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 23 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.

[Breakingthewall]

On 25/1/2026 at 1:32 AM, 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.

Good insight. Infinity is also a misleading idea, since it presupposes an infinite, endless, enormous, and boundless quantity. Infinity is a possibility, not the essence. Essence is not something; it is an absence, the absence of limits. Reality is limitlessness, and limitlessness makes "being " inevitable. What reality is is unlimited being. Not big or small or infinite, but what makes the possibility of infinity to exist. 

[kavaris]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Good insight. Infinity is also a misleading idea, since it presupposes an infinite, endless, enormous, and boundless quantity. Infinity is a possibility, not the essence. Essence is not something; it is an absence, the absence of limits. Reality is limitlessness, and limitlessness makes "being " inevitable. What reality is is unlimited being. Not big or small or infinite, but what makes the possibility of infinity to exist. 

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...

[Someone here]

On 25/01/2026 at 3:32 AM, 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.

It's a paradox not a mistake or contradiction . They call it the Gateless Gate or the Groundless Ground . No substance or ground to reality is the same thing as saying the substance is Nothingness or Infinity . The word "consciousness " does seem problematic if you mean consciousness in the conventional sense like being awake or alert and perceiving things like right now vs being unconcious like when you are in deep sleep. What spiritual people call "consciousness " is not perception..its another word for Nothingness or Infinity. 

[kavaris]

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.

Edited 2 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It's a paradox not a mistake or contradiction . They call it the Gateless Gate or the Groundless Ground . No substance or ground to reality is the same thing as saying the substance is Nothingness or Infinity . The word "consciousness " does seem problematic if you mean consciousness in the conventional sense like being awake or alert and perceiving things like right now vs being unconcious like when you are in deep sleep. What spiritual people call "consciousness " is not perception..its another word for Nothingness or Infinity. 

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

[kavaris]

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.

[Breakingthewall]

On 24/1/2026 at 8:01 AM, kavaris said:

The liminal threshold is that which is between *us and the other end of these doors, aka *source.

The question here is, what is the difference between "us" and "source"? Logically, we can deduce that they are the same; there is no "us" separate from the source, but rather "us" is the source expressing itself as "us." This might seem obvious, but even if you accept this fact, it won't change anything in your internal configuration. 

First of all, "us" is the form that reality has taken after eons of evolution, of phase changes towards states of greater complexity, arriving at something as absurdly complex and as incredibly finely coordinated as human society (can you imagine the synchronicity of human society at a quantum level? no, you don't imagine it, you can't) . 

This "us" has a series of energy switches impossible to ignore, which, from the moment you appear, subdue you in order to integrate you as a processor of the enormous human machine. Evolution has created structures that will absolutely desire to be integrated into the matrix, and their fear of rejection will be greater than their fear of death. One only has to see how millions of soldiers ran in the direction of the machine guns, and not in the opposite direction, as would obviously be logical.

So how do you clarify this "we" so that it stops being a dense protagonist that subjugates you and permeates you like a sticky layer of emotional molasses, making your mind dance from one extreme to the other like a puppet directed by a guy with Parkinson's. what has you absolutely gripped, like a zebra with ten lions clamping their jaws down on its flesh?

There is only one way, and it's not the one the soft-smiling mystics with linen robes and erect penises tell you about. No, it's life's way of changing phases. It's something that happens when it can't not happen, and like everything living, it manifests itself from absolute tenacity, absolute focus, unstoppable drive, and total determination born from the fact that the only place to go is forward. 

Then the "us" is scorched, dries up, falls away like an extremely annoying old skin, and the essence of what is reclaims its freedom. It is not "other," there is no "us" versus "source," there is no baby Jesus crying because you spend money on OnlyFans (although there should be), there is a real phase shift, an absolute mutation of your energetic configuration, a total liberation from the chains that were necessary for a collective push, but no longer are. It is simply reality in its limitless expansion. 

Then the source sees itself as clearly as whole, just as the "we" saw itself as a part. Eyes open, veils fall, hearts open, reality sings. Wasn't it always like this? There's a faint memory that it wasn't, that there was pain, confusion, madness. It was in another life, in another phase.