My impression of thumbnails of Leonardo da Vinci's Paintings v.04

So I watched Utada Hikaru's conversation with Hideaki Anno (accessed June 2021), and I don't understand a lot of it, because its in Japanese. So I went to the translation video and found out that she had a deep experience with Leonardo da Vinci's St John the Baptist. 

Long I have been wondering how could people experience paintings in a profound level, so I tried to search for the pictures. I didn't experience too much emotions (I experienced something at the beginning, but then its gone) but they are certainly engaging, for just thumbnails of them. 

These are the ideas invoked at the experience:

- They have multiple angles people could take and relate themselves to. The deeper you immerse yourself the more you could experience, but to optimize the experience you should expand yourself into the depths of the universe. The further you've been the more there it is that you could understand about them. 

- Leonardo da Vinci has different versions of Jesus and John the Baptist, and he has a more realistic version where Jesus was not beautiful, and the archetypal versions where Jesus was like portrayed in the picture. From these archetypal pictures I wandered on why he drew it that way

- Since his pictures were for the consumptions of nobles and kings at the time I assume he painted the contents of their hearts. How being a male with such qualities at the time was a luxury, therefore the feminine features. For many many parts of the world this is still relevant. Some of the things Jesus do, said, or feel and think was something that was considered would contribute to female features. 

- There is this idea of feminism as the source of life. In my opinion he was searching for the anatomy of this feminism. Herodias for example, is a kind of feminism, while the virgin was another kind. The life that stemmed out of the different kinds of feminism also would be different in respect... there were the ugly forms of results, there were the beautiful forms of results. So the way I understand it is, if you change the woman inside you, you'll change your life. 

- The Mona Lisa could mean several things; Leonardo da Vinci's feminine, Lady Wisdom, The Archetype of a perfect female, his mother.

- St John the Baptist, the spirit of Elijah, if the Mona Lisa was his feminine, is the portrayal of Leonardo da Vinci's confidence... now I'm going to stray too far without relevant bases (even for my standard) so I'm going to stop. 

I don't understand Privilege v.05

Privilege to me is being rich, acccess to money. But since people often use it when they were exposed to greatness I rationalize that that would be a privilege as well. But inside, I don't really get it personally.

If you're a singer and Ariana Grande performed with you, I get it. But if you catch Ariana Grande on the street and took a picture with autograph, I don't get it. 

Also you supposed to be able to use it to someone who won 20.000 dollars from the slot machine, but nobody says that like that. So really, is it really appropriate the way people who met with admirable people thought that they're privileged, or were they just lying / sucking up, why? 

-------------------------------

I think now I've understood it better. The reason why God put the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, and prohibited the humans from eating them is:

It was a grant of privilege to become creatures of discipline. Gods, or children of God

The discipline was particularly unique, that it wasn't stem from some imminent senses of danger, nor beauty, but from consciousness and humility, wisdom. It was the privilege on the divine discipline, or law.

Bahasa Indonesia: Keistimewaan, Privilege.

Ya, bukan kehormatan, adalah sebuah keistimewaan kalau mendapat kehormatan ya, tapi kehormatan bukan privilege, keistimewaan adalah privilege.

Mindset v.03

If you believe that the world is unfair, unfair to you, you'll notice more and more how the world is unfair to you.

If you believe that the world has balancing mechanism, that its supposed to be fair, you'll figure out more and more, how the world is actually serving you justice (not a law, but a development)

So when the depression has passed, or has became passable, lets notice the wisdom that is calling for us to notice her

To separate between privacy sin and specialization/scaling up sin v.03

Often times people complained over working overtime or employees not wanting to work overtime while not contributing enough. Also I assume that the popular argument was that working overtime costs not only extra salary expenses but also productivity expenses in the future. 

I'm all for working effective and efficiently, utilizing the working hours as much as possible. But people often stopped after the notion that working overtime is bad, but looking at it deeper, there are at least 2 divisions of reasons why it is bad:

1. Invasion of privacy. People need their own time with themselves and their family, prying on this means the business would be perceived as a negative contributor to one's quality of life even though it is also the income source of the family. Salaries are supposed to support one's quality of life, but if the expense was the quality of life itself then its about margins. 

2. Specialization problem. If you worked overtime because you are doing multiple kinds of jobs at your workplace, say for example entertaining clients besides accounting, selling besides warehouse supervising, then its a specialization problem. I'm not saying a business supposed to only just do one thing, or a person, but the idea of scaling up is about multiplying your product exponentially. So no matter if it were done at working hours or outside of working hours, if that caused one to worked overtime then its another type of toil on the business (other than the privacy issue). 

So if your business had to work overtime, for most of us its inevitable, I would suggest that it would be for the things that were well defined as your products/services. If the components of your products/services were well defined, then the limit would be perceivable, the cost, and the benefit of the overtime as well and people would be able to internalize them and made it their own personal agenda (easier). If the business had no clear definition of the components then there's the impression of endlessness of costs demanded from each employee. In turn this would contribute to the inclination of the employee feeling exploited, being treated inhumane, and all the evil things that would came after because the potential for them not being able to specialize and to have their own life were endless (even though maybe other businesses worked overtime more while having their employees less disgruntled than yours). 

But if the costs and the components of the products and the services provided by each people were well defined the owners would benefit as well as the employees, in the way that they could measure the performance of the employees, the management, identify points of adjustments, perceived costs of adjustments or non-adjustments (economical, monetary, mental, property-wise, legal-wise, etc etc), and made smart decisions that would otherwise wouldn't be possible due to obscurity .