kavaris

You assume "true manifesting" means something specific, but i employ you to define it for us, for youll find a thousand different ways you could truly lay it out, Maybe you mean "Can i wish for something to happen, and have it happen"? I dont know, i dont know what you are thinking. Youd have to be more distinct in your words.

You ask alot. You ask for us to describe manifesting, and what it may possibly mean, through the infinite space of whats possible ~ And it includes many things. Will your manifesting be the same, explanation-wise, as well as actually to someone elses? Iuno. Theres many questions you pose by asking such a question, that from your perspective should be validated and considered on your own time. Theres more roads to choose, a weighted bundle of possible options, many more than just the ones youve put forward; For, even those have many more questions you would have to face. You think too lightly of it as an idea ("idea" being, your internal expressions made manifest)

Oh... Here, let me see if i can separate it into a form everyone can recognize... First, when i think of "just m3ditating... just relaxing... or trying to just run on instinct" (iuno wat do nothing means per say, alas i tried to give it some notion of wat yous might be thinkin bout, including myself, when thinkin of, like, la-de-da do nothing), i think of a cushion, like you said, its that very comforting, but also dangerous foundation — Like its insurance for the soul... Chicken soup for the soul, sortve thing... Relatively... Personally or emotionally speaking... You dont have to do anything or 'try to do anything. In an absolute sense, you really dont need to do anything. Thats also what survival is, its the ability to balance that harmonic resonance w/ the active stimulation. You dont need to do that... You dont neeed to do Anything. But you technically speaking, need to, in order to continue the routine that says you have to, otherwise, you cant even talk or contemple the absolute, like the paradox is such that, you dont have to do anything absolutely, meaning you can focus on Being for beings sake, and still exist, even in death. But you wont be facing the absolute, youll be somewhere else that is no longer facing the absolute, cause absolution is the relative idea that "One can BE absolute", like its the outward expression of an inward experience, that doesnt end at absolute... Ergo, you dont face towards the absolute, you only ever face towards an idea of the absolute, which itself is that outward perspective that doesnt actually become absolute, Like... We are describing a paradox, but its something like that, Like youd have to understand that intimate connection of life and death, but yeah, its something like that, its a paradox that you have to experience to even know wtf im tlkin about. P.s. Paradoxes are also physical things too, like, a paradox isnt just the conceptual idea of "whatll happen on a large scale", like, reality and paradoxes are intimately wound up w/ the present moment, which is to say that paradoxes have real effects on life... its not just conceptual mumbo-jumbo

Or you know what, i take that back... Renaissance painters proved you could be homosexual and have blatant religious shyt in the soup too, but they reimagined it as Adam and god, not just Adam &eve, or atleast Michaelangelo & Leonardo (both were homosexuals) but they hated eachother, not to mention they were different ages i believe... Leonardo was older, or wait... wait wat, what is that story where leonardo goes out to the court / agora, and michaelangelo shows up pissed off everyone is hovering around him nd watknot? P.s. Claude gave us something to keep in mind, "Worth remembering too: in that era, religious subject matter wasn't really optional — it was simply what the market (Church, confraternities, wealthy families) paid for. So "genuine belief" and "this is the job" weren't mutually exclusive; both men worked within that system regardless of where their private convictions sat"

(part ii) Theres also these sorts of ideas (p.s. wat do you call this subject matter? But, wait til you get to like @12:30 to answer that question for me...) @12:30 "The original pain, the original ache..." Although it sortve disconnects from reality, cause iuno if homosexual relationships are bound by that, Like they have a different paradigm of interests when it comes to relationships, Like iuno if "Adam & Adam" (sounds like a clothing company) would fit in their bag... Like they have a more exotic idea around relations, that doesnt fit into this realm of thinking. So in that way, again, you have something that looks like it shares a similar attitude and mythos, but its two different things... Like if we were very simple people, we could buy that, that we want a relationship because theres some deep mythology behind it, but it doesnt connect to the reality of the whole connection... Iuno... What would you call this subject matter / topic? Like what is it actually tryina talk about, underneath of it, do ya think? Theres several possible ideas/elements.

Q: For Everyone — Would ya'll be interested in seeing how, "believing, knowing, learning, experiencing, understanding..." how those words are connected, yet simultaneously do they represent totally different places or points of meaning? Like is that something yous would be interested in, cause its sortve like, a very long winded thing. And, unless it connects to someone's interests, it may be a waste of time to just like, start unloading all of it out of nowhere, As its a topic that also straddles "belief itself" and this internal world belief of reality / that whenyou dig into, it gives you a new way to start investigating it. It has to be something yous would even want, otherwise its just ~ pissing in the azuli wind or watevs.

(cont.) i mean, im always in some spectrum of a panic attack, and its like, in tryina find harmony in that, is itself the same, or similar, to the investigation of enlightenment or whatever it is, its like its the same things required/needed, so it ends up looking like its part of like, "normal attainment of", even though it looks like im in a war, harmonically speaking, or just a war of thoughts just built up over years of anxiety and experience w/ the same metamorphic things, like this constantly transforming thing that we're tryina remain in balance / harmony w/ /And im, usually, in an unrevealed state of a war that im tryina make harmonic, if that makes sense.

I meant to say, i literally feel like im dying when i wake up, like the change-of-blood thing, like im having a panicattack when i wake up, its too much tied to, *nightmare from minutes ago thing — *body-falling-apart — *feel-like-im-dying — *trauma being re visited through this change-over — *fought to keep myself awake — *find myself in the anxiety-to-calm shift, drastically being shoved together... And then, it eventually balances out, cause its alot of high energy that im tryina just like, Go in the kitchen and eat something, like its energy that can only be redirected, otherwise its like inflammation waiting to happen.

Oh ya, thats interesting. It gets into somethin very deep too, Alas, ive only jus woken from a nap, And my conscious-awakeness is still coming online, so to speak.

And it is hard, difficult, but hey, ppl take psychedelics, in a normal, non-partyin context, and they get this fundamental download that doesnt require anything from a normal thinking perspective, abd that is already the prominent seed, and, its well-beyond anything you can think about practically. And then actualized -i believe could potentially be the accelerated germinator -kindve thing. Basically what im tryina say is... Actualized can be the well-prepared soil and germinator -for an idea that is only a germ-of-a-thing... or... like... it could be buried in someones unconscious! Wherein, its then being placed on a plate to germinate. Like... Actualized... IS... The Cat Matrix.... 😄 basically... i would say so...

Reality and active involvement (historically to today) Thisll sound random, but i wanna say Aristotle, Metaphysics, he has the advantage over his Master, Plato, in that hes not having to ground philosophy, so he only need talk about the absolute, Being, and then a whole lot of hierarchy and context, and that sentiment, that idea of giving the next generation the framework is, i believe, a little of what happens in Christianity and such, because now they can borrow that idea, infuse it into a larger context, create a boundary around it And make it look like its authentically justified - such that Alot if it doesnt have ties to anything else, or if it does it has symbolic / interpretive ties that we practically see no where us... We see an historic Moses, etc., And we do hear bout Greek ideas around people remembering their ancestors like 3 generations back or somethin (i forget wat thats in) everything else is more like, the real, and the metamorphic, from when it existed in myth and magi, and ppl like Proclus, etc, they show us how theres ppl thinkin bout near similar ideas around One/God, and that idea of god basically is the most disruptive to everything, And someone, possibly like several of these desert father jews, push for this thing, And obviously someone gave them a platform to do it freely, to let the ideas flow freely, or they collaborated w/ someone who was into the same ideas, i mean, each generation takes control of the previous, changing that fundamental hierarchy. In that way, Being was erased from history, canceled out just by no longer seeing it in that early fundamental hierarchy, and that philosophical 'One takes on very much a new look and feel that is difficult to untangle. Iuno... Its just been made difficult to untangle... easy to research, difficult to untangle, difficult to keep in balance too, since its about reality / experience, which is in active involvement.

New Movie: A Cat Matrix

We have to rewrite The Matrix a little, like the relationship to tech and the mind has to remain passive, like today, as Ai-out as yous want it, however the tech can still be present and alive, but more like how Neo starts talkin to his computer in the beginnin, As then its like, 'you got this code of Alien talk that happens on a normal prompt, and then, thats the matrix... just chattin... Sayin whatsup... And tryina stay in that realm, for death is akin to one of these dimensions you can fall in, which isnt necessarily easy to do (meaning, the dimension/paradigm...) i mean... death is easy cause everyones pointing to it, like "Youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die"... Like... Its not just people pointing to it, but the layers of conception and imagination are pointing to it, as a very finite, triad, birth, death, life, birth, death life... or you kno wat i mean. I really like rats and cats, as i feel for the cats. They are not good at conceptual thinking however, true.

You know, theres gotta be a way to share this w/ ppl as a realized-joke, like an obvious trope, dark humour, that, for example, When Canada wakes up in the morning, whats the first thing they say? "Death to America". When China's world leaders get together in a room / meeting, and when the guy/speaker is pointing to a map, whats the first thing all of the board members agree on? Its "Death to America" When S. American families send their kid(s) off to travel down fecal-matter road to find a nice caucasian wife, they make sure they know, its "Death to America" And when young men from the middle east hear the roosters calling at sunrise, whats the first thought thing on their mind? Its Death to America. Its a joke, but theres some truth to it too of course. Granted its hard to share it beyond this video. Like if it comes outa my mouth it makes zero sense probably. Also, there use to be this trope where like, for e.g., youd have an issue w/ another culture or another place/country or state, but if you shared the right kindve dark humour w/ them they would start laughing and forget about the issue temporarily, as it worked as a way to temporarily disarm two arguing sides or something. I mean it has to be the right person at the right time sayin it right.

@Mods Woops, I jus realized this goes in Mental health section. Feel free to relocate. @everyone else — Iuno bout yous, but i have like this residual anxiety / panick attack in me still, just like this, perpetual tinge of a possible panic attack always looming in the background of my body and mind, such that ill often have to lay out a watchamakalit... a carpet of options for myself, as far as routines are concerned, That could help in dealing w/ this / preventing this from building... So i ask... What is it that yous do to suppress this panic attack — Assuming yous even know what im talking about. I spent a long time — 10 years, in a full-blown hallucinae-lvl-panic attack, but that doesnt mean thats what everyones exp., regardless you can still relate on just the basic panic attack premise. What do yous do to suppress it, 'What are the routines you have, that which restore balance to the blood, that feeling where its like you are jumping out of your skin, or, are about to... via whats called the 'change of blood...? Anything can help i feel

When the little boy from the Matrix says Not-spoon, he then goes on to fk w/ reality. Wtf, we wanna move spoons too!... But, thats perhaps not just a mind over matter thing, as its like, a matter of matter, for the mind. Like it matters what type of matter you are "talking about" to yourself, Like what type of matter that spoon was, suppose to be, like they all share that 'realm of relatable matter... Its like, determinate matter, where its being pictured in layers of differing ways where its very much "matter"... I mean, a sudden-liquid spoon is kindve not the same matter that we would call matter anyway, so its following a path thats unfamiliar territory, which is quite difficult to relate to. Thats a testament to how much we rely on routines, cause liquid spoons isnt just like... ... it isnt just an idea, like... And, it's not something that happens spontaneously on a daily basis. Like "His spoon went up, spontaneously! It went up in liquid formation!!!" *p.s. maybe i shouldve said "it is of concern..." or "it is relevant to 'what matter, you speak of..." so that way its not getting smushed by English's horrific sciency "matter", as a way to represent concern and physical matter w/ the very same word, a polysemorous word or watever-the-fk

We are now at this, granted, i just wrote it up, so its like 'Hot biscuits atm,

I also had a vision of this twizzler of differing ways to describe this again, like the way to talk about self next to these ideas, and that then changes how you want to speak of experience, cause im not quite sure if theres a totally set, defined way to place those words together ~ like its the boggling, the twizzlering of self as it becomes experience, or something like that... Like its two aspects or something, coming together, to give it the right context, and its hard to place it right now.

I wrote this line, but i really like it, As a way to illustrate how sometimes the lesser etymological realm, much like etymological feeling space, is a preferred place over pure descriptive language towards a destination. That is, you can have "artistry, experience" or the simpler, lesser (lesser said), direct "absolute" experience. Kinda neat... right...? *shrugs?*

(cont. ii) First we have to do this, or it will never be understood; Differing the versions of Not-thing (spirit of Not-thing) Quick note: I would be remissed to ignore you on "A chair is also not a chair" point, as i must describe the absolute perspective it points to, cause thats an important subject matter that actually does point towards the absolute idea, the other perspective thats simmering under? To begin again, "Not a thing" is purely grammatical negation, when we (you, i, us) talk about "no things", such as in the past, prior or apriori positions (whether it be before/after in time, etc.) thats not a "Not-thing" defined!... Not-things arent things... its only a "thing" because you dont have an actual description for it, so it absorbs "that very thing itself" thats why yyour descriptions for things keep taking on this "a chair is not a chair, not a thing being all things" That is to say, the absolute captures the idea of a thing, and that itself already captures "absence" (we can do better, description wise), BUT... You arent actually talking about that. You are talking about how "reality, in its absolute, is potentiated as a thing... that also includes itself when it reverses... when it goes back to source" Thats what you are trying to say, but it one of those things that is like trying to point to the very thing itself, and in doing so, we show someone the product of reality, without the cause, without the apriori spirit that gave it its name (the thing thats inactivated) The other part to it is like, theres this thing where you have "potentiated reality in the act of", and that cancels out the source. It doesnt validate it, because to validate is to "act facing towards" (validation now as a stricter version of) ... This is the thing we are actually talking about when invoking a Not-thing (obviously) but it doesnt actually do anything to the person who thinks source means like .... ... Iuno what they'd think source means. They prolly are imagining "when i was born, then i was this, then i become that", like, they are imagining this basic source code of self, not self in the experienced, validated sense we just described (or just absolute, but absolute is the single word term, in a hierarchy of lesser terminology) (And i suddenly go off topic / off script here...) And thats really the beauty of language, we can talk in a descriptive language realm/territory, because a single word creates a space for it, it gives it this "reason" to exist, since its saying "Now its okay, make a descriptive language version". Or its a pages of words that are saying "it can be made clearer and w/ less, or even single, separated words". That is to say, sometimes people (and i am assuming "us") ARE actually talking about a REAL experience underneath them words, so its not that someone is right or wrong, its "who spent way too much time trying to meticulously point to the right terms, in the right way, and such..." which is just profession... its just, its just artistry / experience, not plain, absolute experience. So no one is right or wrong, not when its a matter of trying to take what you can feel is simmering underneath, bring it to the surface — unless they dont sound like they are interested or even know wat they are tlkin bout, of course. They can potentially just be wrong and they dont know it yet.

(cont.) Like, if someone says, > Person 1 says "Monad = Gonad" > Person 2 says "No" Thats sounds crazy rediculous, but its levels beyond just stagnating and looking around the room, not particularly focused, maybe thinkin about the nature of your Sims 3 character or your tamagotchi pet, like its a step above the 2026-fully-wound-up-in-whatever without direction, cayse now its got some investment in the dialectic attitude of "what you were even doing to begin w/" which is itself of a profound nature.

Even when it sounds like the dumbest, of the dumbest, of the dumbest thing stated, Its an "Are we tracking the referent w/ this word or idea" in that, its a way to invite agreement too. It's 'how everyone may recognize, or come to recognize for their own case, whether everyone agrees/understands, or not, up unto that point in the sense that they have the opportunity to flag that datum / word that was pointed to (e.g. monad, or whatever it may be in the course of thought) and to consider the pages that lend themselves to this fuller context (internalizing that 'page of requirement, if it is like a pointer to a prior/or posterior thing or sumthin) i mean, just technically, thats how something like that could function, or should function, like when its actually got a lot of different elements that can change the nature of the question or the argument.

Through understanding t'what ya mean — I believe theres like this mystery / unknown element behind the knowing. And your own self- The thing that does conceptualizing, doesnt know who, what, ..., upon which should lead to "THAT conceptualizing of..." -something like that, yes? I believe that to be the case. You (we, us) anyone... ... They dont know what anything is, until theyve validated it and linked it to that idea of "This is known" or "This is still unknown to me". Im sure you had another part to it to, i just dont recall what it was right at this moment. Im wingin it, up to this point so i dont spend too much time in wonderlandei. Apologeis if i totally did not even get the whole subject matter incorporated in there, as im avoiding—the long time spentin Vvonderlandei tryina figure it out.

@Mellowmarsh Which part?, that is to ask, was it the "chair is not confirmed to be 'chair" part, or was it the "finding out what meaning is, is like, not knowing meaning" thing? I see one path being about the nature of validity/locating it, and the other is about "whats meaning... or what ..." or im tryina understand... Is that second part suppose to be like "until you know", like is the emphasis about, what its like to mean (represent/define) something ~ up until, or is it about "what it means ~that wiill precisely equate to your answer, cause you gave it the meaning?"