kavaris

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?)

And if yous ever do Greek, then its always going over like: "spaghetti is pink... the cat is pink... the head of lettuce is pink... the movie theater is pink..." like... Thats its favorite thing on there, like.

I always get the one with the "cat on the toilet" -Wtf.

Ibin Arabi is from the medieval period, yah? He's an interesting cat. and regarding "Adam represents the totality — the comprehensive form that reflects all divine names in potential. Humanity as microcosm" in regards to his chapters on the prophets, etc... Thats really neat. And i like to hear about some of these sufi's/sunni muslims, to see what there takes are, granted, the story is alot crazy from the perspective of mid/later Egypt, early Mesopotamia/Ancient Greek, but the sufis are right there (Baghdad, i think?) in the midst of alot of the action, so they sometimes have stuff that gets left out, so its could to keep an eye on that, or so i would say. Hey, everyones ideas are valid, especially in the ancient world where you dont know what you are looking at, or rather~in trying/attempting to deduce what it is/What it might say about the cycles and whatknot.

Honestly, most kids just speak to me and relate~regardless of whatever my response is, like... They live in their own world of beliefs and whatknot, and have zero worries.

Yeo, lol someone ask ChatGPT/Claude, when it thinks those fingers of Adam and God are will finally gonna touch, like just out of curiosity, to see what it says. I cant do it myself atm.

"Can i get an AMEN for Adam to finally touch hands w/ God?" (*INSERT gospel chops & church music)

Im just waiting til the smorgish board of topics comes around, and alchemy ends up as the topic that that smorgish board has landed on. As i have some faith itll go in that direction, but its like, its getting exhausting waiting for it to come up, just in general. Like ive been waiting for mysticism and spirituality to touch hands for like 5 years, like just in the world, like... Its like looking up at the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, waiting for them fingers to touch. Basically im waiting for Adam. Lets call it Adam. Its taking quite a long time for Adam to grow up/come to fruition/whatever analogy.

I always liked that background, as its very unique. Like ive seldom ever seen that typeve background used, or the way it looks. It almost looks surreal, like a *realife void of sorts.

Ya should get into Alchemy (Hermeticism). I was actually thinkin' of doin a thing, right on the forum, explaining how Alchemy goes beyond just like, chemistry, and spirituality, etc., though yousll hav to start it, as theres WAyyy too much to go over

Piece #1 Were always on the brink of something, and many ppl are really good at noticing things that others dont see, like how cats might sense something in some extrasensory way (though tbh my cat seems to not be as hypersensitive as i once thought). But getting back on track, my point is like, god to me is a fragment of the center~during the limited expansion, wherein nobody can, or will denote the one outside of pointing & indicating whats " 1/x ", lik... "to point towards the one, is to watch everyone whos missing it at the other end~at the same time", as yas gotta understand, the one is itself a representation of the exact limited totality~of, or the "amount of". Like, to be pointing towards it, is to also be in a substratum where everyone is ignoring it. Like, theres no way out of that situation besides leaving the situation so it can resolve. I mean, its more complicated, but yous get the gist (naming things like this~i.e., as "Pieces" will help me remember if/when i need to ref. them again outside)

I fast, by virtue of not having any money to eat, like... Fasting IS in a sense a means of having sympathy for such ppl, though i personally dont see it as a good idea~BUT thats coming from my perspective and situation. I can understand the many reasons it would be beneficial, especially to those who have been practicing it for how many years? Too many. You gotta understand, theyve been fasting routinely for so long that its in their blood, its in their routine. So to ordinary ppl who dont fast or dont know what it is, they think logically so, pointing out things bout differences in their routines. Those who do practice this, and who do fast~Theyve just been doing it alot longer, so all them rules do not apply. Its sortve like people who work out constantly. You can try to tell Arnold swarzenneger at 30 that hes lifting wrong, but clearly hes doing something thats working for himself, even if its wrong to others. I mean, his goals were different, as it wasnt just to be fit, or to work out. It was things like, competition, etc., in the case for ram'donadans / ram'adonians nd such, they are like, on a whole nother planet from my pov (or really, anyones who differs) As even if they werent financially stable, and werent able to make ends meat, theyd prolly still be practicing it, though they might not be as underweight and suffering from health issues as ive been, so its two totally different worlds~One being from my exp., as well as others who dont understand, versus those that Do understand it, as theyve been doing it for so long. Thats my input. Now the specifics on the hours, i have no idea. To me, it makes sense, cause that sounds like the kindve hours that they would choose to fast. But again, im sure many ppl have chosen to fast in many diff times and many diff ways. I dont observe ppl fasting, but i do hear about it on and off, though it doesnt apply to me, so its like, i could care less.

Claude knows more bout every1 than i do. I couldnt tell you anyone besides J.Maynor as i have him on youtube. The day i learn bout someone is the same day i completely forget, as i dont look at whos talking, beyond the point that ive looked at them once already. Like, i know ppls names i mean, but i dont actually remember wat they said, or anything besides a floating name that i can identify as, having looked at it before. I have to much goin on to recognize who said wat, regardless of who said what, nd wat they said

@CredTeam "Allegory of the Cave". See now thats something you could try to emulate, in order to take what yous are saying, and remix it in a way that makes sense. As you are almost (almost) writing/speaking (or could be speaking) in a Socratic dialogue fashion, but you are like, one character, or so it feels like. If there was two characters, u could have a main char., that says /or writes such things as "Theres seven sets in the geometry of sets" And another saying "What makes you say that theres seven", then you have a piece that not only removes yourself from the equation (replacing your self w/ two chars.) but also, you can roleplay/workshop all of those ideas, in a way that can better gauge if what you are saying makes any sense or not, As you can start to ask yourself (your main char. whos posetting those statements) all of the Socratic type questions, in order to bridge from "What you think you know" to "What there is TO know". Hopefully youll take an ounce of what im tryina tell you, otherwise its like, we are tryina read what you are saying, and you arent reciprocating, but rather you are saying whatever, or atleast i cant understand it in its *current form. Good luck.

Im relistening to a translation on \*Allegory of the Cave. It goes a bit deeper than the parts that everyone knows, as its another instance of something that everyone would be surprised by, seeing as alot of these Greek texts go a wee bit deeper. Its like, finding a well (of water) and it turning out to be a 3,000 year old cave system or something.

Another perspective to take is "How do we appraoch the question of 'What is art?' typve questions, As its not always clear what art is, like "i often am just looking at things" -As i could imagine someone saying that (though, i dont feel like thats what i do/or would do; But i digress, as its going to be a hypothetical notion, for now) Lets say pers._X, is stumped at, say "I am looking at my carpet, and i am looking at my wall, and i am looking at the kitchen sink, and i dont see anything". What would yous say to this?.. I would say, "Why are you looking at the kitchen sink", like to me thats an unusual place to start. So like, for me I would say, "... Is there something you could look at thats not such an ~ Unbearably ordinary thing that you deal w/ on a regular basis, that could otherwise be deduced as a piece of art?" Like im just trying to eliminate any potential questions that like, non-art, creative minds might be crossed-up on. I mean, its not totally off track, but its also like, if you are looking at the same exact things in the same exact way, then it sortve doesnt like, push the envelope forward. So theres something about looking in the right place, in order to engage w/ it on a level that isnt your own, or like, it isnt your ordinary self looking at it.

(CAUTION, THIS IS A LONG READ) And it is something new im working on, that which involves language & Spirituality, granted its still in galleys, so yous might not understand it~Seeing as im liable to give a very poor introduction to it. I also jus called it a Spiritual Science, so forgive me if that sounds like something, as i just meant it to mean Science like how Science was back in Oh say the first CE... Okay so let me think how im gonna explain this. Okay, so the first thing i should say is, its a method that applies to all things~And language and such are just the few things it crosses through. I had started out calling it Art as a field of action , inspired by several things i encountered online. Therefore it wasnt purely an originally thought, but its application was. I started out describing this Egyptian Language thing, turning ppl on to Stenography and things like this. Yousll have to look up Stenography as i dont want to make this as long as Gone with the Wind. But anyway, yous have to humor me here, or yous arent gonna understand what im talking about, or why it crosses through spirituality. So what is spirituality? To me, i just merge it into Mysticism and that of the mystical, cause why not. Its not like it effects whether its goal is to be dualistic or not, or if its this or that. Its mystical stuff, mysterious, secretive (has to be) otherwise you are spilling your hard earned guts out, effecting things in unpredictable ways. Those who are Agnostic or simply reserved dont understand anything anyway (or those incapable yet of drawing such connections) True agnostic beliefs just default to the worst beliefs imaginable, and spirituality is itself a right of passage and rebirth. I assume yous would agree, otherwise why would yous be here. Anyway... I almost want to put this in the Intellect department because of how long its gonna be. But lets just try to make it as short as possible. When you imagine, or when you write something down, those two, call it, modes of conjuring are two different pavements, hard laws on what/why its happening, and the results or quality of its contents. They may share things in common, but its not like "thinking" can only be done if writing were there; Like they are independent parts of a larger mechanism. Okay so now.. You have a common *basis* for all the letters of a writing system (Im skipping over some things, as we are gonna circle back to it in a limited vers. of, granted) So the basis for letters ~sometimes based on the "vertical stave", sometimes on the "horizontal macron"~they also have whats called a "form", and what to base them on, for instance, Greek and Latin base their letterforms on the Egyptian-derived forms, circular measure, or the four-sided figure (later we start to call it a right angled cross ∟ (reversed, flipped) Law of Forms / LoF 1969) appearing in calculations around the square field, as well as the **mر**, for the pyramid form. Im skipping to the Art -part. That is, theres a field called "Art" which possesses "action"—Just imagine you, yourself are the artist for the time being — The old ontology was that the art-object, the analysis of its complexity should come first, and the environment should come second. This is what we are changing. "The action" is wherein the artist is using "Mark of Distinction", instead of producing an object that then gets placed somewhere for the analysis of complexity, as you create levels of complexity when yous do this. Instead, the idea should feel like this, as a very basic e.g., `∟ [this is art / this is not-art]` > First Ques. you should ask, e.g.: What distinction am I drawing, and from which side am I operating on? -in what will become an accumulation of distinctions, each one differentiating the marked from the unmarked, each one co-producing a new environment relative to a NEW system, what should that system do/be? You decide. Don't try to think into rational systems that already exist. Look at it as art, and you are the artist who's making these distinctions. The artist should instead perform a distinction-drawing act, wherein the environment constitutes the art as a whole. The artist crosses into the marked space *(that's the work entering the world)* but then re-enters its own distinctions. That is, the work and the world it relates, negates and frames *~and separates from~* are themselves co-produced in the same gesture—each gesture being another crossing, another nested distinction drawn within the space opened by the first mark. ***And~in the words of Martin John Kemp, the discipline (those from the institutions who dont understand this yet) will keep trying to analyze the object, while the artist will have had already moved to analyzing the cut.*** [PAUSE] I will pause here, cause if yous are lost it should give yous a chance to gather your questions. Please ask questions. So whys this apply to spirituality. Well we often want to know thyself, or know about the world or those unconscious layers, but when we do we are starting from the picture itself, the image of whats there to build from, lines that can be traced and such. Through distinctions, its like, you are trying to acknowledge the picture and its environment. Like we are broadening everything out so that its taking the environment around the subject, and drawing within that which weve made distinct via the choices made. And, at some intersection, you will come across a choice, and the choice will involve having to make a distinction. If/when you do this, you wont just move on to the next thing you see, but rather you will develop — whatever that is — into a NEW system of its own. Does that make sense? Basically, you want to try to acknowledge distinctions, and those levels that lead to~however its is not to say that its a straightforward process, as you are gonna encounter some very odd stuff along the way, no doubt. If you have any questions, plz feel free to ask. ***note: the best way to understand it is to sit down w/ it, yourself, to understand it, as THEN youll see what i mean. it starts w/ you asking something akin to, "What distinction am I drawing, and from which side am I operating on"... p.s. it may take time as well to get use to nd such***

I thought he had already been cloned and botox'd-up to be honest. I thought the cloning groups got to him already.

Im quoting this As i thought, i should add something interesting, to provoke some things that may/could go (or inspire) others to find other things that are also interesting on music (*in general) or Greek music/rhythm, et caetera. Plato is actually known for being the first (that is, text assoc. w/, or if he wasnt the first, it was someone around his time) that are first to have referred to the modes. That is, he didnt mention all seven of them (the basic modes of music) but he did list like... iuno it mightve been 4-5 of them (he left out Iionian as well i believe, as that comes later on~if i recall correctly, as its often talked about in regards to the moods, qualities and emotions they invoke as well): Ionian, Aeolian, Dorian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Locrian & Phrygian (And i think he left out Locrian and Phrygian, or something like that) I just thought theres something interesting there, and also, how it goes back farther, seeing as he is pulling from other music theorists, or works that he had either read or heard about. Just in general, commentators on previous Greek works are always saying things that are quite surprising, and theres many works weve not yet translated out there~Just to demonstrate how much Greek there is out there, among the thousands that we do have.

Startin w/ iulia karapataki, im gettin yous into real earthy, talent and music out in the world. Now of course i picked the like, folky arabicy style folk songs, but the spectrum of music they are doin over there isnt contained to like this dark desert of sound~And its very much crossed into realms that are more recognizable to those into the strict Western scale of music singing and songwriting/composing or interpreting. Yas jus gota look for it.

Ive changed over the years, so id have to look through my playlists, but maybe something like this *(p.s. i know im weird) p.s. the Doric and the Ionic orders / simplest orders are the ones i like the most, and theres alot of architecture that im into, so thats just giving yous a little taste of stuff that i look at, though i dont rewatch it repetitively, but in order to get the designs down, i was (as i said, i would need to really look through my playlists to find something i would deem as something i would repetitively watch)

Reminds me of effluescence, though iuno if they're related.

Corruption is more like a spectrum. We exist to deduce our corruption within the world, within ourselves and our experience. But then that means you have to ask, "What is corruption?" If a master said he \*Doesnt eat tacos on taco tuesday, does that mean hes corrupted (or \*Not corrupted for that matter) Its hard to say, and it gives people the idea that they can just do anything ~ seeing as theres no easy scenario that might involve deducing it in a straightforward manner. It goes deeper than corruption. Reality depends on these sorts of paradoxes, statements and deductions that dont add up to a true and majestic answer, Yet still, it helps to have an answer. It helps to know what you are aiming toward (Lvl 1, is what im speaking to, where you are sortve like, wandering the roads as a roadwarrior trying to get to the heart of what reality is, what exp. is, or like you are still stumped by "what is the purpose" typve ques., -which isnt the right question to ever ask, but nonetheless, people do start there, so we have to include it. And its possible to get reset, so keep that in mind! Thats going off topic) Conclusion: Its like an egg, and in the egg is a corrupted yolk, and theres a clear translucent goo around it, and that goo represents the None-corrupt corruption. But the egg requires both, as far as having a whole egg to cook w/, with both white & yolk combined. Some people dont like the yolk, or some people dont like the light goo. They are both good for you if you know how to use them/cook w/ them.

Oh, interesting reference. I have to look this one up again, as there is often intriguing details in myths. And especially being a myth of Greek association (and youd think i'd know this one already, however ive only read it briefly, a long while back) p.s. going through the /A/ section of https://raw.githubusercontent.com/philofree/philofree/refs/heads/main/public/data/index.json (the long list of rather) And i recently read something from Apollodorus of Athens who also mentioned Sisyphus (albeit it was brief i think, but nonetheless it was a~potentially informative ref.)

I appreciate you defending me, but hey, youd be better off not entertaining any of this. I wouldnt call any of that cheeky or devilish, but lets not get caught up in what is a center of what we think any of this is (As we will be here all day, infecting the forum w/, whatever names they might want to call it)