kavaris

What im tryina get at is like, what if the thing we think is progression in science is akin to asking "what was the first memory i had" type questions, like maybe the answer is more of an origin story, less of a progression in science. So, i have this thing im callin Sean Theory, and its just like, what is the most practical way we can both internalize and express a thing, such that the destination is more aligned with progression, less about the origin... and i think it makes more sense conceptually if you frame every question as leaning too far in either direction... p.s. my names not sean

I had a thought (but its more of a question—that leads into an answer that im working on, as like, the best way to think of our current stuff..) but first i need to know if, like... First off, let me preface by saying: what if we dont have any actual values for anything? In other words, what if everything we have is about proportions, like *this thing we know must be proportional to that*, and so theres no actual point where a value appears, and it leads to us running on circular logic, and our whole understanding of things being based on the relationship of a prior thing, and not about what the thing might be geometrically or numerically. of course, we have electrical sinewaves, and locally scoped, electrical circuits, but do we have a way to get to the space stuff? (the space of both the big and the small) obviously i dont mean like, some theory that is like, an amalgam, i mean, this. Are there actually pieces of real things that we can point to (and i dont mean to invoke the nature of everything, in its like, insurmountable identity of posdibilities where nothing is real) but rather, we assume realness, and then, we ask: Do we have a value for a thing, that which isnt in the context of a circuit, or can we only ever say things about electricity? I think at this point i should mention that gravity is akin to the thing that demands spaces attention, like conceptually, a thing that is like, a product of the mapping of spaces, or something like that, and everything goes towards it, centripedal force, like, arrows pointing at the center. We can elaborate on this once we understand like..., is it that, we're lost because, the nature of the problem is already circular logic, or is it that we do have values, and its those famous, commercial science areas that are all the problem?

Iuno, i keep thinkin bout the fact that like, there arent edges... in other words, the moment you find yourself trying to add things to the equation, its likely you need to be doing subtraction instead, in order to understand it all, cause its always a paradox at the center, and it undulates between adding, subtracting, adding, subtracting, etc, etc, forever and ever. but remember, theres no edges, its just one continuous flow, and so there are levels to the paradox, and just holding onto the paradox is like, level1 of being trapped in a paradox.... then you need to forget your in a paradox, otherwise it challenges the thing you are doing while you are doing it, which is part of the centipedes dilemma... but thats how it all works, you need to challenge your reality, then forget, then challenge your reality, then forget, and all around that is like, things that look like words, and trees, and lollipops, and fudge factories, and ships~in~a~bottle, etc. nd so, you cant ever assume you know anything, cause its like, the very thing you are doing, is itself the only thing that there is—that can be known—and everything is like, a higher order experiment, on a lower order, fundamental realization.

its like the infinite vacuum cycle, that is, the loop goes inward, on & on & on, how many layers deep? who knows. it seems to just be an unrealized-how-deep-the-loop loop ---- That might even be how the original book goes... who knows; havent read it in awhile....

The white rabbit is just Alice-ah—Beth's desire—pulling her towards Wonderland. The twins are like the introduction (Tweedledee & Tweedledum) to a foreign-land. She has a crush on whathisface, Townes aka the cheshire cat (who sometimes appears as the caterpillar)."Eccentric tea party host" who could that be? Benny Watts is the religious-interlude (at one part in the movie, she tells her mom to stop listening to Alan Watts) The mad hatter-and his obsession w/ his black hat, who acts as an intermediary for her—wherein, shes gotta think about what shes even doin', like what is up-down, left-right. Where is wonderland (is it in russia?) how does she get there? Harry Beltik, he could be any number of the original alice in wonderland characters: dodo, the doorknob. Anyway, in the end, Beth is her own Queen of Hearts, her own villain that she has to overcome. The movie ends w/ her playing public chess w/ a random group of ppl—a chess match within a chess match.

oh wait a minute..

yes, love as well as drugs... doing drugs cause they didnt receive love, or some just do it for escapism reasons " and such... sometimes its just like, the infinite realization is what it is... and then search is, well its unusual. Iuno, alls i know is that its like episodes: (1) The cat in the hat (prequel), (2) Magic mushroom initialization of some kind, (3) Queens gambit/alice n wonderland (ep.1), (3) ... to be continued...

The only thing about Queens Gambit, is that Benny Watts hairstyle is too modern looking. I cant imagine anyone would have hair like that in 1940, til atleast like 1970... but i suppose its possible... Although if longer hair was a thing hundreds of years ago, i guesse tis possible... Maybe its tryina capture the reocurring nature of hairstyles (that which returns every 33 years)

What this question is tryina ask is like, is consciousness so intertwined with our sense of being physical, that even muting parts of either consciousness, or the brain, or anything else, you still would get piece of that ball of consciousness and sense of self, just like... well thats the question, or, do you think its a little different?..

We should begin an Event, every Wednesday (or round about—give or take) where we are gonna have a public meditative journey into crossing the threshold between waking and dreaming, such that ppl can learn about this thing i been tryina talk about, which is bout manipulating the very last thought you take w/ you into dream—except for the fact, we are not gonna dream, but stay awake as long as possible (but on the off chance you do, you will have atleast thought of it with intent.. thinking of the thought that you participated most in—w/ most emphasis) And itll be on Wednesdays, give or take, maybe Tues or Thursdays

iuno eventually theres atleast two infinite sets, but one of them is larger in the sense that its happening and more regular intervals. Consciousness is both a term that is the whole field of math, and then it enters into the sets of numbers and is compared to things like brain, etc... so then the question is like, now that you see the loopiness im talking about, how do we create a language for it, such that it can be answered like, what are those aspects that are happening at more regular intervals that they can be considered a priority factor. Like thats an over explanation from a math perspective, of something to be understood from an experiential perspective, such that higher orders of abstract can be discerned, or even attempted to be spoken about.

That could prolly be a question, like "how far into the realm of the abstract consciousness are ppl tryina go", cause otherwise they are prolly just gonna stay on a loop, which, thats not necessarily a bad thing. Loops are necessary.

Its prolly more so at the edge of what anyone is gonna be able to make any reasonable discernment of... as im tryina find questions that make ppl think, that live in between the realm of logic and not logic, and its a hard task to try and figure out.... And so im repetitively faced w/ abstract question things—thus they just keep expressing themselves out like this...

@patricknotstar You have something interesting in there where you said "God is dreaming", open that part up... as i think thats the question im asking about (its my mistake cause i originally phrased the question too broadly) and so, the part where you are saying that this dream we are in is beyond us, how much of that is like, the qualities of tail chasing, versus the qualities of sortve safety net that we are misunderstanding, i think is my question

wait, woops, i didnt mean the brain—i meant, "are the qualities of consciousness + experience so wrapped up, that its like...", they exist even at a distance like... not your sense of self, but the qualities that youve come to associate with the world, just assuming we are a pair of eyes floating through life, to make things simpler. Now, the question is like, are those qualities coming w/ us — or, is it that, its more automatic, and more like a burning truth around us, in time, at the end of the rainbow... does that make sense? its like, how much of this is like trying to catch our tail in a world where the tail is always present, versus how much of it is like, —safe, in the sense that, it can automatically garbage collect things thatve gone too far out-of-use, unused, including the tail and the thing doing the chasing, automatically, and without needing to bring back any prior elements of experience. Like, theres a point where that question is overlapping.. but the points where it doesnt, its like how much of the venn diagram of it is there for each, or for the one you feels the stronger of the two

Im too dumb to understand how these two come together, or what it even means. but maybe just putting it out there we can begin to understand, as well as how time comes into the equation, cause to me im already confused about how we got to this point, and id need someone whos into physics to explain how time is represented. This is just a video on consciousness, and im sure its been brought up before, but i either missed it, or i wasnt up on physics back then (im still not) so lets start with this video and work our way up or down, or both.

i mean there are alot of metaphysical questions and things i have, but just to start from more of an old school, spiritual place first to ground it all, if we go back to the bible, with the story of moses i think it is who sees the people who recently were asking questions about God nd all, causeve whatever curious things prior—and were awaiting to hear from Moses up on mt. sinai receiving those ten commandments from God (im butchering the tale here...) but, anyways the isrealites grew impatient and pressured A-aRon to make a "God they could visually see", and he made a statue. Then they started worshipping it, like throwing full festivals (as we continue to as well, for better or worse). And so, Moses came down w/ the stone tablets, happening upon the worship of this statue that had no real basis other then it was made by A-aron in the demand of the people, and Moses broke the statue—or threw it down the hill or whatever... Point being its like, to me iuno wtf was Moses problem, its like, we are already here in what is essentially a non-stop, dwindling life, and though the world is leaning towards a kindve less spiritual or God-acknowledging place, its still a bonus to have something that acts as the very center, that which all people can point at. Its like, a guiding mechanic for groups to have something being pointed to, and agrred on, in every1s mind. im prolly giving a bad description, but anyway. He got mad, and understandbly so, as he spent like, how much of his life and then those 40 days, all bubbling up to this thing, and then not only was it like "oh, fuck that god thing hes workin on", it was also like a kinda fuck you to moses too, in a way, even if they didnt realize it. but anyway, thats not the point. Thats all to say that, I ask myself like, how can we instill something like this, something thats like a bonus-ism, that doesnt require judgement in a new world. i mean, its that sortve area that interesting. im prolly asking the question wrong, but it gives yous an idea of what im tryina say atleast.

I appreciate that you use very thoughtful words, like *concentration*, etc. in describing meditation, as theres not enough pragmatic and practical explanations about ppls meditation exp out there. i havent watched your videos yet. meditation i know may seem a bit unusual and mysterious at first, and there are difficulties, and questions, about it. its like theres geometrically incompatible ends that have trouble bringing meditation into the pic, fusing it w/ half of them, and eventually it does. like, you wont have any questions really cause its sortve a self generating mechanisms goin on there, eventually speaking With that said, i see ppl looking at others as a kindve guide, but the final form is you, and so its like, the best ideas are gonna come from you within you. ~As far as best states of consciousness, first we'd have to identify states of consciousness, since we are assuming that there is this *good state of consciousness* which is in a class of consciousness states,that which we can identify. So i ask to ask yourself what those are first, obviously, otherwise it doesnt make sense to ask that question, unless you mean something else.

You can take steps towards infinity, like just start imagining things, like without rhyme or reason, that can be the starting zone, and dont criticize what you are doing, cause if you are tryina justify the imagined, then you are prioritizing all the analytical bits, when you need that gyrating engine happening at the forefront

I been thinking bout a couple of things, and of the elements thats sortve sache'd in there is like the way dreaming is representative of a kindve strange expression of experience, wherein it has an interesting relationship with memories, i.e. repetitive sequences of experience in our life. And i say that because like, one of the higher level goals of life we might say is to strip away all function symbols, debug symbols and functions of the mind, to be left with hopefully nothing, as best as we can. And so, although i dont rely on dreams or modes of consciousness that arent like a 'baseline-reality centered place', and beyond that it is like, indicative of the many states of consciousness—i still feel like, there is something to exploiting the mind through hyper real, or imaginary functions or whatever, its like, its not doing what we think its doing, does that make sense? Just to elaborate, you could say theres like a relationship between how we think of ourselves, and how we experience ourselves, and those things get intertwined while we dream, which makes it difficulty to really narrow down... or maybe i should describe it like this.... Imagine for a sec, you follow yourself into the dream, trying to like, split yourself up somehow, where you can experience a thing, separate from what we know as the 'person i am'... And so, you then want to try and carry back (and, we are assuming you are not being physically woken up during) you have to unwind it all such that you wake up, and you have to roll it back, so that you dont lose either yourself, or if what you care about is no identity, nothing that traces you back to this dream you just had, that itself is a thing you are unwinding, but its not much of process since it just means, " continuing the trail of your self identity". In this example, your 'self' is now couched in levels of scenarios that were impossible, like impossible geometry, but obviously thats not an issue for conscious experience atleast, as consciousness doesnt work like that. Anyway, i thought id share that. I should note however, the thing thats more inline, atleast imo, with experimentation and extreme forms of identity is the realm that lives *between* sleeping and waking. If you can drill into that, thats the killer space to be, as far as breaking everything.

i was on a roll there on utube for a moment, with mad interesting-lookn' things. i think its deadnow.

I like the way the sand has interesting physics/ pixel-based behaviors (the sand bleeds into one another), so my head goes to like, "what happens when the sand is in the middle of settling, and you interrupt it", or like... suppose this wasnt just tetris w/ falling blocks, but another dimension to the game, where someone or something is feeding those blocks from the otherside (above perhaps) like iuno, maybe its suppose to be this large geometry-based mechanism, or maybe its like theres a leprachaun, or something that lives on the surface—like, the ground level is the tetris, and the surface level is where this leprachaun plants radishes and whatknot, And maybe theres some alphabet and/or block-based thing happening up there...

This is one of those interesting things, in terms of being an interesting mechanic (although i dont quite understand it, like is it the player that is the *line*, and the character is just a consequence of the lines) i mean, its at the edge of whats interesting, but like, i think thats something that leans towards re-thinking what the character is (even though thats prolly not how it works). this guys channel has so many baba is you and other puzzly-represented games to its like his video list goes on forever.

Im thinkin of doin a thread on death—like the ancient egyptian belief on death, but iuno if like... like when they have references to say the sky/light, thats usually not pointing to a gate or door to get past is it, i dont think. or is there? isnt there people with bird heads and angel wings, or na. or like im tryina make a connection to the sortve gate you reach where you see a white light that feels disturbing (its not prolly disturbing to older folk since they are in like, actual passing away places) and the sortve ancient beliefs that all have the ideas of having to go through these puzzles to reach it. but iuno if it really is just telling more of a story, than it is like, navigating the feeling, but maybe it is who knows

### Time as everything Has anyone in physics ever framed things or described it like this: Everything is time, and everything else is couched—or is like sub components of time. So its like a hierarchy of what it is, *it* being time, and everything else being just like, the consequences of indifference kinda?.. like... Its=Time having gone on a seriously fucked up trip Or am i not even saying anything by phrasing it like that. I like it cause then the idea is about an imaginary unit/gensu called time, and no longer an imaginary unit called space and particles and such... i know theres already something like that, that makes time a priority, but iuno what the names of all the quantum theory this & thats are... also, it gives more legs to the underlying waves, because then they are like, excitations that happen due to a priori