kavaris

The other day i went to an Asian mart nd bought a thing w/ fresh leaved Ti guan yin in it, which is a type of Oolong that has this characteristic bright node to it, like ppl often compare it to a chinese spa, though theres so many Oolongs, and many different kinds of each strain/cultivar of oolong. Long story short, i was thinkin bout how tea energizes you, especially ti guan yin and things like this, And if you look and smell fresh tea leaves, itthey look resinous. Like, has anyone tried cross breeding tea w/ somethin else to give birth to a tea strain that gets you high? Like, i rememver thinkin the same thing in regards to Salvia divinorum, like, is there a way to get closser to something that has layers to it. Cause i feel like 100,000 years ago or whatever, marijuana was bread to be atleast somewhat more interesting, and then look what happened. We took it and made it 100x more than what it was, which weve done with other things as well: I wana say broccoli or one of these thing. To me, tea has that potential to be mated with something, or atleast some sortve tea-like plant. Iuno. I was jus thinkin wat kinds of crazy stuff could i post in psychedelics. Psychedelic tea would be pretty cool, instead of having to add stuff into tea.

Iuno why, i keep tryina post these LandofChem videos, but they refuse to embed. But anyway, the most latest LandofChem video is interesting. Somewhere around 20:00-30:00 he mentions somethin bout hydraulic / mechanical tech, though to me, hydraulic seems like a super advanced/techy idea for primitive civilizations. Like I dont know why these mechanical engineers (im assuming he has friends who are mechanical engineers) Like, Why they arent investigating non-modern tech, like im talkin swings & pulley systems like the stuff they taught us back in 4th grade science class. Counter-weight machines. Iuno, but still, its LandofChem who's investigating some cutting edge sht. I mean, there is evidence for things involving like, "windup" mechanisms ~swings & pulleys~ already, so thats not an unfounded approach/idea of mine (im sure others~someone out there -is investigating it from like reasonable positions too, as far as "how it was built" is concerned (maybe they dont even teach that stuff in science anymore, as i am jus assuming everyone knows what im talking about). The other issue is like, could you do everything you would need to do using primitive tech, i dont know. Its all conjecture. No one knows how any of it was done still, so thats all we *can do... Anyway, heres the link to the video atleast.. https://youtu.be/Q5V42kelTic?si=lGKGUc3uG0uGH2y_ Edit: oh, later in the video, or says he'll post a link in the description of his video, detailing what he means by *hydraulic system, as its referring to the *water-containment system ~or something akin to~ which plays into his whole things about the pyramids function (.. i guess water-pressure is a kind of hydraulic system/machinery->i dont know, im not a mechanical engineer. Wait, is " hydra-lic' " always water based? Whats it called if its hydraulic ~via~ air-density-based or helium-based nd stuff? Isnt that also hydraulic? )

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) ~

(cont.) The only thing i worry bout is, like say we are All in an *End of the world scenario, and we are on an island w/ foreign belief systems, like a grab bag of judainism, islamic ppl, like christian and or related, etc, etc, and suppose theres a life or death situation, And everything stems on the fact that iuno. Say for instance we need them to go out and kill a Sacred cow (to me, i could see how cows & cattle are sacred, u kno, but in a life or death scenario u gota do wat u gota do for the greater good of the ppl) Now if they are like "Oh i dont eat cow or pig on Ramadan.. im not gonna kill them while you build the boat" or something (suppose only i kno how to build the boat or sumthin), or if the christian guy is like, "i dont cut down trees as i was part of the Tree Relief program back on Amer.", ima be like, *What is the bs!? Yous are literally useless to our survival. Like if anything, the ultimate belief system should be,"Dont stagger us to death, and pull out the carpet of survival on us".. Like if everyone on the imaginary desert island is like, "I Wana live", then atleast give us a heads up if we are to shift into death mode, so everyone can be mentally prepared in advance to go full death in mind. Speaking of which, its startin to get hotter outer now, hotter than desert death so be prepd for that.

(part ii) heres another good one. Back when these Jewish traditions were forming into what eventually takes shape into christianity canon, you had all these different ideas for what was meant by "Jesus" & "The Christ"... And "God"... Are they the same person? Are they all God? et caetera... So this is just two that are similar, but theres literally like twenty of these groups and questions regarding this same topic: Cause on one hand you had Arianism, which yous can check out ^... You also had Cerinthianism (who were called Cerinthians, cause it was based on Cerinthius, ~late 1st century AD ...) Ill let yous like up those two, cause they are both quite different. They do not just blindly accept "Jesus, God... the holy spirit.." Like, to them, making the distinction of what constitutes these things is critical! And rightly so, you know, like these ppl are super smart, intuitive... They were thinkin bout this stuff, religiously, literally, right? i mean, their whole worldview depending on it~And whats interesting is that, they are in~in some sense~taking direct control, or attempting to, in to what would be the "traditions to come" for Rome, and the world, as i see the Romans and these early Jewish sects as being on the heel of a somewhat traditionless side of our history, very much like modern America~Granted we had years of Christianity, but its like, Today you can believe in anything. Like you arent limited to anything, hence, traditionless children; Identical to Early Roman Empires. *p.s. i chose two beliefs/figures that are somewhat similar in challenging the whole structure to get yous thinking, as its actually sortve tough to work out what each of them are about, given that, on the surface they have things in common. Theres so many figures that are present during the first 300 years or so of this like, early debate on what the *seed of the aspects to christianity are, and that seed of heresy has so many fkin figures, its like, thats a deep rabbit hole yous can go down (its almost neverending figures~one could pull up, like... iuno where they keep coming from; Same w/ Greece, but theres like 100,000x figures~which is part of the story of the Roman Emp.) p.s.s. also this is sortve random, but (Ce)rinthians, (Co)rinthia, and (Ca)rinthia, are all different things, the last two being a places, Co- in Greece, Ca- in Austria. Theres also Corinthians from the bible~Which is itself Paul's letters, written to the Christian community he founded in the city of Corinth-, Greece.

Yes. ha. Exactly. Also, Hey, im glad i could introduce you to someone new as well. He... Oh heres a video that brings up Josephus in the beginning, as i have recently just did a writing on laws, traditions, beliefs, and the Last Jewish Heritage, &into Roman ppl/beliefs Josephus is considered a really great ref., or window into tribes in and around Israel; I of course had focused on their heritage, traditions & beliefs (theres over 30 tribes in that area) And i bring this up to build upon the notion of them \*being much more organized then others might not know or realize at first sight... This writing ive been doing on Philosophy and similar things within the Greek world ~ It starts to blend into the Ancient Israel tribes and beliefs around nature and civilization, mirroring the same rules/laws and such that they reiterated (im of course speaking to, "on nature" beliefs, or "words to live by" for your people, like "how your people should live") Those types of things. They are almost identical, atleast at the time in Greece and the area in and around Israel. Im still watching the video, so i dont know if he gets into such things (but i assume he does), where as the writing i was doing was to show the parallels between Greek Philosophy (of Plato, The Stoics, et caetera) and the last Ancient Jewish traditions/philosophy~Of course, the Jewish people would have said it using their own words for it (unless they had gone to school in Greece or something), but what we often have to do, is to use known words like "democracy" that are originally from Greek, and we use that to draw parallels to ideas like that of Jews, though, they of course wouldve used their own words & terms for such things and ideas. (Greeks did take over at points in history, but thats a diff topic of course). Anyway, the video seems to add/expand on some interesting details, which are interesting. note, just to give you an idea of how many tribes there are, there's the following tribes (attempting to go in order from oldest, like a thousand BC to newest, 2nd CE), like the tribe of reuben, tribe of Levi, Dan, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, Naphtali, Machir, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Therapeutae, Zealots, Sicarii, Herodians, Samaritans, Nazarenes, Elcasaites, Marcionites, Valentinians, Sethians, Mandaeans, Ha-Derekh, Cerinthians, Carpocratians (iuno why, i feel like theres more listed in the bible and the torah) Granted you might be more interested in the Roman/German side of things in Europe (or the Mystical Theology/Hermeticism side of things), though i meant to hint at the interesting stuff going on in the middle east at-the-time / parallel to this stuff

So i have yous started w/ maybe the best introduction to Philosophy imagineable lol (thats me being pontifical) In any case, now i want to go down the rabbit hole, to get to something that specifically treads upon Philosophy itself, and i found this perfect compendium of sorts, the deluxe edition of The Story on Philosophy, which is a multi-volume compilation of Books on such matters, by Will Durant (note, this is only one direction, the boy band~into philosophy, as i know how many directions one could go) I wont go into who he is, or much of whats going on (as its really like a "walkthrough of history") BUT thats actually germane to the, call it, a partridge in a bevy of other partridges up in their pear trees, as it gets to the bottomline of what i want to say right now~The hard-boiled philosophical questions. And that is @20:00-21:00 somewhere around there he brings up "The Sophists"; He calls them "traveling teachers of wisdom", who looked within, and upon their own thought and nature, rather than looking out upon the world of things. He also brings up Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) who wasnt a Sophist, because hes drawing an analogy between debates v. modern thinkers. Anyway, im getting off topic describing what he says, as yous can listen to it for yourselves (listen to it a hundred times, thats why its there). Here's the point i want to graze: The Sophists, and how they were divided into two "groups of thought"... ... Before i lay them out, lets first turn it into two bulletpoints (bp), so yous can see them clearly, because its a really good point, and one that we might want to dwell on, specially if only to refer back to~that is~until getting to the bottom of the sea, so to speak (And feel free to speak freely and naturally on the following; Oh and also, it is likely necessary to reinsert women into this conversation of course _, as im quoting Ancient periods, " as is ") ** One side said — "Nature is good... And civilization is bad... By nature, all men are equal, becoming unequal only by class-made institutions; And that law is an invention of the strong to chain and rule the weak" ** The other side said — "Nature is Beyond good & evil... That, by nature, all men are unequal; And that morality is an invention of the weak to limit and deter the strong. Power is the supreme virtue and desire of man. And that, of all forms of government, the most wise and natural is Aristocracy. Theres a middle ground to unity~when it comes to nature & civilization, isnt there? (And this is a question i will come back to). Because, as yous know, many things can divide us, and so we must ask, What can thus unite us? In some sense, both sides are wrong because they're starting from a shallow idea of nature. What is Oligarchy? The consolidation of power by a dominant minority, whether religious or ethnic, can be considered a form of oligarchy — And thats probably what we're hearing from that last side. However yous should notice how we are still arguing about the same thing to this day "... by nature, all men are unequal", arent we arguing about having equal rights today? Female + male groups together in sports and stuff... How many things are changing because of this fundamental issue? But taking a closer look, youll see we are still harping on the same problem still, missing the important details in the process. And thats not to dismiss the 19th CE.. or the 20th CE... (the second point is likely someone in Athens~during~within the oligarchy, as it wasnt made clear to me who was suppose to be speaking during that line/passage) So, What do yous think?... (?) I'd like to know your opinion. I'll reiterate & rephrase the question at the end, so dont worry. Know the middle ground, or the Plato route is to put aside both extremes and just ask about the current society or civilization directly, "Does this society help the soul? And in becoming ordered and just?” Plato emphasizes similar things (in Republic), where he says that "people are unequal by nature", though this is not in the crude sense of "strong dominate weak". He means that people have different natural aptitudes, and some are suited to rule (philosophers), others to defend, others to produce, et caetera (thats how it should be, clearly, otherwise... straight butthole.. like we are living in) When it says "Nature is beyond good & evil", he's not wrong. Nature doesnt go by the morality play; But it also doesnt really have a voice, or a means of communicating. It also depends on what we mean by "nature" of course. We dont know what nature is saying or doing is my point. Nature is nature. or explicitly said, it could be, nature = rational structure of the soul civilization = something that should cultivate that structure But "nature", however we may define it, is surely "beyond good or evil", or what we would consider. The passage about "morality being an invention of the weak" isnt a good idea to have, as it then implies "... not having any morality applied~equal to youre own opinion/life", given that its from weak men, of which our speaker would likely go on to say, he is a strong man (presumably, and in the most extreme case) And in fact, im sure that he would concur that " 'to live' is to accept / participate in the underlying morality play". Cause i mean, otherwise, anyone can justify immoral acts (without morality) or as according to this vainglorious individual, assuming he were to go full retraction on morality, because, it is for this same reason that he himself would justify his own immoral acts to others through this paradigm. Or in other words, to downgrade the morality play, is to invite "immoral" acts into your own play/scene); In conclusion, it is yet another case of this "nestle / fledgling of overconfidence" taking flight, about something he doesnt truly understand at the time. And nor should he/they, given the time they had lived in. Looking back now @ Ancient Athens, the oligarchy had denounced democracy as an incompetent sham. Just to give yous a brief summary, in Athens, power was first held by the aristocrats, the city's noble families. These were people born into respected lineages (royalty), often owning land. Also, political authority was concentrated into their hands. Being *best meant being virtuous and well-born, not just rich, and most ordinary citizens had little say in public affairs. Over time though, wealth began to matter more than birth. Rich citizens could dominate politics even if they weren't from the old noble families. Aristotle called this shift oligarchy, the corruption of aristocracy, because the city was no longer governed by the virtuous elite but by those with the most money. Aristocracy = “rule by the best” (the virtuous or capable few) Oligarchy = “rule by the rich” (a corruption of aristocracy, when wealth, not virtue, determines who governs) ^ As Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich", contrasting it w/ aristocracy, arguing that oligarchy was a corruption of aristocracy. In conclusion, and as you will hear in the video, there was not much democracy going around for them to be denouncing ~ given that there was only small percentage of "free men" in Athens (the rest, slaves and such) and the point being, its not that different from today, as yous know, and its just a slightly different version of what happened in these Ancient times in Athens. Q: Now If i could leave yous with one question, it would be going back to the two bp: What is the meaning of nature or what makes "nature and civilization" united, and the civilians of that civilization united? *p.s. Enjoy the video, as its 5 hours long, and full of interesting stuff. p.s.s. i did a whole thing on *royal families and unifying the world politically*, but considering how it doesnt really touch on Philosophy (not directly), it would probably confuse everyone. but if yous are ever curious, or if yous ever want to know something on similar topics~on things like Germany/Austria, Italy/Rome, Greece, Philosophy, Mythology and such, just ask

In the journey towards understanding things like "Mythology" and "Philosophy", the first part to this would ~in the best case scenarios~learning about "Philo", "Sophy", and who the "Sophists" were, to sortve preface w/, what is to be — a journey towards history and the right way to initialize or investigate such a name in the first place. Does that make sense to yous? And do yous agree? i think so. Lets get it. p.s. If anything, it is just a means~by which we can get everyone started looking at Greek again, as its like, theres so much there, and so many ideas to be explored. And theres also things that we dont all fully understand, as far as them having evolved so extraordinarily over the years (its only been 2+ millennium, ya know?)

(part2) i jus want to add something to what i was saying... As far as memory is concerned, you also have elements in Nature remembering things, that is, DnA is able to remember, and you have these elements that come back, "reminding" the person or persons... So for instance, theres whas called atavism where an ancestral genetic trait reappears after having been lost through evolutionary change in previous generations. So the point is like, theres two different things, theres this fundamental memory that exists in all things, which geets down to the knitty grityy DnA, then theres whats going on from the very first point of perception, prior to the ability to form memories, and that is itself an important stance, cause it speaks to out first hand experience of building those memories (I dont know what you would consider nature, but you could just call it, first hand human perception vs. nature or something)

On 'Rewriting...' You're on to something. Keep going w/ it, as thats a subject matter no one has breached, and involves alot of forethought/work put into. Theres alot more moving parts, outside of memory, as you have active, instantaneous perceptions to consider, and memory is a bit odd, as its mostly a short term memory phenomenon, if you know what i mean; that is, the micro-cycles of our current situation (theres a whole wide range of cycles and circular phenomenon, through predicting the next thing thats gona happen, and things like this) they form in a fluid way that makes it "hard to see clearly", and have more going on then we are ever really considering~or conscious of~that would then pertain to your ability to consider things in the long term. And you can almost drop the term "memory" in place of this thing i would call "Cycles (cyclical) routines in general". p.s. that then gives you a much broader field of study to look @ You would still need the term memory for now, however if you can breach beyond cognitive science~you can get to a new field of study.

I forget wat year it was when smartphones appeared in movies, or wen we first seen the iphone, Alas do movies even make sense now, those based in todays era? i dont think so. Its like when you dream and you dont see computers or smartphones in your dream, like these are details that are detracting from the events themselves, even if they are apart of the events. Its like, our subject matters are thus always steeped in futurism~hopefully im using the right term. Look up futurism nd tell me if thats the right term. Anyway watayas think. Smartphones in movies — does it make sense? Consider that its just the beginning.

Ive been doing a quick side project on Dreams and how they are viewed by certain divine/mystical beliefs, theologies of our past (which obviously are religions that still exist, though i just refer to how ~ they are really trying to understand the importance of "tradition" /+ ancestors of the past), Christianity, Buddhism & Islam and others, whatever ones yous want to bring up too, go ahead... I believe theres something we need to understand here, not in regards to religion, as that's taken on a different meaning in the mod. day. I mean to talk about Dreams ~predominantly~ and tradition, and ancestors, as these are keywords i already mentioned. And you can refute that if yous wish, though i cannot imagine what/why you would want to be refuting. Presumably yous would want to introduce ideas on this topic / context~of theology + how dreams fit into the world-view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion_and_dreams Quote - Dreams have been interpreted in many different ways from being a source of power to the capability of understanding and communicating with the dead. Traditional forms of societies considered dreams as portals to another world, a spirit world. These societies would even say they could gain most of their religious ideas from dreams. They could identify the sacred and gain access to sacred realms or portals to the supernatural. The contemporary 21st century has brought about a scientific materialism that can be detrimental to understanding the concept of dreams and how to interpret them. I would agree w/ whats being said on Science, but I would add that, understanding the act of, to dream, framing it like we do~or have done w/ the question, "What is reality/experience" - is the same w/ respect to the ques., "What does it mean to dream". Quote - Native Americans' belief of dreaming is similar to Buddhism v. that of common Western beliefs. Their view of dreams and dream interpretation looks similar to that of an interactive conversation. The conversation happens between them and the world. They are able to have this conversation because they don't see a difference between dreaming and waking reality (see later on the repurposed title "sleepless dreaming") but rather an overlapping experience. In this particular event in which they are overlapping worlds, they are able to open up their spiritual eyes to the visible and invisible, the audible and inaudible. The main idea of dreaming within this worldview is twofold: They look to gain a strong connection between them and the world, as well as enhance their self-knowledge and respect among their tribe. This is the case w/ Buddhism and Hinduism, w/ ideas like *sleepless dreaming, which is something akin to "the recognizing of dream as illusion", as well as being able to (through a certain Buddhist tradition) (there's that word again, "tradition") to maintain awareness during sleep. And from the perspective, we have Hinduism that initializes this idea/theory as an encapsulation through the three states that come from Advaita Vedanta: waking (jagrat), dreaming (svapna) and deep sleep (suṣupti). I like this idea of defining "sleepless dreaming" as "What reality is", because to me, thats what it is describing. Buddhism has its own term anyway, so you probably wont see the term "sleepless dreaming" in that context. That's from Wikipedia coming up with its own flawed Wikipedia language (more on this notion of reality=dream, what ive retitled a 'sleepless dream', to come) Christianity Quote - The belief of dreams tying with religious themes in the Western worldview was not something that was naturally intuitive. By having belief in these things, the Western culture would open their minds to a non-rational and imaginative force that opens up people's mind to understanding realism with evil and how one can have hope over it. Also, Pursuing dreams does not require God or gods and is why the Western culture receives this practice openly among their religious views and lifestyles. Thats an unusual way to phrase it, but i do agree nevertheless, as it gets at the heart of what i would want to say. But i would just say, Dreams are what *everything is, and understanding how to operate from a level thats concerned w/ *understanding everything~is a matter of repositioning the way you view everything currently. However, this doesnt say "What a DREAM is...", as thats actually a little different from saying "Everything is a dream". So ill let yous stew on that one for a little, to see what yous come up w/ p.s. And also, Science can refer to very innovative and positive things, but in the mod. realm/time, we arent really using it to refer to stuff like that. Its talking about political affairs, and yas know.. Quantifying, and qualifying reality through observations and experiments with the same things, over and over and over again. Islam Quote - The Muslim society believes different forms of dreaming can help people come into contact with past martyrs of their faith. Their purpose is to give the dreamer full understanding of the martyr's existence and implications towards the future. Different examples of how dreams can affect the future of Muslims include but are not limited to: showing a prosperous future, motivate them into moral or spiritual development and warning them of impending dangers. Decisions made by Muslims can be as important as deciding a future spouse can be determined through one particular dream. The ultimate purpose behind these dreams is to give the devout Muslim a deeper insight into the truth that is not available in waking reality. This isnt inherently a bad thing. Many NDE (near death experiences) ~though, mostly old/elderly people~ involves "seeing their family (possibly from the past)" ME -> I had an NDE, though i only ever saw a void-like, very bright, very white light, so i dont know what elderly drugs are required for the universal family-oriented experience and such... WTF!) So on its surface, i feel ancestry is a good thing. If muslims could tune into that, and go w/ a positive spin, and get rid of the idea of martyrs (they are just people arent they? they dont need to be viewed as martyrs, or rather, that is historical baggage being brought to a religious context that doesnt need to be brought w/ you into these realms of belief around religion, peace and harmony~which is suppose to be inherently peaceful, otherwise it is more like a strict doctrine of butthole) Then and only then youd have something positive / worth investigating. There is several aspects (in Islam) that go in this weird dir., not-even-enjoyable to follow stuff, and most of yous know this, or can feel it anyway. That is, Muslims gotta get rid of the pejorative wording and such that they like... Hooked on like their life depends on it. Think about it... Yall can make a new, flawless religion. Every religion was at one time "starting over". In the beginning, Christianity had to cobble together how many Jewish elements for their "texts"? Imagine Islam... In the beginning you had (im using the words they use in Christian circumstances) Scribes / priests, elders (or bishops, etc.) who were in a room, or a cave, or a garden, or a mountain~writing this stuff down, which was, what was to become canon to the bib 'el, the tor Ah, or the QueerAnne. If that step never happened, alls we would have is a bunch of scattered, eratic fragments from the queeranii caves ~XD or whatever it was called where they found the dead sea scrolls, et caetera. Lolol, Hey if any of yas read this far, yous can get a good laugh for the day. Anyway. Ive gone way off topic, but Hey, feel free to comment on religion too... Hey, just write. Fuck it. Let the words flow. Stop being scared. You literally have zero time in your lives to be scared of anything. HEEEeeeeey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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