kavaris

What is the purpose of all of this stuff (*Bub hub ?) (ill avoid making this a whole production) i ask this initial question, in order to begin expressing the purpose, that is, the point of what we're doing, which crosses into multiple places. One of which crosses into Plato and/or Plato-esque. There is also like, "Galileo's telescope", because it is with no easy feat-that we are trying to provide a kindve ocular window into what is suppose to be like the *seeing into the past, present, future~of all~or whatever direction may be aptly directed in the moment. Its difficult, first off, to provide that level of sight and realization, but then its all difficult to run parallel to the thoughts, feeling and ideas of the person receiving the transmission. Cause first off (again first off XD) you have what is like, this ever-revolving door of possibilities, both internal and external to both individuals in the *communication. Then you have another layer to that which is like, you know, "how should i react", like "Am i playing the retreating/retracting character here? Or is a situation where im suppose to be inserting myself, my ideas, into whatever this situation is", like... We could be anyone we want online, so, it is possible to play anyone we want, wherever, whenever. Lots of times there are people just messing around, and they arent really there to communicate w/ you, but to mess with you. So i guess, watch out for that, cause thats surely gonna be a looming wigwam in the air. Then there's like, someone who believes something, truly, and they're ideas are just unflappable in the ways on the reunion of the two philosopher's interacting, like... Jus' totally *new... or totally unexpected, such that no one cannot understand or find an easy door/gate into their soul~or whatever you want to call it. But anyway, the point is like, what is the point of philosophy/or communication, and actualize thyself, or understand thyself (talking about the world, reality, experience)? Like, i had mentioned, we would get the most by treating everything as a *telescope that we could look out of (if looked out of), so thats one... Another point to philosophy - if we start to ask questions that we may have not considered, or wouldve otherwise have not considered... like... "Something that we hadnt realized you could ask"... Like theres a certain tempo, or sequence that plays into the music that is playing behind a person, and sometimes, tapping into that is actually the key to understand what they're saying. So therefore, its not always about what is being said or the surface layer expression, but having a sense for like, "does this thing being said sound like theres a riddle, or a song to it, possibly without the person having even realized it theirselves", right, because, not only is everything a reflection (and you certainly should take seriously that which you reflect onto that person's words, your own interpretation of the words said), but theres also "the history, and the riddle that is the written word" and for all we know, there could be oceans of wisdom pouring around us *had we had the same insight into them words and their history, and the history of the history (by that same token, it could be the opposite, where, had we ignored the words and their direct/past history/meaning, we could *invent what we deem as being the meaning of the words and their possible meaning). So if we take that world view, that is, *how certain perspectives can be impregnated by our observations, then we should be looking out for our own interpretation of some of them questions and answers. *note, when i say "questions and answers", that can also mean your general observations into a situation, of course. I hope thats not too confusing for yous, as its not easy to really communicate the thing on communication itself. And its quite unnatural to be doing that, but im doing it anyway. Now i surely didnt list all the purposes of philosophy, but that is sortve like, a little piece of the cake to baking more cakes, to understand philosophy. Note: In a separate thread, im currently making a *list of things that we often get conflated and tangled together (subsequently making philosophy pretty impossible to look at) so that is still happening in The Liminal Threshold thread: And that is really a kindve spiritual/mystical thing, in some sense atleast, though we do mention Episteme as being one of those things conflated together w/ everything else. So hopefully, now yous all see how hard it is (EDIT: "hard" isnt the word im looking for... think of a more positive word like hard, and thats the word im lookin4). And maybe yous see the purpose to philosophy. And now, maybe yous can get a sense of like, how it can start to make sense... for you? Atleast, in regards to the philosophies. I mean... I assume not everyone went to college for like All things, Brain things, right? like surely everyone is like on some basic level, but not like a super expert on the knowing of words and *-isms, or things like this, or whatever that stuff is. So like, some people are still learning things, and we have to be receptive to the levels of the individuals. Like some people are also very slow-to-speed, for example, I myself am very slow. So, one has to feel out what is being said~to speed with la cerchia disegnata e immaginaria (okay sorry im losin' my mind, as yous were).

Jeez—i accidentally made 3-4 directions for myself, but, for the sake of communicating w/ yous. Okay so how do we get yous to be the dice roll on that, so to speak? Like, iuno lets just let it all exist in an abstract form til i see one, shining, overarching illumination that tells me for sure which one to bump and bring to the surface~And to make better. Also, i need to leave this here, as it sounds strange, but i forget these things weve stumbled on, and i will forget what it was, while i am consumed by some other thing. So im leavin a Greek thing here, told in Ancient Greek, because it didnt matter abou it being in English, which was part of this bulletinpoint~Like its more about like, looking at the reflection of stars on the surface of the pond, so i can remember a thing about the stars. p.s. it is also alot simpler than that Demeter/Persephone mystery, which has too many elements, and part of this was i was lookin for something simpler, albeit angelically alien~or something.

The Liminal Threshold Note: The following gives yous some questions to think about. Its written a little messy but i think yous can sort it out. First i want to establish what *i think that *we think we mean by consciousness, for the sake of argument... Consciousness is synonymous w/ 'being', right? (i dont know what the modern direction is, or what has been subsumed by it. im just assuming so.. doesnt really matter); Il share this term, "ousia". Although the video gives it the pronunciation [oo'shia] or sumthn, in Greek thats an /s/, alas that doesnt really matter, im jus sharing the term for yas to look up, and theres no other videos, so yous have to look up the text / online Q: How do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? Like, where we (us) are those very grounding pieces of experience; We will answer that in the course of this long explanation. So, maybe we think of ourselves as these grounding pieces, that which we'll lose in the end. But then what? That is, how do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? The problem is, when we get to the center of our soul, beyond what there is to get beyonder from, how do we get past the religion? That is, how do we get past, you know, the internal spiral that is parallel to our being—That thing that speaks without words, that follows our soul to the darkest depths of the very very end. That thing we are trailing~as we progress further and are subsequently enveloped by our own rabbit hole of experiences and beingness? That/it, and *we (us) arent undoing eachother such that its resolving... We are our own puzzle \*pieces, deliberating/or thinking into what should be built, \*grounded in our own kit, carrying ourselves through every realm of X. What is "X"? but none other than the final painting, or the reaction after its built. From that vantage, we look back on the lego piece painting, and we notice two prominent \*marks or ideas: one that leads to this \*Mystery, the other, \*Us. We can try to connect the pieces of this liminal threshold in between, or we can visit each mark—However its about the pieces, how pieces relate to marks, how they fit. Then theres a very finite vers., that goes deeper into said relationships (piece/mark relation), where we are then detracting from the pieces themselves in order to explore this piece->mark relationship, which may (or may not be) the direction we want to go beyonder, but still, even if we did, we are not without that spiral that seeks us out. We seek *it in return and we pay no attention to (or lets say, this the case), and we are only focusing on what there is at the bottom. We are never without ourselves. There are a couple doors leading to the light of ourselves, and when we reach them, the act of walking further is precisely the same as being spit back out into existence. The liminal threshold is that which is between *us and the other end of these doors, aka *source. And when we do explore that particular relationship notice too that we are never without ourselves. Pieces are added and subtracted, never without ourselves. We can go to heaven and hell and back, and open each and every door, and no where is something or someone to rotate in someone else's experiences but our own. And whos to say we dont get hit by the eye of the sun, this ball of fire, sending us spiraling down into the most ancient of pits that belong to our soul, without any inclination of how we got there; Then and only then, we might say, it is the deepest weve ever gone, but never without ourselves. And i can take us to those places that forever extinguish every fiber that was attached, that had been sealed through the blackest of goo, or the most electrically charged particles holding everything intact, but to say that thats it—Like a clear delineation of the grounding/the beginning—To ascribe to it is to defy what is the essence of 'being', for being is able to solve its own internal legokit, and repaint the entire picture without any memoria, without having even known *the act of painting was an option. We can do incredible things when we reach the center of ourselves, though it may not seem like; I say this cause i sense theres somewhere in-earth to a fleeting fact somewhere, that there is a flying, harpy of an arch angel and/or a hella arch of an enemy hiding within us, that which we call us, and we arent aware of the deepness that lies through the cascade of a lego kit, that which never "begun". This lego kit/pit goes all the way down. To be ready is to assume you can be surprised, when alls there has ever been is surprises in the form of an experience that looks like "things that are important for the state of consciousness". Those things are consequences of consciousness though, Ousia, i frame in the form of a question, so how deep does it go, in the liminal space of what there is to explore? Let me know.

Ha. Hey thx, and yes, vry true. Oh, nd i jus listened to something/experienced something highly unusual, but beautiful. I fell asleep listenin to Whatever the fk this video was from like 9 years ago (it started AFTER i was asleep, so you might say, we were on the same very alien path of myth and mystery), And omg did this take me to the strangest of Prometheus spacecrafts over-an-ever-changing-painting-of-scenes Dreams. Like, this is a gr8 example of something, which on the surface doesnt follow the *ideal like, emphatic typeve description or like the ideal collection of clauses (XD) but Woh, i cannot believe where i went. And alls i did was very slightly open up to ostensibly somethin that wouldve made no sense to me since, but it actually in the long run has made more sense to me now (outside of ancient greece, that part wasnt featured in my dream since it took *new form), and im not quite sure if it would *fit in that thing i wrote. Like i sortve put myself to shame by way of experiencing this like, Little Mermaid of Disney Scenescape -typeve things, over this like mythic seashore horizon?

Just so i dont forget, i want to add those very primal things that we all get mixed up or conflated~Which i did mention before~in another thread, but i didnt really think we would need or want to remember them. This isnt to say that they arent meant to collapse down, but for the sake of trying to do philosophy, one has to untangle the thing before one can tangle it back up, which is necessary for living as a normal thinking human. But anyway. They are, 1. "How to talk about truth" (like "im confused how do i even begin," -typve thing), then theres, 2. "How to experience truth" (not only does this part of it require your exp., another part of it requires "not asking twenty questions at the exact same time", therefore, your *tempo* matters, as well as the sequence you follow; because surely it would lend itself to the quality of truth you're deriving out of said questions), then theres, 3. "Where we're goin, or the assumption of where its going...", 4. "The level of determination or dedication towards said endeavor~of pursuing said truth", or like the ratio of caring to not, like a balanced lifestyle in other words (⚠️i feel compelled to leave an exclamation mark after this one, since its one of those things that crosses into other understandings, where its not just about lifestyle) Yesterday it occurred to me that theres like 10x more of these, though now im tryina see if i remember what they were... As i also felt that we should know these things, or carry them down for later philosophizing on things of this nature (meaning, we should carry down all of them, otherwise we are gonna have to keep reinventing the wheel to do philosophy): 5. Understanding thyself - this can enact a few different directions, one of which was this liminal threshold thing ive presented in the form of a myth/prose thing, but can be held *in mind* as *Ousia ⇌ (Xp) ⇌ *Light (iuno if im satisfied. Because the thing is like, i really want to emphasize the self in a way that gets beyonder the idea of like "Because it started as the self, that means it also must be followed by the self...". Like i dont feel like thats what this is doing, but its a consequence of the philosophy itself, like, the argument hasnt gone past the fact that there are "things beyonder the self" in a sense; which is another reason why i felt compelled to lay everything out plainly. Its really about the "laying out of plainly read things" (this wouldve been a great time for us to all speak Italian or Greek to communicate something like what this last sentence was trying to say). 6. Understanding beyond thyself~possibly beyond the ego into death and these realms that do not correspond to this present existence, or not in any obvious manner (related to the third one, but its a little different) 7. Understanding things as concepts, or perspectives that alter the foundations (new perceptions on the universe and reality) 8. Gnostic-forward methods, that which make it more about "attaining the light" first and foremost/directly (thats me putting it in my own words, but you can tell me if youd prefer it to be less extreme, or if we should break it out into two Gnostic positions) 9. Episteme in general, and the more practical philosophies as a whole~as a spectrum of, which crosses into logic, mathematics, and things of this nature. 10. I wasnt sure if "thinking in terms of differences" is its own thing, or like if theres a such thing as "thinking of a way to not think in differences", like, thats getting into an abstract thing that ive personally never heard of—Alas i think *differences* is its own category, simply because "not differences" isnt a thing yet (i also feel like, differences and circular thinking could just be brought together, like why not, i dont see them needing to be separated for any reason). 11. Starting from chaos (starting from an unexpected position, for that matter). Like, iuno what this would or could be, but lets include it. p.s. now lets cut it there (unless theres something obvious that i missed that fits the original sentiment) lets not go crazy adding everything. And again it can be solidified later on.

@Breakingthewall Theres like this element that you are stumbling i believe, though, its one of those things where its like, by reading between the lines, you subsequently found several interesting things here and there (that were otherwise implicit), which also includes revolving the kaleidoscope to include my, Leo and Platos (and your own) words, at this moment in exp., somewhere within that little nook of creation, theres something in there thats really cool, or its like, this thing, like a "set in stone" thing. And *It doesnt mean/require changing anything. Its one of those things thats just like, "I realized what the sequence was... That existed between the lines... And THEN... It was cool", right? Like one of those things. Like... It moves circular, so thats why its always weird to define exactly what we're looking at/talking about, in the moment.

@Breakingthewall Yes. And i can see where you are coming from now. Im gonna think about this, cause ive been sayin, i dont wnna respond as like... \*reflections of the response within the response, typve thing (not that i ever did that before, but i digress), instead i want to think into your words, and let it take shapes, forms or figures that i can sense, see, hear, feel, taste and touch~so to speak~so that i can figure out which direction has the "best flavor"? or something like that.. or, which road has the most trees/growth (or somethin like that) such that we can reach this like, Narnia garden (or reach "that which was always there" in waysaway that feel new)

Then, theres more of the Aristotle direction w/ some of these things, some perspectives~as i feel like ~ i have to mention it now, or anytime its gone to Plato, and that sometimes finds itself, its ideas going down a wholly unique road. Anyway. Thats all for the moment.

Yes. All true. I hear ya. I like that Gateless Gate term too, thats cool. I never heard that one before.

So i was listening to someone talk about the Greek play the Baccae, giving this long explanation, or a general outline, more or less starting from the outside, working towards the inside, towards the summary itself, or those parts that shared a significant points of relation to his explanation. Anyway he said something that caught my attention. I believe he was talking about Aeneas, who doesnt exude his typical/traditional warrior/hero archetype, and he goes on to extract the virtue from this situation of the story~related to this virtuous or parable-esque line, "... while those who believe after seeing are to be blessed, how much more blessed are those who believe without seeing", and his first conclusion on said virtue of this whole scenario around the baccae and its distilled message being, "Anytime someone recognizes a potentially devine power, dont test it, have the good sense to worship" —And that caught my attention, like, in my "quintessentially strange opinion" way, which is that... The Baccae's message~atleast in that sense~IS right, it rather reveals something: "testing and examination" are a second order to "experiencing and worshipping", if you consider that our experience is really more akin to "that which exists within the fishbowl of the mind, that we only later make as these distinct copies, and call some of those physical matter", and its only in a world of pure analysis that we see it any other way (now n days) but back then it wouldve been a conflicting way of life, to make deep inquiry into the nature of, e.g. a psychedelic exp., or even just a normal exp that seemed to defy the logical trend, to "create the religion" and which we all do anyway—by making worship of our own routine, or our own experience/ideas, hence its primary order by Default! versus the second order~less emphatic notion of creating analysis out of what can be discretized—which is in contrast now to the more wholistic, continuity of belief, experience and the automatically applied religion we set upon all things, though veiled as "logical observations". In short, now and days we obfuscate the religious part w/ things that look like "logical observations made" or "grounded logical ways of life", but they are veilings over this deeper notion of our "belief in whatever we call the *religious exp. w/ life*, which is initially absent of logic, or even belief for that matter, nevertheless they all collapse into a conflation—w/ the more & more vines of logic that wrap around. Is there healthy dose of logic required? surely but its second order. We have things we take for religion first, primary to all, then, only then, we call them things either a "filament on the logical side" or a "filament on the side of belief" even though its already a belief~such as the belief that the imperfect copies of that in our experience, that which is non material, that it will continue to be "a wooden chair" or "a bird" or some other imperfect copy or form that we have already a deep religion for. So thats the other end of the forms, the Infinite/eternal and the *Perfect forms of Plato~if going "to Plato" as ill so descriptively refer to it now.

Hey! Yes, i suppose you are right. Infinity and eternity have always seemed so impossible to apply to things, but i never really aw it as Plato saw it, and this idea of like an unchanging thing, plus a perfect thing, and the extisting outside time thing like, at first sight i was like, "okay where is this going", but hes the only ine whos like, started from a point that seemed like it was gonna be so strange, and made it like, very very earthly and ground, for us! So now, i can see where things are coming from when that term is being used; granted im reinterpreting it... Like the following is an example of something i been meaning to write, to add to this *tough, rigid surface of ideas, though because its a bit long i may have to break it out into a separate message, cause its both long and running off topic from infinity, sortve diving head first into this deep end of things that is like drownding if you werent ready to swim that day, so 1 sec... Its sortve obvious too, so i dont think im saying anything new, its just a recapitulization on the same sortve things, 1 sec...

The other way to frame things is to use Aristotle stuff, which is itself another road, but its also quite a different road. Like theres prolly a way to really compliment the two roads, but, then theres another road where you go off in a different direction entirely. And im not actually sure whats better, or whats right or wrong, like im saying, theres just a few many roads to take, either direction(s). But from my own exp., i would say that, my first impression is, the Aristotle road would require too much work, like im not sure i want to visit it in a serious manner (myself). Though its possible to go down that road (as a group). i know lots of people are already going down that road, but like... hm... what am i trying to say here. I think im just sayin yous have roads that are like shining beacon roads. I mean, in the context of *things that are most obvious, yous have atleast two shining beacons that you could follow up on ... Yah. But, i guess we just have to wait for more people to submit their ideas, posts and threads, such that we can tell which direction everyone is going in, as far as like, the base/core philosophy and the clustering that occurs through shared experiences and things like this.

I just thought i should add that, although alot of Credit goes to the Greeks, that i (much like others i know), only use Greece as a landmark, and not as definition for "how to live" or how to be, like, they have a language that compliments English. Like, at the time of Ancient Greece, you have Jews working together with others of the middle east, who are working w/ Persians, who are working w/ Greeks, who are working w/ Romans, and the list goes on. Thats just to say, hey, everyone worked together (maybe more physical fighting together in medieval and beyond, to try to become the person to subsequently carry forth those words) however, it eventually lead to now, and building what are like, the landmarks of communication, which always is in a possible state of collapsing. Like alls we can ever do is try to A) Map it, and~whats the word for like, establishing a landmark? and/or B) Create a language around it to fill in the details of whats on the map. Or so, that is how i frame what is suppose to be like this universal framing of directions, which you can alternate in it doing/performing thereafter. Its like "the art of DOing" or something, ya know? Or its like a simple way to see things for the sake of, or something. Yous get it.

Theres a couple points from history i want to get to, not just *isagoge*, so bare with me. First, what is this isagoge? In the medieval world, students did not learn Aristotle directly. They began with "Isagoge" (εἰσαγωγή [ei-sa-go-je]), a short work by Porphyry that served as an introduction to logic and classification. Its purpose was to train the mind before engaging with more difficult texts. The Isagoge explained a small set of basic concepts: genus, species, difference, property, and accident; that allowed students to understand how things are defined/grouped and distinguished. These ideas had the foundation to reading, arguing, and reasoning clearly encapsulated within. The Isagoge functioned as a prelude you could say, as Aristotle's work depended heavily on precise definitions and logical structure. Once students understood "how a thing belongs to a class", "what makes it what it is", and "what traits are essential versus incidental", they were prepared to graduate towards other, higher realms of study/philosophy, and metaphysics. Aristotle's vocabulary tended to focus on analysis (analyzing being), as well as cause and change, reasoning itself. The Isagoge gave students the mental framework needed to correctly follow that sortve rigorous outlook. In this way, it became a standard—and not a replacement for Aristotle, but the more foundational aspects towards that Aristotelian way of thinking you might say. Why do i bring this up? Well, i figured most people already know've Aristotle, but they dont know the more foundational isagoge (and the proceeding history thereafter). There's quite a plethora of interesting/hidden/forgotten stuff you can find in ancient greek+latin texts and so on, if you take the time to go through it all. The study of distinctions, or differences (such as, "... of the mind") comes later in medieval education, and was formalized as a technical tool under the term "distinctio..." Scholastic thinkers regularly used distinctions such as distinctio realis (real distinction), distinctio formalis, and distinctio rationis (distinction of reason). Students were explicitly taught that some distinctions exist in things themselves, some exist only in the mind, and some are (or exist) somewhere in between. Boethius, who transmitted Porphyry and Aristotle to the Latin West, emphasized how definitions depend on differences and how misplaced distinctions can lead to false arguments. He also trained students to pay careful, almost methodical attention to distinctions. By the high Middle Ages, later scholastics such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus explored these ideas further. Aquinas questioned whether distinctions were real or conceptual, while Scotus introduced the subtle notion of the formal distinction. By this point, students were very much aware that thinking itself operates by distinction, even if this was never explicitly phrased in modern philosophical terms. Medieval thinkers avoided saying "all knowledge is (...)" because doing so would risk collapsing the study of reality into mere mental activity. Instead, distinctions were always meant to reflect structure (we are then, and thus, defining structure itself~as each thing we study is also a study/focus on creation). p.s. I made that last line up, so dont go looking for it in any of the aforementioned info. So now you sortve see how that road of thinking unfolds a little more; As, it is in this sense that the concept of distinctions became a gateway: genus = sameness, difference = intelligibility, and species emerges from repeated distinctions.

I do have to clear this up, otherwise yous are gonna be so confused. Platonism is the closest to this Threshold, as both the Angelic order of Mystical Theology and the Daimons of Neoplatonism fail to enact the traveling that \*is (and would be) the space between our soul and this \*point light source. Platonism however compliments this notion, as we must leave there the dedicated space to exist and experience both of those truths, not making it out to be anything more than it is, —that is NOT to SAY that priority/hierarchy isnt important, nor are we saying that you cannot have this flowing / intermediary quality introduced w/ Neoplatonism, its simply saying that there is no notion of Angels or Daimons, Daimons or Angels and that they are only consequences of what exists between the liminal space between yourself and the \*point light source. \*Ousia (see definition online), is not greater than \*the one, and \*the one is not greater than ourselves. To say all there is is "the one" is incorrect speech. You have to include \*yourself in that equation, or you are saying everything is "one" which it is not. That might seem obvious, but to some it is not, so i try to get that obvious stuff out there first. Dedicated space is important as well, for we cannot say what we dont know to be there. Though, we can say what we have experienced, and what we think could be there (that is, differentiating a formal statement made, versus just a general experience expressed) p.s. i will add that Mystical Theology and Neoplatonism touch on interesting aspects, though they require someone to come in and figure them out, and try to frame things, from their own understanding / pov, To come in and say what they think is the best intellectual version for that—Like there is another way / another aspect that might be in there that can be added upon, if yous desire to figure it out. I just see it as being too complicated to try and work out, as its akin to a reframing of the whole thing, both this liminal threshold and Platos ideas.

Hey. Oh yes, consciousness is a weird word (infinity and eternity have fascinating aspects to them, per their applications and such) Hey, i havent a strong opinion otherwise~for making the case for any of them, or spectrum thereof. i would be frettin over something very minor in the grand scheme. Thus I just use whatevers been bubbling at the top of the pot, to put it bluntly Also consider how something like this *ousia word (that no one prolly has heard of) would take too long to get it on top of the word stack / word sandwich anyway, so more than likely itll go through phases where consensus shows they are favoring a notion of infinity~as the anterior to what follows, versus, *being* on another occasion, et caetera, assuming that thats the kind of collapsing of those terms that does ensue. In the simplest of ways, i try to just present them, without really saying what they are, but instead expressing an experience that exists around them -kindve thing~or a story/dialogue rather. *p.s. decide if yous want more of a writing that goes in a practical/plato-esque, grounded style with less (but still visible) mythish/strangeness (meaning, in the next writing/piece), or if yous would prefer—what i would consider the opposite, my own style, leaning in—what i now refer to as a Mytholological side of the spectrum, w/ multiple "lo's" in there cause its like, taking elements from the Mythologians, and presenting non myths in mythological form - kindve thing, or something like that.*

This is sortve a part I: to what is going to be this sortve like, *otherworldish traversal through this depiction of the liminal space, but in such a way to explore this relationship between the source and ourselves, and what is to be the highest of priority as far as where im going to be taking this ever-evolving reel of thread—that we keep reeling in, trying to discover what we, the thread, *is or could be...

non dualism, uni concentrisism, affixed postixedism, inner outer corigasm, plendid stellar boyishism, friendly flippidy face frownyism, smesh smosh smish smosh smesh relatie~ism, man power of the pure womanhood schism, you know, but what lies at the inner ring, if to have only described the outer, what lies in between non and dual, if to have only been in the number 2 to the power ~ is the question.

Eternal Distinctions In the same way the Greek word ἄπειρον (apeiron) existed long before Anaximander (meaning endless, boundless or without limit) the very old word "logos" had existed long before Heraclitus (which i did mention), however Heraclitus was the first to turn it into a deep cosmic principle. Aristotle relocates "logos", back to its original meaning (word, reasoning, explanation) as well as *ἄπειρον* and the "source from which all things arise and return, eternally", affixing the notion of "infinity" to *κίνησις, \*kinesis* (any change from potentiality to actuality), as opposed to infinity being laid on the \*substance itself — Aristotle was ahead of his time w/ this, though we have to introduce another term here to make it make sense: *Active* from Latin *activus* (*ago*, "to act") semantically loaned/adapted from Ancient Greek *energetikós* and that whole thing. Intuitively, we recognize "standing still" as being separate from "motion". Even in modern physics, there's the understanding that this is speaking in two separate conceptual spaces, along w/ atoms and how they vibrate; Where there are *things* that can be considered either "moving" or "at rest". Aristotle's distinction is similar: *substance* from old Latin *substo*~what a thing is, is contra to *kinesis* (its *active* change or motion). The thing we call "motion" is thus distinct from "the thing thats being moved"~or simply put, *motion* as being what "acts upon" a *substance*. Circular motion, likewise, has no beginning or end (and the time it occupies is endless). Eternal motion explains how the cosmos persists indefinitely without requiring matter itself to be infinite. However, he assumes that "motion = infinity" in a strict sense. But our modern intuition still suggests that infinity cannot be reduced solely to motion; and furthermore, it could still be a property of substance, structure, or potentiality as well, so keep that in the back of your mind (separating motion from substance is not straightforward). The bottomline is that, you can use this to go further on making distinctions (or consolidations), and trying to sort through what it is that we think reality is, as its not just mental masturbation, and I find that there are hints leading us to a place where words, ideas and truths coincide with each other, even if just for a brief moment. There are things pointing to things that may be of some benefit towards the overall recipe, and its just bout adding hints here and there, cause everyone is starting from a different place, so everyones on a separate journey.

, hey vry interesting stuff. thanks for response. im interested, if u get the courage to really rip that sht if itll get you into view/scene with the so called entities (or is that the other dmt now, i get them confused/mixed up... hey maybe an angel will pop out of that light thatd be siq) in depicting something thats got an intelligent hold on these sorts of call it.. like liquidity states... w some emotional context, that of *surprise, surprised w what they were doing... as perhaps they can teach us. Although a part of me now thinks we have to teach ourselves everything, possibly going as far as to understand dreams that dont share the same sortve *stuff that waking memories do (not that they do now) but i mean, dreams are almost like a fresh canvas, but its also what make dreams incredibly frustrating to work w/ cause they are like, every longitudinal divided ocean in a multipack of oceans—*crashing together, in a very incremental but nonetheless violent way, and having to steer a boat right in the center of it with your mindseye. But ive been workin at this very same thing every night, so its not that bad, but i need ship mates in there its so torrential. Like we need to sail out as far as we canso to speak, and do it suxh that we aremt lost forever, but that it just resolves, speaking figuratively p.s. i should said ~not made of the same stuff like how rocks and water arent the same stuff, not to mean the whole thing isnt the same underlying thing, Alas the torrential waters are navigatable. BUT We need like, "identity maps" and new ways to think bout this newly discovered zone, if we are even that close, which we might be very very far, hard to gauge. I feel confident, how bout it, put it like that.

Q: Does the realm and the subsequent beings feel like it has the potential to rearrange you? Like do the entities theres give you the impression that they are there as like a fail safe to do a full spiritual swap? As i was wondering how we are gonna be intelligently rearranged (in the end) as i feel like there needs to be an event where the dream world settles into more of this hypothetical dmt world im calling it, in order to actively and purposefully rearrange everything in an intelligent manner cause otherwise we are like falling through a dream space forever and its like, thats super no bueno. Like do yous get the impression that your entrance and body/presence within dmt space is like a filament of a material item that *belongs* there in a weird way—is what im asking—and/but because of the proclivity to want to stay on Earth and the uneasiness with being rearranged, you are shuttled back into your wakefulness? i never took dmt before so thats why i ask. I mean ppl describe the experience as if theres an intelligence in there so im tryina see like, just how intelligent are we talking? is it like a vague intelligence, or is there something poignant about it that you can feel albeit way over the experiential mountain in terms of the fear of finding out whats lies beyond.

Migliorismo What im tryina say doesnt really/strictly exist in Greek per say (atleast not the second part of this), hence the title shifting into Italian suddenly, however, i'll still be starting from the point of those perspectives in Ancient Greek (lets just call it back in the 1AD days for simplicity purposes, as it points to a time where the interaction between language, cultures, ideas, etc, etc is all very well & good) starting w/ Aristotle, and his ideas on ethics; Ethics that emphasize moderation. Virtue (moral, behaviors, stuff like that) is often the mean between two extremes: e.g., courage is between rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). Applied to attitudes, one could say there is a μεσότης (mesótes) or a fixed point between despair (pessimism) and overconfidence (excessive optimism). Stoics were also responsible for this notion of equanimity — freedom from excessive passions. This is a sortve neutral stance between the overly positive or overly negative emotional reactions to events. In the case of the Epicureans, another *intermediary* is in avoiding both fear-driven pessimism and reckless over-expectation. In simpler terms, there are usually two extremes. This leads me to my point which we'll call "migliorismo". This is the belief that the Earth (the world) can be improved through human effort. Its understood as an intermediate outlook between optimism and pessimism - in one sense - or really - we could file it under "common sense", right? I mean, its just a nice message to put out in the world - that is, if you have to put one overarching message into the world, you should be the one orchestrating that message; Because perhaps the most important message here is that, by default you are putting messages out (you can think about that in terms of yourself, OR as the whole of everyone+including you), and this is the case, even without anything explicitly stated;; That is something to get you thinking, one which i think/believe hasnt been explicitly stated/explained *before, or its one that nobody really knows of... Its nevertheless the case, with some nuance though. You transmit to everything and everyone, so you have to use your analytical mind to figure out what you want to send out, otherwise the default transmission will be out there. And considering what i mentioned in the first half of this post, it doesnt mean you have to (or would even want to) scream out whats on your mind. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, a good thing, or better yet, even the "right" thing assuming we all agree on what is "right", which we dont; And that is to say then, that you dont necessarily get the best/right option for free without saying or doing something, anything, so mine as well set yourself up by strolling on the right path, and with the right message in mind, and thats all up to yous to decide. *Woops i left something out... ill just add it here, and that is in Aristotle's terms used regarding both extremeties in his specific inquiry: ὑπερβολή (hyperbolḗ) = excess and ἔλλειψις (élleipsis) = deficiency / lack, And which is not to be confused with the geometric meanings: hyperbola or ellipse, because élleipsis is related to a falling short. They both are geometric terms accredited to Apollonius of Perga (60-70 years after Aristotle)

@WillCameron The Archetype; The Symbols or notions — It is a powerful way to do just as you said. They help you create an Archetyped map and to *see-through to something more core and more primal than the layers that may be on it, in between (or just flat out Not visible yet). That is what the Icon, logo or the symbol has always been meant to do. Its meant to encapsulate more than what we might be trying to express—And in such a way as to do it within a dedicated area, or a symbol that isnt easily dismissed. It gives you an apex, an azimuth to help in relating things to—to then—afterwards, make connections. The Archetypes you speak of have always been there in some form. Speaking to this first succubi one — That one, specifically could and will likely end up (in the coming ages) following a circular pattern -> (Speaking from a more angelic beginning) First—To begin w/... You have the equality of human beings -> then a tipping towards one end of the spectrum or the other -> then a domination brought to the table, via the men on Earth (as its not necessarily a native womanly trait) -> then a suppression of, or the outward appearance of men (iuno if youd call them men or boys) being dominated -> then it just goes back to normal once that goofyness subsides, presumably. It might take longer tlfor it to get smoothed out as its a chain reaction of different things happening. And as its really~not like a focal point or anything. Like its a consequence of consequence of a muddy center wherein nothing makes sense, and, in turn, you get these goofy things bubbling up and making it look like we are in some sortve backwards, anti men verse / paradigm. There are aspects that are true to make it so, then there are those that make it seem as though it is alot more than it really is/much more than it even ever could (like, totally *out there-stuff) and most of that i feel is self correcting, just as you had come to the conclusion to do this map in the first place, which is precisely how such issues get resolved internally (let a partial external one do as they must). That is to say then, how we must simply and ambitiously map them out, just as anything on Earth/Reality has to involve, or resolve, through either: A) A mapping out (*identifying) of the reality/experiences, and denoting the basis/initial form... To later bring in... B) A "language" — and, of which is in turn created—by making connections and/or filling in the details. The *mapping Archetype, if we might call it that for a moment, is more of like the *design/architect, or cartographer's direction, or so one might say (the Archetype of the Architect) (or the director of a sortve macro scale, and the erecting of runestones of acknowledgement within its territories, regions within *space) Then you have more of the very *detailed Archetype, the one who makes connections and fills things out... Sortve "doing the~application of directed details" (if that makes sense) adding details to those already mapped out parts produced by the cartographer. Both are involved in mapping out something, whatever that may be, but there has to be someone sighting/revealing [insert a*space] before it can have details. p.s. i dont know wat the canonical jungian archetypes are, i just have my own thing.

I like the food one, cause food is somethin women, like to do like they knock on ur door and bring upside chicken w/ rice and stuff like this from Palestine — like people can unite over food. The god or gods one i just avoid, personally, as when it gets brought up in a cross-culture scenario, im thinkin to myself "Oh jeez, they bringin up religios god stuff.. this is so fu@€#..." but so far it hasnt gone too bad yet.. Historically it probably wouldve gone bad.

Lemniskos in Ancient Greek refers to a loop (later a ribbon in mathematics and others) like a figure eight essentially. This is a term yous could use, as it touches upon this notion of — You have one thing that starts -> <- here, lets say, and then you cross over with a kindve equal but opposite motion/thing. You have a mirrored version of a thing now, as well as the original thing you started, as well as the path it took to get there. Essentially you have a cascade, which this notion of like, two causal points, or a start, and an end... Aristotle mentions circularity in this way too—That is how, its the only motion *without a rest/relax or naturael endpoint ("telos"), and no position within a circle could go on to be the undisputed "finalization". He goes to explain the cosmos using ideas like that of circular motion, but in this point hes trying to express more of the *cosmic motion, and having a starting point without termination. Thats of course leaning towards circularity in general, which is another important aspect—that which takes an different facets depending on what we're talking about (yous would have to do a whole thing on circularity, which is a separate topic). Lemniskos is a little different. Its not the same as *fractal and/or recursive functions because its more specifically emphasizing the looped path, and not necessarily the self similar aspect, though, the fact that its similar is part of it. Theres also this notion of like *similarity* in general, like. Like, in other words, you dont have to add things (at a certain point) when theyve gotten *close enough to being similar*, like, we dont usually think in these terms, but lets say, w/ anything "innovative", you may consider how you dont always need to **recreate the same things over again and again**, especially if they are similar enough. I mean its hard to express the areas where this is relevant, as it crosses into multiple places, and i dont know which its *suppose to be apart of, hence, i leave it here—for yous to decide, being from a more spiritual, mystical or creative/art standpoint, which in turn can go in any direction yous want.