Natasha Tori Maru

It's a good point. I thought of this also. I think most assume we mean God consciousness.

Hehe you say this... But I have this sneaky suspicion it is in your nature to return to it. Like an itch that cannot be scratched. It was that way, for me, at least.

I think in the end, we make our own meaning. I am actually quite aligned with you here - beauty & love & truth. They are meaning to me. But at the heart of it when I look to my experience, and ontologically - I simply return to all of this *sweeping hand gestures* simply, is. The 'isness'. I always return to it. In its simplicity and paradox. Empty and full. Through that I see I make my meaning. And the fact *I* make it, is all there needs to be 😁

@Zigzag Idiot I don't really understand you. A lot of this would hinge around how you define 'being' and 'state'. Too nebulous to tackle. I don't think you understand me. Whether that is on me or you, will remain a mystery.

No true spirituality is an escape from being human. If that's where it leads, it is not spirituality. It is a misunderstanding and missing the point. It's not about meaning making. But I understand many turn to spirituality misunderstanding this; misguidedly turning to the spiritual process to find meaning. It is very, very common. And the easiest way to bypass and build a lovely little spiritual ego in place of what previously served.

Christ Leo, giga-chad blog abuse today. Gonna burn holes in the keyboard. Can't keep up Ngl though, 6 Underground is one of those timeless bangers. It could be released today and not be dated.

@Terell Kirby 🎯❤️

Answering as a women: high tolerance. I do not fit anyones expections. And people are uncomfortable if they cannot easily slap a label on you and treat you from a pre-set paradigm. If you poke holes in someone's understanding of the world merely with your presence, you are way less likely to be accepted. Let alone understood. Look at the big 5 psychological model: agreeableness in women is high. Higher than men. Harmony. Cooperation. In general truth runs counter to this function; and agreeableness is, across the board, higher in women. A big portion of this is safety/genetics; women are the weaker sex. We rely on men. Men who build. Provide. Women's survival has traditionally depended on cooperation. There are thousands of years reinforcing these roles. It is only in modern epocs we are facing gender roles disintegrating. It might be important to note describing elements and traits as 'masculine' or 'feminine' is a concept. Just a concept that can help describe how one sex works in general.

Yep, I totally get you 👊 Which is why I read that stuff from Leo and understand his conviction, but I also think 'yes, but I'll make that assessment for myself'.

Haha, it's probably a result of years of being trolled. Drilled by haters and questioning. Leo probably goes through so much questioning himself as a result, on the other side can be such overriding conviction in oneself it appears as forceful. It can make one double down unnecessarily in a pre-emptive manner. I do not excuse the behaviour, I can just see how it may have come about. As an example of its dubious nature - if I presented my solution to a client like that, I would probably lose them for future work. And it would make cost/variation and contract negotiations very, very difficult. I need to develop a relationship. But maybe this is the essence of it? A sustained relationship to the viewer may be the cost of such language. Polarising words.

If we are strictly answering OPs question - more men awaken. This reason: being a prominent driver. Potential to awaken is another debate entirely. Women are definitely more concerned with feeling/emotional states, and interoception. Childbirth, rearing, and caring for the tribe require close and strict attention paid to internal states. I think, with clarity and truth seeking, feeling can be a route to Truth, if assessed and dissected in an unbiased way to reveal where feeling/emotional states are being generated through thoughts, and feeling/emotion enquiry. I think this is key to the feminine path. Just like thoughts can be corrupt through cognitive biases, feelings can also be corrupt through bias. And more often than not, feeling states are overwhelming in a different way to thinking. I think it is a very, very rare talent to accurately investigate and assess the feeling and emotion states without becoming overwhelmed/confused/muddled. Clarity in this arena requires more skill than clarity within thinking/logic states. Those who can see emotion/feeling clearly and see the truth they point to are rare. Humans are swept up in the emotional experience, and mostly if you don't have talent or expertise in assessing emotion, the experience tends to confuse thought. I think many women do not have the calm and clarity to accurately reverse engineer from emotions & feelings back to thought, and then truth. But hey, I might be sexist here. This has been my experience. I do not think I am typical. I see more people contemplating the ontology of a cup over trying to understand a feeling. And I go deep into feeling and emotional assessment over anything else.

I will add though, strickly speaking, while I think the principals of easthetics are consistent, they aren't inherent to reality ie direct experience. Just in my view.

No way! This applies to everything ! Rule of thirds balance (just one example here) is not nearly always constrained to a rectangular 'canvas'. It is a balance of proportion. I see everything in this way. It is simply a matter of being able to make the distinction. And I suppose as the topic is 'Aesthetic intelligence' my argument would turn to me to state, I have it. To be able to see in an artistic way. I was born being able to see things in a way that meant I could tweak a small element to enhance the pleasing nature of the visual experience. The fine motor skills were also there, and were enhanced with training. I believe there is a genetic component to having this vision innately - but it can also be learned. Anyway not sure what my point is, other than I think some of these rules are consistent.

How would you seperate style vs trend? I would argue aesthetics have a style. Trends are something totally seperate and have no requirement to be aesthetic. I am an artist. Oil painter and trained in fine arts from scratch, from an old-school art master painter. Studied first principles. Pencil only for 10 years, then pen, then colours, then watercolour > acrylic > oil etc I haven't noticed rules for good, balanced composition change. Usually principles such us; rule of thirds, vanishing points, light/dark grade, focal point etc all follow a similar theme that contributes to 'aesthetic' appearance. Across any medium there is usually a consistent pattern of interplay of these compositional elements, or some unusual variation of. But they don't really change. The principal is there in a new configuration.

Is there something you need help with, personal development wise?