kavaris

Well anyway, now that we can resume where we left off, the options were to talk about science, or what i now would say is to talk about whatever this guy was on about, which doesnt sound like its gonna be fun. This thread is about science, so lets just get that straight. I wouldve considered whatever the above guy was on about, thankfully hes moved on (right?) Good. So Science, science is not fighting. Hopefully we are not running the tape back too far that thats what the confusion is.

I had a conversation with you, based on your very first post to this thread. That was gona be the end right there, but you are taking me on a neverending journey, so lets end it. its bullshuit.

You couldve pointed out at any time, what had confused you...

Its my thread dip shit. Im gonna continue talking about science, which was what the thread was about btw. I know you wanted to derail it into high holy hell, but im just gonna continue with what it was all about, from the beginning

I mean fuck. How many times does this need to happen.

I will read it. Im not insulting anyone, you are continuing to say how confused you are, and then engaging me? Why not engage someone else huh?

I expressed my opinion by reporting your ass, cause this is literally like the second time youve taken my thread on the same journey, where you are engaging me, and then abusing me and the thread.

Im talking directly to you. DIRECTLY

Like dude. You keep responding (to me, the person you are so confused about, and dont understand ANYTHING im writing) and then saying, "i dont really understand what you are saying", Like, do you want to engage with a real person online or not? That means working through it and having a conversation. How would you feel if every time you responded it was like, "well i didnt understand anything... but seesh... thanks for nothing"- Youd be like. "dude, wtf is that"

You keep derailing my threads saying "i dont understand what you mean". Dude. its fucking annoying as shit. You are bringing up fighting. So im responding to your naive notions of fighting. If theres something you are confused about, then outline it explicitly. This is like the second time youve done this before.

@Someone here Btw, the topic wasnt even about fighting. You brought it up.

Yea theres alot of ruder ppl out there, youll come to find that out.

For big ppl, yous have such a range of options in fighting, granted iuno if being big and fat is ideal, cause like, iuno how productive thatll be, but just being a big person gives you lots of options, which is why those ppl have so much joy in the area of martial arts, cause they are experiencing lots of variety and things to think about. I mean its not like you are programming or anything, and those two things id imagine conflict in a sense, cause one mindset is about these tiny, digital, frontal lobe things, and the other is about rhythm and feel, and more of the Olympic, wrestling, rhythm

ya i feel ya. i mean it depends if you are a smaller pers., or a bigger pers., right, but ya, i can see how that might be advice or talk from a dad. Ive gotten in quite alot of fights growing up, so i wouldnt suggest those things. At the same time, iuno how many ppl r getting in fights these days, so im not gonna challenge the family advice right now. Its also kindve stressful for me to invoke all those ideas, for myself, cause id be giving away alot of secrets, but id share some things in pm message for anyone. Basically, as a small ppl, you are not thinking in terms of "fighting", for everything is "how to exploit". You never attack first, if you can avoid it, unless you have some miracle opportunity to get the big pers. on the ground. Getting them on the ground is essential. Never EVER punch someone unless you want to die for real. You get them on the ground, either by grabbing their ankle and pulling tgeir leg out, or putting your foot behind their leg, and pushing them over said leg. You would have to catch someone by surprise to do this, or you have to lure them towards you, for the moment they come towards you, you have some options. The number one best option is to just get out of there... But if they are coming fast, you gotta learn to maneuver and trip them, or like i said, get to work on those ankles, twist that ankle if you can, like in the same way ppl grab arms for arm bars. You cant fight normal if you are small... think *insectoid. If yous are the same weight, height and strength, then yous can punch and kick each other all day. p.s. im talkin bout fighting ppl 100 lbs over your weight, so yous might not be familiar w/ this. but thats the kindve fights ive been in my whole life, where you are inventing your own style of exploits... which btw, none of them will work if you screw it up in the first 5 seconds anyway, so really its not something you think about. Its a 5 second window.

Like we have to ask that question as well, about choosing the road, either A) getting to the essence, pointing towards its essence, or B) Distilling truth such that it can be pointed towards.... or further explored. The istemi towards and the distillation of truth are part of a spectrum of exploration, neither which can give you a direction, beyond the prioritizing of the self, and though that would be the final word, the self exists as an emanation of reality, so the moment you figure out the self, youve arrived back in reality, where its not as simple as just occupying the self. The self is a good start, or the "prioritization of the *self... in the journey towards" kindve thing.

(See Video Below) Philology for those who dont know, is the study of language as it exsts within historical sources, and how it intersects w/ textural and literary criticism, and which i title this -> because we are all effectively speaking to philology and language when we study history, for it is what we use to talk about such things, to say "This is what happened in history". And many of those sources are pulling from esoteric places, whether it be related to the mysteries of Egypt, or the Alchemical Latin coming from the Roman Empire / Medieval, or the Renaissance, and a connection to Cathedrals and Pyramids in terms of their resonance/harmonic qualities and such, etc., its all Medieval in some sense, and 90% philology~And as it would exist in what i call an esoteric, medieval world (but for the goals that might pertain to science, or language, or something else). Im watching this video at the moment, which has nothing to do w/ language, directly (Medieval Hebrew, etc.) but its touching on these ideas that jump into Cultures like that of Egypt, The Templars, Those of the Americas, Tribes and such... And then towards ~1:20:00, he's briefly touching on his thoughts & opinions of Shakespeare & his work, And how Shakespeare could not have written those Tragedies, Comedies attributed to him ~ Alas, Ive heard this from several different people before, and he brings up an interesting point, that which i thought yous might find interesting, and to get your opinion on ~ For I dont really know enough around Shakespeare (beyond his material) of the 16th CE ~ As ive looked predominately at 14th and briefly at ~19th/20th CE So it sits at a point that im not as focused on, and that i havent looked at, though it has alot of these mysteries, which could be related to the works of Shakespeare given those clues people are picking up on, stuff that the public did not know. Perhaps its connected to mystery cult knowledge, or something related to these Pre-Templars seeing as the Templar/Masons, atleast according to history, starts in ~10th CE, well after the Classical Period and such, Though the Templars themselves couldve been based on something that we dont know, regardless, they are very much apart of alot of these esoteric things (note, he speaks on alot more than Shakespeare & Templars in the video, but i just found that part curious, for ive heard something similar from people)

Was this like a UK thing or somethin, cause you cant find any videos on this band unless you do like, the deepest of searches... on youtube... This is a remix, but its actually very well rounded, like harmonically and synthetically it sounds very smooth

Browsing through videos the other day, one of them had this song thats embedded in my mind now, the vocals and the rhythm~ the rhythmic, muted beat is okay, but its more like the chosen drum notes, intervals of the beat, and i feel like the timing / measures change slightly when it picks up, but i might be hallucinating it tell me if this gets stuck in everyones head

Ai is like, mathematics for beginners, or something. No offense to anyone whos a die hard Ai programmer/enthusiast but its a conflation of "the map is the territory", where they acting like science/math = (ques., answer) equations for weights -> towards building blocks on top of the encoding scheme, this activation equation, that other equation,... Conflating all that w/ its functional and literally connotations. Its a means to an end, a way to organize or strip out language or a gooey image. There were other technologies like that before, whats that one where it was constructing faces out of animal faces, ®Braindream... or no it was Deepdream .tech or something, where it filled in animal parts and put all these faces in places it recognized as faces, like a highly repetitive vers., of Ai: This -> Deeply Artificial Trees, thats what i called it, lol

Im working on a little side project that falls into the realms of science, and i think it would be illuminating, cause although i dont consider science that often, or i dont research the latest science, i can atleast give a snapshot of what i see as being like, the way to look at it from an harmonious place, to build upon it. Otherwise we wont have science, but will instead have lots of little unsolvable paradoxes that contradict science. I mean its like, the level of priority towards a thing, doesnt always touch upon the truth of it, e.g., is the essence of the table best worshiped by visiting the table often enough that you can look at it 5 hours a day (Or rather, are you serving that table + pers., relationship through the ritualized stairing -is what i mean) Thats really its own topic. But i been saying: You have the "istemi towards", and you have the distillation of truth. And we could also prioritize spirituality all day, or some specific of it, but if it doesnt point towards its essence, if it doesnt distill it in some way / fashion that would otherwise have it collapsable, then it might not be serving the truth of the matter, or the κινησις, the kinetic changes taking place. Like its always gonna change, but its like... Iuno part of the journey is seeing if the numerous paradoxes eat away at the idea or not, like whether its something physical or conceptual, its hard to say whats gonna bubble up to the surface for sure. Dont rely on me to carry out the sciency things, for im just striving to recognize it, hopefully so others who actually like science will be steadfast in figuring it out or finding a new found interest in it

@Joseph Maynor Speakin of Aletheia today, got me hearin that song AThena in ma head

I think its relevant to mention here about the periods of history where truth (aletheia, al 'theeya or al 'thaeeya) lived alongside the pursuit of harmonic life, and the comprehension of a musical kosmos; There was a belief in whats called aonic life, confusingly dubbed eternal life. However if we go back to the Greek, *aonic wasnt seen as something eternal. The Greeks had antithetical terms that denoted something eternal from the impermanent, temporary. Aeon was the child of Chronos, cronus or kronos ~ the term Aonic is roughly 4,000 years older than our modern reinterpretation. Aonic life ~4,000 years ago was the devotion under Chronos or Saturn, existing outside of time: αιϝών ("ai-won", as that /ϝ/ is [w] ... ) is the archaic form for vital force. So anytime someone says Aonic life, its really Saturnian life, the age or initiation of Chronos ~towards a vital life. So its not eternal in that way, its Aonic life. To cont., its the Satre god in Etruscan, Ianuarus now for January or Janus. Aonic is also dual in its gender, as its between realms, outside of time, related to "to comprehend". It is unrecognizable, for its going back to Mycenaean Greek. Thats the antithetical, comprehension of eternal. Plato's eternal form is more of a term to ground the meaning of form itself. Thats a different period where the meanings had already split, where Philosophy was the attempt to save the craft of the internal comprehension and continued pursuit of truth. p.s., you can ask the question from an antipodal direction: "is the act of knowing, truthful? Can i know? What does it mean to know/understand (ἐπίσταμαι)" -> which is where i am getting this Istemi: pointer, link -> στην-*, in the, εἰς-*, into, towards; ἐπι-*, upon, over, at, toward; ἵστημι, to stand, to set, to place, or something more akin to a direction; ενδιάμεσος, intermediate, link or in-between ; ἐπίσταμαι, to know/insist, to understand. And I shouldve mentioned as well, something that's antithetical isnt opposite, or not how i use it. For its more like, *two things of a common source that act to oppose each other~if you imagine a web of points zigzagging from one another, its like that

In my notes i have the questions situated like, What is absolute truth? (versus something objectively true) ... And then... What is "truth" from a Modern Philosophical standpoint? And, Is absolute truth knowable? As we keep pulling truth apart into multiple areas ~in the modern times~ and the meaning of truth is then evolving, so for example, when we say truth, we might mean "absolute, god, truth" and the qualities associated w/ states of mine, or we could mean, god as in the present moment, and the very sudden truth, closer to what im saying: We are actively trying to define it, for we are actively not able to grasp it fully. Cause at the very least, it goes further than objective truth, just to give it some placeholder-of-thought. And, Truth in the simplest case usually implies a truth that is not only independent of perspectives, but also independent of any possible framework of verification. So you have to give it the benefit of the doubt that theres not a factual answer. In the Ancient Greek realm of truth, you might say "Hesiod is true", but not because he was implicating the facts, but because he's assumed as such~to be in contact w/ a source that ordinary perception does not normally touch. So we dont even understand how or what that truth is about, for that is in the magico-religious center of truth, where it has laid down a poetic fundamental, from the standpoint where all of these later terms: Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality, Realism, Materialism, none of those terms are required~neither are they known, for most of those ideas are compressed. So they dont need to collapse or rewrite truth (*aletheia, but we dont fully understand it, for e.g., Greek's personified god is closer to a human self, but our notion of god is akin to God and Jesus, God and continuous birth, detaching from sexuality, personality, and other qualified traits). Where as, we are obfuscating truth through the theory that discretization of meaning through words yields better accuracy towards symbolical placement of an idea. We are not realizing that it has the opposite effect ~if what you want to describe is already defined through an abstract existence. It matters how you define truth, because you are shaping the entire world based on the level of truth you are at, and the level of truth you are sharing w/ everyone else. *p.s. im looking for a video on aletheia atm, but they really dont pronounce or explain it correctly... its [al L'theee ya]

ha. good point. Even though youve seemed to ask a ques., it also could represent the active search for absolute truth~the revealing to the self. So you could also say (ontop of wat everyone else has said) that absolute truth is the question itself.