kavaris

I forget wat year it was when smartphones appeared in movies, or wen we first seen the iphone, Alas do movies even make sense now, those based in todays era? i dont think so. Its like when you dream and you dont see computers or smartphones in your dream, like these are details that are detracting from the events themselves, even if they are apart of the events. Its like, our subject matters are thus always steeped in futurism~hopefully im using the right term. Look up futurism nd tell me if thats the right term. Anyway watayas think. Smartphones in movies — does it make sense? Consider that its just the beginning.

Ive been doing a quick side project on Dreams and how they are viewed by certain divine/mystical beliefs, theologies of our past (which obviously are religions that still exist, though i just refer to how ~ they are really trying to understand the importance of "tradition" /+ ancestors of the past), Christianity, Buddhism & Islam and others, whatever ones yous want to bring up too, go ahead... I believe theres something we need to understand here, not in regards to religion, as that's taken on a different meaning in the mod. day. I mean to talk about Dreams ~predominantly~ and tradition, and ancestors, as these are keywords i already mentioned. And you can refute that if yous wish, though i cannot imagine what/why you would want to be refuting. Presumably yous would want to introduce ideas on this topic / context~of theology + how dreams fit into the world-view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion_and_dreams Quote - Dreams have been interpreted in many different ways from being a source of power to the capability of understanding and communicating with the dead. Traditional forms of societies considered dreams as portals to another world, a spirit world. These societies would even say they could gain most of their religious ideas from dreams. They could identify the sacred and gain access to sacred realms or portals to the supernatural. The contemporary 21st century has brought about a scientific materialism that can be detrimental to understanding the concept of dreams and how to interpret them. I would agree w/ whats being said on Science, but I would add that, understanding the act of, to dream, framing it like we do~or have done w/ the question, "What is reality/experience" - is the same w/ respect to the ques., "What does it mean to dream". Quote - Native Americans' belief of dreaming is similar to Buddhism v. that of common Western beliefs. Their view of dreams and dream interpretation looks similar to that of an interactive conversation. The conversation happens between them and the world. They are able to have this conversation because they don't see a difference between dreaming and waking reality (see later on the repurposed title "sleepless dreaming") but rather an overlapping experience. In this particular event in which they are overlapping worlds, they are able to open up their spiritual eyes to the visible and invisible, the audible and inaudible. The main idea of dreaming within this worldview is twofold: They look to gain a strong connection between them and the world, as well as enhance their self-knowledge and respect among their tribe. This is the case w/ Buddhism and Hinduism, w/ ideas like *sleepless dreaming, which is something akin to "the recognizing of dream as illusion", as well as being able to (through a certain Buddhist tradition) (there's that word again, "tradition") to maintain awareness during sleep. And from the perspective, we have Hinduism that initializes this idea/theory as an encapsulation through the three states that come from Advaita Vedanta: waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna) and deep sleep (suṣupti). I like this idea of defining "sleepless dreaming" as "What reality is", because to me, thats what it is describing. Buddhism has its own term anyway, so you probably wont see the term "sleepless dreaming" in that context. That's from Wikipedia coming up with its own flawed Wikipedia language (more on this notion of reality=dream, what ive retitled a 'sleepless dream', to come) Christianity Quote - The belief of dreams tying with religious themes in the Western worldview was not something that was naturally intuitive. By having belief in these things, the Western culture would open their minds to a non-rational and imaginative force that opens up people's mind to understanding realism with evil and how one can have hope over it. Also, Pursuing dreams does not require God or gods and is why the Western culture receives this practice openly among their religious views and lifestyles. Thats an unusual way to phrase it, but i do agree nevertheless, as it gets at the heart of what i would want to say. But i would just say, Dreams are what *everything is, and understanding how to operate from a level thats concerned w/ *understanding everything~is a matter of repositioning the way you view everything currently. However, this doesnt say "What a DREAM is...", as thats actually a little different from saying "Everything is a dream". So ill let yous stew on that one for a little, to see what yous come up w/ p.s. And also, Science can refer to very innovative and positive things, but in the mod. realm/time, we arent really using it to refer to stuff like that. Its talking about political affairs, and yas know.. Quantifying, and qualifying reality through observations and experiments with the same things, over and over and over again. Islam Quote - The Muslim society believes different forms of dreaming can help people come into contact with past martyrs of their faith. Their purpose is to give the dreamer full understanding of the martyr's existence and implications towards the future. Different examples of how dreams can affect the future of Muslims include but are not limited to: showing a prosperous future, motivate them into moral or spiritual development and warning them of impending dangers. Decisions made by Muslims can be as important as deciding a future spouse can be determined through one particular dream. The ultimate purpose behind these dreams is to give the devout Muslim a deeper insight into the truth that is not available in waking reality. This isnt inherently a bad thing. Many NDE (near death experiences) ~though, mostly old/elderly people~ involves "seeing their family (possibly from the past)" ME -> I had an NDE, though i only ever saw a void-like, very bright, very white light, so i dont know what elderly drugs are required for the universal family-oriented experience and such... WTF!) So on its surface, i feel ancestry is a good thing. If muslims could tune into that, and go w/ a positive spin, and get rid of the idea of martyrs (they are just people arent they? they dont need to be viewed as martyrs, or rather, that is historical baggage being brought to a religious context that doesnt need to be brought w/ you into these realms of belief around religion, peace and harmony~which is suppose to be inherently peaceful, otherwise it is more like a strict doctrine of butthole) Then and only then youd have something positive / worth investigating. There is several aspects (in Islam) that go in this weird dir., not-even-enjoyable to follow stuff, and most of yous know this, or can feel it anyway. That is, Muslims gotta get rid of the pejorative wording and such that they like... Hooked on like their life depends on it. Think about it... Yall can make a new, flawless religion. Every religion was at one time "starting over". In the beginning, Christianity had to cobble together how many Jewish elements for their "texts"? Imagine Islam... In the beginning you had (im using the words they use in Christian circumstances) Scribes / priests, elders (or bishops, etc.) who were in a room, or a cave, or a garden, or a mountain~writing this stuff down, which was, what was to become canon to the bib 'el, the tor Ah, or the QueerAnne. If that step never happened, alls we would have is a bunch of scattered, eratic fragments from the queeranii caves ~XD or whatever it was called where they found the dead sea scrolls, et caetera. Lolol, Hey if any of yas read this far, yous can get a good laugh for the day. Anyway. Ive gone way off topic, but Hey, feel free to comment on religion too... Hey, just write. Fuck it. Let the words flow. Stop being scared. You literally have zero time in your lives to be scared of anything. HEEEeeeeey.

I never listened to this w headphones on before, but unless im thinkin of another song/part or act, i always thought i heard a sample come in at the end of each measure (during the pre/chorus-chorus) that was like a sample of a different key. Now it just sounds like its missing that slight mod. sample w/ the key/mode thing forever more. whatever, doesnt matter. ill let yous find more sonic musique, i only posted a small majority.

If anyone is to do research on history and that critical year between the 1 BCE and 1st Century AD, youll likely come across Flavius Josephus. Hes got a very long, long story, and it has nothin to do w/ Jesus. I say that cause Jesus's name comes up next to his, though this is one of those things happening slightly offset from the crucifixions of the same vague years~give or take, and i think this story has alot more moving pieces, Alas you could write several TV shows just on the life and experiences of this guy, see for yourselves When we finally get to the point, an hour or so in, we see Josephus reflecting, right in the mid., of writing The Jewish War in Aramaic, intended for Jewish communities, and a Greek vers., shaped w/ Roman/Flavian audiences in mind; Tho only the Greek vers., survives. Then there's Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1: Josephus describes the death of the high priest "Festus", and the power vacuum before his replacement "Albinus" arrived. The high priest Ananus (Annas II) took advantage of this gap in Roman oversight to convene a San'hedrin, and execute people he wanted gone. Josephus writes that Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin: "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" This execution of James (who we call the brother of "Jesus") is 62 AD by the deduction/offset ~ per the Josephus perspective, and this is corroborated by other sources like Eusebius and Hegesippus. Though im sure even this is debated, cause what isnt debated these days. So he's writing about events that happened roughly 30 years prior to himself. He himself would have been around 25–26 years old when James, the brother was executed. Josephus (age ~25-26) when James was executed in 62 AD, so then working backwards, Josephus would be born around 37 AD. But it doesnt tell us about the time from Jesus TO James, atleast if you're going solely from Josephus. Also, this is the same~w/ regards to what we learn from those later figures, Eusebius and Hegesippus, who say James, brother of Jesus was executed in 62 AD. We can then bring in Pontius Pilate's governorship (26–36 AD). Taking it at face value, the execution falls somewhere within 26–36 AD—although we still dont know bout Jesus—tradition thus far tells us theres a 29-32 year gap between the James and Jesus execution.

And if any of yas like murder, death and assassination, this is a good time to mention, this is literally the age of murder, death and assassination ~ As anyone following the Apostles are being murdered, and likewise, anyone who wasnt Christian was ALSO being assassinated/murdered, at the exact same time. Literally, the age before Constantine I is called "The Age of Martyrs"; See also "Christian apologetics" But the point to what I was tryina say is like, the history you dont normally learn about is the typeve assassins creed going on here, and just like, how many people are dying and dead because of it ~ The Age of Martys is also the age of Assassins Creed (NOTE: Assassins Creed I ive never played, but im pretty sure they didnt base it on this time period, but rather, a later time period heavily influenced on such things. I played the second one, like too long ago to even remember anything besides the Tuscany hills in the background)

Another important dialogue for getting started on Philosophy and The Sophists is The Phaedrus ~ as Plato tries to re-frame "the area/study of rhetoric" (which is the most common area of study for sophists and students and thinkers alike at that time) but its to rebuild it on philosophical foundations. Im startin to write my own thing on Philo/Myth, suffice to say now that, this video gives a fair introduction as well, as although its on Norse Mythology, the beginning captures the idea quite well, and how the tradition of myth had been lost... And consider the following, though it must be revised, as it is my attempt at a direct and formal foreword on Mythology, Philosophy, to demonstrate where one can start to describe Why you also need Mythology when we talk about Philosophy, or anything else... One should note, how everyone who holds or pursues a notion of "truth" differs in their notion of truth. And this is to say then that Mythology is sometimes at a more fundamental level than "truth", whereby the intention of the Philosopher should not be geared towards truth in all cases, and sometimes the discussion of "tradition" and other subjects with regards to Mythology is sometimes at a lower and more noteworthy level in the context of descanting. And consider that the distillation of truth is one road, and the "istemi" that points to something undefinable is just that; That which is undefinable, ergo "Mythology" is one's attempt to describe the undefinable. But this is not to say, once again, that the -istemi of a subject and the "truth" of the matter dont coincide at some point or to some degree, its just that we often find ourselves making distinctions and descriptions, where we are left with multiple roads~All of which would require "names for a road" to know what street you are on, or what street you are not on (hopefully yous would agree)

In the journey towards understanding things like "Mythology" and "Philosophy", the first part to this would ~in the best case scenarios~learning about "Philo", "Sophy", and who the "Sophists" were, to sortve preface w/, what is to be — a journey towards history and the right way to initialize or investigate such a name in the first place. Does that make sense to yous? And do yous agree? i think so. Lets get it. p.s. If anything, it is just a means~by which we can get everyone started looking at Greek again, as its like, theres so much there, and so many ideas to be explored. And theres also things that we dont all fully understand, as far as them having evolved so extraordinarily over the years (its only been 2+ millennium, ya know?)

The Republic is another one that ppl get mixed up w/ Timaeus And Critias and it is like ppl want to make The Republic the index/legend to interpreting Plato's dialogues. And yes, it would be a good idea for ppl to read The Republic too, just to see how many elements are shoved into Plato's other dialogues, but dont then get them tangled together. Lol, they are already unnecessarily tangled together for no reason. Let me phrase it like this: Is there even one single pers., who we know, who has a reasonable following who is saying "Plato's Atlantis is in Spain" If that is the case, if no one out there wants to try to follow step 1, then why does everyone worship Plato (hence Platonism, et caetera)? Surely someone who is revered and made into their own icon shouldnt be so venerated. Like, wouldnt the situation be flipped? That is, where we all decide that we dislike Plato for being wrong about everything? Do yous see what i mean? Like, this is a rhetorical ques., but do people celebrate Plato for fibbing and handing out fake facts to ppl? Or do they just like him for like, a single passage? What im tryina say is, the current stigma around Plato is like its own sea of confusion, its own non-sensical Atlantica

When was the last time yas did an Atlantis thread. I think it'd be an approp., time of this year to look at Atlantis, as i was thinkin bout how many ppl (just in general, by default) default to the America, Spanish, and Spain (Espanol or Castellano) And how that whole story would be awesomer if having explored and unvealed the missing piece that is the Atlantis story or what i say is just quite literally the Spanish coast, which is also just Native Europea. And, as Spain has these sorts've maritime nooks you might call them~not to mention theres massive underwater megaliths below the sea right near the straits of Gibraltar (or rather, its in a place just on the far side... basically, exactly where Plato said it is...) Several areas in Spain and France~in nd around, are like this... somehow its still not widely unknown?... no idea how... That is to say, iuno why everyone thinks Plato said ("Miles, miles, miles into the Atlantic") But nevertheless, the "Americas" is itself an important aspect. Why is the Americas important? Because the story of how the native americas got there is important, and one such culture talks about "the wooden people" (God, being angry, smashed the wooden people into the ground~that is the American earth...) Im paraphrasing it greatly. The point is, that is your blood, yall Spanish ppl, that which yous have no idea about. thts not to invalidate the landmass explored back when there was a bridge up north to Asialand (Northern Amer. natives?) im jus saying, there was a such thing as "Native Atlanteans" in Spain, before we got up in there with our spears and arrows, and kicked out all the males, and reproduced w/ the women. Back during the harmonious hunter gatherer era, it was like "serene and joyful". So thats also the bloodline (maturnal side) of some existing ppls like Etruscans maybe, etc... (later becomes Spain/France~which becomes Spanish/Espanol).... The point being, yall Spanish/America ppl should be investigating Atlantis, or rather, the Jöurneyman (see

Btw, for those ppl that still think the richat structure has anything to do with what Plato said, realize this, Not only did Plato and most Greeks know about where and what Africa was, Plato literally references it in the Atlantis text itself. But before I explain what he says about it, know this: The Greeks didn't use the word "Africa" — that's a Latin/Roman term. The ancient Greek name for the landmass we now call Africa was Libya (Λιβύη / Libye), derived from a Berber root. It referred to the area of North Africa directly west of the Nile — encompassing what is now modern Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. It was considered one of the three parts of the known world alongside Europe and Asia. Herodotus uses "Libya" to indicate the African continent broadly, while the lighter-skinned North Africans were called "Líbues," and those south of Egypt were known as "Aethiopians" And as i said, Africa (Libya) appears in Plato's Atlantis account. Plato describes Atlantis as a naval empire that had conquered most of Europe and Libya, before being defeated by Athens. More specifically, in Timaeus, it is said the Atlantean empire ruled "Libya up to the border with Egypt, and Europe up to Etruria". Translate the following: You gotta understand how many years in the past we are talking about, not to mention, how "Atlantis" was mentioned once again, after Plato, and w/ the same idea, as "Libya v. Atlantis/Spain", as its a conflict that goes back (and has lasted) for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Plato described Atlantis as being larger than "Libya and Asia combined" (though i doubt he went around it w/ a ruler and measured it all, so dont be taking this too literally) located beyond the Pillars of Heracles (the Strait of Gibraltar). So Libya/Africa wasn't some vague unknown — Plato used it casually as a geographic benchmark so his audience would recognize just what he was saying. Plato wouldve said "Atlantis is in Libya", if that is what he meant. Plato wouldve said (Oceanus far & wide, sits some distant land, Atlantis). The Atlantic beyond Gibraltar was called "Oceanus". So if Plato was going to say ANYTHING about Amer. (as some also speculate about America being Atlantis), then he is going to say "Oceanus, far & wide...", or using the words Plato was likely to have said, and yous can read his stuff, as he is quite specific about what everything is, and he makes no mention of Libya = Atlantis, or Oceanus = Atlantis/Atlantic... Let me be even more specific. The Greek word Plato uses is πρό (pro) or the phrase πρὸ τοῦ στόματος — which literally means "before the mouth of" (the mouth being the strait). And "before" in Greek spatial language is ambiguous in the same way it is in English: It can mean in front of — i.e. on the near side, before you even pass through It can mean beyond — i.e. out past it, in the open Atlantic So depending on how you translate that prepositional phrase, Atlantis could be: "Beyond the Pillars" which is the traditional reading. This is how most people picture it, and frankly, it gets them way off course looking in the Atlantic (see where i said, they had a word specifically for that) Interpretation 2 — "Before/In Front of the Pillars" Atlantis is in the Mediterranean itself, or right at the mouth of the strait. This has led some researchers to propose locations like western Mediterranean, or the shallow Spartel Bank just outside Gibraltar; or a third option being near the coast of southern Spain or Morocco. The Spartel Bank is a submerged shallow bank in the Atlantic, sitting just outside the Strait of Gibraltar, off the northwest tip of Morocco. What Plato does mention is Gades, which is the ancient Phoenician/Greek name for modern Cadiz in southern Spain, right on the Atlantic coast just north of the strait. He references it as a geographic marker near Atlantis territory. What more could ppl want. What more could be said, its layed out very plainly, vwery straightforward and direct. And apparently, Plato is wrong (or according to many, many people, Plato is making things up) except, no one has even taken him on his actual word(s). How can anyone say Plato is wrong without validating whether or not the most obvious solution is wrong first. Like, surely that should be step one. Plato has never been wrong, and if anything, we are still trying to figure out just how accurate his writings are; We are starting from the perspective that "people are wrong" too premature. We should assume, especially in the case of Plato, that he was right, and that everyone is just getting the wrong info about what he said, as that is most definitely the case. p.s. And imagine, we are still thinking Plato was "making things up" to this day (by a large majority, mind you). How can we even begin looking at OTHER figures/or characters in Myth, or other Greek texts, et caetera, if we cant even get the facts straightened out w/ Plato, who is like the bedrock. *p.s.s. i have this crazy long thing that i wrote on Plato & Mythology ~which I have actually posted here before (the less-long vers.), to get everyone familiar and started in that direction, however its since grew gianormously~And considering how long this one was, i thought i should just wait awhile until the dust has settled and i can start to sortve introduce these writings in a more compact, and controlled/meaningful way.

Another reason why myth and biblical study, etc., is so important is because, when you look at the parallels in everything, sometimes our first thought/initial inclinations brings us towards, "This name contains that figures name, so it must be that thats who it is...", except that, containment ≠ identity—which is to say, in mythology especially, you have layers of containment (this name contains that name, and that name is in the same context as this) And at first glance, it feels like theres alot of interrelated things going on, making it like an impossible web of relations. So basically, the first point to understand is how, containment doesnt automatically mean that thats what something is... The Hebrew Jeshua has Yahweh saves (us), it doesnt mean that~now that weve found Yahweh in his name, that Jeshua must be Yahweh. If that was the case then every single name in Hebrew and Greek Septuagint is talking about Yahweh, wherein characters are talking, but they are really talking to Yahweh AS Yahweh. You could just make a book that said "Yahweh spoke to hiself for 4,000 years, up to his birth, crucifiction, and resurrection", like... That is to make a point about the traps people fall into when learning about such things. Mythology even more so, it has some serious and hard to interpret layers, which by finding your own system or methods, can help in going bout said layers in an orderly & scholarly manner, that is fair to what we know thus far, what we can say for sure. Also, you want to specify what is speculation, cause technically ALL of it is speculation if you do a rough boildown, so finding a system to separate it all is important, but that goes back to what i said in regards to method. p.s., thats why its important to look into mythology, simply because, without truly understanding it and having deduced some \*method of interpretation, we are immediately faced w/ incomplete and scattered information in regards to whats going on, and then when we go to reference it, we are identifying all these stories in a jumble/heap of names+relations, and suddenly its like, none of it makes sense. Surely the act of speaking and writing the myths and verses, etc. was to make sense of something/someone (or something abstract that they had in mind around something they didnt understand theirselves), nd finding out why is itself important to do it justice.

Id also like to present a map for how they got there, that is via these winds/Atlantic current that runs along the US East Coast and through the Bermuda Triangle region. Ships can be swept significantly off course by it, and thats how ppl end up in S. Amer sometimes. Does that slipstream change going back thousands and thousands of years back? I dont know but id think it wouldnt change THAT much, i mean, Earth is still Earth. Like its in the exact same configuration, give or take an island drowning or resurfacing via tectonic/volcanic~yadayada. The point is, its the same shit, nother day, but in history terms. And like, back when ppl were building small little rinky-dink boats to explore the Atlantic, they didnt know what they were doing. And if you are the first ppl to build ships, its like, HOW tf would you kno bout the gulf stream and sht like this, right? So that is the dilemma i pose, that is, to explore Atlantis. Explore Atlantica America. Like actually explore it. Dont take my word for it🗺️Go see it for yourselves. Everything that we are depends on it, so.. no pressure or anything. Go sailing. See if its more likely that theyd end up in Mezo America, or S America, Or wherever. See whats up with them megaliths in Spain. Please. Somehow its still like, fake news since no one knows about it. Unfake the news for us via curiosity. p.s. "Pre-Columbians" is a term they sometimes use, as thats a plausible idea i presented apparently (retrospectively, i dug around on it), which i thought was unknown, but its considered already by modern scholars. So okay, THAT part is considered, but the Atlantis part is still in the dark, even though it is just as~if not more important.

@everyonehere italian kundalini~yall are missing out on.. this stuff, Alas yall can jus listen to it, as thats what i do do... And later on in the video theres an interview goin on. Now im just now learnin italian, so its goin to fast for my brain, by you guys are young people. Yous can pick up italian in like 24 hours. Also, this poor woman has like 0 views, yall are missing out on some italian kundalini!

Yous havent touched on how Ai works. That is interesting part to the story that yous are doin' a waltz of sorts / all-around-the-mulberry-bush around and its interesting for many reasons. Alas yous can ask Ai yourselves, that is, "how the Ai is working" (be specific to the ChatGPT original models and such, not some futuristic b.s., as you are asking bout the well known variety, and you can ask any of them about it). Ai was created by humans afterall. And humans took these conceptual pieces and put them together to make something that does just what youd expect. If you look at that, that thing like "5% the letter /E/ is comin up... fold it... -1% the sequence "BB" is comin up... fold it.." like im just giving you an example, as im tryina point towards what would be the interesting part of it, though thats not to say that the whole thing doesnt have interesting parts. Theres hundreds of interrelated and equally interesting parts, like its a program afterall. Its interesting cause thats what we do, we look at things ~language~ and then we say "is so&so comin up?... yay or nay?... fold it... sequence/process it..." stuff like that p.s. the word i was thinkin of was "pericope", from Ancient Greek περικοπή, perikope, And it refers to the cutting-out of a section of text that you find worthy or coherent enough to be included within the final writing/text~That is, in regards to How to use Ai, or atleast how to think of it. Perikope or Pericope (sounds like periscope, which im not sure what a periscope is, but its similar to that *scope* used in submarines, and maybe that is a kind of periscope too) As far as what this like, parsing of language thing is called, i dont know, but you could call it "parsing of language", And thats interesting because it relate to our routines in life, and these mechanisms that we find ourselves doing~down to the most fundamental core of who we are... I mean, we take for granted how much of it involves "parsing out what we think we observed" -typeve things.

I shouldve made this clearer, as I didnt really explain "Philosophy" and the Sophists. So i made an Album of sorts ~ a timeline ~ or way of listing things chronologically, as I also believe "Mythology" is an important part of this story, given how you have Plato, as well as every other Greek figure using a "mytholological language" - Plato often extending that language, like that of the language around the Eleusian mysteries (compare & contrast to, et caetera) Thats something for yous to think about, but anyway, here's the list im talking about, to better elucidate on Philosophy and The Sophists, Philosophy predating the Sophists, who overlap w/ Socrates, which then leads to Plato defining "Philosophy" (This list has embedded in it BOTH the timeline and the purpose/reason; p.s.You should just think of Theology as fundamentally just "Questions on Divinity" among what it begins to be referred to later on) Lasting aspirations in Philosophy: \*\* i. Philosophy for the interpretation of Theology/Mythology (starting w/ the natural philosophers ~6th century BCE) \*\* i. Philosophy as a word to describe the immersion into "istemi" AND/or "truth" (Socrates overlaps w/ the Sophists, though the Sophists are said to have come before Socrates, see next) \*\* i. Philosophia = "love of wisdom"; Sophists = "a wise man" or expert teacher~a different root from that of "sophia" in Philosophy → And the Sophists appearing ~5th century BCE) \*\* i. And lastly, we have Plato (taught by Socrates) making "Philosophy" an explicit, well understood idea, Philosophy as the ultimate reality, Philosophy as a Way of Life Last episodes in Mythology: \*\* i. Chronological "last myth": the Trojan War and its aftermath \*\* i. Genealogical "last age": the Heroic Age \*\* i. Historically "last myths": Philosophical and literary myths (Ovid) Note: This is not to exclude the investigations into Greek figures and the wide array of episodes and professions in Ancient Greece, Alas im just giving you the sortve, left half of the onion, wherein you can put it together with the right half on your own.

(Speaking *on the Mahdi, or the vers., that would be like, some ideal Egyptian Mahdi) Its funny to think, but this is where i start, and where i can begin to understand things that start in politics, and worldviews outside of Europe/America and the broader world, as I feel like I dont understand anything until there a "common point of interest" or something. Like if there isnt a conceptual space that we all sortve naturally agree on, by decree of the fact that like, myth is where everyone can find the solace in having to interpret, and these sorts of things that we are all interested in, it gives everyone a common point of reference, or a place that is also agnostic~in the sense that anytime you have a closed-loop on history, you have no way to dispute its origin, beyond that its got an origin. Like theres no political down side or mistake when God creates the universe, unless we frame it all as a mistake, which is just weird backwards b.s. And in the same way, theres no down side when you have the old era of Egypt, and whoever or whatever was going on there, and how we would learn anything more than that (than what we know already), or like 'How do learn more about it? i do not know. So seeing as Egypt is sortve exempt by virtue of being first (by virtue of no recorded history before this era, or to say anything more than what the prevailing theories are during zep tepi~or atleast within our modern ways that are more or less interpreting metaphysical, non interpretable beginnings) You then have a point that has no contention before a certain point, and only the myth itself (the \*point of reference, for everyone). So to me that is what is the sortve subconscious wanderings around why its gotta be Egypt (for me atleast) that is, the common point of reference for sharing, as that is then what leads to \*what we even would call political or military or conflicts that would arise thereafter. Like we cant agree on "who deserves what", but we can agree on like "Well this was interesting", you know what i mean? Like we might find that the best way to debate in the end is from like, "Heres the agnostic point of history" if in such extreme cases we had to choose such a point. \*\*\*\* Im just giving the most "ideal"~of an extreme that might not even matter, but thats worth thinking about, given you are always gona have someone who doesnt agree with the era of history that youve chosen to exalt. And everything is becoming history (his story) as we encounter it.

I was thinkin we should start a political -related, sortve recapitulation of some of these perspectives and points of view on Egypt. Granted, im certainly not gonna be saying too much, seeing as im not there personally, alongside the insurgencies, et caetera. So, i thought it might be good to get other points of view (or anyone who feels that they havent had their voices heard there) who might be opposed to the choices of say for example, this character Mahdi (he is who im listenin to atm, but again, if theres someone else i should be listening to, feel free to share). But the bottomline is, i just want to acknowledge that ive acknowledged it, Buut i dont want to say too much, or anything that i might not fully understand. As im sure others who are of Islam~and/or of the actual deep-ties to these sorts of families who actually come from the middle east~they may prefer to want to speak on it, and have their voices heard. Hey theres nothin wrong w/ speaking. I dont think governments care either, like... if they did, it would mean tracking millions of individuals, which is like, how do you do that practically speaking. Dont you need millions of people to intimately navigate millions of people. Hey if you flood the airwaves w/ millions of messages, then its like, the criteria to narrow down "whats what" is that much harder, thats how i think of it, like.. I just follow the words of Thoth, and Thoth tells me what to say, like...

Literary Filters & Rephrasers~Preface Euphemism - a mild / indirect word or way to substitute or replace an idea thats considered too harsh when referring to something unpleasant, embarrassing, etc. This almost gets into like, strategies of writing or how to change something, like almost like "grammatical filters"~Which i thought was an interesting sentiment, like ways of writing that dont fit as either a genre of writing, nor a device in the moment, but rather a spectrum of filters or ways of rethinking or rephrasing what you are saying. In English theres so many ways to phrase things, and much like programming on the computer, you can get stuck if you dont understand how to rephrase / restructure something, like for instance, i want to say — "The mongoose had a cat riding around on its back, however it was upset by the experience" Maybe you could change the last part to say, "... however it wasnt thrilled by the exp", or "... however it wasnt enjoying itself" Or, if/when you feel its sounding a bit odd, we could just start from the beginning like, "The cat jumped on the mongoose, although the mongoose didnt enjoy that the cat was riding around on its back" Or we could say, "The mongoose wasnt enjoying itself, as it had a cat riding around on its back" or changing it up entirely, "An event happened between a cat and a mongoose...", then explain the event. Like its probably a bad example, but there are definitely instances where you are stumped, cause you have a thought in your head, but the way its phrased doesnt translate to writing in a fluent and natural sounding way, or it doesnt sound right. Sometimes ya have to run it through a grammatical filter~or its a matter of changing it around — as if you put it through a machine in your head, and rephrased it to see which one sounds better -typeve thing. Yous can think of a better name for the latter method.

For any of yous that either know of others in school, or themselves have kids, or that are familiar w/ writing (English) class in our current school systems, 2025/2026... Q: Do they still teach kids about like Descriptive Language ? In other words, do yous even know what that term is, as far as like, where you then get all these other things stemming from...? I ask because theyve never made a wiki page that explicitly refers to it as descriptive language, thus it feels like it isnt even a term thats used or acknowledged, unless i just havent found it yet. Anyway, when i show you how many things fall under "descriptive language", you will understand what im talking about here. ~ 1. Figurative Language: Simile, idiom (adage), metaphor, analogy (yous might say yous are using a *figure of speech* at this point), personification, archetypes, imagery/abstract language, allegory, motif/themes or refrain, allusion (i.e. alluding to), foreshadowing, stream of consciousness, apostrophe, aphorism, apophasis, hyperbole, downplay (sometimes just called an "understatement"), euphemism... (cont.) Exaggeration and emphasis, compare and contrast, juxtaposition, litotes ~aka "double negatives", oxymoron (also called a contradiction), paradox, metonymy, synecdoche, flashback, recursion~aka "story within a story", allusion, alliteration, anthimeria, etc. Which then gets us into phonetically/sound related things — Assonance, consonance, onomatopoeia, euphony, cacophony, sibilance. Word play/patterns would be more about playing w/ the visual/grammarian-related side or aspect of writing~And is technically what all of this would be considered, granted it encapsulates a many of things! 2. Rhetoric or rhetorical speech: Anaphora, epistrophe, a rhetorical question, chiasmus (reversal of grammatical structure—which is a good one!), antithesis, parallelism, polysyndeton, asyndeton, zeugma, syllepsis, et caetera. 3. Others i forgot: Irony, sarcasm, satire, comedy, synchronicity, coincidence, double entendre, ellipsis, proverb, epigram, transferred epithet (e.g. "sleepless night", the pers. is sleepless, not literally the night), cliff hanger, climax, Anti-climax, epiphany, ambiguousness or obfuscation. In Medias Res ~ which is when you start in the middle of the action, e.g., the opening w/ a battle scene, cyclical structure~aka ending where the story, section or clause began. Conclusion Theres many more than that, as i just wanted to find a way to break em down, such that you could start to see the immense group of literary devices that "descriptive language" encapsulates—Some, which of course start to blend into each other, especially when we are trying to express the diff between "analogy" v. metaphor, or things like this. When you have the right term, that is a way to encapsulate or group all other terms; You have a way to find things in the enormity of your mind, since they arent entirely abstracted and incomprehensible, but they have some basis or place to live in your mind, which you can make more memorable later on. Anyway i hope that gives yous some food for thought to play w/ Also, if yous happen to know whether they still speak of things in terms of "descriptive language" n scool, feel free to correct me and let me know. Also also, if theres anything that i missed, didnt do, or fk'd up on this list, please feel free to correct it.

Yall are probably tired of the face job, Alas im not done w/ it, as im tryina guess — whos next, whether its from aging or botoxed, or they playin a joke, like whos the next to get the beestung face, or whatever~assoc. w/ their face. Now we cant add jered leto cause he doesnt age, and prolly already has botox and things like this keeping him young for the next 200 years. So the next might be Johny depp, tom cruise, though hes already at like max old & puffy, i think this is the case for leonardo and brad pit too, but i mean. Oh you kno... No, wait. We should try keeping it contained to those well known actors, right? This actually brings up an interesting dilemma, cause as im looking at the megalist of actors that I keep in my notes, im realizing theres: 1) lvl1, uber famous actors, then 2) It immediately goes to lvl 2-wherein im wondering how many ppl would know these actors, as the actors im thinking of only have 1 or 2 movies that theyre really known for. Maybe yous could thus list actors you think are well known nd such. *p.s. i realize the topic has changed, but it is cause i dont know what else to do without knowing more. Feel free to contribute to the first ques.

Now i jus seen somethin, where they approached jim carry in the midst of him like, ya know, covering himself to avoid paparazzi / and running towards his limo, and the paparazzi was like "You're not jim carrey, True or False?" And although you cannot really see him or hear him good, it sounds like he says "What!?" Like he hasnt a genuine clue what they are on bout.

Incarnatio~Into the flesh again, is basically what it all amounts to... ? Right, i mean you got your mind, your body, your spirit, the soul just being this... eternal, infinite, never dying, all perfect thing, or essence thats giving all things the experience of a real one (a real "-ity"), of something that moves, like liquid, or a snake; Ousia being the thing that the soul is emphasizing as such, And the Divine Light is also of the Semen in Latin, meaning seed, or a *spectrum of~that which we are all looking at, or alongside. It exists at our hearth, at the tomb/body. What do yous believe? Do you feel you come back as you, or maybe even its a reincarnation of *Another person INto you, or like a recapitulation of someone else, chosen from whilst in the Land of Reeds. I assume you heard of it and know what it mean. Even if you get devoured, you arent done. As a member of the soul, there is no choice. You can only ever press "continue". You cant say "nah im good" on it. The soul expresses it as is, defined as such. The details are a matter of freewill, though freewill is radically different. Freewill means anything can happen, seeing as anything is that which already happened. You dont do research into previous lives if you are infinity lives into a life by now, right? But back to the question, are you reincarnated, or are you someone else inside (maybe u feel you were meant to be) Like that could be a choice you have, if its something you want to have as a choice, but its not like you should worry too much. i mean, Hey, at the point of no return, you can go from seed to anything, like... The carnation flower is simultaneously the soul's incarnatio, i.e., DnA, water, minerals and dirt and such, upon coming into the world to breathe, or let others breathe~As a tree. I think flowers function like little trees in that way, you know what im talking about? Anyway, i was goin for a question/poem/whatever it is. An experimental question poem, which yous can interact w/

Ehrr, you got a few easily identifiable mistakes in this writing here that we should smooth out together. "Stop thinking these thoughts" is easier said than done ~long story, but if you want, we can try workin together on it. Also, *(To avoid)Understanding reality is the assumption that theres a such thing as not understanding it. Like, first off, I dont think of things from the perspective that "Heres reality" and "Heres how i can understand it". Thats a fools errand. A fallacy (a big mistake as well). Heres what you should be doing. You ready? "Be specific". Like, you are not even identifying what you mean, by understanding reality, like... "understand reality" doesnt MEAN anything, you follow me? You have to ask a more specific question, first to yourself. Be specific. Why? Because the broadness you are associating w/ everything currently is precisely why you are locked behind trivial walls that you could otherwise get beyond at this current moment in life. Be specific, because that is how you start to unwind the whole thing (or those things making you see the world in this way). If anything, you should be more steadfast. Why? The whole goal is to not get snagged in the pits of dispair `or these holes that you can find yourself in — which stagger us all. If you werent stuck, you wouldnt have to take this broad spectrum of understanding, and associate it w/ a question (the spectrum of reality is itself a BROAD world/land~it would be impossible to task yourself with understanding it that broadly, for anyone, and it is certainly a process) Ideally you just go on solving the problem, whatever it may be. but like i said, youve phrased things so generally that itll be hard to work w (for us) unless you can be more specific on what you mean. Technically, me writing a message is a form of understanding reality. The other possibility, and i have to guess, is there is something making you FEEL like that is what you are doing, that which is also stuck in the pejorative. Maybe something in your life emphasized this? I dont know. You tell me. Whatever the case may be, just remember, Alls you can do is understand reality. And, framing it correctly is much simpler... You have to take everything you are doing and FLLIIIP IT around. Cause everything you are doing is ALREADY *Understanding reality (CRITically important that you get this! or write it on your wall, as its necessary for hitting lvl1). You dont have experience with Not understanding reality. If such a thing exists, its surely not something youd be familiar w/, though in words better said: it would simply mean you are "ignoring spiritual things" or things like this. Understanding reality *transcends spirituality, for it also counts towards everything. If you dont mean to speak on spirituality or if you mean something else by understanding reality, youd have to teach us: What do you mean (Better yet is to Teach yourself) *p.s. failing to understand the main point is a mistake, But it would only be a beginners mistake because theres Alot more mistakes to make thereafter. I guess theres a chance you dont even understand what im sayin now 🤔 anyway; afterwards its like, "how much priority" are you putting towards this call it "practice of identification/misidentification" and are you truley getting it, as Thats the big one that gets ppl screwed up, like... eh hard to explain.