Most of our philosophical predecessors have been males. Men have a kind of tunnel vision, very task focused, utilizing nearly seven times more grey matter in their brains to execute their activities. Typically they’re able to focus in on a single train of thought for much longer, allowing them to dive deeper into the think tank. This is also why they’re less aware of the ongoings in their surroundings comparatively to women. You can observe this when they’re engaged in activities such as game playing, it takes much longer to capture their attention.
Female brains on the other hand utilize nearly ten times more white matter, giving them an enhanced capacity to think horizontally. They’re more able to stay attuned to their environments while multi-tasking. Another note worthy difference is that women are more focused on human relations because they receive more information from all five senses. This accounts for why men tend to be less predisposed to analyzing their feelings and more focused on material things. The differences between these two become very evident when it comes to things like morality and assessing the energetic health of a group.
—We can’t separate our morality from our spirituality, nor can we separate our sexuality from either.
So what are your Immortality Projects? I’d love to know. My Think Big is to create as many bridges as possible between spiritual and evolutionary thinkers around the globe. To provoke a meta-narrative that distinguishes both our spiritual and secular needs as we continue to evolve. To increase our awareness of being an interconnected species. Ultimately because I wish to awaken myself, a micro representation of the macro body, the masses are my masters.
This highlights our responsibilities towards the self and each other but how do these two fit together? Not just fit together in a semi-quasi way but fit together well. Where does one end and the other begin? Does it all depend on our immortality projects? Perhaps.
—The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for the greater good of what we are apart of. The death of the lone wolf is here because everyone is becoming a bridge. There’s never been a more crucial time than now to fully engage in the complexity of our interconnectedness as an evolving species.
Fortunately not everyone is simply focused on the me-narrative, some are looking out for the weakest links, as a way of protecting the most vulnerable. We do this by choosing to staying vulnerable ourselves. Attuned to what is occurring energetically within the most fragile and reporting it back transparently to the most anti-fragile. Determining where power over others has become over-reaching, selfish and systemically unhealthy. We do this because ignorance at the top levels can very often drive the cart of followers right off the cliff. This happens because leaders feel isolated from their influence, ignorant to their power. We live in a complex web that only the divine feminine can truly feel in her body and see with her third eye. Where the masculine is limited in his capacity to empathize with collective needs, the divine feminine will step in. Where the divine feminine is lacking in spatial awareness, the masculine steps in. When we lack empathy, we further separate ourselves from embodying wisdom, the fertilizer needed to organically grow a horizontal democracy.
For those that are serious about becoming leaders in this era of global awakening, keeping our eyes singularly focused on our own personal truths diminishes the possibility for a healthy collective soul to emerge. In such cases there is the isolated me (often pigeon holed in a myopic online persona) struggling against the vast ocean of the we outside in the real world. We can’t escape the deeper purpose behind why our biological imperatives have been dictating a large portion of our morality. There’s no way of getting out of it. The divine feminine understand this instinctually and need to remind the masculine fiercely. For example, the emotional and mental state of a child will dictate the health of their physical bodies. Without a firm foundation, bone problems can occur during their developmental phase, I witnesses this within my own daughter during my separation. Without a solid father figure, identity issues develop into digestive problems. The list of why our biological imperatives must continue driving a certain amount of our morality goes on.
Many of the lead-thinkers in meta-morality have concluded that market exchange seems to be the best model for moral life. If this is the case does meta-morality become a scape goat for the ego’s desires of lower and higher pleasures? If meta-morality is applied romantically then might it lean into transactional rather than relational? The cosmic heart considers all hearts as its own and behaves according to a fair balance between the two within each and every exchange. Such is why heart-centred impersonal morality will predicate the importance of distinguishing when it’s necessary to save ten peoples lives by throwing one under the cart. A question to ask ourselves, “how emotionally self-serving verses universally serving are my morals and virtues?”
“Being the satisfied fool is – or may be – better for the fool, while being Socrates is better for the rest of us.” John Stuart Mill
We’re better able to see the other as the self, with healthy boarders, than to see the self as separate with unhealthy boundaries. If you’re not prepared to face the consequences of your meta-morally based actions, then you’re not fully engaging in the evolutionary process of thinking. To be a conscious leader, using your power to influence others, it’s a necessity to regularly assess your theories and update accordingly. Such is why consequentialism an important factor in determining healthy vs unhealthy on the evolutionary path of moral principles.
Is action more important than consequence? If so, you’re living on a self-diluted glutinous island. If not, than one is to do a retrospective analysis of applied theories to determine what dictates healthy vs unhealthy. Including all those ‘adventures’ we’d rather selectively forget. This requires taking into consideration the effects our decisions have on each other. If a leader is incapable of taking the live feedback into serious consideration and making the proper adjustments to their behaviour than he/she doesn’t deserve to be in a position of power.
We are a mythos-global complex web, to believe that we can narrow our biases down to a single solution off the bat, simply by stating such is wishful thinking. If it was that easy, we’d already be free, no one would pollute and we’d be loving towards each other in every moment, but we’re not there yet and so there’s work to be done. Hence the need for healthy transparent dialogue and why we need leaders who have the capacity to both go against the grain as non-conformists and counter strike on themselves when necessary.