kavaris

I would rather call it, "realizing a truth". That is, i would not describe it as a belief, nor something about being a higher conscious exp., per say, as thats more consequential towards experience in general—and the subsequent pursuits of it. The thing you are *directing* towards, this thing you want to aim at, which is in the form of a question, is more of an answer that you would have to ask yourself, if in fact you want to ask about "where our beliefs have taken us", which is another way of saying, theres no *one, overarching belief* (for me) since it changes depending on context/other things/experiences—As, at first glance, it only may seem higher, or it may seem more true... thats only at first glance. So, a *belief* is a fleeting thing. Its more of an *aim*, vaguely. And, a higher conscious experience is fleeting, its all relative towards experience. Others may think what they have is a belief, but they really have an aim in a direction that *appears* like a constant. Its an assumption that the circumstances arent always changing the belief inside out.

Heraclitus Yous'll start to notice that a lot of the Greek thinkers\writers say similar but different things, almost the same things, worded in a new/diff ways, cause like, from what i understand they all spent alot of time in their center city competing against poets, and other philosopers, and they had to be on the knifes edges of some sht if they were goin for popularity, or just some sortve of recognition in general. Like i did a deep dive on Heraclitus of 500 BC ~ Not that theres that many surviving fragments of his, but the fragments we do have are all bangers, as he blends philosophy, myth and poetry, and he touches on the \*unity of opposites, the logos, as well as how fire is the arche, et caetera. Its the generations prior that set up the foundations of Heraclitus though. And theres approx. a hundred little fragments of his out there, all that sortve fit together into an interesting larger window of sorts. And later on, in generations proceeding, we see those thoughts come up again, but through recapitulation, elaboration, and/reflection, such that they arent as deep and poetic, or maybe they are sometimes, but rephrased, reconstituted. Which isnt necessarily a bad thing, its just not as awesome. Its still very similar. Also, Around Heraclitus and such, Greece of Asia minor, Türkiye, starts to shift its best thinkers to mainland Athens and European Greece, and so thats sortve like, a creative turning point, where you see a... hera clitus *flux* of all sorts of related ideas, froathing, bubbling up in new and interesting ways. note: Heraclitus elevates the term logos to refer to universal principle, rational order, or the law of the cosmos, as opposed to the prior meaning of "word" / "normal discourse", significance, reason, speech or story (or it carries both)

In the unbounded permission towards the infinite, with a limit on the infinite (of each moment through time), we seek to know, oh great one. though what we experience, what we know, it feels circular within it, and what we feel, or what we taste—that is, the consolidated form of tasting~of the flavors of experience as it transcends its wave of disruption, it has layers of experiences that take prominence over the whole that had existed prior. Theres multiple levels in these hypothetical, but literal waters: you have shallower waters in some regions, and deeper waters that have more activity, more depth. You have stronger winds coming from some directions, some conflicting and spinning the waters around, as the waters theirselves are being moved by everything. We just exist — just the thing that coughs up the mucus, and reciprocates, and bounces, or gets bounced, echoes; Everything is tumbling together, bumping into one another—such that theres no telling whats doing the bumping. Therefore, in taking in the whole of everything going on, one can only hope to steady theirselves amidst the gentler cascade of horned rams running into one another, and capricorns hooking up the side of some mountain of goats, as we drink the goat milk and suck on the breast of some nearest titty, while the tit birds fly by night and fall when theyre time is up.

Linux desktop, as well as linux gaming is getting better over time, as its still in a weird place (i dont use desktop environments, but i have an old computer where i had been testing out a fork of fvwm95. And it works great, and i like how it expresses the \*classic borders on programs like firefox and such) but, not everyone gets it, and they just wanna do their thing gaming and stuff. nothin wrong with that. Linux is more of a DIY thing more so, but... i mean... Even though Linux itself could become amazingly accessible in the future, its the \*perception of it that makes it inaccessible, if that makes any sense. Whats that word im looking for... like when you are first learning a thing and you want to get into it for the first time. Whatever that word is, wherein you want to get into it for the first time, that is itself like the hardest first step into the entry of linux.

Ive been running base artix (arch) linux since 2017, though there are elements to void linux that are alright as well. but when i began, i had a very specific program-related/DIY goal... My enthusiasm hasnt necessarily changed exactly, as i still very much utilize and install linux on everything (and i did have a very intellectual plan behind where i was taking it), but my overall attitude towards interacting with computer screens has changed, and i cant really tolerate talking to a shining wall (i only use tower/desktop-style computers) and i cant really stand it for very long before i have to change over to analog pen and paper to express emotions and human-like things, like neglected things that are like, iuno. Its like, my wheel of priorities doesnt rank computers+linux has high as they once mightve been. I also have other abilities/hobbies. I can do alot of things like, im not like, a watchamakalit... Im not an idiot savant that only does like one thing and one thing only. I mean... the world is just going through some things, and i find myself recognizing my artistic abilities, which cross through alot of realms, and computer stuff is only a small part of that

Theres a couple points from history i want to get to, not just *isagoge*, so bare with me. First, what is this isagoge? In the medieval world, students did not learn Aristotle directly. They began with "Isagoge" (εἰσαγωγή [ei-sa-go-je]), a short work by Porphyry that served as an introduction to logic and classification. Its purpose was to train the mind before engaging with more difficult texts. The Isagoge explained a small set of basic concepts: genus, species, difference, property, and accident; that allowed students to understand how things are defined/grouped and distinguished. These ideas had the foundation to reading, arguing, and reasoning clearly encapsulated within. The Isagoge functioned as a prelude you could say, as Aristotle's work depended heavily on precise definitions and logical structure. Once students understood "how a thing belongs to a class", "what makes it what it is", and "what traits are essential versus incidental", they were prepared to graduate towards other, higher realms of study/philosophy, and metaphysics. Aristotle's vocabulary tended to focus on analysis (analyzing being), as well as cause and change, reasoning itself. The Isagoge gave students the mental framework needed to correctly follow that sortve rigorous outlook. In this way, it became a standard—and not a replacement for Aristotle, but the more foundational aspects towards that Aristotelian way of thinking you might say. Why do i bring this up? Well, i figured most people already know've Aristotle, but they dont know the more foundational isagoge (and the proceeding history thereafter). There's quite a plethora of interesting/hidden/forgotten stuff you can find in ancient greek+latin texts and so on, if you take the time to go through it all. The study of distinctions, or differences (such as, "... of the mind") comes later in medieval education, and was formalized as a technical tool under the term "distinctio..." Scholastic thinkers regularly used distinctions such as distinctio realis (real distinction), distinctio formalis, and distinctio rationis (distinction of reason). Students were explicitly taught that some distinctions exist in things themselves, some exist only in the mind, and some are (or exist) somewhere in between. Boethius, who transmitted Porphyry and Aristotle to the Latin West, emphasized how definitions depend on differences and how misplaced distinctions can lead to false arguments. He also trained students to pay careful, almost methodical attention to distinctions. By the high Middle Ages, later scholastics such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus explored these ideas further. Aquinas questioned whether distinctions were real or conceptual, while Scotus introduced the subtle notion of the formal distinction. By this point, students were very much aware that thinking itself operates by distinction, even if this was never explicitly phrased in modern philosophical terms. Medieval thinkers avoided saying "all knowledge is (...)" because doing so would risk collapsing the study of reality into mere mental activity. Instead, distinctions were always meant to reflect structure (we are then, and thus, defining structure itself~as each thing we study is also a study/focus on creation). p.s. I made that last line up, so dont go looking for it in any of the aforementioned info. So now you sortve see how that road of thinking unfolds a little more; As, it is in this sense that the concept of distinctions became a gateway: genus = sameness, difference = intelligibility, and species emerges from repeated distinctions.

It sounds kinda boring, no? Like i personally would select the psychedelic retreats popping up now, but id also just pick going to a country i like, just for practical interests cause its kindve more of the old person thing to do now i suppose, but darkness might be fun~atleast in comparison to that, ha, who knows.

I dont kno if i respond here yet, but i always think of things in circles, similar-esque to classical, ancestral mythos and stuff, like classic, birth, death, life, and so you just go through the circle, aka the cycle birth, death life, which isnt a bad thing nor a good thing. Like when youve experienced that feeling like "Oh.. this shit actually never ends", it doesnt come on in a good way, it feels very disturbing... Then later... its like, "oh, its pretty normal actually". I mean in retrospect i dont know why it felt like that, but it certainly doesnt just end, nor does it ever really begin. I guess its kindve annoying really, cause what does that even mean when said in word form (from the felt form)

Just to do a slight refinement on the communication process/aspect/thinking up these types of things (and if you think of any others, feel free to add and we'll review) And so that is that theres 4 things that we very easily can get conflated w/ eachother—within/apart of the life macchina (i dont love the name life macchina, but yous can figure out a better one later): theres (1)"how to talk about truth", then theres (2)"how to experience truth", then theres (3)"where we're goin, or the assumption of where its going...", And lastly theres (4)"the level of determination or dedication towards said endeavor~of pursuing said truth". And theres nothin wrong with conflating them, atleast in some cases, cause that IS what life is~its the conflation or the interaction of all things thats making it work, like, i mean, its not Not interactive/interconnected, put it that way. Like, in other words, the only time it would not be is when you're existing in a place where said connections arent true, for you (hence, the pursuit of *a truth*), alas, we call it "the truth" when it is more of the ephemeral, fleeting, and forgotten, like when you are from a point of "not", in the face of "trying to", that is itself *an ephemeral*. Like, its "where the wild things are", combined with "business as usual", like... Thats the sortve, "inflating" effect, and then theres the "deflating", i mean im just saying "this" and "that" at this point, but hey, it is what it is, right (*fades lidly into the distance*)

Iuno if yous would be into this but its somethin im playin with the idea of, and something yous can all think about, but its like, a field/profession that measures things more in the realm of like, "how compatible" they are, with whatever earthly criteria we are going on. But of course, it couldnt just be a thing w/ like watchamakalit, like one of these organizations with the names like the Planetary Civilization Destination whatever whatever they are called. the shit with the aliens—As id imagine thats what they're up to, but instead, it would encompass all other fields and professions as like, what is the function of each thing. Starting from the most historical points, as its like, if you start from modern society you are like, viewing a dream world that is unintangle-able, instead it would be more of a grounding, like starting from a clean slate, and asking, what are all the things we would need, just in its most basic, and then sortve building, one, by one, adding things in... Seeing if they go together, see whats missing, and then start to write the criteria, starting with plants since you got so many that are working in their own climate/world. Then it sortve grows towards, what is suppose to be a kind of alchemy of things that are all compatible with the legos, that have the most synergy/long lasting relationships to each other. And you just keep going. Its a little like a reimagining, but its also just like, *a thing people could do*, like i mean, many times you have this thing where its like, *we gotta invent something*, but in a world where all the things are invented, now its like, how do you manage the whole thing, and then have that thing be the thing everyones working on... Do yous get it? I realize its like, you are kindve starting from blank scratch literally type mindset, but we keep building on things, and no ones really figuring out like, how to get everyone building on the thing thats gonna make the most sense. That is what i propose. Make a *thing thats gonna get everyone involved on said thing*. And the name is important again, cause ~ cant get it mixed up with planetary destination civilization investigation. it may also be that the individual fields of study each have their own separate name, and the original idea is nameless. Like for example, not everyone can be a scientist, but some people could be this alternate_science_person_title, which is like, more of a blend of things that also have *science* as a part of what they do, or it could be like, someone who just knows everything about organisms, and like how they reproduce, how they best thrive... i mean science can mean many things right. You also have architecture, and like this new_way_of_thinking_architect, thats less about "Build a BIG GIANT BRIDGE BUILD", but a more of a thing that makes sense to build in modern times. Iuno, first yous would just need like the very basics, like a web-related place everyone would go.. i mean, arent there a bunch of people that are hungry for changing the world or somethin? iuno why we havent gathered them ppl up to put em to work already, and get everyone thinking in the same way, for the same reasons, like good things that require just like, *throwing ideas at the wall*. I mean, slow and monotinous confusion is also an option too, as thats a trend we are on.

@Leo Guraha. good one @Joseph Maynorlol, i struggle to point to truth, but truth minus truth? thats a new one. @SixtySenses i like the mention of Lego bricks cause its like, legos have this notion of like, they are only compatible in the contexts of legos, generally, and so you have the spectrum of things that edge in the realm of *truth*, versus the very contemporary and like, *logicy idea things*, that serve the physical word, but the world doesnt do well with uncertainty or even the simplest of realms where we have to find our bearing in a realm of things that havent yet been discretized or separated and rejoined, versus the continuity that airs on the side of a kind of truth space.. and even in entering truth space you sortve lose out on the more logic things, which isnt to say there may not be a world where one is able to bridge to the other, but i think the issue lies in this *continuous space/rounded space*, like, we are very good at mathing it up, building or destroying, making a mess, and making it into things that can be weighed and systematized, but we dont have the reverse, which is more of a falling into something, like a 'hard to really say what it is', thing. And as we get ppl comfortable with the emptiness/fullness and trying to reimagine, i think we will also get stronger in a truth-wise or truth-like, if said truth even lies on our paths, as we can only assume so going forward. I mean, we can only assume that the right direction forward is the direction we are going, but like im fine with whatever the answer is, or the answerless plane, it doesnt matter to me in that regard.

First youd have to define "you", then youd have to define "not you", in order to then develop the language around those two points, as thats like i say "today im the king of Gwardiinia", well what is Gwardiinia, and why am i saying im this king, what are we n like medieval times suddenly? its like, to make a claim on a new and entire domain/country, is to develop the reasoning (effectively, the language) otherwise we are all laying claim to things for no reasons whatsoever, and that breaks the rules on consistency and trust et caetera. Like, in the world where everything is totally random, laying claims to a leprachauns pot of gold or some fools errand, everyone is without identity cause everyone is, potentially, one of the fools on said fools errands. Like if i say that *im the king and everyone is an asshole*, like what even is that? its not progressive, its not cool, its not really serving myself or anyone else, its like "why am i the asshole, and you get to be the king?" its the same idea, "why is everyone disgarded, but this mysterious *you* is so special...", that then means creating a language where "you" means something totally different, but we already use *you* to mean things. You just have to hone in on your idea some more, and pull it together, cause it sounds like its more of a recapitulation of what everyone who starts out first says to theirselves, "Wow... im like, the whole reality, and consciousness is like in me, and outside... thats some other thing...", like thats the version you tell yourself, but that makes no sense to tell others. u see wat i mean? if we all now say to eachother (inner, outer, etc, etc stuff) eventually its gonna be like, "duh, duh, duh..." in that—its not progressive enough, and it was never the right language for it in the first place. Like if i say how "im the king of Gwardiinia, im the king of gwardiinia", over nd over.. its gonna start to sound bizzare and strange (or it always sounded strange, but it starts to sound irritating or scary to keep bringing it up like that). Consider that its also more experiential anyway, cause its not like it serves others who dont yet share that exp (exp youre referring to)

It also depends on whats meant/intended by" help", like that could mean/imply anything, and it could be received as anything, like how do we know its not hindering someone to impress upon them what our own thoughts are on "what the best choice is..", or "how we would do it", like, these are areas that really require things to be laid out plainly and worked through, and so im not saying that a retreat is the right place to do that, or that you gotta get a mental health person, et caetera, i just mean like, the details of working through something are what cause this feeling of "they cant be helped " sometimes. ANYONE can be helped, but its like, what does this word, help, what does it really imply or lead to... like that could look like a bajigllion different things. I mean, isnt that what actualization is about, its like, you have to believe that people can be worked with, but the problems dont start out from like, the root issue, the problems start at what i always call "an arbitrary causal point", and uniting two causal points in a person or within there habitual programming is as simple as leaving two notes there, for the person, or for yourselves. So then next time, yous can bring it up again when yous are together. But if its still too tender, to sensitive, yous can just leave it alone. Im just thinking very in depth about it, as i dont truley know what we EXACTLY mean w/ this proposed or supposed dilemma, or who this person was that couldnt be helped. in conclusion, i believe that anyone can be helped, but it means taking alot alot of time sometimes, abd yous are in the exact right place right now to unwrap that, and to talk about it from multiple angles. Anyone can be helped. But what does help mean exactly? Does that mean that... You should tell someone to "be like you"?... sumthin to think about. p.s. i just want to emphasize one little important detail, although i already said it ~ and that is the bit about speaking in Plain English, that is to say, trying to go through some sortve abstract route, like a more dreamy retreat~without talking about things out loud is a bad idea, for multiple reasons, one being that abstract-dream-speak is akin to like, being an experienced psychonaut... in other words, its like you have a depressed friend and you offer them this like, mind altering & emotionally taxing adventure... like, its the wrong thing at the wrong time. its like, trying to speak in an abstract/jester/joke-like manner, when the person is really looking to connect the dots that need to be connected, or made less confused about whatever they are stuck on emotionally, physically, whatever.

the other issue is like, or what i want to inch closer towards saying is, as people(s) who arent like, super up on like, wats goin on yet (this is assuming we have like, the most simplest of circumstances, and not someone whos just getting through lots of trauma) cause like... in the same way "more reality" isnt a great way to make a turn around, more "ayauasca" isnt a great way to reach "the routine of not reality wen im awake+ayauasca wen im at s.america/retreat", like, cause the thing you would be looking for is at the entire other end of the spectrum, like... in that same way, when you are lOst in a dream and you are feeling like "plz get me the fk outa this situation", injecting more dream doesnt counter the dream. Like, one of the first levels is sortve like, grappling with the idea of like, injecting more of any one state of mind (while being in said state) is actually counter towards the discovery of how the state of mind was sortve "in ur way" in the very first place, like, iuno, but anyway. thats just a small part of that initial turn around. theres more finesse and nuance that comes after, and "the post language" of that is a little tougher, but id subscribe to very simple things that dont turn into a bad dream kindve thing, like, it also depends... cause like "... can we then conclude that some people simply cannot expand their consciousness in this lifetime?", i mean, it depends on wat we are saying bout said person, and why we think they are *doing wat they are doing* (like again, they could have alot of trauma being peeled away through these sessions, and surely they arent impossibly far away just cause they have trauma to contend w/... often, that gives people the drive to surpass "smart ppl", whatever that means)

Theres this notion of the "magnifying lens effect", which is like... this thing... like, think of how you have "earth", which is this ball and... on it is all the main components of harmony that share, or partake in the "geometry handholding"~which is to say that, the most "spherical" you are (or are on) then the more that notion, and any subsequent members of it are to be magnified. Now take that concept to something like "maple syrup". If you leave it out to dry, it slowly turns into a crystal form, that is, it goes from this viscous, nebulous goo'—into a crystallized form—which is true for us as well, as we, our lego pieces fall apart over time, they leave our shadowy soup of a body, as the body's pieces they once stood for, and join the militia of a many millions of lego pieces floating already out in the world with the 99% of the other dirt particulates. It doesnt stop there, because our mind is also a member of a geome system, and it is designing realms just like this, or rather i should say, "its magnifying new realms", which impart the same magnifying principles and effects, so if the lens focuses on a root, then it grows into a tree... if it focuses on being a policeman when it grows up, it becomes a policeman, et caetera. If you want to be a particulate man, you can be whatever that is too. You can 'grow it if you focus on it', cause otherwise, you are shining something~magnifying something by default, which may not necessarily be what you want, and, the more attention put on a thing, whether that just meanst, putting energy towards it into the form of "forethought", that is how much more you get back, how much you're going to yield from it. The main point is the interconnected systems of the mind, and magnifying it, which may often mean you also have to align yourself with the sun and such, and all the other moving pieces. It sounds a bit crazy/goofy/silly, but thats the simple mechanistic version thats been turned into a form that can be served and tasted.