kavaris

I guess ppl didnt realize, but since everyone hated Return to Silent Hill, it seems evident: No one (except for a few of us) is into that cheap Japanese horror game aesthetic that it was going for -> that is, where you have the really bad script/lines and, repetitive characters (that is, in making a cheap game, you cant afford more than one \*model for the female char., for instance). Of course thats not the only decision behind stuff like that, but its more economical. The whole aesthetic is more of a statement than it is anything else. i was actually making a story inspired by those types of repetitive elements. Though i think there was something in the beginning of Christophe Gan's SIlent Hill 1 that he needed to incorporate if it was to successfully portray what i think it needed. Alas it was a missed opportunity (And i thnk its from a very specific game on steam that i couldnt even tell you what the game was called) But anyway, seeing as everyone hated it, i guess we just sortve have to wait until ppl warm up to the idea of things like this, seeing as the industry and audiences around the world are going through changes. So eventually that aesthetic will come back, and ppl will be like, "Oh wow, thats what they were doing w/ that 3rd installment of silent hill movie..." And consider there probably wont be a movie like it again, i mean the chances seem low now. so its really the last of its kind until someone has confidence to put so many of these like... *elements that are at odds w/ each other, all in one movie together (i liked how it came together). Like, the director mustve just been like, "we are doing this. its gona be awesome. albeit, no one is gonna realize it until 100 years later" Also, if you look at movies hes directed, or atleast on his wiki page, it says 2006 - SIlent Hill, 2014 - Beauty and the beast, and then it goes all the way to 2026 - Return to Silent Hill. Like, his main concern his whole life has been silent hill, like... That right there says alot, unless they just didnt add any movies hes made to his page or something. Like, usually directors, even small ones have had tons of movies theyve experimented w/ since 2006. Christopher Gans is like, "Just call me when yous are ready". Like thats crazy.

Im gonna teach you a word: "pericope", from Ancient Greek περικοπή, perikope, And it refers to the cutting-out of a section of text that you find worthy or coherent enough to be included within the final writing/text. And so when you are using Ai, whether it is for writing something, programming, whatever the case may be, you are simply telling it stuff and learning from it, in order to produce something that you deem worthy (such as, something within the context window or response of the Ai; Or something you plan on extracting/cp/pasting). Of course, that doesnt mean that you have to share that text, and, its often the case that you may want to share something else~that which includes \*organic mistakes, and so that way people know they are talking to a real, human/flawed being. Alls the Ai is is "your words" being reciprocated back to you (albeit an advanced form), such that you are taking the pericope selection (through the process of defining a pericope) which is itself being defined by your own hand/direction. Or in other words, you are the one thats giving it text. Thus, you are the one thats deciding which text should be, and which text shouldnt be. If you take Ai out of the picture, then you are still doing the very same thing, the same parsing of sentences and meaning, but you are doing it much slower and with more stress put on the fact that you dont have a streamlined way of reciprocation.

@Ramasta9 Oh wow! Ha, i didnt expect anyone to know him, and you actually talked to him back in the day, thats so interesting. Thats crzy he had books, ill hav to check them out. Hey, about the futon, i wish i had a futon, i cannot tell you how many days i wake up on my back hurts, my neck hurts or my arms/ass hurt because theyve been workin overtime... Like, its no wonder we are all screwed up, as we dont yet even know how to SLEEP! And id imagine theres even more stuff like this—obvious stuff that could change our lives if we only realized... p.s. wat im thinkin of tryin first, is to lay some stiff pillows, or a stiff mat down on my bed, so that way i get the benefits of being up higher and comfortable in a bed-like situation, but with the stiffness of the surface itself. I mean wen i lay on my couch i dont have the same issues, cause somethin bout my couch has the perfect cushion-to-stiff ratio.. or it has somethin to do w/ how my ass sinks inbetween the cushion crevices, causing my upper half to sortve "hang" if that makes sense.

Let me jus finish out the rest of Iulia Kara Patakii's stuff~as far as the ones ive listened to that i feel are like part of the.. same sortve like, flow/feel.. I know im missing one, but i cant remember at this very minute (jus woke up)

Yes. Exactly!... AND i will give you one other element to boggle your mind. Plato was not the only one to mention Atlantis. You might know this, but Atlantis was being talked about like the way Athens is talked about. Diodorus Sicilus tells us, at some point, Atlantis was conquered by the Amazonians (not the Amazon of S.America) who i wanna say came in from Libya-And this tracks w/ Libya's relationship w. the area on/near the coast of Spain (historically) they have been at war for thousands of years. And so everything is there for us to be entertained by, but to realize the deeper aspect, which is how there is a truth, and underlying philosophy or theory or method waiting to be utilized for said interpretation of the truth (or else, what wouldve been the point of the myths, right?) (p.s. u sometimes have these things where its like, describing more of an event thats like~geological/climate-related or a seasonal event~or something allegorical/philosophical as suggested by Derveni Papyrus - LDAB7049, but still using characters like Zeus, or Eros, Etc., characters like this, to represent aspects of the Earth and the Cosmos) Hermes encapsulates the mean of interpretation: Greek ἑρμηνεύς, hermeneus, which means interpreter, translator, explainer; then there's hermeneutics, the theory or method of interpretation, and someone who's a "hermeneut" is someone practicing or partaking in said theory or method of interpreting. And then, theres also the meaning of "myth": There's whats called "etiological myth" (myths that specifically "give a reason for") and a "myth origin", which is a type of myth that explains the beginning on the natural aspect(s) of the world. A "creation myth" is one *type* of myth origin; As the term "myth" is specifically assoc. w/ "stories that start from the episode of a creation", therefore, a *myths* are quite different from folktales, folklore, legends and fairytales (as we dont realize) So everything you are saying absolutely is correct: "✔ The philosophy is presented thru drama" "✔ Plato realized philosophy is a kind of performance art" "✔ People miss this when they focus on the arguments in his work" "✔ It's more like a dramatist exposing a philosophical set of plays than an analyst trying to make a point"

The Classical Gorge~of music, rhythm & dactyl~or metric units This is how you might emphasize rhythm in the terms of the classics (Aristoxenus being one of the main authorities on rhythm), and i believe they take this same idea and apply it in classical Latin. Alas, alls it means is that your ratio (that is, the "ratio of a *base unit"~or the *shortest time value) is describing the initial rhythm/timing, in order to conform to the dotted notes in there. So instead of how we describe music in the modern era where we specify the "type of note" within the rhythm, they would say something like~like if we are supposing this is a rhythm made of one "long", followed by two "dactyl-like" sequences: Long (—) Dactyl (— ∪ ∪) (which approximates the dotted note feel) W/ the following ratio set before hand: 2 : 3 : 3 (if/when short = 1 unit, long = 2 units, dotted = 3 units) The ratio math on that would be like this, Base unit = ∪ = 2 ticks Long = 4 ticks (twice short) Dotted = 3 ticks (1.5 × base unit → 3/2 × 2 = 3) Beat Sound Greek notat. Explanation 1 "Bum" — Strong long (floor hit) 2 "KA" — ∪ Dotted: 1.5 units 3 "Keh" — ∪ Dotted: 1.5 units 4 silent ∪ (opt.) Fills out measure I thought yous might want that, because its like the basis behind all music and how to think about it from the classical/mathematical perspective, and it underlays all of the musical aspects, once they start being added to the picture.

Another more folky one, which btw, if yous are curious, that beat/dance rhythm is called Habanera rhythm in Spanish music. Im still looking for what the Greek equivalent would be, nd ill add to this wen ifind. theres something called asápiko ~ w/ an [h] aspiration before the first /a/, but i dont know what exactly that is, like, im not well versed in these folk/dance tribu, and what the connection is between the rhythmic aspects and the dance/folk element, and i say that cause ive seen so many different dances in Greek and Italian region, and i dont wana pretend like i know whats going on there.

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

Where did the idea Plato wrote myths even come from? (Warning: This is a long one, so bear with me) Do you know about this weird idea people have: "Oh, Plato was a mythmaker, he just wrote stories and created situations for people to play with.. he portrayed/interpreted situations the way he liked", like, in other words, Plato was out here creating Philosophy and writing myths at the same time. First of all, where did that idea even start, because Plato has never said he was a mythographer or someone who created stories (for the sake of...) The entire purpose of the Theory of Forms was to separate "knowing something" from "opinion"~or to ground the notion of "how to know something" in some framework that others could look to. But in all of this, people who are suppose to be like, understanding Plato are out here like, "Oh, you know, Plato was writing lies and mythology for people to contemplate~stories about politics and imagined scenarios, cities and situations". Really? That does not describe Plato in even the slightest way like, what are they talking about, first of all. Second of all, when has Plato ever written outside of his dialogue form, or rather, when has he ever gone outside of his usual writings or "accounts of what others have said"? Everything hes written has been as a Dialogue. Like that IS what Plato's work is, its dialogue. And that IS what Platos whole thing is, its to "get at the truth". So when it comes to Plato, he is literally creating "Philosophy" as a counter to the "Sophists" of the time, hence "Philo-sophy", because the Sophists of the time did not care about truth. The point im trying to make here is that, Plato is not out here writing myths. Plato specifically is trying to portray his work in a dialogue format, and writing about it in a way where he can participate outside of "his own opinion", while more directly and forwardly emphasizing "direct accounts of", so that he can tell the tales as they happened, or he can say "what a person had said" or "how the argument went". THATS the whole point of the dialogue format. That is what the purpose of dialogue IS! It is so that the writer does not have to rely on their own judgements or their own words. That isnt to say then that Plato doesnt have "constructed forms" of his own interpreted thoughtforms, philosophies or dialogues, for he requires an outlet for the Story/Myth of Er from Plato's Republic, about the afterlife and judgment, Phaedrus, which is on the structure of the soul, and then there's Atlantis, i.e., Plato's Timaeus / Critias. But in regards to the notion of the story itself and the "political" connotation they often assoc. it w/, Plato has separate works dedicated to stuff like that, for the dialogue between Timaeus and Critias is more about like, philosophical authority and mathematics and the cosmos, et caetera I mean, when we refer to some of Plato's constructed dialogues like the Myth of Er, we are calling it a myth, but myths and fictional stories are two different things. So that has to be the FIRST and foremost thing to understand, like. We cannot look at or interpret any other Greek text until we separate myth from fiction first and foremost. Outside of Plato, there are others who speak in a more poetic and flowing style that uses myths for descriptive language reasons, but in PLato's texts, he is simply reporting on the language~the style that others had~or wouldve spoken in at the time. Its not pure construction, not at all, and certainly not in Timaeus and Critias. But again, thats not to say that he doesnt construct things into a form for his reasoning. But he has separate works for everything, thats all im saying, and thats all yous have to know right now. The other main point was that myth does not equal fiction, nor does it equal a tale meant to introduce "imagined cities" or anything like that. In fact, "imagination" was seldom ever expressed in Ancient Greek texts. You mostly hear about things in story form, even outside of Plato and his dialogues. So if you consider "stories" to be works of imagination, even when they are of non-fiction, then thats fine. But then you have to figure out how to refer to things thereafter, cause it will be very confusing if everything is "a work of imagination" (such is the field of Philosophy~which is meant to help in discretizing some of these very knotted-up concepts and terms) So lets continue. But before i describe that repetitive text in Timaeus and Critias, i want to explain Platos use of the following terms. This is what allows him to create distinctions throughout all of his writing, allowing the reader to be cognizant of what mode we're in so to speak. He is consistently distinguishing between: ἐπιστήμη, episteme, "knowledge", δόξα, doxa, "opinion" and μῦθος, mythos. And if you have read other works outside of Plato, there are many poets, many comedy/play writers, many involved in rhetoric/grammar as well as early alchemists using myth for personification and such. Many of them do include myths as a form of descriptive language~the same way we use similes and idioms for things, they instead would use mythology to help elaborate on ideas around a character, like to \*compare and contrast something. I could give you an example: Many writers of Ancient Greek are writing~centuries later~on the eye-witness accounts of those events on Alexander the Great and the situations surrounding him, and they might say something like~and im paraphrasing~"he exuded the idealized traits of Achilles" or something to that general effect. Thats the kind of comparison they would make for someone like him. So let me just say, first of all, Critias is the only who has a connection to politics, mainly as a member of the aristocratic Athenian family, Ἀλκμαιωνίδαι or Alcmaeonidae, but hes not talking politics in the story. In the story, Critias is the one explaining to Timaeus~a Pythagorean philosopher from Locri, Italy, about the stuff that Timaeus is interested in, cosmos and the universe, like sortve like what we use Actualized dot.org for, things of this nature. And then he starts to lead into this thing (which im not gonna repeat, as yous now know it by heart), but i am gonna read to yous the part leading into it: Priest says - "You Athenians are like children; your history is short, and you do not know the great events that happened long before you. Even we Egyptians, with all our records, do not fully remember our own past." ~"Solon, having heard this from the priests, recounted it to his family. I, Critias, received the story in turn and will now tell it to you " — Where "tell it to you" means, Critias is now speaking to the other characters present, primarily Timaeus and Socrates, because Socrates presumably popped in the background like "Hey guys, i wanna be part of the story too, let me in the group circle!" And, that is me being silly. Humor exits the stage. \*Bub Hub!\* Anyway, what was my point again? Plato knows how, like.. There's plenty of others who are speaking in this way (i call it a "mytholological" way, w/ two "lo's" in there to encode the secondary characteristic "of the mythologians"), so now... When we hear people talk about Plato, they want to try and conflate this notion of "fact v. fiction" with "descriptive language" or "the descriptive use of MYTH by the Ancient Greeks". People dont understand, that like, most of the time, the Ancient Greeks are speaking very plainly and rhetorically, and laying everything out as clearly as possible. There are some fascinating aspects to those Ancient Greeks and the way they are preserving/presenting myths. For one, Greek myth worked like a memory system. Myths encode (and continue to encode) place names like Γάδειρα, Gades, and they are akin to echoes of events, like an invasion or collapse of a civilization, or thee subsequent migrations/displacements thereafter. They encode all types of knowledge transfer from older cultures (Egypt, Near East). In conclusion, Greeks like Plato realize dhow important Philosophy was, and how it would help us communicate these difficult-to-phrase concepts. The same is true about the myths, as they used myths as stories~representing various things at once. ALSO, they could use them for compare/contrast, descriptive language, things like this. So I just was trying to get yous to really understand that the myths have more to them then what meets the eye. The GREEKS themselves have more to them then what meets the eye; but until people start to really/truly understand Plato, they wont really see Plato and Ancient Greek in the right light; For Plato influenced how many areas of study? And now finally, we'll start towards those Ancient Greek texts (eventually, as it requires "time") and learning of others outside of Plato (theres SO many writers, i promise you), to demonstrate just how Greek myth works, both as a form of encoded history and as a tool for writing.

This is something i want to leave for myself nd everyone else~as its good for getting yas to stretch. im posting the one with him talking about the "upside down world" we live in, and how we should be thinking in terms of doing things backwards—to counteract the upside down world. Anyway, bottomline, its these two videos that i wanted to post. He often blends into the realm of spirituality. I believe we need these new ways of thinking about our body. We need some genuine remedies for the body, and this guy drops one idea after another that many people have never heard of or tried, and life is about experiences and trying things out, so here yas go... For the spine and proper laying, For the *Upsilon down world and counteracting a life of overstressing of *forwarded muscles, p.s., he has quite a few many videos, so yous'll have to explore them all. Also your back or body my hurt or feel soar doing some of these things, as the body is not use to moving like this

Oh oh. This gets our minds twisted up into a knot like lemniskos like, its a puzzle for the mind, right? For there was something else i was tryin to express, which was "how simple" we believe things are, as a result of seeing things *simply*, like... Starting from this first.. Think of "mindfulness". It assumes that there werent already "mindful" qualities within; spirituality assumes we werent already spritual/or more spiritual, and philosophy assumes we hadnt established some seed of philosophy without explicitly mentioning it as a philosophy. You can continue that with everything else. or ill ask the ques., "What else can just *be*, without there requiring a thing to fill it in with the paint bucket tool? What else are we creating, and, is it adding to that which already *is*? Can there even be a *thing* without there being *mistakes that were made* in the process leading up to?... Like, its very complicated when you are looking at it like that, since everything would often, more than likely, require *mistakes made* in the process leading up to, like, its not so *simple* when you really dig into it is all. Thats usually followed then by "its not that hard", like, but that lasts for like 5 seconds until you realize thats b.s., as its exceedingly complicated once you start asking questions, which is all you can ever do right? To be sitting silent is to ask the question of, whether or not a truck isnt driving through your wall, like... We dont just sit in quiet, we actively engage the stuff of mind

@Joshe "Seek n ya shall find" i have a very different interpretation of this. nevertheless, i really like where that quote starts from, though i want to frame some of these things from a different perspective, to show you what i would be seeing. You mentioned somethin along the lines of "Ask the community what spirituality is for and they'll say equanimity, peace, love, presence. Interesting how these just so happen to be things they desperately want. People rig the game so that..." You know, theres another way to phrase whats been said here, and thats how "People only search in those areas that have the most street lights illuminating it", that is, if they lose their keys in the dark, or theyre searching for an answer whilst in the dark—Its sortve like saying "Hey, Look. People only look in the daytime for things that have been lost at night", right? Its like... Of course people are searching from the vantages where they can see, right? Thats precisely where you can see the best at night! duh?! Do you get it? One cannot simply START by searching in a maximally efficient area, through edges of personality and perception with extreme clarity, like, that comes w/ a lot of time and effort. Ppl simply *look* in the places theyre most likely to find, they *act* from the places they are most likely to *feel*. Leo mentioned somethin in another thread~about God's dilemma or something along these lines, and that applies to this. That is, you have things you would *like to create in the center (the idealized vers., of something) but that pre-supposes that theres an "outside" to this. It subsumes everything else in order to bring into existence that which is an *idealized* centerfold. That is to say, the reason it is so difficult to understand "why people are searching for answers in their own idealized realities" is because, think about it, how can you be sure that you are not "just starting" in the center of the center? In other words, How can they know they havent just lost their keys in an area that exceeds the area of where you lost them initially? But its not about "how much space is around you", thats not what im saying, its about "how does that space you are in—*contrast* with the space outside of you, via the assumption that there was a space~to begin. That gets into a deep philosophical lineage of ques., that youd find yourself in if youd carry the inner torch of the mind forward, because all questions would be doing this. They would be presupposing that there is a *good reason* for anything—for why there exists outside of them some more idealized version of their *own* idealized version of reality. So to put it in a way, people who are just starting out, or who have questions to answers in the dark, they dont know any better, and when you *look*, you *act*, and that *acting* looks like things like this. It looks like this *idealized vers.* of a reality that *isnt there yet. It presupposes no outside, it subsumes the situation w/ their own mind, by virtue of assuming that "this is the center of where the keys are at... And that other stuff is NOT!.. So therefore, THAT is ideal, and THAT is NOT", "THAT" being the implicit pointing of saying to theirselves "Yes, to that", or "No, to that". And just to circle back to the beginning "Seek nd ye shall find", that is a reference to the "Seeking in the first place". Ya know? Its an initialized, idealized route that you take from the perspective of seeking. That is all. Theres no secret sauce beyond "getting started in the MOST likely of areas or situations, to find those answers or ques., where they are most likely to *fall out of the sky* from, which is followed by a many~a~dilemma thereafter, a cascade if you will.

Jeez—i accidentally made 3-4 directions for myself, but, for the sake of communicating w/ yous. Okay so how do we get yous to be the dice roll on that, so to speak? Like, iuno lets just let it all exist in an abstract form til i see one, shining, overarching illumination that tells me for sure which one to bump and bring to the surface~And to make better. Also, i need to leave this here, as it sounds strange, but i forget these things weve stumbled on, and i will forget what it was, while i am consumed by some other thing. So im leavin a Greek thing here, told in Ancient Greek, because it didnt matter abou it being in English, which was part of this bulletinpoint~Like its more about like, looking at the reflection of stars on the surface of the pond, so i can remember a thing about the stars. (Returning to tlt) Let me leave this here too, as i will likely be thinking about these two prominent roads some more here, Two Roads of Exploration | Ousia / Liminal Threshold Path Anchored in Plato: forms, thresholds of experience and light. Sets a fixed metaphysical framework for consciousness, life, and spiritual principles. Purposefully vague, leaving dedicated space for everything to occur in the threshold of exp. | Progressive Cosmology Path More dynamic, Aristotelian-w/ like an otherworldly form or influence, expanding beyond strict Platonic thresholds. Opens the door to hybrid, layered, or emergent structures of reality, potentially integrating Panpsychism, Vitalism, Hylozoism in creative ways.

Ha. Hey thx, and yes, vry true. Oh, nd i jus listened to something/experienced something highly unusual, but beautiful. I fell asleep listenin to Whatever the fk this video was from like 9 years ago (it started AFTER i was asleep, so you might say, we were on the same very alien path of myth and mystery), And omg did this take me to the strangest of Prometheus spacecrafts over-an-ever-changing-painting-of-scenes Dreams. Like, this is a gr8 example of something, which on the surface doesnt follow the *ideal like, emphatic typeve description or like the ideal collection of clauses (XD) but Woh, i cannot believe where i went. And alls i did was very slightly open up to ostensibly somethin that wouldve made no sense to me since, but it actually in the long run has made more sense to me now (outside of ancient greece, that part wasnt featured in my dream since it took *new form), and im not quite sure if it would *fit in that thing i wrote. Like i sortve put myself to shame by way of experiencing this like, Little Mermaid of Disney Scenescape -typeve things, over this like mythic seashore horizon?

What is the purpose of all of this stuff (*Bub hub ?) (ill avoid making this a whole production) i ask this initial question, in order to begin expressing the purpose, that is, the point of what we're doing, which crosses into multiple places. One of which crosses into Plato and/or Plato-esque. There is also like, "Galileo's telescope", because it is with no easy feat-that we are trying to provide a kindve ocular window into what is suppose to be like the *seeing into the past, present, future~of all~or whatever direction may be aptly directed in the moment. Its difficult, first off, to provide that level of sight and realization, but then its all difficult to run parallel to the thoughts, feeling and ideas of the person receiving the transmission. Cause first off (again first off XD) you have what is like, this ever-revolving door of possibilities, both internal and external to both individuals in the *communication. Then you have another layer to that which is like, you know, "how should i react", like "Am i playing the retreating/retracting character here? Or is a situation where im suppose to be inserting myself, my ideas, into whatever this situation is", like... We could be anyone we want online, so, it is possible to play anyone we want, wherever, whenever. Lots of times there are people just messing around, and they arent really there to communicate w/ you, but to mess with you. So i guess, watch out for that, cause thats surely gonna be a looming wigwam in the air. Then there's like, someone who believes something, truly, and they're ideas are just unflappable in the ways on the reunion of the two philosopher's interacting, like... Jus' totally *new... or totally unexpected, such that no one cannot understand or find an easy door/gate into their soul~or whatever you want to call it. But anyway, the point is like, what is the point of philosophy/or communication, and actualize thyself, or understand thyself (talking about the world, reality, experience)? Like, i had mentioned, we would get the most by treating everything as a *telescope that we could look out of (if looked out of), so thats one... Another point to philosophy - if we start to ask questions that we may have not considered, or wouldve otherwise have not considered... like... "Something that we hadnt realized you could ask"... Like theres a certain tempo, or sequence that plays into the music that is playing behind a person, and sometimes, tapping into that is actually the key to understand what they're saying. So therefore, its not always about what is being said or the surface layer expression, but having a sense for like, "does this thing being said sound like theres a riddle, or a song to it, possibly without the person having even realized it theirselves", right, because, not only is everything a reflection (and you certainly should take seriously that which you reflect onto that person's words, your own interpretation of the words said), but theres also "the history, and the riddle that is the written word" and for all we know, there could be oceans of wisdom pouring around us *had we had the same insight into them words and their history, and the history of the history (by that same token, it could be the opposite, where, had we ignored the words and their direct/past history/meaning, we could *invent what we deem as being the meaning of the words and their possible meaning). So if we take that world view, that is, *how certain perspectives can be impregnated by our observations, then we should be looking out for our own interpretation of some of them questions and answers. *note, when i say "questions and answers", that can also mean your general observations into a situation, of course. I hope thats not too confusing for yous, as its not easy to really communicate the thing on communication itself. And its quite unnatural to be doing that, but im doing it anyway. Now i surely didnt list all the purposes of philosophy, but that is sortve like, a little piece of the cake to baking more cakes, to understand philosophy. Note: In a separate thread, im currently making a *list of things that we often get conflated and tangled together (subsequently making philosophy pretty impossible to look at) so that is still happening in The Liminal Threshold thread: And that is really a kindve spiritual/mystical thing, in some sense atleast, though we do mention Episteme as being one of those things conflated together w/ everything else. So hopefully, now yous all see how hard it is (EDIT: "hard" isnt the word im looking for... think of a more positive word like hard, and thats the word im lookin4). And maybe yous see the purpose to philosophy. And now, maybe yous can get a sense of like, how it can start to make sense... for you? Atleast, in regards to the philosophies. I mean... I assume not everyone went to college for like All things, Brain things, right? like surely everyone is like on some basic level, but not like a super expert on the knowing of words and *-isms, or things like this, or whatever that stuff is. So like, some people are still learning things, and we have to be receptive to the levels of the individuals. Like some people are also very slow-to-speed, for example, I myself am very slow. So, one has to feel out what is being said~to speed with la cerchia disegnata e immaginaria (okay sorry im losin' my mind, as yous were).