kavaris

What is love? (but w/ a twist in the bramble sticks... probably... depending on where yous take it...) This is just a pivot to something else i think about, And that is this notion of love, But closer towards (or as we will investigate) towards an absolute madness, wherein we will try to point to things, that although they may be apart of a spectrum thats out of our range, they nevertheless describe that familiarity we have w/ the many forms of shared passion, or shared compassion and platonic love, or friendship/family love, etc., Thats not the only thing its about. im really tryina broaden us towards something, but i think Josephs videos have a way of getting betwern the cracks, this interesting perspective that neither i, nor Leo, can often capture — in the same way much like many of yous — everyone has equally valid perspectives that not-all-one-person can be fortunate enough to have gathered, at that time, individually ~if that makes sense. NTS: (And everyone else) What is Existence/Death, Reign, Dream, Mind? Whats THAT whole spectrum about, and where does -love- fit into the pic Something to think bout.

(Cont.) Also, when you are just startin' out, people dont realize / appreciate just how fundamental philosophy was, As its not like just an embarrassing spiritual pursuit of concepts and ideas, it laid the groundwork for much of western thought, religion, language, etc., And all of our categories, science, math, that began from a place that was once religious-spiritual magick - sortve early Egyptian and tribal minds, passing down information, that we today just think is "spiritual", not seeing how it shaped our whole world of concepts and sounds. Like we are the world that took a more magical thing, and made it practical (it has a spectrum of inbetween layers)

I say "Philosophy", if to describe that whole area... Occassionally i will underline spirituality, but i use the word spiritual more functionally as opposed to something like, "the category of endeavors related to", Like its something that, to me, has always stemmed in early Philosophy, but it got changed later to being called spirituality / And thats fine. P.s. The flavor of philosophy (spirituality) also changed, going from magical, to more Aristotelian, to the medieval vers., to Christian church period, etc., different versions came to be

Continuing now... E.g. the solution to a chaotic mind, according to kenji or menji watever his name is, is like this "Ambiance"? Someone used this word recently, and i dont know where, but i remember thinkin, that word is interesting, Like, Yeah.... YEAH, Why is it Ambiance that we think is like, the key to chaos, like its a mode, a style maybe, but not a key... Its a way to be, to feel, but its not a key to open any doors, i mean, maybe it is to some people, And they can appreciate it, that much. But like, what? Im listening to the video, so if he does say something that sticks out, ill be honest and say "woops, i was wrong, and i feel bad" sortve thing. p.s. i got to @54:00, im done w/ that. We're on some different shyt on actualized, or atleast i am, read the first post here. kenji can stick it up his arse, as im not talkin bout complacency with anything at all, And if anything, im talking about the inner fire where complacency or urgency, etc , is made possible. thank you menji, goodbye.

Maybe yous can help me figure this one out, cause i think, at the heart of what there is to contend w/ eventually, is something thats free of everything, but its free in such a way that its chaotic, hence we are trying to take an organized thing, and start to introduce some landmark of an understanding towards chaos ... The only little nuance here, being that we are coming from these organized lives, its sortve to take it for granted, as if one can truly understand it, but its like, its this idea that we can only hope to cope w/ i guess, i mean, to even speak of it is illusive, but we must try and understand it, As its getting to the bottom level of existence, prior to layers and layers of having existed, or atleast, thats as much as i could even say to that. I was more so thinking of it like, how to talk around it, Cause i hate to say this, but must people just assume theyve had some understanding of whats going this whole time, but the whole point is that theres like, a defeated sense to what it would be like to contend with whatever this chaos is (for now its just a feeling i feel is needed), to really accept however, and "what it is", that can be a catalyst towards understanding the self in a new way (and reality, as its created). I dont actually know like, how (at this moment) , like, how we are to talk around it, but theres gotta be a way to feel it out, i mean, Are we here to spruce it up, like primp ourselves up? or are we here to challenge each other? The video was just the first thing that came up w/ keyword "chaos".

Iuno if yous are like this (this is a stretch to ask) but... i get tired of games, if there isnt like ... something to contrast it, like .... iuno... nevermind, i mean, its more from the perspective of the person playing, but if i feel like im only playing one, single game i feel like the contrast isnt there to challenge that game, and then i find myself sortve like, baffled, But again, Its a stretch to begin w/ I just live in that constantly evolving world or something.

And last thing ill say / just to zoom out, As the main proponent of why i make mention such a topic coming from this riddle land, is that -Ive played many games, in the past, And they are all just like, stunningly different, but very much equal in their voice towards the larger picture of art/games. And somewhere in all of that there could be a million games for someone to think on, And i know, the next gen., theyre gonna be very easily amused w/ whatever, but someones gotta tell them, "This is Spiderman. We had Spiderman in 1950, like thats an old game" Hahaha

Like i dont really go for tetris, is wat im tryina get at, as i think of riddles AS part of the story ~ And then the mechanics are like, i mean.... its a reliefs to have mechanical character things to do, cause it then gives you alot of breathing room.

I think of puzzles as, i guess, part of that geometric-quandary spectrum, leaning towards those ideas, moving the little blocks around, or shifting things one notch to the left, like a puzzle that is shorter term quandary — Versus riddles i feel are a longer term, sometimes passive question that doesnt always have an immediate consequence, its more like, something odd and bewlidering, But... .... when i think of inserting riddles into a game, then they start playing into the story at that point, otherwise its like, we are stressing something different that isnt the riddler's question. I mean, i wouldnt make a game of nothing but riddles, but generally, in a game where we stress riddles, theyd have to function in ways that challenge that sortve constant *choo-choo* ride, but the riddles ALSO have to have within, some sortve rhythm to follow along to, orherwise its leaning too abstract... It also cant be a puzzle that becomes the constant, Cause i dont like puzzles (8f thats wats meant by puzzles, to yous too)

I like riddles, but its not really a thing that many games are tryina stress, As it starts competing w/ that \*rhythmic element, that "constant", but if there was ever a way to remove the puzzle, and insert the riddle back in, id go for something like that, i just dont even know what that is, right now, outside of normal rpg kinds of "solve the things".

Or you know wats funny? The youngest generations, they dont even care or realize... So like, if they accidentally make E.T. Phone Home, the Sequel, theyll be like "We just like it", Like they wont even care what happened in the past, like Roblox i believe is wat reminds me of it, cause wat the heck is roblox? i thought it was a virus. Its like, An example of something that already existed, but a generation just said, "We just like it now".

Now granted, i dont know how many xtimes you can strip away things, before it starts turning into like, older sortve, E.T. or tetris, and things like this, Like weve already done many simple games, in our past... And i guess, its not obvious as to how much room is left in that category of like, simple, simple — meaning, in the like Baaaare - baare basic - basics, Like theres certainly lots of little mini games you could think of (im thinking of puzzle pirates typeve thing) but that is like, an anomoly, cause its iterating over an idea, and each puzzle is inside of a larger idea, So thats something different. I just mean more like, 'how many games can be as simple as possible, And really get big for being As simple as possible... Ideas are sortve like, in my head, they start out in a sega dreamcast, like they are unique cause they are tryina play with data, and think of data as a way to move things around... You could also think of like, just a totally open world game -context, and make it like, An engine that is itself fascinating too, Like firget the content and just make it am engine, and that is then the interesting part,showing off the possibilities, how theres 2d metadata attached to 3d, how each thing is like, a symbol that can become anything you want, Like thats where many games left off at, in rpg lands

(See my previous message) Its sortve why that really dumb Vampire game got so big, the one with nothing but like, mouse movement, or keyboard arrows or watever it is, vampire survivor, cause they just stripped away all the bs, and just said to theirselves "wats the most essential pieces here — rhythm, and — insert-whatever-else', like they just got down to the bare bottom of that rhythmic thing im talkin bout, and made something somewhat different.

Oh heres somethin i noticed in certain mediums, games... for anything rather.... And granted, its edging towards a technical way to view games... And everything else... But i think it matters, to me atleast, in the right way to think bout the base line of like... "What drives you" And thats how everything has a rhythm, a heart beat to it — Not necessarily in the soundtrack, cause, obviously there are times where its just sound effect / or nothing, And then there are times where its like, a single sustained chord... however. , the content it self has a rhythmic pulse, like if it wasnt for the visuals performing that *gathered rhythm*, there would be no sense to it, like it would be that "single sustained chord" i mentioned, which doesnt have a pulse you can follow, And... maybe its just me... I just seem to be noticing that the visuals, atleast in the most playable games, it takes the place of the rhythm, the beat, and keeps the game like ... Iuno how to explain it... because its borderline musical, mystical, its like, how to write a song in a visual way, with repetitious elements you can follow

Thats knda interstin. Ive not really thought about it as two categories like that, which youd think would be onvious, i guess thats a new one, that id have to think bout myself (i havent played games recently, but i think in a way that is gamish and still has relevance, for me, i believe)

Let me just sorta point out, im also the wrong person to have any opinion, cause i technically am not in pursuit of any one idea, so all of my opinions are in areas that are like, borderline dream behavior and things that are like "The character lives inside himself, meeting versions of himself, and solves riddles in like, materialized forms of...", You know .. weird things... probably

Oh. is that way yous were talkin bout. im just joining the thread, So all i know is Zelda was involved; Alas, are you making the game? Like making-making a game?

Yall want us to make the next hype game? Is that wat its coming to? Jk. Im joking somewhat, as i simply dont have the patience, right now. But if it involves just me doing the windowing and text, and yous do the rest (which even that is still too much work to continue from) its like, i dont know if i have the patience, even being paid, as its not bout money for me. I just have to have like, not chaos around me, And then ill move mountains.

If anything, it draws attention to cycles. Like Bicycles, the company (n/m) The point is, that there are these cycles that give rise to anything. But its not like we can say much on it anyway, like theres not one universal way to speak of it, but it gets yas thinking, those whove been here already, cause yous prolly understand it. Anyone new here wont even know what it means anyway. We can assume that, we all have long winded contemplation journals describing such things.

^n/m. ignore that. Thats an unsolvable pretzel. Ignore that.

I mean this is part of the problem i always have, which is like, these cycles, some are meant to be, and then, some are troublesome (...like... just in a pragmatic sense of the word) and other times, i just dont even get it. And thats the pretzel of frustration. Trying to understand it in both directions, or something... i dont even know, its a pretzel.

We can name the thing, we can experience it, unravel it, but can we understand it as the unravelling is recycling itself (and can we do it without directly viewing the content, since thats what is causing the endless cycle of content)

I agree... if only to say, "things" in the material world, are very difficult to pin down, however, even going back one more notch to talk about what the material world is, i still dont know what it is, ever. Which gives rise to all of these possibilities, and ways to define / describe experience and reality. In some sense, i have a better idea of what it feels like, than i do an idea of what it is, when its just a purely physical sandbox, i mean, i dont rven know what a physical sandbox could be, its just something to use as a landmark for now. Good one. I would say.... Probably nothing. Nothing is consciousness. But i would say, in the sympathetic circle, where nothing is becoming the new God, i would reshuffle it to say, "Being", is just existing, and things just spring up willy nilly, granted no thing is alwaysthis looming possibility, but its alongside separation -sortve in anabsolute realm that, isnt even really something that can be explored in a day, its the obvious foundation, for a world that will, and is,always existing, so long as its like, being conscious in this moment, i mean... At some point weve reached as much as we can on that front, As i see another subject matter on the horizon, speaking to this weird, neverending cycle -thing.

(cont.) im just waking from a quik nap, but thats like, the foundation for everything. And depending how you want to define the things in experience, those things may also be treated as no things, but its in a totally new context, cause we would be talking about "what causes something to go from idea to physical thing", whereby, theres a spectrum of things we could say, tech., they dont exist, but they CAN exist, and in some way they even DO exist, and will exist in the future. Hence it being a spectrum of existence, in that way (thats a diff question of course, cause before, we were simply asking, "is it all real, and by that same token, what does realness mean... or in my opinion, what does it mean to "imagine" so much that it feels real, is a, possibly, better question, possibly)

A Jehovahs witness came to my door today, And he said something that got me thinkin, it was something bout like, letting others do... something, or something for ya, but in a way that was appropriate to the bible, And its like, i dont understand how to even begin to think about reality in that way where its like, letting go, or taking control, besides from what i know, however i can answer some of these questions, such as, This is one of those technical ideas, that people get mixed up in, because its assumed nothing defines the all pervaiding force that is consciousness and its content. However, dont think of it in them terms Think of it like, everything always just "exists" because of consciousness, and no thing, depending on context, isnt something you have directly experienced, in this moment, which is important, otherwise you can stop the questioning, cause we are experiencing, we are seeing something via conscious exp., and its neither something as simple as, "ts all real, for me", but nor is it as simple as calling it nothing ... As "things" most often speak of "the content of experience", but somehow, you want to ask about "experience itself", without tackling the question directly.