🐈

But the cost is that you lose the individual touch. The “Love” message is lost.

It’s hard to communicate this because the communication channels are masculine. E.g. most women probably do not want to debate Jordan Peterson live on TV The debate will revolve around winning/losing rather than understanding.

In that sense, the feminine communication is invisible because it happens outside the public sphere. That makes its “power” hard to measure but IMO it’s equally if not more potent.

I suspect socially, status seeking behavior on say instagram seems degenerate because it makes this power visible. It’s like showing off “Look at how much invisible influence I have. I’m the puppet master pulling the strings.”

Lots of things lose their power when made legible. Political moves, jokes, seduction, etc... their intrinsically dark/invisible/subtle. They slide between the pieces of your ego’s armor and either cut or tickle you.

(Ego is the armor though, it can die, but what it protects cannot. Once it realizes its uselessness it allows “you” to fully see and appreciate the invisible without having to throw it into the light.)

There’s a yin/yang dynamic to legibility/illegibility. The legible/illegible distinction is probably more effective than the order/chaos one because chaos has such negative connotations.