kavaris

"It is extraordinarily rare to reach the highest states of consciousness" I want to preface w/ something slightly off topic, but itll help yous see where im comin from (since this is more considering those who are exp, as opposed to the opposite, like those trying to go through said exp, and somehow not being able to arrive)... Like, before i consider ever replying to like the spiritual/philosophical things of this nature~I have to actually start at the Ousia, of like... Well you wouldnt call it traversing to the spectrum of light, as its like just a deepened *being* of sorts. The word ive invented for it, like .. the ladder that leads to.., is called "-istemi", like when you drop down into that thing where like you are having flashbacks/PTSD lolol, like im giving a very bad description of it now that ive described it negative, nevertheless you either know what i mean or you dont. And in dropping down to~What really is a positive (once you are use to) I see things maybe a little more clearly than wed normally be accustomed to; And im not really doing anything different or like, im not going very far out or anything, as its just one simple notch turned to the left or right, making all the difference. But anyway, i personally dont see the "states of consciousness" thing as like, "that which we all aspire to". Granted, it is very like, mind altering, and it can jump start you towards what im bout to describe. The thing im describing is literally like, *Yous are present within said states all the time* though the difference is just, relaxing into it~If you truly want it. To me, thats infinity. Its here and now. And its also why the Liminal threshold illustration is a pain in the ass, cause i cannot possibly illustrate how you go from a spectrum of *being—Infinity*, suddenly to "You are infinity"~Other than the fact that infinity directly stems from this thing called experience (hence, ousia—exp.—light) (note: i started calling it light, and thats a long story). But i mean, bottomline, im not saying you can logic your way to everything, but i am saying you can have had the exp., that everything is directly accessible, and from that point you can logic your way towards it~Towards that which is on the radar. That is all im saying in this post. Thank you. Hermes Trismegistus bless you.

Like in other words, even just knowing how something is gonna be difficult to define, is itself very helpful to ppl in defining As it sortve gives every1 now an idea of whats gonna be our weakest strength in the whole rigamarol

Religion = Egyptian language = Early computer (What a computer really is?) We preface w/ a story. In the early onset of the Chinese culture and writing system, the king of that early Chinese dynasty would ask \*questions, and he would have the royal aide, chamberlain or king's scholars write out the kings requests~What they thought his questions were onto fossils or bones (within a crude form of early Chinese) and then they would then \*burn the fossil, which would lead to these \*cracks in the bone, ultimately leading to "Oracle bone script", or what consider a kind of "Bone divination", as they would then interpret these cracks as being "nature's answer" (or an answer from either the primordials or an exalted form of the King's spirit, of which they assoc. w/ nature and other things like this). This is similar to the Egyptian's use of language. That is, they were using early forms of pictures (hieroglyphs) to mimic what they had/were experiencing in nature. Then they would perform a kind of \*Pictographic divination through the interaction w/ nature and writing out what the sequences would be, and over time their beliefs (\*believing in (verb) aka \*predicting in) changed and evolved, and were subsequently subsumed by these early pictographic letters or what we sometimes think of as a *stream-of-consciousness* language. Thats not to say then that there wasnt critical thinking involved. But anyway, at this point for the Egyptians, it was no longer based on "nature informing them and their beliefs/language", so much that it had become a kind of \*interactive divination, where theyd then take it one step further to try to \*predict what was happening in nature and around them, referencing early pictographs~or simply, "communicating through language" (albeit, they wouldnt have had fancy kinds of words to describe what they were doing, but thats what they were doing). This is whats called a "belief", however its an *advanced form* of it (today we call it a "program", though some people who are a little behind are still thinking of it as a religion). That is something that has both "input" and "output" is a belief/religion. Think of an **Abacus**: You have the beads (memory), and a user moves the beads (processing/input), then you have the visual count/content (output). Thats a computer. Thats a belief. Its a *system* that you use to evoke (or invoke) output to the screen (to your senses) only to *feed back into the system* your own input. Its also called a language. Language underlies belief. It underlies religion, and god, and all things holy on earth. Are there more things that underlie this whole programming thing? Absolutely. We havent even gotten started, put it that way. To be cont. p.s. the title of this meant to be "Egyptian language (and what a computer really is)" but it got caught up in a bunch of exp., and it came out like that

This is another thing we wont be able to fully describe until we make that \*God swap in our head (that is, until its more aligned w/ that sequence in the liminal threshold of \*being, then other things) Also this idea isnt authentically mine, so yous can try to find who phrased it like this originally. "We \*identify w/ the Broadcast and Not the Signal" (its important to separate those two, otherwise we are saying that we ARE the signal, but the signal is NOT the broadcast) Even in dream, where we are like pure imagination, we are identifying w/ the broadcast. We take the shape of all things, concurrently (or, we do this in some dreams~And some dreams we are just one thing the whole time, like this one, or so it appears to be). The moment you try describing this, it starts giving people different ideas about what the signal is, as its only the broadcast part being defined (weve made that clear). It makes total sense when you go to sleep and realize it, though it sounds erroneous to try describing the signal part, given the clarity of the broadcast part. In order to describe things like God, the signal, the light, etc., we ALSO need a new way to think about it (hence the rest of this thread which turned into this like, protest of sorts to get everyone thinkin diff about \*it), as God could imply infinite potential, or it could mean "the source, the beginning" or both, or neither. Its a long story, but itll essentially help us in defining the signal part, as well as all these things we consider Divine X or Y

No thats not true, but i didnt know what to title this: Like i thought of this time, back when i was doin alot of guitar and stuff like this, and i was approached by an older gentlemen, who sat down next to me, or nearby me rather, in the guitar store... Where all the acoustic guitars are sold?(they didnt hav any of them fancy old Lute or Oud-style guitars, not at the time, otherwise i woulda been tryina play them there) The point being, i tell this story of like, the time the older gentlemen sat down next to me, utterly fascinated by my style of playing, such that he was like, askin me questions bout how i got into it and stuff. And seeing as i dont play traditionally, nor had i been necessarily ever taught anything, let alone traditionally, i had him fixated w/ this, very strange sound, like i have a long list of originals (and this was like 10+ years ago, so i was really playing extra funky stuff that i dont even remember) and so like, it was like he just walked into a land of pure imagination, cause you could see how inspiring it was to him. And compounded w the fact that, he looked around 70 or so, so he was really cmin from a diff world entirely, and it was like, a revelation of sorts. He was involving himself—or really, he was throwing himself into this musical stuff. Like he kept grabbing guitars off the wall and plucking around. And he was just like, trying to figure out like, "What IS this MUSIC?" Like in other words, because it wasnt classical, it wasnt jazz, it wasnt country, blues, soul, funk or rock , he didnt have a reference point for what i was playing. So i can see now that, although to me i was just tryina figure out watever goofy piece i was figuring out, for him it was like a small introduction into a world of the arts, musicianship, where you are just explorin for the sake of just—painting shapes, repetitively, that which dont necessarily have or conform to any known medium. And so, i find this story to be true in other areas. That is, its not just music that has missing genres, but painting, art, and writing, and other things like this likely have small groups of individuals working on a whole genre of their craft that hath not been contemplated or experienced b4~Like its only by introduction that we can get a sense for what all these other genres are, and through further investigation find out why someone is so interested in something. Iuno if the story makes sense, as its hard to express the point of it, but thats it.

New word idea In my ritualistic way of going way off topic in my own thread, i have this question (posited to everyone) regarding what to call this thing that lives underneath a word akin to say *morality (or words that denote something familiar, similar to), but a word or synonym that blends between this morality word, and survival (a kindve word that feels like its a survivalish word) in a seemless/confusing way. Of course, how can that makes sense is the question you might have in response. I dont care if it makes sense or not, i just want a word for it: That is, its a thing you might consider oscillating towards~wat we could say is surreal source point, but it leads out from [insert morality word] point. Im gonna invent a word if no one else has a word for it, and then that way, we got a cool word to use on this rare occasion. Im thinking like, -istomi (the link to ~), which has an Uzbeky/Sciency flavor to it, cause its entering into a realm that on the surface seems like its pointing towards a familiar place, but it feels foreign in the moment. Uzbekistans pretty far from where i live, but iuno bout yous. Maybe thats the headquarters for actualized dot org, who knows. Well never know. Im being funny. but anyway, you could use this word maybe even as a way to describe a bridge or link between, like "its the istomi between X and Y" is the idea.

Post scriptum ~ None of us have the same Idea when channeling or communicating God --------------------- We keep trying to point to \*The Inexorable One, but the Inexorable one is *he (\*it) who pervades all human thought. Like humankind are the "right hand" of a **left handed being**, ergo the left handed one is only *one* if you include humankind within it. So in including humankind, we mine as well talk as if its humankind first and foremost. That doesnt mean you cant (or shouldnt) evoke the presence of god(s) or religion in a way that makes sense. But we bring to the forefront so much the existence of religion-esque and God-esque, and it straddles what we're really even able to say, Like, i cant speak on what Gods thinking. Like if this was a chain of command and God was at the top of the chain, i would say, "Hes fine", right. Like, what do you want to know besides that? My point to this is, we are trying to get to the bottom of what "self" is, but that doesnt mean to imply that there isnt like an All Pervading Soul to all of this, its just that that (\*it) at the top of a chain of command thats like, i mean, you have to be some sortve angelic being to see into what thats all about or something, or you have to be communicating to the plants, like The Secret Life of Plants, and creating this whole persona around plants and describing the Universe in terms of "how on earth you can take (A) *a piece of our language,* and associate it w/ (B, \*it) to describe (B, \*it)" Like some sortve abstract yet, incomprehensible way to link together nature and all these things... And in looking at it like this, we can then sortve mute that whole religion connotation to get to what im trying to say here, which is that: We are on a journey thats like, stunted by seeing God(s) as the utmost important part, and when there isnt any gods or goddess, atleast, not in the way we usually think of them, it leads to the next obvious chapter in our current story. In any case, we're learning (now) about how to think of these things. Now~or more soon than later~we'll be learning Not to be "thinking/interpreting them as powerful humans" ~Not that anyone was doing that explicitly... however, WE automatically apply FORM to a God(s), but virtue of not having a form to apply it to (if that makes sense). Afterwards, once we have gotten things straight to each other~Once we've shed ourselves of the numerous descriptions and versions on what god or religion is, we can then go on to tell each other (in a more agnostic and neutral way) how, *"I feel the light of Muhammad coursing through my veins. Or Jesus is here w/ me"*. Like we can use these things as a way to demonstrate what we mean when we say things, if we can, and then, we'll better describe "what it is we mean" when we even talk about God. Cause none of us have the same idea about God. So we need a way to better describe to each other what it means. Thats all iwa tryin to say. *P.s. Of course, theres something else i was thinking of~And when i remember it i might add it here, or post it later.

I guess 'control' is a funny one. When we interact with words we are also willingly investing/investigating into the meaning of the words spoken or received. What *control could (and may) mean takes on differing shapes+meanings. Like i would try to propose what it means, but we are also giving examples of what we are experiencing all the time, and in giving an example, i dont actually know what to make of it. "Fear" on the other hand is very poignant. Like, i try to get people to investigate romance languages, Greek, Latin, Italian, etc., because the way we use English is suppose to be like "using words to make distinctions" but when you start looking at something like Italian, like Greek, you realize they are using words in a totally different way. They are trying to "point to the essence/idea of something", which is different from just describing what something is... So in that way, "Fear" occupies a poignant spectrum or perspective they we've all been acclimated to in some respect, like... p.s. Im sure theres more to say but ill stop ther

Yeah its near impossible to stay on any sortve idealized, holy, path-like living typeve thing. Like its not even really pointing to anything concrete when we say things like, a holy path (i dont think u called it that, as im finding synonyms for your thoughts) like a straightened path. Like it enters into an experimental idea of *what the right path is*, but for each person, staying authentically true to yourself is all thats necessary. The Morality Play sortve makes it feel like theres a clearer right and wrong than there is, but this morality play changes, it evolves, and is evolving constantly, like, reality is being created because morality is fluid (soo in between reality — dream), like its only through our ability to use morality that we turn it into it. We cast a shadow of morality outward from the center of morality, and we define what it means.

Like when im working on self/being or exp., i do so sortve like, intending to view it from the beingness ousia point., BUT i also find things of history important or intriguing, and worth including. When ppl program you see this to, instead of getting rid of the code for some ancient thing, you can jus comment it~Leave a comment that explains like, "... historically we had this thing way back when, when so nd so arch., and compiler was big, nd we sortve we seen less nd less of it, nd its near impossible to find emulation for, let alone actual systems running, but i think it could inform us about systems later on" -typeve thing, like iuno i see it all useful to a degree. But it first has to *be* a program, like if its just this like loose abstraction over things in history, then its not really authentically true, and so that jus means it requires more work, cause everything starts from a place thats sortve pulling from multiple directions, multiple historical pts.

Religion (and God) is a backwards perspective on the morality play, like, Religion is to assume that one should "take that whole area of god nd stuff seriously" — When really its more the opposite in that, "The morality play gives rise to the opportunity to take things seriously in the first place".

yous are always talkin bout this peter ralston guy. who is he?

The following blends between like~being a philosphical thing v. an intellect thing, but i think it works here in this case — You can do this thing like, if you take Physics for instance, yous can draw a line of that which underlies to get at the heart of something. Like if we start w/ Physics, its really just defined by Math, So Mathematics Underlies Physics, in that its a more fundamental thing that describes Physics. But Language itself Underlies Math. So you then put Language in the front, and look at what language is (this is going somewhere diff i promise). What is language? Language is a Map. And Maps are a way of saying like, "This point lives here, and this point lives here". Its about making connections. So now, what underlies a Map? Well you could say, "direction". You need to be moving in a *direction in order to make heads or tales of where you are, and/or where that point (call it a totem) is... To take what's called a \*bearing, we measure the azimuth from our pos., to the totem using a compass (pretend we jus found a compass somewhere for a moment). And lets say that we sight the totem and read 145° on the compass dial. This means the totem is at azimuth 145° from our position. This is to be a horizontal angle clockwise from the truest north. True north is the direction to the geographic North Pole (or Earth's rotational axis). Magnetic north is the direction to Earth's magnetic pole (where a compass needle points) And these are not in the same place, so there's an angular difference between them called "declination". It varies depending on where you are on Earth. You can establish where true north is however relative to magnetic north (via declination), then all subsequent azimuth readings are automatically referenced to true north (essentially calibrating the compass to "speak in true north" rather than constantly converting to it each time) If we didn't have a compass, we could still derive approximate azimuths by first establishing cardinal direction using the sun's or moon's position, then estimating the angle to the totem relative to north. To triangulate your own position, its similar to *finding a bearing, w/ some caveats, though we have gone a bit off topic seeing as it wasnt thing main idea. Lol, i think the point was, we were sayin whats lower level than direction, though finding directions and working around them practically gets pretty convoluted real quick, so im not sure there is anything lower, practically speaking of course... Standing still? Maybe?... Its a philosophical ques., or like, a \*decision typeve question at that point, like, do you want to stand still or continue forward, left or right, red or blue sortve questions. Neither right or wrong.

Oh hey. Yeah thats good then. Hey atleast that got stuff like that goin out there in the aether then. And ya ill look up that book by Rob bubea to see what its about, as it might even help me to remember this thing that im saying i acciedentally forgot! Like, there was this whole other point i was tryina to get out onto the page. AND, would you believe it, right as i was organizing those separate parts &ideas, i accidentally made a boo-boo and deleted the wrong thing, the thing i was tryina save, dangit (i didnt realize it til i have moved and deleted some older things, and then came back to it to discover i did delete it); As its like, one of those things i had written in this small, little brief stem~stream / window of thoughts n stuff~that came to me so quickly. Alas, oh weeeeelll. We'll have to remember later on. It wasnt like it wasnt already baked into everything we were all saying, but it existed between the lines. Its gonna drive me nutty mad crzy tryina bring it back to mind, but ill get back to it eventually. oh my days.

We have to start a thread on this, cause i never really looked at it w/ such clarity before: That is how we are conflating this notion of like perfect, harmonic frequency, and like the ability to be at peace w/ everything and everyone, w/ the notions of routine or regimen. As we dont see how deep the routine goes, how deep our individual patterns go, thus we dont see the "language" building blocks. Like, what im tryina get at is that, even our ability to speak and hear words involves these small, incremental routines that we are misunderstanding. For instance, when we hear a word, or a string of sentences, we dont like "Hear words in order and interpret, done." We rather hear "words" upon which we've then ordered in our head. We do all the arranging and ordering in a subconscious way in other words. And even when we are *thinking* that its happening straightforwardly in sequence, we are really actively putting them in sequence. And we can go one step further, cause even thing like reading these words right now, unless you are just skimming and scanning and ignoring everything, you are thinking that you are looking at, and retrieving words individually. But actually your mind jumps around, and makes bridges between words, thoughts and ideas, and its all being arranged back into a sequence. When we hear "sounds in general", sounds in general have to be interpreted and placed into sequence, succh that they can be considered "sequential", like. The fact that we get "free sequences" is a lie. Like everything we do involved actively arranging it in our head. Now im not sure i had a point to this or like, a good point of conversation to draw on, but i think yous can use this as like, a pillar/totem to get at the heart of other such things like this, cause surely this is just the beginning. p.s. theres alot of things we conflate as well, so ill have to look at that old thread and figure out like, how do you order such things such that those things/ideas can be resurfaced; To later on~drop some knowledge, after we've figured out, or re-investigated that particular area of... iuno... whats the word... knowledge. i guess you call it "knowledge", like tie lopez's knowledge. jk. anyway. im done.

yes. especially back then, like wana say it was like 10 or 15+ years ago. Also... i jus found this vid, and i think its sound or vibe if considered, is the sortve vibe of what its like, like you walk into to this strange place, and theres this sitar goin on, and if you had never heard the sitar ( or any of those other weird instru. that they hav in the middle east), then it would be like, wah so interesting, what is this sound sortve thing somethin else i was gona say. dang it. dont remember

Im posting a vid that shows people/kids the type of cool stuff we use to have in the 90s. Because, maybe yous know this, maybe yous werent around for this, but we had this fkn cool thing like Legos, but it was more like this, or the idea of it to me was to be like That is, you wouldnt build w/ blocks but w/ *frames. And you would be k'nnecting a corner piece to a long piece to establish the frame (i heard it called a "rod" so maybe thats what that piece is called, no clue) And, such that you could have these other elements involved. Now i dont know if there was cogs and gears like this back then, as that surely wouldve been cool (note, i jus looked it up nd they did have cogs nd gears nd crzy sht like that) But the point is like, how do we start the next generation out with what is already on a path that is like, grounded and capable of making things that arent just the current paradigm of professions? Like instead of that, it would be more about maintaining the fuckedness that is the life theyll be in, and perhaps doing it simpler and better, as there hasnt really been anything inventive since like, well i mean everything has been inventions on top of a present tower—the present system of inventions. But its like, the way that system is progressing is neverending. Like we dont need more elements to build that tower. We just need very simple shapes and ways to compliment it towards simplicity, like, but i dont know the details of it, so im just calling it The Antikythera of K'nex

Oh Wait, There's a muscle memory element to it to, like. Hold on now. I have to write this all down, cause theres other stuff that im tryina remember, on top of the stuff we just said. So hold on now. p.s. i accidentally deleted whatever i was writing. fck me. i have to try re remebering what it all was.

I just wanted to add one more funny thing; Cause its like, imagine trying to have the conversations we are having on LSD or mushrooms, or trying to do serious computer work (or any of the stuff i am like, trying to segue into...) its like, its hard to do something when the god damn world is ending / breaking down, wtf!? I mean, try to do anything involving focuing when its like, everything is connected in lemniskos knots and whatknots. Its Cray cray impossible. And at the same time, its like, we are talkin bout like this divine knowledge of the universe as well; And gaining insights into places that i guess these like dedicated manichaeans and tibetan monks and ppl like this wouldve had to have taken years to figure out soly by sittin there trying figure it out, like... It makes life simpler when you ignore everything, like...

And then, to piggy back off of *intent focus*, we could ask: Whats the opposite of focusing intently? Paying attention to everything maybe? Is that what psychedelics do? I wouldnt say that (alas im prolly goin way off topic diggin into this), but i still dont quite understand whats happening on a psychedelic; Like, alot, alot of thoughts come to mind, like it speeds up, or it triggers this thing where it slike, your mind is bouncing , i would say, between these things that sortve blend your auxiliary sense, or whatever they call our 5 senses. And they sortve all merge into one. Though, the exp., itself is more like, you are individually still experiencing: As in, you are tasting feelings, or hearing what you use to feel, or seeing sounds, and stuff like that that bridges between the real and the auditory/efectively its a bridge to the once imagined, and by that, you are like, incorrectly (from the standpoint of normal waking reality) drawing connections to things, that wouldve otherwise not been present. Like its like this recapitulation of everything, but not like DMT i dont think, since it has to involve the stuff of reality. Like you have to contend with the fact that reality is, i guess you might say, being broken, but its not as violent. Like ive heard that DMT is sortve the strong version of this, in that it just throws you into complete wonderland, or so ive heard. LSD and mushrooms i can say are just the normalized form of it. Though ive never done DMT so i might have no idea what im talking about. Anyway let me just look at the title now, and see how far off i was... Okay that was all.

Ha! Not many ppl realize this this! You are dropping serious knowledge bombs. It requires MORE work to try to empty or eliminate and/or focus things into a specific direction than it does to "follow the yellow brick road" of ideas and stimuli (to consistently hold in your mind something, such that you might call it "focusing") Like, our minds were never really made to focus so intently. We still dont really ever focus in the way its portrayed, like... And even now its near to impossible since we still dont really grasp that like, our brains dont actually *focus* or *quiet* ever. They are always thinking and generating stuff, conjuring and/or bringing images to mind, even if it isnt acknowledged or even if its ignored, it is happening, consciously, subconsciously, like, we have never NOT had things happening in our mind. Even when it seems quiet (which is rare) it is the illusion of quiet. The mind is never ever quiet. We call this "quiet" but what it really is is like, "a comfortable state of peace" or something, like it actually is probably less quiet, but ignored, if you know what i mean. What we call *quiet* is actually "layers of noise" essentially, ignored in a certain pattern of ways.

What im lookin4 now, is the connection between three things in Ancient Egypt: 1) Book of the Dead -type've underworld/death journey ideas 2) Agriculture and this like, knowledge of Alchemy -&ideas 3) Language/symbolism or hieroglyphic/pictographic thing -ideas - &Like. What / if any, the connection is, as.. its not just death, but often agricultural stuff in the glyphs.. Or its not just agriculture, but death... Or its the language. Like what is it and whys it alternating? P.s. Oh, isnt there a thing like, eating the flesh of Osiris ~ and/or achieving immortality by sucking the breastes's of a goddess or from some divine flesh or fluids? That is to say then that, like back then, you werent only eating food but you were eating the flesh. I mean, alteast, theres a lot of agriculture and spirituality, put together i feel. whatever, doesnt matter, the point is, someone was inspiring them early on~to depict this like, ritualistic underworld/death exp., as such, and we want to know about it. Like... Let me see if i can remember now: Osiris (Enki effectively) teaches them how to farm properly, and Thoth (Tehuti, Nisaba or Hermes) teaches them how to write and record knowledge. Osiris doesnt just teach farming though, hes like, the underworld, or the world (they are eating Osiris, so hes not just the underworld, or maybe thats what theyare eating, the underworld...) ANywho, and the underworld is associated with the lion. Horus or the falcon/eagle represents the sky, the heavens, the world that lies above, or also its the Divine realm of some sort. Anubis is responsible for mummification, embalming and *guiding souls to the underworld. Theres also a *Griffin or a Sphinx type've creature which is assoc. *guarding one of the doors (i believe it is the door to our own realm?). Like the only characters i want to include in my research are Ra, Set, Horus, Thoth, Osiris, Amun-Ra and Anubis.. And the Lion, griffin things... i know theres alot of animals/chars., but i only really can understand like, two at a time (and whatever this word "lon" is suppose to mean, is intriguing... Though i didnt remind myself what hieroglyph it corresponded w/, so we'll have to find that out later)

Since we brought up the pyramids, i figured, hey, why not, lets get into the lost labyrinth now, as its the next upcoming adventure into the word of egypt and its sites (see my map, as ill jus repost it here in codeblock form). I found a video from ~11 hours ago, ero, its not like its old, vecchio news. Its something they are currently working on. Plus, I believe she talks about what the labyrinth is. p.s. every site i mapped out has, by virtue of its constructions and etchings, is just like, very very strange, and the deeper you go the stranger it gets (N) ^^^^(Mediterranean Sea)^^^^^^Canaan aka Israel ↗ Assyrian conquest ~722 BCE Aramaic becomes dominant in Israel region ↖ Alexandria | Nile (flows N to S) Land of Onias / East of Nile | Heliopolis ↙ ~30 km from Cairo Giza Plateau / Cairo ~110 km from the Red Sea (Pyramids & Sphinx & Memphis, old capital) | Hawara ~75 km ↖ (from Memphis) (Labyrinth / Faiyum) Akhenatens Cty ~200 km | ↓ 2,000 km ↑ | N to S ^^^(Nile, cont.)^^^ @ ^^^(Red Sea)^^^ | ← 250 km from river to sea @median → ~580 km | ~100 km from Abydos (Osireion) to Dendera Dendera (Oh'Hathor, Temple in Denderus) ~60 km \ Thebes (Luxor & Karnak) ~100 km | Edfu (Temple of Horus) ~160 km / Aswan ~75 km | Nubia (Sudan) ~

That would ve sick if there was a class in school called *Divine language* or *Angelic language* class; Like how to write in *stream of consciousness. Like that would ignite creativity for sure.

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.