kavaris

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

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

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

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

I would rather call it, "realizing a truth". That is, i would not describe it as a belief, nor something about being a higher conscious exp., per say, as thats more consequential towards experience in general—and the subsequent pursuits of it. The thing you are *directing* towards, this thing you want to aim at, which is in the form of a question, is more of an answer that you would have to ask yourself, if in fact you want to ask about "where our beliefs have taken us", which is another way of saying, theres no *one, overarching belief* (for me) since it changes depending on context/other things/experiences—As, at first glance, it only may seem higher, or it may seem more true... thats only at first glance. So, a *belief* is a fleeting thing. Its more of an *aim*, vaguely. And, a higher conscious experience is fleeting, its all relative towards experience. Others may think what they have is a belief, but they really have an aim in a direction that *appears* like a constant. Its an assumption that the circumstances arent always changing the belief inside out.

Heraclitus Yous'll start to notice that a lot of the Greek thinkers\writers say similar but different things, almost the same things, worded in a new/diff ways, cause like, from what i understand they all spent alot of time in their center city competing against poets, and other philosopers, and they had to be on the knifes edges of some sht if they were goin for popularity, or just some sortve of recognition in general. Like i did a deep dive on Heraclitus of 500 BC ~ Not that theres that many surviving fragments of his, but the fragments we do have are all bangers, as he blends philosophy, myth and poetry, and he touches on the \*unity of opposites, the logos, as well as how fire is the arche, et caetera. Its the generations prior that set up the foundations of Heraclitus though. And theres approx. a hundred little fragments of his out there, all that sortve fit together into an interesting larger window of sorts. And later on, in generations proceeding, we see those thoughts come up again, but through recapitulation, elaboration, and/reflection, such that they arent as deep and poetic, or maybe they are sometimes, but rephrased, reconstituted. Which isnt necessarily a bad thing, its just not as awesome. Its still very similar. Also, Around Heraclitus and such, Greece of Asia minor, Türkiye, starts to shift its best thinkers to mainland Athens and European Greece, and so thats sortve like, a creative turning point, where you see a... hera clitus *flux* of all sorts of related ideas, froathing, bubbling up in new and interesting ways. note: Heraclitus elevates the term logos to refer to universal principle, rational order, or the law of the cosmos, as opposed to the prior meaning of "word" / "normal discourse", significance, reason, speech or story (or it carries both)

In the unbounded permission towards the infinite, with a limit on the infinite (of each moment through time), we seek to know, oh great one. though what we experience, what we know, it feels circular within it, and what we feel, or what we taste—that is, the consolidated form of tasting~of the flavors of experience as it transcends its wave of disruption, it has layers of experiences that take prominence over the whole that had existed prior. Theres multiple levels in these hypothetical, but literal waters: you have shallower waters in some regions, and deeper waters that have more activity, more depth. You have stronger winds coming from some directions, some conflicting and spinning the waters around, as the waters theirselves are being moved by everything. We just exist — just the thing that coughs up the mucus, and reciprocates, and bounces, or gets bounced, echoes; Everything is tumbling together, bumping into one another—such that theres no telling whats doing the bumping. Therefore, in taking in the whole of everything going on, one can only hope to steady theirselves amidst the gentler cascade of horned rams running into one another, and capricorns hooking up the side of some mountain of goats, as we drink the goat milk and suck on the breast of some nearest titty, while the tit birds fly by night and fall when theyre time is up.

Linux desktop, as well as linux gaming is getting better over time, as its still in a weird place (i dont use desktop environments, but i have an old computer where i had been testing out a fork of fvwm95. And it works great, and i like how it expresses the \*classic borders on programs like firefox and such) but, not everyone gets it, and they just wanna do their thing gaming and stuff. nothin wrong with that. Linux is more of a DIY thing more so, but... i mean... Even though Linux itself could become amazingly accessible in the future, its the \*perception of it that makes it inaccessible, if that makes any sense. Whats that word im looking for... like when you are first learning a thing and you want to get into it for the first time. Whatever that word is, wherein you want to get into it for the first time, that is itself like the hardest first step into the entry of linux.

Ive been running base artix (arch) linux since 2017, though there are elements to void linux that are alright as well. but when i began, i had a very specific program-related/DIY goal... My enthusiasm hasnt necessarily changed exactly, as i still very much utilize and install linux on everything (and i did have a very intellectual plan behind where i was taking it), but my overall attitude towards interacting with computer screens has changed, and i cant really tolerate talking to a shining wall (i only use tower/desktop-style computers) and i cant really stand it for very long before i have to change over to analog pen and paper to express emotions and human-like things, like neglected things that are like, iuno. Its like, my wheel of priorities doesnt rank computers+linux has high as they once mightve been. I also have other abilities/hobbies. I can do alot of things like, im not like, a watchamakalit... Im not an idiot savant that only does like one thing and one thing only. I mean... the world is just going through some things, and i find myself recognizing my artistic abilities, which cross through alot of realms, and computer stuff is only a small part of that

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.

It sounds kinda boring, no? Like i personally would select the psychedelic retreats popping up now, but id also just pick going to a country i like, just for practical interests cause its kindve more of the old person thing to do now i suppose, but darkness might be fun~atleast in comparison to that, ha, who knows.

I dont kno if i respond here yet, but i always think of things in circles, similar-esque to classical, ancestral mythos and stuff, like classic, birth, death, life, and so you just go through the circle, aka the cycle birth, death life, which isnt a bad thing nor a good thing. Like when youve experienced that feeling like "Oh.. this shit actually never ends", it doesnt come on in a good way, it feels very disturbing... Then later... its like, "oh, its pretty normal actually". I mean in retrospect i dont know why it felt like that, but it certainly doesnt just end, nor does it ever really begin. I guess its kindve annoying really, cause what does that even mean when said in word form (from the felt form)

Just to do a slight refinement on the communication process/aspect/thinking up these types of things (and if you think of any others, feel free to add and we'll review) And so that is that theres 4 things that we very easily can get conflated w/ eachother—within/apart of the life macchina (i dont love the name life macchina, but yous can figure out a better one later): theres (1)"how to talk about truth", then theres (2)"how to experience truth", then theres (3)"where we're goin, or the assumption of where its going...", And lastly theres (4)"the level of determination or dedication towards said endeavor~of pursuing said truth". And theres nothin wrong with conflating them, atleast in some cases, cause that IS what life is~its the conflation or the interaction of all things thats making it work, like, i mean, its not Not interactive/interconnected, put it that way. Like, in other words, the only time it would not be is when you're existing in a place where said connections arent true, for you (hence, the pursuit of *a truth*), alas, we call it "the truth" when it is more of the ephemeral, fleeting, and forgotten, like when you are from a point of "not", in the face of "trying to", that is itself *an ephemeral*. Like, its "where the wild things are", combined with "business as usual", like... Thats the sortve, "inflating" effect, and then theres the "deflating", i mean im just saying "this" and "that" at this point, but hey, it is what it is, right (*fades lidly into the distance*)

Iuno if yous would be into this but its somethin im playin with the idea of, and something yous can all think about, but its like, a field/profession that measures things more in the realm of like, "how compatible" they are, with whatever earthly criteria we are going on. But of course, it couldnt just be a thing w/ like watchamakalit, like one of these organizations with the names like the Planetary Civilization Destination whatever whatever they are called. the shit with the aliens—As id imagine thats what they're up to, but instead, it would encompass all other fields and professions as like, what is the function of each thing. Starting from the most historical points, as its like, if you start from modern society you are like, viewing a dream world that is unintangle-able, instead it would be more of a grounding, like starting from a clean slate, and asking, what are all the things we would need, just in its most basic, and then sortve building, one, by one, adding things in... Seeing if they go together, see whats missing, and then start to write the criteria, starting with plants since you got so many that are working in their own climate/world. Then it sortve grows towards, what is suppose to be a kind of alchemy of things that are all compatible with the legos, that have the most synergy/long lasting relationships to each other. And you just keep going. Its a little like a reimagining, but its also just like, *a thing people could do*, like i mean, many times you have this thing where its like, *we gotta invent something*, but in a world where all the things are invented, now its like, how do you manage the whole thing, and then have that thing be the thing everyones working on... Do yous get it? I realize its like, you are kindve starting from blank scratch literally type mindset, but we keep building on things, and no ones really figuring out like, how to get everyone building on the thing thats gonna make the most sense. That is what i propose. Make a *thing thats gonna get everyone involved on said thing*. And the name is important again, cause ~ cant get it mixed up with planetary destination civilization investigation. it may also be that the individual fields of study each have their own separate name, and the original idea is nameless. Like for example, not everyone can be a scientist, but some people could be this alternate_science_person_title, which is like, more of a blend of things that also have *science* as a part of what they do, or it could be like, someone who just knows everything about organisms, and like how they reproduce, how they best thrive... i mean science can mean many things right. You also have architecture, and like this new_way_of_thinking_architect, thats less about "Build a BIG GIANT BRIDGE BUILD", but a more of a thing that makes sense to build in modern times. Iuno, first yous would just need like the very basics, like a web-related place everyone would go.. i mean, arent there a bunch of people that are hungry for changing the world or somethin? iuno why we havent gathered them ppl up to put em to work already, and get everyone thinking in the same way, for the same reasons, like good things that require just like, *throwing ideas at the wall*. I mean, slow and monotinous confusion is also an option too, as thats a trend we are on.

@Leo Guraha. good one @Joseph Maynorlol, i struggle to point to truth, but truth minus truth? thats a new one. @SixtySenses i like the mention of Lego bricks cause its like, legos have this notion of like, they are only compatible in the contexts of legos, generally, and so you have the spectrum of things that edge in the realm of *truth*, versus the very contemporary and like, *logicy idea things*, that serve the physical word, but the world doesnt do well with uncertainty or even the simplest of realms where we have to find our bearing in a realm of things that havent yet been discretized or separated and rejoined, versus the continuity that airs on the side of a kind of truth space.. and even in entering truth space you sortve lose out on the more logic things, which isnt to say there may not be a world where one is able to bridge to the other, but i think the issue lies in this *continuous space/rounded space*, like, we are very good at mathing it up, building or destroying, making a mess, and making it into things that can be weighed and systematized, but we dont have the reverse, which is more of a falling into something, like a 'hard to really say what it is', thing. And as we get ppl comfortable with the emptiness/fullness and trying to reimagine, i think we will also get stronger in a truth-wise or truth-like, if said truth even lies on our paths, as we can only assume so going forward. I mean, we can only assume that the right direction forward is the direction we are going, but like im fine with whatever the answer is, or the answerless plane, it doesnt matter to me in that regard.