kavaris

"Function, meaning, form" is the mind virus that yous gotta get on, by which i mean, package it up in whatever way / gift / present, that you want, spin it like a song stuck in your head, and then we'll come back when thats sunken in. Dont let go, just keep spinning / invoking it in the awareness of thoughts and such, and figure out where that it best fits, in the lypsis of transients, or directed towards the transients. I mean its only as difficult as yous want to make it, as we can literally just say "what a thing is" like this post "A = Cow shit".. That is also a form of dialectic language. Yous just stopped responding. If yous are bored then we'll stop.

@Hojo If what you want is for it to be called science, then call it science, but dont get stuck on what its called, As we are gonna be here too long on the label of a word that doesnt matter, as opposed to how that label is suppose to function, for its function, meaning and form that we want... the transient stuff thats gonna get us somewhere. The labels within that are whats gonna be extra important, and THOSE labels we have to agree upon or else neither direction will it make it appear as science or sensible reality. We cant remain stagnant forever.

What is "more" compared to science, than philsophy? And, what is the difference between science and philosophy, do you not observe things when you do philosophy? Philosophy is a very broad subject matter that itself includes scientific realms and observation. You are doing philosophy right now. We should have gotten well past what constitutes it, or we will be here a long time.

Is that a question? wat is that.

It sounds like your doing philosophy to me, just acting arogant in the process.

Ive realized whilst browsing mainstream youtube, 'truth, as an idea / topic, is a hairy subject matter for the younger generation. I believe its cause they are using today's English (like English dictionary) paradigm, that is English's application of — function, meaning & form — in the areas of refutation around such things as truth. So im giving out a recommendation for both Leo G., or @everyone else, if yous want to either begin the argument itself — around such things as truth — or if yous rather (and what i'd prefer we do myself) is just put together / throw out some subject matters, a list of subject matters that could be the missing piece, tangential to this notion of like ~ how the younger generation is stuck in that endless circle of searching for an ability to talk around such topics. And we are more of the brainstorming bulletinboard, as far as making suggestions. I mean, i just feel, if ever there wassomeone who wants to find some entry into productive arguments and speech, its just a good place to disect in general, and as i said, yous will simultaneously help in making suggestions, whether it be geared specifically for a younger gen., or not (p.s. the Greeks used that dialectic kind of language, and that to me is how you figure out what something is, cause you have the "agreed truths" and the universal, grandeur truth, and it means placing those kinds of things ~ getting on the same page as everyone)

Yes. Your speaking from the common Christian / Santa claus, societal, illusion-based perspective / inquisition ("common refutation" of the internet mainstream), that only indicates to me those questions are coming from someone whostill believes these things, or is trying to find "grounding" to believe in Youve answered a majority of your own ques., but ill add one thing that underlies it all is "belief", for once you replace all of those things in them 2-3 paragraphs, youll now have a new dilemma, where the "ground from which you sit/stand" isnt fully erect, like your gonna be fully tilted by the fact that all your beliefs are wrong... People dont like finding out they were wrong. The mind doesnt like to learn its ever wrong, especially in todays technological society. Its all \*clever comments, and online egos and sht... I mean, iuno where you wanna go from this, assuming you get past all those ques., but theres a long way up, and alot more questions your gonna have... I mean... Somewhere in there is "a belief that your trying to understand" typeve thing, but its veiled by like, the very heart of questions around consciousness, and the best area to start is actually a diff question... one that addresses consciousness, without it being "what is consciousness". Rather, youll want "what am i doing, that is resulting in consciousness", like more of the mechanical difference. Thatll erase those questions eventually.

Its a funny title, but i wanna bring awareness to the recovery, *After infinite consciousness —per the more extreme experiences of it (really its a good idea jus in general, in either direction) for you have ascending cascades and descing cascades, and we... as humans... arent familiar w/ what that is, when its happening. We can only do so much, in other words... Theres plenty of "inner programming" we could talk about here: Point is that, what youll really want is a cessura break, a sure pause. Because, in a surefire psychedelic journey, you dont necessarily want to keep ramping. Likewise, in infinite conscious, youll want to be cautious of infinitely growing, ascending or descending~or generally going somewhere you wont fully grasp, or cannot fully disect, as its like dying at the point of full awareness right, like i mean its not like you are logic'ing the whole way forward; for its an alien encounter, an ever deeper and quicker, swifter sequence of realization. To stop the sensation, enforce a cessura pause in the journey; But Its specific to the person, and you can do that for yourself, before it gets to a point of pure awareness or whatever you might wanna call a ascent./descension, i mean, most people are usually having a lack-of-psychedelic experiences in their life, that is in the soul exploration of life. But i jus thought i should make mention of it.

P.s. you might branch out from this in two different ways: One, by simply enforcing istemi, for the brain is gonna absorb it, given its apparent 'method of logic, and try to paint a coherent picture around it, approaching the gyrating center ~ However that gyrating center is somethin' that we / us is, *) actively gyrating, and *) attempting to \*point to (at the same time) Yet, one is not capable of *pointing to, and revealing (unless its through experience, towards the direct experiencing of...) So you may also investigate these terms, that is ἀλήθεια, i.e., truth or more literally, the un-concealment. And that is directly from from λήθη, the root it negates, "forgetting/concealment". That is to demonstrate how similar/close "remembering/memory" is to "revelation and forgetting"... Other significant terms that are apart of this particular lego set are the following (which ill let you investigate) *) ἄρρητον *) ἀπόρρητον *) ἀπορία *) πόρος *) ἄφωνος λόγος *) ... Roots/prefixes ἀ- ("un", "not", ...); ἀπό- ("away"); ῥητός Something can thus be (*) Revealed but unspeakable (i.e. seen, experienced, without the ability to put into words) (*) Revealed but forbidden to speak or (*) Hidden and speakable / accessible through speech (i.e., you can talk about it, but you dont know it yet)

It occurred to me, the idea of "imagined", "belief", and "memory" are three terms that trip us up in trying to start towards the contemplation, and explanation around things like consciousness. First, alls that exists is the imagined, i.e. memory, whereby "belief" can be said applying to the immediate present, ie. "the strongest of imagined beliefs", aka short term memory. where as long term memory, a lesser pronounced belief, exists in the unconscious, non-immediate recollection. In this way, long term memories can be something conjured, something made distinct, made expressive, such that they engage in the short-term sequence. There isnt a single point where memory, reality, and subjective experience has a permanent line, one that reads "this is separate", rather, we give it an objective distinction. That is, we bring things of the non-material, into a programmatic system, a functional wrapper, and that influences what "belief" (itself the highest form of recollection) is , within the routine of imagined, immediate thought and presence. I liken the whole thing to lego-building-blocks, for not only does short and long term not have a distinct line, the whole thing exists in a constant state of flux, a layered place of possibilities, pulled into a finite world or threshold, which is to be made finite through that impression of taking the eternal and non-material to be <insert association> of material and limited, even though prior to limitation, it exists as something thoughtless and wordless (maybe youd call it, "the most center point" or "the most neutral thing", and existence itself, prior to belief sortve thing) That should help now in being able to straightforwardly contemplate, as far as getting past those terms.

I did a search for epistemic responsibility, just out curiosity, to see if thats ever come up before. Its an interesting place to start. I was thinking "What happens if thats the entry point for some people". Or why not? Id investigate all of these terms, perhaps not starting here if it doesnt fit w/ your immediate interests, but instead, lead up to. Or maybe you do start here and that is then the entry into building a routine around these ideas... This of course is more of the.... You sit down in a class and write down on a chalk board "X means Y" typeve stuff. Then later you go back and learn "Oh that stuff we learned was actually all wrong, or in the very least, it depended on this entire subset of stuff", like its sortve like "What comes first the chicken or the egg", cause yas gotta start somewhere, right? Doesnt matter where really.

Im borrowing leos title for a moment, as i wanna make sure im using the idea that people recognize. Epistemic responsibility, or epistemic response as it would be related through Latin's neuter past participle, "respondere", to respond, to reply back -sortve thing, this is a truth that you ride. From the dawntil dusk, sunset to sunrise. You're responding back to yourself, and you are doing so through the knowledge, the foreknowing, the understanding from a life of seeing thus far, what corresponds to this life, what this life might even be to begin w/, those sorts of ideas are a small part of the responsibility of self; The responsibility to carry the torch and to deconstruct the self. Somewhere @12:00 he says just that, in the fact of how, the priority of epistemic reversal on self must actually be that priority. It must be at the pinnacle. This is the video game that should be at the pinnacle in other words. Video games within that video game, they gotta be like, either far nested or incorporated to serve that epistemic responsibility. I mean, any other video games you play are to become the priority/ by dispensing more and more actions elsewhere. Like, you increase your odds of fulfilling that sacred responsibility if its \*revisiting this sacred idea in or around epistemic knowledge (now im using it in the modern, self reflected way, self reflected knowledge). I phrase it like that because, we dont actually know "how" to get from A to B when it comes to these things, e.g., if you really love video games, you might play video game 1 in the morning, video game 2in the evening, video game 3 at night, and in between you eat dinner, take a shower... Its not leaving alot ofroom to contemplate WHAT you are doing that stuff for, and WHY you like to do it. That is the dilemma. That itself is the dilemma. You need to have gone through something to just erase that structured life, straight up, for then you think like this: Morning epistemic knowledge, evening epistemic knowledge, And at night, epistemic knowledge. I can only say what you have to do. I dont know how you get there. I like to assume everyone is there.

Theres "the distillation of truth" or there's the '-istemi to, For truth wouldnt be the last stop on the mind agenda, but a symbol of action. Actionables are the catalogue of things that we are to better understand; in this way.

Keep in mind, yous can take these ideas, As many of what ive said, atleast 99% on here are ideas that i, in some ways, cant use. And thus it tends to reach beyond what im capable of capturing, as i try to get things more towards poetic, or hymn-driven art realm. This however is on the area of the mystical, spiritual, the gradual, and philosophical, but i think its on the topic of things like psychedelics too and such, so really its in every category. So sensing is something i started comparing to our five senses (inb4: wat? does that mean?), plus one extra, when we say things like "i could sense you behind me" or just something like the 6th sense movie. When we take psychedelics, we use "sensing" as that direct ability towards a truth; A necessary commander in merging senses. Then there's this more etymological feeling (a feeling towards truth, or essence, you see?) which i compare to something closer to truth from the point of having considered or from the point after actualizing. That is "feeling" is sortve a miniature version of the broader sensing ability, because its most specific in the areas after, that is the post-expansion of mind[ You see what i mean? This is one of those things, like*-istemi,* like a pointer to a place that cant be explained fully, however i thought this might help in getting us closer to it, for we need to, to signify its importance. You can just think of it as, "sense and feeling are two different things, where one is of a purely sensed direction and the other is purely \*felt\*" And is that it? For now.

Everything is the dreaming, but with distinctions and levels, and what is mostly a vague understanding of a greater ability. I believe we have that ability, innately, we just take it for granted; ANd hence ill try to explain it deeper so as to try to avoid falling complacent and neglecting that very idea, that idea that is to get us to a higher understanding of control, or atleast towards the appreciation for who, what, when, where and "why you are", currently, for you have an opportunity to make things right, right now, in the sorts of ways that ive been hinting at (albeit i dont really post that much) Orphics are somewhat right when they refer to a prison body, but the word 'prison isnt quite right. Is it? What if it is a 'prison of our own making, which i'm saying from this perspective: where the body is seen as a very unusual memory holder or absorber, a memory holder of filtered dream stuff (inb4 someone tries to define "dream stuff"). Like the paradox is just that, that "to die" is to dream of this, ever-more, ever-distinct, ever-bounded realm or region of dream frequency/vibration, and so, i would say, the body, the waveforms that are to be underneathed through contemplation, they are themselves indistinct dream stuff, and we are to impose a boundary of distinction around it. We say that, as we are not stuck (atleast not in this moment, for myself) in that perpetual dream, the dream that "i was a new born, here i am". We've prgressed slightly passed that, in regards to the understanding of... anything. And yet we have the chance to control things, that process (not @ a finite lvl), for we are akin to the complex numbers ~towards the shift of dimensions, or the dimensional rift or whatever you wanna call it; the transition from one plane to another basically, for we are the literal embodiment of distinction. So back, when someone asked about "control", this is my new answer... It is good news for everyone, because it means that you can learn to live and you can learn to die: 1) Dying is only a distinction that you draw around a box, and although you cant control it down to these most finite and infinite levels, you can go in vague directions, for you'll be sacrificing alot of prior distinction at death; For the paradox is just that, that 1st you are to die and then are to draw a distinction, and "to die" itself is defined by this element of sacrifice, which you may not play that much of a role in, for its an unconscious, a dreampt sequence of which you will have little to no understanding of during that shift, for its not like... Like its not a "dream" that you are gonna experience. And why is that? Like when you dream each night, you still have a body which is itself the memory holder, the capacity for memories in the first place, not in the physical sense, in the "unrecognized dream realm" sense. So that is why im tryina say, the Orphic dream/waking body is weirder than "dreaming of <insert subject>" Like, in a dream, that whole sequence is predicated on "body", in a vague, but distinct sense. In death, quite simply theres none of that portion of memory coming w/ so there really isnt that much that you have to bring, is there? Yous tell me. Is there something outside of your body that you have to bring with you? Like "thoughts" and that whole construct arrives through an experience of the body. So theres not like a "cherished outside" that you have, beyond the "vague sense of control" i talked about. Like, you tell me... Do your dreams care if you are a "monk" or a "priest"? Like, dreams dont "care", do they? Dreams are liquid, an impression of the body, and sometimes those impressions bleed into the dream that you are to have, flashes of stuff that are to seem similar... Dreaming is one continuous process. Dreaming is defined by "reality, but w/ alot of unconscious work happening around you", Ergo death is defined by "not quite a dream, but a total release into unconscious-dreaming, upon the paradox of self"