kavaris

We have to rewrite The Matrix a little, like the relationship to tech and the mind has to remain passive, like today, as Ai-out as yous want it, however the tech can still be present and alive, but more like how Neo starts talkin to his computer in the beginnin, As then its like, 'you got this code of Alien talk that happens on a normal prompt, and then, thats the matrix... just chattin... Sayin whatsup... And tryina stay in that realm, for death is akin to one of these dimensions you can fall in, which isnt necessarily easy to do (meaning, the dimension/paradigm...) i mean... death is easy cause everyones pointing to it, like "Youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die"... Like... Its not just people pointing to it, but the layers of conception and imagination are pointing to it, as a very finite, triad, birth, death, life, birth, death life... or you kno wat i mean. I really like rats and cats, as i feel for the cats. They are not good at conceptual thinking however, true.

When the little boy from the Matrix says Not-spoon, he then goes on to fk w/ reality. Wtf, we wanna move spoons too!... But, thats perhaps not just a mind over matter thing, as its like, a matter of matter, for the mind. Like it matters what type of matter you are "talking about" to yourself, Like what type of matter that spoon was, suppose to be, like they all share that 'realm of relatable matter... Its like, determinate matter, where its being pictured in layers of differing ways where its very much "matter"... I mean, a sudden-liquid spoon is kindve not the same matter that we would call matter anyway, so its following a path thats unfamiliar territory, which is quite difficult to relate to. Thats a testament to how much we rely on routines, cause liquid spoons isnt just like... ... it isnt just an idea, like... And, it's not something that happens spontaneously on a daily basis. Like "His spoon went up, spontaneously! It went up in liquid formation!!!" *p.s. maybe i shouldve said "it is of concern..." or "it is relevant to 'what matter, you speak of..." so that way its not getting smushed by English's horrific sciency "matter", as a way to represent concern and physical matter w/ the very same word, a polysemorous word or watever-the-fk

We are now at this, granted, i just wrote it up, so its like 'Hot biscuits atm,

I also had a vision of this twizzler of differing ways to describe this again, like the way to talk about self next to these ideas, and that then changes how you want to speak of experience, cause im not quite sure if theres a totally set, defined way to place those words together ~ like its the boggling, the twizzlering of self as it becomes experience, or something like that... Like its two aspects or something, coming together, to give it the right context, and its hard to place it right now.

I wrote this line, but i really like it, As a way to illustrate how sometimes the lesser etymological realm, much like etymological feeling space, is a preferred place over pure descriptive language towards a destination. That is, you can have "artistry, experience" or the simpler, lesser (lesser said), direct "absolute" experience. Kinda neat... right...? *shrugs?*

(cont. ii) First we have to do this, or it will never be understood; Differing the versions of Not-thing (spirit of Not-thing) Quick note: I would be remissed to ignore you on "A chair is also not a chair" point, as i must describe the absolute perspective it points to, cause thats an important subject matter that actually does point towards the absolute idea, the other perspective thats simmering under? To begin again, "Not a thing" is purely grammatical negation, when we (you, i, us) talk about "no things", such as in the past, prior or apriori positions (whether it be before/after in time, etc.) thats not a "Not-thing" defined!... Not-things arent things... its only a "thing" because you dont have an actual description for it, so it absorbs "that very thing itself" thats why yyour descriptions for things keep taking on this "a chair is not a chair, not a thing being all things" That is to say, the absolute captures the idea of a thing, and that itself already captures "absence" (we can do better, description wise), BUT... You arent actually talking about that. You are talking about how "reality, in its absolute, is potentiated as a thing... that also includes itself when it reverses... when it goes back to source" Thats what you are trying to say, but it one of those things that is like trying to point to the very thing itself, and in doing so, we show someone the product of reality, without the cause, without the apriori spirit that gave it its name (the thing thats inactivated) The other part to it is like, theres this thing where you have "potentiated reality in the act of", and that cancels out the source. It doesnt validate it, because to validate is to "act facing towards" (validation now as a stricter version of) ... This is the thing we are actually talking about when invoking a Not-thing (obviously) but it doesnt actually do anything to the person who thinks source means like .... ... Iuno what they'd think source means. They prolly are imagining "when i was born, then i was this, then i become that", like, they are imagining this basic source code of self, not self in the experienced, validated sense we just described (or just absolute, but absolute is the single word term, in a hierarchy of lesser terminology) (And i suddenly go off topic / off script here...) And thats really the beauty of language, we can talk in a descriptive language realm/territory, because a single word creates a space for it, it gives it this "reason" to exist, since its saying "Now its okay, make a descriptive language version". Or its a pages of words that are saying "it can be made clearer and w/ less, or even single, separated words". That is to say, sometimes people (and i am assuming "us") ARE actually talking about a REAL experience underneath them words, so its not that someone is right or wrong, its "who spent way too much time trying to meticulously point to the right terms, in the right way, and such..." which is just profession... its just, its just artistry / experience, not plain, absolute experience. So no one is right or wrong, not when its a matter of trying to take what you can feel is simmering underneath, bring it to the surface — unless they dont sound like they are interested or even know wat they are tlkin bout, of course. They can potentially just be wrong and they dont know it yet.

(cont.) Like, if someone says, > Person 1 says "Monad = Gonad" > Person 2 says "No" Thats sounds crazy rediculous, but its levels beyond just stagnating and looking around the room, not particularly focused, maybe thinkin about the nature of your Sims 3 character or your tamagotchi pet, like its a step above the 2026-fully-wound-up-in-whatever without direction, cayse now its got some investment in the dialectic attitude of "what you were even doing to begin w/" which is itself of a profound nature.

Even when it sounds like the dumbest, of the dumbest, of the dumbest thing stated, Its an "Are we tracking the referent w/ this word or idea" in that, its a way to invite agreement too. It's 'how everyone may recognize, or come to recognize for their own case, whether everyone agrees/understands, or not, up unto that point in the sense that they have the opportunity to flag that datum / word that was pointed to (e.g. monad, or whatever it may be in the course of thought) and to consider the pages that lend themselves to this fuller context (internalizing that 'page of requirement, if it is like a pointer to a prior/or posterior thing or sumthin) i mean, just technically, thats how something like that could function, or should function, like when its actually got a lot of different elements that can change the nature of the question or the argument.

Through understanding t'what ya mean — I believe theres like this mystery / unknown element behind the knowing. And your own self- The thing that does conceptualizing, doesnt know who, what, ..., upon which should lead to "THAT conceptualizing of..." -something like that, yes? I believe that to be the case. You (we, us) anyone... ... They dont know what anything is, until theyve validated it and linked it to that idea of "This is known" or "This is still unknown to me". Im sure you had another part to it to, i just dont recall what it was right at this moment. Im wingin it, up to this point so i dont spend too much time in wonderlandei. Apologeis if i totally did not even get the whole subject matter incorporated in there, as im avoiding—the long time spentin Vvonderlandei tryina figure it out.

@Mellowmarsh Which part?, that is to ask, was it the "chair is not confirmed to be 'chair" part, or was it the "finding out what meaning is, is like, not knowing meaning" thing? I see one path being about the nature of validity/locating it, and the other is about "whats meaning... or what ..." or im tryina understand... Is that second part suppose to be like "until you know", like is the emphasis about, what its like to mean (represent/define) something ~ up until, or is it about "what it means ~that wiill precisely equate to your answer, cause you gave it the meaning?"

I need approx. 10-25 mins or so, as i eatin sandwich. And my cats like lookin at me, as im goin "deep, deep, deep, deep...", on my phone, waitin for food.

Yes. Its not the case that our intention is to necessarily cancel out anything. It may have not been your intention either, as it wasnt my ultimate intention (i think it was something i started in order to lead us here, possibly, maybe). And even if it was my intention, cancellation wouldnt necessarily imply elimination. How can you cancel the conception of yourself?... How would you know you’ve been cancelled, if there’s no conception of you who could know? - Depending on whats meant by cancellation, you can conceptually cancel out yourself via a line of negation. Thats kinda what i thought we were doing at first... until cancellation took on multiple ideas... Now cancellation means something more like softening or muting, in the looser sense. In the strictest sense, we are saying "what validates or invalidates <X> or..." something. Its a conceptual idea towards a possible revealing. Okay. And let me just add in one element into this, to see if it starts to like... unblur the field-of-view / fog-of-war... "If everything was an intelligent field, or a spectrum of intelligence", what does that now mean for the thing doing the conceiving of, and the subsequent product / action of conception? And what does it leave us w/, per the motif, not to monotonously keep rephrasing the same things, but to just stay in a somewhat familiar territory given my need to introduce this totally new, possibly disruptive element (that could potentially crash the logic, or lead us to a dead end, or anything else that could result, per the wonders of the unrevealed mysteries ahead)

Like, im thinkin of it like "We need something that *conceives, of, things* because, 1) Creation - Something has already done said creation. 2) Conception - That which is conceived is not canceled, because its immediately in conception, like its effectively conception itself. 3) "To cancel" is then said to be, 'something thats not "cancellation of everything" — atleast — in this particular way / However this may be cancellation in just one particular mode of, like... muting, for example. 4) Elimination via cancellation is yet another kind of cancellation, for its not necessarily assumed that anything has been eliminated, unless its this one (bulletpoint (4) now) In conclusion, if we went down this path, we'd have a very complicated view of what it even means to cancel, conceptually, for it could just be that we are softening one side for another... but in the strictest version of, we have to have had some self creator, not to mention, to cancel everything out is to be left w/ something like a person whos been doing the conceptualizing ~ whether it be connected to self creator or not.

Thats interesting. Stop it there for a sec, As i need more than a sec to think bout that mind-winder.