kavaris

Piece #1 Were always on the brink of something, and many ppl are really good at noticing things that others dont see, like how cats might sense something in some extrasensory way (though tbh my cat seems to not be as hypersensitive as i once thought). But getting back on track, my point is like, god to me is a fragment of the center~during the limited expansion, wherein nobody can, or will denote the one outside of pointing & indicating whats " 1/x ", lik... "to point towards the one, is to watch everyone whos missing it at the other end~at the same time", as yas gotta understand, the one is itself a representation of the exact limited totality~of, or the "amount of". Like, to be pointing towards it, is to also be in a substratum where everyone is ignoring it. Like, theres no way out of that situation besides leaving the situation so it can resolve. I mean, its more complicated, but yous get the gist (naming things like this~i.e., as "Pieces" will help me remember if/when i need to ref. them again outside)

I fast, by virtue of not having any money to eat, like... Fasting IS in a sense a means of having sympathy for such ppl, though i personally dont see it as a good idea~BUT thats coming from my perspective and situation. I can understand the many reasons it would be beneficial, especially to those who have been practicing it for how many years? Too many. You gotta understand, theyve been fasting routinely for so long that its in their blood, its in their routine. So to ordinary ppl who dont fast or dont know what it is, they think logically so, pointing out things bout differences in their routines. Those who do practice this, and who do fast~Theyve just been doing it alot longer, so all them rules do not apply. Its sortve like people who work out constantly. You can try to tell Arnold swarzenneger at 30 that hes lifting wrong, but clearly hes doing something thats working for himself, even if its wrong to others. I mean, his goals were different, as it wasnt just to be fit, or to work out. It was things like, competition, etc., in the case for ram'donadans / ram'adonians nd such, they are like, on a whole nother planet from my pov (or really, anyones who differs) As even if they werent financially stable, and werent able to make ends meat, theyd prolly still be practicing it, though they might not be as underweight and suffering from health issues as ive been, so its two totally different worlds~One being from my exp., as well as others who dont understand, versus those that Do understand it, as theyve been doing it for so long. Thats my input. Now the specifics on the hours, i have no idea. To me, it makes sense, cause that sounds like the kindve hours that they would choose to fast. But again, im sure many ppl have chosen to fast in many diff times and many diff ways. I dont observe ppl fasting, but i do hear about it on and off, though it doesnt apply to me, so its like, i could care less.

Claude knows more bout every1 than i do. I couldnt tell you anyone besides J.Maynor as i have him on youtube. The day i learn bout someone is the same day i completely forget, as i dont look at whos talking, beyond the point that ive looked at them once already. Like, i know ppls names i mean, but i dont actually remember wat they said, or anything besides a floating name that i can identify as, having looked at it before. I have to much goin on to recognize who said wat, regardless of who said what, nd wat they said

@CredTeam "Allegory of the Cave". See now thats something you could try to emulate, in order to take what yous are saying, and remix it in a way that makes sense. As you are almost (almost) writing/speaking (or could be speaking) in a Socratic dialogue fashion, but you are like, one character, or so it feels like. If there was two characters, u could have a main char., that says /or writes such things as "Theres seven sets in the geometry of sets" And another saying "What makes you say that theres seven", then you have a piece that not only removes yourself from the equation (replacing your self w/ two chars.) but also, you can roleplay/workshop all of those ideas, in a way that can better gauge if what you are saying makes any sense or not, As you can start to ask yourself (your main char. whos posetting those statements) all of the Socratic type questions, in order to bridge from "What you think you know" to "What there is TO know". Hopefully youll take an ounce of what im tryina tell you, otherwise its like, we are tryina read what you are saying, and you arent reciprocating, but rather you are saying whatever, or atleast i cant understand it in its *current form. Good luck.

Im relistening to a translation on \*Allegory of the Cave. It goes a bit deeper than the parts that everyone knows, as its another instance of something that everyone would be surprised by, seeing as alot of these Greek texts go a wee bit deeper. Its like, finding a well (of water) and it turning out to be a 3,000 year old cave system or something.

Another perspective to take is "How do we appraoch the question of 'What is art?' typve questions, As its not always clear what art is, like "i often am just looking at things" -As i could imagine someone saying that (though, i dont feel like thats what i do/or would do; But i digress, as its going to be a hypothetical notion, for now) Lets say pers._X, is stumped at, say "I am looking at my carpet, and i am looking at my wall, and i am looking at the kitchen sink, and i dont see anything". What would yous say to this?.. I would say, "Why are you looking at the kitchen sink", like to me thats an unusual place to start. So like, for me I would say, "... Is there something you could look at thats not such an ~ Unbearably ordinary thing that you deal w/ on a regular basis, that could otherwise be deduced as a piece of art?" Like im just trying to eliminate any potential questions that like, non-art, creative minds might be crossed-up on. I mean, its not totally off track, but its also like, if you are looking at the same exact things in the same exact way, then it sortve doesnt like, push the envelope forward. So theres something about looking in the right place, in order to engage w/ it on a level that isnt your own, or like, it isnt your ordinary self looking at it.

(CAUTION, THIS IS A LONG READ) And it is something new im working on, that which involves language & Spirituality, granted its still in galleys, so yous might not understand it~Seeing as im liable to give a very poor introduction to it. I also jus called it a Spiritual Science, so forgive me if that sounds like something, as i just meant it to mean Science like how Science was back in Oh say the first CE... Okay so let me think how im gonna explain this. Okay, so the first thing i should say is, its a method that applies to all things~And language and such are just the few things it crosses through. I had started out calling it Art as a field of action , inspired by several things i encountered online. Therefore it wasnt purely an originally thought, but its application was. I started out describing this Egyptian Language thing, turning ppl on to Stenography and things like this. Yousll have to look up Stenography as i dont want to make this as long as Gone with the Wind. But anyway, yous have to humor me here, or yous arent gonna understand what im talking about, or why it crosses through spirituality. So what is spirituality? To me, i just merge it into Mysticism and that of the mystical, cause why not. Its not like it effects whether its goal is to be dualistic or not, or if its this or that. Its mystical stuff, mysterious, secretive (has to be) otherwise you are spilling your hard earned guts out, effecting things in unpredictable ways. Those who are Agnostic or simply reserved dont understand anything anyway (or those incapable yet of drawing such connections) True agnostic beliefs just default to the worst beliefs imaginable, and spirituality is itself a right of passage and rebirth. I assume yous would agree, otherwise why would yous be here. Anyway... I almost want to put this in the Intellect department because of how long its gonna be. But lets just try to make it as short as possible. When you imagine, or when you write something down, those two, call it, modes of conjuring are two different pavements, hard laws on what/why its happening, and the results or quality of its contents. They may share things in common, but its not like "thinking" can only be done if writing were there; Like they are independent parts of a larger mechanism. Okay so now.. You have a common *basis* for all the letters of a writing system (Im skipping over some things, as we are gonna circle back to it in a limited vers. of, granted) So the basis for letters ~sometimes based on the "vertical stave", sometimes on the "horizontal macron"~they also have whats called a "form", and what to base them on, for instance, Greek and Latin base their letterforms on the Egyptian-derived forms, circular measure, or the four-sided figure (later we start to call it a right angled cross ∟ (reversed, flipped) Law of Forms / LoF 1969) appearing in calculations around the square field, as well as the **mر**, for the pyramid form. Im skipping to the Art -part. That is, theres a field called "Art" which possesses "action"—Just imagine you, yourself are the artist for the time being — The old ontology was that the art-object, the analysis of its complexity should come first, and the environment should come second. This is what we are changing. "The action" is wherein the artist is using "Mark of Distinction", instead of producing an object that then gets placed somewhere for the analysis of complexity, as you create levels of complexity when yous do this. Instead, the idea should feel like this, as a very basic e.g., `∟ [this is art / this is not-art]` > First Ques. you should ask, e.g.: What distinction am I drawing, and from which side am I operating on? -in what will become an accumulation of distinctions, each one differentiating the marked from the unmarked, each one co-producing a new environment relative to a NEW system, what should that system do/be? You decide. Don't try to think into rational systems that already exist. Look at it as art, and you are the artist who's making these distinctions. The artist should instead perform a distinction-drawing act, wherein the environment constitutes the art as a whole. The artist crosses into the marked space *(that's the work entering the world)* but then re-enters its own distinctions. That is, the work and the world it relates, negates and frames *~and separates from~* are themselves co-produced in the same gesture—each gesture being another crossing, another nested distinction drawn within the space opened by the first mark. ***And~in the words of Martin John Kemp, the discipline (those from the institutions who dont understand this yet) will keep trying to analyze the object, while the artist will have had already moved to analyzing the cut.*** [PAUSE] I will pause here, cause if yous are lost it should give yous a chance to gather your questions. Please ask questions. So whys this apply to spirituality. Well we often want to know thyself, or know about the world or those unconscious layers, but when we do we are starting from the picture itself, the image of whats there to build from, lines that can be traced and such. Through distinctions, its like, you are trying to acknowledge the picture and its environment. Like we are broadening everything out so that its taking the environment around the subject, and drawing within that which weve made distinct via the choices made. And, at some intersection, you will come across a choice, and the choice will involve having to make a distinction. If/when you do this, you wont just move on to the next thing you see, but rather you will develop — whatever that is — into a NEW system of its own. Does that make sense? Basically, you want to try to acknowledge distinctions, and those levels that lead to~however its is not to say that its a straightforward process, as you are gonna encounter some very odd stuff along the way, no doubt. If you have any questions, plz feel free to ask. ***note: the best way to understand it is to sit down w/ it, yourself, to understand it, as THEN youll see what i mean. it starts w/ you asking something akin to, "What distinction am I drawing, and from which side am I operating on"... p.s. it may take time as well to get use to nd such***

I thought he had already been cloned and botox'd-up to be honest. I thought the cloning groups got to him already.

Im quoting this As i thought, i should add something interesting, to provoke some things that may/could go (or inspire) others to find other things that are also interesting on music (*in general) or Greek music/rhythm, et caetera. Plato is actually known for being the first (that is, text assoc. w/, or if he wasnt the first, it was someone around his time) that are first to have referred to the modes. That is, he didnt mention all seven of them (the basic modes of music) but he did list like... iuno it mightve been 4-5 of them (he left out Iionian as well i believe, as that comes later on~if i recall correctly, as its often talked about in regards to the moods, qualities and emotions they invoke as well): Ionian, Aeolian, Dorian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Locrian & Phrygian (And i think he left out Locrian and Phrygian, or something like that) I just thought theres something interesting there, and also, how it goes back farther, seeing as he is pulling from other music theorists, or works that he had either read or heard about. Just in general, commentators on previous Greek works are always saying things that are quite surprising, and theres many works weve not yet translated out there~Just to demonstrate how much Greek there is out there, among the thousands that we do have.

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

Ive changed over the years, so id have to look through my playlists, but maybe something like this *(p.s. i know im weird) p.s. the Doric and the Ionic orders / simplest orders are the ones i like the most, and theres alot of architecture that im into, so thats just giving yous a little taste of stuff that i look at, though i dont rewatch it repetitively, but in order to get the designs down, i was (as i said, i would need to really look through my playlists to find something i would deem as something i would repetitively watch)

Reminds me of effluescence, though iuno if they're related.

Corruption is more like a spectrum. We exist to deduce our corruption within the world, within ourselves and our experience. But then that means you have to ask, "What is corruption?" If a master said he \*Doesnt eat tacos on taco tuesday, does that mean hes corrupted (or \*Not corrupted for that matter) Its hard to say, and it gives people the idea that they can just do anything ~ seeing as theres no easy scenario that might involve deducing it in a straightforward manner. It goes deeper than corruption. Reality depends on these sorts of paradoxes, statements and deductions that dont add up to a true and majestic answer, Yet still, it helps to have an answer. It helps to know what you are aiming toward (Lvl 1, is what im speaking to, where you are sortve like, wandering the roads as a roadwarrior trying to get to the heart of what reality is, what exp. is, or like you are still stumped by "what is the purpose" typve ques., -which isnt the right question to ever ask, but nonetheless, people do start there, so we have to include it. And its possible to get reset, so keep that in mind! Thats going off topic) Conclusion: Its like an egg, and in the egg is a corrupted yolk, and theres a clear translucent goo around it, and that goo represents the None-corrupt corruption. But the egg requires both, as far as having a whole egg to cook w/, with both white & yolk combined. Some people dont like the yolk, or some people dont like the light goo. They are both good for you if you know how to use them/cook w/ them.

Oh, interesting reference. I have to look this one up again, as there is often intriguing details in myths. And especially being a myth of Greek association (and youd think i'd know this one already, however ive only read it briefly, a long while back) p.s. going through the /A/ section of https://raw.githubusercontent.com/philofree/philofree/refs/heads/main/public/data/index.json (the long list of rather) And i recently read something from Apollodorus of Athens who also mentioned Sisyphus (albeit it was brief i think, but nonetheless it was a~potentially informative ref.)

I appreciate you defending me, but hey, youd be better off not entertaining any of this. I wouldnt call any of that cheeky or devilish, but lets not get caught up in what is a center of what we think any of this is (As we will be here all day, infecting the forum w/, whatever names they might want to call it)

You have no idea what you are saying, and thats a problem. Its a nice idea, that is - If you were hanging out w/ someone talking about such things, this would be an interesting idea to share. But clearly you are misaligned w/ everyone here, as we do not see the world as simply as you. Why 8?... Why not 4?... *(Dont answer this question, its meant to be rhetorical)* In fact, you can simplify everything you are saying to just be "Everything = language", and then explore what that even means, through things you can prove to others (or better yet is to prove it to yourself, for it will eventually lead to a place where only you can be the observer of), instead of it feeling like you are the only man in the room who understands it. Many people have come in here saying "Aha! I got it. Theres 8 things... No wait, theres 7 things... No wait, its encapsulated in one over arching..." I mean, when you take LsD you will see that theres quite alot of things that it could be, sometimes 4, sometimes 5, sometimes 6 or 7 or 8... i mean the list goes on as to what those types of things could be. The part that you may be able to get everyone to agree w/ is that "everything is language". But thats where things have to be investigated. And, not just claiming, making claims to these arbitrary things. You have to dig deep into "Ousia". Look up Ousia. Thats the most important part (Hint it means "You" or being, these things you are trying to touch on... Thats a clue. Why not appreciate it?)

@Cred Are you not seeing how many ppl are in disagreement w/ you? Thats a sign that ya gotta like, reevaluate dude.

@Cred Im not gonna link your words twice. It= very clearly will give people that idea that way you are conflating everything w/ "Autism is high Sequentiality of Spirit" - Like... THis is the exact stuff im talking about. You just dont agree, end it there, as you are asking me to reference or explain things i already explained at this point. Im not gonna ask you to re explain yourself, so please dont ask me. Okay.

@shenanigans if you feel satisfied w/ it, then theres nothin wrong w/ it; For you are speaking to such things that cannot~and will not eve be explained the same way twice, as they are the foundations of exp., and reality. So as long as you like it, and feel satisified w/ it, then theres nothing wrong w/ it.

I listen to alot of different prayers and such, as i think its a good idea to find some chants/prayers or things related to this (for said safe space/ritualistic place) though in regards to lookin through my own bookmarks to share one, it would be a long story~that is, to try and pull one out right now is a daunting task, for im going through some stuff/sht currently (long story). @_Archangel_ I like your icon as it looks like an illuminated letter, but combined w/ that sortve naval or Orphic imagery of the serpent kindve thing (im sure its something specific but i dont know what it is) p.s. im also thinkin of a word for like "safe space", meaning that, it wouldnt jus be for meditation, maybe 'hearth' or one of those things. Maybe something related to "Hestia"... Oh that reminds me, i should share a hymn to Hestia. As, since i cannot share a prayer/poem at this very moment right now, this should suffice for now, as many prayers & hymns come together as one like this, Holy queen of sacred rites, we shall hymn you, Hestia, who holds Olympus and the middle‑navel of the earth forever, who holds the Pythian laurel, dancing around the lofty temple of Phoebus, de- lighting in the oracular voices of the tripods, and when Apollo w/ his golden seven‑toned lyre praises the gods in hymns with you. Greetings, daughter of Kronos and Rhea, you who adorn the altars of the immortals; Hestia, grant in exchange great prosperity to us, that having it We may always dance around your bright throned altar.

"One is god" could imply God is one, so thats an immediate paradox of inquiry/quandary, or a self contradicting phrase to investigate/explore (though, in most monotheistic religions, that idea is what is said, or some semblance of, granted its an incomplete view of everything, hence the contradiction). It might even be said as such, to invoke a paradox. But generally speaking, its also the wrong direction, yes. You should start from "being" in that "all is one", from the perspective of being, itself. And then after you establish this, you can say "all is infinite", otherwise you are just making a statement on God, and thats no good. Its not even a fruitful argument to be making at that point, and you have to come up w something that doesnt frame it as a paradox. Alternatively, you could investigate the nature of the paradox, but i find, generally speaking, most people do not have that sortve~gifted and intellectual awareness or level of intuition, so they will end up taking them words at face value instead. So be careful w/ the questions you ask, and the words you use (generally speaking). Details matter. p.s. these are like steps, you know, first comes "being", then comes the experiences you generate or observe, then comes the God/Light, or the incomprehensible words and such that we use to talk about the perfect essence or nature of existence/being itself. You need some grounding first, or you do and will end up w everyone taking religion at face value. Theres nothing wrong w/ sayin "one is God" in an absolute sense, but if you frame things backwards by reinterpreting things at face value, both exp., & history, then yous are doomed to have to reunderstand it again.

Dyslexia is not an indication of having a high ability of anything, it just means youd have dyslexia. The same w ADD, Dyspraxia, Autism, extreme OCD, the same w/ Synesthesia et caetera. You CAN have a highly enriched center of wholeness and spirit w/ these things, but it requires patience and the ability to listen to others, and things like this that are indicative of observing reality. To exist is to exist within some semblance of a limited reality, and to learn about said reality requires the ability to observe the reality in the first place. It sounds like you are taking the notion of "-typys" like that of Schizotypy, and applying it to everything, calling everything a kind of - typy - - In the case of Autism, i know some people who are sevants, but they arent spiritually enriched, rather they are tortured inside. I know some who have Autism that dont have any ability at all, and they dont have any spiritual or otherwise type interests, as they have too many issues in their life. Seldom do any of the cases i have seen involving Autism have anything to do w/ being spiritual enriched or blessed, and more often they have felt tortured by some other tangental thing, whether it be in the "lack of" department, or just as an "sevant" whos obsessively good at something, but not anything else (that is, they have trouble in almost every other area, though this only describes like 65% of people ive met w/ autism, and not all people w/ autism) @Cred You are riffing on a lot of technical disorders and such in your metaphysical wanderings, but you are not making any sense. You are conflating illnesses w having an unexpectedly high ability in some other, non-related area(s). You need to slow down and think about what you are saying; Revisit some of these things about, e.g. "Dyslexic people tend towards X ability...". Take your time on these mind riffs you are engaging in - in order to not get it twisted. Those are disorders, not special abilities. In the modern era, many people are saying they have all of these things wrong w/ them, when they are very capable mentally, so you have to draw a line between those people who are just saying they have a disorder, but are very capable, and those that are defined by said disorders~who have extreme difficulties in life/trouble understanding things in life, et caetera. Otherwise, it feels like you are setting aside all of the mental and spiritual problems of those that DO suffer from these disorders, and saying like "Look at these people that are so HIGH in spirit". But for a large majority, that does not describe their life, and it feels like you are inauthentically representing/speaking on, e.g., Dyslexia. *p.s. you are also missing alot of information around psychology, so you are creating an incomplete view of what psychology is, let alone the confusing spiritual/metaphysical element you are interweaving in there too.

(part 2) Just to clear the air, theres two significant Greek writers who demonstrate or who wrote on the nature of potential (from a different perspective, more technical mind you). Aristotle calls it δύναμις (potentiality or potency) and ἐνέργεια (actuality/or just *being-at-work) where he argues that potential has a real mode of being, and its actualization is directed toward a \*telos. So thats a very intriguing direction to take things. Philo of Alexandria specifically is interesting too, for he inherits Aristotelian categories, but then he fuses them with Platonic and Jewish thoughts and/or reasoning. He uses dunamis (active energies that may also transcend in some senses), and the Logos, which then receives and articulates these energies into intelligible patterns — it is the mind that thinks God's thoughts in a form that can become a world. Matter then receives these patterns and becomes the structured cosmos. Philo inherits an underlying problem from this problem, which is how the God of Hebrew scripture acts in the world—As he creates, judges, shows mercy, speaks — but Platonic/Stoic philosophy demands that the highest principle be absolutely transcendent, immutable, beyond contact with matter. How do you reconcile a personal acting God with a philosophically pure One? His answer is the δυνάμεις — divine powers that are neither fully God nor separate from God (And this is also described in a simplistic way by commentators on many forms of religious scripture as well). The δυνάμεις are the real extensions of his nature that reach downward into creation without compromising his transcendence. The two primary ones he emphasizes are: ἡ ποιητική δύναμις — the creative/productive power (associated with the divine name Theos, ...) ἡ βασιλική δύναμις — the kingly/ruling power (associated with Kyrios, Lord as sovereign) So the sequence is something like: God (utterly transcendent, beyond being) ↓ via δυνάμεις Logos (divine mind / world of Forms / instrument) ↓ via the act of creation Intelligible World (archetypes, numbers, patterns) ↓ Sense-perceptible World (matter receiving form)

The following is an abstract introduction to "writing" (on the topic of potential) though it is just an example, a filament of wisdom you might say. Humour me here; As I start this as a kind of biological introduction, but to a larger idea (that youll have to discover for yourself, as it is just an abstract introduction) And I present it abstractly so that one may go on to think of things on their own terms, from their own point of view, by \*filling in the details, wherever and whatever (...) Lets take this word: trichome, that comes from Greek θρίξ (thríx) meaning "hair". A trichome is one of the small hair-like outgrowths on a plant's surface. When it comes to those most prominent hairs on a planting plant (i wont be describing the roots, but theyre an integral part), that is~the like of the fruiting cotton, flax (linen), dandelion and milkweed thistles; During immaturity/development, their cells divide and elongate into fine strands (hence the title). These strands dont just grow, they also twist (both in regards to those sub-domains, in the DnA leading up to, and the entire structure itself) … And in their twisting and dancing, those strand-like cells — as in cotton (Gossypium) — arise from the outermost layer of the seed. This layer, the epidermis, contains thousands of cells (the cells of said strands, aka ‘seed hairs’, though they are not seeds at all!). In regards to how it grows, as it is elongating, cellulose is deposited in thick layers along the inner wall. Later, the cell dies, dries, and collapses into that flattened, twisted ribbon shape (you could see if/when under a microscope/magnified / enlarged context). In dandelion, many cells go on to form fiber bundles, and each seed forms its own fine structures from floral tissues. The cells/fibers elongate while the stem grows, then thicken their walls w/ cellulose. And, in the case of the tufts (flower) each seed forms/develops its own unique tuft. And in the case of the individual hairs on the milkweed thistle plant, their strands do not act as support fibers like that of the flax, nor are they seed epidermal tubes like that on the cotton plant~As they are actually part of the fruiting structure, for those specific thistle weed fruits that it is to bear in the end. If you think of a human hair~which is usually around 60–100 µm in diameter, a cotton fiber is several times thinner than that: (In the thinnest case) growing at 12 µm diameter → its circumference would be ≈ 38 µm; In the thickest case, growing at 25 µm diameter → its circumference would be ≈ 78 µm And for it to grow at all, it requires both light and heat. Assuming the weather and all its nutrients are in balance, it should become a matured plant — cotton or otherwise. Water presses outward within each cell; light drives the making of structure; Warmth (contraction) keeps the functional & complex mechanisms of the plant animated; The bottomline being, in the twisting & dancing of everything, and in all of the commotion, the mechanism has to "move as one continuous pulse", a waltz of expansion and folding, expansion and folding, expansion and folding, over and over and over, and, it is precisely that twist, that is required in ALL of this - In order to get the most potential out of anything, a harmony of everything.

Let me "double up the information" here so to speak, via linking/quoting, that we its re bumped, and its not missed on ppl when they join. And i understand, you are looking for others exp., im jus making sure everyone is on the same page, more or less, though we can never really be sure bout it anyway (skip to the end for summary) That is to say, theres a more fundamental idea to that, which is "Anticipating something SUDDEN, before it happens". Now that might not sound related, but our bodies are primitive. So when you drop down into a "stillness mindset" or a "vacant parking lot" or a "desolate forest" those are all instances of~Having started/begun in a certain gear, but then having ended up *Shifting gears, where your mind and body are trying to acclimate to the environment or situation. You might even say that our butt (really our immune/nervous system) knows us better than ourselves.