kavaris

Do yous guys watch that guy, wats his name w/ the /M/ or rather he says that who he is, Madhi or something?... I dont kno his name, it comes up like hes a wild pokemon like "Madhi has appeared!" do yous kno who im talkin bout? i believe hes uber popular. i like his stuff, granted hes sortve like, \*One note, like i dont see alot of personality to him, which Americans would prolly be a little weirded out by, but hey, i think thats common for people in life. Like we dont know when weve fallin into our own, monotonous mindsets, nd personalities nd stuff. note: i looked up his info: Abdullah Hashem Aba al-Sadiq, featured on "The Mahdi Has Appeared YouTube channel", was born on July 27, 1983. As of February 2026, he is 42 years old. He is an Egyptian-American religious leader who founded the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light.

Before things ended up too complicated and ridiculous, i was like tryina see how I was gonna explain what i was thinking in a more like, uniform manner, and also i was thinking - I believe Leo actually presented something like this idea, or he has touched on aspects of it already in several different ways, I believe; Or atleast im now recalling a memory of it. So now im tryina see like, what is it thats different here. I think its really just like, the part of your routine where you are sortve climbing on top of the ladder of possibilities, imagery, pictures, paintings, music, writings, concepts, ideas, thoughts, feelings, memories, moods and emotions, and like... Trying to figure out like, using my base example case: "What is Art... Or Is this ART ~ OR is THAT ART" -if its the case that you are choosing between two distinctions. Or... If /when its just one thing at a time, you are asking if something IS or ISNT something. The point is that, theres a degree to which the thing being painted (as a completed painting or not, doesnt matter), and the idea of like, "where its going, where it MIGHT go"~Has taken on a filament of yourself, simply by observing it and impressing upon it some idea of what it is already, and how it is to unfold before you. So before that happens, and before youve completed something, anything (And if presented the opportunity), you want to ask yourself about the environment around such a painting, and whats "leading to said picture-painting in the 1st place", BUT... You want to drill down on a question, and your ability to discern said questions, otherwise, you arent really participating. Like, to "participate in life" is to offer some sortve trade with reality. So you want to ask some more opinion-related questions to yourself, Like "What is Art" and if something IS or ISNT art". i shouldve made this more explicit as well, but its not like we are literally painting something. As this can, and should, apply to everything you do, like in everything you are imagining, i.e., thoughts, feelings and emotions~The imagery is just what you are seeing in your own experience. I wasnt sure if i made that clear in the original post. I did mention it was gonna be a very poor introduction. Though i think its explicit enough that you can understand it now? Maybe?... Theres also alot more to it, as i presented it as a very very distilled version of 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***

They are not really seeing how, they are taking the stance "But i (the self) can just be like *This* and that counts towards *That*"... Wherein, the arguments are precisely about how "self" is precisely what "You want or think is right, right now!" and what you say is the "way" for "you" - the self in this vry—contained moment. Stepping outside to absorb into any ounce of reality, the rules and laws of Self become extremely nuanced and undefinable. And why? cause Self has to adapt, it has to suddenly discover What the rules are in a world with no ground, as dynamic as it is, and as everflowing as it is. This is also what we find just in "Self" at once, in the isolated, and separate identity, and where all of our new rules of the Self critical thinking stems out from. Of course, this would be sortve new to them, since their questions are like, coming from a place thats questioning and resistant to whats happening, whats absorbing... p.s. he keeps saying "violating consent" is evil, and (done). Like, what about "giving consent" and then it turning out that there was an issue with the consent. What about being lied to. WHat about like, literally, millions of things. Plus, when was the last time two people were like "I consent to this thing" in an explicit manner. Wtf? I could list you know, how many billions of things, and the notion of violating consent would Gods honestly, it would be like the millionth or billionth thing on that list.

In the same way people think of The \*Inner World as being an analogy that foreshadows the External / Physical World, the World of the Physical is both an analogy for~and an expression towards, "That which is inspired through the **Imagined -> Manifested** reality". That is to say, yous have one direction of flow, flowing from the imagined (internal) to the external world, but now yous just need to see how it flows in the opposite direction as well, the left side of world/reality, that is ( our physical form as being a conceptual space for the conceptual~mental world )

Oh thats actually a better way to phrase it then. That is, "We are \*occupied by the perception of limitations", ergo on one end, we are taking up the space via \* these other forms ∆ And so therefore... That which exist Now, as well as that which we are Moving / facing~is itself There But in a sense we just dont perceive it. The reason i was really tryina get back to the title is cause, i really want to encapsulate both ideas, it existing right now, and as something thats not yet evident, And i think somehow wording it in a way like that gets closer to a more perfect way to describe it. Or atleast, its close to the original premise, of which i think most ppl would agree on, who have had the exp., that it is that close to us, just not perceived as such -typeve thing. Thanks! ha

I should preface that, this question teeters on "the question itself", that is, nearby/towards (1) the distillation of truth, and ((2) the -istemi, though maybe a little less so since istemi points towards an *experience) and which is ultimately to get yas thinkin'... Granted its a bit of tautological, equivocation of sorts, in order to pull a thread and see what happens; As normally we dont speak as if the Unity~the one is, and continues to be, happening now literally. But supposing we did, and supposing we were to say then that *The unity happened but you just didnt perceive -What are your thoughts on that? Its not worth arguing over beyond the argomento on the subject from the standpoint of your own opinion, as we just dont speak openly from the perspective that, what we are is the inability itself ~to perceive that which we are. And hopefully yous see that im not asking facetiously, and am genuine, and curious myself; Otherwise i wouldnt ask... *p.s. if yous want to argue, i wont stop yous, though do realize threads are sometimes stopped if the arg. gets overly aggressive so keep that in mind. Nevertheless its another way at pointing at the same thing. So i thought i might ask yous what your interpretation of it is~Though i personally dont think this way~myself, in terms that mirror this literal mindset given the limitation of words and thoughts and such. Instead, i just frame it in my head, much like how everyone else does regularly, that is how we are rather moving towards something, by way of~or by virtue of being independent. From that independent place we move closer to something we dont fully understand, or that we understand but dont embody. or that we intend to embrace, or... Et caetera options? Yousll fill the rest out. This edges on the side of a philosophical conversation, as i feel its different than what (or what i assume) we are normally thinking of when we think of Unity. Unity as a form of existing now, is the unity that also defies now, because we arent actually "perceiving unity literally", therefore (what would we be talking about?) -is the question. But to those of us who understand that it airs on the side of, where communication fails to describe, i do still feel, or we may feel or find it interesting, so in as much as it can get us on the same page when it comes to the rare event where we may be tasked to describe "What a unity , or Thee unity is", like in some circumstances that happen here, where we are to engage and answer such a question.

Hopefully thats not too confusing, as i realize now, reading over it, theres two different *kinds of unity floating around in there, as theres an *a unity and *the unity.

Theres a romanticism to that to me, the notion of like \*First came the dinosaurs, then came Adam & Eve typeve thing. Or the premise of \*Adam's dream, before Eve exists, when he has a dream — he sees a vision of all of humanity that will come after him, the endless procession of people, generations and generations flowing out across time. And when he wakes, there is Eve. It also reminds me of "i carry your heart with me" -e.e. cummings, or The Song of Solomon's, "you and I against the ancient world" typeve things. *p.s. one of my fav quotes atm - "Philosophy and Poetry are regarded as two different but integrally related forms of Divinely-inspired τρέλα, tréla; μανία, manía" - Plato's expression of Socrates speaking in the Phaedrus

I always think bout how to bridge the language they are speaking from, to the one, solely good place leo is speaking from, but hey, theres nothin that would say there needs to be a communicative bridge between. It just presents so much potential, especially as its like, so many ppl are in fact coming from a different place where its like "Well i, me, find morality to be... this..." Without that psychedelic exp., the whole reasoning for where we're comin from, it seems unusual nd confusing to them, probably. Or they see it, and arent sure how to make that bridge in trying theirselves to connect those two~call em archetypes. p.s. its dam snowy outside. shite. its good

Avanzata vs. ritirata, thats maybe terms i shouldve used: that is, one energy rushes forward, one energy rushes back or *retreats (arabic or hindi sanskit lineage prolly has terms for that, like that seems like its up their alley). But, to really envelope oneself in it it starts w that initial avanzata, just goin all in, seein wat happens. Then theres a second part... After that. I dont know what its called, but def a second "Part 2" maybe lol X|"the continuation", "Everything that proceeds"

Like the first thing the mind wants to do is contend w everything right, so i can see how its like, they arent tryina enter into an unknown situation, like they are tryna play defense. Like i guess what it is, is a form of offense thqts required, that is, sortve like that thing in Assassins creed right: "Leap of faith", psychedelic trip is a leap of faith. Its one part in journey that could make all the diff~i mean, life is a leap of faith

Sell these folk some psychedelics.. lol.. like i hope this inspired them to go on a trip right after, i mean hey, they will likely be a very responsible pair. like i feel like i can imagine them right now, being very overly safe lol.

@Leo Gura @46:00 Im at the part where hes jus now pushin back on survival And thats one of the longest and hardest points to realize in the journey, cause i personally didnt understand it by looking at survival directly, like that was one that was sortve jostled loose by accident, though i can see how anyone going at survival head on is gonna be like, trying to get around it. Survival in it self sounds bad. But survival can just mean breathing, it could just be a base level of a good thing to have to have identity or to be starting, ending, starting, if not being like, contended w/. Like LsD was effectively, in the beginning it was like a "hard..." wall or something. A hard road block on what Not to do, or feelings around what wouldve been like, the rules and laws of a world w/ rules and laws. Or like, it was sortvr showing the flow of direction, and where the pool sortve wants to push if that makes sense (the serene river, though, where the prickly timber around it is at~or something like that)

Theres a good moment @ around 39:00 (im only half way thru) Yous are talkin bout something that lead to where she says "I have a feelin that ppl do realize these things but then they... ignore or forget/move on..", and thats what happens a lot. You take mushrooms, lsd, or go through some exp., and then you in a round about way, forget everything that wouldve been the impetus towards everything you could have learned, Nd are instead left at the beginning by virtue of having never investigated "what that was". Cause now, everything afterwards is being staggered (in the best case situations) between "hm, that was interesting, i wonder..." in contrast w/ "Let me concern myself w/ this next thing, and this next thing" or in other words, the routines involved in remembering, and the essential seerds of doubt and wonder~required to do this work are never let to blossom by any of the edges where said flowers blossoming may happen. So anyway,thats just to say then that that was a good part cause it shows ppl from the early beginning/onset like, look at the world—they who are getting a small, concentrated vers., of it, possibly, but are also too lost in a routine where said substances arent in the recipe. Like their recipe for \*cake is missing crucial ingredients for now~until forever, indefinitely.

Hey yous may or may not know, or maybe theres already a thread on this (delete this if there is) But leo did a thing on DemystifySci recently. it was approx 7 hours ago, And im jus now watching. And the funny thing is, yous were jus talkin bout havin Leo do somethin or somethin w someone, so hey, here yas go, ha. So anyway, im jus acknowledging that i saw it, or rather im watchin it now. Feel free to discuss it here, or jus tell me if anyone else watched it yet.

Heres a blindman doin sungura, and you can tell, this is prolly a well known rendition. Alot of times, the songs are so completely diff from eachother. Alot of them dont have vocals, nd instead they are like instrumentals~w/ ppl dancing. So, jus to give you a sense of how broad it is—I jus happened to find lyric

A couple weeks ago I had brought up Greek music (arabic music, but that was under a diff discussion/topic of threads) And i had said that there was a lot of different traditional Spanish, Italian and Greek related rhythms, dances and songs that I was startin to look into, but that i hadnt yet learned the actual names of So now if we put that aside, today, i found myself looking for a very specific typve guitar jangle~tropical, almost Caribbean sounding music (that is, those who are familiar with "Under the sea" from the little mermaid). Though the term \*Caribbean would be way off at least~from what the actual music style is, as you would need to be looking for "African music" genres, either through the terms "Juju" or "Sungura" style music: Dendera specifically had been what lead me to then finding the broader category of Sungura. Theres a video that gives a little on the history of Sungura -if you search "Sungura Music of Zimbabwe ...", though i dont know if Sungura is a more specific term for an even broader term. So not only do i hope to show yous somethin new, im basically seeing if any of yous happen to know more about Dendera OR Sungura, or Juju or any of this style of music, and would like to drop some knowledge, like on what its about... But anyway, heres one of many interpretations of the music (i was lookin for one of the more catchy 'r sounding ones, so it might be a little too bassy, but theres plenty of non-bassy recordings you can find) *p.s. you might also recognize that term dendera as its the name of an Egyptian temple complex, though im not sure where they got the terms sungura/dendera*

Off topic, but still on the subject of Egypt, i feel like, you know you are gettin closer to the origin of mankind when everyones arguing bout what culture or people the people of a culture were, like Egyptians, altho they do have a specific Egyptian look, thats only the Royal lineage. Like, the actual ppl of Egypt were black, white, indian, chinese, greek, et caetera. I feel like, where did Ancient Egypt go? Where did any advanced people across the Mediterranean go? They came everywhere that we are now, like they didnt get wiped out. Even in a flood situation, you just float away, unless you are like, right undearneath a comet or somethin, you float away to wherever the water takes you, nd w rapid enough waters itll take u there even Faster/rapido p.s. we are mistaken bout like, the resiliancy of ppl, nd the soul is no different, its just shrouded in misunderstood things that look like real v. imaginary, but its more like a neverending layer like, real, imag., real., imag., real., imag., And our interface into our own interpretation of wat we *think is there, is a way of putting it in a seq., that makes sense, which would be a long story, or rather part of a complex one.

Religion = Egyptian language = Early computer (What a computer really is?) We preface w/ a story. In the early onset of the Chinese culture and writing system, the king of that early Chinese dynasty would ask \*questions, and he would have the royal aide, chamberlain or king's scholars write out the kings requests~What they thought his questions were onto fossils or bones (within a crude form of early Chinese) and then they would then \*burn the fossil, which would lead to these \*cracks in the bone, ultimately leading to "Oracle bone script", or what consider a kind of "Bone divination", as they would then interpret these cracks as being "nature's answer" (or an answer from either the primordials or an exalted form of the King's spirit, of which they assoc. w/ nature and other things like this). This is similar to the Egyptian's use of language. That is, they were using early forms of pictures (hieroglyphs) to mimic what they had/were experiencing in nature. Then they would perform a kind of \*Pictographic divination through the interaction w/ nature and writing out what the sequences would be, and over time their beliefs (\*believing in (verb) aka \*predicting in) changed and evolved, and were subsequently subsumed by these early pictographic letters or what we sometimes think of as a *stream-of-consciousness* language. Thats not to say then that there wasnt critical thinking involved. But anyway, at this point for the Egyptians, it was no longer based on "nature informing them and their beliefs/language", so much that it had become a kind of \*interactive divination, where theyd then take it one step further to try to \*predict what was happening in nature and around them, referencing early pictographs~or simply, "communicating through language" (albeit, they wouldnt have had fancy kinds of words to describe what they were doing, but thats what they were doing). This is whats called a "belief", however its an *advanced form* of it (today we call it a "program", though some people who are a little behind are still thinking of it as a religion). That is something that has both "input" and "output" is a belief/religion. Think of an **Abacus**: You have the beads (memory), and a user moves the beads (processing/input), then you have the visual count/content (output). Thats a computer. Thats a belief. Its a *system* that you use to evoke (or invoke) output to the screen (to your senses) only to *feed back into the system* your own input. Its also called a language. Language underlies belief. It underlies religion, and god, and all things holy on earth. Are there more things that underlie this whole programming thing? Absolutely. We havent even gotten started, put it that way. To be cont. p.s. the title of this meant to be "Egyptian language (and what a computer really is)" but it got caught up in a bunch of exp., and it came out like that

"It is extraordinarily rare to reach the highest states of consciousness" I want to preface w/ something slightly off topic, but itll help yous see where im comin from (since this is more considering those who are exp, as opposed to the opposite, like those trying to go through said exp, and somehow not being able to arrive)... Like, before i consider ever replying to like the spiritual/philosophical things of this nature~I have to actually start at the Ousia, of like... Well you wouldnt call it traversing to the spectrum of light, as its like just a deepened *being* of sorts. The word ive invented for it, like .. the ladder that leads to.., is called "-istemi", like when you drop down into that thing where like you are having flashbacks/PTSD lolol, like im giving a very bad description of it now that ive described it negative, nevertheless you either know what i mean or you dont. And in dropping down to~What really is a positive (once you are use to) I see things maybe a little more clearly than wed normally be accustomed to; And im not really doing anything different or like, im not going very far out or anything, as its just one simple notch turned to the left or right, making all the difference. But anyway, i personally dont see the "states of consciousness" thing as like, "that which we all aspire to". Granted, it is very like, mind altering, and it can jump start you towards what im bout to describe. The thing im describing is literally like, *Yous are present within said states all the time* though the difference is just, relaxing into it~If you truly want it. To me, thats infinity. Its here and now. And its also why the Liminal threshold illustration is a pain in the ass, cause i cannot possibly illustrate how you go from a spectrum of *being—Infinity*, suddenly to "You are infinity"~Other than the fact that infinity directly stems from this thing called experience (hence, ousia—exp.—light) (note: i started calling it light, and thats a long story). But i mean, bottomline, im not saying you can logic your way to everything, but i am saying you can have had the exp., that everything is directly accessible, and from that point you can logic your way towards it~Towards that which is on the radar. That is all im saying in this post. Thank you. Hermes Trismegistus bless you.

Like in other words, even just knowing how something is gonna be difficult to define, is itself very helpful to ppl in defining As it sortve gives every1 now an idea of whats gonna be our weakest strength in the whole rigamarol

This is another thing we wont be able to fully describe until we make that \*God swap in our head (that is, until its more aligned w/ that sequence in the liminal threshold of \*being, then other things) Also this idea isnt authentically mine, so yous can try to find who phrased it like this originally. "We \*identify w/ the Broadcast and Not the Signal" (its important to separate those two, otherwise we are saying that we ARE the signal, but the signal is NOT the broadcast) Even in dream, where we are like pure imagination, we are identifying w/ the broadcast. We take the shape of all things, concurrently (or, we do this in some dreams~And some dreams we are just one thing the whole time, like this one, or so it appears to be). The moment you try describing this, it starts giving people different ideas about what the signal is, as its only the broadcast part being defined (weve made that clear). It makes total sense when you go to sleep and realize it, though it sounds erroneous to try describing the signal part, given the clarity of the broadcast part. In order to describe things like God, the signal, the light, etc., we ALSO need a new way to think about it (hence the rest of this thread which turned into this like, protest of sorts to get everyone thinkin diff about \*it), as God could imply infinite potential, or it could mean "the source, the beginning" or both, or neither. Its a long story, but itll essentially help us in defining the signal part, as well as all these things we consider Divine X or Y

No thats not true, but i didnt know what to title this: Like i thought of this time, back when i was doin alot of guitar and stuff like this, and i was approached by an older gentlemen, who sat down next to me, or nearby me rather, in the guitar store... Where all the acoustic guitars are sold?(they didnt hav any of them fancy old Lute or Oud-style guitars, not at the time, otherwise i woulda been tryina play them there) The point being, i tell this story of like, the time the older gentlemen sat down next to me, utterly fascinated by my style of playing, such that he was like, askin me questions bout how i got into it and stuff. And seeing as i dont play traditionally, nor had i been necessarily ever taught anything, let alone traditionally, i had him fixated w/ this, very strange sound, like i have a long list of originals (and this was like 10+ years ago, so i was really playing extra funky stuff that i dont even remember) and so like, it was like he just walked into a land of pure imagination, cause you could see how inspiring it was to him. And compounded w the fact that, he looked around 70 or so, so he was really cmin from a diff world entirely, and it was like, a revelation of sorts. He was involving himself—or really, he was throwing himself into this musical stuff. Like he kept grabbing guitars off the wall and plucking around. And he was just like, trying to figure out like, "What IS this MUSIC?" Like in other words, because it wasnt classical, it wasnt jazz, it wasnt country, blues, soul, funk or rock , he didnt have a reference point for what i was playing. So i can see now that, although to me i was just tryina figure out watever goofy piece i was figuring out, for him it was like a small introduction into a world of the arts, musicianship, where you are just explorin for the sake of just—painting shapes, repetitively, that which dont necessarily have or conform to any known medium. And so, i find this story to be true in other areas. That is, its not just music that has missing genres, but painting, art, and writing, and other things like this likely have small groups of individuals working on a whole genre of their craft that hath not been contemplated or experienced b4~Like its only by introduction that we can get a sense for what all these other genres are, and through further investigation find out why someone is so interested in something. Iuno if the story makes sense, as its hard to express the point of it, but thats it.

New word idea In my ritualistic way of going way off topic in my own thread, i have this question (posited to everyone) regarding what to call this thing that lives underneath a word akin to say *morality (or words that denote something familiar, similar to), but a word or synonym that blends between this morality word, and survival (a kindve word that feels like its a survivalish word) in a seemless/confusing way. Of course, how can that makes sense is the question you might have in response. I dont care if it makes sense or not, i just want a word for it: That is, its a thing you might consider oscillating towards~wat we could say is surreal source point, but it leads out from [insert morality word] point. Im gonna invent a word if no one else has a word for it, and then that way, we got a cool word to use on this rare occasion. Im thinking like, -istomi (the link to ~), which has an Uzbeky/Sciency flavor to it, cause its entering into a realm that on the surface seems like its pointing towards a familiar place, but it feels foreign in the moment. Uzbekistans pretty far from where i live, but iuno bout yous. Maybe thats the headquarters for actualized dot org, who knows. Well never know. Im being funny. but anyway, you could use this word maybe even as a way to describe a bridge or link between, like "its the istomi between X and Y" is the idea.