kavaris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that a question? wat is that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@53:00 "Does he do what he wills if he does what is evil?... ... Why do you not answer?" Thats the best part, lol. Like the personality of the two characters, its always very funny to me in a way, informative but still funny. Theres another one thats like this motif where they go back n forth that im tryina find, As ive heard these many times, but i think it was possibly this one, or maybe O Meno, or one if these that had this good back n forth part. Ive gone through half of these dialogues way back, and then the other half was at another time, and im tryina refresh my memory on which was which / As theres alot of good parts you have to look for; very memorable parts.

Its really intuitive in the context of everything. But, where its Not intuitive is in the reiteration... Like the only thing stopping everyone is their own limit on the reiteration towards (in this case that im attempting to point/explain, already going against myself... but why not. Lets have some fun). You can intuit it, and you can run it through your mind; I think that religion is sortve the "explanation" for the intuited, As monastery Monk/priest types think that theres something that you can covet and "look for"? You can technically look for it, but you dont look for something \*new, but rather, you look for something you've taken for granted; Like you are looking for the thing that comes prior to critical thought and structure, in order to then go about said structuring (As the kind of structure thereafter isnt the same thing anymore) I mean, again, its the "reiteration of", not the reexplaining of... So you dont need more than 1 element in said reiteration. Of course, all of that is itself "that which is taken for granted", so you have to take it w/ the benefit of the doubt that you're gonna be "in the process of taking it all for granted", and to reiterate is to unrraval all of it, or the attempt to, cause its not easy... i mean, whether or not its easy isnt how i think about it anyway. I dont normally put that much thought into it.

I realized today, when it comes to the most basic, the most poignant idea, the basic non dual idea, whatever you want to call it, the farthest im willing to go is a very insufficient sounding explanation, one that is to easily be taken for granted as we are often locked into that default, middle path. Theres no way around it, granted in retrospect you can see ("Ah, right, not only are we in the paradox of unexplaining, but i could have made this long shpeel... to point at it", and yet it still wouldve been carrying paradoxes from the perspective of anyone who isnt like a "im a sevant, i already can get it". Like to get it is to be pushed off the ledge, as opposed to lulled into something "that feels like it makes sense"... thats how you know you are slightly off, cause it has to have a shining, shimmering paradox, a hole inside of it that you are then settling on (as far as communication w others) For your own self, its not that way of course. Anyway, that is the dilemma. Likely many of yous will get that i presume. i like to imagine everyone gets it cause why not... like its easy with less words, as words are pointing to so many places... or wait... its like, words are "explaining". Thats what i meant. Whereas, im tryina just be literal. Whereby we arent wasting our time. Like...