I've been thinking. Why is it that we have so many labels about gender. That there is an age issue about knoledge, what one can now or not. Or what values one can have atall without explaining why.... Is the picture from the inside the same as the picture from the outside.
For instance if a man and a woman argue about marriage, and the one is cynical from the outside, coas she has seen so many divorsed marriages; and maltreatments, and the other is empathical about the topic from the insides of his experience in his marriage. Then they both would be right and they both would be wrong at the same time.
They would be right about they feelings and knoledge but wrong in understanding what is outside of them.
Good is always what I do thus Evil must be what the other does. In estonian language we have a word game - I dont know where it comes, but it explains alot in the language and atitudes.
The adequate translations for Righteous and wicked in estonian are 'õige' ja 'õel' but 'õel' may also meen that a sister has something like the frase 'õel on õun' means 'the sister has an apple'
if you change the wording to 'õun on õel' then the frase would mean 'the apple is wicked'
Then we have the corelation about brotherhood and sisterhood. In estonian 'vendlus' and 'õelus' (offcourse you could say also 'õdelus' what would have no indication to wickedness, but that misses the point especially that this word is not used in common-talk) 'Õelus' also means wickedness or even malice
Thus there are knoledges in our midst what are strong and male thus right and then there are other knoledges what are weak and female what you call grannys talk or oldmans tale
Should there be a leveling that all should be equal or is that leveling by itself evil? - Allowing to do to others as they did. Does it make it right then we pay the depts of our ancestors by punishing theyr guilts and blames like the paraphrase:
The fathers ate sour grapes, but the sons had weak tooth!"
Wouldnt it be far more better, if we dismantel the whole issue and step outside of gender-thinking and labeling there atitudes are based on who the talker is and not what he or she has to say...
The second part about labeling is age. We have entered a time there teachers dont have to be oldmen or -women, but mere children. I dont want to drop into indigo or cristalchildren topics for this is another kind of labeling saying:
one is better than the other and you cannot change it through effort but have to learn to live with it.
Like in the movie "Matrix" the scene there Neo is talking to a child who says to him:
"Dont try to bend the spoon, for that would be impossible. Rather try to feel the truth. - There is no spoon." For we are what bend in our words and attitudes and not the others.
In my oppinion, and you may always address it, if people start using frases: "You dont understand, because you're too young; are rich; are male/female etc." then by doing so, they admit, that they arent confortable with theyr situation and argument they are having.
I have seen wise men act like children and infants act like spokesmen of grate virtue. - I have even witnessed through a dog-owner that a dog protects a cat, that female dog has issues about her partners and allows only one male dog to have sex with her. (Remember: I dont believe that animals have a soul like men do) Isnt that the indication of true good and life a soul? Something that is more than we witness in our normal lives.
How on earth do we say then:
"You can be cynical about this topic if you are of age!" or
"You cannot comprehend what a woman feals for you cannot get pregnant."?
I also cannot drive a car for I would fall into transe and cause a serious accident. I am a terrible pedestrian. I tend to meditate all the time, and I have survived many occasions there I would just walk infront of a car or truck just because I meditate about peace on earth or world hunger problem or stuff like that... Still I know what it feels or meens to be a driver. If the above was right, I would first have to learn how to drive to have a claim of that knoledge. But that would be bullshit. How did Daimler; Benz and Ford have theyr knoledge about driving then there was nothing to drive? - Atleast not in the sence of a car...
The driver has power of something. He can go from point A to point B without using the public transportation services. He controlls the vehicle tetermining when and how he shall travel. By having a car and driving it, he is in somewhat better than the pedestrian who doesnt have it. In a way the cardriver/owner is like the smith or herbalist of old times.
For he got stuff
But then we think back at the starting of the car-world, the only drivers there mere workers or servants of rich people. Driving a car was regarded as brute and not fitting for the lords and ladys. - Especially for the ladys - like horsebackriding ages earlier.
Because cars were expensive and limited, only rich people could afford em and the car drivers who could drive them correctly there even more limited. Thus the lords didnt drive but let themselves to be driven- and the backseat was more eligible than the frontseat - nowadays its the oposite.
We dont even have true nobility anymore...
We have lots of cell-phones; cars; opportunities to learn how to use these etc. But in that knowing-and-having-it-all we lost our freedom to choose. We are lost in issues and labels what we didnt have then we were restricted to dull simple lives. Having it all made us insatiable and grumpy like spoiled children or old men with artrites.
We
must have something to be
good otherwise we arent for the indignation is in the
labels not in us.
Thus disband labels and you are free again...
