Emerald

I’m concerned about DeSantis too. I’m a Floridian, and my 11 year old daughter had no math book for the first several weeks of 6th grade because DeSantis pulled them for having “Critical Race Theory” in them. And he’s being super authoritarian and banning books. I’d hate to see what he does as president. He’s awful enough as governor. But it seems like the winds are shifting back to Trump as the Republican nominee. Trump (of course) is a terrible choice as well. And authoritarianism isn’t totally off the table… especially with the election denial. But Vaush said it best when he said something to the nature of “Trump would send people to death camps if he thought it would benefit him politically. But DeSantis would send people to death camps because he’d enjoy sending people to death camps.” But I still say that if Marianne can beat Biden, she can beat the Republican. Chances are that she won’t beat Biden, but if she does it shows that her movement has caught fire.

Same here. But she should definitely make it clear that she’s not neglecting the materialist paradigm. They will try to make it seem like she’s anti-science or anti-allopathic medicine when she isn’t.

We’ll see. Let’s let things unfold before banging the gavel.

Seek to become the best version of yourself through developing your natural aptitudes, cultivating virtues, and healing from trauma. Basically, enable yourself to mature and individuate into your most exalted intonation. Think about yourself as a sunflower seed at the outset. That means that you can never grow into a geranium or daffodil or daisy. You can only develop into a sunflower. Then, you can either grow your sunflower into a puny little sunflower that never reaches its full potential. Or you can give yourself everything you need to grow into the most exalted version of a sunflower that you can be. So, in relation to this analogy, the first element is self-acceptance and coming to know and celebrate your own nature as something unique from all other natures. You must learn to appreciate your unique personality signature even as it diverges from the societally understood ideals of beauty and desirability. This means the sunflower must never envy the rose. It must prefer being the sunflower and really lean into its own magic. And from there, you work to develop that unique nature into its most exalted and realized version through whichever kind of self-alchemy works the best for your nature. This requires the cultivation of various aptitudes and virtues that are specific to your nature. And it also requires an ever deepening relationship to yourself and your nature.

Technology never takes the marketplace into consideration. Such is the nature of progress. When the car was invented, the auto industry wasn’t like “How do we make this so that horse and buggy drivers don’t lose their jobs?” Horse and buggy drivers mostly went out of business. That’s the nature of the free market. Mind you, this is coming from someone with two bachelors degrees in art related fields.

Quick snippet of a Jungian video. I post this because it is the true root cause of many of the woes that men express in relation to dating, sex, and relationships. They’re all textbook Anima issues. The Anima is what Jung called the Inner woman in every man… while women have an Animus And if you resolve this Anima issue, interactions with women will become easier and you’ll have more security about your own masculinity. The video is of Marie Louise Von Franz (a popular Jungian) talking about an issue of stunted Anima integration in men that she witnessed in her career as a Jungian therapist. Anima possession comes up as a result of men repressing, denying, and having shame toward their Feminine side. And the harder he resists, the tighter the Anima holds onto him and posses him. And the more the possessive Anima is projected outward onto women… making talking to women terrifying and triggering.

Improving those things are fine. It can be helpful because virtues will improve your overall vibe and will weed out dealbreakers. Men who are more holistically developed have much more attractive vibes. But the lion’s share of female attraction is based off of an intuitive attraction to a man as a whole being and whether or not that overall vibe creates a feeling of chemistry. I suspect that it’s mostly Feminine bodily instinct unconsciously scanning hundreds of qualities in a man for signs of a match (genetically, psychologically, emotionally, life-style-wise, etc.) without the help of the woman’s conscious mind. And when there’s a match, then the body produces positive feelings and cravings to be close to that particular guy. And everything about him suddenly becomes magical even if he just looks like an average guy on paper.

Yes, this is what I’ve noticed too. Really, a lot of men’s intense interest in women begins and end with the desire to fit the ideal Masculine image which requires men to show proof of female sexual validation. And so, the focus on being attractive to women for many men is just focused on in order to keep himself safe from the ridicule of other men who will judge/shun/bully him if he’s not as successful with women as they think he should be.

Yes exactly. Men often tend to think about women’s sexuality as just being a pickier version of male sexuality because they project the mechanics of male sexuality onto us. So, Manosphere guys project their worst fear that women are sizing them up (based off of objective qualities) like they are sizing women up (based off of objective qualities)… only with women being more picky and judging them more harshly based off of higher standards. But women actually aren’t very picky… We are selective in our attractions… but we’re generally not picky. The criteria we chose a man on is not typically objective or rational or meritocratic (though merit helps a man gain more mass appeal). It’s very emotional and intuitive and is a response to his overall vibration. It’s like “Does the current of this man’s personality make my heart strings vibrate?” That’s what the experience is like. And we tend not to feel those feelings for most men. This is how women are selective. If I use myself as an example, I typically am only capable of being meaningfully attracted to one guy at a time. And I’d imagine that this is probably common for many women. But the guy I’m attracted to might not be the most objectively attractive across any given field. So, he wouldn’t necessarily be the most objectively attractive in terms of looks, merit, status, wealth, charisma, etc. But as long as there weren’t any dealbreakers, I’d be attracted to him over men who are more objectively attractive because he’s the one whose personality current that I’m in resonance with.

I can’t prove it to you. You’d have to be a woman experiencing attraction to a man to know what it’s like. But as a man, the way to find a woman who wants to get with you is to generally develop yourself as a person and work through your issues. This will make you more attractive to more women because this enables you to emit your authenticity much more strongly. This is like putting out a radio signal. The more you develop yourself, the stronger and purer that signal will be. And the women who resonate with that signal will pick it up more easily and be attracted to it. And then, you have to be social and keep company with women who prefer the kind of man that you are. This requires a bit of self-knowledge of course and the courage to form social ties with women.

Thank you! I’m glad you like my paintings. ? And I had heard something similar to what you’d mentioned. But it was moreso put in terms of women being viewed by men and women through T5 activation. And men being viewed by men and women through T6 activation. So, it was more around people generally seeing men more as whole people and women more as a collection of parts. But my experience of attraction towards men is that I’m attracted to the whole person first. And then his parts become attractive only/mostly in relationship to the whole. Until that holistic attraction arises, there’s a mostly platonic frame even if they possess traits that I can recognize as objectively attractive. Like I can tell you what I find attractive in the ideal. But I rarely get attracted to men who look or act like that.

Sometimes seeking out older romantic partners can stem from a desire for stability and to be taken care of. This dynamic can arise if we didn’t get a lot of support from our family as children and had to grow up too soon. When I was 20, I suddenly developed a really intense attraction to men who were in their mid 30s and early 40s. And looking back, I can recognize in it a desire to be supported and taken care of by someone more stable and mature than me. I had been independent very young and I had to weather many storms without support. I haven’t lived with either of my parents since age 16. And I also began working then. And at the time, life was a pretty constant battering ram of stressful situations all tied together with dental floss. So, there arose a pretty intense attraction to middle aged men who symbolized maturity to me. The catch 22 was that any middle aged man who was interested in dating a 20 year old woman would be immature… by definition. And he would have had his own selfish sexual motives for wanting to be with me. The same would be true for any middle aged woman seeking to be with a man in his first few years into adulthood. So, my advice would be to be careful. You probably don’t want a mid-30s woman trying to relive her youth through you.

At this point, she would certainly lose in the primary and the general. Undoubtedly that’s the case right now. But her message is one of economic populism put in simple straightforward terms that the average American can understand. She speaks to people’s pain and positions her presidential campaign as a powerful solution to that pain. And if she is able to harness the emotional current that she’s attempting to harness and best Biden in the primary (which is a long shot)… then I’d be quite confident that she could beat the Republican nominee in the general.

Yes, I’m certain of that as well. And in my experience, there is a huge emotional/spiritual component to physical ailments.

But in this case it’s the most pragmatic to your goals of forward movement up the spiral to support her. There are practical benefits to supporting her that extend far beyond her simply securing the nomination. That would be nice, of course. But it’s not necessary for her to win for her campaign to wake a lot of people up and to have an impact on the Overton Window. Similarly with Bernie. He never became president. But his campaign was a MASSIVE success because it politically woke so many people up… including myself. And Marianne can have a similar effect if those who already agree with her message support her. The primary is not really the time to be super focused on electability…. for two reasons. Number one, since Biden (at this point) is likely a shoo-win, there’s no downside to supporting her. Biden will likely get the nomination anyway. Number two, if she miraculously is able to beat Biden in the primary (which are slim odds)… then I’d be pretty confident she could also beat the Republican nominee in the general because it would mean that her message is so popular with the American people that it overcame the odds.

I’ve been saying this since I discovered Midjourney. My formal education is in Fine Art and Art Education with minor in Art History. And before the camera was invented most artists were just doing the camera’s job. And when the camera came out, about half of painters switched to photography. But the other half had to question more deeply what painting and art meant to them. And this created a lot of expansion in Art philosophy and in many different art styles emerging as a result. Basically, all of pop art and the New York school… Dadaism, Surrealism, and non-respresentational art (abstract) all arose as a consequence of the invention of the camera and the question “What is the value of art if a machine can do it and do it better?” And now, artists must face this same question on a much deeper level.

I totally agree with all of this.

I think she’s doing brilliantly so far. But what must be understood about the comments around sickness being an illusion is the context. Back in the 80s during the AIDS crisis, Marianne Williamson was a major player in providing support when few were. She even created a non-profit called Project Angel Food to donate/deliver food to those suffering from AIDS when most people were treating them like lepers. And this was a time when there was no treatment for AIDS. And the government wasn’t taking it seriously because it mostly impacted gay men. So, it was very unlikely that the Raegan White House would fund the medical establishment to put resources to finding treatments for HIV/AIDS. So, many of her quotes about illness being an illusion that sound akin to faith healing come from that time. And she was hosting events where everyone would pray for medicine and pray for healing.

Says who? If you run a campaign on economic populism, then you’re likely to be successful. It doesn’t matter what that person’s background is. People will ignore everything else if you speak directly to their pain and pose yourself as the solution to it. Trump’s primary appeal in 2016 was that he was an outsider that talked about draining the swamp and bringing back jobs. He used demagoguery to do this, and he was insincere. But that’s likely what put him over the top. He focused on how bad America is now and empathized with people… and he posed his presidency as the solution by saying how he’ll make America great again. Bernie’s appeal was similar in that he talked about the corruption in the system and how people are struggling. And he proposed Medicare for All and ending corporatism to get rid of the forces that make the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. And Bernie was very popular and built himself a whole movement, despite being a self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” when a high percentage of Americans are very turned off by anything labeled “Socialism”. And Marianne is now angling herself similarly with just as many resonant substance-based criticisms of the system. The difference is that she’s using simpler language. And her message is one that positions itself as Capitalistic… and wanting to catch up to other advanced Capitalist countries. And she’s framing the issue as a morality and love issue which will resonate with many average folks. But she is speaking to people’s pain in the language they understand it in. So, the smears around her being some crazy crystal lady will eventually fall mostly on deaf ears for many who now see her in that light.

She’s definitely angling her presidential run in a way that most Americans can relate to. It will be interesting to see if she’s successful with that.

Then what are you worried about? Just vote Marianne in the primary since her platform aligns more with your policy proposals in your conscious politics series. If you’re sure that Americans won’t vote for her and that Biden is a shoo-win for the nomination, then there’s no downside for you voting for the candidate that most aligns with your level of consciousness. Don’t be cowardly. This is (at the very least) a brilliant opportunity to get people talking about issues that matter to the average person.

It is quite frustrating because women don’t get listened to about what we find attractive about men when many of us are very well aware. The notion is that we just say things that we like on paper but don’t actually respond to those qualities. But this is a total mis-framing of the nature of female sexuality because women aren’t as attracted to parts and qualities as much as we are attracted to the man as a whole person… and as greater than the sum of his parts. Usually when women are attracted to a part of a man, it’s because it is a part within the greater whole of his personality. And because we resonate with the whole man, we like the part. Not the other way around. And a man with the exact same qualities (or better) may not excite any interest at all in a given woman. So, women are primarily attracted to wholes. And men (in contrast) are primarily being attracted to parts. But men think women are attracted to parts like they are… and so they try to idealize themselves as a collection of positive parts that fit their assumptions about the ideal Masculine. This projects the part-centric mechanics of male sexuality onto female sexuality. And it creates this sense that women are just a pickier version of men, when the mechanics are totally different in reality. But I don’t really see the caricature of Masculinity as demonic. It’s really clear it comes from vulnerable parts. And if I’m in a non-threatened state, I can have compassion. But on the level of lived experience and practical concerns, I see it as irksome and unattractive at best, and politically and physically dangerous at worst. There’s a wide spectrum.

That’s what I mean. If a man’s exhausted, then he’s probably not up for sex. Then the advice of the girl being on top isn’t really a fix here because he’d be engaging when he doesn’t feel like it as a chore for her. The surface level solution here is to set a boundary. But the deeper issue probably comes from her understanding and assumptions about her value as she believes the OP sees her.

My experience with men has been that most of them need a decent amount of time to recover in order for them to be ready to go again. That’s what I’m counting as part of the refractory period. And by ready that doesn’t just mean in terms of energy. It often means in terms of arousal and sexual appetite as well. So, the woman getting on top wouldn’t really solve that issue if the man is in a state of sexual satiety. But either way, it’s important that she doesn’t pressure him into having more sex than he feels comfortable having.

I think he means that she wants sex before the refractory period is complete.