kavaris

@MixcoatlTheres a ladder of truth that you walk from that point, you know... (Even after youve taken psychedelics, it still followes this sequence as its like the Egyptian Thoth laying down the chronological steps): It goes like Rupert Spira~and this sortve like, sitting w/ the idea of like "What am i, Am infinite, what is reality, what is consciousness, et caetera..." Then you sortve go through a dark period after that, cause thats sortve the perspective of where things dont really take shape/form so much, but rather they exist as being itself. And then somewhere after, surviving that darkness it settles into a place that makes better sense, cause its no longer framing it from a question around reality, but rather, you are to become the *participant in the question, which doesnt imply "being" so much that implies you defining "being" actively, not to mention defining everything else thereafter (alas,. theres a moral play~or synergy between creation and your own being and experience, and it leads to a place of appreciation for lots of things, history, religion, etc., assuming you get to this creation place, which surely most people do i believe, i dont know. as its not like its entirely *non-obvious, its just unusual from the standpoint of "what is consciousness"... if you see what i mean. Note to self (NTS): Its actually kindve freaky, cause history reflects the internal world sequence)

(part ii) Ima try to explain the line of reasoning for yous in a different way anyway., granted it might be more confusing than my original ques. XD.. In other words, its a contradiction to think of *Christ~historically from the perspective of "anointing w/ oil for consecration" epithet (Jesis as a King for instance), given that the idea of Jesus being like a king is being applied after the *Christ title~Or rather you could say, Christ is a title he applied to himself, or his closest followers gave it to him, but not as a king (for the word anoint his applied to priests/kings), but as someone who is anointing others. So its not saying anything about *anoint/king, but the opposite really, cause hes the son of the *living Christ, and if anything he is serving the king, and consecrating that living Christ~for Christ , by way of smearing, spreading, applying some substance on others. And theres a few options here that he could be saying w/ Christ, e.g. "put out your tongue... let me give you the eucharist..." All the way to "Let me cover your entire body in the eucharist" to "Let us take the eucharist..." to... "If you dont take this, you will literally die, so have faith in me". The point being, hes not the king of anything, but hes certainly rubbing or smearing; And because people later say "look how important he was To his followers, Christ must be implying sonethin like, *hes a king", wherein the actual reason that they have that word "Christ" in the first place is scrambled lost to time... That word doesnt just drop out of the air... Jesus & his band of misfits are using that term and giving theirselves nicknames (p.s. lets not even bring up "Petra", as thats another long story, but im jus showing you that it isnt a falsehood to know that Jesus is well-known for naming people and places) p.s. we've turned the original Greek forms of the word *christ into a starch epithet that sounds like his true name, but that word is just the result of a millenium of confusion, erasing the fact that the "chr-" doesnt end @ "-ie'st"... In Greek, that root becomes a *stem, and a subsequent flower of possible terms related to the root form; In English, all of our words are deliberate distinctions, so we dont have a treasure trove of words that sound like "chrie", so you cant blame anyone for thinking that that word sounds independent now. And not to make it even more confusing, but the "-st" ("str") part of the name is another Old Greek root/stem = meaning "to spread, apply or extend to", that which gets used in important ways~and it just so happens to occur in this word meaning "to spread on"

I noticed there was alot of "trans-" interest and/or related posts, and as i have a few gay friends, it got me thinkin bout something i jus recently learned about Uranian (a sexuality term) The term Uranian being a 19th-century word refers to men who are attracted to other men. from classical Greek ideas about love—specifically Aphrodite~Urania, a heavenly form of love that ancient writers assoc. w/ love~between males Its sortve like tattoos and stuff like this that go through phases (going back to ancient Dacians and/or the tattoo gingerbread Grandmother's of Bosnia/Croatia, etc) where ppl today are tryina come from it like its this new thing / area of reality, but these are just phases of Mother Nature and its creatures, circling on the same set of ingredients, especially if you look at how Ulrich is circling back to mythology, and how he frames these things. The last hundred years have heavily suppressed all of these ancient ideas; however when it comes to the Uranians, these were just people standing up for their sexuality in the 1800s ~ and was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a German, was very much outspoken in regards to He published essays, multiple, under his own name~arguing that men attracted to men was a natural variation of human beings, not criminals or sinners, and of course in 1860~the pinnacle of like, suppressing everything, it was seen as radical. In 1867 @ the German Jurists' Conference 1867 in Munich, he stood up and tried to argue publicly for the decriminalization of homosexuality (note, long story short, he was shouted down before he could finish). But the point is, he was one of the first people to openly argue that homosexuality was natural. He sometimes described gay men as having a "female psyche in a male body" ~ Alas that was a common way to think of it~Or atleast by Ulrichs time it began to ~ He coined terms like: Urning (German) = Uranian ... Opposite is Dioning which is "men attracted to women" (though i dont think it means ordinary typical "straightmen", as hes getting his term from Dionysus, and Dionysus is not a normal character to use, to describe such a thing, so there must be more to it) inb4, later on writers like John Addington Symonds and Oscar Wilde used Uranian to talk about male same-sex love in a more idealized or noble way. There was even a small literary movement called "Uranian poetry" And so, In todays day n age, Uranians (as a word) isnt even really known about. Its not some strange modern category—And this gets to the conclusion here, which is Ulrich, and how he he built a whole universe of descriptions and ideas~of what kind of person Uranian was describing~through a mix of early psychology and classical myth. And if yous wanna get into some old history of "trans" thats a good place to start to build up to Hirschfeld (the classic "transvestite"), David Cauldwell, et caetera (note, those terms we use today around trans- are from the 50s or 60s or around there, though Ulrich was one of the first to really argue that same-sex attraction was inborn and not criminal... And going to Ancient times you have Hermaphroditus, the child of Hermes and Aphrodite, merging male and female, etc) Anyway there was quite a few trans' threads, so i felt it was incumbent upon me to get involved in some way, to some degree, so yous might start to see what/where the preceding terms in this category are coming from ~ p.s. ꝝ → is an abbreviation used for -rum (but i use a similar symbol for capital letter "P", though its more like /ꝝP/ visually)

Note, i just wanted to demonstrate how obvious and simple this line of inquiry is, that even ChatGPT is lead to this discovery almost immediately without pushback~I will skip some of our questions to get to the point, but feel free to ask, and i will post the 1 or 2 questions i asked beforehand to get it to here~And whats really a fairly obvious conclusion... ChatGPT says: The honest linguistic point you're pushing toward: χρίω before it becomes religious terminology just means to smear, to rub, to spread a substance. It's used in completely mundane contexts in classical Greek — rubbing down athletes with oil, applying pigment, spreading wax. It's not inherently sacred at all. So the question becomes — is there a meaning of χριστός that predates or sits outside the kingly/priestly consecration tradition? Where I'd point you: Look at how χρίω is used in non-religious Greek writers — Homer, Herodotus, the medical writers like Galen. There it's thoroughly physical and practical. The religious "anointing" meaning is arguably a narrowing of a broader word. -------- @ everybody whos interested Yous might not even care about this, but to me its important because, somewhere along the lines people stopped understanding history, and now we have stories that may potentially be way off... And its not the church's fault, as its not their job to do history24*7... Like the church technically isnt Thoth @The Halls of Amenti,as they are just like us regular ppl, losing information w/ each generation. Anyway, if you have no idea wat im talking about, just ignore this. I jus thought someone out there would see how im just weaving very simple lines together to generate the results that are the most straightforward and direct, where the words themselves actually lead you; And not the weird movies and fake imagery from the 20th Century Fox News typeve thing~so to speak *Note, for anyone who is confused, plz do feel free to ask me to send what my initial ques. were (one ques. that had two parts basically) as thatll illuminate the topic.

I just dont understand whats wrong w/ growing things and selling chocolate, that is, you have these ppl like bill gates nd such investing in apparently *good things, then why arent they creating opportunities inside the realm of natural things, that which are natural and have micronutrients essential to the body. I mean wasnt there somethin weird bill gates invested (within the last few months i wanna say it was), like lab grown eggs and chickens, or milk or something ??? (i think it was fake butter & meat)

Yeah absolutely. Everyone needs *self, or *experience, in order to experience anything thereafter, so its entangled w/ everything. But either way we cannot understand consciousness, for the word itself does not point to anything. Ergo the search for "a truth within what being conscious is" is itself a question around "what reality is", for everything is experience... That is, you cannot take away experience, you cannot take away biases, nor can you take away reality, for they are all words that point to something else that is without words for it. In the attempt to do Science that way, it would be the attempt to misunderstand reality. But this is true from the perspective of investigating consciousness as well, for it too, it does not point or lead to anything, unless you yourself have an experience that redefines and reincapsulates the meaning of "consciousness & reality"~as it would pertain to reality as a whole.

@everybody Q: If we break into a topic 'round magick and/or occult that also is directly related to Science and the use of plant and animal medicine, flora and fauna pharmakai, should that go here or in the Spiritual, Esoteric, And Whatever Else Section? Its something for everyone to think on, assuming its a perfect 50 50 split and that its like, which toss of the coin road does it work in~i would say here, but its also like, mystical/metaphysical and Spiritual In some sense it works best in the spiritual section, cause it frees up this half for intellectual jargon, and introduces that section to a side of mysticism they might not have known before.

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.

Do yas know how they sell that shredded cheese (as well as in "block" form) in foodstores, its like, theres lots of different brands and cheese called either cheddar or colby... Yous know thats like the fakest fkin cheese on the universe, right? Like its pasturized so ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of the microbials that your body needs ~the organic stuff~ is destroyed in the process, and what you are left w/ is no longer cheese but the material that is to taste and visually represent a cheese-like *thing. Like its one level away from plastic cheese that you've tasked your stomach w/ digesting, if you put it in your system. Now thats just regarding cheese. You also have bread, and there isnt a single option they sell in the mass market bread department that isnt fake. Now some stores like mine have this little section (way way away from the bread mind you) And that isnt fake, for normal rye/whitish bread (im not talking about the kind they make up there either in the bakery, thats not what i mean,. and i dont like that bread, but thats a diff topic) This is a secret bread that pretty much no food store will have, but they should, cause its what normal bread taste like (it taste alot better... i mean, when the foods not fake its suppose to taste alot better, and not like it has been surgically glued together) The point is, i just talked about bread & cheese. Thats not it. Thats not where it ends. Like, yous have those channels that talk about shopping at cosco, but cosco doesnt exist where i live first of all, second of all they must not know the level of fakery out there is way beyond, as im not worried about the 2% olive oil in my avocado oil and sht like that. Like thats two oils that are the only healthy oil anyway. Like im not tryina eat fake glued-together products. And some ppl think, "Well isnt it obvious?" NO its NOT obvious, because all of these products are still on the shelves and are still purchased regularly. One more i gotta add is "fake tortillas", cause this one is so annoying because you dont have anyone out there that has learned to work w/ flour->dough, and make there own tortillas. Thus you gotta ppl really investing in fake tortillas. There isnt a single non-fake tortilla out there in foodstores, and if there is (that is, one whos ingredients say: flour, water) you're lucky. if it dont say that then sorry but youve got fake tortillas that clearly are fake tortillas. Like, theres no faking it -> Organic products taste organic; fake products taste fake. To Not know the difference is to have lived in a world eating nothing but fake food (ive named only 1% of fake products)

Like yous dont understand. These are the ppl that want you to just accept this stuff, or to take it as a joke, or to not engage it seriously, so they can get away w/ it, and make successful engagements w/ others who are only mindful of the financial relation and such Like, if yous dont do anything, yous are gonna have more and more fake foods and fake supermarkets and fake fast food establishments popping up. Yous need to fight back against this stuff, as the IDEAL scenario is that, no one will be paying attention, and they can just go about their business to get those "bills passed that dont make sense", or them "foods in foodstores that dont make sense", etc.

Also, this guy did not revolutionize computers by any means. He put together a team that prospered and had better fortune over the real revolutionaries and innovators in his field. Thats not innovation, thats not a revolution. Thats pure fortune 500 b.s., and we dont owe this man anything. Now if he wants to help us geat, then wtf dude, finance some family farms ~ as opposed to contributing to the fake food of America. Foodstores are already an entire food scham, besides for the locally made and grown stuff that you sometimes get in there... sometimes! It should be all the times.

I want to leave this here too, even if it doesnt really go directly inside "descriptive language", its a part of communication and these things like *Wisdom and rhetoric and learning / relearning the fundamental aspects of a good Sophron (σώφρων) which means like, w/ sound-mind, temperate, self-possessed~or like a man or woman who has mastered theirselves. And this connects towards how you treat others as well: Pietas (Latin) — the Roman embodiment, duty and love woven together (and subsequently, the reverence towards others... *granted, that thats not an automatic thing, so youd have to be particular in paying attention to that) Eusebeia (εὐσέβεια, in Greek) — embodiment, perceptive reverence toward what is sacred and worthy, including people... Theyre cultural cognates that communicate the same deep human instinct or sense of like, possessing this internal appreciation of perception and feeling, followed w/ reverence~in regards to "that which is all around"~from that seeing. p.s. im not sure they teach this stuff: at school, at home, anywhere... like...

For any of yous that either know of others in school, or themselves have kids, or that are familiar w/ writing (English) class in our current school systems, 2025/2026... Q: Do they still teach kids about like Descriptive Language ? In other words, do yous even know what that term is, as far as like, where you then get all these other things stemming from...? I ask because theyve never made a wiki page that explicitly refers to it as descriptive language, thus it feels like it isnt even a term thats used or acknowledged, unless i just havent found it yet. Anyway, when i show you how many things fall under "descriptive language", you will understand what im talking about here. ~ 1. Figurative Language: Simile, idiom (adage), metaphor, analogy (yous might say yous are using a *figure of speech* at this point), personification, archetypes, imagery/abstract language, allegory, motif/themes or refrain, allusion (i.e. alluding to), foreshadowing, stream of consciousness, apostrophe, aphorism, apophasis, hyperbole, downplay (sometimes just called an "understatement"), euphemism... (cont.) Exaggeration and emphasis, compare and contrast, juxtaposition, litotes ~aka "double negatives", oxymoron (also called a contradiction), paradox, metonymy, synecdoche, flashback, recursion~aka "story within a story", allusion, alliteration, anthimeria, etc. Which then gets us into phonetically/sound related things — Assonance, consonance, onomatopoeia, euphony, cacophony, sibilance. Word play/patterns would be more about playing w/ the visual/grammarian-related side or aspect of writing~And is technically what all of this would be considered, granted it encapsulates a many of things! 2. Rhetoric or rhetorical speech: Anaphora, epistrophe, a rhetorical question, chiasmus (reversal of grammatical structure—which is a good one!), antithesis, parallelism, polysyndeton, asyndeton, zeugma, syllepsis, et caetera. 3. Others i forgot: Irony, sarcasm, satire, comedy, synchronicity, coincidence, double entendre, ellipsis, proverb, epigram, transferred epithet (e.g. "sleepless night", the pers. is sleepless, not literally the night), cliff hanger, climax, Anti-climax, epiphany, ambiguousness or obfuscation. In Medias Res ~ which is when you start in the middle of the action, e.g., the opening w/ a battle scene, cyclical structure~aka ending where the story, section or clause began. Conclusion Theres many more than that, as i just wanted to find a way to break em down, such that you could start to see the immense group of literary devices that "descriptive language" encapsulates—Some, which of course start to blend into each other, especially when we are trying to express the diff between "analogy" v. metaphor, or things like this. When you have the right term, that is a way to encapsulate or group all other terms; You have a way to find things in the enormity of your mind, since they arent entirely abstracted and incomprehensible, but they have some basis or place to live in your mind, which you can make more memorable later on. Anyway i hope that gives yous some food for thought to play w/ Also, if yous happen to know whether they still speak of things in terms of "descriptive language" n scool, feel free to correct me and let me know. Also also, if theres anything that i missed, didnt do, or fk'd up on this list, please feel free to correct it.

Everyones right when reality is wrong... right? If it is the location in space t'where everyone gets to be right, then i dont know if that changes anything its kindve unusual if you think about it like that, as a mass of people moving towards something together... like in other words, the mass is everyone searching for truth, and then the destination is that which we are moving towards. like im not sure if that is a goal that we would want or not (its too abstract to tell what that even means). Like obviously that is a goal, but, it is a goal -if we are overly optimistic. I think id be starting out more on the pessimistic/skeptical side, til proven wrong (again, i know, -its in the place where we are always going to be "right". But i dont understand what that means, yet, like it doesnt explain anything for us independently (unless we all die in the process, then itll in some sense have triumphed in explaining alot) Like to me, anything where we died in the process was successful in some sense, even if we dont get to acknowledge it afterwards. Like you just dont want to be staggered between two extremities (extremities that you can feel, i guess is how to put it) I'm speaking to the "grand-maya" of course. Ive sortve left the realm of normal perception space, but I feel it is related to perception (perception or whats the other /p/ word, oh "perspectives". or maybe its prediction. i dont know it doesnt matter)

I mean, we are breaching the topic that no one can breach. But hey... Why not, right... Like, okay, reality or the reality that we are working on... Thats the perspective we can speak on... Cause to speak towards the -istemi to, — is to breach the point that we couldnt return from. We mostly speak to the point that people can still communicate (even if it doesnt seem like they are understanding you). I mean, if we say its an illusion, we can still speak to each other about it, cause that part doesnt quite yet breach through. Like its almost like a test, right, "Are you gonna breach it? Are you gonna breach it? Are you gonna touch the chocolate?" its like, We can share a space of illusion since the paradox isnt quite breached yet. Like, to realize -is to be fucked, possibly in a good way if you dont mind, like eventually thats actually the last thing that you are worried about, granted its literally like self deteriorating. I mean, it IS derealization im describing, so, its not to be taken lightly, try as we might. i mean... im speaking to illusions of course.

"Gay Egyptian King, Here to bring you love light and peace, prefacing w/ the Egyptian Song, *Bring Love to the World, and..." Then we learn about "Ankh" from the Egyptian King, The Gay Egyptian Prince/Pharaoh, Ra Sém Bah, which is only the beginning for anyone gay or trans, hes got some interesting insights for you, if you click on *videos, and search by "oldest" videos first, and then scroll down, theres alot of material there for you, one specifically on *trans - im not even gay and i wana attend his Golden Beetle Temple! oh, and another curious thing bout lots of ancient, kemetic and hermetic, and african or greek stuff is like, *Why is there so many snakes? right? Like if you go back and read/listen to Dioscorides, every other sentence is talking about how to prevent or cure ailments ~ attributed to snake or serpent bites. Back in the day, you were brushing up against these little brushes where snakes use to~And still do live, tho weve cut down or isolated alot of woods and forests, so now its made alot clearer where the snakes should be at, And back then you got bit by a snake and died. People were smaller back in the day, so even small snakes were prolly dangerous. But anyway, the Eucharist back in the day (Kykeon) which was the same thing i believe, was a drink made from this snake venom to build immunity to~what would be future encounters, however only certain people were strong enough, so they had to ejaculate nd wat not, and create distilled forms of the immunity, through fluids that they had the most of, semen presumably being a go to for transfering to others... If they had datura in mainland Greece, they mighta been using that one Datura species for the Eleusian ceremonies~i forget its name~i mean theres 3 diff ones of Datura related to psychedelic Datura, but i use to know which was which ... Oh and these terms, Εὐχαριστία and κυκεών are related in the sense that, you would use them in the same context, or in related ones, as ευ - χαρις (karis) means "giving thanks"~gratitude or favor, and κυκαω (kykao) just means "to stir + mix", so you would be using these terms, or their derivatives, together to talk about "giving the ποτόν (poton) or potion" which is what "kykeon" means. Its a brew or potion (πόμα, poma and poton are more neutral, like "a drink") *p.s. "Christ" and pharmakon are different, but related to this context, but lets not get into that (too many words in Greek)

This actually breaches a weird topic by accident, on the topic of fear too, which is like, on the surface, there are these things you could assoc w/ fear, like a total state of disarray & chaos, and similar things like this, youd might associate it w/ fear~like the best way to walk it down through the Earthly realms to simmer it down into one experience. But beyond the most obvious things, theres this opposite place, a place where everyone is to be devoured, and although its essentially like the Egyptian devourment after death, its also this thing we are to fear~As fear itself too, cause its like... The soul, being made whole, it is to lead us all to that one individuality regardless~but this is like, the place that fear takes you to, And that contrasts w/ this aspect of the soul or experience where you are able to *resolve (in some respect) that constant looming fear, cause the fear and the overcoming are two constants, as you cant really have one without the other, its just baked into reality. And even in death i mean to say, the continued "experience" is itself the continuation of fear and overcoming. *Note, the balancing of the scale is your own balancing, your own contention w/ yourself, the "heart" or material item being placed on the scale, as an analogy towards your complacency, your acceptance w/ who and what you are in the moment before continuing to wherever you are destined to go thereafter. ... Part of this probably leads back into Christianity and the fascination w/ it, but I dont really think too much about that connection~however obvious it might seem.

Here's an interesting one to get yous thinking, cause it touches on this aspect of control~or that which we may hope to, As it is about this idea of madness, or those chaotic aspects related to~reflected in our world. And how, in Science, Philosophy and Theology, etc., there exists alongside those~a world of frenzy and disorder. I started out looking at this word rinselvarsi ("returning to the woods", or "becoming wild again") Which of course sounds alot like the early myths of Merlin right? That is, those stories where they say he was to go mad and fall into a frenzied state, living in the woods and worshipping animals and all of this stuff (And later, when they try to save him they manage to lure him into civilization for like 5 minutes, before he goes crazy and returns to the woods again). Thats sortve the first time they take Merlin from the folktale/songs of Merlin, and make it more like Myrddin Wyllt For those of you who dont know, Myrddin Wyllt comes before stories of Merlin, and hes more of the quintessential Mystic who "becomes wild" (and this is prolly during the same time you have the early, early, early versions of Author the Barbarian, way before the Arthurian Legends) Myrddin is actually the Welsh form of what would later become Merlin and "Wyllt" means something like wild, mad or untamed. The story goes, Myrddin, a bard or learned man, lives in society until a traumatic event befalls him (like a battle) and it shatters him; And one commonly linked event is the Battle of Arfderydd, after which he "loses his place in the world". So he simply withdraws into the forest. I'm not sure if they go that far into it, like w/ Merlin who literally goes mad, possibly speaking tongues~though i believe towards the end it depicts Myrddin going mad, but he is then taken by the Lady of the Lake and presumably taken to... Mermaid-land or somewhere.. Haha, lol i dont know. The battle of Arfderydd is actually very interesting, and some of the videos on Myrddin Wyllt do talk about it. In the tales of Myrddin, he def abandons society entirely to live among the animals, taking on a feral existence, and this is what gives him this prophetic voice (hence, what would turn into the legends of Merlin). I believe the Welsh texts are called Yr Afallennau and Yr Oianau though I get those early Merlin, Arthur & Welsh texts all mixed up. So Myrddin is like a seer, diviner and foretells all these crazy things. Later on, tales of Merlin turn the tales of Myrddin into an advisor, a strategist embedded in kingship. So the point to this is like, these are examples of early medieval tales that begin from a wild place, and w/ time are slowly absorbed by 12th CE era and the early Chivalry assoc. w/ royalty. And so, in all of this contemplation around structured sciences, there is always this element that contrasts civilized society. Existing alongside the serene forest is our chaotic tendencies and attributes, a truth that lingers~that which cannot be reckoned w/ in any meaningful sense, it can only be acknowledged & contrasted against. That is all.

@Joseph Maynor (part ii) Oh wow, so hes going way back to the beginning ~those important fundamental aspects to religion and western thought, as he mentioned the *logos, and i think he mentioned Platonism. Hes goin way back to the Greek Philosophy, And thats how all these things begin, or the kinds of ideas they have to contend w/ *p.s. this should be fairly obvious, but when i am talking about Martin Luther & King James ~ That has nothing to do w/ Martin Luther King, *i had a dream... Lol, cause im sure someone out theres gonna be like "OH i know, Martin luther king, i had a dream!"

(part i) Thx. Im gonna check this out. The other thing i will have to look into is Christianity as it was establish after Roman Empire and Italy by 1800, As i had started my research during the first Century up to 1700-1800. And now we are getting into what we could call "Christianity, as it is known now", Which then splits into European Christianity, and N. Amer/S. Amer. Christianity ~ Which i bring up because North Americas christianity is like... Its so heavily dependent on things like the King James vers., And seldom does anyone know that people like Martin Luther (1522 New testament translation that no one even knows about) comes from Martin Luther who was in the era of German Necromancy and Medieval German Alchemy, and King James wrote books on Demonology; Im being serious, they are individuals that started out writing different genres of magick (look it up) Ive done a whole thing on Martin Luther, as i was studying the Habsburg Chancery language, and Germany/Austria secretarial writings from that era of 1400-1500 And Martin Luther is very important for such research (inb4: like hundreds of other figures, but i digress...) ANDOh and Hebrew also began as a Medieval Magick language, atleast what we call Hebrew today. The point is, people dont even know the history of Alchemy & Magick~And how different Christianity today is from Christianity back then... But anyway... Going back to the video, im gonna check it out... @Joseph Maynor Thx man. Im watchin it now.

This kindve shows yous the lineage of decision making ~ for the Greeks (who were essentially the Romans from generations before) were all about Virtue, and Justice, Virtue & Justice as more of higher priority aspects ~ And it shows you how or why the bible is being written, in the sense that, the Ancient Greeks and Romans didnt care about the Angels; They didnt care about like ~ What Enoch was told... Wait, i shouldnt say they didnt care... They didnt *hold it to such a high priority that they thought it should coincide w/ the broader collection of texts. And so my point is like, Greeks wrote and arranged the bible to preserve what they thought represented justice and virtues, without the Jewish influence really having a say, And thats probably for good reason too as there was alot of "exaggeration" that you had to get through to sortve build this Jewish Magnum Opus... I mean, The Roman Empire went on later as a symbol of these things, that reflect the interests of the Vatican or the church of 4th CE, like that Vatican was, and still is like a symbol of what it is, its like... Rome took over, and Christians were in some sense, traditionless children who were taken ahold of, and forced (through happenstance scenarios) to approach life with the bible at their side. Like we have the wiggle room to see beyond, but the children of the original traditionless children didnt have that type of flexibility. Note, heres some ancient history yous can investigate: The Pentateuch (first five books) was translated around 280–250 BC in Alexandria, Egypt, That leads into a story bout the Torah translated to Greek... BUT what is missing from the story is those are Egyptian priests translating/writing, in the same way the Greeks would be looking at those texts, translating and writing. There is no bible at that point. We would be remissed to make a claim on "What those texts were" that go between Egypt and Greece, cause they dont come as a concrete collection, and they dont have the evidence to back it... They do have the Greek, so thats what yous can say. Like if Egyptian Priests cared, then they would surely be replicating texts all over like crazy, right? But thats not whats happened. Egyptians wouldve prioritized Egyptian beliefs. Who knows what or how the Torah even happens, and it doesnt matter. Its not representative of a puzzle piece that explains history, its just a roadblock to what the history would require in order to make sense. You could say the "Garrish-Maqluba" language was the original language that the bible was written in, and it would be making the same statement that tells us nothing, nor does it even make sense.

e.g. if all the bible was about people having these religious experiences with angels~Like one angel after another, the next obvious question would be if what we are hearing in the text is all about the angels (of heaven) or *Angel as an elaborate version of the non-angelic people experiencing something "Angelic". Like it would become such an obvious question, that it wouldnt be like "Theres two angels here... A direct exp. w/ God there... An interesting magical conclusion there, etc, etc" Instead we would have a bridge towards the next obvious questions, "Are these events real..Are we just misunderstanding *Angelic?"

@R.Thundercat, about M.Biglino ~ I'm listening to Mauro Biglino atm, And i wanna say i like this guy, but i cant understand what he says (XD halol), as hes tryina say something about "taking the book literally/historically"... However ... theres something in the description that says hes gona be talking about how ".. the chars. in the bible contact non-human (alien?) beings" or something, so i prolly wouldnt agree w/ that part. And again, because his accent is so heavy, its hard to understand. Though, so far from what ive heard him say, i do like this guy. Anyone Italian i find that i have a kinship w/ btw, so that parts not missed on me either lolol... And, later If he does bring up non-human, alien beings, like i said, thatll prolly not be my cup of tea, but everything else i would agree w/ I believe "Angels" are just real people. Not that hes said anything about Angels or Giants yet (i havent got to that if he does) but i would just say that, those are refs. to real experiences, interactions between real people. But that doesnt mean that the people in that experience dont transcend reality/experience; For everyones experience of a person is different then what that person could & may be, and so its not to dissuade everyone from the idea that theres Angels, but "Angel" is a personification, a motif of the mind or an Archetype of the mind. Technically, we could be Angels, and someone reading our words could be someone who believes *Us to be Angels. You see what i mean? *p.s. if i say something thats non-specific or its somethin thats not canon to bible, then i meant the larger corpus of texts that had been excluded from~cause the bible i think only has like two Angels in it ever~But you need all of them cause the whole idea imo depended on them. i assume all them angels are suppose to be in there, and they naively cut em out for whatever reason... Maybe they felt it sounded too unbelievable, i dont know, but it bridges the \*reality of the situation imo—But in angelic form

Oh, italian author right? i think i heard of him but i havent checked him out... i def will though... thanks for that, i am interested in that sortve stuff. I like listening, nd hearing wat ppl have to say, as it helps see what the broader opinion.. Even if its like a scholar who only does bible stuff.. & even if after i watch it and give it my full & honest attention, at the end~Even if i end up disliking him, i still appreciate being given the opportunity to dislike him if that even makes sense i dont know... I think wat im tryina say is, ppl should know that, You Are Appreciated. Atleast, I appreciate you. As some people dont hear that enough, And you can see their fire slowly dimming. Hey, Iuno about what others think out there, but i appreciate you. And that goes for everyone. I mean, its weird how we are sortve challenging each other as a form of appreciation... but then again, if we didnt do that, And if alls we said was "I appreciate you" over & over, it would surely lose its meaning, dont yous all agree? And there is something i wanted to leave for others who dont yet know or understand how to get started in history, languages, etc.... @everybod: My personal suggestion for others is... Dont start w/ learning Greek or Hebrew (language) unless you are coming from the Italian language. Greek is not hard by any means, but just to ensure the smoothest transition and exp., go in this order of operations, 1. Italian, 2. Latin (or go w/ Alchemical Latin first, And THEN italian, cause thats wat i did), 3. THEN Greek, and Hebrew if you are into it (it only has like a couple thousand words anyway) ... And i dont mean learn EVERYTHING in italian, i mean, sortve Dive into Italian to immerse yourself in it, then Dive into Latin to immerse yourself in it... Then do that w/ Greek. Lemmas/Thesaurus & dictionaries and very helpful. You def wanna learn the rules. Write down "your interpretations" of the rules, so that all these things *belong to you... Like, *to appreciate something, is to possess it... if you know wat i mean.. And so thats the sequence you want to follow. and after you do that you will understand why i suggested it that way. I mean most ppl prolly do know this, maybe some dont. But i jus thought i should make it explicitly said.. Itll just be easier... again, not that its that hard... but in order to sortve "backtrack the philosophy" of the romantic language emergence, you have to follow that yellow brick road, and not go, gellow, red, blu, gren, indigo, cerulean, etc p.s. in order to *backtrack Alchemical Latin, this is the key resources that i used to start, note however they also delve into some unusual bits of history, atleast these first books... And i forget if its the second or first volume that had the actual index of all the names (that is, Latin names of Elements + stages/processes, actions, substances, materials, recipes, qualities): i. Histoire de la pharmacie à travers les âges. Tome I, de l'Antiquité au XVIe siècle (In French, "History of Pharmacy Through the Ages. Volume I, from Antiquity to the 16th Century", 8th Century BC — 16th Century, et cætera) ~ ii. Histoire de la pharmacie à travers les âges. Tome II, du XVIIe siècle à nos jours (In French, "History of Pharmacy Through the Centuries. Volume II, from the 17th century to the present day", approx. 1700 — 1931 or 1932). ~ iii. Medicinisch- Chymisch- und Alchemistisches Oraculum: *(...)* (In German, which goes on, and fully reads as, "Medicinal-Chemical- and Alchemical Oraculum: in which one finds not only all the signs and abbreviations which appear in the prescriptions and books of physicians and pharmacists as well as in the writings of chemists and alchemists, but also a very rare chemical manuscript of a certain Reich, is enclosed", Ulm, Germany, 1755). ~ iv. In addition, I should reference the various alchemical writings by Paracelsus of the 15th Century — Archidoxes, Coelum Philosophorum, et cætera. Note theres, Alchemical Latin, German, French and Italian (And Ancient Greek Alchemy which is a whole other story) And so you are getting a little taste of this right from the start.

I just wanna leave one more note here for yall to build on, and that is how this story is bigger than Jerusalem and surrounding areas ~ As the common fascination is w/ the common era (1st AD Century), the same 12 disciples, or the same characters that pertain to the new testament, and thats a story of not so many characters, and trying to work w/ evidence that youd be hard pressed to say one way over the other about. I found it interesting because it related to "Rome" and Greece. Like, i believe that theres a piece of Rome / Greece that we are missing in order to change things for the better. I dont think things are gonna change for the better by looking at Jesus for the 50'ith thousan'th time again. Its the same situation w/ the old test., that is, your Noahs, Abrahams, Isaacs.. Jacobs, Josephs, Moses'... Alongside Aaron and Miriam (P.s. Moses is a common name... Thutmoses, Amenmose, Ramesses essentially = RaMoses); And several hundred years later n the old testa., you got Joshua, Gideon, Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, followed by Samuel, Jephthah, Ephraim, Samson, Saul, David and Solomon, and then Jehoshaphat, Elijah, Jehoram. Similarly you have the Angels outside of the bible (though theres one or two mentioned in the bible~canon): Arariel, Ariel, Azazel, Azrael, Bachiel, Cassiel, Cherubim, Daniel, Eisheth, Gabriel, Jerahmeel, Jophiel, Lailah, Michael, Nuriel, Nephilim, Ramiel, Raphael, Raziel, Samael, Seraphim, Sariel, Teraphim, Uriel, Zerachiel These are anecdotal figures from the ancient era, if they are real; Not characters that we know forwell (beyond any verses they might have in the bible). The new testament figures assoc., Jesus (or James or Mary) are the kinds of characters that fascinate ppl, but like, theres only so many times you can look at Luke 3:4 –> As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: Or ‘A voice of one calling in the wilderness... “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. Theres mystical theology and material not included in the bible, but you are reading the same things over and over, its stuff about Jesus (or stuff leading up to him) and im not sure what the goal in all of that would be, other than being like a fake-intellectual scavenger hunt toward nothing. Theres little, if any, Philosophy hanging at the other side of the rainbow. But, if yous wanna see a crazy story, https://eulogikon.org/index_alphabetic Start from the first figure at the top, "Abydenus the Historian", and just scroll up a little to see if the figures that start with /A/, see if they ever end... or count to yourself (1, 2, 3...) And see how long it takes to get to the first figure that starts with /B/... Thats jus' a slice of all of the figures (starting with /A/ alone) that derive from the Ancient Greece / Roman era of literature and fragments, fragments that we've had passed down to us. That is the epitome of Philosophy since it contains the seeds of what would be the recordings of~and the guide itself on Philosophy; Philosophy as a common term/notion that ppl would come to know I am going off topic, cause i already made a thread specifically on Philosophy, but this is just to say that, I wasnt actually interested in Jesus or the bible. I was tryina make a thread on whats-his-face, Josephus Flaviius to demonstrate that there are people from Jerusalem that are able to lead the story towards something \*else, instead of leading it BACK into that sht show that is Jerusalem, And they somehow survive, possibly being lucky enough to tell the tale and say something significant, and not about, "glory to the lord". Someone like Josephus Flavius wouldve been an example of someone staggered and shook, and just trying to *resolve those events in his head, in some way that felt like it was the truth for his situation / dilemma. All lives / experiences are like a resolve of a particular dilemma that we are thrown into, you know, if it isnt Jesus, then its like the Planetary Aliens and the Galactic Light on the Pedestal or somethin. If it isnt Big Foot, then its the Abominable Snow Man / Yeti', if its not Skinwalker Ranch, its something else... I mean, theres gonna be something at the *center of the conversation, and Jesus just so happens to look like something that fits in the center of a story, but that is like, a pointer to an experience that is a mystery, in the same way a' rare unicorn creature in S.Amer., or N.Russia is a mystery~seeing as nobodies ever found it yet. We continue to search for the unicorn, we continue to search for Jesus (or Satan, same thing, same *seed atleast). But these may not even be real people or creatures. History makes alot more sense when you see it from like a step-by-step, like carving one inscription on the wall at a time, and adding puzzle piece inscriptions to the canyon-side-winde or somethin', that which hold the most potential.