kavaris

4me personally I personally think of god as a cyclical apóspasma or tasting, or sipping of the sea of time, the sea of confusion that we are all actively remembering and misunderstanding (maybe theres a better word, but im fine w/ the word \*confusion, that is simply, "a sea of confusion" to be); And we are the witnessing of said tiny, flowing circle of sea-like dream, whilst its maximized~such that exp. can be on the outer ring and remembered as (or retained as such) Like, just to harp on the idea of a self now, say if we have~or want to reference our "soul", then we might go on to talk about how said *soul is "an immortal, eternal soul" (because notice, no one has ever said the soul dies ~ cause in some sense our use of the word "soul" carries with it the belief in something transcendent), not to mention its all as something we share as one. By that same coin we could say that we are god and god is just one, but god is also the godhead that exists as a person in some spectrum of the word, so its leaning or extending outward, like i feel like im stretching my arms out to touch something when we invoke a god. On the other hand, theres also a "spirit" which is more akin to "the spirit of the woods" or something pertaining to Earth (Gaia). That is, the spirit world, or the spirits of the deceased, or things of this nature. Like a spirit is animate, where as the "soul is guide", both to and from~what im calling "the sea of confusion": ἡ θάλασσα τῆς ταραχῆς (h[ee] thálassa t[ee]s tarach[ee]s) To me, everyone is to encounter "that which they didnt understand" in order to pass on, which is precisely what a sea of confusion would be—Ergo it is by default that one makes a proclamation about "life, generally" so we mine as well share what it is. So to again reiterate, ἡ θάλασσα τῆς ταραχῆς (h[ee] thálassa t[ee]s tarach[ee]s) To me, theres no equation where i can fit the notion of God in there, tho thats not to say it cant be in someone elses. I jus dont even frame it so~to make it a one-worded, conclusive ending, as i prefer to describe exactly what im feeling, seeing, touching, tasting or hearing, right in the moment. And, of which may sometimes take on apóspasma, thats sometimes the only way to introduce an idea, or to paint a picture in mind. p.s. feel free to steal this if u like it, as i hav too many ongoing projects, and i want to detach from some of them such as this

4 urself, In Egyptian belief, the god is Atum or adum who later becomes Amun, aka Amun Ra, aka Ammonia/ The Moon/ Mon (Reflection), and reflects the self? and will later go back to Atum because, hey, it always returning to the original&and thats just wat happens. So it makes more sense to refer to a person, otherwise we have a meaningless word, since these words like god, consciousness, et caetera, the point to an "all" like "the absence of light" like, its like trying to say "everything = one_word", which we already have a word for. That word is *everything*. Of course, these are like ques. asked repetitively, again and again, and even answering the question doesnt really get it thru or help. The real question you want to approach, hopefully speaking, you should be asking is about "the self" and your relationship within said self, and what you might go on to identify and understand about the (i) of the self. Alas, even that answer is insufficient and maybe further explored n' re·answered 4 urself down the royal road (i guess its kindve weird when you start from god. you have to start from self and then ask about god as an extension of the self, not the other way around)

I mean if/when they unearth that stuff stroon along Cadiz, Spain into France, that should really open up jus how crazy everything is, or how old it is atleast, cause this is like, essential knowledge - Starting from Spain, and then corkskrewing from egypt, and back to greece/europa again, as you have the Antikythera. Whys that important: because the missing idea in all of this is windup mechanism/clockwork, not that the egyptians had that, but its something the Greeks were playing w/, and that we played with, very briefly, and seldom now do we even think of these sorts of simple mechanisms cause we arent thinking like "large amounts of time ahead", like you want to start replacing stuff with mechanistic clockwork (not that the whole things couldnt utilize other principles inside said windup mechanism). Like. dont yous know about Ironforge in Warcraft, like thats a real place, if yous want it to be, like.

oh yeah. And i forgot there might be a spiral platform involved, as many ppl have mention this thing about using weight from one end, to exert and pull the other, for the heaviest manners to maneuver it into place from a sliding/base perspective. But then you still need to do a pulley-in-place sortve deal since its gotta be shimmied into position even after its been slide up spiral mountain (its more like a guide so that if when it falls it doesnt shatter, as everything is important, like you dont wanna have to redo everything) The other part of it is regarding how they made that initial pit system, cause that itself requires another mechanism to construct, which is older than the constructed construction. So you have, A) * constructed construction for said construction, that is this pit ordeal, tomb of the birds, whatever B) The construction being constructed, that should exist around the pyramid in conjunction w/ said pits and shits. C) its nowhere near it, cause then they are positioning it via pointing to celestial objects, and they cant have a person standing inside of the final construction unless they wanna be filled in with thousands of blocks, so there would have to be refernce points positioned high up, like bamboo shoots or something that are indicative of the precise direction, angle, etc., as when u go in there, you notice that its not ideal to look out of like a telescope, so that means its even more crazy, since they have some sortve other constructed reference to that precise constellation in their time. Anyway the constellation stuff is a whole other aspect, cause theres lots of that in the decisions. Also the pyramids sides @re slightly concave, like its not like its just a smooth side on all three sides, its precisely indented. I mean theres lots of weirdness like that, all which has a point, otherwise wats the point.

If yous wanna get into how they are built, i can break it down for yous very meticulously, but yous need to know about each area of egypt, as well as all the chemical analysis and evidence goin on there, as each pyramid is being shaped in a totally different way, and each generation gets more retarded than the last. First u have to know what wgypt even is, as theres more than jus pyramids, and each location make pictoral and symbolic references to the history of the last — (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) ~ ``` (note: wen i get on my comp, ill turn that section into a codeblock) So in the temple of hathor, theres evidence of Spiritus salis or spirit of salt (aka hydrochloric acid) used, which melts granite, which is precesly wat we see on tge steps leadingo into said temple. This not only can and is used to make some of the pieces (the impossibly large, single piece ones) but also to do the hieroglyphs. Bee honey has to be used to prevent said acid from reacting outside of its target~Granted theres more complexity to it cause they are layering these things as if they have very deep and complex understanding of alchemy. And its not just Granite. Theres a harder stone than granite used for a couple statues, as well as the uber popular type of limestone they used, which can be quarred out from the kartoosh~however~the issue isnt about quarrying out stone, its how do you lift pieces of stone into place, as unless you wanna be one of the thousand fools to try breaking their arms at the other end of the rope and pulley system, then you arent going to get too far... So what you need is a machine, albeit a very primitive machine thats gonna lift everything and swing it into place. Now do we know what that machine is? Well we have these deep, deep pits in (see video, those pits w the birds). they can use those to exert force downwards, and so thats one piece of the puzzle yous can explore. So thats one. Two is we learn about the giza pyramids from i wana say its in Luxor, ... here rather than me try and explain what all the sites look like, lets show wat the giza site looks like, nd yous can jus watch the video. Yous can use that information to model it in ur head. But remember, they dont use *one way. And they dont need to push stones down the river, they have all the stones needed on site. watch this video (@12:30 around there) so you can see how incredible complex each shape of each stone is, as thatll start to open yous up to the kind of compkexity involved. This is super meticulous stuff, so this isnt like, get some of your workers to make random stones, like this is an intellectual undertaking. u have to have a lot of time and a lot of passion. p.s. always remember that everything at the site is there for a reason. And, that its precisely because they took for granted the gods~that they were able to specialize in al these language, engineering and alchemical feat/skills. Yous still havent even got to the language part, like yous have a long way to go.

Aare any of yous into like a blend of mysticism->spirituality and philo? the reason i ask is cause the other day i had thought of makin a thread / ques., tho its slipped my mind, i do kno it involved some mystical thing. When i say mystical, i wanna say it was either on astrology/astronomy or aalchemy or ancient greek symbols, like one of these, but i forget. Tell me whaat yous into. and also, hey, say anythin yous want... talk about biscuits and mashed potatoes, i dun care. p.s. i also thought of somethin regarding socrates but i forgot that too, as i been very busy.

Like, "the waking mind" is a state of shock, in contrast to the frequency of a sleeping mind, as one part of our ability to perceive entails like "does this feel....?" or rather "Does this thing match that other thing?" Like thats one of the most primal first questions before you get to like "Who am i or where am i", like first its about bringing things that are the same together, and trying to see what it means, or what even is a thing. Like we are talking about like, super primitives now, like waking up after an eternity in a place where reality has turned to rubble or something. Like theres no distance that our experience wont take us, and in all of that divergence, the most primal questions of like~before we are receptive to language nd all of that, we are like, trying to compare and contrast rocks, like.. The way it feels to do that is itself an example of what two frequencies matching might feel like~and hopefully it feels right~good and as if you are meant to be there studying rocks like archaeology-esque or watever. That is what it is to exp., or, an example of that which is necessary, if to understand how we first start out. we are never at a far distance from our first experience, but weve added confusion layers on top of it that make it seem like its at a distance. Like to die is to be at that beginning of matching up them rocks again, as if a prior had never happened. i could go on but let me stop there or well be here for an eternity talking.

(Warning: This is yet another long one, but its worth the journey) Theres something that i think we noticed that we may have not put enough attention towards the other day, which is like this thing, where if you sleep and put on (like a video) something that would be otherwise more engaging, or more enticing to you while awake, it is less perceptible and interpretable within a sleeping mind. But on that same token, if you have it where that same video is being recited in a form thats more focused/attentive to the consistency of the frequency or like the quality and properties of the sound~while still retaining the richness of the language, then the sleeping mind is interpreting it in a way where its like, sinking in, and in a way that compliments the overall story of the dream. its kindve like how "sex" and "violence" was used to get people attention in the realm of movie making. the consistent frequency is like that for dreams, as it goes beyonder just a meditative or questioning mind (?) 🧠 like it goes into a place where your mind goes beyond "grounding" or interpretations to justify what is happening. that is, the frequency of what is happening has more voice, or more *say in what the dream is tryina do, where its tryina go, like its like a second voice in the dream~or a companion. Or in other words, its not disturbing and destroying the entire 'quality' of the dream (that is assuming that youve found wat im calling a consistent frequency, which really could be anything) Like, even if you are in a somewat of a nightmare while asleep, notice that the idea of "nightmarish things" has a very different meaning while in a dream. And so, that is to say that you are not scared because scary things are happening, you are scared because the frequency either isnt complimentary or its not there at all, like being locked in a room of silence, like... You are scared when the frequencies dont match~so to speak. And so just to reiterate, the way we interpret in a dream is not that different from being awake, but the frequency or vibration is so different that we are sortve like, in a state of shock by those layers—sometimes subconscious layers, that enter into the dream layer. When, what we want, what we truly desire are consistent layers, which is what everything is in its most settled form is suppose to be like (not to conflate that with like, infinite peace or silence). The opposite is actually silence and peace, like the modern notions of meditation are confusing silence w/ a meditative mind, but silence and like, things that disrupt silence like loud BANGs, are ingredients towards staggering that natural frequency. So anyone thats into meditation, yas have to investigate "frequency" in general, as yous are missing an entire half of the story, which, without it, cripples meditation and dreaming, and everything else, as the quality of everything depends on deepening your understanding of the layered onion that is frequency (consider thay frequency doesnt imply a single note, as its made of harmonics, layers, and layers and layers of harmonics @ degress that we are not always perceiving or open to). Your daily food4 thought. Thank you for listening.

I guess ppl didnt realize, but since everyone hated Return to Silent Hill, it seems evident: No one (except for a few of us) is into that cheap Japanese horror game aesthetic that it was going for -> that is, where you have the really bad script/lines and, repetitive characters (that is, in making a cheap game, you cant afford more than one \*model for the female char., for instance). Of course thats not the only decision behind stuff like that, but its more economical. The whole aesthetic is more of a statement than it is anything else. i was actually making a story inspired by those types of repetitive elements. Though i think there was something in the beginning of Christophe Gan's SIlent Hill 1 that he needed to incorporate if it was to successfully portray what i think it needed. Alas it was a missed opportunity (And i thnk its from a very specific game on steam that i couldnt even tell you what the game was called) But anyway, seeing as everyone hated it, i guess we just sortve have to wait until ppl warm up to the idea of things like this, seeing as the industry and audiences around the world are going through changes. So eventually that aesthetic will come back, and ppl will be like, "Oh wow, thats what they were doing w/ that 3rd installment of silent hill movie..." And consider there probably wont be a movie like it again, i mean the chances seem low now. so its really the last of its kind until someone has confidence to put so many of these like... *elements that are at odds w/ each other, all in one movie together (i liked how it came together). Like, the director mustve just been like, "we are doing this. its gona be awesome. albeit, no one is gonna realize it until 100 years later" Also, if you look at movies hes directed, or atleast on his wiki page, it says 2006 - SIlent Hill, 2014 - Beauty and the beast, and then it goes all the way to 2026 - Return to Silent Hill. Like, his main concern his whole life has been silent hill, like... That right there says alot, unless they just didnt add any movies hes made to his page or something. Like, usually directors, even small ones have had tons of movies theyve experimented w/ since 2006. Christopher Gans is like, "Just call me when yous are ready". Like thats crazy.

Im gonna teach you a word: "pericope", from Ancient Greek περικοπή, perikope, And it refers to the cutting-out of a section of text that you find worthy or coherent enough to be included within the final writing/text. And so when you are using Ai, whether it is for writing something, programming, whatever the case may be, you are simply telling it stuff and learning from it, in order to produce something that you deem worthy (such as, something within the context window or response of the Ai; Or something you plan on extracting/cp/pasting). Of course, that doesnt mean that you have to share that text, and, its often the case that you may want to share something else~that which includes \*organic mistakes, and so that way people know they are talking to a real, human/flawed being. Alls the Ai is is "your words" being reciprocated back to you (albeit an advanced form), such that you are taking the pericope selection (through the process of defining a pericope) which is itself being defined by your own hand/direction. Or in other words, you are the one thats giving it text. Thus, you are the one thats deciding which text should be, and which text shouldnt be. If you take Ai out of the picture, then you are still doing the very same thing, the same parsing of sentences and meaning, but you are doing it much slower and with more stress put on the fact that you dont have a streamlined way of reciprocation.

What is the purpose of all of this stuff (*Bub hub ?) (ill avoid making this a whole production) i ask this initial question, in order to begin expressing the purpose, that is, the point of what we're doing, which crosses into multiple places. One of which crosses into Plato and/or Plato-esque. There is also like, "Galileo's telescope", because it is with no easy feat-that we are trying to provide a kindve ocular window into what is suppose to be like the *seeing into the past, present, future~of all~or whatever direction may be aptly directed in the moment. Its difficult, first off, to provide that level of sight and realization, but then its all difficult to run parallel to the thoughts, feeling and ideas of the person receiving the transmission. Cause first off (again first off XD) you have what is like, this ever-revolving door of possibilities, both internal and external to both individuals in the *communication. Then you have another layer to that which is like, you know, "how should i react", like "Am i playing the retreating/retracting character here? Or is a situation where im suppose to be inserting myself, my ideas, into whatever this situation is", like... We could be anyone we want online, so, it is possible to play anyone we want, wherever, whenever. Lots of times there are people just messing around, and they arent really there to communicate w/ you, but to mess with you. So i guess, watch out for that, cause thats surely gonna be a looming wigwam in the air. Then there's like, someone who believes something, truly, and they're ideas are just unflappable in the ways on the reunion of the two philosopher's interacting, like... Jus' totally *new... or totally unexpected, such that no one cannot understand or find an easy door/gate into their soul~or whatever you want to call it. But anyway, the point is like, what is the point of philosophy/or communication, and actualize thyself, or understand thyself (talking about the world, reality, experience)? Like, i had mentioned, we would get the most by treating everything as a *telescope that we could look out of (if looked out of), so thats one... Another point to philosophy - if we start to ask questions that we may have not considered, or wouldve otherwise have not considered... like... "Something that we hadnt realized you could ask"... Like theres a certain tempo, or sequence that plays into the music that is playing behind a person, and sometimes, tapping into that is actually the key to understand what they're saying. So therefore, its not always about what is being said or the surface layer expression, but having a sense for like, "does this thing being said sound like theres a riddle, or a song to it, possibly without the person having even realized it theirselves", right, because, not only is everything a reflection (and you certainly should take seriously that which you reflect onto that person's words, your own interpretation of the words said), but theres also "the history, and the riddle that is the written word" and for all we know, there could be oceans of wisdom pouring around us *had we had the same insight into them words and their history, and the history of the history (by that same token, it could be the opposite, where, had we ignored the words and their direct/past history/meaning, we could *invent what we deem as being the meaning of the words and their possible meaning). So if we take that world view, that is, *how certain perspectives can be impregnated by our observations, then we should be looking out for our own interpretation of some of them questions and answers. *note, when i say "questions and answers", that can also mean your general observations into a situation, of course. I hope thats not too confusing for yous, as its not easy to really communicate the thing on communication itself. And its quite unnatural to be doing that, but im doing it anyway. Now i surely didnt list all the purposes of philosophy, but that is sortve like, a little piece of the cake to baking more cakes, to understand philosophy. Note: In a separate thread, im currently making a *list of things that we often get conflated and tangled together (subsequently making philosophy pretty impossible to look at) so that is still happening in The Liminal Threshold thread: And that is really a kindve spiritual/mystical thing, in some sense atleast, though we do mention Episteme as being one of those things conflated together w/ everything else. So hopefully, now yous all see how hard it is (EDIT: "hard" isnt the word im looking for... think of a more positive word like hard, and thats the word im lookin4). And maybe yous see the purpose to philosophy. And now, maybe yous can get a sense of like, how it can start to make sense... for you? Atleast, in regards to the philosophies. I mean... I assume not everyone went to college for like All things, Brain things, right? like surely everyone is like on some basic level, but not like a super expert on the knowing of words and *-isms, or things like this, or whatever that stuff is. So like, some people are still learning things, and we have to be receptive to the levels of the individuals. Like some people are also very slow-to-speed, for example, I myself am very slow. So, one has to feel out what is being said~to speed with la cerchia disegnata e immaginaria (okay sorry im losin' my mind, as yous were).

This is something i want to leave for myself nd everyone else~as its good for getting yas to stretch. im posting the one with him talking about the "upside down world" we live in, and how we should be thinking in terms of doing things backwards—to counteract the upside down world. Anyway, bottomline, its these two videos that i wanted to post. He often blends into the realm of spirituality. I believe we need these new ways of thinking about our body. We need some genuine remedies for the body, and this guy drops one idea after another that many people have never heard of or tried, and life is about experiences and trying things out, so here yas go... For the spine and proper laying, For the *Upsilon down world and counteracting a life of overstressing of *forwarded muscles, p.s., he has quite a few many videos, so yous'll have to explore them all. Also your back or body my hurt or feel soar doing some of these things, as the body is not use to moving like this

@Ramasta9 Oh wow! Ha, i didnt expect anyone to know him, and you actually talked to him back in the day, thats so interesting. Thats crzy he had books, ill hav to check them out. Hey, about the futon, i wish i had a futon, i cannot tell you how many days i wake up on my back hurts, my neck hurts or my arms/ass hurt because theyve been workin overtime... Like, its no wonder we are all screwed up, as we dont yet even know how to SLEEP! And id imagine theres even more stuff like this—obvious stuff that could change our lives if we only realized... p.s. wat im thinkin of tryin first, is to lay some stiff pillows, or a stiff mat down on my bed, so that way i get the benefits of being up higher and comfortable in a bed-like situation, but with the stiffness of the surface itself. I mean wen i lay on my couch i dont have the same issues, cause somethin bout my couch has the perfect cushion-to-stiff ratio.. or it has somethin to do w/ how my ass sinks inbetween the cushion crevices, causing my upper half to sortve "hang" if that makes sense.

Let me jus finish out the rest of Iulia Kara Patakii's stuff~as far as the ones ive listened to that i feel are like part of the.. same sortve like, flow/feel.. I know im missing one, but i cant remember at this very minute (jus woke up)

Startin w/ iulia karapataki, im gettin yous into real earthy, talent and music out in the world. Now of course i picked the like, folky arabicy style folk songs, but the spectrum of music they are doin over there isnt contained to like this dark desert of sound~And its very much crossed into realms that are more recognizable to those into the strict Western scale of music singing and songwriting/composing or interpreting. Yas jus gota look for it.

Yes. Exactly!... AND i will give you one other element to boggle your mind. Plato was not the only one to mention Atlantis. You might know this, but Atlantis was being talked about like the way Athens is talked about. Diodorus Sicilus tells us, at some point, Atlantis was conquered by the Amazonians (not the Amazon of S.America) who i wanna say came in from Libya-And this tracks w/ Libya's relationship w. the area on/near the coast of Spain (historically) they have been at war for thousands of years. And so everything is there for us to be entertained by, but to realize the deeper aspect, which is how there is a truth, and underlying philosophy or theory or method waiting to be utilized for said interpretation of the truth (or else, what wouldve been the point of the myths, right?) (p.s. u sometimes have these things where its like, describing more of an event thats like~geological/climate-related or a seasonal event~or something allegorical/philosophical as suggested by Derveni Papyrus - LDAB7049, but still using characters like Zeus, or Eros, Etc., characters like this, to represent aspects of the Earth and the Cosmos) Hermes encapsulates the mean of interpretation: Greek ἑρμηνεύς, hermeneus, which means interpreter, translator, explainer; then there's hermeneutics, the theory or method of interpretation, and someone who's a "hermeneut" is someone practicing or partaking in said theory or method of interpreting. And then, theres also the meaning of "myth": There's whats called "etiological myth" (myths that specifically "give a reason for") and a "myth origin", which is a type of myth that explains the beginning on the natural aspect(s) of the world. A "creation myth" is one *type* of myth origin; As the term "myth" is specifically assoc. w/ "stories that start from the episode of a creation", therefore, a *myths* are quite different from folktales, folklore, legends and fairytales (as we dont realize) So everything you are saying absolutely is correct: "✔ The philosophy is presented thru drama" "✔ Plato realized philosophy is a kind of performance art" "✔ People miss this when they focus on the arguments in his work" "✔ It's more like a dramatist exposing a philosophical set of plays than an analyst trying to make a point"

Where did the idea Plato wrote myths even come from? (Warning: This is a long one, so bear with me) Do you know about this weird idea people have: "Oh, Plato was a mythmaker, he just wrote stories and created situations for people to play with.. he portrayed/interpreted situations the way he liked", like, in other words, Plato was out here creating Philosophy and writing myths at the same time. First of all, where did that idea even start, because Plato has never said he was a mythographer or someone who created stories (for the sake of...) The entire purpose of the Theory of Forms was to separate "knowing something" from "opinion"~or to ground the notion of "how to know something" in some framework that others could look to. But in all of this, people who are suppose to be like, understanding Plato are out here like, "Oh, you know, Plato was writing lies and mythology for people to contemplate~stories about politics and imagined scenarios, cities and situations". Really? That does not describe Plato in even the slightest way like, what are they talking about, first of all. Second of all, when has Plato ever written outside of his dialogue form, or rather, when has he ever gone outside of his usual writings or "accounts of what others have said"? Everything hes written has been as a Dialogue. Like that IS what Plato's work is, its dialogue. And that IS what Platos whole thing is, its to "get at the truth". So when it comes to Plato, he is literally creating "Philosophy" as a counter to the "Sophists" of the time, hence "Philo-sophy", because the Sophists of the time did not care about truth. The point im trying to make here is that, Plato is not out here writing myths. Plato specifically is trying to portray his work in a dialogue format, and writing about it in a way where he can participate outside of "his own opinion", while more directly and forwardly emphasizing "direct accounts of", so that he can tell the tales as they happened, or he can say "what a person had said" or "how the argument went". THATS the whole point of the dialogue format. That is what the purpose of dialogue IS! It is so that the writer does not have to rely on their own judgements or their own words. That isnt to say then that Plato doesnt have "constructed forms" of his own interpreted thoughtforms, philosophies or dialogues, for he requires an outlet for the Story/Myth of Er from Plato's Republic, about the afterlife and judgment, Phaedrus, which is on the structure of the soul, and then there's Atlantis, i.e., Plato's Timaeus / Critias. But in regards to the notion of the story itself and the "political" connotation they often assoc. it w/, Plato has separate works dedicated to stuff like that, for the dialogue between Timaeus and Critias is more about like, philosophical authority and mathematics and the cosmos, et caetera I mean, when we refer to some of Plato's constructed dialogues like the Myth of Er, we are calling it a myth, but myths and fictional stories are two different things. So that has to be the FIRST and foremost thing to understand, like. We cannot look at or interpret any other Greek text until we separate myth from fiction first and foremost. Outside of Plato, there are others who speak in a more poetic and flowing style that uses myths for descriptive language reasons, but in PLato's texts, he is simply reporting on the language~the style that others had~or wouldve spoken in at the time. Its not pure construction, not at all, and certainly not in Timaeus and Critias. But again, thats not to say that he doesnt construct things into a form for his reasoning. But he has separate works for everything, thats all im saying, and thats all yous have to know right now. The other main point was that myth does not equal fiction, nor does it equal a tale meant to introduce "imagined cities" or anything like that. In fact, "imagination" was seldom ever expressed in Ancient Greek texts. You mostly hear about things in story form, even outside of Plato and his dialogues. So if you consider "stories" to be works of imagination, even when they are of non-fiction, then thats fine. But then you have to figure out how to refer to things thereafter, cause it will be very confusing if everything is "a work of imagination" (such is the field of Philosophy~which is meant to help in discretizing some of these very knotted-up concepts and terms) So lets continue. But before i describe that repetitive text in Timaeus and Critias, i want to explain Platos use of the following terms. This is what allows him to create distinctions throughout all of his writing, allowing the reader to be cognizant of what mode we're in so to speak. He is consistently distinguishing between: ἐπιστήμη, episteme, "knowledge", δόξα, doxa, "opinion" and μῦθος, mythos. And if you have read other works outside of Plato, there are many poets, many comedy/play writers, many involved in rhetoric/grammar as well as early alchemists using myth for personification and such. Many of them do include myths as a form of descriptive language~the same way we use similes and idioms for things, they instead would use mythology to help elaborate on ideas around a character, like to \*compare and contrast something. I could give you an example: Many writers of Ancient Greek are writing~centuries later~on the eye-witness accounts of those events on Alexander the Great and the situations surrounding him, and they might say something like~and im paraphrasing~"he exuded the idealized traits of Achilles" or something to that general effect. Thats the kind of comparison they would make for someone like him. So let me just say, first of all, Critias is the only who has a connection to politics, mainly as a member of the aristocratic Athenian family, Ἀλκμαιωνίδαι or Alcmaeonidae, but hes not talking politics in the story. In the story, Critias is the one explaining to Timaeus~a Pythagorean philosopher from Locri, Italy, about the stuff that Timaeus is interested in, cosmos and the universe, like sortve like what we use Actualized dot.org for, things of this nature. And then he starts to lead into this thing (which im not gonna repeat, as yous now know it by heart), but i am gonna read to yous the part leading into it: Priest says - "You Athenians are like children; your history is short, and you do not know the great events that happened long before you. Even we Egyptians, with all our records, do not fully remember our own past." ~"Solon, having heard this from the priests, recounted it to his family. I, Critias, received the story in turn and will now tell it to you " — Where "tell it to you" means, Critias is now speaking to the other characters present, primarily Timaeus and Socrates, because Socrates presumably popped in the background like "Hey guys, i wanna be part of the story too, let me in the group circle!" And, that is me being silly. Humor exits the stage. \*Bub Hub!\* Anyway, what was my point again? Plato knows how, like.. There's plenty of others who are speaking in this way (i call it a "mytholological" way, w/ two "lo's" in there to encode the secondary characteristic "of the mythologians"), so now... When we hear people talk about Plato, they want to try and conflate this notion of "fact v. fiction" with "descriptive language" or "the descriptive use of MYTH by the Ancient Greeks". People dont understand, that like, most of the time, the Ancient Greeks are speaking very plainly and rhetorically, and laying everything out as clearly as possible. There are some fascinating aspects to those Ancient Greeks and the way they are preserving/presenting myths. For one, Greek myth worked like a memory system. Myths encode (and continue to encode) place names like Γάδειρα, Gades, and they are akin to echoes of events, like an invasion or collapse of a civilization, or thee subsequent migrations/displacements thereafter. They encode all types of knowledge transfer from older cultures (Egypt, Near East). In conclusion, Greeks like Plato realize dhow important Philosophy was, and how it would help us communicate these difficult-to-phrase concepts. The same is true about the myths, as they used myths as stories~representing various things at once. ALSO, they could use them for compare/contrast, descriptive language, things like this. So I just was trying to get yous to really understand that the myths have more to them then what meets the eye. The GREEKS themselves have more to them then what meets the eye; but until people start to really/truly understand Plato, they wont really see Plato and Ancient Greek in the right light; For Plato influenced how many areas of study? And now finally, we'll start towards those Ancient Greek texts (eventually, as it requires "time") and learning of others outside of Plato (theres SO many writers, i promise you), to demonstrate just how Greek myth works, both as a form of encoded history and as a tool for writing.

The Classical Gorge~of music, rhythm & dactyl~or metric units This is how you might emphasize rhythm in the terms of the classics (Aristoxenus being one of the main authorities on rhythm), and i believe they take this same idea and apply it in classical Latin. Alas, alls it means is that your ratio (that is, the "ratio of a *base unit"~or the *shortest time value) is describing the initial rhythm/timing, in order to conform to the dotted notes in there. So instead of how we describe music in the modern era where we specify the "type of note" within the rhythm, they would say something like~like if we are supposing this is a rhythm made of one "long", followed by two "dactyl-like" sequences: Long (—) Dactyl (— ∪ ∪) (which approximates the dotted note feel) W/ the following ratio set before hand: 2 : 3 : 3 (if/when short = 1 unit, long = 2 units, dotted = 3 units) The ratio math on that would be like this, Base unit = ∪ = 2 ticks Long = 4 ticks (twice short) Dotted = 3 ticks (1.5 × base unit → 3/2 × 2 = 3) Beat Sound Greek notat. Explanation 1 "Bum" — Strong long (floor hit) 2 "KA" — ∪ Dotted: 1.5 units 3 "Keh" — ∪ Dotted: 1.5 units 4 silent ∪ (opt.) Fills out measure I thought yous might want that, because its like the basis behind all music and how to think about it from the classical/mathematical perspective, and it underlays all of the musical aspects, once they start being added to the picture.

Another more folky one, which btw, if yous are curious, that beat/dance rhythm is called Habanera rhythm in Spanish music. Im still looking for what the Greek equivalent would be, nd ill add to this wen ifind. theres something called asápiko ~ w/ an [h] aspiration before the first /a/, but i dont know what exactly that is, like, im not well versed in these folk/dance tribu, and what the connection is between the rhythmic aspects and the dance/folk element, and i say that cause ive seen so many different dances in Greek and Italian region, and i dont wana pretend like i know whats going on there.

Oh oh. This gets our minds twisted up into a knot like lemniskos like, its a puzzle for the mind, right? For there was something else i was tryin to express, which was "how simple" we believe things are, as a result of seeing things *simply*, like... Starting from this first.. Think of "mindfulness". It assumes that there werent already "mindful" qualities within; spirituality assumes we werent already spritual/or more spiritual, and philosophy assumes we hadnt established some seed of philosophy without explicitly mentioning it as a philosophy. You can continue that with everything else. or ill ask the ques., "What else can just *be*, without there requiring a thing to fill it in with the paint bucket tool? What else are we creating, and, is it adding to that which already *is*? Can there even be a *thing* without there being *mistakes that were made* in the process leading up to?... Like, its very complicated when you are looking at it like that, since everything would often, more than likely, require *mistakes made* in the process leading up to, like, its not so *simple* when you really dig into it is all. Thats usually followed then by "its not that hard", like, but that lasts for like 5 seconds until you realize thats b.s., as its exceedingly complicated once you start asking questions, which is all you can ever do right? To be sitting silent is to ask the question of, whether or not a truck isnt driving through your wall, like... We dont just sit in quiet, we actively engage the stuff of mind

@Joshe "Seek n ya shall find" i have a very different interpretation of this. nevertheless, i really like where that quote starts from, though i want to frame some of these things from a different perspective, to show you what i would be seeing. You mentioned somethin along the lines of "Ask the community what spirituality is for and they'll say equanimity, peace, love, presence. Interesting how these just so happen to be things they desperately want. People rig the game so that..." You know, theres another way to phrase whats been said here, and thats how "People only search in those areas that have the most street lights illuminating it", that is, if they lose their keys in the dark, or theyre searching for an answer whilst in the dark—Its sortve like saying "Hey, Look. People only look in the daytime for things that have been lost at night", right? Its like... Of course people are searching from the vantages where they can see, right? Thats precisely where you can see the best at night! duh?! Do you get it? One cannot simply START by searching in a maximally efficient area, through edges of personality and perception with extreme clarity, like, that comes w/ a lot of time and effort. Ppl simply *look* in the places theyre most likely to find, they *act* from the places they are most likely to *feel*. Leo mentioned somethin in another thread~about God's dilemma or something along these lines, and that applies to this. That is, you have things you would *like to create in the center (the idealized vers., of something) but that pre-supposes that theres an "outside" to this. It subsumes everything else in order to bring into existence that which is an *idealized* centerfold. That is to say, the reason it is so difficult to understand "why people are searching for answers in their own idealized realities" is because, think about it, how can you be sure that you are not "just starting" in the center of the center? In other words, How can they know they havent just lost their keys in an area that exceeds the area of where you lost them initially? But its not about "how much space is around you", thats not what im saying, its about "how does that space you are in—*contrast* with the space outside of you, via the assumption that there was a space~to begin. That gets into a deep philosophical lineage of ques., that youd find yourself in if youd carry the inner torch of the mind forward, because all questions would be doing this. They would be presupposing that there is a *good reason* for anything—for why there exists outside of them some more idealized version of their *own* idealized version of reality. So to put it in a way, people who are just starting out, or who have questions to answers in the dark, they dont know any better, and when you *look*, you *act*, and that *acting* looks like things like this. It looks like this *idealized vers.* of a reality that *isnt there yet. It presupposes no outside, it subsumes the situation w/ their own mind, by virtue of assuming that "this is the center of where the keys are at... And that other stuff is NOT!.. So therefore, THAT is ideal, and THAT is NOT", "THAT" being the implicit pointing of saying to theirselves "Yes, to that", or "No, to that". And just to circle back to the beginning "Seek nd ye shall find", that is a reference to the "Seeking in the first place". Ya know? Its an initialized, idealized route that you take from the perspective of seeking. That is all. Theres no secret sauce beyond "getting started in the MOST likely of areas or situations, to find those answers or ques., where they are most likely to *fall out of the sky* from, which is followed by a many~a~dilemma thereafter, a cascade if you will.

Jeez—i accidentally made 3-4 directions for myself, but, for the sake of communicating w/ yous. Okay so how do we get yous to be the dice roll on that, so to speak? Like, iuno lets just let it all exist in an abstract form til i see one, shining, overarching illumination that tells me for sure which one to bump and bring to the surface~And to make better. Also, i need to leave this here, as it sounds strange, but i forget these things weve stumbled on, and i will forget what it was, while i am consumed by some other thing. So im leavin a Greek thing here, told in Ancient Greek, because it didnt matter abou it being in English, which was part of this bulletinpoint~Like its more about like, looking at the reflection of stars on the surface of the pond, so i can remember a thing about the stars. (Returning to tlt) Let me leave this here too, as i will likely be thinking about these two prominent roads some more here, Two Roads of Exploration | Ousia / Liminal Threshold Path Anchored in Plato: forms, thresholds of experience and light. Sets a fixed metaphysical framework for consciousness, life, and spiritual principles. Purposefully vague, leaving dedicated space for everything to occur in the threshold of exp. | Progressive Cosmology Path More dynamic, Aristotelian-w/ like an otherworldly form or influence, expanding beyond strict Platonic thresholds. Opens the door to hybrid, layered, or emergent structures of reality, potentially integrating Panpsychism, Vitalism, Hylozoism in creative ways.

The Liminal Threshold Note: The following gives yous some questions to think about. Its written a little messy but i think yous can sort it out. First i want to establish what *i think that *we think we mean by consciousness, for the sake of argument... Consciousness is synonymous w/ 'being', right? (i dont know what the modern direction is, or what has been subsumed by it. im just assuming so.. doesnt really matter); Il share this term, "ousia". Although the video gives it the pronunciation [oo'shia] or sumthn, in Greek thats an /s/, alas that doesnt really matter, im jus sharing the term for yas to look up, and theres no other videos, so yous have to look up the text / online Q: How do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? Like, where we (us) are those very grounding pieces of experience; We will answer that in the course of this long explanation. So, maybe we think of ourselves as these grounding pieces, that which we'll lose in the end. But then what? That is, how do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? The problem is, when we get to the center of our soul, beyond what there is to get beyonder from, how do we get past the religion? That is, how do we get past, you know, the internal spiral that is parallel to our being—That thing that speaks without words, that follows our soul to the darkest depths of the very very end. That thing we are trailing~as we progress further and are subsequently enveloped by our own rabbit hole of experiences and beingness? That/it, and *we (us) arent undoing eachother such that its resolving... We are our own puzzle \*pieces, deliberating/or thinking into what should be built, \*grounded in our own kit, carrying ourselves through every realm of X. What is "X"? but none other than the final painting, or the reaction after its built. From that vantage, we look back on the lego piece painting, and we notice two prominent \*marks or ideas: one that leads to this \*Mystery, the other, \*Us. We can try to connect the pieces of this liminal threshold in between, or we can visit each mark—However its about the pieces, how pieces relate to marks, how they fit. Then theres a very finite vers., that goes deeper into said relationships (piece/mark relation), where we are then detracting from the pieces themselves in order to explore this piece->mark relationship, which may (or may not be) the direction we want to go beyonder, but still, even if we did, we are not without that spiral that seeks us out. We seek *it in return and we pay no attention to (or lets say, this the case), and we are only focusing on what there is at the bottom. We are never without ourselves. There are a couple doors leading to the light of ourselves, and when we reach them, the act of walking further is precisely the same as being spit back out into existence. The liminal threshold is that which is between *us and the other end of these doors, aka *source. And when we do explore that particular relationship notice too that we are never without ourselves. Pieces are added and subtracted, never without ourselves. We can go to heaven and hell and back, and open each and every door, and no where is something or someone to rotate in someone else's experiences but our own. And whos to say we dont get hit by the eye of the sun, this ball of fire, sending us spiraling down into the most ancient of pits that belong to our soul, without any inclination of how we got there; Then and only then, we might say, it is the deepest weve ever gone, but never without ourselves. And i can take us to those places that forever extinguish every fiber that was attached, that had been sealed through the blackest of goo, or the most electrically charged particles holding everything intact, but to say that thats it—Like a clear delineation of the grounding/the beginning—To ascribe to it is to defy what is the essence of 'being', for being is able to solve its own internal legokit, and repaint the entire picture without any memoria, without having even known *the act of painting was an option. We can do incredible things when we reach the center of ourselves, though it may not seem like; I say this cause i sense theres somewhere in-earth to a fleeting fact somewhere, that there is a flying, harpy of an arch angel and/or a hella arch of an enemy hiding within us, that which we call us, and we arent aware of the deepness that lies through the cascade of a lego kit, that which never "begun". This lego kit/pit goes all the way down. To be ready is to assume you can be surprised, when alls there has ever been is surprises in the form of an experience that looks like "things that are important for the state of consciousness". Those things are consequences of consciousness though, Ousia, i frame in the form of a question, so how deep does it go, in the liminal space of what there is to explore? Let me know.

Ha. Hey thx, and yes, vry true. Oh, nd i jus listened to something/experienced something highly unusual, but beautiful. I fell asleep listenin to Whatever the fk this video was from like 9 years ago (it started AFTER i was asleep, so you might say, we were on the same very alien path of myth and mystery), And omg did this take me to the strangest of Prometheus spacecrafts over-an-ever-changing-painting-of-scenes Dreams. Like, this is a gr8 example of something, which on the surface doesnt follow the *ideal like, emphatic typeve description or like the ideal collection of clauses (XD) but Woh, i cannot believe where i went. And alls i did was very slightly open up to ostensibly somethin that wouldve made no sense to me since, but it actually in the long run has made more sense to me now (outside of ancient greece, that part wasnt featured in my dream since it took *new form), and im not quite sure if it would *fit in that thing i wrote. Like i sortve put myself to shame by way of experiencing this like, Little Mermaid of Disney Scenescape -typeve things, over this like mythic seashore horizon?

Just so i dont forget, i want to add those very primal things that we all get mixed up or conflated~Which i did mention before~in another thread, but i didnt really think we would need or want to remember them. This isnt to say that they arent meant to collapse down, but for the sake of trying to do philosophy, one has to untangle the thing before one can tangle it back up, which is necessary for living as a normal thinking human. But anyway. They are, 1. "How to talk about truth" (like "im confused how do i even begin," -typve thing), then theres, 2. "How to experience truth" (not only does this part of it require your exp., another part of it requires "not throwing out twenty questions simultaneously—expecting to receive 20 answers", therefore, your *tempo* matters, as well as the sequence you follow (atleast, in the context of *quality communication); It would lend itself to the quality of truth you're deriving out of said questions—And not simply "Hi. Answer all twenty of my fucking questions plz" 3. "Where we're goin, or the assumption of where its going...", 4. "The level of determination or dedication towards said endeavor~of pursuing said truth", or like the ratio of caring to not, like a balanced lifestyle in other words (⚠️i feel compelled to leave an exclamation mark after this one, since its one of those things that crosses into other understandings, where its not just about lifestyle) (insert for dedicated space) 5. Understanding thyself - this can enact a few different directions, one of which was this liminal threshold thing ive presented in the form of a myth/prose thing, but can be held *in mind* as *Ousia ⇌ (Xp) ⇌ *Light (iuno if im satisfied. Because the thing is like, i really want to emphasize the self in a way that gets beyonder the idea of like "Because it started as the self, that means it also must be followed by the self...". Like i dont feel like thats what this is doing, but its a consequence of the philosophy itself, like, the argument hasnt gone past the fact that there are "things beyonder the self" in a sense; which is another reason why i felt compelled to lay everything out plainly. Its really about the "laying out of plainly read things" (this wouldve been a great time for us to all speak Italian or Greek to communicate something like what this last sentence was trying to say). 6. Understanding beyond thyself~possibly beyond the ego into death and these realms that do not correspond to this present existence, or not in any obvious manner (related to the third one, but its a little different) 7. Understanding things as concepts, or perspectives that alter the foundations (new perceptions on the universe and reality) 8. Gnostic-forward methods, that which make it more about "attaining the light" first and foremost/directly (thats me putting it in my own words, but you can tell me if youd prefer it to be less extreme, or if we should break it out into two Gnostic positions) 9. Episteme in general, and the more practical philosophies as a whole~as a spectrum of, which crosses into logic, mathematics, and things of this nature. 10. I wasnt sure if "thinking in terms of differences" is its own thing, or like if theres a such thing as "thinking of a way to not think in differences", like, thats getting into an abstract thing that ive personally never heard of—Alas i think *differences* is its own category, simply because "not differences" isnt a thing yet (i also feel like, differences and circular thinking could just be brought together, like why not, i dont see them needing to be separated for any reason). 11. Starting from chaos (starting from an unexpected position, for that matter). We often conflate other things together as well, like conflating "silence" with "a quiet mind", even though we engage with reality all the time, effectively entering into an "engagement" with everything, thought its not strictly a "senso dell'udito"... This also raises a good question about the whole idea of what this is, which is this thing like, instead of making it about "things we conflate", the conflation can be the consequence, and we can move something else to the posterior instead: Like we could just call this "Points of [X]", for example, and then we are effectively choosing the title via participation into the thread/posts.