kavaris

Q: For Everyone — Would ya'll be interested in seeing how, "believing, knowing, learning, experiencing, understanding..." how those words are connected, yet simultaneously do they represent totally different places or points of meaning? Like is that something yous would be interested in, cause its sortve like, a very long winded thing. And, unless it connects to someone's interests, it may be a waste of time to just like, start unloading all of it out of nowhere, As its a topic that also straddles "belief itself" and this internal world belief of reality / that whenyou dig into, it gives you a new way to start investigating it. It has to be something yous would even want, otherwise its just ~ pissing in the azuli wind or watevs.

(cont.) i mean, im always in some spectrum of a panic attack, and its like, in tryina find harmony in that, is itself the same, or similar, to the investigation of enlightenment or whatever it is, its like its the same things required/needed, so it ends up looking like its part of like, "normal attainment of", even though it looks like im in a war, harmonically speaking, or just a war of thoughts just built up over years of anxiety and experience w/ the same metamorphic things, like this constantly transforming thing that we're tryina remain in balance / harmony w/ /And im, usually, in an unrevealed state of a war that im tryina make harmonic, if that makes sense.

I meant to say, i literally feel like im dying when i wake up, like the change-of-blood thing, like im having a panicattack when i wake up, its too much tied to, *nightmare from minutes ago thing — *body-falling-apart — *feel-like-im-dying — *trauma being re visited through this change-over — *fought to keep myself awake — *find myself in the anxiety-to-calm shift, drastically being shoved together... And then, it eventually balances out, cause its alot of high energy that im tryina just like, Go in the kitchen and eat something, like its energy that can only be redirected, otherwise its like inflammation waiting to happen.

Oh ya, thats interesting. It gets into somethin very deep too, Alas, ive only jus woken from a nap, And my conscious-awakeness is still coming online, so to speak.

And it is hard, difficult, but hey, ppl take psychedelics, in a normal, non-partyin context, and they get this fundamental download that doesnt require anything from a normal thinking perspective, abd that is already the prominent seed, and, its well-beyond anything you can think about practically. And then actualized -i believe could potentially be the accelerated germinator -kindve thing. Basically what im tryina say is... Actualized can be the well-prepared soil and germinator -for an idea that is only a germ-of-a-thing... or... like... it could be buried in someones unconscious! Wherein, its then being placed on a plate to germinate. Like... Actualized... IS... The Cat Matrix.... 😄 basically... i would say so...

Reality and active involvement (historically to today) Thisll sound random, but i wanna say Aristotle, Metaphysics, he has the advantage over his Master, Plato, in that hes not having to ground philosophy, so he only need talk about the absolute, Being, and then a whole lot of hierarchy and context, and that sentiment, that idea of giving the next generation the framework is, i believe, a little of what happens in Christianity and such, because now they can borrow that idea, infuse it into a larger context, create a boundary around it And make it look like its authentically justified - such that Alot if it doesnt have ties to anything else, or if it does it has symbolic / interpretive ties that we practically see no where us... We see an historic Moses, etc., And we do hear bout Greek ideas around people remembering their ancestors like 3 generations back or somethin (i forget wat thats in) everything else is more like, the real, and the metamorphic, from when it existed in myth and magi, and ppl like Proclus, etc, they show us how theres ppl thinkin bout near similar ideas around One/God, and that idea of god basically is the most disruptive to everything, And someone, possibly like several of these desert father jews, push for this thing, And obviously someone gave them a platform to do it freely, to let the ideas flow freely, or they collaborated w/ someone who was into the same ideas, i mean, each generation takes control of the previous, changing that fundamental hierarchy. In that way, Being was erased from history, canceled out just by no longer seeing it in that early fundamental hierarchy, and that philosophical 'One takes on very much a new look and feel that is difficult to untangle. Iuno... Its just been made difficult to untangle... easy to research, difficult to untangle, difficult to keep in balance too, since its about reality / experience, which is in active involvement.

New Movie: A Cat Matrix

We have to rewrite The Matrix a little, like the relationship to tech and the mind has to remain passive, like today, as Ai-out as yous want it, however the tech can still be present and alive, but more like how Neo starts talkin to his computer in the beginnin, As then its like, 'you got this code of Alien talk that happens on a normal prompt, and then, thats the matrix... just chattin... Sayin whatsup... And tryina stay in that realm, for death is akin to one of these dimensions you can fall in, which isnt necessarily easy to do (meaning, the dimension/paradigm...) i mean... death is easy cause everyones pointing to it, like "Youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die"... Like... Its not just people pointing to it, but the layers of conception and imagination are pointing to it, as a very finite, triad, birth, death, life, birth, death life... or you kno wat i mean. I really like rats and cats, as i feel for the cats. They are not good at conceptual thinking however, true.

You know, theres gotta be a way to share this w/ ppl as a realized-joke, like an obvious trope, dark humour, that, for example, When Canada wakes up in the morning, whats the first thing they say? "Death to America". When China's world leaders get together in a room / meeting, and when the guy/speaker is pointing to a map, whats the first thing all of the board members agree on? Its "Death to America" When S. American families send their kid(s) off to travel down fecal-matter road to find a nice caucasian wife, they make sure they know, its "Death to America" And when young men from the middle east hear the roosters calling at sunrise, whats the first thought thing on their mind? Its Death to America. Its a joke, but theres some truth to it too of course. Granted its hard to share it beyond this video. Like if it comes outa my mouth it makes zero sense probably. Also, there use to be this trope where like, for e.g., youd have an issue w/ another culture or another place/country or state, but if you shared the right kindve dark humour w/ them they would start laughing and forget about the issue temporarily, as it worked as a way to temporarily disarm two arguing sides or something. I mean it has to be the right person at the right time sayin it right.

When the little boy from the Matrix says Not-spoon, he then goes on to fk w/ reality. Wtf, we wanna move spoons too!... But, thats perhaps not just a mind over matter thing, as its like, a matter of matter, for the mind. Like it matters what type of matter you are "talking about" to yourself, Like what type of matter that spoon was, suppose to be, like they all share that 'realm of relatable matter... Its like, determinate matter, where its being pictured in layers of differing ways where its very much "matter"... I mean, a sudden-liquid spoon is kindve not the same matter that we would call matter anyway, so its following a path thats unfamiliar territory, which is quite difficult to relate to. Thats a testament to how much we rely on routines, cause liquid spoons isnt just like... ... it isnt just an idea, like... And, it's not something that happens spontaneously on a daily basis. Like "His spoon went up, spontaneously! It went up in liquid formation!!!" *p.s. maybe i shouldve said "it is of concern..." or "it is relevant to 'what matter, you speak of..." so that way its not getting smushed by English's horrific sciency "matter", as a way to represent concern and physical matter w/ the very same word, a polysemorous word or watever-the-fk

We are now at this, granted, i just wrote it up, so its like 'Hot biscuits atm,

I also had a vision of this twizzler of differing ways to describe this again, like the way to talk about self next to these ideas, and that then changes how you want to speak of experience, cause im not quite sure if theres a totally set, defined way to place those words together ~ like its the boggling, the twizzlering of self as it becomes experience, or something like that... Like its two aspects or something, coming together, to give it the right context, and its hard to place it right now.

I wrote this line, but i really like it, As a way to illustrate how sometimes the lesser etymological realm, much like etymological feeling space, is a preferred place over pure descriptive language towards a destination. That is, you can have "artistry, experience" or the simpler, lesser (lesser said), direct "absolute" experience. Kinda neat... right...? *shrugs?*

(cont. ii) First we have to do this, or it will never be understood; Differing the versions of Not-thing (spirit of Not-thing) Quick note: I would be remissed to ignore you on "A chair is also not a chair" point, as i must describe the absolute perspective it points to, cause thats an important subject matter that actually does point towards the absolute idea, the other perspective thats simmering under? To begin again, "Not a thing" is purely grammatical negation, when we (you, i, us) talk about "no things", such as in the past, prior or apriori positions (whether it be before/after in time, etc.) thats not a "Not-thing" defined!... Not-things arent things... its only a "thing" because you dont have an actual description for it, so it absorbs "that very thing itself" thats why yyour descriptions for things keep taking on this "a chair is not a chair, not a thing being all things" That is to say, the absolute captures the idea of a thing, and that itself already captures "absence" (we can do better, description wise), BUT... You arent actually talking about that. You are talking about how "reality, in its absolute, is potentiated as a thing... that also includes itself when it reverses... when it goes back to source" Thats what you are trying to say, but it one of those things that is like trying to point to the very thing itself, and in doing so, we show someone the product of reality, without the cause, without the apriori spirit that gave it its name (the thing thats inactivated) The other part to it is like, theres this thing where you have "potentiated reality in the act of", and that cancels out the source. It doesnt validate it, because to validate is to "act facing towards" (validation now as a stricter version of) ... This is the thing we are actually talking about when invoking a Not-thing (obviously) but it doesnt actually do anything to the person who thinks source means like .... ... Iuno what they'd think source means. They prolly are imagining "when i was born, then i was this, then i become that", like, they are imagining this basic source code of self, not self in the experienced, validated sense we just described (or just absolute, but absolute is the single word term, in a hierarchy of lesser terminology) (And i suddenly go off topic / off script here...) And thats really the beauty of language, we can talk in a descriptive language realm/territory, because a single word creates a space for it, it gives it this "reason" to exist, since its saying "Now its okay, make a descriptive language version". Or its a pages of words that are saying "it can be made clearer and w/ less, or even single, separated words". That is to say, sometimes people (and i am assuming "us") ARE actually talking about a REAL experience underneath them words, so its not that someone is right or wrong, its "who spent way too much time trying to meticulously point to the right terms, in the right way, and such..." which is just profession... its just, its just artistry / experience, not plain, absolute experience. So no one is right or wrong, not when its a matter of trying to take what you can feel is simmering underneath, bring it to the surface — unless they dont sound like they are interested or even know wat they are tlkin bout, of course. They can potentially just be wrong and they dont know it yet.

(cont.) Like, if someone says, > Person 1 says "Monad = Gonad" > Person 2 says "No" Thats sounds crazy rediculous, but its levels beyond just stagnating and looking around the room, not particularly focused, maybe thinkin about the nature of your Sims 3 character or your tamagotchi pet, like its a step above the 2026-fully-wound-up-in-whatever without direction, cayse now its got some investment in the dialectic attitude of "what you were even doing to begin w/" which is itself of a profound nature.

Even when it sounds like the dumbest, of the dumbest, of the dumbest thing stated, Its an "Are we tracking the referent w/ this word or idea" in that, its a way to invite agreement too. It's 'how everyone may recognize, or come to recognize for their own case, whether everyone agrees/understands, or not, up unto that point in the sense that they have the opportunity to flag that datum / word that was pointed to (e.g. monad, or whatever it may be in the course of thought) and to consider the pages that lend themselves to this fuller context (internalizing that 'page of requirement, if it is like a pointer to a prior/or posterior thing or sumthin) i mean, just technically, thats how something like that could function, or should function, like when its actually got a lot of different elements that can change the nature of the question or the argument.

Through understanding t'what ya mean — I believe theres like this mystery / unknown element behind the knowing. And your own self- The thing that does conceptualizing, doesnt know who, what, ..., upon which should lead to "THAT conceptualizing of..." -something like that, yes? I believe that to be the case. You (we, us) anyone... ... They dont know what anything is, until theyve validated it and linked it to that idea of "This is known" or "This is still unknown to me". Im sure you had another part to it to, i just dont recall what it was right at this moment. Im wingin it, up to this point so i dont spend too much time in wonderlandei. Apologeis if i totally did not even get the whole subject matter incorporated in there, as im avoiding—the long time spentin Vvonderlandei tryina figure it out.

@Mellowmarsh Which part?, that is to ask, was it the "chair is not confirmed to be 'chair" part, or was it the "finding out what meaning is, is like, not knowing meaning" thing? I see one path being about the nature of validity/locating it, and the other is about "whats meaning... or what ..." or im tryina understand... Is that second part suppose to be like "until you know", like is the emphasis about, what its like to mean (represent/define) something ~ up until, or is it about "what it means ~that wiill precisely equate to your answer, cause you gave it the meaning?"

I need approx. 10-25 mins or so, as i eatin sandwich. And my cats like lookin at me, as im goin "deep, deep, deep, deep...", on my phone, waitin for food.

Yes. Its not the case that our intention is to necessarily cancel out anything. It may have not been your intention either, as it wasnt my ultimate intention (i think it was something i started in order to lead us here, possibly, maybe). And even if it was my intention, cancellation wouldnt necessarily imply elimination. How can you cancel the conception of yourself?... How would you know you’ve been cancelled, if there’s no conception of you who could know? - Depending on whats meant by cancellation, you can conceptually cancel out yourself via a line of negation. Thats kinda what i thought we were doing at first... until cancellation took on multiple ideas... Now cancellation means something more like softening or muting, in the looser sense. In the strictest sense, we are saying "what validates or invalidates <X> or..." something. Its a conceptual idea towards a possible revealing. Okay. And let me just add in one element into this, to see if it starts to like... unblur the field-of-view / fog-of-war... "If everything was an intelligent field, or a spectrum of intelligence", what does that now mean for the thing doing the conceiving of, and the subsequent product / action of conception? And what does it leave us w/, per the motif, not to monotonously keep rephrasing the same things, but to just stay in a somewhat familiar territory given my need to introduce this totally new, possibly disruptive element (that could potentially crash the logic, or lead us to a dead end, or anything else that could result, per the wonders of the unrevealed mysteries ahead)

Like, im thinkin of it like "We need something that *conceives, of, things* because, 1) Creation - Something has already done said creation. 2) Conception - That which is conceived is not canceled, because its immediately in conception, like its effectively conception itself. 3) "To cancel" is then said to be, 'something thats not "cancellation of everything" — atleast — in this particular way / However this may be cancellation in just one particular mode of, like... muting, for example. 4) Elimination via cancellation is yet another kind of cancellation, for its not necessarily assumed that anything has been eliminated, unless its this one (bulletpoint (4) now) In conclusion, if we went down this path, we'd have a very complicated view of what it even means to cancel, conceptually, for it could just be that we are softening one side for another... but in the strictest version of, we have to have had some self creator, not to mention, to cancel everything out is to be left w/ something like a person whos been doing the conceptualizing ~ whether it be connected to self creator or not.

Thats interesting. Stop it there for a sec, As i need more than a sec to think bout that mind-winder.

Oh i didnt see this post. hold up.

^Hold on now, forget about God or not God, etc, etc... P.s. im watchin a video to stay entertained, cause weve stumbled on a very tough Parmenidian path here... "If we cancel everything out, whats that leave us w/, and whats doing the canceling, and how is it doing said canceling?"