kavaris

Ill preface w/ this idea, 'doesnt it invalidate our understanding of self (the Self as the one who knows what is), upon promoting lack/illusion to the highest position? Yay?... Nay?... Paradox is the next obvious perspective after that... And if in fact "paradox", then what? Yous may have had a diff road, but im jumping ahead. p.s. you can still have god(s) as a functional element i think, cause its "a god"~that is an extension of self~, the God is like a claim about the infinite self, infinite possible perspectives on gods, or something like that... im adding that in as i read someones talking around god, gods or God.

Im goin over your words, and im tryina isolate just one idea for you, for, I dont normally touch these delicate quandaries, but im changing things up, just to shake the etch-a-sketch and see what happens The seeker can never find the lacking, that is, you might call it penia (poverty or lack) inb4 how eros is born and neither fully destitute nor satisfied, etc, etc... The truly ignorant dont philosophize, because they dont *feel* lack, mistaking emptiness for fullness sake. Only the persons caught in between are in some sense aware of the in between~ness. They are who is to pursue wisdom at all in that case, and what is wisdom then? That is, what is wisdom within this context, of either, \*that which is within (or around) the hole?... The lack?... (p.s. woops i thought both posts were by the same pers., oh well, i guess i meant to ask both of yous in this case now)

Ima jus highlight "focus on" as i dont have am explanation for what that means, and so someone else can either fill in pieces, or write it down nd describe it later.

Iuno someone said that once, and i felt like its apropos for what i was thinking. And that is how, even though its goin fairly slow and steady, that there is progress happening, tangible changes happening within that... Like, its on a (domain or something like that), increasing, one thats up to you, that you are trying to develop, however its gonna culminate, cause yous know im sure, whatever it is you are to focus on the most, is what everythings building around / changing around... like the constant change, i mean... I mean, its not like theres a flat level, like you have layers or you have nothing, and to be staggered in the *in between direction is what prolly causes alot of discomfort. I mean, its not like it makes sense at the boundary outside of the small circle that weve called sensible, so we take that w/ a grain of salt as far as what can even be said around it, as far as trying to disect that edge realm. you know?

"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.