kavaris

I have this unexplainable joint-like feeling (as if it needs to crack) in specifically a right-sided location~that is very hard to describe, but i must atleast try, just to see if anybody knows what im talking about. It is only when i either stand on my left leg, letting my right leg hang, whilst moving said hanging-leg in either circles or forward-backward (or left to right) that i feel a targeting of what i can only describe as a Leg-to-Pelvis joint-like feeling that needs to be cracked, but i cant crack it. Sometimes standing directly on the right leg activates it. Sometimes wiggling my waist activates it, et caetera. And according to chatgpt there isnt a joint there, being that its so low ~sortve near leg/butt, and Not in SI joint, i dont think, cause its very lower, like what i wnna keep calling leg to pelvis bone) I tried alot of movements they said to do for things like that on youtube. None of them get even a little close to activating what im talking about. *p.s. if any of you grew up w/ Spongebob squarepants, when he says "stop on your right foot, and dont forget it ~ NOW bring it around town... around town..." That "around town" motion, is yet another movement that activates the feeling that im talking about (which again, is on the right side) So if anyone has this exp., let me know, And maybe let me know if you had any way of cracking/or resolving it. Like it feels like its at the precipice of cracking but due to the nature of it~the unknown location, i cant really express what/where its at & what it feels like -> Other than the fact that it activates whilst im standing, doing these slight hip movements, or moving my right leg around in circles, or standing/walking on it or switching to standing on my left leg~letting it hang~going from hanging-to-pressure put back on the right leg)

this is actually hilarious. there are accounts of people writing on the Saturnalia festival, that is... Pliny the *Younger reportedly built a soundproof room so he could work during the raucous celebrations. Lol... hey.. Thats actually smart, lol. Soundproofing in 40-50 AD XD, good idea. keep out the sound. The same thing is reported by Seneca the Younger, a complaint about the noise lvl (im guessing its common for writers to write how pissed they are bout the sounds, cause hes literally tryina write prose, tragedies, etc.) Catullus describes it as "the best of days" And He also ~humorously~ receives a book of terrible poetry from a friend as a jest what amounts to the worst Saturnalia gift Lucian makes a satirical steer around the festival, mocking the whole theological pretense of a god who can only preside over debauchery for one week a year ~ and then returns to being unknown XD. The four letters that form the third part of Lucian's Saturnalia turn the relations between Cronus and mortals upside down — the poor write to the god complaining they get no share of the festive abundance (Lucian himself grew up poor kindve, so maybe thats part of the joke) Seneca is one of the richest witnesses because he's conflicted: he wants to participate, but finds the whole thing philosophically undignified. He writes to his friend Lucilius: "It is now the month of December, when the greatest part of the city is in a bustle. Loose reins are given to public dissipation; everywhere you may hear the sound of great preparations, as if there were some real difference between the days devoted to Saturn and those for transacting business." He then deliberates about whether he should join in or do what he usually does, continuing on ~ seemingly torn between whether or not he should be attending. I mean, these are the best times, its like~millenium old traditions of hilarity, parody, satire, fun goofs & comedy, mockery, jesting, et caetera. Like...

p.s. Im pretty sure the dominant imperial cult under Constantine I, w/ Aurelian having elevated it to the supreme state religion in 274 AD just a generation before Constantine, lead to those predecessors of Constantine adopting the Sol invictus imperial impression, raising it up as we said, and im pretty sure thats one of, if not the primary reasons for Christianity, cause it merges judaic philosophy unto Roman Sol inv., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus Constantine made it such that they stopped persecuting christians and started to favor it. Like he starts aligning w/ a Christian God and the Christian institutional network, which subsequently gave him this unified identity/symbol and a claim to divine mandate... And 50 years or so later, Theodosius makes Christianity the official state religion. I mean, that pretty much sealed the deal, granted alot of stuff lead up to this point, 200 and some years of it, but hey... it is what it is... I mean, iuno if yous would call that a foundation of a tradition, like The Jews certainly are painting their own portrait of what leads to their stuff, though iuno if theres any evidence. But evidence aside, theres def a way to make it work, bit iuno, the one god thing is weird... like its like we are copying off of atenism. I was looking at Akhenaten not to long ago~as possibly pertaining to whether he was like, an illegitimate king, bearing a secret that gets him into trouble later, Alas iuno if yous would be into hearing about it. Anyway i just thought that that Sol invictus thing was very telling... And its kindve annoying cause like, theres no true heroes in this story (specifically as it would pertain to the holy war). Its just like one ruler after another, indirectly, discretely burying Roman traditions, possibly on purpose, possibly by accident, and through Roman tradition itself. Like the best part in history was when the Greek gods just came onto the scene in Rome, and you had like jupiter, neptune, mars, mercury and apollo...Saturn & the Saturnalia. "Wtf, we want the saturnalia.." thats wat i wouldve said 2000 years ago

No one understands whats goin on when it comes to like, just the bare basics of nature & progress and its relationship to ethics, history, magick, etc (which are just a few of the things that use to be tightly interwoven) because like we arent seeing how far weve come, both for the bad and the better. Some areas we are progessing in society, some areas we are going backwards.. some of this isnt about studying history or science, philo., not directly... As its like *growing a seed or a flower from seed... That is, if you arent growing from a perspective that is producing the right plants fromthe right seeds... then wat do you have, right? Like, some of this stuff is actually about that initial artistry and acknowledgement... which is hard to really explain... but assuming you do get what im tryina say, it is that musical~poetic beginning that shapes the seed and plants.. And the consequences of that lead to "the necessary enthusiasm for a thing" -kindve thing... Like, im explaining it poorly, but its something like that... Like that is what it all *leads up to, per the individual, which all depends on these seeds of understanding in the realm of art or music or poetry, but its not to dismiss the mystical, or the religious or the philosophical... Its just that its like, weve separated these things as if to *add something to them, and in doing so, weve pushed things to the side to say, "this isnt real" or "this is made up, but science is real... THATS real". Like thats not how you do science. Thats not how one defines "real". We havent even begun to do science or understand *real. Science was originally based in art & music, as well as the mystical, much like language. Language was purely magical at one point in time, a way to practice divination, and was used identically for this reason in every culture. Like, we lise who we are when we fall into a closed minded systemthat only acknowledges things for what they are... Nevertheless, you can see who the innovators, though you have to go to Ancient Greece for this, to see how these thinkers are shaping things, and how important Mythology/Philosophy is to this, cause its another unseperable and intimately close-knit aspect... Like, Protagoras for example (Not Pythagoras, granted i like Pythagoras too) who came a century or so before Plato... "Man is the measure of all things". Like, hes tryina express how unique our opinions and perspectives are~that they are a factor in this equation, an aspect that cannot be separated and taken for granted, cause you cant just say "What the nature of everything is, what reality is..." You need to consider that thats coming from one particular mind or framework, and thats a huge factor. I wrote this thing recently, specifically on this subject of like, how we dont always know when an idea has gone from the "feeling space" to a place that "makes sense" or "is real" (putting aside that we might have to study what "real is" atleast in its most temporary degree~towards what we can even mean when we say *real.. ergo other terms like ~comprehensive~ might be a better temporary term to put in its place), and now, yous can tell me if you understand what im tryina say here, and if it makes sense to yous: Granted, this is like 0.0000001% of stuff im still workin on, but you sortve start to see like, how intricate everything is, and how many threads you have the opportunity to pull apart and explore/explain... p.s. Someone showed me the Abbas the Alchemist channel a month or so ago, nd hes got some interesting & well thought out stuff... granted, his videos are often short and sweet... but i bet i could find yous hella crazy resources, book lists, vids., etc., like i have so much stuff and im tryina figure out how to weed through all this atm... Someone like G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1830) was someone who was saying the same sortve thing, And again, there are Ancient Greeks saying this stuff, from a framework thats unrecognizable~but just as much rich, replete w/ fecundity...

I noticed there was alot of "trans-" interest and/or related posts, and as i have a few gay friends, it got me thinkin bout something i jus recently learned about Uranian (a sexuality term) The term Uranian being a 19th-century word refers to men who are attracted to other men. from classical Greek ideas about love—specifically Aphrodite~Urania, a heavenly form of love that ancient writers assoc. w/ love~between males Its sortve like tattoos and stuff like this that go through phases (going back to ancient Dacians and/or the tattoo gingerbread Grandmother's of Bosnia/Croatia, etc) where ppl today are tryina come from it like its this new thing / area of reality, but these are just phases of Mother Nature and its creatures, circling on the same set of ingredients, especially if you look at how Ulrich is circling back to mythology, and how he frames these things. The last hundred years have heavily suppressed all of these ancient ideas; however when it comes to the Uranians, these were just people standing up for their sexuality in the 1800s ~ and was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a German, was very much outspoken in regards to He published essays, multiple, under his own name~arguing that men attracted to men was a natural variation of human beings, not criminals or sinners, and of course in 1860~the pinnacle of like, suppressing everything, it was seen as radical. In 1867 @ the German Jurists' Conference 1867 in Munich, he stood up and tried to argue publicly for the decriminalization of homosexuality (note, long story short, he was shouted down before he could finish). But the point is, he was one of the first people to openly argue that homosexuality was natural. He sometimes described gay men as having a "female psyche in a male body" ~ Alas that was a common way to think of it~Or atleast by Ulrichs time it began to ~ He coined terms like: Urning (German) = Uranian ... Opposite is Dioning which is "men attracted to women" (though i dont think it means ordinary typical "straightmen", as hes getting his term from Dionysus, and Dionysus is not a normal character to use, to describe such a thing, so there must be more to it) inb4, later on writers like John Addington Symonds and Oscar Wilde used Uranian to talk about male same-sex love in a more idealized or noble way. There was even a small literary movement called "Uranian poetry" And so, In todays day n age, Uranians (as a word) isnt even really known about. Its not some strange modern category—And this gets to the conclusion here, which is Ulrich, and how he he built a whole universe of descriptions and ideas~of what kind of person Uranian was describing~through a mix of early psychology and classical myth. And if yous wanna get into some old history of "trans" thats a good place to start to build up to Hirschfeld (the classic "transvestite"), David Cauldwell, et caetera (note, those terms we use today around trans- are from the 50s or 60s or around there, though Ulrich was one of the first to really argue that same-sex attraction was inborn and not criminal... And going to Ancient times you have Hermaphroditus, the child of Hermes and Aphrodite, merging male and female, etc) Anyway there was quite a few trans' threads, so i felt it was incumbent upon me to get involved in some way, to some degree, so yous might start to see what/where the preceding terms in this category are coming from ~ p.s. ꝝ → is an abbreviation used for -rum (but i use a similar symbol for capital letter "P", though its more like /ꝝP/ visually)

ChatGPT: Notice that the earlier Greek texts do not mention the Father, the Word (Son), or the Holy Spirit/Ghost as in the later Latinized Comma Johanneum. The “Spirit, water, and blood” is what’s found in manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Which is in Greek, and then is found in Latin later on in 1 John 5:7–8 or Comma Johanneum, "For there are three that testify: the *Spirit... the water... and the blood... and these three agree" Again, we are playing a game of like, "How directly can ChatGPT reach for these realizations on its own", without influencing it; Like the goal is just to generate one or two ques., or comments at the start, to get it to reveal the truth, truth as it would apply to vocabulary, or anything grammatical, or our perceived history on the matter (it doesnt have to be in the bible, it can be w/ anything)

I have so many resources atm, for various interrelated projects im doin', that i dont even know like, where we could even begin; Ergo im waitin til someone shows interest, at which point ill unload the motherload and we can all collab, assuming everyone is-into the same things at the same time typeve thing. I mean im tryina find ppl interested in ths stuff but its hard. thats the difficult part—For some reason.

@MixcoatlTheres a ladder of truth that you walk from that point, you know... (Even after youve taken psychedelics, it still followes this sequence as its like the Egyptian Thoth laying down the chronological steps): It goes like Rupert Spira~and this sortve like, sitting w/ the idea of like "What am i, Am infinite, what is reality, what is consciousness, et caetera..." Then you sortve go through a dark period after that, cause thats sortve the perspective of where things dont really take shape/form so much, but rather they exist as being itself. And then somewhere after, surviving that darkness it settles into a place that makes better sense, cause its no longer framing it from a question around reality, but rather, you are to become the *participant in the question, which doesnt imply "being" so much that implies you defining "being" actively, not to mention defining everything else thereafter (alas,. theres a moral play~or synergy between creation and your own being and experience, and it leads to a place of appreciation for lots of things, history, religion, etc., assuming you get to this creation place, which surely most people do i believe, i dont know. as its not like its entirely *non-obvious, its just unusual from the standpoint of "what is consciousness"... if you see what i mean. Note to self (NTS): Its actually kindve freaky, cause history reflects the internal world sequence)

(part ii) Ima try to explain the line of reasoning for yous in a different way anyway., granted it might be more confusing than my original ques. XD.. In other words, its a contradiction to think of *Christ~historically from the perspective of "anointing w/ oil for consecration" epithet (Jesis as a King for instance), given that the idea of Jesus being like a king is being applied after the *Christ title~Or rather you could say, Christ is a title he applied to himself, or his closest followers gave it to him, but not as a king (for the word anoint his applied to priests/kings), but as someone who is anointing others. So its not saying anything about *anoint/king, but the opposite really, cause hes the son of the *living Christ, and if anything he is serving the king, and consecrating that living Christ~for Christ , by way of smearing, spreading, applying some substance on others. And theres a few options here that he could be saying w/ Christ, e.g. "put out your tongue... let me give you the eucharist..." All the way to "Let me cover your entire body in the eucharist" to "Let us take the eucharist..." to... "If you dont take this, you will literally die, so have faith in me". The point being, hes not the king of anything, but hes certainly rubbing or smearing; And because people later say "look how important he was To his followers, Christ must be implying sonethin like, *hes a king", wherein the actual reason that they have that word "Christ" in the first place is scrambled lost to time... That word doesnt just drop out of the air... Jesus & his band of misfits are using that term and giving theirselves nicknames (p.s. lets not even bring up "Petra", as thats another long story, but im jus showing you that it isnt a falsehood to know that Jesus is well-known for naming people and places) p.s. we've turned the original Greek forms of the word *christ into a starch epithet that sounds like his true name, but that word is just the result of a millenium of confusion, erasing the fact that the "chr-" doesnt end @ "-ie'st"... In Greek, that root becomes a *stem, and a subsequent flower of possible terms related to the root form; In English, all of our words are deliberate distinctions, so we dont have a treasure trove of words that sound like "chrie", so you cant blame anyone for thinking that that word sounds independent now. And not to make it even more confusing, but the "-st" ("str") part of the name is another Old Greek root/stem = meaning "to spread, apply or extend to", that which gets used in important ways~and it just so happens to occur in this word meaning "to spread on"

Note, i just wanted to demonstrate how obvious and simple this line of inquiry is, that even ChatGPT is lead to this discovery almost immediately without pushback~I will skip some of our questions to get to the point, but feel free to ask, and i will post the 1 or 2 questions i asked beforehand to get it to here~And whats really a fairly obvious conclusion... ChatGPT says: The honest linguistic point you're pushing toward: χρίω before it becomes religious terminology just means to smear, to rub, to spread a substance. It's used in completely mundane contexts in classical Greek — rubbing down athletes with oil, applying pigment, spreading wax. It's not inherently sacred at all. So the question becomes — is there a meaning of χριστός that predates or sits outside the kingly/priestly consecration tradition? Where I'd point you: Look at how χρίω is used in non-religious Greek writers — Homer, Herodotus, the medical writers like Galen. There it's thoroughly physical and practical. The religious "anointing" meaning is arguably a narrowing of a broader word. -------- @ everybody whos interested Yous might not even care about this, but to me its important because, somewhere along the lines people stopped understanding history, and now we have stories that may potentially be way off... And its not the church's fault, as its not their job to do history24*7... Like the church technically isnt Thoth @The Halls of Amenti,as they are just like us regular ppl, losing information w/ each generation. Anyway, if you have no idea wat im talking about, just ignore this. I jus thought someone out there would see how im just weaving very simple lines together to generate the results that are the most straightforward and direct, where the words themselves actually lead you; And not the weird movies and fake imagery from the 20th Century Fox News typeve thing~so to speak *Note, for anyone who is confused, plz do feel free to ask me to send what my initial ques. were (one ques. that had two parts basically) as thatll illuminate the topic.

I just dont understand whats wrong w/ growing things and selling chocolate, that is, you have these ppl like bill gates nd such investing in apparently *good things, then why arent they creating opportunities inside the realm of natural things, that which are natural and have micronutrients essential to the body. I mean wasnt there somethin weird bill gates invested (within the last few months i wanna say it was), like lab grown eggs and chickens, or milk or something ??? (i think it was fake butter & meat)

Yeah absolutely. Everyone needs *self, or *experience, in order to experience anything thereafter, so its entangled w/ everything. But either way we cannot understand consciousness, for the word itself does not point to anything. Ergo the search for "a truth within what being conscious is" is itself a question around "what reality is", for everything is experience... That is, you cannot take away experience, you cannot take away biases, nor can you take away reality, for they are all words that point to something else that is without words for it. In the attempt to do Science that way, it would be the attempt to misunderstand reality. But this is true from the perspective of investigating consciousness as well, for it too, it does not point or lead to anything, unless you yourself have an experience that redefines and reincapsulates the meaning of "consciousness & reality"~as it would pertain to reality as a whole.

@everybody Q: If we break into a topic 'round magick and/or occult that also is directly related to Science and the use of plant and animal medicine, flora and fauna pharmakai, should that go here or in the Spiritual, Esoteric, And Whatever Else Section? Its something for everyone to think on, assuming its a perfect 50 50 split and that its like, which toss of the coin road does it work in~i would say here, but its also like, mystical/metaphysical and Spiritual In some sense it works best in the spiritual section, cause it frees up this half for intellectual jargon, and introduces that section to a side of mysticism they might not have known before.

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.

Do yas know how they sell that shredded cheese (as well as in "block" form) in foodstores, its like, theres lots of different brands and cheese called either cheddar or colby... Yous know thats like the fakest fkin cheese on the universe, right? Like its pasturized so ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of the microbials that your body needs ~the organic stuff~ is destroyed in the process, and what you are left w/ is no longer cheese but the material that is to taste and visually represent a cheese-like *thing. Like its one level away from plastic cheese that you've tasked your stomach w/ digesting, if you put it in your system. Now thats just regarding cheese. You also have bread, and there isnt a single option they sell in the mass market bread department that isnt fake. Now some stores like mine have this little section (way way away from the bread mind you) And that isnt fake, for normal rye/whitish bread (im not talking about the kind they make up there either in the bakery, thats not what i mean,. and i dont like that bread, but thats a diff topic) This is a secret bread that pretty much no food store will have, but they should, cause its what normal bread taste like (it taste alot better... i mean, when the foods not fake its suppose to taste alot better, and not like it has been surgically glued together) The point is, i just talked about bread & cheese. Thats not it. Thats not where it ends. Like, yous have those channels that talk about shopping at cosco, but cosco doesnt exist where i live first of all, second of all they must not know the level of fakery out there is way beyond, as im not worried about the 2% olive oil in my avocado oil and sht like that. Like thats two oils that are the only healthy oil anyway. Like im not tryina eat fake glued-together products. And some ppl think, "Well isnt it obvious?" NO its NOT obvious, because all of these products are still on the shelves and are still purchased regularly. One more i gotta add is "fake tortillas", cause this one is so annoying because you dont have anyone out there that has learned to work w/ flour->dough, and make there own tortillas. Thus you gotta ppl really investing in fake tortillas. There isnt a single non-fake tortilla out there in foodstores, and if there is (that is, one whos ingredients say: flour, water) you're lucky. if it dont say that then sorry but youve got fake tortillas that clearly are fake tortillas. Like, theres no faking it -> Organic products taste organic; fake products taste fake. To Not know the difference is to have lived in a world eating nothing but fake food (ive named only 1% of fake products)

Like yous dont understand. These are the ppl that want you to just accept this stuff, or to take it as a joke, or to not engage it seriously, so they can get away w/ it, and make successful engagements w/ others who are only mindful of the financial relation and such Like, if yous dont do anything, yous are gonna have more and more fake foods and fake supermarkets and fake fast food establishments popping up. Yous need to fight back against this stuff, as the IDEAL scenario is that, no one will be paying attention, and they can just go about their business to get those "bills passed that dont make sense", or them "foods in foodstores that dont make sense", etc.

Also, this guy did not revolutionize computers by any means. He put together a team that prospered and had better fortune over the real revolutionaries and innovators in his field. Thats not innovation, thats not a revolution. Thats pure fortune 500 b.s., and we dont owe this man anything. Now if he wants to help us geat, then wtf dude, finance some family farms ~ as opposed to contributing to the fake food of America. Foodstores are already an entire food scham, besides for the locally made and grown stuff that you sometimes get in there... sometimes! It should be all the times.

I want to leave this here too, even if it doesnt really go directly inside "descriptive language", its a part of communication and these things like *Wisdom and rhetoric and learning / relearning the fundamental aspects of a good Sophron (σώφρων) which means like, w/ sound-mind, temperate, self-possessed~or like a man or woman who has mastered theirselves. And this connects towards how you treat others as well: Pietas (Latin) — the Roman embodiment, duty and love woven together (and subsequently, the reverence towards others... *granted, that thats not an automatic thing, so youd have to be particular in paying attention to that) Eusebeia (εὐσέβεια, in Greek) — embodiment, perceptive reverence toward what is sacred and worthy, including people... Theyre cultural cognates that communicate the same deep human instinct or sense of like, possessing this internal appreciation of perception and feeling, followed w/ reverence~in regards to "that which is all around"~from that seeing. p.s. im not sure they teach this stuff: at school, at home, anywhere... like...

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.

Everyones right when reality is wrong... right? If it is the location in space t'where everyone gets to be right, then i dont know if that changes anything its kindve unusual if you think about it like that, as a mass of people moving towards something together... like in other words, the mass is everyone searching for truth, and then the destination is that which we are moving towards. like im not sure if that is a goal that we would want or not (its too abstract to tell what that even means). Like obviously that is a goal, but, it is a goal -if we are overly optimistic. I think id be starting out more on the pessimistic/skeptical side, til proven wrong (again, i know, -its in the place where we are always going to be "right". But i dont understand what that means, yet, like it doesnt explain anything for us independently (unless we all die in the process, then itll in some sense have triumphed in explaining alot) Like to me, anything where we died in the process was successful in some sense, even if we dont get to acknowledge it afterwards. Like you just dont want to be staggered between two extremities (extremities that you can feel, i guess is how to put it) I'm speaking to the "grand-maya" of course. Ive sortve left the realm of normal perception space, but I feel it is related to perception (perception or whats the other /p/ word, oh "perspectives". or maybe its prediction. i dont know it doesnt matter)

I mean, we are breaching the topic that no one can breach. But hey... Why not, right... Like, okay, reality or the reality that we are working on... Thats the perspective we can speak on... Cause to speak towards the -istemi to, — is to breach the point that we couldnt return from. We mostly speak to the point that people can still communicate (even if it doesnt seem like they are understanding you). I mean, if we say its an illusion, we can still speak to each other about it, cause that part doesnt quite yet breach through. Like its almost like a test, right, "Are you gonna breach it? Are you gonna breach it? Are you gonna touch the chocolate?" its like, We can share a space of illusion since the paradox isnt quite breached yet. Like, to realize -is to be fucked, possibly in a good way if you dont mind, like eventually thats actually the last thing that you are worried about, granted its literally like self deteriorating. I mean, it IS derealization im describing, so, its not to be taken lightly, try as we might. i mean... im speaking to illusions of course.

"Gay Egyptian King, Here to bring you love light and peace, prefacing w/ the Egyptian Song, *Bring Love to the World, and..." Then we learn about "Ankh" from the Egyptian King, The Gay Egyptian Prince/Pharaoh, Ra Sém Bah, which is only the beginning for anyone gay or trans, hes got some interesting insights for you, if you click on *videos, and search by "oldest" videos first, and then scroll down, theres alot of material there for you, one specifically on *trans - im not even gay and i wana attend his Golden Beetle Temple! oh, and another curious thing bout lots of ancient, kemetic and hermetic, and african or greek stuff is like, *Why is there so many snakes? right? Like if you go back and read/listen to Dioscorides, every other sentence is talking about how to prevent or cure ailments ~ attributed to snake or serpent bites. Back in the day, you were brushing up against these little brushes where snakes use to~And still do live, tho weve cut down or isolated alot of woods and forests, so now its made alot clearer where the snakes should be at, And back then you got bit by a snake and died. People were smaller back in the day, so even small snakes were prolly dangerous. But anyway, the Eucharist back in the day (Kykeon) which was the same thing i believe, was a drink made from this snake venom to build immunity to~what would be future encounters, however only certain people were strong enough, so they had to ejaculate nd wat not, and create distilled forms of the immunity, through fluids that they had the most of, semen presumably being a go to for transfering to others... If they had datura in mainland Greece, they mighta been using that one Datura species for the Eleusian ceremonies~i forget its name~i mean theres 3 diff ones of Datura related to psychedelic Datura, but i use to know which was which ... Oh and these terms, Εὐχαριστία and κυκεών are related in the sense that, you would use them in the same context, or in related ones, as ευ - χαρις (karis) means "giving thanks"~gratitude or favor, and κυκαω (kykao) just means "to stir + mix", so you would be using these terms, or their derivatives, together to talk about "giving the ποτόν (poton) or potion" which is what "kykeon" means. Its a brew or potion (πόμα, poma and poton are more neutral, like "a drink") *p.s. "Christ" and pharmakon are different, but related to this context, but lets not get into that (too many words in Greek)

This actually breaches a weird topic by accident, on the topic of fear too, which is like, on the surface, there are these things you could assoc w/ fear, like a total state of disarray & chaos, and similar things like this, youd might associate it w/ fear~like the best way to walk it down through the Earthly realms to simmer it down into one experience. But beyond the most obvious things, theres this opposite place, a place where everyone is to be devoured, and although its essentially like the Egyptian devourment after death, its also this thing we are to fear~As fear itself too, cause its like... The soul, being made whole, it is to lead us all to that one individuality regardless~but this is like, the place that fear takes you to, And that contrasts w/ this aspect of the soul or experience where you are able to *resolve (in some respect) that constant looming fear, cause the fear and the overcoming are two constants, as you cant really have one without the other, its just baked into reality. And even in death i mean to say, the continued "experience" is itself the continuation of fear and overcoming. *Note, the balancing of the scale is your own balancing, your own contention w/ yourself, the "heart" or material item being placed on the scale, as an analogy towards your complacency, your acceptance w/ who and what you are in the moment before continuing to wherever you are destined to go thereafter. ... Part of this probably leads back into Christianity and the fascination w/ it, but I dont really think too much about that connection~however obvious it might seem.

Here's an interesting one to get yous thinking, cause it touches on this aspect of control~or that which we may hope to, As it is about this idea of madness, or those chaotic aspects related to~reflected in our world. And how, in Science, Philosophy and Theology, etc., there exists alongside those~a world of frenzy and disorder. I started out looking at this word rinselvarsi ("returning to the woods", or "becoming wild again") Which of course sounds alot like the early myths of Merlin right? That is, those stories where they say he was to go mad and fall into a frenzied state, living in the woods and worshipping animals and all of this stuff (And later, when they try to save him they manage to lure him into civilization for like 5 minutes, before he goes crazy and returns to the woods again). Thats sortve the first time they take Merlin from the folktale/songs of Merlin, and make it more like Myrddin Wyllt For those of you who dont know, Myrddin Wyllt comes before stories of Merlin, and hes more of the quintessential Mystic who "becomes wild" (and this is prolly during the same time you have the early, early, early versions of Author the Barbarian, way before the Arthurian Legends) Myrddin is actually the Welsh form of what would later become Merlin and "Wyllt" means something like wild, mad or untamed. The story goes, Myrddin, a bard or learned man, lives in society until a traumatic event befalls him (like a battle) and it shatters him; And one commonly linked event is the Battle of Arfderydd, after which he "loses his place in the world". So he simply withdraws into the forest. I'm not sure if they go that far into it, like w/ Merlin who literally goes mad, possibly speaking tongues~though i believe towards the end it depicts Myrddin going mad, but he is then taken by the Lady of the Lake and presumably taken to... Mermaid-land or somewhere.. Haha, lol i dont know. The battle of Arfderydd is actually very interesting, and some of the videos on Myrddin Wyllt do talk about it. In the tales of Myrddin, he def abandons society entirely to live among the animals, taking on a feral existence, and this is what gives him this prophetic voice (hence, what would turn into the legends of Merlin). I believe the Welsh texts are called Yr Afallennau and Yr Oianau though I get those early Merlin, Arthur & Welsh texts all mixed up. So Myrddin is like a seer, diviner and foretells all these crazy things. Later on, tales of Merlin turn the tales of Myrddin into an advisor, a strategist embedded in kingship. So the point to this is like, these are examples of early medieval tales that begin from a wild place, and w/ time are slowly absorbed by 12th CE era and the early Chivalry assoc. w/ royalty. And so, in all of this contemplation around structured sciences, there is always this element that contrasts civilized society. Existing alongside the serene forest is our chaotic tendencies and attributes, a truth that lingers~that which cannot be reckoned w/ in any meaningful sense, it can only be acknowledged & contrasted against. That is all.

@Joseph Maynor (part ii) Oh wow, so hes going way back to the beginning ~those important fundamental aspects to religion and western thought, as he mentioned the *logos, and i think he mentioned Platonism. Hes goin way back to the Greek Philosophy, And thats how all these things begin, or the kinds of ideas they have to contend w/ *p.s. this should be fairly obvious, but when i am talking about Martin Luther & King James ~ That has nothing to do w/ Martin Luther King, *i had a dream... Lol, cause im sure someone out theres gonna be like "OH i know, Martin luther king, i had a dream!"