A new method of distinctions in Art & Spiritual Science

[kavaris]

(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***

[kavaris]

Before things ended up too complicated and ridiculous, i was like tryina see how I was gonna explain what i was thinking in a more like, uniform manner, and also i was thinking - I believe Leo actually presented something like this idea, or he has touched on aspects of it already in several different ways, I believe; Or atleast im now recalling a memory of it.

So now im tryina see like, what is it thats different here. I think its really just like, the part of your routine where you are sortve climbing on top of the ladder of possibilities, imagery, pictures, paintings, music, writings, concepts, ideas, thoughts, feelings, memories, moods and emotions, and like... Trying to figure out like, using my base example case: "What is Art... Or Is this ART ~ OR is THAT ART" -if its the case that you are choosing between two distinctions. Or... If /when its just one thing at a time, you are asking if something IS or ISNT something.

The point is that, theres a degree to which the thing being painted (as a completed painting or not, doesnt matter), and the idea of like, "where its going, where it MIGHT go"~Has taken on a filament of yourself, simply by observing it and impressing upon it some idea of what it is already, and how it is to unfold before you. So before that happens, and before youve completed something, anything (And if presented the opportunity), you want to ask yourself about the environment around such a painting, and whats "leading to said picture-painting in the 1st place", BUT...

You want to drill down on a question, and your ability to discern said questions, otherwise, you arent really participating. Like, to "participate in life" is to offer some sortve trade with reality. So you want to ask some more opinion-related questions to yourself, Like "What is Art" and if something IS or ISNT art".

i shouldve made this more explicit as well, but its not like we are literally painting something. As this can, and should, apply to everything you do, like in everything you are imagining, i.e., thoughts, feelings and emotions~The imagery is just what you are seeing in your own experience.

I wasnt sure if i made that clear in the original post. I did mention it was gonna be a very poor introduction. Though i think its explicit enough that you can understand it now? Maybe?... Theres also alot more to it, as i presented it as a very very distilled version of it.