Natasha Tori Maru

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.

❤️

Rofl that person never saw a red in their life I love how this thread has devolved onto Australia-isms now 🥹

Skippy mate, she loves the school roo ride 🤣

Yep, exactly! Which almost makes the whole thing worse. It just builds another layer of nuance to the farce. The whole 'art critic' thing plays into your point also. Art critic my arse. Bullshit job. Art critics propel/start half the 'value' tends by defining 'great art'. Big players.

If you think about it, Andy Warhol was giving the finger to the fine arts crew. The critics and moment. The hype. By using their own medium against them; creating performative art and shoving it in their faces. He recognised the farse and hype 🙃

Additionally some artist were performing a completely different role; Andy Warhol for instance. His work was a calling to all the art and creativity that lies within design and marketing. He painted things like the Campbell soup can to highlight 'This is art. Work & creativity went into this' precisely as a revolt against the fine arts movement. Because they would not recognise an expert typeface songwriter, or the designer behind the Campbell soup can, as an artist. He fundamentally disagreed with their narrow view of 'art'. This was in part a personal vandetta, as he faced this discrimination in his early career. Much of his work was a statement highlighting the creativity and art behind everyday items. Many people covet art, and artists, without even recognising what they did. Why they did it. And how.

Indeed - I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your premise. It is the trend-following effect that comes after that I would consider the group think/hype. Similar to following a style trend originating from a couture fashion runway. Avante garde tends to mean, within the art world, new or experimental ideas in art. What breaks the precedent. Pioneering. It is hard to generate something new without it being slapped with 'avante garde'. The finer distinction would be differentiating the artist, their craft & skill from the movement itself. The hype and elevation to legendary status some of the bigger names receive. Removed from the simple craft itself. There are many artists of greater skill within movements that were simply never recognised as much as some of the famous names.

Usually the top fine artists that are highly valued were done so for being pioneers of a 'movement' prior to the style becoming mainstream.

What makes the first impression on you when listening to a tune, rhythm or melody? Do you play music, or dance? Many dancers and drummers I know tend toward noticing rhythm first, movement & beat. Other musicians hear the emotional crescendos of the melody & sequential pitches. I do not know if there is any pattern to be found here. I am a dancer and only ever learned some drums and a touch of bass guitar (rhythm). I have always heard the beat and rhythm first. It catches me before the melody. I feel the beat in my body as movement, I feel the melody as an emotional weight in my chest and heart 😃

It has the propensity to bypass rational filters & boundaries. I enjoy charisma from others, but I test the claims. And then watch the behaviour over time. Normally it masks a lack of integrity & substance, as the power of charisma lies in its seduction. Wielders of this trait typically float on by on its wings, which can mean large domains of a persons integrity remain underdeveloped. They never had to develop. I wouldn't say charisma isn't bad per se - but it is POWERFUL. Power without resistance is dangerous, and charisma can bypass our internal resistance. Just my personal view though. As you can guess, I have seen this shit as a repeated pattern in life. I place caution flaggies all around charismatic people.

I agree. I would proceed to gut out all inconsistencies 'not that'. Negate.

Well, the more specific words 'self-deception' were used, which can overlap as bias (although, more precise) so I will not punch you with my noodly girl-arms