The Liminal Threshold

[kavaris]

The Liminal Threshold

Note: The following gives yous some questions to think about. Its written a little messy but i think yous can sort it out. First i want to establish what *i think that *we think we mean by consciousness, for the sake of argument...

Consciousness is synonymous w/ 'being', right? (i dont know what the modern direction is, or what has been subsumed by it. im just assuming so.. doesnt really matter); Il share this term, "ousia". Although the video gives it the pronunciation [oo'shia] or sumthn, in Greek thats an /s/, alas that doesnt really matter, im jus sharing the term for yas to look up, and theres no other videos, so yous have to look up the text / online

Q: How do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin? Like, where we (us) are those very grounding pieces of experience; We will answer that in the course of this long explanation.

So, maybe we think of ourselves as these grounding pieces, that which we'll lose in the end. But then what? That is, how do we ground ourselves in the very nature we begin?

The problem is, when we get to the center of our soul, beyond what there is to get beyonder from, how do we get past the religion? That is, how do we get past, you know, the internal spiral that is parallel to our being—That thing that speaks without words, that follows our soul to the darkest depths of the very very end. That thing we are trailing~as we progress further and are subsequently enveloped by our own rabbit hole of experiences and beingness? That/it, and *we (us) arent undoing eachother such that its resolving...

We are our own puzzle \*pieces, deliberating/or thinking into what should be built, \*grounded in our own kit, carrying ourselves through every realm of X. What is "X"? but none other than the final painting, or the reaction after its built. From that vantage, we look back on the lego piece painting, and we notice two prominent \*marks or ideas: one that leads to this \*Mystery, the other, \*Us. We can try to connect the pieces of this liminal threshold in between, or we can visit each mark—However its about the pieces, how pieces relate to marks, how they fit.

Then theres a very finite vers., that goes deeper into said relationships (piece/mark relation), where we are then detracting from the pieces themselves in order to explore this piece->mark relationship, which may (or may not be) the direction we want to go beyonder, but still, even if we did, we are not without that spiral that seeks us out. We seek *it in return and we pay no attention to (or lets say, this the case), and we are only focusing on what there is at the bottom. We are never without ourselves.

There are a couple doors leading to the light of ourselves, and when we reach them, the act of walking further is precisely the same as being spit back out into existence. The liminal threshold is that which is between *us and the other end of these doors, aka *source. And when we do explore that particular relationship notice too that we are never without ourselves.

Pieces are added and subtracted, never without ourselves. We can go to heaven and hell and back, and open each and every door, and no where is something or someone to rotate in someone else's experiences but our own. And whos to say we dont get hit by the eye of the sun, this ball of fire, sending us spiraling down into the most ancient of pits that belong to our soul, without any inclination of how we got there; Then and only then, we might say, it is the deepest weve ever gone, but never without ourselves.

And i can take us to those places that forever extinguish every fiber that was attached, that had been sealed through the blackest of goo, or the most electrically charged particles holding everything intact, but to say that thats it—Like a clear delineation of the grounding/the beginning—To ascribe to it is to defy what is the essence of 'being', for being is able to solve its own internal legokit, and repaint the entire picture without any memoria, without having even known *the act of painting was an option.

We can do incredible things when we reach the center of ourselves, though it may not seem like; I say this cause i sense theres somewhere in-earth to a fleeting fact somewhere, that there is a flying, harpy of an arch angel and/or a hella arch of an enemy hiding within us, that which we call us, and we arent aware of the deepness that lies through the cascade of a lego kit, that which never "begun". This lego kit/pit goes all the way down. To be ready is to assume you can be surprised, when alls there has ever been is surprises in the form of an experience that looks like "things that are important for the state of consciousness". Those things are consequences of consciousness though,

Ousia, i frame in the form of a question, so how deep does it go, in the liminal space of what there is to explore? Let me know.

 

Edited January 24 by kavaris

[kavaris]

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...

[CosmicTrekker]

I've been confused by the idea that there is some sort of substrate to reality (such as ousia/conciousness/being etc). I have found all these definitions problematic, because they all assume that there is a pure state of some sort, But more recently, I have begun thinking that reality cannot really be reduced to a base pure state, because that would then exclude everything else, including the normal day to day experiences most of us are having. Infinity/infinite would in my humble opinion would a more accurate description; it is paradoxically nothing and everything.

[kavaris]

On 1/24/2026 at 7:32 PM, CosmicTrekker said:

I've been confused by the idea that there is some sort of substrate to reality (such as ousia/conciousness/being etc). I have found all these definitions problematic, because they all assume that there is a pure state of some sort, But more recently, I have begun thinking that reality cannot really be reduced to a base pure state, because that would then exclude everything else, including the normal day to day experiences most of us are having. Infinity/infinite would in my humble opinion would a more accurate description; it is paradoxically nothing and everything.

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.*

Edited yesterday at 08:06 AM by kavaris

[kavaris]

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.

Edited 14 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

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.