kavaris

@Breakingthewall Theres like this element that you are stumbling i believe, though, its one of those things where its like, by reading between the lines, you subsequently found several interesting things here and there (that were otherwise implicit), which also includes revolving the kaleidoscope to include my, Leo and Platos (and your own) words, at this moment in exp., somewhere within that little nook of creation, theres something in there thats really cool, or its like, this thing, like a "set in stone" thing. And *It doesnt mean/require changing anything. Its one of those things thats just like, "I realized what the sequence was... That existed between the lines... And THEN... It was cool", right? Like one of those things. Like... It moves circular, so thats why its always weird to define exactly what we're looking at/talking about, in the moment.

@Breakingthewall Yes. And i can see where you are coming from now. Im gonna think about this, cause ive been sayin, i dont wnna respond as like... \*reflections of the response within the response, typve thing (not that i ever did that before, but i digress), instead i want to think into your words, and let it take shapes, forms or figures that i can sense, see, hear, feel, taste and touch~so to speak~so that i can figure out which direction has the "best flavor"? or something like that.. or, which road has the most trees/growth (or somethin like that) such that we can reach this like, Narnia garden (or reach "that which was always there" in waysaway that feel new)

Then, theres more of the Aristotle direction w/ some of these things, some perspectives~as i feel like ~ i have to mention it now, or anytime its gone to Plato, and that sometimes finds itself, its ideas going down a wholly unique road. Anyway. Thats all for the moment.

Yes. All true. I hear ya. I like that Gateless Gate term too, thats cool. I never heard that one before.

So i was listening to someone talk about the Greek play the Baccae, giving this long explanation, or a general outline, more or less starting from the outside, working towards the inside, towards the summary itself, or those parts that shared a significant points of relation to his explanation. Anyway he said something that caught my attention. I believe he was talking about Aeneas, who doesnt exude his typical/traditional warrior/hero archetype, and he goes on to extract the virtue from this situation of the story~related to this virtuous or parable-esque line, "... while those who believe after seeing are to be blessed, how much more blessed are those who believe without seeing", and his first conclusion on said virtue of this whole scenario around the baccae and its distilled message being, "Anytime someone recognizes a potentially devine power, dont test it, have the good sense to worship" —And that caught my attention, like, in my "quintessentially strange opinion" way, which is that... The Baccae's message~atleast in that sense~IS right, it rather reveals something: "testing and examination" are a second order to "experiencing and worshipping", if you consider that our experience is really more akin to "that which exists within the fishbowl of the mind, that we only later make as these distinct copies, and call some of those physical matter", and its only in a world of pure analysis that we see it any other way (now n days) but back then it wouldve been a conflicting way of life, to make deep inquiry into the nature of, e.g. a psychedelic exp., or even just a normal exp that seemed to defy the logical trend, to "create the religion" and which we all do anyway—by making worship of our own routine, or our own experience/ideas, hence its primary order by Default! versus the second order~less emphatic notion of creating analysis out of what can be discretized—which is in contrast now to the more wholistic, continuity of belief, experience and the automatically applied religion we set upon all things, though veiled as "logical observations". In short, now and days we obfuscate the religious part w/ things that look like "logical observations made" or "grounded logical ways of life", but they are veilings over this deeper notion of our "belief in whatever we call the *religious exp. w/ life*, which is initially absent of logic, or even belief for that matter, nevertheless they all collapse into a conflation—w/ the more & more vines of logic that wrap around. Is there healthy dose of logic required? surely but its second order. We have things we take for religion first, primary to all, then, only then, we call them things either a "filament on the logical side" or a "filament on the side of belief" even though its already a belief~such as the belief that the imperfect copies of that in our experience, that which is non material, that it will continue to be "a wooden chair" or "a bird" or some other imperfect copy or form that we have already a deep religion for. So thats the other end of the forms, the Infinite/eternal and the *Perfect forms of Plato~if going "to Plato" as ill so descriptively refer to it now.

Hey! Yes, i suppose you are right. Infinity and eternity have always seemed so impossible to apply to things, but i never really aw it as Plato saw it, and this idea of like an unchanging thing, plus a perfect thing, and the extisting outside time thing like, at first sight i was like, "okay where is this going", but hes the only ine whos like, started from a point that seemed like it was gonna be so strange, and made it like, very very earthly and ground, for us! So now, i can see where things are coming from when that term is being used; granted im reinterpreting it... Like the following is an example of something i been meaning to write, to add to this *tough, rigid surface of ideas, though because its a bit long i may have to break it out into a separate message, cause its both long and running off topic from infinity, sortve diving head first into this deep end of things that is like drownding if you werent ready to swim that day, so 1 sec... Its sortve obvious too, so i dont think im saying anything new, its just a recapitulization on the same sortve things, 1 sec...

The other way to frame things is to use Aristotle stuff, which is itself another road, but its also quite a different road. Like theres prolly a way to really compliment the two roads, but, then theres another road where you go off in a different direction entirely. And im not actually sure whats better, or whats right or wrong, like im saying, theres just a few many roads to take, either direction(s). But from my own exp., i would say that, my first impression is, the Aristotle road would require too much work, like im not sure i want to visit it in a serious manner (myself). Though its possible to go down that road (as a group). i know lots of people are already going down that road, but like... hm... what am i trying to say here. I think im just sayin yous have roads that are like shining beacon roads. I mean, in the context of *things that are most obvious, yous have atleast two shining beacons that you could follow up on ... Yah. But, i guess we just have to wait for more people to submit their ideas, posts and threads, such that we can tell which direction everyone is going in, as far as like, the base/core philosophy and the clustering that occurs through shared experiences and things like this.

I just thought i should add that, although alot of Credit goes to the Greeks, that i (much like others i know), only use Greece as a landmark, and not as definition for "how to live" or how to be, like, they have a language that compliments English. Like, at the time of Ancient Greece, you have Jews working together with others of the middle east, who are working w/ Persians, who are working w/ Greeks, who are working w/ Romans, and the list goes on. Thats just to say, hey, everyone worked together (maybe more physical fighting together in medieval and beyond, to try to become the person to subsequently carry forth those words) however, it eventually lead to now, and building what are like, the landmarks of communication, which always is in a possible state of collapsing. Like alls we can ever do is try to A) Map it, and~whats the word for like, establishing a landmark? and/or B) Create a language around it to fill in the details of whats on the map. Or so, that is how i frame what is suppose to be like this universal framing of directions, which you can alternate in it doing/performing thereafter. Its like "the art of DOing" or something, ya know? Or its like a simple way to see things for the sake of, or something. Yous get it.

Theres a couple points from history i want to get to, not just *isagoge*, so bare with me. First, what is this isagoge? In the medieval world, students did not learn Aristotle directly. They began with "Isagoge" (εἰσαγωγή [ei-sa-go-je]), a short work by Porphyry that served as an introduction to logic and classification. Its purpose was to train the mind before engaging with more difficult texts. The Isagoge explained a small set of basic concepts: genus, species, difference, property, and accident; that allowed students to understand how things are defined/grouped and distinguished. These ideas had the foundation to reading, arguing, and reasoning clearly encapsulated within. The Isagoge functioned as a prelude you could say, as Aristotle's work depended heavily on precise definitions and logical structure. Once students understood "how a thing belongs to a class", "what makes it what it is", and "what traits are essential versus incidental", they were prepared to graduate towards other, higher realms of study/philosophy, and metaphysics. Aristotle's vocabulary tended to focus on analysis (analyzing being), as well as cause and change, reasoning itself. The Isagoge gave students the mental framework needed to correctly follow that sortve rigorous outlook. In this way, it became a standard—and not a replacement for Aristotle, but the more foundational aspects towards that Aristotelian way of thinking you might say. Why do i bring this up? Well, i figured most people already know've Aristotle, but they dont know the more foundational isagoge (and the proceeding history thereafter). There's quite a plethora of interesting/hidden/forgotten stuff you can find in ancient greek+latin texts and so on, if you take the time to go through it all. The study of distinctions, or differences (such as, "... of the mind") comes later in medieval education, and was formalized as a technical tool under the term "distinctio..." Scholastic thinkers regularly used distinctions such as distinctio realis (real distinction), distinctio formalis, and distinctio rationis (distinction of reason). Students were explicitly taught that some distinctions exist in things themselves, some exist only in the mind, and some are (or exist) somewhere in between. Boethius, who transmitted Porphyry and Aristotle to the Latin West, emphasized how definitions depend on differences and how misplaced distinctions can lead to false arguments. He also trained students to pay careful, almost methodical attention to distinctions. By the high Middle Ages, later scholastics such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus explored these ideas further. Aquinas questioned whether distinctions were real or conceptual, while Scotus introduced the subtle notion of the formal distinction. By this point, students were very much aware that thinking itself operates by distinction, even if this was never explicitly phrased in modern philosophical terms. Medieval thinkers avoided saying "all knowledge is (...)" because doing so would risk collapsing the study of reality into mere mental activity. Instead, distinctions were always meant to reflect structure (we are then, and thus, defining structure itself~as each thing we study is also a study/focus on creation). p.s. I made that last line up, so dont go looking for it in any of the aforementioned info. So now you sortve see how that road of thinking unfolds a little more; As, it is in this sense that the concept of distinctions became a gateway: genus = sameness, difference = intelligibility, and species emerges from repeated distinctions.

I do have to clear this up, otherwise yous are gonna be so confused. Platonism is the closest to this Threshold, as both the Angelic order of Mystical Theology and the Daimons of Neoplatonism fail to enact the traveling that \*is (and would be) the space between our soul and this \*point light source. Platonism however compliments this notion, as we must leave there the dedicated space to exist and experience both of those truths, not making it out to be anything more than it is, —that is NOT to SAY that priority/hierarchy isnt important, nor are we saying that you cannot have this flowing / intermediary quality introduced w/ Neoplatonism, its simply saying that there is no notion of Angels or Daimons, Daimons or Angels and that they are only consequences of what exists between the liminal space between yourself and the \*point light source. \*Ousia (see definition online), is not greater than \*the one, and \*the one is not greater than ourselves. To say all there is is "the one" is incorrect speech. You have to include \*yourself in that equation, or you are saying everything is "one" which it is not. That might seem obvious, but to some it is not, so i try to get that obvious stuff out there first. Dedicated space is important as well, for we cannot say what we dont know to be there. Though, we can say what we have experienced, and what we think could be there (that is, differentiating a formal statement made, versus just a general experience expressed) p.s. i will add that Mystical Theology and Neoplatonism touch on interesting aspects, though they require someone to come in and figure them out, and try to frame things, from their own understanding / pov, To come in and say what they think is the best intellectual version for that—Like there is another way / another aspect that might be in there that can be added upon, if yous desire to figure it out. I just see it as being too complicated to try and work out, as its akin to a reframing of the whole thing, both this liminal threshold and Platos ideas.

Hey. Oh yes, consciousness is a weird word (infinity and eternity have fascinating aspects to them, per their applications and such) Hey, i havent a strong opinion otherwise~for making the case for any of them, or spectrum thereof. i would be frettin over something very minor in the grand scheme. Thus I just use whatevers been bubbling at the top of the pot, to put it bluntly Also consider how something like this *ousia word (that no one prolly has heard of) would take too long to get it on top of the word stack / word sandwich anyway, so more than likely itll go through phases where consensus shows they are favoring a notion of infinity~as the anterior to what follows, versus, *being* on another occasion, et caetera, assuming that thats the kind of collapsing of those terms that does ensue. In the simplest of ways, i try to just present them, without really saying what they are, but instead expressing an experience that exists around them -kindve thing~or a story/dialogue rather. *p.s. decide if yous want more of a writing that goes in a practical/plato-esque, grounded style with less (but still visible) mythish/strangeness (meaning, in the next writing/piece), or if yous would prefer—what i would consider the opposite, my own style, leaning in—what i now refer to as a Mytholological side of the spectrum, w/ multiple "lo's" in there cause its like, taking elements from the Mythologians, and presenting non myths in mythological form - kindve thing, or something like that.*

This is sortve a part I: to what is going to be this sortve like, *otherworldish traversal through this depiction of the liminal space, but in such a way to explore this relationship between the source and ourselves, and what is to be the highest of priority as far as where im going to be taking this ever-evolving reel of thread—that we keep reeling in, trying to discover what we, the thread, *is or could be...

non dualism, uni concentrisism, affixed postixedism, inner outer corigasm, plendid stellar boyishism, friendly flippidy face frownyism, smesh smosh smish smosh smesh relatie~ism, man power of the pure womanhood schism, you know, but what lies at the inner ring, if to have only described the outer, what lies in between non and dual, if to have only been in the number 2 to the power ~ is the question.

Eternal Distinctions In the same way the Greek word ἄπειρον (apeiron) existed long before Anaximander (meaning endless, boundless or without limit) the very old word "logos" had existed long before Heraclitus (which i did mention), however Heraclitus was the first to turn it into a deep cosmic principle. Aristotle relocates "logos", back to its original meaning (word, reasoning, explanation) as well as *ἄπειρον* and the "source from which all things arise and return, eternally", affixing the notion of "infinity" to *κίνησις, \*kinesis* (any change from potentiality to actuality), as opposed to infinity being laid on the \*substance itself — Aristotle was ahead of his time w/ this, though we have to introduce another term here to make it make sense: *Active* from Latin *activus* (*ago*, "to act") semantically loaned/adapted from Ancient Greek *energetikós* and that whole thing. Intuitively, we recognize "standing still" as being separate from "motion". Even in modern physics, there's the understanding that this is speaking in two separate conceptual spaces, along w/ atoms and how they vibrate; Where there are *things* that can be considered either "moving" or "at rest". Aristotle's distinction is similar: *substance* from old Latin *substo*~what a thing is, is contra to *kinesis* (its *active* change or motion). The thing we call "motion" is thus distinct from "the thing thats being moved"~or simply put, *motion* as being what "acts upon" a *substance*. Circular motion, likewise, has no beginning or end (and the time it occupies is endless). Eternal motion explains how the cosmos persists indefinitely without requiring matter itself to be infinite. However, he assumes that "motion = infinity" in a strict sense. But our modern intuition still suggests that infinity cannot be reduced solely to motion; and furthermore, it could still be a property of substance, structure, or potentiality as well, so keep that in the back of your mind (separating motion from substance is not straightforward). The bottomline is that, you can use this to go further on making distinctions (or consolidations), and trying to sort through what it is that we think reality is, as its not just mental masturbation, and I find that there are hints leading us to a place where words, ideas and truths coincide with each other, even if just for a brief moment. There are things pointing to things that may be of some benefit towards the overall recipe, and its just bout adding hints here and there, cause everyone is starting from a different place, so everyones on a separate journey.

, hey vry interesting stuff. thanks for response. im interested, if u get the courage to really rip that sht if itll get you into view/scene with the so called entities (or is that the other dmt now, i get them confused/mixed up... hey maybe an angel will pop out of that light thatd be siq) in depicting something thats got an intelligent hold on these sorts of call it.. like liquidity states... w some emotional context, that of *surprise, surprised w what they were doing... as perhaps they can teach us. Although a part of me now thinks we have to teach ourselves everything, possibly going as far as to understand dreams that dont share the same sortve *stuff that waking memories do (not that they do now) but i mean, dreams are almost like a fresh canvas, but its also what make dreams incredibly frustrating to work w/ cause they are like, every longitudinal divided ocean in a multipack of oceans—*crashing together, in a very incremental but nonetheless violent way, and having to steer a boat right in the center of it with your mindseye. But ive been workin at this very same thing every night, so its not that bad, but i need ship mates in there its so torrential. Like we need to sail out as far as we canso to speak, and do it suxh that we aremt lost forever, but that it just resolves, speaking figuratively p.s. i should said ~not made of the same stuff like how rocks and water arent the same stuff, not to mean the whole thing isnt the same underlying thing, Alas the torrential waters are navigatable. BUT We need like, "identity maps" and new ways to think bout this newly discovered zone, if we are even that close, which we might be very very far, hard to gauge. I feel confident, how bout it, put it like that.

Q: Does the realm and the subsequent beings feel like it has the potential to rearrange you? Like do the entities theres give you the impression that they are there as like a fail safe to do a full spiritual swap? As i was wondering how we are gonna be intelligently rearranged (in the end) as i feel like there needs to be an event where the dream world settles into more of this hypothetical dmt world im calling it, in order to actively and purposefully rearrange everything in an intelligent manner cause otherwise we are like falling through a dream space forever and its like, thats super no bueno. Like do yous get the impression that your entrance and body/presence within dmt space is like a filament of a material item that *belongs* there in a weird way—is what im asking—and/but because of the proclivity to want to stay on Earth and the uneasiness with being rearranged, you are shuttled back into your wakefulness? i never took dmt before so thats why i ask. I mean ppl describe the experience as if theres an intelligence in there so im tryina see like, just how intelligent are we talking? is it like a vague intelligence, or is there something poignant about it that you can feel albeit way over the experiential mountain in terms of the fear of finding out whats lies beyond.

Migliorismo What im tryina say doesnt really/strictly exist in Greek per say (atleast not the second part of this), hence the title shifting into Italian suddenly, however, i'll still be starting from the point of those perspectives in Ancient Greek (lets just call it back in the 1AD days for simplicity purposes, as it points to a time where the interaction between language, cultures, ideas, etc, etc is all very well & good) starting w/ Aristotle, and his ideas on ethics; Ethics that emphasize moderation. Virtue (moral, behaviors, stuff like that) is often the mean between two extremes: e.g., courage is between rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). Applied to attitudes, one could say there is a μεσότης (mesótes) or a fixed point between despair (pessimism) and overconfidence (excessive optimism). Stoics were also responsible for this notion of equanimity — freedom from excessive passions. This is a sortve neutral stance between the overly positive or overly negative emotional reactions to events. In the case of the Epicureans, another *intermediary* is in avoiding both fear-driven pessimism and reckless over-expectation. In simpler terms, there are usually two extremes. This leads me to my point which we'll call "migliorismo". This is the belief that the Earth (the world) can be improved through human effort. Its understood as an intermediate outlook between optimism and pessimism - in one sense - or really - we could file it under "common sense", right? I mean, its just a nice message to put out in the world - that is, if you have to put one overarching message into the world, you should be the one orchestrating that message; Because perhaps the most important message here is that, by default you are putting messages out (you can think about that in terms of yourself, OR as the whole of everyone+including you), and this is the case, even without anything explicitly stated;; That is something to get you thinking, one which i think/believe hasnt been explicitly stated/explained *before, or its one that nobody really knows of... Its nevertheless the case, with some nuance though. You transmit to everything and everyone, so you have to use your analytical mind to figure out what you want to send out, otherwise the default transmission will be out there. And considering what i mentioned in the first half of this post, it doesnt mean you have to (or would even want to) scream out whats on your mind. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, a good thing, or better yet, even the "right" thing assuming we all agree on what is "right", which we dont; And that is to say then, that you dont necessarily get the best/right option for free without saying or doing something, anything, so mine as well set yourself up by strolling on the right path, and with the right message in mind, and thats all up to yous to decide. *Woops i left something out... ill just add it here, and that is in Aristotle's terms used regarding both extremeties in his specific inquiry: ὑπερβολή (hyperbolḗ) = excess and ἔλλειψις (élleipsis) = deficiency / lack, And which is not to be confused with the geometric meanings: hyperbola or ellipse, because élleipsis is related to a falling short. They both are geometric terms accredited to Apollonius of Perga (60-70 years after Aristotle)

@WillCameron The Archetype; The Symbols or notions — It is a powerful way to do just as you said. They help you create an Archetyped map and to *see-through to something more core and more primal than the layers that may be on it, in between (or just flat out Not visible yet). That is what the Icon, logo or the symbol has always been meant to do. Its meant to encapsulate more than what we might be trying to express—And in such a way as to do it within a dedicated area, or a symbol that isnt easily dismissed. It gives you an apex, an azimuth to help in relating things to—to then—afterwards, make connections. The Archetypes you speak of have always been there in some form. Speaking to this first succubi one — That one, specifically could and will likely end up (in the coming ages) following a circular pattern -> (Speaking from a more angelic beginning) First—To begin w/... You have the equality of human beings -> then a tipping towards one end of the spectrum or the other -> then a domination brought to the table, via the men on Earth (as its not necessarily a native womanly trait) -> then a suppression of, or the outward appearance of men (iuno if youd call them men or boys) being dominated -> then it just goes back to normal once that goofyness subsides, presumably. It might take longer tlfor it to get smoothed out as its a chain reaction of different things happening. And as its really~not like a focal point or anything. Like its a consequence of consequence of a muddy center wherein nothing makes sense, and, in turn, you get these goofy things bubbling up and making it look like we are in some sortve backwards, anti men verse / paradigm. There are aspects that are true to make it so, then there are those that make it seem as though it is alot more than it really is/much more than it even ever could (like, totally *out there-stuff) and most of that i feel is self correcting, just as you had come to the conclusion to do this map in the first place, which is precisely how such issues get resolved internally (let a partial external one do as they must). That is to say then, how we must simply and ambitiously map them out, just as anything on Earth/Reality has to involve, or resolve, through either: A) A mapping out (*identifying) of the reality/experiences, and denoting the basis/initial form... To later bring in... B) A "language" — and, of which is in turn created—by making connections and/or filling in the details. The *mapping Archetype, if we might call it that for a moment, is more of like the *design/architect, or cartographer's direction, or so one might say (the Archetype of the Architect) (or the director of a sortve macro scale, and the erecting of runestones of acknowledgement within its territories, regions within *space) Then you have more of the very *detailed Archetype, the one who makes connections and fills things out... Sortve "doing the~application of directed details" (if that makes sense) adding details to those already mapped out parts produced by the cartographer. Both are involved in mapping out something, whatever that may be, but there has to be someone sighting/revealing [insert a*space] before it can have details. p.s. i dont know wat the canonical jungian archetypes are, i just have my own thing.

I like the food one, cause food is somethin women, like to do like they knock on ur door and bring upside chicken w/ rice and stuff like this from Palestine — like people can unite over food. The god or gods one i just avoid, personally, as when it gets brought up in a cross-culture scenario, im thinkin to myself "Oh jeez, they bringin up religios god stuff.. this is so fu@€#..." but so far it hasnt gone too bad yet.. Historically it probably wouldve gone bad.

Lemniskos in Ancient Greek refers to a loop (later a ribbon in mathematics and others) like a figure eight essentially. This is a term yous could use, as it touches upon this notion of — You have one thing that starts -> <- here, lets say, and then you cross over with a kindve equal but opposite motion/thing. You have a mirrored version of a thing now, as well as the original thing you started, as well as the path it took to get there. Essentially you have a cascade, which this notion of like, two causal points, or a start, and an end... Aristotle mentions circularity in this way too—That is how, its the only motion *without a rest/relax or naturael endpoint ("telos"), and no position within a circle could go on to be the undisputed "finalization". He goes to explain the cosmos using ideas like that of circular motion, but in this point hes trying to express more of the *cosmic motion, and having a starting point without termination. Thats of course leaning towards circularity in general, which is another important aspect—that which takes an different facets depending on what we're talking about (yous would have to do a whole thing on circularity, which is a separate topic). Lemniskos is a little different. Its not the same as *fractal and/or recursive functions because its more specifically emphasizing the looped path, and not necessarily the self similar aspect, though, the fact that its similar is part of it. Theres also this notion of like *similarity* in general, like. Like, in other words, you dont have to add things (at a certain point) when theyve gotten *close enough to being similar*, like, we dont usually think in these terms, but lets say, w/ anything "innovative", you may consider how you dont always need to **recreate the same things over again and again**, especially if they are similar enough. I mean its hard to express the areas where this is relevant, as it crosses into multiple places, and i dont know which its *suppose to be apart of, hence, i leave it here—for yous to decide, being from a more spiritual, mystical or creative/art standpoint, which in turn can go in any direction yous want.

ive had the most weird experiences w/ ppl dying, which could be relieving to hear since it contrasts from these like, dark hospital things (or so it is for me, as my hospital stays have been hellish), as my second hand deaths are soo unusual and funny in a weird sense of it. first my grandfather dies, out of the blue while sitting on the toilet. He was technically sortve *on his way out*, but he wasnt like, hospital-ready or anything, he just had bad lungs or somethin (i was like 5). Okay then theres my grandfather on my dads side, the week he died he had thrown a party, right outback of my house/or where i was staying—almost like him and all his work friends were on some inside joke, and me being significantly younger, wasnt gonna understand. But i went outback to the restaurant, said hi... aand.. Dead next week. My grandmom died not too long after. We had been living with her, taking care of her at her house. She hallucinated like crazy for the last 6 months prior, so like... That was a very different exp that i saw from her vs everyone else who passed. Point being, ive never seen someone die the same way twice, and it rarely involved hospitals or pain, it was just flat out weird. yous may be relieved to know for now this sortve thing—that its just weird from my second hand perspective. so thats something you could say. Everyone dies and its always weird, and no one even understands, so its like a surprise.

I would rather call it, "realizing a truth". That is, i would not describe it as a belief, nor something about being a higher conscious exp., per say, as thats more consequential towards experience in general—and the subsequent pursuits of it. The thing you are *directing* towards, this thing you want to aim at, which is in the form of a question, is more of an answer that you would have to ask yourself, if in fact you want to ask about "where our beliefs have taken us", which is another way of saying, theres no *one, overarching belief* (for me) since it changes depending on context/other things/experiences—As, at first glance, it only may seem higher, or it may seem more true... thats only at first glance. So, a *belief* is a fleeting thing. Its more of an *aim*, vaguely. And, a higher conscious experience is fleeting, its all relative towards experience. Others may think what they have is a belief, but they really have an aim in a direction that *appears* like a constant. Its an assumption that the circumstances arent always changing the belief inside out.

Heraclitus Yous'll start to notice that a lot of the Greek thinkers\writers say similar but different things, almost the same things, worded in a new/diff ways, cause like, from what i understand they all spent alot of time in their center city competing against poets, and other philosopers, and they had to be on the knifes edges of some sht if they were goin for popularity, or just some sortve of recognition in general. Like i did a deep dive on Heraclitus of 500 BC ~ Not that theres that many surviving fragments of his, but the fragments we do have are all bangers, as he blends philosophy, myth and poetry, and he touches on the \*unity of opposites, the logos, as well as how fire is the arche, et caetera. Its the generations prior that set up the foundations of Heraclitus though. And theres approx. a hundred little fragments of his out there, all that sortve fit together into an interesting larger window of sorts. And later on, in generations proceeding, we see those thoughts come up again, but through recapitulation, elaboration, and/reflection, such that they arent as deep and poetic, or maybe they are sometimes, but rephrased, reconstituted. Which isnt necessarily a bad thing, its just not as awesome. Its still very similar. Also, Around Heraclitus and such, Greece of Asia minor, Türkiye, starts to shift its best thinkers to mainland Athens and European Greece, and so thats sortve like, a creative turning point, where you see a... hera clitus *flux* of all sorts of related ideas, froathing, bubbling up in new and interesting ways. note: Heraclitus elevates the term logos to refer to universal principle, rational order, or the law of the cosmos, as opposed to the prior meaning of "word" / "normal discourse", significance, reason, speech or story (or it carries both)

In the unbounded permission towards the infinite, with a limit on the infinite (of each moment through time), we seek to know, oh great one. though what we experience, what we know, it feels circular within it, and what we feel, or what we taste—that is, the consolidated form of tasting~of the flavors of experience as it transcends its wave of disruption, it has layers of experiences that take prominence over the whole that had existed prior. Theres multiple levels in these hypothetical, but literal waters: you have shallower waters in some regions, and deeper waters that have more activity, more depth. You have stronger winds coming from some directions, some conflicting and spinning the waters around, as the waters theirselves are being moved by everything. We just exist — just the thing that coughs up the mucus, and reciprocates, and bounces, or gets bounced, echoes; Everything is tumbling together, bumping into one another—such that theres no telling whats doing the bumping. Therefore, in taking in the whole of everything going on, one can only hope to steady theirselves amidst the gentler cascade of horned rams running into one another, and capricorns hooking up the side of some mountain of goats, as we drink the goat milk and suck on the breast of some nearest titty, while the tit birds fly by night and fall when theyre time is up.

Linux desktop, as well as linux gaming is getting better over time, as its still in a weird place (i dont use desktop environments, but i have an old computer where i had been testing out a fork of fvwm95. And it works great, and i like how it expresses the \*classic borders on programs like firefox and such) but, not everyone gets it, and they just wanna do their thing gaming and stuff. nothin wrong with that. Linux is more of a DIY thing more so, but... i mean... Even though Linux itself could become amazingly accessible in the future, its the \*perception of it that makes it inaccessible, if that makes any sense. Whats that word im looking for... like when you are first learning a thing and you want to get into it for the first time. Whatever that word is, wherein you want to get into it for the first time, that is itself like the hardest first step into the entry of linux.