doesnt have friends by choice, that's very different from someone who is lonely because they don't have friends and mistreats a partner because of it. I will also add here that I don't intend to malign mental health issues just because it sounds like your ex may have had them (as you mentioned loneliness - which is different from just being alone or even liking solitude) ; mental health issues do not innately make someone abusive or toxic, and one can have mental health issues and still be respectful to people.

Someone without any mental health issues can also still very much be abusive or toxic towards others. And honestly, if you associate the concept of aplatonicism itself with this trauma then maybe its not in the best interest of you or the other person to date? And if it applies maybe it could be possible that you are simply not ready to date someone again after what happened, which is also okay, but I don't intend to assume that or be harsh in stating it as a possibility. I will also add that not having friends is not a 'red flag'. If someone has a preference to date/ be involved with people who have friends, that's okay, but not having friends is not inherently a 'red flag'.

Some aplatonics may not get lonely if they don't talk to people (but this can also be true of alloplatonics), and just because someone is aplatonic doesnt mean they will expect their partner to support them all the time to an unhealthy level or to an extent that crosses their boundaries. I will also add that there is no surefire way to tell whether someone will be abusive or toxic, although if they cross your boundaries or are disrespectful to you from the start, its worth staying away from them. Even ppl who are very kind to you initially may at some point abuse you or mistreat you, and theres no way to tell for sure whether or not this will happen because thats kind of how social relationships of any kind are.

But don't profile aplatonics as inherently more likely to be abusive or toxic (I don't know if this is intentional on your part, but hearing the word 'aplatonic' and making all these assumptions about how one may be in a relationship wounds like either this and/or like a trauma trigger extending to the concept of aplatonicism). Not all aplatonics even approach social relationships the same way, and even those who don't have friends are still capable of respecting boundaries in relationships they engage in. I wouldn't say that aplatonic people don't have emotional needs, but people in general have varying social needs and emotional needs. Some people who don't want friends may specifically not have a social drive towards having friends, but this may also apply to people who want friends.

If someone is happy without having friends then they probably don't seek emotional or social fulfillment from friendship. They may have other relationship types even if they are aplatonic (such as familial , romantic, sexual, alterous, etc.) (I don't know if you and this girl are monogamous are not but if you are intending to be monogamous that obviously is excluding sexual and/or romantic then) , and I will add that people don't always need social relationships/ bonds for emotional support. Some people may process emotions through journalling, or may go to a therapist, or such.

Some people may have people they talk to sometimes but don't call them their friends. Having friends does not ever guarantee anyone emotional support, and neither does any other relationship. It just so happens that a lot of people end up mutually (i.e. more or less both ppl give the other emotional support, it doesnt have to be equal so much as it is respecting the boundaries of both people. It is also possible that people may be incompatible in this regard) giving emotional support due to just being around people they are close to and also due to having some kind of emotional connection.

Anyways, long answer short, aplatonicism doesn't say anything about someone's social needs or emotional needs, and neither does alloplatonicism, and its often better to communicate with people you are close to or are looking to be close to, about important aspects regarding relationships.

(Also stating here that this is not an advice blog, we will be deleting any asks seeking advice from now on. If you want you can send in asks as reply to this response, as long as you aren't asking for more advice)

Anyways I hope it works out for you, whatever you decide to do.

(Additional disclaimer - to anyone who sees this post - do NOT suggest that 'narc abuse' 'borderline abuse' or whatever is real, do not imply mental health issues cause ppl to inherently be abusive, and do not treat having no friends as a 'red flag', regardless of platonic orientation or favorability)

[wisdomrays]

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: How Many Prophets Were There? Were They All From Arabia?

Prophets were raised and sent to their people in different lands and at different times. One hadith puts the number of Prophets at 124,000; another mentions 224,000. Both versions, however, should be evaluated critically according to the science of hadith. The exact number is not important; rather, we should realize that no people has ever been deprived of its own Prophet: There never was a people without a Warner having lived among them (35:24) and: We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (17:15).

To punish a people before warning them that what they are doing is wrong is contrary to His Glory and Grace. The warning precedes responsibility, which may be followed by reward or punishment: Anyone who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it. And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it (99:7–8). If a Prophet has not been sent, people cannot know what is right and wrong and so cannot be punished. However, since every individual will be called to account for his or her good and evil deeds, we may infer that a Prophet has been sent to every people: We sent among every people a messenger with (the command): "Serve God and avoid evil" (16:36).

The Prophets were not raised only in Arabia. In fact, we do not even know all of the Prophets who were raised there, let alone elsewhere. We know only 28 of them by name (from Adam to Muhammad), and the Prophethood of three of them is uncertain. We do not know exactly from where they emerged. Supposedly, Adam's tomb and the place of his reunion with Eve is Jidda, but this information is uncertain. We know that Abraham spent some time in Anatolia, Syria, and Babylon. Lot was associated with Sodom and Gomorrah, around the Dead Sea; Shu'ayb with Madyan; Moses with Egypt; and Yahya and Zakariyya with the Mediterranean countries—they may have crossed to Anatolia, since Christians link Mary (Mayam ibn 'Isa) and Jesus with Ephesus. But these associations remain suppositions at best.

We know the names of some Prophets sent to the Israelites, but not the names of any others or where they appeared. Moreover, because their teachings have been distorted and lost over time, we cannot say anything about who they were and where they were sent.

Take the case of Christianity. Following the Council of Nicea (325 CE), the original doctrine of God's Oneness was dropped in favor of the human-made doctrine of the Trinity. For the Catholic Church, Jesus became the "son" of God, while his mother Mary became the "mother" of God. Some believed, rather vaguely, that God was immanent or present in things. Thus, Christianity came to resemble the idolatrous beliefs and practices of ancient Greece, and its followers began to associate other things and people with God, a major sin in Islam.

Throughout history, deviations and corruption of the Truth started and increased in this way. If the Qur'an had not informed us of the Prophethood of Jesus and of the purity and greatness of Mary, we would have difficulty in distinguishing the cults of and rites of Jupiter (Zeus) and Jesus, Venus (Aphrodite) and Mary.

This same process may have happened to other religions. As such, we cannot say definitely that their founders or teachers were Prophets or that they taught in a specific location. We only can speculate that Confucius, Buddha, or even Socrates were Prophets. We cannot give a definite answer because we do not have enough information about them and their original teachings. However, we know that the teachings of Confucius and Buddha influenced great numbers of their contemporaries and continue to do so.

Some say that Socrates was a philosopher influenced by Judaism, but they offer no proof. Words attributed to him by Plato imply that Socrates was "inspired" from a very early age to "instruct" people in true understanding and belief. But it is not clear if these words are attributed correctly or exactly what his people understood them to mean. Only this much is reliable: Socrates taught in an environment and manner that supports the use of reason.

Professor Mahmud Mustafa's observations of two primitive African tribes confirm what has been said above. He remarks that the Maw-Maws believe in God and call him Mucay. This God is one and only, acts alone, does not beget or is begotten, and has no associate or partner. He is not seen or sensed, but known only through His works. He dwells in the heavens, from where he ordains everything. That is why the Maw-Maws raise their hands when praying. Another tribe, the Neyam-Neyam, expresses similar themes. There is one God who decrees and ordains everything, and what he says is absolute. He makes everything in the forest move according to His will, and sends thunderbolts against those with whom he is angry.

These ideas are compatible with what is said by the Qur'an. The Maw-Maws's belief is very close to what we find in the Qur'an's Surat al-Ikhlas. How could these primitive tribes, so far removed from civilization and the known Prophets, have so pure and sound a concept of God? This reminds us of the Qur'anic verse: For every people there is a messenger. When their messenger comes, the matter is judged between them with justice, and they are not wronged (10:47).

Professor Adil of Kirkuk, Iraq, was working as a mathematician at Riyadh University when I met him in 1968. He told me that he had met many Native American Indians while earning his Ph.D. in the United States. He had been struck by how many of them believe in One God who does not eat or sleep or find himself constrained by time. He rules and governs all of creation, which is under His sovereignty and dependent on His will. They also referred to some of God's attributes: the lack of a partner, for such would surely give rise to conflict.

How does one reconcile the alleged primitiveness of such peoples with such loftiness in their concept of God? It seems that true Messengers conveyed these truths to them, some soundness of which can still be found in their present-day beliefs.

Some people wonder why there were no female Prophets. The overwhelming consensus of Sunni scholars of the Law and Tradition is that no woman has been sent as Prophet. Except for a questionable and even unreliable tradition that Mary and Pharaoh's wife were sincere believers, there is no Qur'anic authority or hadith that a woman was sent to her people as a Prophet.

God the All-Mighty created all entities in pairs. Humanity was created to be the steward of creation, and thus is fitted to it. The pairs of male and female are characterized by complex relation of mutual attraction and repulsion. Women incline toward softness, weakness, and compassion; men incline toward strength, force, and competitive toughness. When they come together, such characteristics allow them to establish a harmonious family unit.

Today, the issue of gender has reached the point where some people refuse to recognize the very real differences between men and women and claim that they are alike and equal in all respects. Implementing these views has resulted in the "modern" lifestyle of women working outside the home, trying to "become men," and thus losing their own identity. Family life has eroded, for children are sent to daycare centers or boarding schools as parents are too busy, as "individuals," to take proper care of them. This violence against nature and culture has destroyed the home as a place of balance between authority and love, as a focus of security and peace.

God the Wise ordained some principles and laws in the universe, and created human beings therein with an excellent and lofty nature. Men are physically stronger and more capable than women, and plainly constituted to strive and compete without needing to withdraw from the struggle. It is different with women, because of their menstrual period, their necessary confinement before and after childbirth, and their consequent inability to observe all the prayers and fasts. Nor can women be available continually for public duties. How could a mother with a baby in her lap lead and administer armies, make life and death decisions, and sustain and prosecute a difficult strategy against an enemy?

A Prophet must lead humanity in every aspect of its social and religious life without a break. That is why Prophethood is impossible for women. If men could have children, they could not be Prophets either. Prophet Muhammad points to this fact when he describes women as "those who cannot fulfil the religious obligations totally and cannot realize some of them."

A Prophet is an exemplar, a model for conducting every aspect of human life, so that people cannot claim that they were asked to do things that they could not do. Exclusively female matters are communicated to other women by the women in the Prophet's household.

[apl-culture-is]

Plato repulsed aplatonic culture is "I want connection... No friends! >:0 Only connection. >:(("

.

[hpdculture-is]

About

you can submit asks (through anon or off anon) about what hpd culture is or your experiences with having hpd (ppl who are questioning hpd are welcome as well! Asks such as "questioning hpd culture is" are fine as well)

Histrionic Personality Disorder (hpd) is a cluster B personality disorder and this blog is run by someone with hpd! main @entropy-sea-system

Given how the cluster b community on here can be, we make it very clear that we fully support endogenic systems. Anyone who doesn't fully support endogenics is not welcome to add their syscourse rhetoric here, or interact. This space is safe for endogenics and all plurals and if you don't like that this space isn't for you!

Guidelines:

We may not publish asks that involve violence or graphic descriptions of violent thoughts due to our boundaries, so try to avoid sending asks with those topics, ask for clarification if you are not sure.

Obviously, we do not allow ableism on this blog. Nor do we allow perpetuating the idea that 'narcissistic abuse' exists. Racism, antisemitism, antitheism, queerphobia, aphobia, transphobia, terf ideology, sex negativity, romance negativity, etc. Is also not condoned here.

Do not bring topics of discourse on here. Especially if we have not mentioned them in this post. (It is for example ok though to mention sysmeds as people you disagree with but debating the existence of systems for example is not allowed)

Edit: We're plato repulsed and have a hard time with seeing any content about friendship because of it. We are also tertiary repulsed so this applies to things like familial and qpr etc. too. That being said, this means that we won't publish asks that talk about these things or associated attraction types due to our repulsion.

[entropy-sea-system]

Pinned Post/Intro

Entropy Sea System

Plural System

ND

Disabled

Bodily 21 (All headmates are adults)

Queer

BIPOC

Pronouns vary by headmate, collectively they, they&, it, and any other plural pronouns. We use the terms system, plural, and headmate. Some median subsystems may use median or facet also.

We block people we are not comfortable interacting with, does not always have to do with discourse

We support all system types and support self dx. Inclus. (this means we also don't support sysmedicalist ideoologies)

Sfw main blog, prefer interaction w adults but any age allowed by tumblr TOS may interact

Boundaries: no attempts to befriend us (dm's r ok), terms such as 'friend', friendship, or /p tone tag directed at us(we're plato-repulsed), no touch, no flirting of any kind, no nicknames, no petnames. Do not say 'I love you' to us.

Also no soliciting any kind of relationship from us. Do not dm us just to talk, only dm us if you have a specific thing to tell us or such.

We block for various reasons, don't expect that we will read everyone's dni just because we found your post on our dash, especially for very popular posts.

self dx and neurodivergence sideblog - @selfdxpositivity

aro apl and npd sideblog - @apl-aro-narc

kollywood side blog - @mookuthi-amman

object crush objectum sideblog - @objectcrushsuggestions

puss in boots sideblog, mainly run by Rift - @t4t-softboots

demiromantic allosexual sideblog, also mainly run by them - @demiromantic-allosexual

sideblog thats an archive for any terms we coin or flags we make- @entropy-terms

stim gif sideblog, mainly run by Firelight (gifs we made) - @entropy-sea-stims

hpd culture is sideblog also mainly run by em - @hpdculture-is

plato repulsed culture is sideblog - @plato-repulsed-culture-is

hpd and attentionpunk sideblog mostly run by Firelight - @hpd-attentionpunk

(if youre an adult - unless your blog says 'nsft/nsfw blogs dni' or similar we may sometimes rb your posts to our individual headmate sideblogs but those are minors dni/18+ blogs so will not list them here. If you would prefer we not interact from those blogs either block those blogs or let us know)

Tag system:

#entropies-> general rambles, humorous posts or just when feeling incoherent

#entropycule -> posts or reblogs about or relating to our in sys polycule

#entropy tags -> when screenshots of our tags are in a post

#entropy asks -> asks we sent to tumblr users

#entropy answers -> when we answer asks on here

#entropycrew -> picrew icons we make, picrew chains we participate in

any tags with a headmate's name on it are for individual headmates, anything that looks like another username is to indicate usernames of ppl who send us asks or we interact with in a reblog addition on a post

[metvmorqhoses]

I saw your original answer to my reply and wondered why you deleted it and responded with a much shorter and perhaps untrue response. I only say untrue as you said, "I find the concept and need of sharing spiritual beliefs outside ourselves one of the lowest aspects of human culture tbh." which could be true but I'm not sure you really believe it. If only because if people never shared their beliefs there would never be mythology. Part 2 coming.

Part 2: As for what captured my interest in your blog, I originally found it by searching up Apollo and Artemis relations, and found your input on the mythos interesting. You may publish my questions as you wish or reply to me via messenger. Either is fine. Peace for now.

*** *** ***

actually my two answers meant pretty much the same, i merely rephrased in a form that, after a bit of thought, felt truer to what i wanted to share. i now see that probably my second version could be easier to misunderstand and rather obscure, as short sentences often are.

you asked at the same time a really personal and a tragically hard philosophical question, moreover to someone who focused her studies precisely on those subjects and that is therefore inclined to delve deeper.

when you ask me about my "beliefs" or "religion", i am wildly tempted to ask you in return what "spiritual beliefs" and "religion" even are. what i intend for them is probably hardly similar to anything you might intend for them, as i think should happen to anyone with real spiritual sentiments anyway. how can you even begin to understand what i think, if we don't even agree about what we are talking about? a settled, static, scientific definition of human religious impulses to this day is yet to be found. in this field, scientifically speaking, everything is a matter of opinions, and on a personal level... well, obviously it should be even more so.

and so to answer you i both needed a dissertation and to do exactly what i truly dislike, wearing the intimate as a plume of the hat.

it's actually funny you mentioned mythology anyhow. you see, there's a huge difference between the making of a religion, the dynamism, the life of it (indeed a form of sharing, but fundamentally a process that, in my opinion, was principally an artistic act at its truest core), and in people ruminating on the same "artistic products that long ago somehow turned into something more and that belonged to someone else" over and over again, marrying a cookie-cutter version of them and obsessing over it, declaiming truths their different minds and cultures have twisted or anyway could hardly understand without scholar-level education (let alone feel, as something like that should be felt), ending up not even really knowing what their religions are even truly about, wearing them as badges of honor, fighting over them as one fights over a football match, weaponizing them to support agendas and propaganda... you know, the usual stuff.

at some point in history religions ceased to be a matter of that resided in the individual hearts of hearts, becoming an easily sold product for the multitudes. the majority of religions are a masses-ready to consume echoes of other people’s emotions and dreams - and those are intimate things, unspeakable and unsheareable, at least not as one can share a sentiment about a netflix show or the weather.

religion started to be so simplified in classical times and, funnily enough, those were the times in which also people actually began to question the existence of godhood (socrates, plato). but even they weren’t participating to their own religions anymore, they were merely retelling, and academically, what the ancients had created.

mythology, ancient religions (that actually are still our major religions today by the way), are believed to have started as stories, orally told. a creative act, that then became a higher form of art and maybe a higher form of sentiment. what came first, the art or the belief the art was true? what came first, the gods or the poetry about them? the religious sentiment or the artistic sentiment? the answer might appear simple, but we have evidence that it’s hardly so.

this is the anthropological dilemma and it serves me (along with this academic premise), to answer your question, because no, the sharing i was talking about wasn’t the artistic sharing of poetry on aoidoses’ lips, nor i am against artistic impulses and their consequential sharing (even if, as a writer, art often feels too personal to be shared precisely as faith is), or the making of spirituality in the cradle of human culture, i am not against the making of religions and therefore mythologies, i am against feasting over their remains, wearing their corpses. i am against the appropriation of emotions that are probably felt too easily and to shallowly by the most, because it’s easier than truly feel, and alone, facing bravely the existential dread that has followed us as a species since the beginning. i am against the influence that parents have on children regarding spiritual beliefs. i’m against wearing our own souls outside ourselves as flags, as labels. i am against the need to affirm ourselves stating our religious truths against the other, or only approving who share ours. the list goes on and on.

and yes, i do think that the world would have been better off (and still would be) if we had the social custom of not sharing such things, not sharing ourselves so much, too much i dare say, and automatically, to whomever asks. i do think it is “one of the lowest aspects of human culture”, this need of overexposure, the normalization of sharing a thing so personal as a spiritual belief. and as normally as one would share one’s age or nationality, discussing it with a bit of timidity and a bit of temper as one discusses politics. it’s not the same thing. i find it repulsive.

i definitely didn’t answer you with something untrue by any means. i wonder why you thought it in the first place tbh. i was perhaps just trying to avoid a dissertation on why i wasn’t going to answer you, a dissertation that actually turned out very incomplete and that means very little in the face of the vastness of what i think on the matter.

i hope i clarified your doubts.

[ruminativerabbi]

Chanukah 5781

Among President Lincoln’s most famous addresses is surely the one he gave in 1858 as part of his campaign to be elected to the Senate by the people of Illinois and in which he referred to the nation as a “house divided against itself” with respect to the slavery issue that at the time was, indeed, tearing the fabric of American nationhood asunder. Lincoln lost that election (Stephen A. Douglas was elected instead to a second term), but that image of the American republic as a house falling in on itself that cannot endure unless all of its walls and its foundation are somehow brought into alignment has become an enduring image, one cited over the years in countless contexts to describe situations as no less untenable than a house attempting somehow sturdily to exist while its walls go to war with each other.

Lincoln didn’t invent the image. It appears twice in the New Testament, once (in the Gospel of Mark) just as Lincoln used it and once (in the Gospel of Matthew) as a “kingdom divided against itself.” Augustine, bishop of Hippo, whose Confessions was once one of my favorite books, wrote about his conversion experience in similar terms, describing the state of his inner self in the years leading up to his embrace of Christianity as the psychic equivalent of a “house divided against itself.”  Whether Lincoln read the Confessions, I don’t know. (For more on Lincoln’s reading habits, click here.) But I can’t imagine he didn’t know Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, truly one of the most important documents in all American history, in which the author uses that exact phrase witheringly to describe the English Constitution the Colonials were about to reject as the law of their land.

Whether or not there were Jewish roots to the expression used by the authors of the Gospels mentioned above, I don’t know. (I haven’t found any exact parallels.) But the concept itself—that there is a line beyond which dissent (including the kind that engenders fiery, passionate debate) becomes not a healthy sign of intellectual vibrancy but a harbinger of impending disaster—that surely was widely understood in Jewish antiquity. Indeed, the Chanukah story—or at least its backstory—is specifically about that notion. Yes, the famous tale about the miracle jug of oil has surely won in the court of public opinion. I’ve written about that story in several places (click here for one example), but the more sober historical sources written in ancient times by contemporaries or near-contemporaries tell a different story. And, indeed, it is precisely the story of a house divided against itself.

For most moderns, the period in question—the centuries between the death of Alexander in 323 BCE and the rise of the Roman Empire towards the end of the first century BCE—is one of relative obscurity. (For a dismal account of the degree to which American high school students are shielded from learning anything of substance about ancient history, click here.) And that reality pertains for most Jewish moderns as well, even despite the fact that those centuries were precisely the ones that witnessed the transformation of old Israelite religion into the earliest versions of what we today would call Judaism.

There’s a natural tendency to imagine that kind of transformation as a kind of slow, ongoing metamorphosis that leads from Point A to Point B. But the reality was far more complicated. And the single part of that reality that was the most fraught with spiritual tension, internecine strife, and the real potential for internal schism was the great task laid at the feet of the Jewish people by Hellenism, the version of Greek culture that became—in the very centuries under consideration—a kind of world culture that no sophisticated individual would turn away from merely because he or she wasn’t personally of Greek origin. This was the culture that brought the masterpieces of Greek theater, the classics of Greek philosophy, the masterworks of Homer and Hesiod, and the whole concept of athletics to the world. Opting out was not an option—not for anyone who wished to be thought of as a citizen of the modern world.  (The ancients thought of themselves as modern people, of course—just as do we. And that thought will sound just as amusing to people living 2500 years in the future as it does to us with respect to people living 2500 years ago!)

And thus was the stage set for the internal schism that was the “real” background to the Chanukah story.

The Hellenists—eager to be modern, to embrace world culture, to eschew provincialism, and to take their place among the educated classes of their day—wished to embrace all of it. If the Greeks were repulsed by the idea of circumcision, then they were against it too. If the Greeks believed that Homer, Plato, and Euripides existed at the absolute apex of culture, then they wanted to spend their days immersed in the sagas, dialogues, and dramas associated with those individuals, and with dozens of other classic authors as well. If the absolute monotheism of traditional Jewish belief was deemed incompatible with the more sophisticated theological stance espoused by the greatest Greek philosophers, including Socrates himself, then they wished to see the masters of the Temple in Jerusalem reform the worship service there to reflect that stance. In other words, they wanted so desperately to be modern that they lost confidence in the value of their own traditions.

Their opponents, the traditionalists, were no less committed to the all-or-nothing approach: just as the reformers wanted all of it, they themselves wanted none of it. They were repulsed by the theater and by the gymnasium. They refused even to consider the possibility that Sophocles and Aeschylus might well have had something valuable and profound to say about the human condition. The dismissed the Homeric epics as mere storytelling hardly worth the time to consider at all, let alone to study seriously and thoughtfully.  And they were certainly not interested in altering the procedures in place for centuries in the Temple to suit a new set of standards imported from Greece. Or anywhere.

The ancient history books, the First and Second Books of the Maccabees primarily but others as well, tell this story in detail. The internal debate among Jewish people had reached the boiling point. And by the time King Antiochus IV finally decided to intervene, the schism had become not merely passionate but violent. The nation was wholly divided against itself. And, as Lincoln would have commented, the nation, now fully divided against itself, was not going to stand for long. Or at all!

After Alexander the Great died, his generals divided up his kingdom. One general, Seleucus, became master of most of the Middle East. Ptolemy became master of Egypt. Israel passed back and forth many times between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires, ending up finally as part of the former. And that is why King Antiochus, the Seleucid emperor, was involved in the first place. How, when, and why he intervened is a story unto itself. But that he sought to restore order to a province in his empire that had reached the boiling point is the underlying fact worth considering. Nor is it that difficult to imagine why he would have favored the reformers over the traditionalists: he too was a committed Hellenist who saw one side as aligned with his own beliefs and one side espousing views inimical to them. That he was unexpectedly defeated by a ragtag group of guerilla warriors under the leadership of the Maccabee brothers was, depending on who was telling the story, a miracle or a calamity. That we remember it as the former is an excellent example of how the victors win the right to tell the tale: the losers would have told it entirely differently…but those who survived were eventually swallowed up into a people eager to remember the story positively and in as satisfying a way possible. That’s what losers lose most of all, I suppose: the right to frame the narrative.

I love Chanukah. Even as a child, I liked it—primarily the gelt and the latkes, but also the whole nightly ceremony of lighting the menorah that belonged to my father’s parents before it belonged to my parents and which is at this very moment sitting on our dining room table on Reed Drive. As I’ve grown more sophisticated in my understanding of ancient Jewish history, however, the message underlying all that fun has become more serious in my mind, more monitory, more cautionary. The Jewish people was ultimately weakened, not strengthened by the Maccabees’ victory—which led first, and within a few decades, to the Maccabees’ descendants illegitimately proclaiming themselves kings of Israel, and eventually to the Roman invasion that ended Jewish autonomy in the Land of Israel for millennia. Had the Jews of the time been able to compromise, they would perhaps have created a stronger, more inclusive kind of Judaism open to new ideas…and who knows where that would or could have led? We remember the Maccabees’ victory enthusiastically by framing the story as an “us against them” story featuring a harsh king and his innocent victims. But that’s only one way to tell the story. I understand perfectly well why we’ve always favored the story line that features brave Jewish warriors resisting the domination of a foreign tyrant. But I also see an alternate plot line hiding just behind the preferred narrative, one that features a house collapsing in on itself that needed outside intervention precisely because warring groups within the Jewish people couldn’t engage in meaningful dialogue and learn from each other. That doesn’t ruin Chanukah for me. Just the opposite, actually: it turns the holiday into a thought-provoking opportunity to consider the nature of Judaism in the context of history—and that is something I don’t ever pass up. Who would?

[kokaniaas-blog]

Beauty - Need to Re-Discover It?

The mettle of our times seems to no longer trust beauty.

Prince Charles was talking to the Royal Institute of British Architects at the occasion of their 150th birthday closely the proposed extending of the National Gallery.

"What is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the haughtiness of a much loved and elegant friend." (Prince of Wales)

He had seen scads British architecture as sterile and plain ugly.

Is this still true? And do we deficiency to re-discover honor around us?

Defining beauty When we see something beautiful its polish is subjectively felt. Yet, the thought of glory and ugliness is elusive and difficult to put into libretto and define. Perhaps this is because of individual distinction in our deference of it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What one homme finds beautiful, another merely sentimental. One, attractive, another repulsive.

Beauty has been said to be something to do with appreciating harmony, balance, rhythm. It captures our attention, satisfying and distillation the mind.

It is not the objects depicted by art that defines whether something is beautiful or ugly. Instead it is how the object is dealt with that type it possibly inspirational.

Spiritual philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg suggests that what arouses our intuition that a human robe is beautiful is not the tumors itself, but the infirmity shining from it. It is the spiritual within the natural that stirs our affections, not the natural on its own.

"The polish of a woman is not in a facial way but the true praise in a hens is reflected in her soul. It is the caring that she lovingly gives; the ardor that she shows. The honor of a woman grows with the exceeding years." (Audrey Hepburn)

Beauty tins also occur even in suffering.

"Even in some of the mass painful value I've witnessed as a doctor, I discovery a sense of beauty... That our brains are wired to rosters another person's pain, to want to be moved by it and do something about it, is profoundly heartening." (Physician-poet Rafael Campo)

Creative art Roger Scruton, philosopher, points out that between 1750 and 1930 the meaning of art or music was beauty. People saw glory as valuable as truism and goodness. Then in the 20th century it stopped creature important. Then many artists aimed to disturb, tremble and to pause moral taboos. The earliest of these was Marcel Duchamp e.g. his installation of a urinal. It was not beauty, but originality and irony and other intellectual impression that they focused on. This is what won the prizes no incident the moral cost.

The art ore now believes that those who look for beauty in art, are just out of touch with modern realities. Since the earths is disturbing, art should be agitation too. Yet I would suggest that what is shocking first time round is uninspiring and hollow when repeated.

"If the land is so ugly, what's the core of formations it even uglier with ugly music?... I have tried to type it sound as beautiful as I can. Otherwise what's the point... So if you requirement to hear how ugly the modern burrow is,... you can just switch on the hit and listen to the news. But I pondering that most people go to coordination because they event to hear beautiful music. Music full of melodies that you tins busyness or sing. Music that speaks to the heart. Music that proceeding to type you event to smile or ejaculation or dance. (Alma Deutscher, 12 year old agreement violinist/pianist)

If there are still any artists creating beautiful thing of art, I suspect, like any good news in the newspapers, they are not getting the headlines.

Awakening to the spiritual In addition to much of our contemporary art and built environment, tins we also detect a grating unattractiveness - not to ascription self-centeredness and offensiveness - now entrance into the language and politeness shown in our swarm media? As though honor has no longer any real situation in our lives.

So when we discovery us in the trouble of negativity, do we give us time to be open to beauty?

"What is this existence if, full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare...

No time to turn at Beauty's glance,

And watch her feet, how they can dance.

No time to expectation till her gossip can

Enrich that smile her eyes began.

A poor existence this if, full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare. (William Henry Davies)

Effect on us of cultural change I'm wondering if by losing praise we are also losing something else. Something I would describe as a deeper perception of what is good and innocent in life.

Scruton suggests that harmony without this deeper detecting is like maintenance in a spiritual desert. He argues that the artists of the past were aware that existence was full of devastation and suffering. But they had a medicine for this and the remedy was beauty. He reckons that the beautiful convention of art brings consolation in sorrow and affirmation in joy. It shows human existence to be worth-while.

Beauty - A reminder of transcendent reality Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But is praise only a subjective thing? Is there also an significance actuality to it?

Perhaps we conditions to re-visit the foresight of the ancients. According to Plato, beauty, like justice, and goodness, is an eternally existing entity. He said it eternally exists, regardless of replacing social conceptions and circumstances. This would mean that glory has existed even when there was no one around to banner it.

It revenue millions of age for light to travel the vast distance to reach our telescopes. So we now see the beauty of the stars as they were before human creature existed.

I would opinion beauty is something, that at its heart, has the actuality of purity - the purity of absolute Love Itself.

"Beauty is truth, truism beauty, that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye indispensability to know." (John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn)

As a clinical psychologist, Stephen Russell-Lacy has specialised in cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy, campaign for dozens days with adults suffering agony and disturbance.