kavaris

What is the purpose of all of this stuff (*Bub hub ?) (ill avoid making this a whole production) i ask this initial question, in order to begin expressing the purpose, that is, the point of what we're doing, which crosses into multiple places. One of which crosses into Plato and/or Plato-esque. There is also like, "Galileo's telescope", because it is with no easy feat-that we are trying to provide a kindve ocular window into what is suppose to be like the *seeing into the past, present, future~of all~or whatever direction may be aptly directed in the moment. Its difficult, first off, to provide that level of sight and realization, but then its all difficult to run parallel to the thoughts, feeling and ideas of the person receiving the transmission. Cause first off (again first off XD) you have what is like, this ever-revolving door of possibilities, both internal and external to both individuals in the *communication. Then you have another layer to that which is like, you know, "how should i react", like "Am i playing the retreating/retracting character here? Or is a situation where im suppose to be inserting myself, my ideas, into whatever this situation is", like... We could be anyone we want online, so, it is possible to play anyone we want, wherever, whenever. Lots of times there are people just messing around, and they arent really there to communicate w/ you, but to mess with you. So i guess, watch out for that, cause thats surely gonna be a looming wigwam in the air. Then there's like, someone who believes something, truly, and they're ideas are just unflappable in the ways on the reunion of the two philosopher's interacting, like... Jus' totally *new... or totally unexpected, such that no one cannot understand or find an easy door/gate into their soul~or whatever you want to call it. But anyway, the point is like, what is the point of philosophy/or communication, and actualize thyself, or understand thyself (talking about the world, reality, experience)? Like, i had mentioned, we would get the most by treating everything as a *telescope that we could look out of (if looked out of), so thats one... Another point to philosophy - if we start to ask questions that we may have not considered, or wouldve otherwise have not considered... like... "Something that we hadnt realized you could ask"... Like theres a certain tempo, or sequence that plays into the music that is playing behind a person, and sometimes, tapping into that is actually the key to understand what they're saying. So therefore, its not always about what is being said or the surface layer expression, but having a sense for like, "does this thing being said sound like theres a riddle, or a song to it, possibly without the person having even realized it theirselves", right, because, not only is everything a reflection (and you certainly should take seriously that which you reflect onto that person's words, your own interpretation of the words said), but theres also "the history, and the riddle that is the written word" and for all we know, there could be oceans of wisdom pouring around us *had we had the same insight into them words and their history, and the history of the history (by that same token, it could be the opposite, where, had we ignored the words and their direct/past history/meaning, we could *invent what we deem as being the meaning of the words and their possible meaning). So if we take that world view, that is, *how certain perspectives can be impregnated by our observations, then we should be looking out for our own interpretation of some of them questions and answers. *note, when i say "questions and answers", that can also mean your general observations into a situation, of course. I hope thats not too confusing for yous, as its not easy to really communicate the thing on communication itself. And its quite unnatural to be doing that, but im doing it anyway. Now i surely didnt list all the purposes of philosophy, but that is sortve like, a little piece of the cake to baking more cakes, to understand philosophy. Note: In a separate thread, im currently making a *list of things that we often get conflated and tangled together (subsequently making philosophy pretty impossible to look at) so that is still happening in The Liminal Threshold thread: And that is really a kindve spiritual/mystical thing, in some sense atleast, though we do mention Episteme as being one of those things conflated together w/ everything else. So hopefully, now yous all see how hard it is (EDIT: "hard" isnt the word im looking for... think of a more positive word like hard, and thats the word im lookin4). And maybe yous see the purpose to philosophy. And now, maybe yous can get a sense of like, how it can start to make sense... for you? Atleast, in regards to the philosophies. I mean... I assume not everyone went to college for like All things, Brain things, right? like surely everyone is like on some basic level, but not like a super expert on the knowing of words and *-isms, or things like this, or whatever that stuff is. So like, some people are still learning things, and we have to be receptive to the levels of the individuals. Like some people are also very slow-to-speed, for example, I myself am very slow. So, one has to feel out what is being said~to speed with la cerchia disegnata e immaginaria (okay sorry im losin' my mind, as yous were).

This is something i want to leave for myself nd everyone else~as its good for getting yas to stretch. im posting the one with him talking about the "upside down world" we live in, and how we should be thinking in terms of doing things backwards—to counteract the upside down world. Anyway, bottomline, its these two videos that i wanted to post. He often blends into the realm of spirituality. I believe we need these new ways of thinking about our body. We need some genuine remedies for the body, and this guy drops one idea after another that many people have never heard of or tried, and life is about experiences and trying things out, so here yas go... For the spine and proper laying, For the *Upsilon down world and counteracting a life of overstressing of *forwarded muscles, p.s., he has quite a few many videos, so yous'll have to explore them all. Also your back or body my hurt or feel soar doing some of these things, as the body is not use to moving like this

@Ramasta9 Oh wow! Ha, i didnt expect anyone to know him, and you actually talked to him back in the day, thats so interesting. Thats crzy he had books, ill hav to check them out. Hey, about the futon, i wish i had a futon, i cannot tell you how many days i wake up on my back hurts, my neck hurts or my arms/ass hurt because theyve been workin overtime... Like, its no wonder we are all screwed up, as we dont yet even know how to SLEEP! And id imagine theres even more stuff like this—obvious stuff that could change our lives if we only realized... p.s. wat im thinkin of tryin first, is to lay some stiff pillows, or a stiff mat down on my bed, so that way i get the benefits of being up higher and comfortable in a bed-like situation, but with the stiffness of the surface itself. I mean wen i lay on my couch i dont have the same issues, cause somethin bout my couch has the perfect cushion-to-stiff ratio.. or it has somethin to do w/ how my ass sinks inbetween the cushion crevices, causing my upper half to sortve "hang" if that makes sense.

Let me jus finish out the rest of Iulia Kara Patakii's stuff~as far as the ones ive listened to that i feel are like part of the.. same sortve like, flow/feel.. I know im missing one, but i cant remember at this very minute (jus woke up)

Startin w/ iulia karapataki, im gettin yous into real earthy, talent and music out in the world. Now of course i picked the like, folky arabicy style folk songs, but the spectrum of music they are doin over there isnt contained to like this dark desert of sound~And its very much crossed into realms that are more recognizable to those into the strict Western scale of music singing and songwriting/composing or interpreting. Yas jus gota look for it.

Yes. Exactly!... AND i will give you one other element to boggle your mind. Plato was not the only one to mention Atlantis. You might know this, but Atlantis was being talked about like the way Athens is talked about. Diodorus Sicilus tells us, at some point, Atlantis was conquered by the Amazonians (not the Amazon of S.America) who i wanna say came in from Libya-And this tracks w/ Libya's relationship w. the area on/near the coast of Spain (historically) they have been at war for thousands of years. And so everything is there for us to be entertained by, but to realize the deeper aspect, which is how there is a truth, and underlying philosophy or theory or method waiting to be utilized for said interpretation of the truth (or else, what wouldve been the point of the myths, right?) (p.s. u sometimes have these things where its like, describing more of an event thats like~geological/climate-related or a seasonal event~or something allegorical/philosophical as suggested by Derveni Papyrus - LDAB7049, but still using characters like Zeus, or Eros, Etc., characters like this, to represent aspects of the Earth and the Cosmos) Hermes encapsulates the mean of interpretation: Greek ἑρμηνεύς, hermeneus, which means interpreter, translator, explainer; then there's hermeneutics, the theory or method of interpretation, and someone who's a "hermeneut" is someone practicing or partaking in said theory or method of interpreting. And then, theres also the meaning of "myth": There's whats called "etiological myth" (myths that specifically "give a reason for") and a "myth origin", which is a type of myth that explains the beginning on the natural aspect(s) of the world. A "creation myth" is one *type* of myth origin; As the term "myth" is specifically assoc. w/ "stories that start from the episode of a creation", therefore, a *myths* are quite different from folktales, folklore, legends and fairytales (as we dont realize) So everything you are saying absolutely is correct: "✔ The philosophy is presented thru drama" "✔ Plato realized philosophy is a kind of performance art" "✔ People miss this when they focus on the arguments in his work" "✔ It's more like a dramatist exposing a philosophical set of plays than an analyst trying to make a point"

Where did the idea Plato wrote myths even come from? (Warning: This is a long one, so bear with me) Do you know about this weird idea people have: "Oh, Plato was a mythmaker, he just wrote stories and created situations for people to play with.. he portrayed/interpreted situations the way he liked", like, in other words, Plato was out here creating Philosophy and writing myths at the same time. First of all, where did that idea even start, because Plato has never said he was a mythographer or someone who created stories (for the sake of...) The entire purpose of the Theory of Forms was to separate "knowing something" from "opinion"~or to ground the notion of "how to know something" in some framework that others could look to. But in all of this, people who are suppose to be like, understanding Plato are out here like, "Oh, you know, Plato was writing lies and mythology for people to contemplate~stories about politics and imagined scenarios, cities and situations". Really? That does not describe Plato in even the slightest way like, what are they talking about, first of all. Second of all, when has Plato ever written outside of his dialogue form, or rather, when has he ever gone outside of his usual writings or "accounts of what others have said"? Everything hes written has been as a Dialogue. Like that IS what Plato's work is, its dialogue. And that IS what Platos whole thing is, its to "get at the truth". So when it comes to Plato, he is literally creating "Philosophy" as a counter to the "Sophists" of the time, hence "Philo-sophy", because the Sophists of the time did not care about truth. The point im trying to make here is that, Plato is not out here writing myths. Plato specifically is trying to portray his work in a dialogue format, and writing about it in a way where he can participate outside of "his own opinion", while more directly and forwardly emphasizing "direct accounts of", so that he can tell the tales as they happened, or he can say "what a person had said" or "how the argument went". THATS the whole point of the dialogue format. That is what the purpose of dialogue IS! It is so that the writer does not have to rely on their own judgements or their own words. That isnt to say then that Plato doesnt have "constructed forms" of his own interpreted thoughtforms, philosophies or dialogues, for he requires an outlet for the Story/Myth of Er from Plato's Republic, about the afterlife and judgment, Phaedrus, which is on the structure of the soul, and then there's Atlantis, i.e., Plato's Timaeus / Critias. But in regards to the notion of the story itself and the "political" connotation they often assoc. it w/, Plato has separate works dedicated to stuff like that, for the dialogue between Timaeus and Critias is more about like, philosophical authority and mathematics and the cosmos, et caetera I mean, when we refer to some of Plato's constructed dialogues like the Myth of Er, we are calling it a myth, but myths and fictional stories are two different things. So that has to be the FIRST and foremost thing to understand, like. We cannot look at or interpret any other Greek text until we separate myth from fiction first and foremost. Outside of Plato, there are others who speak in a more poetic and flowing style that uses myths for descriptive language reasons, but in PLato's texts, he is simply reporting on the language~the style that others had~or wouldve spoken in at the time. Its not pure construction, not at all, and certainly not in Timaeus and Critias. But again, thats not to say that he doesnt construct things into a form for his reasoning. But he has separate works for everything, thats all im saying, and thats all yous have to know right now. The other main point was that myth does not equal fiction, nor does it equal a tale meant to introduce "imagined cities" or anything like that. In fact, "imagination" was seldom ever expressed in Ancient Greek texts. You mostly hear about things in story form, even outside of Plato and his dialogues. So if you consider "stories" to be works of imagination, even when they are of non-fiction, then thats fine. But then you have to figure out how to refer to things thereafter, cause it will be very confusing if everything is "a work of imagination" (such is the field of Philosophy~which is meant to help in discretizing some of these very knotted-up concepts and terms) So lets continue. But before i describe that repetitive text in Timaeus and Critias, i want to explain Platos use of the following terms. This is what allows him to create distinctions throughout all of his writing, allowing the reader to be cognizant of what mode we're in so to speak. He is consistently distinguishing between: ἐπιστήμη, episteme, "knowledge", δόξα, doxa, "opinion" and μῦθος, mythos. And if you have read other works outside of Plato, there are many poets, many comedy/play writers, many involved in rhetoric/grammar as well as early alchemists using myth for personification and such. Many of them do include myths as a form of descriptive language~the same way we use similes and idioms for things, they instead would use mythology to help elaborate on ideas around a character, like to \*compare and contrast something. I could give you an example: Many writers of Ancient Greek are writing~centuries later~on the eye-witness accounts of those events on Alexander the Great and the situations surrounding him, and they might say something like~and im paraphrasing~"he exuded the idealized traits of Achilles" or something to that general effect. Thats the kind of comparison they would make for someone like him. So let me just say, first of all, Critias is the only who has a connection to politics, mainly as a member of the aristocratic Athenian family, Ἀλκμαιωνίδαι or Alcmaeonidae, but hes not talking politics in the story. In the story, Critias is the one explaining to Timaeus~a Pythagorean philosopher from Locri, Italy, about the stuff that Timaeus is interested in, cosmos and the universe, like sortve like what we use Actualized dot.org for, things of this nature. And then he starts to lead into this thing (which im not gonna repeat, as yous now know it by heart), but i am gonna read to yous the part leading into it: Priest says - "You Athenians are like children; your history is short, and you do not know the great events that happened long before you. Even we Egyptians, with all our records, do not fully remember our own past." ~"Solon, having heard this from the priests, recounted it to his family. I, Critias, received the story in turn and will now tell it to you " — Where "tell it to you" means, Critias is now speaking to the other characters present, primarily Timaeus and Socrates, because Socrates presumably popped in the background like "Hey guys, i wanna be part of the story too, let me in the group circle!" And, that is me being silly. Humor exits the stage. \*Bub Hub!\* Anyway, what was my point again? Plato knows how, like.. There's plenty of others who are speaking in this way (i call it a "mytholological" way, w/ two "lo's" in there to encode the secondary characteristic "of the mythologians"), so now... When we hear people talk about Plato, they want to try and conflate this notion of "fact v. fiction" with "descriptive language" or "the descriptive use of MYTH by the Ancient Greeks". People dont understand, that like, most of the time, the Ancient Greeks are speaking very plainly and rhetorically, and laying everything out as clearly as possible. There are some fascinating aspects to those Ancient Greeks and the way they are preserving/presenting myths. For one, Greek myth worked like a memory system. Myths encode (and continue to encode) place names like Γάδειρα, Gades, and they are akin to echoes of events, like an invasion or collapse of a civilization, or thee subsequent migrations/displacements thereafter. They encode all types of knowledge transfer from older cultures (Egypt, Near East). In conclusion, Greeks like Plato realize dhow important Philosophy was, and how it would help us communicate these difficult-to-phrase concepts. The same is true about the myths, as they used myths as stories~representing various things at once. ALSO, they could use them for compare/contrast, descriptive language, things like this. So I just was trying to get yous to really understand that the myths have more to them then what meets the eye. The GREEKS themselves have more to them then what meets the eye; but until people start to really/truly understand Plato, they wont really see Plato and Ancient Greek in the right light; For Plato influenced how many areas of study? And now finally, we'll start towards those Ancient Greek texts (eventually, as it requires "time") and learning of others outside of Plato (theres SO many writers, i promise you), to demonstrate just how Greek myth works, both as a form of encoded history and as a tool for writing.

The Classical Gorge~of music, rhythm & dactyl~or metric units This is how you might emphasize rhythm in the terms of the classics (Aristoxenus being one of the main authorities on rhythm), and i believe they take this same idea and apply it in classical Latin. Alas, alls it means is that your ratio (that is, the "ratio of a *base unit"~or the *shortest time value) is describing the initial rhythm/timing, in order to conform to the dotted notes in there. So instead of how we describe music in the modern era where we specify the "type of note" within the rhythm, they would say something like~like if we are supposing this is a rhythm made of one "long", followed by two "dactyl-like" sequences: Long (—) Dactyl (— ∪ ∪) (which approximates the dotted note feel) W/ the following ratio set before hand: 2 : 3 : 3 (if/when short = 1 unit, long = 2 units, dotted = 3 units) The ratio math on that would be like this, Base unit = ∪ = 2 ticks Long = 4 ticks (twice short) Dotted = 3 ticks (1.5 × base unit → 3/2 × 2 = 3) Beat Sound Greek notat. Explanation 1 "Bum" — Strong long (floor hit) 2 "KA" — ∪ Dotted: 1.5 units 3 "Keh" — ∪ Dotted: 1.5 units 4 silent ∪ (opt.) Fills out measure I thought yous might want that, because its like the basis behind all music and how to think about it from the classical/mathematical perspective, and it underlays all of the musical aspects, once they start being added to the picture.

Another more folky one, which btw, if yous are curious, that beat/dance rhythm is called Habanera rhythm in Spanish music. Im still looking for what the Greek equivalent would be, nd ill add to this wen ifind. theres something called asápiko ~ w/ an [h] aspiration before the first /a/, but i dont know what exactly that is, like, im not well versed in these folk/dance tribu, and what the connection is between the rhythmic aspects and the dance/folk element, and i say that cause ive seen so many different dances in Greek and Italian region, and i dont wana pretend like i know whats going on there.

Oh oh. This gets our minds twisted up into a knot like lemniskos like, its a puzzle for the mind, right? For there was something else i was tryin to express, which was "how simple" we believe things are, as a result of seeing things *simply*, like... Starting from this first.. Think of "mindfulness". It assumes that there werent already "mindful" qualities within; spirituality assumes we werent already spritual/or more spiritual, and philosophy assumes we hadnt established some seed of philosophy without explicitly mentioning it as a philosophy. You can continue that with everything else. or ill ask the ques., "What else can just *be*, without there requiring a thing to fill it in with the paint bucket tool? What else are we creating, and, is it adding to that which already *is*? Can there even be a *thing* without there being *mistakes that were made* in the process leading up to?... Like, its very complicated when you are looking at it like that, since everything would often, more than likely, require *mistakes made* in the process leading up to, like, its not so *simple* when you really dig into it is all. Thats usually followed then by "its not that hard", like, but that lasts for like 5 seconds until you realize thats b.s., as its exceedingly complicated once you start asking questions, which is all you can ever do right? To be sitting silent is to ask the question of, whether or not a truck isnt driving through your wall, like... We dont just sit in quiet, we actively engage the stuff of mind

@Joshe "Seek n ya shall find" i have a very different interpretation of this. nevertheless, i really like where that quote starts from, though i want to frame some of these things from a different perspective, to show you what i would be seeing. You mentioned somethin along the lines of "Ask the community what spirituality is for and they'll say equanimity, peace, love, presence. Interesting how these just so happen to be things they desperately want. People rig the game so that..." You know, theres another way to phrase whats been said here, and thats how "People only search in those areas that have the most street lights illuminating it", that is, if they lose their keys in the dark, or theyre searching for an answer whilst in the dark—Its sortve like saying "Hey, Look. People only look in the daytime for things that have been lost at night", right? Its like... Of course people are searching from the vantages where they can see, right? Thats precisely where you can see the best at night! duh?! Do you get it? One cannot simply START by searching in a maximally efficient area, through edges of personality and perception with extreme clarity, like, that comes w/ a lot of time and effort. Ppl simply *look* in the places theyre most likely to find, they *act* from the places they are most likely to *feel*. Leo mentioned somethin in another thread~about God's dilemma or something along these lines, and that applies to this. That is, you have things you would *like to create in the center (the idealized vers., of something) but that pre-supposes that theres an "outside" to this. It subsumes everything else in order to bring into existence that which is an *idealized* centerfold. That is to say, the reason it is so difficult to understand "why people are searching for answers in their own idealized realities" is because, think about it, how can you be sure that you are not "just starting" in the center of the center? In other words, How can they know they havent just lost their keys in an area that exceeds the area of where you lost them initially? But its not about "how much space is around you", thats not what im saying, its about "how does that space you are in—*contrast* with the space outside of you, via the assumption that there was a space~to begin. That gets into a deep philosophical lineage of ques., that youd find yourself in if youd carry the inner torch of the mind forward, because all questions would be doing this. They would be presupposing that there is a *good reason* for anything—for why there exists outside of them some more idealized version of their *own* idealized version of reality. So to put it in a way, people who are just starting out, or who have questions to answers in the dark, they dont know any better, and when you *look*, you *act*, and that *acting* looks like things like this. It looks like this *idealized vers.* of a reality that *isnt there yet. It presupposes no outside, it subsumes the situation w/ their own mind, by virtue of assuming that "this is the center of where the keys are at... And that other stuff is NOT!.. So therefore, THAT is ideal, and THAT is NOT", "THAT" being the implicit pointing of saying to theirselves "Yes, to that", or "No, to that". And just to circle back to the beginning "Seek nd ye shall find", that is a reference to the "Seeking in the first place". Ya know? Its an initialized, idealized route that you take from the perspective of seeking. That is all. Theres no secret sauce beyond "getting started in the MOST likely of areas or situations, to find those answers or ques., where they are most likely to *fall out of the sky* from, which is followed by a many~a~dilemma thereafter, a cascade if you will.

Jeez—i accidentally made 3-4 directions for myself, but, for the sake of communicating w/ yous. Okay so how do we get yous to be the dice roll on that, so to speak? Like, iuno lets just let it all exist in an abstract form til i see one, shining, overarching illumination that tells me for sure which one to bump and bring to the surface~And to make better. Also, i need to leave this here, as it sounds strange, but i forget these things weve stumbled on, and i will forget what it was, while i am consumed by some other thing. So im leavin a Greek thing here, told in Ancient Greek, because it didnt matter abou it being in English, which was part of this bulletinpoint~Like its more about like, looking at the reflection of stars on the surface of the pond, so i can remember a thing about the stars. (Returning to tlt) Let me leave this here too, as i will likely be thinking about these two prominent roads some more here, Two Roads of Exploration | Ousia / Liminal Threshold Path Anchored in Plato: forms, thresholds of experience and light. Sets a fixed metaphysical framework for consciousness, life, and spiritual principles. Purposefully vague, leaving dedicated space for everything to occur in the threshold of exp. | Progressive Cosmology Path More dynamic, Aristotelian-w/ like an otherworldly form or influence, expanding beyond strict Platonic thresholds. Opens the door to hybrid, layered, or emergent structures of reality, potentially integrating Panpsychism, Vitalism, Hylozoism in creative ways.

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.

Ha. Hey thx, and yes, vry true. Oh, nd i jus listened to something/experienced something highly unusual, but beautiful. I fell asleep listenin to Whatever the fk this video was from like 9 years ago (it started AFTER i was asleep, so you might say, we were on the same very alien path of myth and mystery), And omg did this take me to the strangest of Prometheus spacecrafts over-an-ever-changing-painting-of-scenes Dreams. Like, this is a gr8 example of something, which on the surface doesnt follow the *ideal like, emphatic typeve description or like the ideal collection of clauses (XD) but Woh, i cannot believe where i went. And alls i did was very slightly open up to ostensibly somethin that wouldve made no sense to me since, but it actually in the long run has made more sense to me now (outside of ancient greece, that part wasnt featured in my dream since it took *new form), and im not quite sure if it would *fit in that thing i wrote. Like i sortve put myself to shame by way of experiencing this like, Little Mermaid of Disney Scenescape -typeve things, over this like mythic seashore horizon?

Just so i dont forget, i want to add those very primal things that we all get mixed up or conflated~Which i did mention before~in another thread, but i didnt really think we would need or want to remember them. This isnt to say that they arent meant to collapse down, but for the sake of trying to do philosophy, one has to untangle the thing before one can tangle it back up, which is necessary for living as a normal thinking human. But anyway. They are, 1. "How to talk about truth" (like "im confused how do i even begin," -typve thing), then theres, 2. "How to experience truth" (not only does this part of it require your exp., another part of it requires "not throwing out twenty questions simultaneously—expecting to receive 20 answers", therefore, your *tempo* matters, as well as the sequence you follow (atleast, in the context of *quality communication); It would lend itself to the quality of truth you're deriving out of said questions—And not simply "Hi. Answer all twenty of my fucking questions plz" 3. "Where we're goin, or the assumption of where its going...", 4. "The level of determination or dedication towards said endeavor~of pursuing said truth", or like the ratio of caring to not, like a balanced lifestyle in other words (⚠️i feel compelled to leave an exclamation mark after this one, since its one of those things that crosses into other understandings, where its not just about lifestyle) (insert for dedicated space) 5. Understanding thyself - this can enact a few different directions, one of which was this liminal threshold thing ive presented in the form of a myth/prose thing, but can be held *in mind* as *Ousia ⇌ (Xp) ⇌ *Light (iuno if im satisfied. Because the thing is like, i really want to emphasize the self in a way that gets beyonder the idea of like "Because it started as the self, that means it also must be followed by the self...". Like i dont feel like thats what this is doing, but its a consequence of the philosophy itself, like, the argument hasnt gone past the fact that there are "things beyonder the self" in a sense; which is another reason why i felt compelled to lay everything out plainly. Its really about the "laying out of plainly read things" (this wouldve been a great time for us to all speak Italian or Greek to communicate something like what this last sentence was trying to say). 6. Understanding beyond thyself~possibly beyond the ego into death and these realms that do not correspond to this present existence, or not in any obvious manner (related to the third one, but its a little different) 7. Understanding things as concepts, or perspectives that alter the foundations (new perceptions on the universe and reality) 8. Gnostic-forward methods, that which make it more about "attaining the light" first and foremost/directly (thats me putting it in my own words, but you can tell me if youd prefer it to be less extreme, or if we should break it out into two Gnostic positions) 9. Episteme in general, and the more practical philosophies as a whole~as a spectrum of, which crosses into logic, mathematics, and things of this nature. 10. I wasnt sure if "thinking in terms of differences" is its own thing, or like if theres a such thing as "thinking of a way to not think in differences", like, thats getting into an abstract thing that ive personally never heard of—Alas i think *differences* is its own category, simply because "not differences" isnt a thing yet (i also feel like, differences and circular thinking could just be brought together, like why not, i dont see them needing to be separated for any reason). 11. Starting from chaos (starting from an unexpected position, for that matter). We often conflate other things together as well, like conflating "silence" with "a quiet mind", even though we engage with reality all the time, effectively entering into an "engagement" with everything, thought its not strictly a "senso dell'udito"... This also raises a good question about the whole idea of what this is, which is this thing like, instead of making it about "things we conflate", the conflation can be the consequence, and we can move something else to the posterior instead: Like we could just call this "Points of [X]", for example, and then we are effectively choosing the title via participation into the thread/posts.

@Breakingthewall Theres like this element that you are stumbling i believe, though, its one of those things where its like, by reading between the lines, you subsequently found several interesting things here and there (that were otherwise implicit), which also includes revolving the kaleidoscope to include my, Leo and Platos (and your own) words, at this moment in exp., somewhere within that little nook of creation, theres something in there thats really cool, or its like, this thing, like a "set in stone" thing. And *It doesnt mean/require changing anything. Its one of those things thats just like, "I realized what the sequence was... That existed between the lines... And THEN... It was cool", right? Like one of those things. Like... It moves circular, so thats why its always weird to define exactly what we're looking at/talking about, in the moment.

@Breakingthewall Yes. And i can see where you are coming from now. Im gonna think about this, cause ive been sayin, i dont wnna respond as like... \*reflections of the response within the response, typve thing (not that i ever did that before, but i digress), instead i want to think into your words, and let it take shapes, forms or figures that i can sense, see, hear, feel, taste and touch~so to speak~so that i can figure out which direction has the "best flavor"? or something like that.. or, which road has the most trees/growth (or somethin like that) such that we can reach this like, Narnia garden (or reach "that which was always there" in waysaway that feel new)

Then, theres more of the Aristotle direction w/ some of these things, some perspectives~as i feel like ~ i have to mention it now, or anytime its gone to Plato, and that sometimes finds itself, its ideas going down a wholly unique road. Anyway. Thats all for the moment.

Yes. All true. I hear ya. I like that Gateless Gate term too, thats cool. I never heard that one before.

So i was listening to someone talk about the Greek play the Baccae, giving this long explanation, or a general outline, more or less starting from the outside, working towards the inside, towards the summary itself, or those parts that shared a significant points of relation to his explanation. Anyway he said something that caught my attention. I believe he was talking about Aeneas, who doesnt exude his typical/traditional warrior/hero archetype, and he goes on to extract the virtue from this situation of the story~related to this virtuous or parable-esque line, "... while those who believe after seeing are to be blessed, how much more blessed are those who believe without seeing", and his first conclusion on said virtue of this whole scenario around the baccae and its distilled message being, "Anytime someone recognizes a potentially devine power, dont test it, have the good sense to worship" —And that caught my attention, like, in my "quintessentially strange opinion" way, which is that... The Baccae's message~atleast in that sense~IS right, it rather reveals something: "testing and examination" are a second order to "experiencing and worshipping", if you consider that our experience is really more akin to "that which exists within the fishbowl of the mind, that we only later make as these distinct copies, and call some of those physical matter", and its only in a world of pure analysis that we see it any other way (now n days) but back then it wouldve been a conflicting way of life, to make deep inquiry into the nature of, e.g. a psychedelic exp., or even just a normal exp that seemed to defy the logical trend, to "create the religion" and which we all do anyway—by making worship of our own routine, or our own experience/ideas, hence its primary order by Default! versus the second order~less emphatic notion of creating analysis out of what can be discretized—which is in contrast now to the more wholistic, continuity of belief, experience and the automatically applied religion we set upon all things, though veiled as "logical observations". In short, now and days we obfuscate the religious part w/ things that look like "logical observations made" or "grounded logical ways of life", but they are veilings over this deeper notion of our "belief in whatever we call the *religious exp. w/ life*, which is initially absent of logic, or even belief for that matter, nevertheless they all collapse into a conflation—w/ the more & more vines of logic that wrap around. Is there healthy dose of logic required? surely but its second order. We have things we take for religion first, primary to all, then, only then, we call them things either a "filament on the logical side" or a "filament on the side of belief" even though its already a belief~such as the belief that the imperfect copies of that in our experience, that which is non material, that it will continue to be "a wooden chair" or "a bird" or some other imperfect copy or form that we have already a deep religion for. So thats the other end of the forms, the Infinite/eternal and the *Perfect forms of Plato~if going "to Plato" as ill so descriptively refer to it now.

Hey! Yes, i suppose you are right. Infinity and eternity have always seemed so impossible to apply to things, but i never really aw it as Plato saw it, and this idea of like an unchanging thing, plus a perfect thing, and the extisting outside time thing like, at first sight i was like, "okay where is this going", but hes the only ine whos like, started from a point that seemed like it was gonna be so strange, and made it like, very very earthly and ground, for us! So now, i can see where things are coming from when that term is being used; granted im reinterpreting it... Like the following is an example of something i been meaning to write, to add to this *tough, rigid surface of ideas, though because its a bit long i may have to break it out into a separate message, cause its both long and running off topic from infinity, sortve diving head first into this deep end of things that is like drownding if you werent ready to swim that day, so 1 sec... Its sortve obvious too, so i dont think im saying anything new, its just a recapitulization on the same sortve things, 1 sec...

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.

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.