u/Kalpesh_38

When we look at a painting, our eyes instinctively search for something familiar, a face, a tree, or a mountain. Wassily Kandinsky completely shattered this habit by turning colors, lines, and shapes into an independent language. Instead of imitating the physical world, he used raw visual elements to directly communicate the inner movements of our conditioning and internal states.

Deeply influenced by music, Kandinsky believed that just as a musical note doesn't need to mimic a physical object to evoke a profound emotion, a color on a canvas shouldn't have to either. In masterworks like Painting with White Border (1913), his swirling, overlapping forms strip away the comfort of names and labels, forcing the observer to confront the raw painting without jumping to quick intellectual conclusions.

This experiment extends far beyond the canvas. In daily life, we constantly view people, events, and situations through predefined filters and identifications. The moment we label something, true observation stops and mere recognition takes over. Kandinsky’s art is a radical challenge to our perception: when you look at the world today, are you truly seeing reality as it is, or are you just recognizing a meaning you decided on in advance?

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily\_Kandinsky

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Wassily-Kandinsky

Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin showed that we can learn what stars are made of without touching them, and that our assumptions can distort what we see.

To the naked eye, stars seem to be no more than small dots of light spread across the night sky. Since they are so far away, it is impossible for us to travel to them, obtain samples, and bring them back to Earth.

Yet, scientists can determine which elements are present in stars, even without touching them.

The science of starlight

The solution is in the light they give off.

When starlight reaches Earth, scientists divide it into its various wavelengths and study its spectrum. Each element produces a unique pattern of spectral lines, which acts as its identifying signature.

By comparing these patterns with those produced by known elements on Earth, scientists can determine a star’s chemical composition without ever physically touching the star.

The case of Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin illustrates the power of this method.

In 1925, while carrying out her doctoral research, Payne-Gaposchkin examined stellar spectra. Using atomic physics and Meghnad Saha’s theory of thermal ionization, she studied the abundance of different elements in stars.

Her results were extraordinary: stars, or at least their atmospheres, contained huge quantities of hydrogen and helium, much more than scientists had previously assumed.

This conclusion challenged the established scientific belief of the time. Many leading scientists believed that the Sun and Earth probably had broadly similar chemical compositions.

Yet, Cecilia’s observations indicated that this assumption was wrong.

Henry Norris Russell disagreed with her conclusions. As a result, she stated her findings cautiously in her thesis, even adding that the enormous abundances she had calculated were “almost certainly not real.”

Later, after conducting his own study, Russell accepted her conclusion and acknowledged her earlier work.

Modern measurements have established that she was essentially correct: hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in ordinary matter in the universe.

Her achievement was not simply discovering what stars are made of. It showed that careful observation can uncover the truth even when that truth goes against established opinion.

How beliefs distort what we see

We, too, notice things every day. But we do not always perceive them as they truly are. Instead, we see them through the lens of our earlier beliefs, assumptions, social conditioning, and emotional preferences.

We often regard a belief as true simply because it has been accepted for a long time, supported by influential people, or widely repeated within society.

It is often easier to follow a familiar belief than to question it.

That is how old beliefs can produce an illusion. They do not always stop us from looking; they affect what we see.

Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin’s work shows that careful observation can challenge what familiarity and authority have made us accept. Just as scientists study the hidden signatures in starlight, we may need to examine the hidden assumptions in our own thoughts.

A belief can be popular and yet false. It can be old and still incomplete. It can be supported by authority and still require examination.

The important question is not simply, “What do I believe?” but have I truly observed what I believe to be true, or am I merely accepting it because it is familiar, popular, or endorsed by others?

Am I seeing reality as it is, or am I interpreting it through the filter of my old beliefs and conditioning?

Source:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin
• https://physicsworld.com/a/cecilia-payne-gaposchkin-the-woman-who-found-hydrogen-in-the-stars/
• https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-century-ago-pioneering-astrophysicist-cecilia-payne-gaposchkin-showed-us-what-stars-are-made-of-180986193/

If you look up at the sky in the morning, you will see the Sun appear to rise in the east; it then gradually rises higher, seems to move across the sky during the day, and finally sets in the west. This naturally leads to a simple question: Is the Sun in fact moving around us?

It must certainly look that way from our point of view, but the actual situation is not the same. The Earth is always rotating on its axis, moving from west to east. It is because of this that the Sun seems to move in the opposite direction, that is, from east to west. To put it simply, the Sun seems to be moving across the sky, but this apparent movement is due to the Earth’s rotation.

This example shows an important point regarding perception: the eyes of observers do not enable them to see the Earth rotating. The ground under them seems to be at rest, whereas the Sun seems to be moving. For a long time, people regarded this appearance as being real. The Earth-centred model, in which the stationary Earth was situated at the centre of the universe, dominated European astronomy.

Careful observations and better calculations later started to cast doubt on that idea. Copernicus proposed a Sun-centred model, and Galileo’s astronomical observations supplied important evidence that challenged the traditional Earth-centred picture. Yet it has always been difficult to challenge accepted beliefs. In 1633, Galileo was summoned by the Roman Inquisition and was ultimately placed under house arrest.

History illustrates just how great the consequences can be of a perception that at first seems simple. Yet this problem is not confined to the field of astronomy. We make observations every day, attempt to understand them, and slowly turn our interpretations into beliefs. As time goes on, these beliefs start to seem so obvious and natural that we cease to remember the point of view from which we are looking at the world.

From Earth, the Sun seems to be moving, but the Earth is itself in motion as well. So, is the appearance that we see the whole truth?

The ego, too, sees the world from its own point of view: “I am here. This is the way I see things. Therefore, this must be the way things are.” Yet have we ever considered how much our position affects our understanding?

The issue is not simply why the Sun seems to move across the sky; it also concerns how easily we confuse appearance with reality independent of our standpoint, and whether, when factual information contradicts our beliefs, we are ready to examine those beliefs again.

Source:

• https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question14.html
• https://science.nasa.gov/earth/facts/

I don't know when the sky became my beloved, but I know I keep longing for it. I don't fully understand this longing, but I don't want it to disappear either.

I am such a tiny human, yet my eyes want the sky. Why am I so inclined to love the infinite?

Have you ever thought about what your relationship with the sky is? Have you ever wondered how you and the sky are linked? Why can't my love for the sky just die? 

I am so desperate to be one with the sky. I can't touch it, but I want to be touched by it.

Do I need to try to become one with the sky? What is it that makes me separate from the love of the sky?

I just don't want to listen when someone says it is impossible. Let me try to move towards the sky, to be one with existence. Let the movement persist forever, by dissolving the one that separates me from my beloved.

Sometimes, it makes me feel as if I am the one who becomes the resistance by wanting to become the sky. I never realize that the one who wants to become something is already creating a distance from the very thing he is trying to become.

Love for infinity makes me realize that perhaps loving and understanding it is itself my love for the infinite. Getting out of my pettiness, my comfort, and my desires, I want to take the flight of love towards the sky. 

I want my feathers to realise: my love is the sky. 

There is a dark emptiness in my heart that seeks to be filled by the love of the sky. The craving for my beloved needs to be understood. Without understanding the darkness within, how can I understand what resists me from reaching towards my beloved? 

My beloved seems to ask me: Before you reach out to me, understand the resistance that keeps you away from me.

The more I deviate, the more the subtle pain becomes intensified. And perhaps that pain is also asking me to look within.

Maybe the sky was never asking me to become it. Maybe it was asking me to understand what keeps me from seeing that I was never separate from it.

​

Janaki Ammal: India’s pioneering plant scientist

Born on 4 November 1897 in Thalassery (then Tellicherry) in Kerala, E. K. Janaki Ammal was one of India’s leading botanists.

She chose the path of science at a time when women’s access to higher education and participation in scientific research in India was extremely limited. She went on to become an internationally respected scientist in the fields of botany, genetics and cytology.

She pursued higher studies at the University of Michigan and became one of the very few Indian women of that era who made scientific research the central focus of their lives.

Janaki Ammal’s most important work was in the field of sugarcane.

At that time, many of the sugarcane varieties cultivated in India were not well suited to local conditions.

By researching the genetic structure of plants, she contributed to the development of varieties that were better adapted to Indian conditions.

Later, she researched many plant species and was also associated with major scientific works such as "Chromosome Atlas of Cultivated Plants", which is considered an important reference in the field of botany.

After Independence she returned to India and was involved in many national scientific projects, including the reorganization of the "Botanical Survey of India".

In the later part of her life, she gave special attention to biodiversity and the conservation of native plant species.

In recognition of her contributions, she was awarded the Padma Shri by the Government of India.

But the most interesting aspect of Janaki Ammal’s life is not only her scientific contribution.

Looking at her life, a question arises:

How does a human being choose the direction of their life?

From society’s expectations?

Or from their own curiosity?

Most of us grow up in an environment where many things are already decided:

What we should study.

What we should become.

Whom to value.

Whom not to.

Gradually, we too begin to move in that same direction.

But some people ask a different question:

What is it that I truly want to understand?

Janaki Ammal’s life is perhaps an example of this very question.

She chose science at a time when women’s presence in scientific fields was extremely limited.

She did not choose the easy path.

She worked in the direction in which her curiosity was alive.

Plant structures,

genetics,

natural diversity,

and scientific research,

these were not just academic subjects for her.

They were fields of exploration.

Here something important becomes visible.

When the driving force behind our work is not just achievement,

but a longing to understand,

then a person remains committed to it despite difficulties.

Perhaps this is why the importance of her life does not lie only in what she discovered.

Its importance also lies in the fact that she did not allow her curiosity to become smaller than her circumstances.

In all our lives there are some questions that are truly our own.

But often we leave them behind,

because society is rushing in some other direction.

Gradually, we do remain busy,

but we forget to examine whether what we are doing is really our own choice,

or just a direction we have passively accepted.

Janaki Ammal ji life gives us an opportunity to see that growth does not come merely from adding achievements.

Growth comes when a person can remain honest to the question that is alive within.

For curiosity does not give only knowledge;

it can also change the direction of one’s life.

🔗 Sources:

https://iiim.res.in/herbarium/edavaleth-kakkat-janaki-ammal.htm

https://www.unsw.edu.au/science/about-us/equity-diversity-inclusion/belonging-in-science/science-history-profiles/ek-janaki-ammal

https://www.mpg.de/19967547/janaki-ammal

⚠️ Content Warning: The introductory segment of the attached video contains verified historical archival photographs of wartime casualties from the 1937 Nanjing Massacre. Viewer discretion is advised.

When we look back at catastrophic events like the Nanking Massacre in 1937, our modern minds instinctively try to categorize it as an anomaly. We label it an era of extreme wartime radicalization, look at the archival photos, and move on with a sense of comfortable detachment. We treat the horror as a distant, closed chapter.

The attached video begins with four critical pieces of historical evidence from the archives of the Nanjing Massacre:

•             The Itau Kaneo album displaying casualties along the city streets.

•             The execution of a Chinese POW by a Japanese officer.

•             The deliberately burned remains of civilians near Xiaguan.

•             Bodies of Chinese massacred by Japanese troops along a river in Nanjing.

Confronting these raw images is deeply shaking. But if we pause to think deeply, a jarring question arises: Why does humanity find it so easy to gloss over the absolute dirt of our past to maintain a comfortable, unexamined present?

True history isn't just a timeline of grand strategies and political victories. It is a mirror reflecting a chaotic, unyielding cycle of human unconsciousness. In the attached video clip, philosopher Acharya Prashant breaks down this exact dilemma of historical amnesia. He challenges the idea that we can cleanly separate ourselves from the brutalities of the past.

When a society refuses to address its historical group trauma and deep-seated survival instincts, it doesn't solve the problem, it merely buries it under a thin veneer of modern civilization. The primitive, defensive ego that drove the atrocities of the 20th century didn't vanish; it just learned to wear a suit and tie.

If we keep studying history purely on the surface level, without examining the inner darkness and primal urges that created these events, aren't we just waiting for the exact same patterns to replay themselves under a different name?

I’d love to hear this sub’s thoughts on this. When we look at the wildest, most brutal moments in history, are we looking at a failure of political systems, or are we looking at a fundamental flaw in the unchanged human psyche?

***

Archival Note & Image Credits: All historical images utilized in the introduction are sourced directly from the public domain historical records preserved on the Wikipedia page for the Nanjing Massacre (including documented photographs by Itau Kaneo and Moriyasu Murase).

On 26 September 1889, Martin Heidegger was born in the small German town of Messkirch. His father was a craftsman and worked at the local Catholic church.

In 1909, he started studying at the University of Freiburg. He first studied theology, then natural sciences and mathematics, but eventually his path turned toward philosophy.

Despite health problems, he continued his studies and completed his doctorate in 1913. In 1919, he became assistant to the famous philosopher Edmund Husserl.

In 1923, he went to the University of Marburg, and within just a few years his lectures made him an influential young philosopher.

Then in 1927, his famous book Being and Time was published.

He asked:
Is a human being really living their own life, or merely doing what “people” do?

“People do this.”
“Everyone wants this.”
“This is what’s considered normal in society.”

For Heidegger, this kind of “living like people live” could pull a person away from their own existence.

But his own life turned into a serious contradiction.

In 1933, he joined the Nazi Party and became rector of the University of Freiburg. In 1934, he resigned from the post, but remained a member of the party until 1945.

After the war, he was banned from teaching at the university. When this ban was lifted in 1949, he once again became active in the field of philosophy.

He died in 1976.

Heidegger had asked why we lose ourselves in the crowd and live like that.

But now the question is no longer Heidegger’s; it is yours.

Are your preferences truly your own, or do you too simply want what “people” want?

In the life you call your own, how much really comes from your own understanding, and how much from family, society, tradition, and the need for others’ approval?

Just noticing that “I am following the crowd” is not enough.

The real question is: do you genuinely intend to step out of it, or will you keep living in the same old way while building a new philosophical idea about yourself?

Because imitation of others is not the only form of ego; stubbornly holding on to any identity you have created about yourself can also be part of the same ego.

Heidegger’s life forces us to pause and look here:

Are we actually understanding our thoughts, or only spinning a nice story about our thoughts?

I recently took my very first motorcycle ride and did camping here in ON Canada, and it was an absolutely unforgettable experience. We only stayed for a single night at Killbear Provincial Park, but it was worth every second.

I was a bit hesitant at first when we hit the road, but as I got comfortable with the bike, there was nothing like finally feeling the rush of the air at speed. One of part of the journey that I liked was experiencing the community vibe on the road, every time another rider gave me a nod or a hand signal, it was a different experience.

We stopped by the lake to catch couple picture, and later that night, we easily spent more than three hours just stargazing.

I am completely hooked and can't wait for the next trip!

A clip from a Q&A Acharya Prashant did at Oxford in June 2026.

An engineer in the audience asks the standard question, we're aware of the ecological crisis, what's the solution? and he declines to answer it in those terms.

The argument, roughly:

Don't start from the solution. Start from the fact that whoever created the problem is still here, unchanged, and is now presenting himself as the one who'll fix it.

Carbon capture built by the same appetite that emitted the carbon doesn't subtract anything, it licenses more, If you do come up with carbon capture, that will only entitle you to release even more carbon.

He then tests the phrase genuine need on air travel. If the demand were genuine it wouldn't scale with price, Slash ticket prices and genuine needs will double. What kind of genuine needs are these?

Same treatment for the price of development, whose development, and why does the word do so much hiding?

He's explicit that he isn't against the technology. His claim is about sufficiency, not merit, that no efficiency gain survives contact with an appetite nobody has examined.

What I'd be curious to hear from this sub: he locates the driver in the individual psyche rather than in capital, growth imperatives or policy design. That's a different diagnosis from most degrowth writing, and I can't decide whether it complements the structural account or quietly substitutes for it.

Does an argument like this help, or does it hand the systemic problem back to individuals?

Checkout the full video on YouTube, here is the link.

https://youtu.be/ggA6D90i6pE?si=ZPwf8qZ5LEIdsHet

I recently went on a camping trip to Killbear Provincial Park and witnessed the clearest night sky I've ever seen.

It was so incredibly beautiful that I couldn’t pull myself away and ended up staying outside for hours just absorbing it all.

Photos don't completely do it justice, but here is a glimpse of what it felt like.

I did a beautiful 3 hour day hike at Mono Cliffs Provincial Park recently and wanted to share a quick highlight.

While passing by the main limestone cliffs, I spotted this beautiful, decent sized Eastern Milksnake basking near the rocks. It was an awesome reminder of the incredible biodiversity we have right here in Ontario parks.

Keep your eyes open next time you're walking past the rock faces!

I wanted to share this short clip by philosopher Acharya Prashant and get this community's thoughts on looking at the Bhagavad Gita through a depth-psychology lens.

He challenges how popular culture and mainstream "gurus" have diluted the Gita into a comforting ritual. They demand extreme external purity (washing hands, taking showers, treating the text like a fragile relic) because focusing on outer rituals is easy—it demands zero inner effort from the Ego.

From a Jungian perspective, this looks like the Persona using superficial morality to completely bypass the Shadow.

As pointed out in the video, true scripture is meant to be an existential mirror. The Gita wasn't delivered in a quiet, peaceful temple; it was spoken on a battlefield to someone paralyzed by deep psychological helplessness. The real war wasn’t against the outer world—it was Arjuna’s fight against his own mental limitations, self-image, and smallness.

Mainstream culture prefers comforting childhood stories of Krishna because they don’t force us to look inward or engage in the brutal process of Individuation. It allows the Ego to remain intact, relying on an external superpower to save them rather than putting in the psychological effort to choice awareness over self-imposed helplessness.
Carl Jung famously explored how Eastern texts map the unconscious. How do you view the Gita's battlefield crisis from a Jungian perspective of confronting the Shadow and moving toward Ego dissolution?

Following the recent devastating floods in Nepal, this clip gives a powerful perspective on rapid destabilisation of the Himalayan region.

Research led by the University of Leeds found that the ice loss rate in recent decades is at least ten times higher than the average rate observed over previous centuries. Also, glaciers lost twice as much ice annually between 2000 and 2016 compared to the previous 25 years.

So what could be the long-term hydrological and geographical changes we should expect to see across Asia as this acceleration continues, and are there realistic infrastructure solutions to mitigate the resulting Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs)?

I was walking over to grab a drink and some food at the Ben Nevis Inn bar when I passed a few sheep grazing. While capturing the massive scale of mountains, I focused on the young sheep’s and particularly on the one who started looking straight into the camera.

The video is 35 seconds, and honestly just locks eyes with the camera for almost half of it. It was such a surreal, quiet moment of direct connection in the middle of the Highlands. It really made me pause and think about how incredibly aware and present they are in their own world.

What do you think is going through their minds when they look at us with that much curiosity?

This was a challenging but great trip.

Reaching the site in the dark was a struggle, and we ended up with water in the tent because a rainfly wasn't anchored properly before the storm hit.

Even with the wet gear and late start, we had a blast. It was a huge learning experience!

Sunset over Vancouver Island from Whidbey Island’s west side