Natasha Tori Maru

https://youtu.be/1LzBXe9--oM?si=ZXNgYxq5BoTJsPXo

Yeah, hardmaxxing is where it steps into cope territory. Overinvesting in one area is never a good strategy. You want to get past the character selection screen to actually play the game.

@Joshe your words ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ Plus a whole bunch more assumptions and inferences.

Exactly 😈 Always what we claim is something others do, as a judgement/denial, is usually precisely what we also do, unconsciously and unclaimed, within ourselves.

Of course it is worth it. The mistake many make is that it accounts for all domains of attraction. Looksmaxxing is nothing new. The name is just a rebrand of what women have done - forever The previous term for this was a 'metrosexual' man.

Your OP simply is not describing spirituality. It is describing something else. You have to throw away everything. The seeking. All of it. Spirituality. Truth. Else it becomes another ground. /End thread

This is a belief of yours. I call it so because you have no concrete evidence to claim the whole community is unconscious of this. Even this dialogue, where users can see what you point at, proves otherwise! Wiser words would be 'there are large groups of members of this community who .......' You tend toward black and white thinking, I have seen. Assumptions and inferences do that.

The answer can only be discovered for ourselves, unfortunately. Which is why there are issues such as these (which you raise) with truth seeking. Telling the truth and subsequent adoption of hearsay.

Everyone knows what Love is. You know it as a child. It is the first knowing. Love. Unity. Which is infinity. You just forget this when you inherit all your bullshit human conditioning. It is simply a Returning.

@AerisVahnEphelia if you say so.

@Joshe Love as a concept metaphysically has been around longer than philosophy, even. It is not originating from Leo. Vedanta, Daoism, Confusian ren, ancient Greece, Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, modern philosophy etc etc etc I could go on...

Yes exactly - which is why I raised that 'skill' is a touch broad of a term, as it can reference more than just technical ability. Original aesthetics are very close to what I think of as individuals with an artists vision or a directorial eye.

https://youtu.be/loB0kmz_0MM?si=6em03eHamotrX_1G

It might be more accurate and less confusing to say 'it is arbitrary who decides the top great masters of each art movement', rather than state 'their skill is overrated'. Because it is the institutional power, group consensus, politics, historical accident, access and resultant group think that I see as the issue. Many of these artist's have skill in the creative and directive realms - some receive accolades for innovating or applying their vision in a never before seen way. These, as well as tool use, control, materials, accuracy of rendition (proportion, anatomy)... then we can go on into perceptual sensitivity; colour relationships, spatial tension, rhythm (negative/positive space), emotional rendition, balance, harmony. Narrative flow. Stylistic rules. Skill begins to point toward an artist that can decide better. Direct. It might help to define what is meant by 'skill'. It is too nebulous a term to be used without defining what we mean, as combined with all of the above an element of subjectivity is present in what determines 'skill'. Some of the greatest masters are not known for the technical ability. Some just for what they introduced as a concept IE Andy Warhol. All of the above is sort of why I dislike art critics so much. You cannot just measure it with a ruler, see it conforms and slap 'great' on it.

❤️