kavaris

The other way to frame things is to use Aristotle stuff, which is itself another road, but its also quite a different road. Like theres prolly a way to really compliment the two roads, but, then theres another road where you go off in a different direction entirely. And im not actually sure whats better, or whats right or wrong, like im saying, theres just a few many roads to take, either direction(s). But from my own exp., i would say that, my first impression is, the Aristotle road would require too much work, like im not sure i want to visit it in a serious manner (myself). Though its possible to go down that road (as a group). i know lots of people are already going down that road, but like... hm... what am i trying to say here. I think im just sayin yous have roads that are like shining beacon roads. I mean, in the context of *things that are most obvious, yous have atleast two shining beacons that you could follow up on ... Yah. But, i guess we just have to wait for more people to submit their ideas, posts and threads, such that we can tell which direction everyone is going in, as far as like, the base/core philosophy and the clustering that occurs through shared experiences and things like this.

The Liminal Threshold Note: The following gives yous some questions to think about. Its written a little messy but i think yous can sort it out. First i want to establish what *i think that *we think we mean by consciousness, for the sake of argument... Consciousness is synonymous w/ 'being', right? (i dont know what the modern direction is, or what has been subsumed by it. im just assuming so.. doesnt really matter); Il share this term, "ousia". Although the video gives it the pronunciation [oo'shia] or sumthn, in Greek thats an /s/, alas that doesnt really matter, im jus sharing the term for yas to look up, and theres no other videos, so yous have to look up the text / online Q: How do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? Like, where we (us) are those very grounding pieces of experience; We will answer that in the course of this long explanation. So, maybe we think of ourselves as these grounding pieces, that which we'll lose in the end. But then what? That is, how do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? The problem is, when we get to the center of our soul, beyond what there is to get beyonder from, how do we get past the religion? That is, how do we get past, you know, the internal spiral that is parallel to our being—That thing that speaks without words, that follows our soul to the darkest depths of the very very end. That thing we are trailing~as we progress further and are subsequently enveloped by our own rabbit hole of experiences and beingness? That/it, and *we (us) arent undoing eachother such that its resolving... We are our own puzzle \*pieces, deliberating/or thinking into what should be built, \*grounded in our own kit, carrying ourselves through every realm of X. What is "X"? but none other than the final painting, or the reaction after its built. From that vantage, we look back on the lego piece painting, and we notice two prominent \*marks or ideas: one that leads to this \*Mystery, the other, \*Us. We can try to connect the pieces of this liminal threshold in between, or we can visit each mark—However its about the pieces, how pieces relate to marks, how they fit. Then theres a very finite vers., that goes deeper into said relationships (piece/mark relation), where we are then detracting from the pieces themselves in order to explore this piece->mark relationship, which may (or may not be) the direction we want to go beyonder, but still, even if we did, we are not without that spiral that seeks us out. We seek *it in return and we pay no attention to (or lets say, this the case), and we are only focusing on what there is at the bottom. We are never without ourselves. There are a couple doors leading to the light of ourselves, and when we reach them, the act of walking further is precisely the same as being spit back out into existence. The liminal threshold is that which is between *us and the other end of these doors, aka *source. And when we do explore that particular relationship notice too that we are never without ourselves. Pieces are added and subtracted, never without ourselves. We can go to heaven and hell and back, and open each and every door, and no where is something or someone to rotate in someone else's experiences but our own. And whos to say we dont get hit by the eye of the sun, this ball of fire, sending us spiraling down into the most ancient of pits that belong to our soul, without any inclination of how we got there; Then and only then, we might say, it is the deepest weve ever gone, but never without ourselves. And i can take us to those places that forever extinguish every fiber that was attached, that had been sealed through the blackest of goo, or the most electrically charged particles holding everything intact, but to say that thats it—Like a clear delineation of the grounding/the beginning—To ascribe to it is to defy what is the essence of 'being', for being is able to solve its own internal legokit, and repaint the entire picture without any memoria, without having even known *the act of painting was an option. We can do incredible things when we reach the center of ourselves, though it may not seem like; I say this cause i sense theres somewhere in-earth to a fleeting fact somewhere, that there is a flying, harpy of an arch angel and/or a hella arch of an enemy hiding within us, that which we call us, and we arent aware of the deepness that lies through the cascade of a lego kit, that which never "begun". This lego kit/pit goes all the way down. To be ready is to assume you can be surprised, when alls there has ever been is surprises in the form of an experience that looks like "things that are important for the state of consciousness". Those things are consequences of consciousness though, Ousia, i frame in the form of a question, so how deep does it go, in the liminal space of what there is to explore? Let me know.

I just thought i should add that, although alot of Credit goes to the Greeks, that i (much like others i know), only use Greece as a landmark, and not as definition for "how to live" or how to be, like, they have a language that compliments English. Like, at the time of Ancient Greece, you have Jews working together with others of the middle east, who are working w/ Persians, who are working w/ Greeks, who are working w/ Romans, and the list goes on. Thats just to say, hey, everyone worked together (maybe more physical fighting together in medieval and beyond, to try to become the person to subsequently carry forth those words) however, it eventually lead to now, and building what are like, the landmarks of communication, which always is in a possible state of collapsing. Like alls we can ever do is try to A) Map it, and~whats the word for like, establishing a landmark? and/or B) Create a language around it to fill in the details of whats on the map. Or so, that is how i frame what is suppose to be like this universal framing of directions, which you can alternate in it doing/performing thereafter. Its like "the art of DOing" or something, ya know? Or its like a simple way to see things for the sake of, or something. Yous get it.

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.

I do have to clear this up, otherwise yous are gonna be so confused. Platonism is the closest to this Threshold, as both the Angelic order of Mystical Theology and the Daimons of Neoplatonism fail to enact the traveling that \*is (and would be) the space between our soul and this \*point light source. Platonism however compliments this notion, as we must leave there the dedicated space to exist and experience both of those truths, not making it out to be anything more than it is, —that is NOT to SAY that priority/hierarchy isnt important, nor are we saying that you cannot have this flowing / intermediary quality introduced w/ Neoplatonism, its simply saying that there is no notion of Angels or Daimons, Daimons or Angels and that they are only consequences of what exists between the liminal space between yourself and the \*point light source. \*Ousia (see definition online), is not greater than \*the one, and \*the one is not greater than ourselves. To say all there is is "the one" is incorrect speech. You have to include \*yourself in that equation, or you are saying everything is "one" which it is not. That might seem obvious, but to some it is not, so i try to get that obvious stuff out there first. Dedicated space is important as well, for we cannot say what we dont know to be there. Though, we can say what we have experienced, and what we think could be there (that is, differentiating a formal statement made, versus just a general experience expressed) p.s. i will add that Mystical Theology and Neoplatonism touch on interesting aspects, though they require someone to come in and figure them out, and try to frame things, from their own understanding / pov, To come in and say what they think is the best intellectual version for that—Like there is another way / another aspect that might be in there that can be added upon, if yous desire to figure it out. I just see it as being too complicated to try and work out, as its akin to a reframing of the whole thing, both this liminal threshold and Platos ideas.

Hey. Oh yes, consciousness is a weird word (infinity and eternity have fascinating aspects to them, per their applications and such) Hey, i havent a strong opinion otherwise~for making the case for any of them, or spectrum thereof. i would be frettin over something very minor in the grand scheme. Thus I just use whatevers been bubbling at the top of the pot, to put it bluntly Also consider how something like this *ousia word (that no one prolly has heard of) would take too long to get it on top of the word stack / word sandwich anyway, so more than likely itll go through phases where consensus shows they are favoring a notion of infinity~as the anterior to what follows, versus, *being* on another occasion, et caetera, assuming that thats the kind of collapsing of those terms that does ensue. In the simplest of ways, i try to just present them, without really saying what they are, but instead expressing an experience that exists around them -kindve thing~or a story/dialogue rather. *p.s. decide if yous want more of a writing that goes in a practical/plato-esque, grounded style with less (but still visible) mythish/strangeness (meaning, in the next writing/piece), or if yous would prefer—what i would consider the opposite, my own style, leaning in—what i now refer to as a Mytholological side of the spectrum, w/ multiple "lo's" in there cause its like, taking elements from the Mythologians, and presenting non myths in mythological form - kindve thing, or something like that.*

This is sortve a part I: to what is going to be this sortve like, *otherworldish traversal through this depiction of the liminal space, but in such a way to explore this relationship between the source and ourselves, and what is to be the highest of priority as far as where im going to be taking this ever-evolving reel of thread—that we keep reeling in, trying to discover what we, the thread, *is or could be...

non dualism, uni concentrisism, affixed postixedism, inner outer corigasm, plendid stellar boyishism, friendly flippidy face frownyism, smesh smosh smish smosh smesh relatie~ism, man power of the pure womanhood schism, you know, but what lies at the inner ring, if to have only described the outer, what lies in between non and dual, if to have only been in the number 2 to the power ~ is the question.

Eternal Distinctions In the same way the Greek word ἄπειρον (apeiron) existed long before Anaximander (meaning endless, boundless or without limit) the very old word "logos" had existed long before Heraclitus (which i did mention), however Heraclitus was the first to turn it into a deep cosmic principle. Aristotle relocates "logos", back to its original meaning (word, reasoning, explanation) as well as *ἄπειρον* and the "source from which all things arise and return, eternally", affixing the notion of "infinity" to *κίνησις, \*kinesis* (any change from potentiality to actuality), as opposed to infinity being laid on the \*substance itself — Aristotle was ahead of his time w/ this, though we have to introduce another term here to make it make sense: *Active* from Latin *activus* (*ago*, "to act") semantically loaned/adapted from Ancient Greek *energetikós* and that whole thing. Intuitively, we recognize "standing still" as being separate from "motion". Even in modern physics, there's the understanding that this is speaking in two separate conceptual spaces, along w/ atoms and how they vibrate; Where there are *things* that can be considered either "moving" or "at rest". Aristotle's distinction is similar: *substance* from old Latin *substo*~what a thing is, is contra to *kinesis* (its *active* change or motion). The thing we call "motion" is thus distinct from "the thing thats being moved"~or simply put, *motion* as being what "acts upon" a *substance*. Circular motion, likewise, has no beginning or end (and the time it occupies is endless). Eternal motion explains how the cosmos persists indefinitely without requiring matter itself to be infinite. However, he assumes that "motion = infinity" in a strict sense. But our modern intuition still suggests that infinity cannot be reduced solely to motion; and furthermore, it could still be a property of substance, structure, or potentiality as well, so keep that in the back of your mind (separating motion from substance is not straightforward). The bottomline is that, you can use this to go further on making distinctions (or consolidations), and trying to sort through what it is that we think reality is, as its not just mental masturbation, and I find that there are hints leading us to a place where words, ideas and truths coincide with each other, even if just for a brief moment. There are things pointing to things that may be of some benefit towards the overall recipe, and its just bout adding hints here and there, cause everyone is starting from a different place, so everyones on a separate journey.

, hey vry interesting stuff. thanks for response. im interested, if u get the courage to really rip that sht if itll get you into view/scene with the so called entities (or is that the other dmt now, i get them confused/mixed up... hey maybe an angel will pop out of that light thatd be siq) in depicting something thats got an intelligent hold on these sorts of call it.. like liquidity states... w some emotional context, that of *surprise, surprised w what they were doing... as perhaps they can teach us. Although a part of me now thinks we have to teach ourselves everything, possibly going as far as to understand dreams that dont share the same sortve *stuff that waking memories do (not that they do now) but i mean, dreams are almost like a fresh canvas, but its also what make dreams incredibly frustrating to work w/ cause they are like, every longitudinal divided ocean in a multipack of oceans—*crashing together, in a very incremental but nonetheless violent way, and having to steer a boat right in the center of it with your mindseye. But ive been workin at this very same thing every night, so its not that bad, but i need ship mates in there its so torrential. Like we need to sail out as far as we canso to speak, and do it suxh that we aremt lost forever, but that it just resolves, speaking figuratively p.s. i should said ~not made of the same stuff like how rocks and water arent the same stuff, not to mean the whole thing isnt the same underlying thing, Alas the torrential waters are navigatable. BUT We need like, "identity maps" and new ways to think bout this newly discovered zone, if we are even that close, which we might be very very far, hard to gauge. I feel confident, how bout it, put it like that.

Q: Does the realm and the subsequent beings feel like it has the potential to rearrange you? Like do the entities theres give you the impression that they are there as like a fail safe to do a full spiritual swap? As i was wondering how we are gonna be intelligently rearranged (in the end) as i feel like there needs to be an event where the dream world settles into more of this hypothetical dmt world im calling it, in order to actively and purposefully rearrange everything in an intelligent manner cause otherwise we are like falling through a dream space forever and its like, thats super no bueno. Like do yous get the impression that your entrance and body/presence within dmt space is like a filament of a material item that *belongs* there in a weird way—is what im asking—and/but because of the proclivity to want to stay on Earth and the uneasiness with being rearranged, you are shuttled back into your wakefulness? i never took dmt before so thats why i ask. I mean ppl describe the experience as if theres an intelligence in there so im tryina see like, just how intelligent are we talking? is it like a vague intelligence, or is there something poignant about it that you can feel albeit way over the experiential mountain in terms of the fear of finding out whats lies beyond.

Migliorismo What im tryina say doesnt really/strictly exist in Greek per say (atleast not the second part of this), hence the title shifting into Italian suddenly, however, i'll still be starting from the point of those perspectives in Ancient Greek (lets just call it back in the 1AD days for simplicity purposes, as it points to a time where the interaction between language, cultures, ideas, etc, etc is all very well & good) starting w/ Aristotle, and his ideas on ethics; Ethics that emphasize moderation. Virtue (moral, behaviors, stuff like that) is often the mean between two extremes: e.g., courage is between rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). Applied to attitudes, one could say there is a μεσότης (mesótes) or a fixed point between despair (pessimism) and overconfidence (excessive optimism). Stoics were also responsible for this notion of equanimity — freedom from excessive passions. This is a sortve neutral stance between the overly positive or overly negative emotional reactions to events. In the case of the Epicureans, another *intermediary* is in avoiding both fear-driven pessimism and reckless over-expectation. In simpler terms, there are usually two extremes. This leads me to my point which we'll call "migliorismo". This is the belief that the Earth (the world) can be improved through human effort. Its understood as an intermediate outlook between optimism and pessimism - in one sense - or really - we could file it under "common sense", right? I mean, its just a nice message to put out in the world - that is, if you have to put one overarching message into the world, you should be the one orchestrating that message; Because perhaps the most important message here is that, by default you are putting messages out (you can think about that in terms of yourself, OR as the whole of everyone+including you), and this is the case, even without anything explicitly stated;; That is something to get you thinking, one which i think/believe hasnt been explicitly stated/explained *before, or its one that nobody really knows of... Its nevertheless the case, with some nuance though. You transmit to everything and everyone, so you have to use your analytical mind to figure out what you want to send out, otherwise the default transmission will be out there. And considering what i mentioned in the first half of this post, it doesnt mean you have to (or would even want to) scream out whats on your mind. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, a good thing, or better yet, even the "right" thing assuming we all agree on what is "right", which we dont; And that is to say then, that you dont necessarily get the best/right option for free without saying or doing something, anything, so mine as well set yourself up by strolling on the right path, and with the right message in mind, and thats all up to yous to decide. *Woops i left something out... ill just add it here, and that is in Aristotle's terms used regarding both extremeties in his specific inquiry: ὑπερβολή (hyperbolḗ) = excess and ἔλλειψις (élleipsis) = deficiency / lack, And which is not to be confused with the geometric meanings: hyperbola or ellipse, because élleipsis is related to a falling short. They both are geometric terms accredited to Apollonius of Perga (60-70 years after Aristotle)

@WillCameron The Archetype; The Symbols or notions — It is a powerful way to do just as you said. They help you create an Archetyped map and to *see-through to something more core and more primal than the layers that may be on it, in between (or just flat out Not visible yet). That is what the Icon, logo or the symbol has always been meant to do. Its meant to encapsulate more than what we might be trying to express—And in such a way as to do it within a dedicated area, or a symbol that isnt easily dismissed. It gives you an apex, an azimuth to help in relating things to—to then—afterwards, make connections. The Archetypes you speak of have always been there in some form. Speaking to this first succubi one — That one, specifically could and will likely end up (in the coming ages) following a circular pattern -> (Speaking from a more angelic beginning) First—To begin w/... You have the equality of human beings -> then a tipping towards one end of the spectrum or the other -> then a domination brought to the table, via the men on Earth (as its not necessarily a native womanly trait) -> then a suppression of, or the outward appearance of men (iuno if youd call them men or boys) being dominated -> then it just goes back to normal once that goofyness subsides, presumably. It might take longer tlfor it to get smoothed out as its a chain reaction of different things happening. And as its really~not like a focal point or anything. Like its a consequence of consequence of a muddy center wherein nothing makes sense, and, in turn, you get these goofy things bubbling up and making it look like we are in some sortve backwards, anti men verse / paradigm. There are aspects that are true to make it so, then there are those that make it seem as though it is alot more than it really is/much more than it even ever could (like, totally *out there-stuff) and most of that i feel is self correcting, just as you had come to the conclusion to do this map in the first place, which is precisely how such issues get resolved internally (let a partial external one do as they must). That is to say then, how we must simply and ambitiously map them out, just as anything on Earth/Reality has to involve, or resolve, through either: A) A mapping out (*identifying) of the reality/experiences, and denoting the basis/initial form... To later bring in... B) A "language" — and, of which is in turn created—by making connections and/or filling in the details. The *mapping Archetype, if we might call it that for a moment, is more of like the *design/architect, or cartographer's direction, or so one might say (the Archetype of the Architect) (or the director of a sortve macro scale, and the erecting of runestones of acknowledgement within its territories, regions within *space) Then you have more of the very *detailed Archetype, the one who makes connections and fills things out... Sortve "doing the~application of directed details" (if that makes sense) adding details to those already mapped out parts produced by the cartographer. Both are involved in mapping out something, whatever that may be, but there has to be someone sighting/revealing [insert a*space] before it can have details. p.s. i dont know wat the canonical jungian archetypes are, i just have my own thing.

I like the food one, cause food is somethin women, like to do like they knock on ur door and bring upside chicken w/ rice and stuff like this from Palestine — like people can unite over food. The god or gods one i just avoid, personally, as when it gets brought up in a cross-culture scenario, im thinkin to myself "Oh jeez, they bringin up religios god stuff.. this is so fu@€#..." but so far it hasnt gone too bad yet.. Historically it probably wouldve gone bad.

Lemniskos in Ancient Greek refers to a loop (later a ribbon in mathematics and others) like a figure eight essentially. This is a term yous could use, as it touches upon this notion of — You have one thing that starts -> <- here, lets say, and then you cross over with a kindve equal but opposite motion/thing. You have a mirrored version of a thing now, as well as the original thing you started, as well as the path it took to get there. Essentially you have a cascade, which this notion of like, two causal points, or a start, and an end... Aristotle mentions circularity in this way too—That is how, its the only motion *without a rest/relax or naturael endpoint ("telos"), and no position within a circle could go on to be the undisputed "finalization". He goes to explain the cosmos using ideas like that of circular motion, but in this point hes trying to express more of the *cosmic motion, and having a starting point without termination. Thats of course leaning towards circularity in general, which is another important aspect—that which takes an different facets depending on what we're talking about (yous would have to do a whole thing on circularity, which is a separate topic). Lemniskos is a little different. Its not the same as *fractal and/or recursive functions because its more specifically emphasizing the looped path, and not necessarily the self similar aspect, though, the fact that its similar is part of it. Theres also this notion of like *similarity* in general, like. Like, in other words, you dont have to add things (at a certain point) when theyve gotten *close enough to being similar*, like, we dont usually think in these terms, but lets say, w/ anything "innovative", you may consider how you dont always need to **recreate the same things over again and again**, especially if they are similar enough. I mean its hard to express the areas where this is relevant, as it crosses into multiple places, and i dont know which its *suppose to be apart of, hence, i leave it here—for yous to decide, being from a more spiritual, mystical or creative/art standpoint, which in turn can go in any direction yous want.

ive had the most weird experiences w/ ppl dying, which could be relieving to hear since it contrasts from these like, dark hospital things (or so it is for me, as my hospital stays have been hellish), as my second hand deaths are soo unusual and funny in a weird sense of it. first my grandfather dies, out of the blue while sitting on the toilet. He was technically sortve *on his way out*, but he wasnt like, hospital-ready or anything, he just had bad lungs or somethin (i was like 5). Okay then theres my grandfather on my dads side, the week he died he had thrown a party, right outback of my house/or where i was staying—almost like him and all his work friends were on some inside joke, and me being significantly younger, wasnt gonna understand. But i went outback to the restaurant, said hi... aand.. Dead next week. My grandmom died not too long after. We had been living with her, taking care of her at her house. She hallucinated like crazy for the last 6 months prior, so like... That was a very different exp that i saw from her vs everyone else who passed. Point being, ive never seen someone die the same way twice, and it rarely involved hospitals or pain, it was just flat out weird. yous may be relieved to know for now this sortve thing—that its just weird from my second hand perspective. so thats something you could say. Everyone dies and its always weird, and no one even understands, so its like a surprise.

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

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*)

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)

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.