kavaris

Yous have to consider that everything is like a reiterated, smaller component or mirror image of itself, within the larger self, intertwined in "the greater mech." of self... Like... First, just following along w/ the idea that sensation is a greater mechanism: That then has lots of these smaller images of things, and so, whatever that greater mech., may be, may entail... it has within it other perspectiviles; 'pragmatics, logic, meta-physics., grammatics, ecstatics, poetics... But then there's actionables, tangibles, usables / operables, intelligible / discernibles... conceivables, valuables / justifiables, stuff like that, that exists as definable or describable in the larger image of itself, the larger mech., I mean theres more to it since we have our internal "time mechanisms" our internal clock and rhythms, and things like this, but what im trying to say is that, that is then something you have to consider, around these other perspectives or operations that can change the way you see the smaller, reiterated images of self-being, that is, the way you move or turn within the calm pond, it changes the entire flow of everything within the calm pond, and every movement creates reiterated intervals of that prior moving mechanism, which itself is harder to locate, if you can even truly locate it, at all, which is for yous to ultimately decide.

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.

I want to reinvoke this topic again, not only cause it'll gets yous thinking, but also because it helps us to differentiate these two terms, as i had a thought the other day that made me reconsider the original idea, and whether or not it would be better to reverse them (having "feeling" denote "a greater range(s) of ..." or not...) So just to refresh, I had mentioned etymology = truth (of feelings), and what im referring to as more like 'the necessary commander behind the merging of senses. I'll be going through everything, and what that means. On one hand, you have this notion of your physical sensations, where this pragmatic sense can also lead to something deeply felt, the "felt sense", which ive learned wasnt a unique term today... but lets continue ... and that can be included in the five and/or plus one 'meta-sense. Alternatively there's the type of feeling that you could invoke, that which sits above everything else, where sensing is seen as one mode of expression upon the larger feeling. Sensing and feeling can still be components of each other, but what we are deciding is if its better to think of feeling as a component of sensing, or vice versa. For example now, when we "see" something in our dream, thats not quite about this sense of seeing. Its part of the larger "feeling space" that we assoc. w/ something that shares a likeness to sight. That's sort've what I mean by this alternative explication. Feelings are the transcendent idea that makes it harder to place in one specific box, dont you think? In one way, sensing is the frame w/ which more detailed feelings live. But then again, feelings are able to capture a unified sense, sensing as a more archetypal form that we want to bring into our world of tangibles. I mean, that would be a unification of meaning and experience (that i feel should be treated separately in some way now) So now, if we go back to the original idea, we might think of that unification process as separate, atleast separate from sensing and feeling. Instead we might hold sensing to be the greater category this time (as it had been originally in my mind), where etymological feeling was a way to refer to something true in the space of sensing (per our embodied experience). That gives us something to point to first, especially because, once we start thinking of everything as "one unified feeling", we can no longer speak of the multifarious truths within ourselves. Better still, that vague preconceptual sense of meaning helps us too, in further demonstrating that "on the day that we are to experience ‘one unified feeling’..." -type've thing, which i happen to treat as something like a paradoxic utility (or something) Even still, we shouldnt force the purity of oneness within our practical thought structure, as distillation is part of that implicit dimension of concepts and developments (or felt-sensing) that you feel in your body, just as wholly as the purity of oneness. Ergo, oneness is really just the word that escapes embodied qualities. It makes sense in this way then to say, "sensing" is the greater range of embodiments, and etymological feelings point us towards this wholly felt, embodied realm or dimension. Forgive me if that sounds confusing, as it'll be something for yous to think on, and later, pull apart, and decide for yourselves: whether sensing should be the term that refers to a larger pattern in the cosmos, or if 'feeling is better suited; the 'oneness feeling thing... I've of course landed on sensations as that higher realm, but later yous might find and decide a way to further justify it within some other arrangement.

We all are playing pieces of music that we feel best fits into the puzzle building, this affectation space or this correct texture or color match that seems to best work. Everyone has a degree of autism, if only to know what best suites your individual self, and sometimes, knowing requires a reset. Sometimes it requires sped.. Regardless of whether or not its pleasurable, seeing as, in this sense, it may be for 'lesser than pleasurable intentions (we can convince ourselves itll be worthy), it may be brown notes or discordant sounds and such surrounding, however, pleasure on the macro scale is part of the hierarchy that tends to keep everything sane and alive, as its almost synonymous w/ sanity, and its part of the way of understanding how the mind works, in this constant balance, meaning, the uptake and downtake, to register said pleasure. If that pleasure system gets staggered, its gonna be quite unpleasant for everyone, very much in the realm of nonstop hallucination city, as states of mind are numerous, and thats only one way to play on that particular chord progression. Many different directions can access many different songs and sensations, and something psychedelic is one such sensation that gives credence to this thing where its like, the crossover of physical senses, and accelerated thoughts, i mean, its one perspective, one sensation, though, that is not to accidentally point us in all directions, for we dont want to go crazy. The possibility for all that stuff is out there. Avoid accidental alzheimers, but still be on the look out for how to expand your mind, in a way that isnt the same thing everytime. You dont wanna end up like my gf, of course.

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?

I gotta a good one for yas to figure out. If/when any of yous take notice to, you might experience what ive experienced, which is this odd thing: single hairs emerge, seemingly from,what at first looks like a pimple. Thought 5-10 days later or so, its not a pimple i dont think, but the emergence of a single hair, given that its literally dead center, the hair that is. And ive see this before w/ very slight, surface layer wounds, where little hairs would then form around it... Even in women its happened, like in my moms case, though shes 60 or so now... My point is, do any of yous know about this? Like, thats not where the story ends in my book per say, cause im not focused on pimples and wounds related to the forming of single hairs, even though that is how its mostly shown itself, but im more so just baffled by this, cause its so odd, i mean, when i was younger, my skin didnt work like that. Even the smallest wound caused scars, but i also think i was not eating enough. I was quite skinny. So it might play into the heavy amount of protein / chicken? Maybe... Again, the wound thing is weird — the pimple w/ a single hair is weird — but ive been furthering the experiment in regards to these hairs and their formation, and im more so looking at alot of factors. But i dont wanna bore yous w/ that... Assuming everyones like, "the fk is this pers. talkin bout" type thing.

I dont know anything about anime, but this is the closest illustration, i mean i tried, So its like crucial, dragoon blood (apparently "dragoon" is a real word...) Elven blood. very relevant. Iuno how to describe it, i can only do so, aesthetically, generally speaking:

Just to add one more thing before i disappear, cause if i dont, yous will be usin google + chat information to inform your world, Everything that ive learned about: immune system, rhythms of the body, patterns in the face, skins ability to go from bad to perfect, the way protein sometimes comes in a pus form to build, blood and how it works and what its effects are, etc, the information is either apart of a science experiment no one would understand, or its not anything you can even begin to find out there in the world. I jus thought id mention, as pretty much everything in my life exists in a box of love, pain and exp., you cant request through google or chat, or if it does ive never seen it.. its like, patterns & textures, patterns & textures. p.s. bacteria is more of an important topic than oil, like uhhh... how do you describe this... like dryness is more of a requirement than like... "not dry" if that makes sense lolol... Like tending to the dryness is secondary to encountering it, like dryness (as q consequence of the... i think its called epidermal turnover — i mean theres slightly more to the story, but its like, not found online... i mean, ... im tryina think how to describe this blood part)

(cont.) A year ago or so, i was tryin to invoke this lemniskos term, because what i moreso was going for was like a knotted, eight loop / track -kindve thing, as even in the most paradoxical of pardoxes experienced, we may never really know, encounter or realize it to be a paradox, In that sense, the word lemniskos, or something unique to describe this "loop that you are on while its looping" is the word for what it may feel like in that particular predicament. I mean, sometimes we do have a paradox before/in front of us, and we also are feeling it just as much the paradox that it is soo in that sense it still is very much making sense to me too. I dont know. Im just throwin some things out there that are like rough sketches of a thought or two. p.s. i just looked up this term and i thought it was an interesting result: matrix/ˈmātriks/The word matrix comes from the Latin matrix, meaning "pregnant animal" or "womb," which derives from mater, meaning "mother" (now im getting mother earth, very mitochondria Eve, woman tribe -vibes)

As i was riffing, i'd invoked the possible situation of uncovering the *paradox of self, in the sense that... its just difficult to have a simple sentence on just the fact that "its an illusion, but i know its an illusion, cause i derive prior to an illusion, that im calling the apriori illusion, etc, etc.", so if we were further driven towards "its an illusion", i would consider the quality of the illusion itself, as a pattern or clump of things. For that reason im taking a long time to really retrieve any words on whats gonna be the next impasse. I'll say that the layered, lego castle of construction, the temple which is in a constant state of change, it is always in an upwards or downwards direction, and that is kindve, by in large, what it seems like, a constant rebuilding of function, meaning and form, in order to then take what we see as the *clumps of patterns, and connect them further (or reconnect, reduplicate em, etc.), into the larger whole. In this sense what you have is affectation itself, as that clumping together, that may also de-illusion or re-illusion, like re-absorbing the sponge so its no longer rock hard, except that theres always a sentient rock there that can re-absorb the whole thing in some way / making everything alive, which probably leads out unto the waters of our next impasse... but i havent thought about it yet in that particular way. It also may make *paradox itself defined slightly differently, cause the whole thing is a paradox that keeps re-absorbing the familiarizing waters. p.s. we should probably just get rid of "paradox" as a word (or as the very strong, weighted version of it), cause it feels like "No, that cant happen", unless we are anticipating a point where things should ultimately stop and no longer happen, then we might want to keep hold of it. I dont think it can be summed up, but i dont have a strong opinion on that idea either way / its continuous, if only to change our perspectives. I dont know.

Ive never tried 5Meo dmt, but today i had this flash of like a feeling, that all of the interfaces that we assoc. w/ this body and this experience were being minimized like a computer desktop, and for 3 seconds i had this feeling, and thats how long it lasted. and i of course thought of how they often describe 5 Meo in this way where you ferl youve been released from your human bonds, andmerged with some source (or atleast thats often the way the language of description makes it feel) i mean im just trying to gauge it a little better, the real thing that is... And if im way off... Yous can jus say **No** if im no where near describing it ~ there may be certain affectations or qualities that are necessary in order to capture it that im just not capturing (p.s. its quite early in the mornin so its not like a hugely serious quandary or anything, im just gettin the beeswax out of my ears and such)

Everyones a candidate for excellence. Its very early in the morning, and i got to thinkin of this, that is this memory of something ~ i wanna say it was a friend who was considered like an A+ student at writing or math or something, and when he started getting real cocky/confident, one of the previous failing students actually outshined him... And i experienced this in 3rd grade, but then, it happened like 10 times afterwards in wholly unique ways, one time i was that failing student who overcame, and there was the advanced students who were real good at something like writing or whatever it was... And that is all to say that, theres this thing that we're working towards, irrispective of the anticipation of a final graduation or event at the end, since we dont know what it is at the end, meaning the end of our ability to say anything *has ended, otherwise its just a continuous thing, and we're not conscious of its continuity. But like, the excellence in the area of ourselves, that is like the only project thats ever mattered; prior to, it wouldve been learning subjects, going to classrooms, but now its like, the excellence can be granted by yourself, through yourself, like, you arent in need of a teacher or someone to say "oh wat you are doing, thats actually wrong". You are making the rules as to wrong and right, and then you are sharing it, such that you can see if it makes any sense. So that stuff that might not make sense, it may turn out to make sense, nd vice versa. Like some of this is battle testing the senses.

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.

"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)

I did a project recently on Socrates and the soul, which errs towards the Soul and Being and things of this nature (basically, a project on Platos dialogues, which of course are endlessly fascinating, in ways ill not express here to avoid giving too much away). Theres a history of the Greek term used; for that idea, "where it comes from, how its used", within a ~ roughly 30 page book called 'Socrates and the doctrine of the soul, Alas Socrates also uses the soul much like we do, for instance if anyone is a musician, we call these genres, 'the blues, or theres soul music, gospel music, and what do we mean by that kind of soul? We also use the soul in ways that cross through the soul as either an intellectual form of, or the soul as inheriting a spiritual quality, or embodying consciousness / universe / exp., etc., And the Socratic soul is a generation after the more Ba / Ka, Egyptian spirit~soul / Athenian tradition (pre Homeric tradition), though ill let everyone investigate just what that is im tlkin about, As its like a movie and you dont give away the movie (inb4 the odyssey, the great movie that everyone is gonna pay $50 for... although, all jokes aside, i googled tickets for it, and it says its sold out, so ppl are really goin to see that movie i guess) You can think on that, where much of what ill say now is gonna be ambiguous for the sake of letting everyone qualify their own perspective. But theres also Parmenides, a logician well-known for "to be" + "Being", things like this, or one might say so, and on, what is perhaps a very stressed version on what it even is 'to be — for he does the proper, investigation of such things from these tediously expanded angles; Alas, Parmenides is probably the more difficult of all the dialogues, and id suggest leaving dialogues like this, for last, when you can really let it sink in~wat is happening. That is my suggestion. Start wherever, just dont staert w Parmenides, unless you think u rdy for that one. Even though ive not expressed Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God, Youd be surprised how often they use "god" singular as an anchor, likewise, how often they consider making distinctions between things that one might say are \*spiritual v. reasonable (granted, it crosses through the idea of \*Forms, as opposed to a very strict "this is the logical thing [of form] versus, this is the subjective thing of experience (INSERT Parmenides @ this point, where, this is an incredibly deep and introspective place to have evoked and investigated things from, from Parmenides at one's side) Anyway. Iuno wat the point was, cnt remember, but i think it helps in investigating mystical, metaphysical stuff. Also especially, it gets you to see who Socrates is, or rather, who Plato is through the illustration of characters like Socrates, who is mentioned by other Greeks too, so its not like these are fake people. They are verified as ppl outside of the dialogues. P.s. Many scholars, at that time, and after, talk alot of sh** to each other too, so theres no end to the amount of name calling and overly expressed, negative opinions, much like today n age weirdness... People often get Plato mixed up w/ someone like this, but youd be surprised to learn that theres nothing in Plato like this, alas you will only ever find a Socratic marathon, lots of wise individuals or interactions, and expressed through one, continuous dialogue (or atleast its better to think of it that way, instead of like "This totally separate topic A, that totally separate topic B, and that other totally separate topic C, D, etc, etc" The titles for each dialogue are ways for us to keep track of em all, so we have a way to organize it and think of it... They are very drunk during the Symposium, so from their perspective / circumstances, its not a simple, straightforward situation, in regards to how they are to get memorized/recorded... In atleast one other dialogue, it is actually 'someone elses memory that Plato is giving us, per \*their perspective on "What they had experienced" on recalling and telling the bulk of the dialogue, thereafter, where it then blends into that bulk dialogue... Plato & Socrates are my fav., so thats yet another reason that i think i want to ensure others see what i see in that realm)

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.

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.