kavaris

I never listened to this w headphones on before, but unless im thinkin of another song/part or act, i always thought i heard a sample come in at the end of each measure (during the pre/chorus-chorus) that was like a sample of a different key. Now it just sounds like its missing that slight mod. sample w/ the key/mode thing forever more. whatever, doesnt matter. ill let yous find more sonic musique, i only posted a small majority.

And if any of yas like murder, death and assassination, this is a good time to mention, this is literally the age of murder, death and assassination ~ As anyone following the Apostles are being murdered, and likewise, anyone who wasnt Christian was ALSO being assassinated/murdered, at the exact same time. Literally, the age before Constantine I is called "The Age of Martyrs"; See also "Christian apologetics" But the point to what I was tryina say is like, the history you dont normally learn about is the typeve assassins creed going on here, and just like, how many people are dying and dead because of it ~ The Age of Martys is also the age of Assassins Creed (NOTE: Assassins Creed I ive never played, but im pretty sure they didnt base it on this time period, but rather, a later time period heavily influenced on such things. I played the second one, like too long ago to even remember anything besides the Tuscany hills in the background)

If anyone is to do research on history and that critical year between the 1 BCE and 1st Century AD, youll likely come across Flavius Josephus. Hes got a very long, long story, and it has nothin to do w/ Jesus. I say that cause Jesus's name comes up next to his, though this is one of those things happening slightly offset from the crucifixions of the same vague years~give or take, and i think this story has alot more moving pieces, Alas you could write several TV shows just on the life and experiences of this guy, see for yourselves When we finally get to the point, an hour or so in, we see Josephus reflecting, right in the mid., of writing The Jewish War in Aramaic, intended for Jewish communities, and a Greek vers., shaped w/ Roman/Flavian audiences in mind; Tho only the Greek vers., survives. Then there's Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1: Josephus describes the death of the high priest "Festus", and the power vacuum before his replacement "Albinus" arrived. The high priest Ananus (Annas II) took advantage of this gap in Roman oversight to convene a San'hedrin, and execute people he wanted gone. Josephus writes that Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin: "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" This execution of James (who we call the brother of "Jesus") is 62 AD by the deduction/offset ~ per the Josephus perspective, and this is corroborated by other sources like Eusebius and Hegesippus. Though im sure even this is debated, cause what isnt debated these days. So he's writing about events that happened roughly 30 years prior to himself. He himself would have been around 25–26 years old when James, the brother was executed. Josephus (age ~25-26) when James was executed in 62 AD, so then working backwards, Josephus would be born around 37 AD. But it doesnt tell us about the time from Jesus TO James, atleast if you're going solely from Josephus. Also, this is the same~w/ regards to what we learn from those later figures, Eusebius and Hegesippus, who say James, brother of Jesus was executed in 62 AD. We can then bring in Pontius Pilate's governorship (26–36 AD). Taking it at face value, the execution falls somewhere within 26–36 AD—although we still dont know bout Jesus—tradition thus far tells us theres a 29-32 year gap between the James and Jesus execution.

Another important dialogue for getting started on Philosophy and The Sophists is The Phaedrus ~ as Plato tries to re-frame "the area/study of rhetoric" (which is the most common area of study for sophists and students and thinkers alike at that time) but its to rebuild it on philosophical foundations. Im startin to write my own thing on Philo/Myth, suffice to say now that, this video gives a fair introduction as well, as although its on Norse Mythology, the beginning captures the idea quite well, and how the tradition of myth had been lost... And consider the following, though it must be revised, as it is my attempt at a direct and formal foreword on Mythology, Philosophy, to demonstrate where one can start to describe Why you also need Mythology when we talk about Philosophy, or anything else... One should note, how everyone who holds or pursues a notion of "truth" differs in their notion of truth. And this is to say then that Mythology is sometimes at a more fundamental level than "truth", whereby the intention of the Philosopher should not be geared towards truth in all cases, and sometimes the discussion of "tradition" and other subjects with regards to Mythology is sometimes at a lower and more noteworthy level in the context of descanting. And consider that the distillation of truth is one road, and the "istemi" that points to something undefinable is just that; That which is undefinable, ergo "Mythology" is one's attempt to describe the undefinable. But this is not to say, once again, that the -istemi of a subject and the "truth" of the matter dont coincide at some point or to some degree, its just that we often find ourselves making distinctions and descriptions, where we are left with multiple roads~All of which would require "names for a road" to know what street you are on, or what street you are not on (hopefully yous would agree)

The Republic is another one that ppl get mixed up w/ Timaeus And Critias and it is like ppl want to make The Republic the index/legend to interpreting Plato's dialogues. And yes, it would be a good idea for ppl to read The Republic too, just to see how many elements are shoved into Plato's other dialogues, but dont then get them tangled together. Lol, they are already unnecessarily tangled together for no reason. Let me phrase it like this: Is there even one single pers., who we know, who has a reasonable following who is saying "Plato's Atlantis is in Spain" If that is the case, if no one out there wants to try to follow step 1, then why does everyone worship Plato (hence Platonism, et caetera)? Surely someone who is revered and made into their own icon shouldnt be so venerated. Like, wouldnt the situation be flipped? That is, where we all decide that we dislike Plato for being wrong about everything? Do yous see what i mean? Like, this is a rhetorical ques., but do people celebrate Plato for fibbing and handing out fake facts to ppl? Or do they just like him for like, a single passage? What im tryina say is, the current stigma around Plato is like its own sea of confusion, its own non-sensical Atlantica

Btw, for those ppl that still think the richat structure has anything to do with what Plato said, realize this, Not only did Plato and most Greeks know about where and what Africa was, Plato literally references it in the Atlantis text itself. But before I explain what he says about it, know this: The Greeks didn't use the word "Africa" — that's a Latin/Roman term. The ancient Greek name for the landmass we now call Africa was Libya (Λιβύη / Libye), derived from a Berber root. It referred to the area of North Africa directly west of the Nile — encompassing what is now modern Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. It was considered one of the three parts of the known world alongside Europe and Asia. Herodotus uses "Libya" to indicate the African continent broadly, while the lighter-skinned North Africans were called "Líbues," and those south of Egypt were known as "Aethiopians" And as i said, Africa (Libya) appears in Plato's Atlantis account. Plato describes Atlantis as a naval empire that had conquered most of Europe and Libya, before being defeated by Athens. More specifically, in Timaeus, it is said the Atlantean empire ruled "Libya up to the border with Egypt, and Europe up to Etruria". Translate the following: You gotta understand how many years in the past we are talking about, not to mention, how "Atlantis" was mentioned once again, after Plato, and w/ the same idea, as "Libya v. Atlantis/Spain", as its a conflict that goes back (and has lasted) for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Plato described Atlantis as being larger than "Libya and Asia combined" (though i doubt he went around it w/ a ruler and measured it all, so dont be taking this too literally) located beyond the Pillars of Heracles (the Strait of Gibraltar). So Libya/Africa wasn't some vague unknown — Plato used it casually as a geographic benchmark so his audience would recognize just what he was saying. Plato wouldve said "Atlantis is in Libya", if that is what he meant. Plato wouldve said (Oceanus far & wide, sits some distant land, Atlantis). The Atlantic beyond Gibraltar was called "Oceanus". So if Plato was going to say ANYTHING about Amer. (as some also speculate about America being Atlantis), then he is going to say "Oceanus, far & wide...", or using the words Plato was likely to have said, and yous can read his stuff, as he is quite specific about what everything is, and he makes no mention of Libya = Atlantis, or Oceanus = Atlantis/Atlantic... Let me be even more specific. The Greek word Plato uses is πρό (pro) or the phrase πρὸ τοῦ στόματος — which literally means "before the mouth of" (the mouth being the strait). And "before" in Greek spatial language is ambiguous in the same way it is in English: It can mean in front of — i.e. on the near side, before you even pass through It can mean beyond — i.e. out past it, in the open Atlantic So depending on how you translate that prepositional phrase, Atlantis could be: "Beyond the Pillars" which is the traditional reading. This is how most people picture it, and frankly, it gets them way off course looking in the Atlantic (see where i said, they had a word specifically for that) Interpretation 2 — "Before/In Front of the Pillars" Atlantis is in the Mediterranean itself, or right at the mouth of the strait. This has led some researchers to propose locations like western Mediterranean, or the shallow Spartel Bank just outside Gibraltar; or a third option being near the coast of southern Spain or Morocco. The Spartel Bank is a submerged shallow bank in the Atlantic, sitting just outside the Strait of Gibraltar, off the northwest tip of Morocco. What Plato does mention is Gades, which is the ancient Phoenician/Greek name for modern Cadiz in southern Spain, right on the Atlantic coast just north of the strait. He references it as a geographic marker near Atlantis territory. What more could ppl want. What more could be said, its layed out very plainly, vwery straightforward and direct. And apparently, Plato is wrong (or according to many, many people, Plato is making things up) except, no one has even taken him on his actual word(s). How can anyone say Plato is wrong without validating whether or not the most obvious solution is wrong first. Like, surely that should be step one. Plato has never been wrong, and if anything, we are still trying to figure out just how accurate his writings are; We are starting from the perspective that "people are wrong" too premature. We should assume, especially in the case of Plato, that he was right, and that everyone is just getting the wrong info about what he said, as that is most definitely the case. p.s. And imagine, we are still thinking Plato was "making things up" to this day (by a large majority, mind you). How can we even begin looking at OTHER figures/or characters in Myth, or other Greek texts, et caetera, if we cant even get the facts straightened out w/ Plato, who is like the bedrock. *p.s.s. i have this crazy long thing that i wrote on Plato & Mythology ~which I have actually posted here before (the less-long vers.), to get everyone familiar and started in that direction, however its since grew gianormously~And considering how long this one was, i thought i should just wait awhile until the dust has settled and i can start to sortve introduce these writings in a more compact, and controlled/meaningful way.

Another reason why myth and biblical study, etc., is so important is because, when you look at the parallels in everything, sometimes our first thought/initial inclinations brings us towards, "This name contains that figures name, so it must be that thats who it is...", except that, containment ≠ identity—which is to say, in mythology especially, you have layers of containment (this name contains that name, and that name is in the same context as this) And at first glance, it feels like theres alot of interrelated things going on, making it like an impossible web of relations. So basically, the first point to understand is how, containment doesnt automatically mean that thats what something is... The Hebrew Jeshua has Yahweh saves (us), it doesnt mean that~now that weve found Yahweh in his name, that Jeshua must be Yahweh. If that was the case then every single name in Hebrew and Greek Septuagint is talking about Yahweh, wherein characters are talking, but they are really talking to Yahweh AS Yahweh. You could just make a book that said "Yahweh spoke to hiself for 4,000 years, up to his birth, crucifiction, and resurrection", like... That is to make a point about the traps people fall into when learning about such things. Mythology even more so, it has some serious and hard to interpret layers, which by finding your own system or methods, can help in going bout said layers in an orderly & scholarly manner, that is fair to what we know thus far, what we can say for sure. Also, you want to specify what is speculation, cause technically ALL of it is speculation if you do a rough boildown, so finding a system to separate it all is important, but that goes back to what i said in regards to method. p.s., thats why its important to look into mythology, simply because, without truly understanding it and having deduced some \*method of interpretation, we are immediately faced w/ incomplete and scattered information in regards to whats going on, and then when we go to reference it, we are identifying all these stories in a jumble/heap of names+relations, and suddenly its like, none of it makes sense. Surely the act of speaking and writing the myths and verses, etc. was to make sense of something/someone (or something abstract that they had in mind around something they didnt understand theirselves), nd finding out why is itself important to do it justice.

Id also like to present a map for how they got there, that is via these winds/Atlantic current that runs along the US East Coast and through the Bermuda Triangle region. Ships can be swept significantly off course by it, and thats how ppl end up in S. Amer sometimes. Does that slipstream change going back thousands and thousands of years back? I dont know but id think it wouldnt change THAT much, i mean, Earth is still Earth. Like its in the exact same configuration, give or take an island drowning or resurfacing via tectonic/volcanic~yadayada. The point is, its the same shit, nother day, but in history terms. And like, back when ppl were building small little rinky-dink boats to explore the Atlantic, they didnt know what they were doing. And if you are the first ppl to build ships, its like, HOW tf would you kno bout the gulf stream and sht like this, right? So that is the dilemma i pose, that is, to explore Atlantis. Explore Atlantica America. Like actually explore it. Dont take my word for it🗺️Go see it for yourselves. Everything that we are depends on it, so.. no pressure or anything. Go sailing. See if its more likely that theyd end up in Mezo America, or S America, Or wherever. See whats up with them megaliths in Spain. Please. Somehow its still like, fake news since no one knows about it. Unfake the news for us via curiosity. p.s. "Pre-Columbians" is a term they sometimes use, as thats a plausible idea i presented apparently (retrospectively, i dug around on it), which i thought was unknown, but its considered already by modern scholars. So okay, THAT part is considered, but the Atlantis part is still in the dark, even though it is just as~if not more important.

When was the last time yas did an Atlantis thread. I think it'd be an approp., time of this year to look at Atlantis, as i was thinkin bout how many ppl (just in general, by default) default to the America, Spanish, and Spain (Espanol or Castellano) And how that whole story would be awesomer if having explored and unvealed the missing piece that is the Atlantis story or what i say is just quite literally the Spanish coast, which is also just Native Europea. And, as Spain has these sorts've maritime nooks you might call them~not to mention theres massive underwater megaliths below the sea right near the straits of Gibraltar (or rather, its in a place just on the far side... basically, exactly where Plato said it is...) Several areas in Spain and France~in nd around, are like this... somehow its still not widely unknown?... no idea how... That is to say, iuno why everyone thinks Plato said ("Miles, miles, miles into the Atlantic") But nevertheless, the "Americas" is itself an important aspect. Why is the Americas important? Because the story of how the native americas got there is important, and one such culture talks about "the wooden people" (God, being angry, smashed the wooden people into the ground~that is the American earth...) Im paraphrasing it greatly. The point is, that is your blood, yall Spanish ppl, that which yous have no idea about. thts not to invalidate the landmass explored back when there was a bridge up north to Asialand (Northern Amer. natives?) im jus saying, there was a such thing as "Native Atlanteans" in Spain, before we got up in there with our spears and arrows, and kicked out all the males, and reproduced w/ the women. Back during the harmonious hunter gatherer era, it was like "serene and joyful". So thats also the bloodline (maturnal side) of some existing ppls like Etruscans maybe, etc... (later becomes Spain/France~which becomes Spanish/Espanol).... The point being, yall Spanish/America ppl should be investigating Atlantis, or rather, the Jöurneyman (see

@everyonehere italian kundalini~yall are missing out on.. this stuff, Alas yall can jus listen to it, as thats what i do do... And later on in the video theres an interview goin on. Now im just now learnin italian, so its goin to fast for my brain, by you guys are young people. Yous can pick up italian in like 24 hours. Also, this poor woman has like 0 views, yall are missing out on some italian kundalini!

Yous havent touched on how Ai works. That is interesting part to the story that yous are doin' a waltz of sorts / all-around-the-mulberry-bush around and its interesting for many reasons. Alas yous can ask Ai yourselves, that is, "how the Ai is working" (be specific to the ChatGPT original models and such, not some futuristic b.s., as you are asking bout the well known variety, and you can ask any of them about it). Ai was created by humans afterall. And humans took these conceptual pieces and put them together to make something that does just what youd expect. If you look at that, that thing like "5% the letter /E/ is comin up... fold it... -1% the sequence "BB" is comin up... fold it.." like im just giving you an example, as im tryina point towards what would be the interesting part of it, though thats not to say that the whole thing doesnt have interesting parts. Theres hundreds of interrelated and equally interesting parts, like its a program afterall. Its interesting cause thats what we do, we look at things ~language~ and then we say "is so&so comin up?... yay or nay?... fold it... sequence/process it..." stuff like that p.s. the word i was thinkin of was "pericope", from Ancient Greek περικοπή, perikope, And it refers to the cutting-out of a section of text that you find worthy or coherent enough to be included within the final writing/text~That is, in regards to How to use Ai, or atleast how to think of it. Perikope or Pericope (sounds like periscope, which im not sure what a periscope is, but its similar to that *scope* used in submarines, and maybe that is a kind of periscope too) As far as what this like, parsing of language thing is called, i dont know, but you could call it "parsing of language", And thats interesting because it relate to our routines in life, and these mechanisms that we find ourselves doing~down to the most fundamental core of who we are... I mean, we take for granted how much of it involves "parsing out what we think we observed" -typeve things.

I shouldve made this clearer, as I didnt really explain "Philosophy" and the Sophists. So i made an Album of sorts ~ a timeline ~ or way of listing things chronologically, as I also believe "Mythology" is an important part of this story, given how you have Plato, as well as every other Greek figure using a "mytholological language" - Plato often extending that language, like that of the language around the Eleusian mysteries (compare & contrast to, et caetera) Thats something for yous to think about, but anyway, here's the list im talking about, to better elucidate on Philosophy and The Sophists, Philosophy predating the Sophists, who overlap w/ Socrates, which then leads to Plato defining "Philosophy" (This list has embedded in it BOTH the timeline and the purpose/reason; p.s.You should just think of Theology as fundamentally just "Questions on Divinity" among what it begins to be referred to later on) Lasting aspirations in Philosophy: \*\* i. Philosophy for the interpretation of Theology/Mythology (starting w/ the natural philosophers ~6th century BCE) \*\* i. Philosophy as a word to describe the immersion into "istemi" AND/or "truth" (Socrates overlaps w/ the Sophists, though the Sophists are said to have come before Socrates, see next) \*\* i. Philosophia = "love of wisdom"; Sophists = "a wise man" or expert teacher~a different root from that of "sophia" in Philosophy → And the Sophists appearing ~5th century BCE) \*\* i. And lastly, we have Plato (taught by Socrates) making "Philosophy" an explicit, well understood idea, Philosophy as the ultimate reality, Philosophy as a Way of Life Last episodes in Mythology: \*\* i. Chronological "last myth": the Trojan War and its aftermath \*\* i. Genealogical "last age": the Heroic Age \*\* i. Historically "last myths": Philosophical and literary myths (Ovid) Note: This is not to exclude the investigations into Greek figures and the wide array of episodes and professions in Ancient Greece, Alas im just giving you the sortve, left half of the onion, wherein you can put it together with the right half on your own.

(Speaking *on the Mahdi, or the vers., that would be like, some ideal Egyptian Mahdi) Its funny to think, but this is where i start, and where i can begin to understand things that start in politics, and worldviews outside of Europe/America and the broader world, as I feel like I dont understand anything until there a "common point of interest" or something. Like if there isnt a conceptual space that we all sortve naturally agree on, by decree of the fact that like, myth is where everyone can find the solace in having to interpret, and these sorts of things that we are all interested in, it gives everyone a common point of reference, or a place that is also agnostic~in the sense that anytime you have a closed-loop on history, you have no way to dispute its origin, beyond that its got an origin. Like theres no political down side or mistake when God creates the universe, unless we frame it all as a mistake, which is just weird backwards b.s. And in the same way, theres no down side when you have the old era of Egypt, and whoever or whatever was going on there, and how we would learn anything more than that (than what we know already), or like 'How do learn more about it? i do not know. So seeing as Egypt is sortve exempt by virtue of being first (by virtue of no recorded history before this era, or to say anything more than what the prevailing theories are during zep tepi~or atleast within our modern ways that are more or less interpreting metaphysical, non interpretable beginnings) You then have a point that has no contention before a certain point, and only the myth itself (the \*point of reference, for everyone). So to me that is what is the sortve subconscious wanderings around why its gotta be Egypt (for me atleast) that is, the common point of reference for sharing, as that is then what leads to \*what we even would call political or military or conflicts that would arise thereafter. Like we cant agree on "who deserves what", but we can agree on like "Well this was interesting", you know what i mean? Like we might find that the best way to debate in the end is from like, "Heres the agnostic point of history" if in such extreme cases we had to choose such a point. \*\*\*\* Im just giving the most "ideal"~of an extreme that might not even matter, but thats worth thinking about, given you are always gona have someone who doesnt agree with the era of history that youve chosen to exalt. And everything is becoming history (his story) as we encounter it.