CHAPTER 5
Contrasting Force Phonetics
From the name of my Ancestors, comes the stages from whence they developed.
Me,
Se,
Ve,
Are the three Centers.
Centered around the Ma,
Centered around the self,
Centered around the traits and attributes that demand to be expressed.
For “cognition”, there are three phonetics that set the “stages”:
Pe
Re
Va
These three phonetics are with some similarities to the notion of “Percept, Recept, and Concept”, as a formation that occurred through repeated acts or decision making. However, the percept, recept, to concept formulation is a bridge. It has the “Three Lights” of development within it, but it is not entirely what the notion is, at the roots of cognitive development of the species of Min.
Before the “Word”, which the Greeks may have called “Logos”, there was NO accountable thought. The “Word”, and that of “words”, now can be used in back formations to try to deduce the stages of thought that came before them. But these “back formations” will be composed of words, and thus, conceive of things in narratives. Never can the previous stages be considered, outside of the induced state of narratives that are symbolic in structure, and never to be considered “actual” in presentation.
It is rather too late, to think of being able to deduce from this language stage, that of what “thought” was like, before it became symbolized. Prior to thought being advanced to symbolic in framework, there was nothing to account for. There was no self-awareness, no self-talk, no individualized controls to inform the decision making process.
There were perhaps higher levels of “orientation” brought about through the olfactory impulses of the Min. Meaning, the Min would have perhaps have been more similar to the Pan genus, the troglodytes, the bonobos, in regards to its animal impulses. Thus, deductively it can be supposed that the ancient Min ancestors were moving about, and living about in like fashion to these near hominids.
I am with the impression that the provocations for change and adaptability came from the CONDITIONS.
Early Min went from forested areas with perhaps plenty to feed upon, but changes occurred in the environment, the condition, to force some of them to begin to move out, into more open space. And in this more open space, they needed to move to a more upright position in their frame, so as to scan with their forward facing eyes the environment, for their impulsive needs.
When things were more up close, using scent could carry them a long way. When things got further away, sight would become more dominant. Turning towards what the eyes could see, versus what the nose would cause one to feel. Nose centers, or that of the olfactory, smell centers, were once the primary way in which the ancient Min navigated their space. They also looked downward more.
This too, is why in Humanus body language, there is still insecurity and fear around how it uses its eyes. It is still considered indicative, in whether or not one's gaze is kept up scanning, or one's gaze is nearsighted, not looking around, and simply fixed on the immediate. Those who look down are those who are “below” those who look “at” and/or “up”, more “habitually”.
Prior to the development from Me, to Se, to Ve, there was the adaptive and developed stage towards the “Advanced Hunter Animal Behavior” of the Min. This development would lead to what would become the first “migratory”, out of the forest kind of Min, into the “Sahara”, into the “open plains”, chasing the hunt. Now, one can perhaps say... these would become the “fathers”, or the progenitors of all present living Min; but what would not be often considered is, this was on account of fusing with the mothers, the Maters of previous Min.
The original “Advanced Hunter Animal Breed” was not “human”. It was not Min as one sees it now. The traits and attributes of the “hunt” are present in all of Min on account of this “ghost ancestral Min”.
By “ghost”, here, is meant: remains of its once existence is in the human genome, or Min genome, but there are not material traces in the fossil facts of scientifically collected data. Geneticists and those interested in genetics are likely the only ones having a sense of ghost ancestors, revealed in the genetic code, but not present in the fossil remains.
Because the available data is not sufficient enough yet for me to make use of, to dialectically produce my argument of Min ancestral fusions, I will not remain on this topic for long.
I simply need to state, here in Part I, till the sciences develop, that there is a known, or rather “accounted for” Pattern of the most ancient of times, when there were previous Min, with their Social Orders, their tech, and their Sense of Life, and Sense of Self. The children of Hawwah, or the Haima, went on a killing spree, bringing destruction to the Orders in which these previous Min had established.
Haima, in their children, mostly began their destruction through being taken in as weak and distraught, and in “NEED OF CARE”. This need of care, this neediness, was one of their primary “weapons” to infiltrate productive Orders, and once “cared for”, come to constantly DEMAND that of MORE and MORE, till they would turn on the hosts, as GHOULS, and suck them dry.
Softening the future battlefield through their cries of CARE. Then, when the time was right, and the host would be weakened, and near despair, those of the Hayyin, of Hawwah, would rise in numbers, and use force to begin the process of eradicating the male lines of others, and their offspring, and keeping their females as slaves, that would become “ravished”.
But they could only often keep the young females, because all of the right age were combative, and females who are combative can easily destroy males and females of the Haima, if they identify, that is exactly what they are.
The Haima were a previous Min. Most living today have Haima ancestry. The Haima established the primary emotional disposition of what “We”, the Ver, call that of Mer. Mer was not the default emotional condition of Min.
Prior to the Haima, their intoxication, and their conquest, Min was Min, and the Haima was the Haima Min, or Hayyin.
The Hayyin established through slavery the Mayyin. The Mayyin were the mothers of Min held in captivity, and used for sacrifice, breeding, and sexual exploitation, with the trend of the Hayyin being that of favoring “pre-naturally-sexualized” girls and boys.
This, because there is always in the Hayyin fear that those “naturalized”, that is, brought past puberty via Nature's Architecture, would become dangerous and able to fight them — as they are inherently weak in body, aggressive in mind, and if they do not weaken others when they are young, they will have less ability to do so when they are older.
The Hayyin would often kill off, and sacrifice the sons and daughters of the Mayyin at certain ages. This way, they kept their enslaved Mayyin population low, and young... and they would become the “Elders” of the tribes of Min.
Through repetition of this, the Hayyin were the “mothers” and “daddies” of future Min. Hayyin bred into Mayyin that of the emotional body that is common to Humanus today. Humanus, or humans, are the product of this “simulation”.
There are other kinds or stocks that came into contact with this Hayyin and Mayyin condition. Both the Hayyin and the Mayyin had already themselves been the product of other Min, prior to the era of intoxication. Both of them and their “forms” were already established by having had the progenitors of the “Advanced Hunter Animal Behavioral” program or Architecture.
The phonetic force of Y, and the first inner sense of expression
In the Ancient Ways of my Ancestors, the Ver, there was the notion of the phonetics:
Ya, Ye, Yi, Yo, Yu, Yy.
The Y is a “ground originating”, up into the “light of the sky” set of options. It represents the decision making process itself. Faced with the “left”, and faced with the “right” for directional engagement, decisions are made best that know the “paths” of both. Not those decisions made by others, to see one side as familiar, and the other side as foreign.
H, as a consonant, also has the H relationship to the vowel U, which at some point in ancient times, was written much like the V. Because U was written like the V, W was seen as two Vs, but in actuality it is UU, or that of two Us. Y is a V on top of a I or i.
J is a hook at the bottom of an I, and is from the 15th century, that is, not too old, and has not been mostly in use. That is why “Jesus”, as a name, is 15th century, and in Greek, would have been “Iesus”. When one is called the “Lord of a People”, I would think they would have retained original phonetics of his name, and not be using a modern phonetics, made by the “Jesuits”.
H and h have an esoteric commentary. Instead of the Y having decisions, the H is two Is connected by the “Seer”, or the “Seat” of “Authority”. The “Seat” is the line in the center, connecting the Is, and h is the upside down u with a “lineage” or line on the left. Lineage line on the left, lineage of the “left”, with u being the upward facing Ma, or womb; facing down means maternal, to some degree. It is a “matriarchy” letter.
The Hu, the Ha had altered even the notion of a “house”, a Ho-Us-E, from that of the ancient “Bet”, or “Be Te”, with the notion of a burrow in the ground, to that of a “burrow” under the Control of the matriarch of the Ha, the Hu, the Ho.
It is then not one's “choice” of how to “move” and “be” in the sense of the Y, but it becomes “Honorable” to be “Able” not for one's self, but for them. To have the “Seat” of the H, in the “Hierarchy”.
Etymology of heir (n.)
“one who inherits, or has right of inheritance in, the property of another,” c. 1300, from Anglo-French heir, Old French oir “heir, successor; heritage, inheritance,” from Latin heredem (nominative heres) “heir, heiress” (see heredity). Heir apparent (late 14c.) has the French order of noun-adjective, though it was not originally so written in English. It is the heir of one still alive whose right is clear. After death the heir apparent becomes the heir-at-law. Related: Heir-apparency.
Etymology of apparent (adj.)
late 14c., “indisputable, clearly understood;” c. 1400, “easily seen or perceived,” from Old French aparant “evident, obvious, visible,” from Latin apparentem (nominative apparens) “visible, manifest,” present participle of apparere “appear, come in sight” (see appear).
First attested in phrases such as heir apparent (see heir). The meaning “superficial, spurious” is from c. 1400; that of “appearing to the senses or mind but not necessarily real” is from 1640s. Apparent magnitude in astronomy (how bright a heavenly body looks from earth, as opposed to absolute magnitude, which is how bright it really is) is attested from 1875. Middle English had noun forms apparence, apparency, but both are obsolete since 17c.
Etymology of heiress (n.)
1650s, from heir + -ess. A female heir, but especially a woman who has inherited, or stands to inherit, considerable wealth.
Etymologists do not connect the term “heir” and the “entitlements” it has to the term “hierarchy” for “hierarchies”. Instead, they have this H as being from hieros, that of “sacred”, and arkhein, that of to “lead”, to “rule”. “Heir” is in actuality more rooted in the roots of “hierarchy”, and not merely that of the passing on of properties. This occurred in “hierarchies”.
Etymology of hierarchy (n.)
late 14c., jerarchie, ierarchie, “rank in the sacred order; one of the three divisions of the nine orders of angels;” loosely, “rule, dominion,” from Old French ierarchie (14c., Modern French hiérarchie), from Medieval Latin hierarchia “ranked division of angels” (in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite), from Greek hierarkhia “rule of a high priest,” from hierarkhes “high priest, leader of sacred rites,” from ta hiera “the sacred rites” (neuter plural of hieros “sacred;” see ire) + arkhein “to lead, rule” (see archon). Sense of “ranked organization of persons or things” first recorded 1610s, initially of clergy, sense probably influenced by higher.
The Haima and their decendents of Hayyin have always placed themselves in entitled “hereditary” positions of “hierarchy” over that of the Mayyin, and those more liken to it.
Etymology of hierarch (n.)
“one who rules in holy things,” 1570s, from Medieval Latin hierarcha, from Greek hierarkhia, from hierarkhes “leader of sacred rites, high priest” (see hierarchy).
Etymology of pecking (n.)
mid-12c., pekking, “the pecking of birds,” verbal noun from peck (v.). As a description of a pattern of behavior among hens, pecking order (1928) translates German hackliste (T.J. Schjelderuo-Ebbe, 1922); the transferred sense of “human hierarchy based on rank or status” is by 1955.
The academic histories of language, and the alphabets born from the Phoenicians, out to the Greeks, the Latins, and the Arabs... will not have these relations brought forth. They do not know these relations. These relations are not entirely based on the “past” in the “ancient sense”.
Instead, the way to grasp this all is through back formations. It was the “Way” and the “Will” of the Knights of the Helmet, led by Sir Francis Bacon, to encode these notions in English. Not that they were encoded in the “ancient languages” that were taken from the “market”, and often usurped by that of the Hayyin, by that of the Haima, the Harya.
These were not their language, but when they conquered the trade routes and made themselves the “hierarchy”, they had to reshape the sense of the languages.
It was the role of “Secret Societies”, “Ancient Mystery Schools”, and “hidden illuminated Orders” to preserve the “phonetic codes”, and to hide the value judgements within the language. The modern English language is a constructed language that was built to combat the disruptive language modus operandi of the Magus, who still runs and operates all cultural directions that concern the populace.
But because one can not go about confirming these points on their own, it must then be left to “cosmology” of a religious affirmation, or set thereof, coming from this writer. It then is “esoteric”, and not “history”, and certainly not “academic”.
There is a difference between Y, and y, both visually and esoterically. The y is liken to a v, but hooked into the ground, like the I would become the J. Iesus was standing tall, and upright. Jesus becomes hooked into the ground, grounded, humbled, and humiliated.
V is knowledge of the left, and the right, and coming from the 45-degree angle, it ascends in Virtue. The y becomes that which tries to humiliate the Y, that is ascending from the ground, towards Solar decision making, and it tries to humiliate the V, which has achieved, and has lost the ties, and bindings to the ground.
Y is not yet there, and still has its roots in the Ma, and the Earth. Y represents the path a Se must contend with. When there is Se, that “centered self”, it is coming from the Earth, seeking to “Ascend”, but it still has the “illusion of choice”. To be in discord, towards the left, or to be in Accord, towards the right. But the left and right paths, or hands, here, are relative to the starting position of the “ground”, or the Earth... that of Ua, to Ut, to Us, to Ma. Thus, the decisions become correlated.
But the left and right hands of the V are not correlated to the Earth, and the roots. Both “hands” or realms are Accordant. They are liberated. These two manifest concerning the duality of Min existence: to be animal, and mind. On the left is the animal; on the right is the mind. With the V, they are unified, but with the Y, the “base” of the left, the animal, is still there.
When one is a “slave of the beast”, that is “bestial”, it is the y. They are “hooked” into the ground, below the “base” that has locomotion upwards.
Me, from that of Mi and Ma, does not have Y. They have their “choices” as conflicts, as struggle, because their “beast” is in the ground, the dirt, the soil, the mud. They have y.
If by figurative sense of developing one's thought, there were degrees along the hook at the bottom of the y, those degrees would be by seven, listing the Emotional Kinetics of Humanus. These seven emotional classifications describe what is keeping the Humanus base and “suffering”. The y is the state of suffering, and being “humiliated”. Humans are “humiliated” in their “humaneness”.
The H oversees, as “Seer”, that of a “Seat”, not the nature, that of Mayyin, in that they are a Min, kept in the ground, suffering the wombs. The womb is UUomb. And that which is hierarchical, over this realm, is h. It is the “womb” facing down upon the y. The Y is disrupted by the H, and the V is subjugated by the h, to become the y. This process of subjugation is called YHVHY. This process of that of subjugation is inheritable to those having come down through the Harya, who never became liberated out of the h, or H.
The “Ghost Ancestor” that was the “Advanced Hunter” was driven from Me, and was not Se. It was Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My. It moved out to provide for Ma, through the hunt. When it was locomotive, there were two kinds coming from the forces of;
Ya, Ye, Yi, Yo, Yu, Yy.
These forces represent what in modern times might be called “eligibility of growth”. This can also be called “adaptability”, with too, the sense of ambition, and/or eagerness for more, or that of a taste for challenge.
At the midpoint of this force within Min would be the i, or the I. It represented ascending from a place of familiar ground, to a place of another familiar ground, liken to it. It was repeating the finding of the same gains. It was supposing, there is more. But there was not, at this level yet, that of the conceptual sense thereof. This was merely the “feelings” thereof. So it was not Prudence. It was the “animal self” being rewarded in their locomotion.
Those with Yi were those who had greater locomotion. This was physical. Those who were given better frames, more robust frames, would become more aggressively locomotive. Those with a lesser degree of locomotion, or lesser frames, would settle more in satiation.
Those of Yi were not settled as much, in satiation, but instead, sought to spend the energy, not for comfort and relaxation, but they had in Yi the enjoyment of the “hunt”. They felt better through the process, whereas Yy felt the reward in the short-term, in the gains.
This force, trait arrangement would then be passed down more so, in the lines, from male Yy, to the female Ya. Ma energetics are Ya, and Ye. The Ya with the a letter in this case, can be read as a “womb” already seeded, and in need of being fed. The e is a womb upside down, “resting” and about to produce, coming to its further stage. I and i are without wombs, and it was correlated to Mas energetics, not Ma energetics.
The I, or the i, is centered around the negation of e, that can be found in “ee”, “ne”. En would be the phonetic root that would have to do with “expression”. The Yi would suppose a different energetics, that of “expressing from within”, or “that which is within”. For the hunt, it was the Min of Yi that received strength, power, and fortitude from the expressive hunt. They were engaged with the “WITHIN”.
Etymology of *en
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “in.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit antara- “interior;” Greek en “in,” eis “into,” endon “within;” Latin in “in, into,” intro “inward,” intra “inside, within;” Old Irish in, Welsh yn, Old Church Slavonic on-, Old English in “in, into,” inne “within, inside.”
This root phonetics can be found throughout many terms;
It forms all or part of: and; atoll; dysentery; embargo; embarrass; embryo; empire; employ; en- (1) “in; into;” en- (2) “near, at, in, on, within;” enclave; endo-; enema; engine; enoptomancy; enter; enteric; enteritis; entero-; entice; ento-; entrails; envoy; envy; episode; esoteric; imbroglio; immolate; immure; impede; impend; impetus; important; impostor; impresario; impromptu; in; in- (2) “into, in, on, upon;” inchoate; incite; increase; inculcate; incumbent; industry; indigence; inflict; ingenuous; ingest; inly; inmost; inn; innate; inner; innuendo; inoculate; insignia; instant; intaglio; inter-; interim; interior; intern; internal; intestine; intimate (adj.) “closely acquainted, very familiar;” intra-; intricate; intrinsic; intro-; introduce; introduction; introit; introspect; invert; mesentery.
All throughout my previous works, I would use the expression “innate traits”. I would also speak of “intrinsic” versus “intransitive”, and “intransitive” versus “transitive” values, and notions.
The first “inner sense” of “expression” was through this phonetic force of the Y variations. The choices of Ya are centered around Ma. The choices of Ye are forces too, around Ma, not the starting, but the production phase, or conclusion of Ma, in that of replicating the offspring.
Those who had Yi forces were those who through seeking to be “Provisionary”, had a great “enjoyment”, that is, “inner joy” for the process itself. Those who had Yo were those using the force of “Sustainment”, and circling back to Ma in the sense of the “loop”. Those “grounded” in Yy were those who were settled around the Ma, deactivating the “loop” as much as they could.
Yi had the highest level of “Provisionary”, and Yy had the lowest level. Ya and Ye were not Provisionary, but instead were the energetics, or the force phonetics of “bringing in provisions” for and around the “womb”, and the course of its centralization. What would later be called “Control” and “Management” wielded by the Ma, the female, over the provisions provided by the Mas, the male, is that of the force phonetics of Ya, and Ye.
For the most part, Yi, Yo, Yy were Mas orientated, because Yi was locomotive. Those Mas, or males of Yo, and Yy were being imitative, that is mimicking that of the Yi Mas. They were not being driven by the Yi forces; they were being cultured by the Yi Mas. Yo Mas would abide stronger to this culture, whereas Yy Mas would opt out when they could.
In breeding patterns, this meant more often than not, the Yy Mas were left behind with the Ma, and producing more offspring. Yi and Yo Mas, coming back from the hunt, would suppose the offspring from the Ma were their offspring. But this was not mostly the case.
To preserve their offspring, and replication, Yi Mas became more selective over Ma that were “unspoiled”, or yet to be engaged in, sexually. Young females would keep themselves untouched, in order to gain selection of the Yi Mas. These young females would be engaged in “delayed gratification”, and consider things long-term. Not conceptually so, but out of mating rituals concerning selection.
Often, the young girls, keeping their wombs empty, were coming to flock together. They would become culturally engaged in Yi energetics, as they did not have the wombs to tend to. Socializing among these young females would develop out, where they began to travel with the hunters, in support positions, and separate themselves from the Ya, and Ye, which then too had energetics of Yy.
Males with Yy were “effeminate”. Females with Yy were “female”, or Ma. It was so innate for them to be Yy, lacking in locomotion and risk taking, that to say females are Yy is redundant. But for a Mas, or a male to have this inner feedback is to make them weak, not strong.
Among Min, it is absurd to think that “survival of the fittest” was actual, and reproductive mating rituals have been around the strong. It clearly was not. Billions are mediocre. Billions display OPPORTUNISTIC feeding, in the sexual marketplace, bad decision making, simple decision making, and like breeding low, with like. The Min population proves breeding habits among Min were not selective based upon elite Mas or male Providers, the Yi. The Yi were the minority.
Numerically, it was the Yy males that numbered the most.
Then, it was the Yo looping providers that numbered next.
The Yi Mas, the males who found enjoyment in Provisionary practices, numbered the least.
Figuratively, and just to get an idea, but not to be taken as accurate, it would be:
-
75 percent Yy
-
22 percent Yo
-
3 percent Yi
With increased numbers, among the billions, these odds would not be the same. Humanus came from “daddies” or paternal lines that were predominantly Yy.
However, Min, as a genus, would eventually have all started from the original Yi. Because during the climate changes of the most ancient times, this Pattern of the Yo and Yy males led to staying behind, and being left by the Yi. At one point, there were only Yi males, and Yi females, in continuation, and this begot the ancient notion of monogamy. Monogamy was a mating selection process, concerning Ma being opportunistic with males, during harsh conditions, and finding their young would not survive without the Yi Mas.
With only the Yy Mas, and Yo Mas, tribes were dying out. It was not wise to have offspring with Yy and Yo only. The “leaders”, more often than not, came from the Yi.
For a Ma to increase her survivability, and that of the continuation of the offspring, she had to gain the selection of the Yi Mas. However, to think this meant “monogamy” would be to only get a small picture. It was female monogamy. Meaning, the female had one mate, that of the Yi Mas. But the Yi Mas would be considered “polygamous”. These, more so, reference marriage, and not primal coupling.
But in essence, she, the Ma, would be with many other Ma, or females, and be the females of a single Yi; and no Yi would ever have encroached upon the females of another Yi, but the Yy was an encroacher.
Through primitive selection, if a Ma had offspring with a Yy, her and that Yy offspring would be left behind, and the Yi offspring would be separated, and carried forward. It would be liken to a non-conceptual curse, to have Yi females mix with anything other than. This created a “natural hierarchy”, for the lack of an alternative term. But it was not “rulership”. It was not “hierarchy”. It was “division”.
Yi females, or Yi Ma, separated from Yo Ma, and Yy Ma. Yo Ma would manage often Yy Ma. Yy energetics are often timid, and subdued. They tend to be inept, and childlike.
Yi is energetic and with inner spunk, and expression.
Yo is reliable, and with external expectations of conditional reward for their efforts, in which they then prefer to loop in. Yo is stable, taking only the risk necessary to sustain the loop, and avoiding risk otherwise.
Yi is risky, pushing their expression further, with challenges, going into the unknown. The Yi wants to reach the limits, and push them, not stay stable in them.
The Yy tries to get as fast to comfort and reward as they can. They try to do as little as possible for ease, and relaxation. They want more than they pursue. They want, without pursuit.
In harsh conditions, Yy would die out. But all of these forces stated in phonetics are always present in Min, regardless of the CONDITIONS. They are by degree present.
When conditions become harsh, there will be those who discover Yi forces within; those who are stable in the Yo; and those who will subvert in Yy. Then, division occurs. When conditions are comfortable, relative, then the three are mixed in together, and the Yy resurfaces as dominant, the Yo lessened, and at times, the Yi, wiped out.
The Yi energetics and the Yy energetics are natural adversaries. If those of the Yy hold numbers in comfort, they bring to servitude the Yo, make an enemy or a slave out of the Yi. But the Yi will fight for their liberty, almost always, and thus... make horrible slaves. A horror to the Haima, the Hayyin, the Harya. Today, I call them the Magus, the shamans, and their Brahmins.
But neither of these terms, “shaman” and “Brahmin”, were originally theirs. The Magus corrupted these titles, giving them to themselves through conquest. So I prefer to call them by their actual phonetics. But it's phonetics no one knows. So for now then, in modern terms, shaman and Brahmin are the inferior reference.
I will, at times, going forward, use modern reference points, but only as bridges. My objective is to try to keep to trait names, versus modern, rather whimsical naming practices. Using the Force Phonetics is key, in order to be liberated from modern confusion.
Also, this is why I do not have the objective to tag “scientific” studies with these phonetics. It can be said, for example, the Homo floresiensis, as a Min, was of the Ya, Ye, Yy energetics, with lower degrees of Yi, and Yo.
Classifications of these traits and attributes can be applied. But this, however, has a greater chance of being inaccurate than accurate, because of the reliance on compatible data. It is far more advantageous for me to speak of the traits and attributes of specific Min during the adaptive phases, than it is to try to make sense of academic formulations.
The same can be said about the timelines. As long as the dates are accurate about climatic conditions of the past, then to some degree, dates can be presumed about the Min.
Academics state that “modern Homo Sapiens” are a part of the fused transition, with other hominids, perhaps 300 thousand, to 200 thousand years ago. The language faculty, I am stating, did not occur until the mutualism with the “wolf” or the Vek, and this is supposed to have occurred about 30 thousand years ago.
If I was to use academic data, my focus would be around “migratory patterns” of ancient hominid remains, and that of how climate played a role in their development. I would use the most accurate data of climate shifts to capture the sense of “adaptive development”. Not so much “evolutionary”.
Though I am presenting a “linear” sense of development, in the genus of Min, this is in the name of “convention”. I am in many ways, cheating the system, by using linear sense, to show how to discern the traits. It becomes liken to “legendary” thought, or figurative thought of dividing things into parts, and telling whole stories about the parts, so that the traits and attributes can be isolated.
But this linear account is not “accurate”. But what would be accurate can not be stated via this course of expounding. That is something that requires Initiatory Processes, that build out the data and secure the route. So when there are those who would suggest that this narrative is too “evolutionary”, say, versus “ancient astronaut” speculations, or the “creationism” of the People of the Bible, my response is... this is conceptual mapping. This is not “histories”, nor “religious fantasies”.
Using creationist models would not be useful and “Reasonable” by me. Both biblical narrative and ancient astronaut narratives are the same. Biblical folk can not say their “gods” were “spiritual beings” without bodies, and expect Reason to be used here. But ancient astronaut speculators can say, the “gods” were “aliens” or high tech beings, perhaps even “Terrain”, and this can be Reasoned upon, because Reason, born out of the faculty of discernment, can only be aimed at the corporeal, and the dialectical that references it.
Once the “God” and/or “gods” become symbolized in regards to narrative of the “actual”, they are “materialized”.
When my narrative plays out into a full spectrum, it can easily then lead to all the attributes and traits I prescribe to different kinds of Min being speculated to be from a “higher Min”, to a “fallen Min”. This “Fall” of Min from grace is a narrative throughout many belief systems. I have observed in the “simulations” this “Fall”, but it does not need the starting position to be material tech, and “know how” over that of “Force Fall”, or that of traits and attributes disadvantaged, and advantaged.
My focus is not the tale in how it is told. My focus is to provide the working mind with a set of attributes and traits that can be found in beings, as well as their own inner being, to formulate, for the decision making process to be Wise.
Evolutionary theory is a “smart theory”. But it's a theory. It is not Law, or fact. I am not using evolutionary theory. I am using a model concerning adaptive traits and adaptability, or eligibility of adaptation, and thus, stating whereby conditional causes could have triggered adaptive responses in the Ancient Min, which are “ghost ancestors” to the modern Min.
This has both the elements of figurative language forms, and analytical language forms to stimulate the mind into “conceiving” of, and in, and to itself. Per usual, expoundings are limited to the bridges that are being utilized. The more one becomes Initiated into the “Mysteries”, thus resolving them, the more the expoundings move towards the precise, the analytical, and the more finely defined.
But this can not be built out in an instance, in that of the provision of mere conclusive narratives. This is what I observe belief systems are composed of. They are “conclusions” for “instant gratification”, and the only thing, more often than not, they can speak to... is previously felt, or believed notions.
This is that of catering to the familiar. My works are not of the familiar, but are foreign, because I am a foreigner. I am not one of yours.
But to try to figuratively narrate these notions, I will provide the following. In the context of climate stresses, if I am saying, the Vehrka were born mutually with the Vek, the wolf, then for now, this is supposed at 30 thousand years ago.
A region to consider as “possible”, but to be thought of as loosely as one can, is that of the Altai Mountains. I call these mountains “Altair”, as my oral tradition of my Ancestors has done. My Ancestors call the Altair star, in the constellation Aquila, our “Ancestral Star”, and linguistically, these have been referred to, as markers, for us to find our “tongue” and Cultivate and Maintain knowledge of Self. We are, and have been called in the past... “The Al Ta'ir”, or the “Flying Ones”, and birds of prey have been symbols often assigned to our Paters in both “Persia” and more west.
Ta Yi Ra, rendered “Tyr” in the Semitic languages, and in Arabic as “Ta'ir”, is ancient to my “family line”. “Lanier” is “Anier”, with the L added to sound French. Anier is “Anu” plus “Tyr” or “Ier” from the Germanic sense of birds of prey. This was code for Altair, or At' Tair.
My Ancestors were “Mystics” who needed to hide in host countries, on account that “Mystics” have been persecuted by all masses everywhere they are found. Do not be limited in your sense of living to how you can say, and be about anything in the American experiment, and think, that entitlement has existed for long. It has not. History is a long account of persecution.
My Ancestors were often persecuted everywhere they went, and needed to adopt the symbols of the masses and their rulers, as a means to blend in, and survive, while at the same time, they maintained a strong written and oral transmission of their lineage, from Tubal Cain or the Cain from Tabul, and that of their long standing “relationship” with “Persia” and “Central Asia”, back as far as the “Greco-Bactrian” kingdom, “Sogdiana”, and “Gandhara”.
Producing such conclusive narratives or fancies would lead to far more errors than expoundings, and thus, I have sought to decode all the information, and correlate it to available figurative bridges, to aid in the conceptual mapping others must undertake, who have the Yi forces in them. The Yi forces needed, to “attract” towards the V, out of the Y. All Ser or Manus, seeded as such, are born in captivity, thus y. Humanus is not born in captivity. Humanus is Yy, not held by it.
By introducing these trait phonetics, they can aid one in their conceptual framework, in profiling themselves, as well as others. Something needed, seeing as how most suffering is socially induced.
The meaning of Pu, pugnacious, and repugnant
I return now, back to the narration.
If the Vehrka, with the Vek, started about 30k years ago, it would come to take near 15k years for further adaptive elements to occur. It began with the Vek, or the wolf, and then later, the horse was added, and later, birds of prey. Mutualism with the animals was always a theme with the Vir, from the Vehrka.
Vehrkana, or Varkana, was the last condition in which the Vehrka remained a collection of “families” as a unified people. After that, they were scattered, and since, have had to develop hidden and secretive societies to preserve their Ways. This preservation “failed”.
Only idiots now hold in memory “recitations” they do not know the origins, and meaning of. All “Secret Societies” and “Fraternities” now are composed of “reciters”, and mere loopers, as “dopes” thinking they know something. They do not. They can only pretend at “secrets” to those who have no interest in secrets.
Those with interest come to find out loopers dressed in suits with ties of “bondage” around their necks, calling themselves “Men”... but in actuality, are mostly inept little boys, trying to play “daddy” — but when they get “home” have their “wives” who know no secrets rule over them, with what is clear, and obvious... her sex, her womb, her Ma, to his Mas.
Without my insight, having initiated among these reciters to retrieve the data... the data would have been babbled nonsense, and unintelligent.
I am not revealing their “secrets”. I am not revealing their “secrets”, because they do not have any. They have fables and theater, to use to appear “Illuminated”; but in actuality, they are simply even more confused than the dumb masses.
Some of them have Yo energetics. Hardly any of them have Yi energetics. Most of them, like their mommies and daddies, have Yy.
So then, this Ghost Min, prior to the modern Min, was perhaps prior to the 30k mark. Those who would experience the mutualism with the Vek, came out of the branch of Yi. They were Yi Mas who led their orders into harsher climates, following the hunt, and became trapped in a harsh region they could not make their way out of.
There was no Se yet. It was all Ma, and Mas. The two branches of Ma and Mas were that led by the Yi Mas, and those who either found comforts outside of the harsh changes, those of Yy Ma, and Yy Mas... and then that of the Yo, who were looped in favorable gathering fields.
Even among the Yy and Yo, they would have leaders still with Yi descendents. But those having traveled, or migrated further north were all Yi, in energetics, so long as the conditions were harsh. Conditions do not create the energetics. Conditions reveal the energetics. One is revealed Yi. One is revealed Yo. One is revealed Yy.
One is not truly Yi, when the conditions are comfortable, and they settle, and begin to loop in comfort, and idleness. Yi is energetic, and Engaged in all conditions. Conditions reveal what one is.
When one thinks nothing of the conditions and “self”, it is because they are subjugated by both, and that is Yy. The ones with industry, no matter the condition, are Yo. However, their inner Sense of Self will be suffering, as they labor, and require the condition, often of Yy, to show them favor and appreciation.
Yo is the most stable of providers. Provision is high with them, but they will suffer, when their provisions and labor are not rewarded and recognized. But a Yo would be heavy in Provision, even if it means bringing it pain and suffering. A Yi does not tolerate “suffering”. It will take the needed risk to break through, and this was the foundation needed for Se.
From Me to Se was needed Yi, in the factor of the Y. It is the “right branch” direction, or the “Right Hand” that would lead to Se.
In regions where the climate was more favorable, Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My would flourish and remain the same. All of these, of the Mi and Yi, were still Min. This title still suffices. Min is at its roots the animal form, without a Se yet. It is Mi Ne. It is “not yet”.
This is liken to the non individualized stage of one's being. My animal is not that which can be individualized. My animal is “attached” to its bestial existence. This is not a negative. This is an IS. It is how things stand. How they are “up” and “at”. The Min is the animal. It then is mortal, and existence tries to stuff it out, without effort.
Meaning, the Min has to “negate”, that is fight existence, to exist. This fight, in the primal sense, is reactionary to that of conditions. It is not merely “pugnacious”, it is “repugnant”.
Yi is:
Etymology of pugnacious (adj.)
“disposed to fight, quarrelsome,” 1640s, a back-formation from pugnacity or else from Latin pugnacis, genitive of pugnax “combative, fond of fighting,” from pugnare “to fight,” especially with the fists, “contend against,” from pugnus “a fist” (from PIE *pung-, nasalized form of root *peuk- “to prick”). Related: Pugnaciously; pugnaciousness.
Ya, Ye, Yo, Yy is “repugnant”:
Etymology of repugnant (adj.)
early 15c., repugnaunt, “hostile, opposed; contrary, inconsistent, contradictory,” from Old French repugnant “contradictory, opposing” or directly from Latin repugnantem (nominative repugnans), present participle of repugnare “to resist, fight back, oppose; disagree, be incompatible,” from re- “back, against, in opposition” (see re-) + pugnare “to fight” (from PIE root *peuk- “to prick”).
The meaning “distasteful, objectionable” is from 1777; that of “offensive, loathsome, exciting aversion” is by 1879.
This term is not meant to be used as “insult”. Repugnants find the term to be a slander. But it's not being used this way by me.
Pugnacious is Yi, because it is the expression of fight for its own “feeling” and expression. Repugnance is Yy, and the correlates, because it only occurs in opposition, or reaction. It is like a fight to be relieved of fighting. It is not the joy of fight; it is the disdain for fight.
Pugnacious is risky.
Repugnance is risk-averse.
Pugnacious uses Patterns to fight with, thus the phonetics of Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu, Py. But Patterns too have phonetic phases. Pa is not expressed the same as Py. Patterns that are hooked into the “ground” form the Utilis variables, or the useful variables. It is the force of “mechanics”. Everything is Patterns, but it's all by degree of what they Pattern, in force thereof.
Pu, as a force, is urge orientated. It is the “urge” itself, and not the Pa or Patterns. I will not break down the phonetics of “pugnacious” right now, but the G presence can be used by the reader, and/or listener to analyze the rest.
Pugnacious can be used, as energetics, to arrive at “Logic”. Logic is used for “fighting” that of fallacies, or erroneous thought. But Logic can not be acquired, or utilized without Yi bridging one to Se. It then becomes Yi, Pu, Se. A Patterned fight for “self”; but the inner Yi begets the notion the fight is inner, and it becomes over one's own sense of Patterns.
But without this inner fight, in repugnance, there is the fight against the conditions, regardless of their status. It is a drive to resist, and to undermine, to oppose, based on the negationary attitude born out of diffidence, and anxiety. Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My is with diffidence, anxiety, hunger for care, and repugnance when it does not get it... the relief. A “fight” to be relieved.
The cry for care, unsatisfied, leads to repugnance. Care is a demand. When it is met, the provider receives pleasurable responses, and rewards. Usually. When it is not met, they receive torment, shaming, and other forms of attacks.
When one is not attacking, or pricking, it is because they are having their demands met. One can easily test this by denying the behavior of “care”, and seeing how the demandant responds. Saying no, and becoming inaccessible will prove out that the care was demanded, and the one it was levied on was a servant of that care.
Repugnance leads to there being “logical contradictions”. It is not based on “Logistics”. Neither is it to be “pugnacious”. One can be pugnacious, enjoy the fight, without having Yi advance the Me to that of Se. But one can not have this advancement without the Pu.
The Pu, or the “fight”, is not the same as the full expression of phonetics in “pugnacious”. That has way more phonetics for which it is composed of. Pu is fighting in Patterns, or with the Patterns. But the Patterns make it “raw” and efficient. It is inherently a fight that one engages in a Yi sense, for the “inner”. A fight to remain “uncarved” as a “block of wood”. To remain unspoiled, and without exploitation.
Repugnance, however, has a contradiction to the logistics, and thus, the Patterns of one's inner, expressed... lead to incompatibility, opposition, and often subversion. Repugnance requires an outer target to conquer. Pu does not require an outer target, but combined with Yi, is inner. It is needed for inner conquest, but Yi is not where inner conquest is developed. It needs to be Yi, Pu, Se, Re, Ve for inner conquest to be a thing.
A HUmanus, lacking these, can “manage” their “inners”, but they will do so with repugnance.
Etymology of repugnance (n.)
early 15c., repugnaunce, “logical contradiction, inconsistency; incompatibility; resistance, opposition”(senses now obsolete), from Old French repugnance “opposition, resistance” (13c.) or directly from Latin repugnantia “incompatibility,” from stem of repugnare “resist, disagree, be incompatible,” from re- “back” (see re-) + pugnare “to fight” (from PIE root *peuk- “to prick”). The meaning “mental opposition or antagonism, aversion, strong dislike” is from 1640s. Related: Repugnancy.
Etymology of *peuk-
also *peug-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to prick.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek pyx “with clenched fist,” pygme “fist, boxing,” pyktes “boxer;” Latin pugnare “to fight,” especially with the fists, pungere “to pierce, prick.”
Limiting the “fight” to the obvious, that of fists, is the Py. It is hooking the fight Pattern into that of the bestial, and base. The mundane. Often, Py is born out of physical repugnance. One is not Pu, in this... they are Py. This is why the vowels augment the consonants. For every phorce phonetics, there are augmented versions used for formulation, and profiling.
They are not “good” and “bad” forces; vices or Virtues. They are “forces”, and forces are “Is”, and “actual”, and whether they are received, or expressed as “good” or “bad” is based on what forces the evaluator is familiar with, and/or sees as foreign. Good is familiar; foreign is bad. Me is good, Ta, or them, is bad.
Because more often than not, Humanus and those like it “rebel”, are “disobedient” to Nature (God), and only can “fight against”... the behavior manifest, as “anti-life”, or expression as “vile”.
Etymology of repugn (v.)
late 14c., repugnen, “rebel, disobey, oppose (God); resist or fight against, express disagreement,” from Old French repugner, from Latin repugnare “fight against, resist,” from re- “back, against” (see re-) + pugnare “to fight” (from PIE root *peuk- “to prick”). Related: Repugned; repugning.
Humanus, when its repugnance grows “hungrier” and less satiated, it leads to the Vir seeing them as “vile”.
Etymology of vile (adj.)
late 13c., “morally repugnant; morally flawed, corrupt, wicked; of no value; of inferior quality; disgusting, foul, ugly; degrading, humiliating; of low estate, without worldly honor or esteem,” from Anglo-French ville, Old French vil “shameful, dishonorable; low-born; cheap; ugly, hideous,” from Latin vilis “cheap, worthless, base, common,” of uncertain origin, perhaps from PIE root *wes- (1) “to buy, sell” (see venal). Related: Vilely; vileness; vilety (early 13c.).
Oddly, those often who are “vile” are the ones who “abhor”, or find to be of “horror” that which is “Virtuous” and “Living”, but they call the Virtuous out of “Harmony”, when Virtue is what one is “armed” with against the Ha, and thus the means of “Harmony”. Armored against the Ha. All terms of this sort can be read with the Y. Either from the left hand, or the right hand.
Etymology of abhor (v.)
c. 1400, “to loathe, regard with repugnance, dislike intensely,” literally “to shrink back with horror or dread,” from Latin abhorrere “shrink back from, have an aversion for, shudder at,” from ab “off, away from” (see ab-) + horrere “tremble at, shudder,” literally “to bristle, be shaggy” (from PIE *ghers- “start out, stand out, rise to a point, bristle;” see horror).
Formerly also “fill (someone) with horror or loathing” (16c.). In Latin it was less intense: “be remote from, vary from, differ from, be out of harmony with.” Related: Abhorred; abhorring.
Horror is the feeling of disgust. It is “vile” to the Vir for one's repugnance to get to the stage of disgust. Those who feel disgust are those often who become disgusting. The Vir do not abhor or come to a stage of feeling repugnance and disgust towards another, or something.
Things that become this way are seen as vile, to the Vir, not disgusting. To be disgusting is to be consumed by disgust... not for the one finding you to be disgusting, to be disgusted.
Etymology of horror (n.)
early 14c., “feeling of disgust;” late 14c., “emotion of horror or dread,” also “thing which excites horror,” from Old French horror (12c., Modern French horreur) and directly from Latin horror “dread, veneration, religious awe,” a figurative use, literally “a shaking, trembling (as with cold or fear), shudder, chill,” from horrere “to bristle with fear, shudder,” from PIE root *ghers- “to bristle” (source also of Sanskrit harsate “bristles,” Avestan zarshayamna- “ruffling one's feathers,” Latin eris (genitive) “hedgehog,” Welsh garw “rough”).
Also formerly in English “a shivering,” especially as a symptom of disease or in reaction to a sour or bitter taste (1530s); “erection of the hairs on the skin” (1650s); “a ruffling as of water surface” (1630s). As a genre in film, 1934. Chamber of horrors originally (1849) was a gallery of notorious criminals in Madame Tussaud's wax exhibition. Other noun forms are horribility (14c., now rare or disused), horribleness (late 14c.), horridity (1620s), horridness (1610s).
Etymology of abhorrent (adj.)
1610s, “recoiling (from), strongly opposed to,” from Latin abhorentem (nominative abhorrens) “incongruous, inappropriate,” present participle of abhorrere “shrink back from, be remote from, be out of harmony with” (see abhor). Meaning “repugnant, loathesome” is from 1650s. Earlier was abhorrable (late 15c.).
Etymology of ab-
word-forming element meaning “away, from, from off, down,” denoting disjunction, separation, departure; from Latin ab (prep.) “off, away from” in reference to space or distance, also of time, from PIE root *apo- “off, away” (also the source of Greek apo “off, away from, from,” Sanskrit apa “away from,” Gothic af, English of, off; see apo-).
The Latin word also denoted “agency by; source, origin; relation to, in consequence of.” Since classical times usually reduced to a- before -m-, -p-, or -v-; typically abs- before -c-, -q-, or -t-.
Those who are repugnant, thus not properly fed, in their cry for care, will have activated in them the targeting system to “oppugn”. They will need an opportunistic target to “fight against”, to “oppose”, to “resist”. This is not logistical. When the repugnant gives a reason for who they fight, and why, this is smoke screen. Repugnance is a “feeding” due to the absence of care being fed, with assurances, and reassurances.
Etymology of oppugn (v.)
“fight against, oppose, resist,” early 15c., from Latin oppugnare “to fight against, attack, assail,” from assimilated form of ob “toward, against” (see ob-) + pugnare “to fight” (see pugnacious). Related: Oppugned; oppugning; oppugnancy; oppugnant; oppugnation.
I have broached the notion of “Conquest Code” in my previous works. Conquest over others is born out of repugnance, not pugnacious. But the G in pugnacious shows, it is not Pu on its own.
The pung or the “fist” is used in this case, and not the “Patterns”. But it was the fist first thrown against the Ga, the Ha. A “hand” was not a “hand”, not that of the Ha, but was of the Ma held in restraint... “Manus”. Held in restraint, for “use”, that is crafting.
But in the face of the Ha — also called the Ga, when it tried to rebrand — the useful Manus' restrained hand for use, for crafting, became bundled up into a fist, and fought back in reaction to the disposition to “expugn” that came out of the Ha, the Ga. The “pugnacity”, or fist balling for striking, was brought about by the Ha, the Ga.
Etymology of pugnacity (n.)
“disposition to fight, quarrelsomeness,” c. 1600, from Latin pugnacitas “fondness for fighting,” from pugnax (genitive pugnacis) “combative,” from pugnare “to fight,” especially with the fists, “contend against,” from pugnus “a fist” (from PIE *pung-, nasalized form of root *peuk- “to prick”).
But on the individual level, the Ha and the Ga do not fight in “pugnacious” ways, with individual pugnacity. They have to be in mobs before they throw their “fists”, and in repugnance, they need the narrative that their move to “eradicate” and “exterminate”, to “conquer, capture by fighting” is either in the name of their narrated gods, or “defense” against the foreign as preemptive.
The Ha, or Ga, more often than not, in the ancient past, carried something in demand of sacrifice. When solo, they used words. When they were mobbed up, in numbers, they used their “fists”. Hitting with the “fists”, solo, is not effective for the Ha, the Ga. They do not have the physical frames for it, most of the time. They need numbers. They need “government”.
Ga, Ge, Gi, Go, Gu, Gy. They need the loop of “pounding” through a mob, because they can not fight in any solo sense of the term. When they have “government”, that of “taking” and “raiding” via a sustained and secure loop, they preach an end to fighting. They fight through mobs, to stop fighting.
Etymology of expugn (v.)
early 15c., “eradicate, exterminate,” also “conquer, capture by fighting,” from Old French expugner, from Latin expugnare “to take by assault, storm, capture” (source also of Spanish expugnar, Italian espugnare), from ex (see ex-) + pugnare “to fight” (see pugnacious). Related: Expugned; expugnable.
The Ha and Ga are limited, in their physical awkwardness, to throwing wild fists that are driven through repugnance and disgust.
“Boxing” was developed with Patterns often taken as counterintuitive. Wrestling, grappling, and snapping are the most intuitive and natural form of unarmed combatives. Boxing requires Patterns that become tactical, and reasoned upon. Thus, requires some natural tendencies be restrained for advantage.
Fighting in a Patterned way, like boxing, was developed for self-defense against the “expugn” elements of the Ha, the Ga. They need numbers, because they can not restrain themselves. They can not be effective one-on-one.
First, before they would throw collective fists, or pung, they use “argument”. Their argument is effective, when they control the mob's culture. They impugn, or “attack by argument”. They will attack the inner sense of their opponent, their target.
Etymology of impugn (v.)
“attack by argument,” late 14c., from Old French impugner (14c.), from Latin impugnare “to fight against, assault, attack,” from assimilated form of in- “into, in, on, upon” (from PIE root *en “in”) + pugnare “to fight” (see pugnacious). Related: Impugned; impugning. Impugnable has meant “liable to be assailed” (1823) and “that cannot be assailed” (1560s).
The Ha, the Ga are characterized by:
Etymology of bellicosity (n.)
“state of being warlike or pugnacious,” 1840, from bellicose + -ity.
But they flip, with their left hand, in a fist, their pung... the narrative, and they preach “pacifism”. But wherever they control government, which is all government, they govern with force, and a heavy fist. They beat the populace, their subjects, into submission. They always gain a monopoly on the use of force, and they call their governmental use of force... that of “peace”, and “maintaining order”. Their “order”.
The Vir are not pugnacious, and are not characterized by pugnacity. Just like the term “martial” would not be our word. The Vir are Valiant, not martial, and likewise “Keen”, or Ka En; internally alert, and aware, and eager... not repugnant, nor pugnacious.
But for this Ka En, there is Pu. But Pu is not pung. Pung is Pu Ne Ga. It is the patterned fight, or eagerness, is not restrained by the Ga.
A Vir is Keen on this.
Etymology of keen (adj.)
c. 1200, kene, from Old English cene “bold, brave, fearless,” in later Old English “clever, prudent, wise, intelligent,” common Germanic (cognate with Old Norse kænn “skillful, wise,” Middle Dutch coene “bold,” Dutch koen, Old High German kuon “pugnacious, strong,” German kühn “bold, daring”), but according to OED there are no cognates outside Germanic and the original meaning is “somewhat obscure”; it seems to have been both “brave” and “skilled.” Perhaps the connection notion was “to be able” and the word is connected to the source of can (v.1).
Sense of “eager (to do something), vehement, ardent” is from c. 1300. The physical meaning “sharp, sharp-pointed, sharp-edged” (c. 1200) is peculiar to English. Extended senses from c. 1300: Of sounds, “loud, shrill;” of cold, fire, wind, etc. “biting, bitter, cutting.” Of eyesight c. 1720. A popular word of approval in teenager and student slang from c. 1900. Keener was 19c. U.S. Western slang for a person considered sharp or shrewd in bargaining.
The missing notion is the Ka, and Kwa here. This has been lost. Seen as a kind of pugnacious, it is only because such notions of the phonetics are lost by the Magus academics. It is not conspiracy, for why they hide such. They are not hiding such, for they are not Keen on such.
The Ha, and Ga, and those from them... are only “scrappy”, when their “scraps made from odds and ends” are brought together in collectives, and they issue out a well governed “expugn” campaign.
Etymology of scrappy (adj.)
“consisting of scraps, made from odds and ends,” 1837, from scrap (n.1) + -y (2). Meaning “inclined to fight, pugnacious” (1895) is from scrap (v.2). Related: Scrappily; scrappiness.
The Vir is not repugnant, nor pugnacious. The Vir is Valiant.
Many terms come from the Pu and Po rooted forces that seem to not be fight related. But they are. Everything said, for the most part, is rooted in “War”. The conflict the Ha, the Ga, the Haima, the Hayyin, the Harya began, continues... only, as the “overlords” in control of the masses, and thus disguised now as “the ones of peace”. If you want to know who the subjugators are... you need only look to the ones selling themselves as “benevolent” peacemakers.
Etymology of benevolent (adj.)
mid-15c., “wishing to do good, well-disposed, kindly,” from Old French benivolent and directly from Latin benevolentem (nominative benevolens) “wishing (someone) well, benevolent,” related to benevolentia “good feeling,” from bene “well” (see bene-) + volentem (nominative volens) present participle of velle “to wish” (see will (v.)). Related: Benevolently.
Etymology of Big Brother (n.)
“ubiquitous and repressive but apparently benevolent authority” 1949, from George Orwell's novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” The phrase big brother for “older brother” is attested by 1833.
It's not Big Brother. It's “Super Nanny”.
“We”, the Vir, in our Ka En, inner awareness, made fist in self-defense. Later, made “War instruments” in self-defense. The vile came, demanding care, and they sought to kill those who did not answer with sacrifices to theirs.
The ones demanding sacrifice are the Ha, the Ga, the Haima, the Hayyin, the Harya... and their modern Magus, found in all culture creatives, and governments. They wish to be the Go over the Ver, using the craftsmanship of the Vir for their vile dispositions.
You Peoples of the Books villainize Cain, but everything you live comfortable with was innovated, and brought forth by Cain's kin. You do not live with Seth's ways. You do not live with Abel's ways. You live comfortable and secure, because of Cain's ways, but “ways” that were corrupted by Seth, your Magus, and turned upon you for subjugation.
In the modern American experiment, you get the advantage of the Ka En, the Qayin, the Kamin, the Vehrka... the Virka. If Cain is the villain, give up everything his descendents brought you, and live instead like shamans, and herders, like Seth, and Abel.
Repugnance and disgust allows one to live in ways they call villainous, and then make excuses for their continued use. Those who are disgusting, can live in disgust. Can loop in disgust. Those who are Valiant, throw off the disgusting, maintain a Keen eye on all Patterns.
Ki: an essential phonetics to grasp
11-30-2023
The phonetics of Ya, Ye, Yi, Yo, Yu, Yy are key for developing a sense of one's attributes and traits innate to their kind. These are Ki to grasping one's kind.
So then is it to grasping, figuratively with the mind's hand, that of Ka, Ke, Ki, Ko, Ku, Ky.
One then can see, figuratively, why I have used “Ki” often, instead of “key”. For I, that upright being, to say such and such is “Ki”, rather than “key”.
Many think me too playful with these phonetics. Surely, “key” and “Ki” are not of the same origins and nature. Surely, there is no “spear” in which I wield in my language. Surely, I am but one engaged in the fancy of wordplay, with no dialectical evidence to produce.
Surely, the Asiatics' use of Ki, for energy, is not rooted in the “martial” sense of the wielding of a “weapon”. Surely, Ki is not the most important in Chi, and Ki of Japan, and the Martial Arts. Surely, all of this is unrelated.
Etymology of key (n.1)
“instrument for opening locks,” Middle English keie, from Old English cæg “metal piece that works a lock, key” literal and figurative (“solution, explanation, one who or that which opens the way or explains”), a word of unknown origin, abnormal evolution, and no sure cognates other than Old Frisian kei.
Perhaps it is related to Middle Low German keie “lance, spear” on notion of “tool to cleave with,” from Proto-Germanic *ki- “to cleave, split” (cognates: German Keil “wedge,” Gothic us-kijans “come forth,” said of seed sprouts, keinan “to germinate”). But Liberman writes, “The original meaning of *kaig-jo- was presumably *pin with a twisted end.' Words with the root *kai- followed by a consonant meaning 'crooked, bent; twisted' are common only in the North Germanic languages.” Compare also Sanskrit kuncika- “key,” from kunc- “make crooked.”
Modern pronunciation is a northern variant predominating from c. 1700; earlier and in Middle English it often was pronounced “kay.” Meaning “that which holds together other parts” is from 1520s. Meaning “explanation of a solution” (to a set problem, code, etc.) is from c.1600.
The musical sense originally was “tone, note” (mid-15c.). In music theory, the sense developed 17c. to “sum of the melodic and harmonic relationships in the tones of a scale,” also “melodic and harmonic relationships centering on a given tone.” Probably this is based on a translation of Latin clavis “key,” used by Guido for “lowest tone of a scale,” or French clef (see clef; also see keynote). Sense of “mechanism on a musical instrument operated by the player's fingers” is from c. 1500, probably also suggested by uses of clavis. OED says this use “appears to be confined to Eng[lish].” First of organs and pianos, by 1765 of wind instruments; transferred to telegraphy by 1837 and later to typewriters (1876).
Key ring, a ring for holding several keys, is by 1685 (where it is given as a translation for Latin annulus clavicularius.)
What sound is it that would be the Qayin, that of Cain?
What was it the line of Cain were known for, if not perhaps, all inventions? Known for crafting in the metals, as the first, and primary kind to do so. Known to be the first weaponsmiths, the first artisans, and musicians. Key to everything, bringing everything together, in their Armory, that would one day be needed for defense, in regards to the aggressions of the Ha, the Ga, which then begot “harmony”.
Those who bring “harm” are the Ha, when “armed”. And armed, the Ha always seek to disarm that of their would-be targets of their oppression. Thus, they declare there is “harm” in merely keeping, and bearing arms, because they know... when they come to aggress, they would not be received.
In “our” Ways, the Ways of the Vir, we know a thing to be certain. Those who infringe upon the bearing of arms are of the Ha, while at the same time, they increase their “arms” and their reach.
In the American experiment, they are of the only kinds to have in their “Constitution” the decree, “the Right to bear arms” shall not be “infringed”. This, because those of Tubal Cain expressed their Intellect at the foundation of this “theoretical form of government”.
But soon as the “actual” state of agreements of the collective went into motion, that very thing meant to be restrained broke the chains of Reason, and began to strip away at the fighting Rights of the “individual”, and adverse “parties” or collectives.
The “tides” culturally are shifting back to the primacy of bearing arms, but only because the Harya, the Magus is losing its hold on the marketplace of goods and ideas.
But when they begin to lose their “hold”, they become massively disruptive, and a collapse is likely to be manufactured. They are known to hit the “reset button” on civilizations and marketplaces, destroying them, so they can come in as the “Saviors” of their “slaves”. Be Vigilant, for this collapse is likely already in motion.
Arms, to the Vir, are not for self-defense alone, anymore. Arms, to the Vir, are a primary component of the Vir's religion. The Vir is Valiant, and to Humanus, this would mean “martial”. Once they went from Ver, to Vehrka, to that of the Vir, “martial” was a part of their DNA. There is no such thing as a condition in which the Vir is not “martial”. Thus, they are always armed, and this is their “Religious Duty”. It is an obligation for the Vir to be armed. It is an Armed Religion.
The arms, that is, the weapons of the Vir are in “restraint”, only in the sense of, it is the Religious Duty of a Vir to restrain conquest over others, and only engage in Conquest over that of Self. But in this Conquest over Self, the Vir is never allowed to permit, nor tolerate the conquest and taking others come to assert over them, and those in their protective sphere.
I shall be very clear on this Pattern. All government is the private business of taking and raiding of the Haima, the Harya, the Magus, with its shamans and Brahmins, and the Vir is not “anti-government”; the Vir is “anti-being-raided”, and taken from, by government, or individuals.
Youse can have your governments, but your governments can not “have” the Vir.
A Vir DOES NOT render CONSENT to be GOVERNED.
A Vir can then only be held under duress in association with any collective and their claim of governance, and they are to throw off that yoke of oppression, when given the opportunity.
Still the claim of the fancy of the mind of the writer?
Inspect the phonetic phases of this term “have”.
Etymology of have (v.)
Old English habban “to own, possess; be subject to, experience,” from Proto-Germanic *habejanan (source also of Old Norse hafa, Old Saxon hebbjan, Old Frisian habba, German haben, Gothic haban “to have”), from PIE root *kap- “to grasp.” Not related to Latin habere, despite similarity in form and sense; the Latin cognate is capere “seize”.
Sense of “possess, have at one's disposal” (I have a book) is a shift from older languages, where the thing possessed was made the subject and the possessor took the dative case (as in Latin est mihi liber “I have a book,” literally “there is to me a book”). Used as an auxiliary in Old English, too (especially to form present perfect tense); the word has taken on more functions over time; Modern English he had better would have been Old English him (dative) wære betere.
To have to for “must” (1570s) is from sense of “possess as a duty or thing to be done” (Old English). Phrase have a nice day as a salutation after a commercial transaction attested by 1970, American English. Phrase have (noun), will (verb) is from 1954, originally from comedian Bob Hope, in the form Have tux, will travel; Hope described this as typical of vaudevillians' ads in Variety, indicating a willingness and readiness to perform anywhere.
Why the “Ca”, which is the same as the “Ka”?
Why the change from the Ka, to the Ha?
What happened?
A “taken” clearly occurred.
Etymology of take (v.)
late Old English tacan “to take, seize,” from a Scandinavian source (such as Old Norse taka “take, grasp, lay hold,” past tense tok, past participle tekinn; Swedish ta, past participle tagit), from Proto-Germanic *takan- (source also of Middle Low German tacken, Middle Dutch taken, Gothic tekan “to touch”), from Germanic root *tak- “to take,” of uncertain origin, perhaps originally meaning “to touch.”
As the principal verb for “to take,” it gradually replaced Middle English nimen, from Old English niman, from the usual West Germanic verb, *nemanan (source of German nehmen, Dutch nemen; see nimble).
OED calls take “one of the elemental words of the language;” take up alone has 55 varieties of meaning in that dictionary's 2nd print edition. Basic sense is “to lay hold of,” which evolved to “accept, receive” (as in take my advice) c. 1200; “absorb” (take a punch) c. 1200; “choose, select” (take the high road) late 13c.; “to make, obtain” (take a shower) late 14c.; “to become affected by” (take sick) c. 1300.
Take five is 1929, from the approximate time it takes to smoke a cigarette. Take it easy is recorded by 1880; take the plunge “act decisively” is from 1876; take the rap “accept (undeserved) punishment” is from 1930. Phrase take it or leave it is recorded from 1897. To take (something) on “begin to do” is from late 12c. To take it out on (someone or something) “vent one's anger on other than what caused it” is by 1840.
To have, to take, to seize. To “raid”. This is what the Haima, the Hayyin, the Harya, the Magus does. It does all this out of its deeply rooted, and intense fear and insecurity, of its diffidence. It is uncertain about all things, minus one.
It is “certain”, and only “certain” that it will rise up when it can, and “raid” the minds of others, with the aim to make them subjects to their interest, and in doing so, others will resist and potentially fight back.
Knowing it can not help itself, but that mental raiding is a part of its Architecture, it fears others will see it for what it is, and defend themselves, and seek to eradicate them. They fear others will come against them for what they are, and even when others do not know what they are... those others are attacked, and made subjugated, in the name of “preemption”.
Etymology of pre-empt (v.)
also preempt, 1830, “secure (land, etc.) by pre-emption, occupy (public land) so as to establish a pre-emptive title to it,” a back-formation from pre-emption or pre-emptive, originally American English. In the broadcasting sense of “set aside (a program) and replace it with another” it is attested from 1965, American English, a euphemism for “cancel.” Related: pre-empted; preempted.
Etymology of pre-emptive (adj.)
also preemptive, 1806, “pertaining to or of the nature of pre-emption;” from pre-emption + -ive. Specifically of an attack on an enemy who is plotting or has set in motion his own imminent attack, 1958, a term from the Cold War. Related: Pre-emptively; preemptively.
Etymology of pre-emption (n.)
also preemption, c. 1600, “a purchase by one before an opportunity is offered to others,” originally as a right; literally “a purchasing before others,” from pre- “before” + emption “purchase.”
The Magus is more often than not far ahead of the HUmanus in which it “orders”. It “purchases” well ahead the positions it needs for “hereditary hierarchies”. Not only does it purchase itself to “supremacy”, it creates the means of purchase and regulates the realm of commerce.
If you wish to identify the Magus and its controls, it is simple. Who declares a monopoly on regulating commerce, and who is seen engaged in these regulations? For those to be observed in this realm, they are either Magus, thus Haima, Hayyin, Harya; or they are their “minions”.
Over the adaptive development of the Ver, the Mer that was Ha played a role in its character formulation. In the manner of “thesis”, or that which is affirmed, being fused with that which is a negation, or “antithesis”, the Vir from the Vehrka became a “synthesis”. It developed rapidly a “martial defensive posture” in the name of Virtue, and this is called Valiance.
But for the Vir, it became innate to them, and passed down like a beaver builds a dam, even if “orphaned”, never seeing such building occur. The builds are a part of its natural memory, and the “impulse” is not only its “Right”, but its Innate Duty.
The Vir is not an “activist” who engages collectives, on account of them merely being present in Control, Management, and Influence mechanism. The Vir is responsible for securing only their individual autonomy, and not the autonomy of collectives.
This, because collectives are not real. In “practice”, this often means, the Vir does not “raise” rebellions. However, when “collectives”, that fantasy of “individuals”, are raised to a degree to starve out, and/or choke out the Liberties of the Vir, it will need to engage in “fantasies” as a means of self-defense, and “raise” a rebellion, for the collectives will be engaged in “belligerence”.
This will fall under the category of the Religion of the Vir, that of Viritus, that deals in its notion of Justice and Warfare. That will be its own treatise.
In Part I of The Advent of the Vir, the objective is to speak on the phonetics, traits, and attributes of the Vir, and the loose cosmology, or that is, the origination of its Kind, in correlation with the narratives of the Humanus kinds.
Ki is a major element to the nature of the Vir, and its Ancestoral Kinds. Ki, from Ka, is the opposite of Ha, and Hi. Ha and Hi manifest in Humanus as “anxiety”.
The phonetics for “anxiety” that can be found in the Seven Kinetic emotional forces of Humanus is Hi.
Etymology of anxiety (n.)
1520s, “apprehension caused by danger, misfortune, or error, uneasiness of mind respecting some uncertainty, a restless dread of some evil,” from Latin anxietatem (nominative anxietas) “anguish, anxiety, solicitude,” noun of quality from anxius “uneasy, troubled in mind” (see anxious).
It was sometimes considered a pathological condition (1660s); modern psychiatric use dates to 1904. Age of Anxiety is from Auden's poem (1947). For “anxiety, distress,” Old English had angsumnes, Middle English anxumnesse.
In Humanus, Hi is “heightened” and “agitated” as a default force of the emotions. It is present regardless of the conditions. Hi was not in Min as a kinetic variable. Min had the precursor to anxiety, but anxiety is the disruption of this trait, that came from intoxicated ancestors, the Haima or Hawwah mothers.
Prior to being anxiety with “anguish”, it was “solicitude”, but in the sense, it was Ke. This was seen as motion, in the sense of “kinetic”, in that, stimulated, and conditionally provoked, Min took action.
Min developed this from their “Paternal” fusion of the Ka, or that is... from the Ver, passed down to the Ser, and from the Ser, to that of Min, before they were Mer.
For the Min to be made Mer, they would have to become corrupted, with “anxiety”, through the Hi. As Min, they had fused into them that of Ka, and Ke. Without this, there would not have been language and any realm of “awareness”.
However, in the masses of Min, this was conditional and cultural, and it would not become a component of their innate, and intrinsic character. It would be conditional stimuli, and this is called Ke. This is not Ka, nor is it Ki.
Ke is the “state” or the “production” of, as a conclusion, just as Ye is, in the decision making process. Ya is the root, and Ye is the outcome, the condition. In most of the phonetics, this A and E variable found in the vowel states the disposition. The I is the innate state thereof, the starting, rising, and upright state of a thing. Thus, Yi and Ki differ from Ye and Ke.
The conditions would put upon the “subject” that of disturbance, troubling it, causing arousal and excitement. This is the precursor to eagerness. It is an energetics.
Min had Ke from the fusion with the Ancestor who had Ka, and established Ka, with Ki, as “culture”.
Kitus, or citus, was to become aroused to motion, or action, correlated to the condition. And this, the condition solicited a response, or a reaction. Solicitude was the precursor to that of repugnance. Repugnance would be aroused out through Hi, not through Ke, or Ki.
Etymology of solicit (v.)
early 15c., soliciten, “to disturb, trouble, arouse, excite,” from Old French soliciter, solliciter (14c.) and directly from Latin solicitare, sollicitare “to disturb, rouse, trouble, harass; stimulate, provoke,” from sollicitus “agitated,” from sollus “whole, entire” (from PIE root *sol- “whole, well-kept”) + citus “aroused,” past participle of ciere “shake, excite, set in motion” (from PIE root *keie- “to set in motion”). Related: Solicited; soliciting.
The meaning “to further (business affairs)” evolved mid-15c. from a French sense of “manage affairs.” The meaning “entreat, petition” (someone, to do something) is attested from 1520s.
The sense in reference to women, “entice or lure to immorality,” especially in reference to prostitutes seeking clients in public, is attested by 1710 but implied a century earlier (in solicitrix), perhaps with awareness of the business sense of the word, but it also had an earlier sense, in reference to men, of “to court or beg the favor of” (a woman) for immoral purposes, which is attested from 1590s.
Having the element of “anxiety” in “solicitude” is a back formation, in that, Min with solicitude does not exist anymore. However, that means Mer does not have solicitude, outside of cultural restraint. It's an aim, culturally, but it is not an innate trait of Ki that is a part of the Mer, and its characteristics. Anxiety is not a part of solicitude.
Etymology of solicitude (n.)
early 15c., “diligence, industry, activity; anxiety, care, concern,” from Old French solicitude (Modern French sollicitude) and directly from Latin sollicitudinem (nominative solicitudo) “anxiety, uneasiness of mind,” noun of state from past-participle stem of solicitare “disturb, rouse, stimulate, provoke” (see solicit). Related: Solicitudinous.
“Concern” is also not the same as “anxious concern”, which is Ca Re, or “care”, which is from Ka Re, that of the “Light of awareness”, which is the essence of a “concern”. “Care” became corrupted, as a phonetics, and in back formation, the kind of concern a Humanus, or Mer has is “anxious”, because of the Hi forces from intoxicated ancestry. Thus, the Mer can not have Ka Re; it has Ca Re, in a corrupted and anxious form. This is called “care”, by youse.
The second Emotional Force, or Kinetics of Min, before the division of Mer, occurred as keie.
also keiə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to set in motion.”
It was “active” and “actionary” towards the condition. A precursor to “eager” and “excited”. It was a “neutral”, yet “affirmative” leaning trait, and not negative. Anxiety is energetics that is negationary, not affirmative, and it is founded upon diffidence.
Etymology of *keie-
also keiə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to set in motion.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit cyavate “stirs himself, goes;” Greek kinein “to move, set in motion; change, stir up,” kinymai “move myself;” Latin ciere (past participle citus, frequentative citare) “to set in motion, summon;” Gothic haitan “call, be called;” Old English hatan “command, call.”
Take note, previously, or elsewhere, I have correlated the kinetics of “call”, and its etymology. Vocation. The Ka and Ki elements have been carried over by the “Esoterics”, and the amount of terms that can be used by the “Mystic” would be massive.
The angh innate to the Ha
The Haima, the Hayyin, the Harya, the Magus does not engage in “call”, and “calls”, or “Vocation”. Instead, they have “hest” as their form of provocation. They render and levy “COMMANDS”, or DEMANDS. They do not call; they hest, and demand “behest”, or that is a pledge.
Etymology of behest (n.)
c. 1200, biheste, “a promise or pledge,” from Old English behæs “a vow,” perhaps from behatan “to promise” (from be- + hatan “command, call”) and confused with obsolete hest “command,” which may account for the unetymological -t as well as the Middle English shift in meaning to “command, injunction” (late 12c.). Both hatan and hest are from Proto-Germanic *haitanan, for which see hight.
Etymology of hest (n.)
“bidding, command,” Old English hæs “bidding, behest, command,” from Proto-Germanic *hait-ti-, from *haitan “to call, name” (see behest). With unetymological -t added in Middle English on model of other pairings (compare wist/wesan, also whilst, amongst, etc.; see amidst).
The Ha were massively in control of the Germanic languages, and they asserted through their “hierarchy” of Hayyin mothers their cultural controls over those regions, long before the Germanic tribes could be called such. Going back to the Cimmerians, and throughout, long before them, they asserted the most dominant reign over these stocks, from the beginning of the recording of this “era” of social orders.
It is also why, in the American experiment, the language that is pushed among the commons is the form of English that is mostly rooted in Germanic and Saxon tongues. The tongues the commons have been ruled by for a long time. They then restrain the use of the Latinized roots for that of “professions”. They do not permit, or “put in motion”, in their “cinema”, that of elevated language of introspection.
“Cinema” should be “cenema”, but the hijacking of Ki is present, in the sense of liken to “kinetics”. Clearly, all these phonetics are being used by those who have some learnt sense of them. Those who brought about “cinema” knew language you did not, and do not, till now. They knew. They then would give you your language through the culture creatives of “cinema”.
Etymology of cinema (n.)
1899, “movie hall,” from French cinéma, shortened from cinématographe “device for projecting a series of photographs in rapid succession so as to produce the illusion of movement,” coined 1890s by Lumiere brothers, who invented the technology, from Latinized form of Greek kinēmat-, combining form of kinēma “movement,” from kinein “to move” (from PIE root *keie- “to set in motion”). For the second element in the French compound, see -graphy.
The word was earlier in English in its fuller form, cinematograph (1896), but this has been displaced by the short form. Other old words for such a system were vitascope (Edison, 1895), animatograph (1898). The meaning “movies collectively, especially as an art form” recorded by 1914. Cinéma vérité is 1963, from French.
Cinema has been used by the modern Magus, of all forms of origination, as a means to “move” the “thinking” of the subjects in which it aimed to exploit. YOUSE received your Sense of Life, and thus, Sense of Self from the “cinemas”, which then provided youse with your “scripts”. Prior to this, it was churches and temples, with the Magus moving the thinking of the subjects through “scripture”.
Etymology of script (n.)
late 14c., “something written, a written document,” earlier scrite (c. 1300), from Anglo-French scrit, Old French escrit “piece of writing, written paper; credit note, IOU; deed, bond” (Modern French écrit) and directly from Latin scriptum “a writing, book; law; line, mark,” noun use of neuter past participle of scribere “to write” (from PIE root *skribh- “to cut, separate, sift”). The original notion is of carving marks in stone, wood, etc.
The meaning “handwriting, handwritten characters, style of handwriting” (as distinguished from print (n.)) is recorded by 1860; earlier, in typography, script was the name for a face cut to resemble handwriting (1838). Theatrical use, short for manuscript, is attested from 1884. In the study of language, “a writing system,” by 1883.
The importance of Rome to the spread of civilization in Europe is attested by the fact that the word for “write” in Celtic and Germanic (as well as Romanic) languages derives from scribere (French écrire, Irish scriobhaim, Welsh ysgrifennu, German schreiben “to write,” Dutch schrift “writing”). The cognate Old English scrifan means “to allot, assign, decree, to fine” (see shrive; also compare Old Norse skript “penance”). Modern English instead uses write (v.) to express this action.
Etymology of script (v.)
1935, “adapt (a written work) for broadcasting or film,” from script (n.). Figurative sense, “following prescribed directions,” is by 1977. Related: Scripted; scripting.
Etymology of scrip (n.)
1610s, “small piece of paper with writing on it, a written slip,” apparently a corruption of script (n.). In the commercial use, “a certificate of a right to receive something” (especially a stock share), 1762, in this sense probably shortened from (sub)scrip(tion) receipt (see subscription). Originally “receipt for a portion of a loan subscribed;” the meaning “certificate issued as currency” is recorded by 1790. In U.S. history, “fractional paper money” (by 1889).
Scripts, and scripting is an ancient mental tool employed by the “scribes”, the Magus, to “cut” into the mind of others their agreement, and “consent” to be ruled and managed. Scripts are weapons of a mental form.
Etymology of *skribh-
*skrībh-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to cut, separate, sift;” an extended form of root *sker- (1) “to cut.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek skariphasthai “to scratch an outline, sketch;” Latin scribere “to write” (to carve marks in wood, stone, clay, etc.); Lettish skripat “scratch, write;” Old Norse hrifa “scratch.”
Among the Haima, to the Hayyin, to the Harya... the Magus used the phonetics hrifa. Ha, Ri, Fa.
“We, the Ha, establish the Light, the seeing, cut into a fall for ours.”
Whenever there is something being affirmed that is not according to hrifa, it gets “remade”.
Etymology of remake (v.)
also re-make, “make anew, reconstruct,” 1630s, from re- “back, again” + make (v.). Related: Remade; remaking. As a noun, in reference to movies, “a new making of a film or script (typically with different actors),” by 1933 (“Smilin' Through”). The verb was used of movies by 1910s).
Ma, Ki, a.
I am still fancying my own source of phonetics, right? Not enough dialectical evidence has been produced... right?
Well, have at this term, youse have used your whole lives.
Etymology of make (v.)
Old English macian “to give being to, give form or character to, bring into existence; construct, do, be the author of, produce; prepare, arrange, cause; behave, fare, transform,” from West Germanic *makōjanan “to fashion, fit” (source also of Old Saxon makon, Old Frisian makia “to build, make,” Middle Dutch and Dutch maken, Old High German mahhon “to construct, make,” German machen “to make”), from PIE root *mag- “to knead, fashion, fit.” If so, sense evolution perhaps is via prehistoric houses built of mud. It gradually replaced the main Old English word, gewyrcan (see work (v.)).
Meaning “to arrive at” (a place), first attested 1620s, originally was nautical. Formerly used in many places where specific verbs now are used, such as to make Latin (c. 1500) “to write Latin compositions.” This broader usage survives in some phrases, such as make water “to urinate” (c. 1400), make a book “arrange a series of bets” (1828), make hay “to turn over mown grass to expose it to sun.” Make the grade is 1912, perhaps from the notion of railway engines going up an incline.
Read the valuable suggestions in Dr. C.V. Mosby's book — be prepared to surmount obstacles before you encounter them — equipped with the power to “make the grade” in life's climb. [advertisement for “Making the Grade,” December 1916]
But the phrase also was in use in a schoolwork context at the time.
To make friends is from late 14c.; to make good “make right” is from early 15c. To make do “manage with what is available” is attested by 1867; to make for “direct one's course to, proceed toward” is from 1580s, but “Not frequent before the 19th c.” [OED]. To make of “think, judge” is from c. 1300. To make off “run away, depart suddenly” is from 1709; to make off with “run away with (something) in one's possession” is by 1820. To make way is from c. 1200 as “cut a path,” early 14c. as “proceed, go.”
Make time “go fast” is 1849; make tracks in this sense is from 1834. To make a federal case out of (something) was popularized in 1959 movie “Anatomy of a Murder;” to make an offer (one) can't refuse is from Mario Puzo's 1969 novel “The Godfather.” To make (one's) day is by 1909; menacing make my day is from 1971, popularized by Clint Eastwood in film “Sudden Impact” (1983). Related: Made; making.
For the noun “make”, I will present it here for use of a later expounding, but can not deviate any further down this path for clarification.
Etymology of make (n.)
“match, mate, companion” (now archaic or dialectal), from Old English gemaca “mate, equal; one of a pair, comrade; consort, husband, wife,” from Proto-Germanic *gamakon- (source also of Old Saxon gimaco, Old High German gimahho, Old Norse maki), related to Old English gemæcc “well-matched, suitable,” macian “to make” (see make (v.)). Meaning “manner in which something is made, form, shape, design, construction” is from c. 1300. Slang phrase on the make “intent on profit or advancement” is from 1869.
Etymology of made (adj.)
late 14c., “created, wrought, fabricated, constructed” (of words, stories, etc.), from Middle English maked, from Old English macod “made,” past participle of macian “to make” (see make (v.)). From 1570s as “artificially produced, formed independently of natural development.”
To be a made man “placed beyond the reach of want, assured of reward or success” is in Marlowe's “Faust” (1590). To have it made (1955) is American English colloquial. Made-to-order (adj.) “made according to the customer's specifications” is by 1905 in advertisements, from the verbal phrase. Grose's dictionary of slang and cant (1785) has for this word a tart definition: “MADE. Stolen. Cant.”
Made up (adj.) in earliest use was “consummate, accomplished” (c. 1600), but this is obsolete. As “put together from parts from various sources” it is by 1670s. As “artificially prepared for the purpose of deception,” by 1773. Of minds, “settled, decided,” by 1788.
From here, one begins to see the roots of “made”, and “make”, with the Ma central theme, born out of the root mak, to have the K replaced with a G, or g, signifying the change of hands of the “makers”, to becoming the “Magus”.
Etymology of *mag-
also *mak-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to knead, fashion, fit.” It forms all or part of: amass; among; macerate; magma; make; mason; mass (n.1) “lump, quantity, size;” match (n.2) “one of a pair, an equal;” mingle; mongrel.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek magis “kneaded mass, cake,” mageus “one who kneads, baker;” Latin macerare “soften, make soft, soak, steep;” Lithuanian minkyti “to knead;” Old Church Slavonic mazo “to anoint, smear;” Breton meza “to knead;” Old English macian “to make, form, construct, do,” German machen “to make;” Middle Irish maistir “to churn.”
The Magus makes, and has made the narratives that move the minds of their subjects towards states of being disabled, made timid, anxious, concerned, and in demand of their care, or that is alleviation of the emotions. The Magus are your “pimps”, and they have been for thousands of years.
Every culture, every social order, that is EVERYWHERE, has Magus running the narrative. They will often be the elite culture creators, and outnumbered massively by the Humanus Mer, chumps of Utilis and Brutus... whom they exploit through “scripts” and “spells” as their inept “children” of a species — to which they are correct, for they are your mothers, and your mothers' sons.
“We” the “Watchers” have seen in this here “Simulation” all of this playing out, for a long time, and youse, that of the masses, the many, the multitudes, are Ma and Mu, in being “Muted”.
Being muted, you can not “See”, so those who hold the “Seats” called “Seers”, as imposters... “See” for you, and “Script” your “Sight”, with “Sight” being the primary sense, they thus control, manage, and manipulate your Sense of Life and Sense of Self.
You can not “See” thy self, because you are moved to see self through the collective, and the Magus controls the collective narrative.
In that of observing the Ha, at times called the Ga, as they carry the G, that is the “coiled snake”, “We” the Ver called their default condition “tight”, that of painfully constricted... narrow, and plagued with heightened desires that can never be satiated. Desires that hurt. This is called “anguish”. It is from angh, as is the term now used... “anxious”. Notice, “anxious” does not retain the Ha, and the Ga components... but in the oldest sense of the terms, they are “scripted” with said information, informing the reader.
Etymology of anxious (adj.)
1620s, “greatly troubled by uncertainties,” from Latin anxius “solicitous, uneasy, troubled in mind” (also “causing anxiety, troublesome”), from angere, anguere “to choke, squeeze,” figuratively “to torment, cause distress” (from PIE root *angh- “tight, painfully constricted, painful”).
The same image is in Serbo-Croatian tjeskoba “anxiety,” literally “tightness, narrowness.” The meaning “earnestly desirous” (as in anxious to please) is from 1742. Related: Anxiously; anxiousness.
Etymology of anguish (v.)
mid-14c., angwisshen, intransitive and reflexive (“be troubled or distressed; feel agony”) and transitive (“cause grief, distress,or torment”); from Old French angoissier (12c., Modern French angoisser), from angoisse “distress, anxiety, rage” (see anguish (n.)). Related: Anguished; anguishing.
It would be an easy, and quick projection for illiterate and inept mental midgets to conclude, in narrow passing, all of this is but the “fancy” of the writer. Yet, what can not be asserted with ease is that, I have not laid down the cause for Vir thought. In the ancient tongues, which the Vir laid the roots for, We, the Watchers, told you our “reports”, reported our reconnaissance.
Etymology of *angh-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “tight, painfully constricted, painful.”
It forms all or part of: agnail; anger; angina; angry; angst; anguish; anxious; hangnail; quinsy.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit amhu- “narrow,” amhah “anguish;” Armenian anjuk “narrow;” Lithuanian ankštas “narrow;” Greek ankhein “to squeeze,” ankhone “a strangling;” Latin angere “to throttle, torment;” Old Irish cum-ang “straitness, want;” Old English enge “narrow, painful,” Old Norse angra “to grieve, vex, distress,” Gothic aggwus “narrow.”
The Haima were a Min, before there was Mer. They were pre-language, or pre-fusion of the Ka component that led all Min to abstract thought, and “self-reflection”, or “orientation”. The Haima is best to be thought of, in back formation, as a kind of “cave woman” that was inflicted, once intoxicated, with a neurotic, and hyper anxious mind, in anguish.
The most early sense of “blood red”, of bleeding as an “error” was the one provoked by the Haima Hawwah, or mothers. They would cut themselves open. They would prick themselves to deformation, often seen with infected boils and eruptions on their skin. They were driven “mad” in imagination. They were with the affection called “mania”.
Such angh would carry over into the Ha and Ga of later times. When the Ha and Ga were now a version of the Mer, and the intoxicated state of the Haima would make its way into the stock, as an innate trait, “We”, of the Vir, called of the Mer, this trait... angh. Pain and torment that was innate to the kind, the stock. The pain, and the torment many of youse feel, simply existing.
“We”, the Vir, do not have this feeling. “We”, the Vir, are born feeling that of Triumphant dispositions.
The term “hangnail” holds the history of these observations, of those inflicted, and those self inflicting in pain, and angh.
Etymology of hangnail (n.)
also hang-nail, “sore strip of partially detached flesh at the side of a nail of the finger or toe,” probably a 17c. or earlier folk etymology and sense alteration (as if from hang (v.) + (finger) nail) of Middle English agnail, angnail “a corn on the foot,” from Old English agnail, angnail. The literal sense probably is “painful spike” (in the flesh). The first element would be Proto-Germanic *ang- “compressed, hard, painful” (from PIE root *angh- “tight, painfully constricted, painful”). The second element is Old English nægl “spike” (see nail (n.)).
Compare Old English angnes “anxiety, trouble, pain, fear;” angset “eruption, pustule.” OED also compares Latin clavus, which “was both a nail (of iron, etc.) and a corn on the foot.” Similar compounding in Old High German ungnagel, Frisian ongneil.
We, the Watchers of the “Simulation”, or the “Account”, have recollect of the Haima... through the Religious Reconnaissance of the back formations that occur in this process of “Discovering and Knowing thyself”, and its roots of origination and development.
This Religious Reconnaissance is at the root of the cosmology of the Vir, in and why, it thinketh itself present, in the now, to observe, and to account. The Vir has the construct, in their Architecture, to “See” that of the “themselves” as an “Accountant” here to observe, study, examine, and investigate what is occurring as if it has already occurred; not as if it is presently occurring.
What the cause is for this inner, and born narrative is not known to me, at this time. Therefore, dialectically, it can not be made to seem Valid, but instead, might be a part of the “detached disposition” all Vir are born with. I would presume, this “detachment” to living as “present” and “needy” causes a narrative of “not present”, but rather, having passed, shall pass, is passing, will pass, is IMPERMANENT.
Thus, a “Mind” would not attach to what is mortal and plagued by death.
When life “angers” you, and “annoys” you, this is on account of the birth trait of angh. This, you have your Hawwah Haima mother of the Hayyin to thank for. “She” passed it down to you, as a part of your stock. Your “anger” is not even yours. It was hers, and now you are scripted into thinking, you ought to attach to it, and defend it, as if it's your possession, when in actuality, YOUSE are its possession.
Etymology of anger (v.)
c. 1200, “to irritate, annoy, provoke,” from Old Norse angra “to grieve, vex, distress; to be vexed at, take offense with,” from Proto-Germanic *angaz (source also of Old English enge “narrow, painful,” Middle Dutch enghe, Gothic aggwus “narrow”), from PIE *anghos, suffixed form of root *angh- “tight, painfully constricted, painful.”
In Middle English, also of physical pain. The meaning “excite to wrath, make angry” is from late 14c. Related: Angered; angering.
Among the academics, they list the second primary emotion after fear as anger. Now, one ought to see why in my Seven Emotional Kinetics, I list the second not as anger, but liken to the Watchers before me... I list it as angh, correlated to “anxious” and “anguish”. Thus, I call it knowingly “anxiety”, not anger, and for the agitated states, the provoked states, to fight reactionary, I have labeled this “repugnance”, in correlation to “pugnacious”, and “pugnacity”.
Yes, this will be too complex for the girly, and effeminate readers, the academic writers too... But in “our”, the Vir, Religious Reconnaissance and its reporting, we have absolutely no Duty, or obligation to be received and understood. We, the Watchers of the Vir, “Merly” report on the Mer.
A part of the naming of the “stock” of Humanus as “Mer”, is correlated to the “s'mer” aspect of youse... Instead of remembrance of the trait of Triumph, or the Valiant traits, youse REMEMBER your PAIN. Youse remember the pain of Hawwah, your “mothers”, and from this pain is generated your sense of your “concerns”, making them “painful concerns”, or “anxious concerns”, and thus creating the hunger of care.
Memory to the Mer is through this route. The Kinetics are “memories”, in the sense of, source of your thoughts. The Emotional Kinetics thus were once called “memories”. The one of pain, and the like, is the memory of a Mer.
Etymology of *(s)mer- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to remember.”
It forms all or part of: commemorate; commemoration; mourn; memo; memoir; memorable; memorandum; memorial; memorious; memorize; memory; remember.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit smarati “remembers;” Avestan mimara “mindful;” Greek merimna “care, thought,” mermeros “causing anxiety, mischievous, baneful;” Latin memoria “memory, remembrance, faculty of remembering,” memor “mindful, remembering;” Serbo-Croatian mariti “to care for;” Welsh marth “sadness, anxiety;” Old Norse Mimir, name of the giant who guards the Well of Wisdom; Old English gemimor “known,” murnan “to mourn, remember sorrowfully;” Dutch mijmeren “to ponder.”
“Timid” and its likes, liken to the diffidence as the root, was even stated, in memory, to give rise to the Mer memory of pain. “Temerity” would be at the root, or correlated to that of diffidence.
Etymology of timorous (adj.)
early 15c., from Old French temoros (14c.), from Medieval Latin timorosus “fearful,” from Latin timor “fear, dread, apprehension, anxiety; religious awe, reverence,” from timere “to fear, be afraid, dread,” of unknown origin. Some early senses in English seem to show confusion with Middle English temerous “rash” (see temerity). Related: Timorously; timorousness.
“Timorous” captures the correlation of the diffidence, running through the memoric angh, or anxiety.
Etymology of temerity (n.)
“extreme venturesomeness, rashness, recklessness,” late 14c., from Latin temeritatem (nominative temeritas) “blind chance, accident; rashness, indiscretion, foolhardiness,” from temere “by chance, at random; indiscreetly, rashly, recklessly;” probably, etymologically, “blindly,” from PIE root *temsro- “dark” (adj.), source also of Sanskrit tamisra- “dark night,” tamsrah “dark;” Avestan temah “darkness;” Middle Persian tar “darkness,” tarig “dark;” Lithuanian tamsa “darkness,” tamsus “dark;” Old Church Slavonic tima “darkness;” Old High German dinstar “dark,” demar “twilight;” Old Irish temel “darkness.”
The connecting notion would be “blindly, in darkness,” hence “without foreseeing.” Compare Latin tenebrio “dishonest person,” apparently “person who operates in darkness” (see tenebrous).
And thus, those with the memory of “pain”, the moderns now call “past trauma”, develop into an innate despair that has the figurative sense of a “darkness”, for which “tenebrous” was a correlated term.
Those of such remembrance in their stock, their kind, their ilk had such “darkness” not merely as a state... but in Mer, as a “Way”. The Way of the left, in the Y formulation, is rooted in the “dark”, as the choice made of y, and not the remembrance of V, detached.
I will not explore the word “God”, but take note of the G variable, and how out of Germanic tongues it came, from that of Got. Among the Latins, it was the Way of Us, or DeUs.
In correlation with the darkness, there was art produced concerning the Germanic sense of the gods, connected with the figurative sense of “complete overthrow”, or to “throw into darkness”, found in:
Etymology of Gotterdammerung (n.)
1909 in the figurative sense of “complete overthrow” of something; from German Götterdämmerung (18c.), literally “twilight of the gods,” from genitive plural of Gott “god” (see god) + Dämmerung “dusk, twilight,” from PIE root *teme- “dark” (see temerity). Used by Wagner as the title of the last opera in the Ring cycle. It translates Old Norse ragna rok “the doom or destruction of the gods, the last day, world's end.” A better transliteration is Goetterdaemmerung.
The emotions as “memories” means the ones innate to the kind, or the stock. The Vir do not have angh as a “memory”; they have Vitality and Vigor as memories, as emotions. They do not have despair on account of having Vigilance — and the despair has the remembrance of “sorrow”, connected with the pain that is a part of angh, and the “coils” and “narrowness” of the Ha, and Ga.
Etymology of sorrow (v.)
Middle English sorwen (intransitive), “feel sad, be sad, grieve,” from Old English sorgian, from sorg “grief, regret, pain, anxiety” (see sorrow (n.)). The transitive sense of “give pain” is from early 14c.; that of “think of with sorrow” is by mid-14c. Related: Sorrowed; sorrower; sorrowing. Compare Dutch zorgen, German sorgen, Old Norse syrgja, Gothic saurgan.
It can be said, the Vir and those of its culture are never found to “apologize” and say that of “sorry”, for there are now clear reasons around the meaning of these terms. “Sorry” correlates to “sorrow”.
Etymology of sorrow (n.)
Middle English sorwe, from Old English sorg “grief, regret, trouble, care, pain, anxiety,” from Proto-Germanic *sorg- (source also of Old Saxon sorga, Old Norse sorg, Middle Dutch sorghe, Dutch zorg, Old High German soraga, German sorge, Gothic saurga), perhaps from PIE *swergh- “to worry, be sick” (source also of Sanskrit surksati “cares for,” Lithuanian sergu, sirgti “to be sick,” Old Church Slavonic sraga “sickness,” Old Irish serg “sickness”). Not considered to be connected etymologically with sore (adj.) or sorry.
Etymology of sore (adj.)
Middle English sore, from Old English sar “painful, grievous, aching, sad, wounding,” influenced in meaning by Old Norse sarr “sore, wounded,” from Proto-Germanic *sairaz “suffering, sick, ill” (source also of Old Frisian sar “painful,” Middle Dutch seer, Dutch zeer “sore, ache,” Old High German ser “painful,” Gothic sair “pain, sorrow, travail”), which is perhaps from a PIE root *sai- “suffering” (source also of Old Irish saeth “pain, sickness”). Related: Sorely; soreness.
The slang meaning “angry, irritated” is recorded by 1738. Adverbial use, “painfully, so as to cause physical pain or injury” (as in sore afraid) is from Old English sare but has mostly died out (replaced by sorely), but adverbial use persists in the Modern German cognate sehr, the usual word for “very.”
A Vir never can feel that of sorry, and sorrow.
Etymology of sorry (adj.)
Middle English sori, from Old English sarig “distressed, grieved, full of sorrow” (not found in the physical sense of “sore”), from Proto-Germanic *sairiga- “painful” (source also of Old Saxon serag, Middle Dutch seerigh “sore; sad, sorry,” Dutch zeerig “sore, full of sores,” Old High German serag, Swedish sårig “sore, full of sores”), from *sairaz “pain” (physical and mental); related to *saira- “suffering, sick, ill” (see sore (adj.)).
The spelling shift from -a- to -o- is by influence of (unrelated) sorrow. Specifically as “repentant, remorseful, contrite” by c. 1200. The meaning “wretched, worthless, poor” is recorded by mid-13c. Simple sorry in an apologetic sense (short for I'm sorry) is suggested by 1834; the phrase sorry about that seems to have been popularized mid-1960s by U.S. TV show “Get Smart.” To be sorry for (something) is in late Old English. Related: Sorrily; sorriness.
Etymology of sorrowful (adj.)
Middle English sorweful, from Old English sorgful “full of grief; anxious, careful;” also “distressing, doleful;” see sorrow (n.) + -ful. Related: Sorrowfully; sorowfulness. Sorrowless is Old English sorhleas.
I will not deviate into the Sa, Se, Si, So, Su, Sy at this moment. That will need to be “saved” for later.
Etymology of saved (adj.)
late 14c., “delivered from damnation, destined for Heaven,” past-participle adjective from save (v.). Saved by the bell is by 1902 (American English) in reference to prize fighting; 1912 in reference to the classroom; figurative use from 1915, probably at first from the fighting sense.
Etymology of saving (adj.)
c. 1300, “delivering from sin or death;” 1530s, “delivering or preserving from peril;” present-participle adjective from save (v.). The notion in saving grace is “spiritual gifts necessary to salvation;” the non-Christian sense (by 1903) is moral or mental, indicating something that redeems or exempts from censure.
Etymology of save (v.)
c. 1200, saven, “to deliver from some danger; rescue from peril, bring to safety,” also “prevent the death of;” also “to deliver from sin or its consequences; admit to eternal life; gain salvation,” from Old French sauver “keep (safe), protect, redeem,” from Late Latin salvare “make safe, secure,” from Latin salvus “safe” (from PIE root *sol- “whole, well-kept”).
From c. 1300 as “reserve for future use, hold back, store up instead of spending;” hence “keep possession of” (late 14c.). As a quasi-preposition from c. 1300, “without prejudice or harm to,” on model of French and Latin cognates.
To save face (1898) first was used among the British community in China and is said to be from Chinese; it has not been found in Chinese, but tiu lien “to lose face” does occur. To save appearances “do something to prevent exposure, embarrassment, etc.” is by 1711; earlier save (the) appearances, a term in philosophy that goes back to ancient Greek in reference to a theory which explains the observed facts.
To not (do something) to save one's life is recorded from 1848. To save (one's) breath “cease talking or arguing in a lost cause” is from 1926.
These etymologies ought to make clear that entering into the S phonetics will be too much for now. I have already likely deviated too far from the path, and must return. But such deviations were needed to “Secure the Route”.
The Route, for the etymologies, is not inductive, but is a back formation in the deductive sense. It is not that present English is what it is because of the way in which the Ancients may have treated these phonetics.
But in back formations, it is that the Knights of the Helmet, in their development, esoterically, and covertly, of the English language, gave such a focus on such Patterns, as a means to code certain sets of premises, principles, and notions that would prove themselves out, in the English speaking, and thus thinking, “American Natural Aristocracy”.
There is a reason even this concept of a “Natural Aristocracy” was posed in the American experiment. However, to communicate to a reader historical presence of this secretive and esoteric thought is not the aims of this writer. I am not with the need of peers and agreement to affirm what “I” must affirm as reporting in my Religious Reconnaissance, as a “Recondo”.
The meaning of “govern”, and “liberty”
Elements of the Ga, and why this is connected to the Ha, are found in this root angh, which is, or originally was, like Arya was Harya, it was hangh. Hangh has a connection to the English term “hang” and “hung”, but again, must get back to the primary aim of the Path this dialectical display was meant for.
But the phonetics are Ha, Na, Ga, He.
Na, Ne, Ni, No, Nu, Ny, for the sake of this phonetical display, is that of the negation, versus the affirmation. It is a negated sense that the Ga component carries towards the Ha. Ga is not the kind, so to say; Ha is. But I will treat Ga at a later time.
Be attentive to the term “govern” and the shift from K to G among the Etruscans. However, this is later, not early Etruscan.
Etymology of govern (v.)
late 13c., “to rule with authority,” from Old French governer “steer, be at the helm of; govern, rule, command, direct” (11c., Modern French gouverner), from Latin gubernare “to direct, rule, guide, govern” (source also of Spanish gobernar, Italian governare), originally “to steer, to pilot,” a nautical borrowing from Greek kybernan “to steer or pilot a ship, direct as a pilot,” figuratively “to guide, govern” (the root of cybernetics). The -k- to -g- sound shift is perhaps via the medium of Etruscan. Intransitive sense from 1590s. Related: Governed; governing.
Conquest over others, in that of governance, had to do with taking the “craft” of the Ber, or the Ver. It is negation of the Ver. The Ver represented a “hands off”, “free” and Liber, liberated sense of “social order”.
The Ga kinetics is the aggressive kinetics to seek to control, to manage, to manipulate, to influence, to “steer” that of others. This trait is hyper in the Ha, as such a primary trait, conquest over others, that the Ha is NaGa. Negative Control. That is... stripping others of their rightful autonomy.
Now, when youse think me off for pointing out the Magus controls all your collective “affairs”, then perhaps, you can tell me when and where in civilization, individual autonomy ever shined primarily, and was sustained, versus collective will, controlled by elite culture creators, and rule, and that of scribes.
The American experiment was an experiment erected by Individuals, thinking with the “New World” could come a “Liberty” based structure. Never then did the “government” come along and protect this “Destination”, in Providence. Instead, soon as it was “permitted”, the Trojan horse to Liberty was staged, in the interior of the “House” that should never have been built.
Etymology of liberty (n.)
late 14c., “free choice, freedom to do as one chooses,” also “freedom from the bondage of sin,” from Old French liberte “freedom, liberty, free will” (14c., Modern French liberté), from Latin libertatem (nominative libertas) “civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission,” from liber “free” (see liberal (adj.)). At first of persons; of communities, “state of being free from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control” is by late 15c.
The French notion of liberty is political equality; the English notion is personal independence. [William R. Greg, “France in January 1852” in “Miscellaneous Essays”]
Nautical sense of “leave of absence” is from 1758. The meaning “unrestrained action, conduct, or expression” (1550s) led to take liberties “go beyond the bounds of propriety” (1620s). The sense of “privileges by grant” (14c.) led to the sense of “a person's private land” (mid-15c.), within which certain special privileges may be exercised, which yielded in 18c. in both England and America a sense of “a district within a county but having its own justice of the peace,” and also “a district adjacent to a city and in some degree under its municipal jurisdiction” (as in Northern Liberties of Philadelphia). Also compare Old French libertés “local rights, laws, taxes.”
Liberty-cap is from 1803; the American Revolutionary liberty-pole, “tall flagstaff set up in honor of liberty and often surmounted by a liberty-cap” is from 1775. Liberty-cabbage was a World War I U.S. jingoistic euphemism for sauerkraut.
The li part of liber corrupts, and restrains the Ber, or the Ver to that of “permissible” conduct. Liber, for “freedom”, has been entirely removed from its roots, having its roots be “remade” in the image of the “Nobles and “freeborn” by that of “permissions”. It becomes “the people”, and “the populace as a collective”, and the sense of “freedom” and permissions is collectively determined, only after the “movement” of the minds of the collective has been shaped by the cultural creators, or that is, the cultural scribes who are the “magistrates”; who are the Magus.
Etymology of liberal (adj.)
mid-14c., “generous,” also “nobly born, noble, free;” from late 14c. as “selfless, magnanimous, admirable;” from early 15c. in a bad sense, “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous” (12c.), and directly from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious.”
This is conjectured to be from PIE *leudh-ero-, which probably originally meant “belonging to the people,” though the precise semantic development is obscure; but compare frank (adj.). This was a suffixed form of the base *leudh- (2) “people” (source also of Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”).
Who hath indeed, most like a liberal villain,
Confess'd the vile encounters they have had
A thousand times in secret.
[“Much Ado,” IV.1.93]
Liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach with the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action.” The Enlightenment revived it in a positive sense “free from prejudice, tolerant, not bigoted or narrow,” which emerged 1776-88. In 19c. often theological rather than political, opposed to orthodox, used of Unitarians, Universalists, etc. For educational use, see liberal arts.
Purely in reference to political opinion, “tending in favor of freedom and democracy,” it dates from c. 1801, from French libéral. In English the label at first was applied by opponents (often in the French form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party more favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean “favorable to government action to effect social change,” which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of “free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions” (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.
This is the attitude of mind which has come to be known as liberal. It implies vigorous convictions, tolerance for the opinions of others, and a persistent desire for sound progress. It is a method of approach which has played a notable and constructive part in our history, and which merits a thorough trial today in the attack on our absorbingly interesting American task. [Guy Emerson, “The New Frontier,” 1920]
Where there is the Le Us De Ha, et Ero, or in “error”, this is legislation applied, giving some “permissions” to do what others would have been forbidden from doing. “Liberty” is permission given by those magistrates, often upon their own, to engage in what otherwise would be treated as “crime”.
If without a “permit” it would be “criminal”, then “permits” are “permission” to do crime. Libre and Liber are often connected, in a folk etymology sense, in that to be free, one needed to be “learnt”, and this required literature, or that is literacy, in that of words used to construct thought, a sense of “Rights” and “Duties”. For every “Right”, there was the sense of a “Duty”.
Libertas is then a muddy concept, and in it is the B variant, and not the V. LiVer would be contradictory. “Ver”, and “Vir”, all by itself, is “autonomy”. There would be no need for, and more so, a corruption, and contradiction to add the La, Le, Li, Lo, Lu, Ly phonetics to the phonetics of the Ver, or Vir.
Liber is not “freedom” in the individual sense, because it would be unnatural to presume an “individual” exists, outside of their sense of belonging to a collective. The odds of individual freedoms making sense to most are unfavorable to this concept.
Collective “freedoms” through “grants”, through “entitlements”, through “permits” and “recognition” are the key components of “liberty”. A “Vir” is only such, on account that autonomy is induced from, and by their Nature. A Vir is driven from, and through their Nature to individualize regardless of the condition; whereas Humanus, which is a Mer, is not driven to individualize, but it is driven to collectivize.
The “individual sense” of that of “Freedom” can not be conceived of by Humanus, who are Mer. All Mer, and all Humanus — one and the same — are innately “slavers” and “takers”. ALL, in the Absolute.
On an individual level, only fear, insecurity, that of diffidence, and angst, or anxiety will cause the Humanus, the Mer individual to be concerned with their role in slaving and taking.
Meaning, if caught separate from their herd, doing this, their morality restraining them is no “morality” at all... it's “timidity”. A moral Humanus, or Mer, is simply the one restrained from acting alone.
But when the Mer, or the Humanus form into collectives, they can, and will DO ALL THINGS they feared to do on their own. All things become “permissible”, and thus “liberated”, when the Humanus and Mer act as a collective, with collective interest.
Thus, “Freedom Fighters” are more often than not those who do not have a collective that is the same size as the “establishment”. They are only “Freedom Fighters” until they climb in collective numbers to replace the previous order.
Once they replace the previous order, they resurrect an order that is just the same as the preceding one, only now giving theirs the entitlements, the permits, and the liberties. Tyranny and oppression, born out of the emotions of Humanus, of Mer... then cycle back.
That is why, when the American experiment is compared to the British form of rule, in modern times, “time” showed the conditions of the “Americans” to return to a similar lineage to the “British”.
Theoretically, the direction, if it followed the “worded claims” of the writers of its “Ways”, and “America”, as an experiment, would appear drastically different from every other country or fiction, social fiction upon this planet. But in the American experiment, only the “Freedom Fighters” are using the theoretical character of the experiment, while the government, charged with protecting that “Spirit”, that theoretical character, is the enemy of that “Spirit” and character, as all governments must be.
But as “Freedom Fighters”, if they were to win out — which they might — if they preempted the deliberate collapse, they would themselves bring about a “new order” for only a short-lived theoretical utopia, only to fall back to the “old order” of privileging their “own” over others, and using government the only way it can be used; and that is... for oppression, suppression, repression, and aggression.
There is no such thing as a “government” that has ever existed that was designed for and able to be wielded in the Protection of that of individual freedoms over that of collective entitlements, collective permissions, and collective raiding... through “liberties”. All government is, has always been, and will be the raiding carried out by the “liberated collective”.
Their liberty, using “books of rules”, and written or “scribed” legislation of “steering” controlling, and demanding, is the “liberty to raid”, with the sense of “legal” backing it... which is no more than the liberty of a monopoly.
The Vir is not “concerned” with “liberty”, because the Vir is born “Free”, and does not seek permission to be Free. The Vir also does not seek to replace government with more government, nor new government. The Vir refuses to be governed, and refuses to govern.
All of this, youse, as Humanus and Mer, ASSERT upon the populace, and when youse had your ancestors of Humanus, of Mer, governed by the Haima, the Hayyin, the Harya, come Daco Sangha... ASSERT in this very manner, your ancestral actions led to the stimulation that would cause adaptive behavior in the Ver, an adaptive behavior that made the Ver “Martial” in self-defense, Valiant in Validity, and Virtue.
Prior to these Daco Sangha, these collectives of Humanus bandits, the Ver was not innately Valiant, because there was no conditional need. But when it was Vehrka, or Virka, and constantly attacked and raided by the Harya, it was inevitable that what was once tools for cultivation, and crafting, would become weapons and tools for “Varfare”, that is “Warfare”. Conflict resolution meant bringing a spear to the throat of a Harya, stopping its aggressions.
Through many generations to follow, the Vehrka would have all of its offspring, be them Ver or Ser, be trained, disciplined, and “Virtualized” in Warfare. Like the beaver remembers in its nature how to build a dam, or the impulse to do so, the Vir would become so naturalized in Warfare that they would be born knowing how to build out weapons of war, their use, and their primacy in its “character”, and through this building out would come the “VirYa”... that “rooted” at the base, as Vir, and through war, the Vir had Virtue, and this Virtue with others Virtuous meant conflict was resolved, preemptively, before it could even occur.
Thus, the Vir never had legislation and governance keeping it in check or submission, for the Law was written in its nature. It did not have hatred towards this world; it had Command.
Nothing is “Hated” more by the Ha than a Vir, for a Vir can not be conned into accepting the Ha as governance. It sees the Ha in its nature, its lineage, and it keeps the Ha out of its life, and Path, or its Y. The Vir goes “right”, not “left”, and in the “right direction”, the primal and base roots of Mer are cut, concluding the Y into the V; while Humanus goes left, Mer goes left, and hooks the y into the ground, and the base character, thus becoming subjugating through its “memories”, called its emotions, tying it to its lineage.
The Se manifest in the Ser causes it to aspire towards the Y, by throwing off the yoke of the y. Uprooting the “core” principles, the Ser investigates, and adventures the “Cause Way” onto the journey of the Y, and this removes slaves and subjects of the Ha, who place themselves in the “Seat” as “Seers” of Control exercised through their scribes, who seek to move the minds. H in line, as governance, the Ser is kept in “captivity”.
The Ser will be attracted to “freedoms”, but be kept confused in “liberties”. The Ser yet to be actualized will start with asking permission, and be denied. The Ser, when “Actualized”, will take the spear to the H and break its line of “overlording”.
For this reason, the H, the Ha with its scribes must control the narrative through “liberties”, and direct “freedom for vice” as the main theme, getting the Ser and Mer to be against itself... mainly in INTOXICANTS.
Nothing can be more revolutionary than that of abstaining from INTOXICANTS, both in substance, and thought. The number one way to maintain captivity is through softening the battlefield with intoxicants.
No VIR ever engages in INTOXICANTS. It is VERBODEN, that is FORBIDDEN by its VERY nature. They could not by any chance or ignorance have a past in INTOXICANTS. Verboden means, NEVER possible to them.
Traveling the long Route of the Right, in the Y
But a SER can, in captivity, come against its self, and then find its way towards its self, towards its own Command. But not when it is rooted, y in captivity. It must uproot from the Haima “home”, and begin the Y with its attraction to the “Right Hand”, and direction towards the “Sun”, not the “Earth”, and this is done with the phonetics Yi.
To the Right of the Y is the “upright” position, and this was sustained in the pictograph of the I with a middle line, that was once the H line. The Left and Right are broken up, and the middle line is retained, making it the unification of the Earth, which is the body, the Mind, which is the “Spirit”, and the All Whole, which is Intelligence, or Heaven. A “Sacred” symbol of the three lines, made whole and upright. The unification of the “Three Lights”.
I am the “Messenger” of the “Three Lights”... and the Harya or Daco Sangha have snuffed them out in this reign or era of “darkness”, and I will relight them; but the Lights as “Stars” can not be seen by those who have had their eyes plucked out, with captivity too harsh for their innate timidity to contend with.
Only those who “remember” that of Yi, as energetics, can then move towards KI, and from Ki have the motions well invigorated, in Vi. The Ser can not be a Vir. But it can be guided by Vi to its Ki, and YI... and this... is “essential”.
Etymology of memory (n.)
late 13c., “recollection (of someone or something); remembrance, awareness or consciousness (of someone or something),” also “fame, renown, reputation;” from Anglo-French memorie (Old French memoire, 11c., “mind, memory, remembrance; memorial, record”) and directly from Latin memoria “memory, remembrance, faculty of remembering,” abstract noun from memor “mindful, remembering,” from PIE root *(s)mer- (1) “to remember.”
Sense of “commemoration” (of someone or something) is from c. 1300. Meaning “faculty of remembering; the mental capacity of retaining unconscious traces of conscious impressions or states, and of recalling these to consciousness in relation to the past,” is late 14c. in English. Meaning “length of time included in the consciousness or observation of an individual” is from 1520s.
I am grown old and my memory is not as active as it used to be. When I was younger I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened. It is sad to go to pieces like this, but we all have to do it. [“Mark Twain,” “Autobiography”]
Meaning “that which is remembered; anything fixed in or recalled to the mind” is by 1817, though the correctness of this use was disputed in 19c. The word was extended, with more or less of figurativeness, in 19c. to analogous physical processes. Computer sense, “device which stores information,” is from 1946. Related: Memories.
The Vir does not deal in “memory”.
The Vir deals in “Armory”.
In order to “think”, the Ser needs to restrain the Me. It needs to restrain the Ma, Me, Mi, Mo, Mu, My, because this is what roots it in the Earth, as an “Earthling”... y. Through YI, that is upright towards Se, the Ser “thinks”, it is with “Men”, Me Na. Me negated. Me has the urges, dictating the Y towards the left, into the y.
Etymology of mnemonic (adj.)
1753, “aiding the memory, intended to assist the memory;” 1825, “pertaining to the memory,” a back-formation from mnemonics, or from a Latinized form of Greek mnēmonikos “of or pertaining to memory,” from mnēmōn (genitive mnēmonos) “remembering, mindful,” from mnēmē “memory, a remembrance, record, an epitaph; memory as a mental faculty,” from base of mnasthai “remember,” from PIE root *men- (1) “to think.” The noun meaning “mnemonic device” is from 1858. Related: Mnemonical (1660s).
Etymology of *men- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to think,” with derivatives referring to qualities and states of mind or thought.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit manas- “mind, spirit,” matih “thought,” munih “sage, seer;” Avestan manah- “mind, spirit;” Greek memona “I yearn,” mania “madness,” mantis “one who divines, prophet, seer;” Latin mens “mind, understanding, reason,” memini “I remember,” mentio “remembrance;” Lithuanian mintis “thought, idea,” Old Church Slavonic mineti “to believe, think,” Russian pamjat “memory;” Gothic gamunds, Old English gemynd “memory, remembrance; conscious mind, intellect.”
Mens is a process, driven by YI to restrain the base Pathos, or urges that hold the subject under “possession” in “purpose”. The purpose of the Ma is centralizing the “womb”, and that of replication from, and out of the Ua, Ue, Ui, Uo, Uu, Uy. Formed with the Se and the Te is Ut, and Us.
Negating the Me, or the condition of the Ma, the conclusion of the Ma... is not through shame. Yi is the energetics that leads to “Discipline”. Cutting down the condition to its parts in order to have Mind over it.
The Vir does not have “Mind”, in the phonetic sense. It has “Cognition”, in the phonetic sense, and it can not have “Cognition” without a sense of conquest or governance, and the energetics of those others who seek to subjugate them. No sense of others seeking to subjugate youse is on account that nothing in you is felt to be of the “Value” another would seek to exploit. Cognition all has the sense of “something” at the “Core”, the kernel, that is of such Value that others will come for it.
Ma, to Me, comes for it, with the “attraction” for it to be “subverted”; that is... turned towards it. A Ver being subverted is more valuable than the “subjugation” that comes to a Humanus, or a Mer... and a SER. In actuality, neither Mer nor Ser gets “subverted”; they get “subjugated”. Subversion is, in many ways... towards the Ver, to be “Veered” away from what it is.
Negating the “mind” of driven by conditional Ma or Me... the first phases that often occur are “projections”, in that of Me in disarray. One begins to look like a mountain refusing to budge. The Ma centered see too much “projected” by way of one's own “standing”.
Etymology of *men- (2)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to project.”
One will drift, and stand out... like a mountain with its peaks.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit manya “nape of the neck;” Latin mons “mountain,” eminere “to stand out;” Old Irish muin “neck,” Welsh mwnwgl “neck,” mwng “mane;” Welsh mynydd “mountain.”
This, if one travels to the Right, in the route Y, with Yi.
But when one travels in negation of the condition of Ma, but in actuality, they are of Ma, and they are Mer, having all the emotions of Ma “memorized”... then they will come back, to remain. They will be in denial, perhaps with shame of their Me, but then, become rooted in the Left; Ya, and Ye, come Yy... into y. They will “remain” in their men. Their “mentality” will be fixed, not advancing.
Etymology of *men- (3)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to remain.” It forms all or part of: maisonette; manor; manse; mansion; menage; menial; immanent; permanent; remain; remainder.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Persian mandan “to remain;” Greek menein “to remain;” Latin manere “to stay, abide.”
The mentality of the Mer would succumb to its despair, and become with remembrance of its statute as “small”, its esteem low, to the earth, and the ground, as humus... and again, remain of the “Race of Men”, the “small and isolated minded”. The route will be instigative of their fear, their insecurity, and resolved, the Y become Yy.
It is not merely y. It is Yy in that they tried to restrain the Me, but they failed, and became rooted even deeper into remembrance of their kind, the Haima, the Hayyin, with double its roots, and the Harya, with its angh, its anxiety, angus, and anger, feeling isolated... even with others so bountiful in the bonds.
Etymology of *men- (4)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “small, isolated.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek monos “single, alone,” manos “rare, sparse;” Armenian manr “thin, slender, small.”
The “mind” needs restraint only if it is a part of the Route of a Ser. A Ser can route to the right of the Y, on account of Yi, or upright, advancing eager energy. But a Mer can only forever be with men, an isolated and tormented “mind”.
A Vir, in actuality, is not with “mind”. A Ver does not need to negate the Me, the condition of Ma. The ancestors of the Vir traveled long the Route of the Right, unhooking the y into the Y, governed by the advancing and eager energy with the Yi, towards taking the “spikes” of the Y, turning them “right” into the K.
The I of the Yi dominates the directions, changing the order of the phonetics from Yi, to K, to Ki. V pointed to the right, standing upright on the I, leads to the next “Advancement” with the added I, to form Ki. But that V is trying to get its own I, or upright overstanding, in Victory, which is Vi. All of this, is “Versus”.
Mind is moved from men, when the negation comes, and begets the success from conditional Ma, called Me, to that of upright standing of Mi. The M has V too high to achieve. M is the V, out of reach. It is V, too far along the “Tree”. No matter which side one endeavors in the Y, they are faced with the long line, and adverse left and right of M. The roots are missing. The roots are captured in two upside down u's as m. And this moves too high the V in M.
Often, I will use the bridge term “monk”, but at times, advance the thinker towards “ascetic”, and even that is a bridge. Muni, monk, ascetic... all fall short; m.
All of them are under the “admonishment” of the Ha.
Etymology of admonish (v.)
mid-14c., amonesten “remind, urge, exhort, warn, give warning,” from Old French amonester “urge, encourage, warn” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *admonestare, from Latin admonere “bring to mind, remind (of a debt);” also “warn, advise, urge,” from ad “to,” here probably with frequentative force (see ad-) + monere “to admonish, warn, advise,” from PIE *moneie- “to make think of, remind,” suffixed (causative) form of root *men- (1) “to think.”
The -d- was restored, on the Latin model, in English as in French (Modern French admonester). The ending was influenced by words in -ish (such as astonish, abolish). Related: Admonished; admonishing. Latin also had commonere “to remind,” promonere “to warn openly,” submonere “to advise privately” (source of summon).
The Magus has put upon youse for a long time your sense of the ansu, as their “hansu”... Hahura Mahda, Mazda. I have “Cognition”, not “remembrance” of this.
Etymology of Ahura Mazda
the God of Zoroastrianism, from Avestan ahura- “spirit, lord,” from Indo-Iranian *asuras, from suffixed form of PIE root *ansu- “spirit” (see Aesir) + Avestan mazda- “wise,” from PIE *mens-dhe- “to set the mind” (from root *men- (1) “to think” + root *dhe- “to set, put”).
To know, is to negate the G, the g. It is to discern from the Ga the “hest”, the “demand” of the Ha. I know better.
Falsely, Co has been reduced in etymology, deprived of the Ko from that of Ka, Ke, Ki, Ko, Ku, Ky. Co, in etymology, is “collectivized”, and is Ky. Ko Gi Ta Re is not the same. But I can not fix this right now.
Etymology of co-
in Latin, the form of com- “together, with” in compounds with stems beginning in vowels, h-, and gn-; see com-. Taken in English from 17c. as a living prefix meaning “together, mutually, in common,” and used promiscuously with native words (co-worker) and Latin-derived words not beginning with vowels (codependent), including some already having it (co-conspirator).
Etymology of com-
word-forming element usually meaning “with, together,” from Latin com, archaic form of classical Latin cum “together, together with, in combination,” from PIE *kom- “beside, near, by, with” (compare Old English ge-, German ge-). The prefix in Latin sometimes was used as an intensive.
Before vowels and aspirates, it is reduced to co-; before -g-, it is assimilated to cog- or con-; before -l-, assimilated to col-; before -r-, assimilated to cor-; before -c-, -d-, -j-, -n-, -q-, -s-, -t-, and -v-, it is assimilated to con-, which was so frequent that it often was used as the normal form.
Ko Ma, the Ka, Ke, Ki coming back around, encircling the Ma, leading to discernment, the cutting up of the parts, generating “Discipline” to navigate the Ma and its Me. The Ma and the Me controlled narratively by the Magus, who compels togetherness around the Ma.
Ko Na Ma would have been “to know”; would have been to know the centralized theme of Ma so much, as to not abide by it. The Ha Ga, or “Hag” would drive all things out of “hiding”, that is doing what they “hest”... and in this “hiding” they were with, and formed as “cache”. That was Ka Ag. Aware of, alert to that of the drive of the Ha Ga, thus “hidden together” in defense. Ka Ke Ha Ga Ha Va.
Etymology of cache (n.)
1797, “hiding place,” from French Canadian trappers' slang, “hiding place for stores and provisions” (1660s), a back-formation from French cacher “to hide, conceal” (13c., Old French cachier), from Vulgar Latin *coacticare “store up, collect, compress,” frequentative of Latin coactare “constrain,” from coactus, past participle of cogere “to collect,” literally “to drive together,” from com- “together” (see co-) + agere “to set in motion, drive; to do, perform” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move”). The sense was extended by 1830s to “anything stored in a hiding place.”
Vigilance was originally a major component of “cognition”, and this term was massively reduced, and bastardized to mere “collective knowing”, and G was added to the N, with first, a warning, and later, a possession. Never forget the G, the g. The snake that is in the Ga Re Den.
Etymology of cognition (n.)
mid-15c., cognicioun, “ability to comprehend, mental act or process of knowing,” from Latin cognitionem (nominative cognitio) “a getting to know, acquaintance, knowledge,” noun of action from past-participle stem of cognoscere “get to know, recognize,” from assimilated form of com “together” (see co-) + gnoscere “to know” (from PIE root *gno- “to know”). In 17c. the meaning was extended to include perception and sensation.
The Vir, then, bridges from “cognition” to “Vigilance”. The Vir does not “know”. The Vir does not “remember”. The Vir is not with cognition. All that is about Validity made aware and overstood in the I, is that of “Vigilance”, where all the phonetics are preserved as the figurative type of “knowing of Validity” the Vir has, as its aim and disposition.
For the Mer, there is “knowing”, like “gnawing” at things. For the Ser, there is first “knowing”, then there is “cogitation”, then there can be “Vigilance”, but only as a culture. For the Vir, it is not a culture... it is an innate trait.
Vigilance translated the G in “gnosis”... but this is lost, and I will not redeem it.
Etymology of *gno-
*gnō-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to know.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit jna- “know;” Avestan zainti- “knowledge,” Old Persian xšnasatiy “he shall know;” Old Church Slavonic znati “recognizes,” Russian znat “to know;” Latin gnoscere “get to know,” nobilis “known, famous, noble;” Greek gignōskein “to know,” gnōtos “known,” gnōsis “knowledge, inquiry;” Old Irish gnath “known;” German kennen “to know,” Gothic kannjan “to make known.”
In Vigilance, the Vir... does not “come to know” that “together”, with others. The Ver does not “learn” even, in the phonetic sense. Armed with Rta, the Vir “Ratiocinates”. This is why throughout my writings, I have a preference for bridge terms made more complex, and precise, accurate, and accountable.
I have been securing this route. Recall that of “Call”, that of Ka En, and “motion” made clear, in the sense of the precursor Min trait, before angh, and now, notice the root of “Ratiocination” corollary to Ko Na, or kona, and ken, to “hasten”, and discover the root of “knowledge” without the G, and why in “English” the Knights of the Helmet kept the G excluded, returning the notion to kona, with the K present, but the phonetics starts being “no” in the negative sense.
Kona is in the English word “knowledge”, redeeming it. “To hasten” ought to strike out at the reader.
Etymology of ratiocination (n.)
“process of reasoning, mental process of passing from the cognition of premises to the cognition of the conclusion,” 1520s, from Latin ratiocinationem (nominative ratiocinatio) “a reasoning, calm reasoning,” noun of action from past-participle stem of ratiocinari “to reckon, compute, calculate; to deliberate, meditate; to reason, argue, infer.” This is a compound of ratio “reckoning, calculation,” also “judgment, reason” (see ratio) + -cinari, which probably is related to conari “to endeavor, to try,” from PIE *kona-, from root *ken- “to hasten, set oneself in motion” (see deacon).
Most writers make ratiocination synonymous with reasoning. J.S. Mill and others hold that the word is usually limited to necessary reasoning. [Century Dictionary]
We, of the Vir, say to “Ratiocinate”, versus to “know”, knowing in English, redemption of the term has occurred, but in back formation through the ancient tongues, the G like in “tongues” of the “bangu” is impregnating the results.
Ken is not “to hasten” in this corrupted sense. It is to be “active”, in “motion of “uprightness”, and dia was not servant, it was a “thorough sense, from all sides”. Thus, a “deacon” was that of “one with a thorough consideration of all things, in motion towards uprightness.” Notice the “hasten” element too here, as well as the religious corruption of the term, making it a “servant”, a “servant of the Church”.
Etymology of deacon (n.)
Middle English deken, “one who reads the Gospel in divine worship, one of a body of assistants to a priest or other clergyman,” from Old English deacon, diacon, from Late Latin diaconus, from Greek diakonos “servant of the church, religious official,” literally “servant,” from dia- here perhaps “thoroughly, from all sides,” + PIE *kon-o-, from root *ken- “to hasten, set oneself in motion.” Related: Deaconess; deaconship.
Kona and ken are best rendered in the English term, the noun “conation”. This gives “illumination” to the essence of the term.
Etymology of conation (n.)
in the philosophical sense of “voluntary agency” (embracing desire and volition), 1836, from Latin conationem (nominative conatio) “an endeavoring, effort,” noun of action from past participle stem of conari “to endeavor, to try,” from PIE *kona-, from root *ken- “to hasten, set oneself in motion” (see deacon).
This is the essence that precedes even that of “eagerness”. Knowledge is a “conation” in that most essential sense, and “curiosity”, though long traveled “apart”, is born out of “conation”, in that it is an eagerness to learn, and to know.
Calling on the “hasty hags”
The two forces of “Affirmative” and “Negationary”
“Haste” added to this trait of conation is a corruption, giving the angst, the anxiety and violence to the trait, when in actuality, “haste” and timely aspects are not correlated to “conation”.
Etymology of haste (n.)
late 13c., “hurrying, haste; celerity, swiftness, speed;” c. 1300, “need for quick action, urgency;” from Old French haste “haste, urgency, hastiness” (12c., Modern French hâte), from Frankish *haifst “violence” or another Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *haifstiz (source also of Gothic haifsts “strife,” Old English hæste “violent, vehement, impetuous”). From late 14c. as “undue haste, rashness, unwise or unseemly quickness.” To make haste “act quickly” is recorded by 1530s.
The Haima often did things in “haste”. This is a trait born out of them, their remembrance, passed on to their Hayyin, their Harya, their Magus, who in “hest”, delivering their demands, often do so in “haste”.
The Vir do not engage in “hastly” actions, or Ways. This is a part of the anxiety of remembrance that is Humanus. A Vir will often be observed avoiding fuss and haste in favor of ease and economization.
On the individual level, when I was engaged in the armed forces and had to be around the infantry as the bridge of my soldiering, I had often, more so than not, observed undue haste, or that of hastiness plaguing the realm. “Hurry up”, and “wait”.
Etymology of haste (v.)
late 13c., from Old French haster “hurry, make haste; urge, hurry along” (Modern French hâter), from haste “haste, urgency” (see haste). Now largely superseded by hasten (1560s). Related: Hasted; hasting.
Form a secured sense of “haste” and “have” to get a sense of the nature of “have” and “having”, in the Patterned sense of “possessive”. Humanus says to their “mating targets”... they are to “have” and to “hold”.
The Vir does not have nor hold that of anything. This is not a part of the Way of the Vir. This is the remembrance, the motions, the men of that of Haima, of Hayyin, of Harya, of the Magus, and their minions collectively called Humanus.
The phonetics of the HUmanus are mixed in with the phonetics of the Vir, and I am “cutting them all” that of “apart”.
Etymology of hasty (adj.)
mid-14c., “early; demanding haste, urgent; quick-tempered, angry;” late 14c. “speedy, swift, quick,” by 1500s, from haste (n.) + -y (2); replacing or nativizing earlier hastif (c. 1300) “eager, impetuous,” from Old French hastif “speedy, rapid; forward, advanced; rash, impetuous” (12c., Modern French hâtif), from haste (see haste (n.)). Meaning “requiring haste” is late 14c. (this is the sense in hasty-pudding, 1590s, so called because it was made quickly); that of “eager, rash” is from early 15c. Related: Hastiness. Old French also had a form hasti (for loss of terminal -f, compare joli/jolif, etc.), which may have influenced the form of the English word.
This anxious energy of “hurrying” in “haste” was noticed first, when the Haima were taken in as refugees in the “First Conflict” of the Min, long ago, before the “Coming”, or the Ka On.
It was an “error” upon sight, as those with Discipline and Restraint of the Me, the Ma, and its conditions, knew “haste”, or this display was back to the Ma. It's a “hurry” into the emotions. It's an emotion that flips the y into a h. It's not merely “rooting in the ground”. It is men, or projecting upon the “roots” with “haste” and “neglect”.
Hurried states are “agitations”, which were known only in the Ha as “Hagitations”. The drive towards “haste” and to “hurry” that of others, to act in “behest” or at the “hest” thereof, was to “agitate”, to “hag”, to “haggle”... as “slave drivers”.
Etymology of agitate (v.)
1580s, “to disturb,” from Latin agitatus, past participle of agitare “to put in constant or violent motion, drive onward, impel,” frequentative of agere “to set in motion, drive, drive forward,” figuratively “incite to action; keep in movement, stir up” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move”).
The sense of “move to and fro, shake” is from 1590s. The meaning “to discuss, debate” is from 1640s, that of “keep (a political or social question) constantly in public view” is by 1828. Related: Agitated; agitating.
The Magus, that of the modern set of Ha and Ga origination, does not engage in debate for “Ratiocination”, but instead, it “haggles” its way through debate in “agitation”.
Etymology of agitation (n.)
1560s, “debate, discussion” (on the notion of “a mental tossing to and fro”), from French agitation, from Latin agitationem (nominative agitatio) “motion, agitation,” noun of action from past-participle stem of agitare “move to and fro,” frequentative of agere “to set in motion, drive forward; keep in movement” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move”).
The physical sense of “state of being shaken or moving violently” is from 1580s; the meaning “state of being mentally agitated” is from 1722; that of “arousing and sustaining public attention” to some political or social cause is from 1828. Old English glossed Latin agitatio with unstilnis.
Agitated, as the Magus is easy to be rooted in its “Left paradigm”, the Magus aggressively tries to “drive” the discourse towards its interest.
The Magus is, and always has been an “agitator”, even when it is the one accusing others of “agitation”. They accuse others of agitation when they are not permitted to “drive” the discourse; when their aggression is “checked” by resistance and self-defense. Demanding to “drive” all courses, these agitators shame “stubbornness”, “resistance”, and “autonomy”.
They have at their “core”, remembrance, or motions, or emotions... Ag. That is “Hag”, but the H has been dropped. The Ga, Ge, Gi, Go, Gu, Gy is an agitated energetics to “drive”, that is control and manage others, and they do this through the conditional Controls they “govern”... which they govern in “agitation”, when someone is called the “agitator” for resisting. In actuality, they are the source of agitation, and thus, the agitator.
Etymology of agitator (n.)
1640s, agent noun from agitate (v.); originally “elected representative of the common soldiers in Cromwell's army,” who brought grievances (chiefly over lack of pay) to their officers and Parliament.
The political sense is recorded by 1734, and negative overtones began with its association with Irish patriots such as Daniel O'Connell (1775-1847). Historically, in American English, often with outside and referring to people who stir up a supposedly contented class or race. Latin agitator meant “a driver, a charioteer.”
Those who resist and/or complain of the governing conditions will be called the “agitators”, for revealing in activation the “agitation” of the “agitated”, who is the Magus, once “hags” of the Ancient world. The Magus often looks haggardly.
“No, no, no, Mr. Volt, you are making all of this up. There is no connection”, you say, “with Magus, and a hag. That is absurd. That is like saying, there is a connection with 'witches' and 'warlocks' to that of 'magis' and 'magic', and thus the 'Magus'. That is like saying there is a clear entertainment realm of magic, and magicians, to that of the notion of a 'Ha', a 'Ga', and a 'hag', or 'Haga'. No, no, surely this can not be made evident in all these etymologies.”
But...
Woops...
Etymology of hag (n.)
early 13c., “repulsive old woman” (rare before 16c.), probably from Old English hægtes, hægtesse “witch, sorceress, enchantress, fury,” shortened on the assumption that -tes was a suffix. The Old English word is from Proto-Germanic *hagatusjon, which is of unknown origin. Dutch heks, German Hexe “witch” are similarly shortened from cognate Middle Dutch haghetisse, Old High German hagzusa.
The first element probably is cognate with Old English haga “enclosure, portion of woodland marked off for cutting” (see hedge (n.)). Old Norse had tunriða and Old High German zunritha, both literally “hedge-rider,” used of witches and ghosts. The second element in the prehistoric compound may be connected with Norwegian tysja “fairy; crippled woman,” Gaulish dusius “demon,” Lithuanian dvasia “spirit,” from PIE *dhewes- “to fly about, smoke, be scattered, vanish.”
One of the magic words for which there is no male form, suggesting its original meaning was close to “diviner, soothsayer,” which were always female in northern European paganism, and hægtesse seem at one time to have meant “woman of prophetic and oracular powers” (Ælfric uses it to render the Greek “pythoness,” the voice of the Delphic oracle), a figure greatly feared and respected. Later, the word was used of village wise women.
Haga is also the haw- in hawthorn, which is an important tree in northern European pagan religion. There may be several layers of folk etymology here. Confusion or blending with heathenish is suggested by Middle English hæhtis, hægtis “hag, witch, fury, etc.,” and haetnesse “goddess,” used of Minerva and Diana.
If the hægtesse once was a powerful supernatural woman (in Norse it is an alternative word for Norn, any of the three weird sisters, the equivalent of the Fates), it might originally have carried the hawthorn sense. Later, when the pagan magic was reduced to local scatterings, it might have had the sense of “hedge-rider,” or “she who straddles the hedge,” because the hedge was the boundary between the civilized world of the village and the wild world beyond. The hægtesse would have a foot in each reality. Even later, when it meant the local healer and root collector, living in the open and moving from village to village, it may have had the mildly pejorative Middle English sense of hedge- (hedge-priest, etc.), suggesting an itinerant sleeping under bushes. The same word could have contained all three senses before being reduced to its modern one.
Je m'en câlice.
The Advent of the Vir, before completion, put my published vocabulary, when combined with the other 4 works, over that of 17k words. Just in the King James Bible, its vocabulary was 14k words. That was a collaboration.
Now, of course, the English I am using is that of a collaborative English, and in back formation, as a “Genius”, a Ge Ni Us of some odd sort, I ought to perform better than my “previous peers”. But none of youse do. Youse have access to the same as “I” in my uprightness. I “learned” mostly for free, and certainly free of any education or schooled nonsense.
I “learned” this “English”, and read all of those minds called “brilliant” who used language this “Way”. Their books are free. I avoided merely using that which I did not either understand or overstand, labeling such things as X, or unknown, till being resolved in cross correlated language studies.
Meaning, I looked everything up, especially after my mind said, “X here is resolved, through correlating the 'Data On Previous Engagement' of this term and/or notion”. My Mind automated the resolution of a new X when its foundation was already resolved in a previous X made “known”, or that is Ratiocinated.
It is not on me, that your kind does not Ratiocinate with ease, but must “hurry” itself through schooling stressed, working hard to be “smart”. “Smarts” is not sufficient enough, for these notions. One has to Ratiocinate, and this is not hurried in haste, by the way of the “Hags”, or the Haga. This is “Naga”.
This is a “No Go” for what it is that is Ratiocination.
There are expressions in English that mean far more than you have ever Y chosen to ask “why”. Huh? “Y” versus “why”. HUH? No connection? “Hurry to huh”? No connection? All just phonetically coincident?
Why say you have been “had”, you have been “hoodwinked”, you have been “led astray”? For this, certainly... THIS is what THEY DO.
Who is “THEY”? Why, they are the ones that “hagged” your ass and “hurried” you through your “hungers” to be “hampsters” of “hump” trapped in the “house” of humping called “society”.
You have been bewitched, starved from the robust, and made to be “lean”, and “gaunt”. “Gaunt”. A witch is gaunt. A hag is gaunt. What... Ga Ua Na Te? What?
Nah, that can not mean anything phonetically. No way language works this way.
Youse have not been merely “had”. Youse have been “hagged”.
Etymology of hagged (adj.)
c. 1700, from hag, by influence of haggard. Originally “bewitched,” also “lean, gaunt,” as bewitched persons and animals were believed to become.
The Qayyin built a “hedge” to keep out the Haga, the hags. Not the other way around, you dopes. Remember, Hawwah came to the “Garden” with Seth but was kept out by fortifications. Remember, the ones who were mentioned first to have fortifications, and the sense of property, in back formation, are CAIN and his KIN that came from him. A “haw” to keep out Hawwah, your Haima mothers of the Hayyin.
Etymology of haw (n.)
“enclosure,” Old English haga “enclosure, fortified enclosure; hedge,” from Proto-Germanic *hag- (source also of Old Norse hagi, Old Saxon hago, German Hag “hedge;” Middle Dutch hage, Dutch haag, as in the city name The Hague), from PIE root *kagh- “to catch seize; wickerwork fence” (see hedge (n.), and compare hag). Meaning “fruit of the hawthorn bush” (Old English) is perhaps short for *hægberie.
Etymology of hag-ridden (n.)
1680s, “ridden by hags or witches,” past-participle adjective from hag-ride (1660s); see hag (n.) + ridden. From 1702 as “oppressed, harassed;” 1758 as “afflicted by nightmares.” An old term for sleep paralysis (the sensation of being held immobile in bed, often by a heavy weight, and accompanied by a sense of alien presence). A holed stone hung over the bed was said to prevent it.
Etymology of hex (v.)
1830, American English, from Pennsylvania German hexe “to practice witchcraft,” from German hexen “to hex,” related to Hexe “witch,” from Middle High German hecse, hexse, from Old High German hagazussa (see hag). Noun meaning “magic spell” is first recorded 1909; earlier it meant “a witch” (1856). Compare Middle English hexte “the devil” (mid-13c.), perhaps originally “sorcerer,” probably from Old English haehtis.
Why is the H or h “hidden”? It's been removed in many places, because there is this ancient notion that in order to remove the “hex”, the “power”, or the “spell” cast upon the “golem”, one needs to “know” through “conation” the name of the “scribe”.
When you know the name of the scribe, you know the intent. When you know the intent, you know the solution. When you know the solution, you become freed. When you become freed, the one named becomes agitated, or that is, their agitation called peace during submission becomes revealed. From “caring” to “agitated” so quickly, with “haste”.
You do not know their names. You do not know their history, because they have “remade” it all, to confuse you.
Their name is the Haima.
Their name is the Hayyin.
Their name is the Harya.
Their condition is the Magus.
Their status, everywhere, is “Governance”.
In modern times, there are names and words you are forbidden from using. There are protected “caste” you are not allowed to critique and you are not allowed to challenge. Evidence they must be the ones “governing”, because who else can forbid, and criminalize speech and thought, but those with “hastened” Controls? Who can forbid you from thought, other than the schools, the media, the institutions? For any other, you would call it disagreement.
Why in the past, was it an expression to say “fag hag”? Now, I have never used that myself, because my temperament has no use for such expressions.
But coming out of Brooklyn, I heard this expression as a self designator. Meaning, the females who called themselves this could not be called “bigots”, but they were the tolerant and accepting ones. They were the progressives.
But with this, they called themselves “hags”, and they looked “haggardly”, but they also prided themselves, or promoted themselves as good for keeping the company of “queers” with their “sexual differences” — at that time freely called “deviance”, but today, such criticism is called “hate speech”. But these hags were also calling their peers “fags”. But they justified it by calling themselves “fag hags”. Thus, it made the expression acceptable.
I heard it first from these females who were predominantly “Ashkenazim” in Brooklyn, perhaps a coincidence, before I ever heard “fag” used as a negative connotation.
Etymology of fag (n.2)
shortening of faggot (n.2) “male homosexual,” by 1921. Fag hag “heterosexual woman who keeps company with gay men” attested by 1969.
This expression, if attested by 1969, came out of the progressive literature or culture, and through the Ashkenazim, often college educated female, I would hear this around 1985. That means, it was a rather young expression.
Now, I knew these females, and thus, I would learn of “homosexual” so-called males through them. I am an individualist, so I never have a concern for how others live their lives, what their preferences are, and how they get expressed, so long as consensual.
However, I had to avoid being around these females, because the males looked at me like they wanted to diddle me, and that was a preference. I have never been diddled, because I have an eye for diddlers.
The “diddlers”, or would-be, were looked at in a way of “sacredness”, and on account of this, I began to ask around. Why do these “fag hags” — their words not mine — look upon these gays as “sacred” and “progressive”?
I was able to study the ancient religions so early, and so, this was not new. But to think there is not connection with the “hag” and the “fag” is absurd. To think the term “fag” is not from “hag”, is even more absurd. To not see the Ag in both, is blind.
My sense of ancient languages developed before I was 9 years of age. While I was learning what youse said about yourselves and each other, I was also researching the language branches it came from.
The Ha makes all things around them “progressive”. What is innate to them, becomes “holy”. What is innate to them, becomes “sacred”. Their “hags” are “hagio” in disposition. They become “saints”, they become “saintly”, and “holy”... and of the “holy” and their “temples”... it has been observed, and said, they attract “diddlers”.
I often saw in the priests they had the same hagios as the Ga yin, or the “gays” did. A priest was just gay in “hiding”, on account of times that saw his disposition as “deviant”.
Nope. I would not be diddled, and I could tell in seconds who had diddling proclivities. No one ever tried to “force” themselves on me, because it was clear even at a young age... I was a DESTROYER. Come at me with aims of usurpation, and you would be “terminated”.
Etymology of hagio-
before vowels hagi-, word-forming element meaning “of a saint, saintly, holy,” from Greek hagios “sacred, devoted to the gods” (of things), “holy, pure” (of persons), in Ecclesiastical Greek, “a saint,” which is perhaps from PIE *yag- “to worship, reverence” (source also of Greek agnos “chaste,” Sanskrit yajati “reveres (a god) with sacrifices, worships,” Old Persian ayadana “temple”).
The phonetics of “haggis” were always odd to me, because the etymologies have too many words I have shown, already, form a connection.
Etymology of haggis (n.)
dish of chopped entrails, c. 1400, now chiefly Scottish, but it was common throughout England to c. 1700, of uncertain origin. Perhaps from Old French hacheiz “minced meat,” from agace “magpie,” on analogy of the odds and ends the bird collects. The other theory [Klein, Watkins, The Middle English Compendium] traces it to Old English haggen “to chop,” or directly from Old Norse höggva “to hew, cut, strike, smite” (see hack (v.1)).
Why do so many females on the “Left” come to look like “hags”, and score lower in attractiveness as “feminists” than “feminine” females, often on the “Right”?
Why do they look like witches, and no one points this obvious set of physical traits out?
I saw a lot of them in my youth, and tried to figure out what made them differ from all the other females I saw, of declared and different ethnicities.
Something caused difference in them. And in haste, hurry, anxiety, and AGITATION, the behavior of these “witches”, these “hags” was always predictable and clear, and more so... they too, felt this was the case, and expressed. More often than not, they were “hags” or “witches” that concerned themselves with alternative health and medicine, on account, they were always sickly and gaunt.
But, nah, can not be any connections in these things. Call me crazy.
In Brooklyn, the Ashkenazim taught me the word “haggle”. Never let them tell you the price is fixed. Cut away at it, bring it down, appeal to their need to sell by not being easy. Haggle the prices.
I learned how to cut prices on things, and eventually it was a sport to me. Maybe this is on account of my maternal side being Ashkenazim, or maybe it was just cultural. For me, the price did not agitate me. It was just sporty, to see others haggle, and to engage in it.
Etymology of haggle (v.)
1570s, “to cut unevenly, mangle in cutting” (implied in haggler “clumsy workman”), frequentative of haggen “to chop” (see hack (v.1)). Sense of “argue about price” first recorded c. 1600, probably from notion of chopping away. Related: Haggled; haggling.
But often, is it a “haggle”, or an agitated “argle”, forming an “argument”?
Etymology of argle (v.)
1580s “to argue obstinately, wrangle,” “prob. a popular perversion of argue, or confusion of that word with haggle” [OED]. Reduplicated form argle-bargle is from 1822 (sometimes argy-bargy, 1857); As a noun, “wrangling” from 1861.
I observed too many who were “dickering” often, and I saw this as being liken to the desire to diddle as well.
Etymology of dicker (v.)
“haggle, bargain in a petty way,” 1802 (implied in dickering), American English, perhaps from dicker (n.) “a unit or package of tens,” especially hides (attested from late 13c.), a Germanic word (compare Swedish decker, Danish deger, German decher), which is perhaps from Latin decuria “parcel of ten” (supposedly a unit of barter on the Roman frontier; compare German Decher “set of ten things”), from decem “ten” (from PIE root *dekm- “ten”) on model of centuria from centum.
Etymology of diddle (v.)
a set of more or less unrelated meanings that have gathered around a suggestive sound: From 1806 as “to cheat, swindle” (slang); also dialectal duddle, diddle “to totter” (1630s); “move rapidly up and down or backward and forward” (1786). Meaning “waste time” is recorded from 1825. Meaning “to have sex with” is from 1879; that of “to masturbate” (especially of women) is from 1950s. Related: Diddled; diddler; diddling.
Those in a “hurry”, often in “haste” of anx or angh tend to be diddlers in many ways, so much to say, the very industry of females diddling themselves, and males diddling themselves, is dominated by a kind. Meaning, markets of diddling do not have origins held in secrecy.
The markets of diddling are some of the oldest markets in existence. The diddle market required the Virtuous market, where it was mostly males, without females, to do their diddling for them.
Instead, caravans of diddlers were established. Many of your politicians are from these diddler lines. The more Control and Management one has in the “hierarchy”, the more common it is for them to get their diddling on; and that is why diddling markets and culture always rise to the top of “governance”, and is afforded its liberties.
In ancient time, those of the Haima, the Hayyin — who were not Harya, on account of the absence of raiders — would caravan up, and move with pro diddlers along the routes, establishing “diddling houses”.
They would then take their wealth and diddle in the affairs of others, “cheating” and “swindling” their way to Control and Management, moving out all realms of Virtue taking the lands, and hiring thugs to diddle others on their behalf.
Organized diddling is how many money makers got to where they are. The Hayyin are prone to diddle. They are more diddly than most other kinds.
When they get caught diddling, and they have yet to advance such as normative, they “dodder”. They shake, and they tremble, but they shake and they tremble closer to normalization.
Right before the orchestrated collapse, DIDDLING is always at an all-time high, seeking to become normalized. Sexualizing the young, and causing rifts between the sexes is all diddling behavior. Sexuality is a weapon the Hayyin always use.
They sexually possess their young, for trade into other families, and they sexually possess each other, in agitation, and they sexually corrupt, or rather reveal others, through enticement. They do not in actuality corrupt others. They reveal, in their enticements, what others naturally wanted themselves. It's not a corruption; it's revelation, and governments will be shown to be what they are, on account... that NO GOVERNMENT takes all of its fight and fights the DIDDLING market, that will often have SLAVES for diddling as well.
Government does not fight the slavery you can not see... they only fight the obvious kinds that agitate. The invisible ones, they sustain, because without their sustainment, the DIDDLERS would not have their targets to DIDDLE.
I learned of “dandies” when I was young, and what the “plays for attention” were, and how they were mechanized. Dither that way, diddle this way, dandle about, and toddle your toddlers... you Humanus are “sick fucks” even in the normative sense. You're all “perverts”.
Etymology of dodder (v.)
“to shake, tremble,” 1610s, perhaps a variant of dadder, from Middle English daderen “to quake, tremble” (mid-14c.) a frequentative formation on a pattern similar to totter, patter, etc. Wedgwood points to a large group of similar words signifying motion to and fro, including dither, diddle, dandle, toddle, doddle (“shake the head,” 1650s). Related: Doddered; doddering.
But in actuality, it is not a noun. It's what you do. Just like how you all remove the “Father” or the “Pattern”, you try to “turn” or “Veer” things away from the Pa, Pe, Pi, Po, Pu, Py sense of things.
Etymology of pervert (v.)
late 14c., perverten (transitive), “to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one; to distort natural order, misdirect misapply (justice, law, truth, etc.); to turn (something or someone) from right opinion or conduct,” from Old French pervertir “pervert, undo, destroy” (12c.) and directly from Latin pervertere “overthrow, overturn,” figuratively “to corrupt, subvert, abuse,” literally “turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per “away” (see per) + vertere “to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed” (from PIE root *wer- (2) “to turn, bend”).
Related: Perverted; perverting. Replaced native froward, which embodies the same image. Old English had mishweorfed “perverted, inverted,” an identical formation to the Latin word using native elements.
Even the term “pervert” has been perverted, because the perverts control what is considered the “doctrine”. When perverts control the doctrine, the doctrine is perverted. All doctrine is perverted by the perverts that hold its reigns.
Etymology of pervert (n.)
1660s, “one who has forsaken a doctrine or system regarded as true, an apostate,” from pervert (v.). The psychological sense of “one who has a perversion of the sexual instinct” is attested by 1897 (Havelock Ellis), originally especially of homosexuals, short for sexual pervert, which is attested by 1889.
Etymology of deprave (v.)
late 14c., depraven, “corrupt, lead astray, pervert,” from Old French depraver “to pervert; accuse” (14c.) and directly from Latin depravare “distort, disfigure;” figuratively “to pervert, seduce, corrupt,” from de- “completely” (see de-) + pravus “crooked,” which is of unknown etymology. Related: Depraved; depraving.
CHAPTER 6
Language Heavy: Building out the needed lexicon, for the needed thought
12-02-2023
Language heavy, though as a figurative bridge to that of “Verbiage”. Language is born, these days, out of the way in which the Earth tribes use their “tongue”, versus the way some “others”, such as the Vir, would use their “minds”.
“Verbiage” goes beyond the “Mer utterances” of Earthlings. Language is mostly figurative in its models, but can be, and must be used to advance into the analytical forms. However, the commons, the many, the masses, the multitudes, and the generics do not often use language to go beyond the “Mer grunting” of the emotions. They use “language”, that is, their “tribal tongues”, to make requests, demands, to form and purport complaints and stresses, and excite in relief and pleasure.
As a bridge, I can use the term “language”. But there comes a certain point where instead, my “utterances” and “etches” are best called the work of the thinking of a Vir, and thus, “Verbiage”.
Etymology of language (n.)
late 13c., langage “words, what is said, conversation, talk,” from Old French langage “speech, words, oratory; a tribe, people, nation” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *linguaticum, from Latin lingua “tongue,” also “speech, language,” from PIE root *dnghu- “tongue.”
The -u- is an Anglo-French insertion (see gu-); it was not originally pronounced. Meaning “manner of expression” (vulgar language, etc.) is from c. 1300. Meaning “a language,” as English, French, Arabic, etc., is from c. 1300; Century Dictionary (1897) defines this as: “The whole body of uttered signs employed and understood by a given community as expressions of its thoughts; the aggregate of words, and of methods of their combination into sentences, used in a community for communication and record and for carrying on the processes of thought.” Boutkan (2005) writes: “In general, language unity exists as long as the language is capable of carrying out common innovations, but this does not preclude profound differences among dialects.”
In Middle English the word also was used of dialects:
Mercii, þat beeþ men of myddel Engelond[,] vnderstondeþ bettre þe side langages, norþerne and souþerne, þan norþerne and souþerne vnderstondeþ eiþer oþer. [Bartholomew Glanville, “De proprietatibus rerum,” c. 1240, translated by John of Trevisa c. 1398]
In oþir inglis was it drawin, And turnid ic haue it til ur awin Language of the norþin lede, Þat can na noþir inglis rede. [“Cursor Mundi,” early 14c.]
Language barrier attested from 1885.
De Na Ga Hu;
“It is NOT in what is SAID, by that of the Hu... but it is in what they DO.”
VerKu, to Verbu, to Verber... differ in all this.
Etymology of *dnghu-
*dnghū-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “tongue.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Latin lingua “tongue, speech, language” (from Old Latin dingua); Old Irish tenge, Welsh tafod, Lithuanian liežuvis, Old Church Slavonic jezyku “tongue;” Old English tunge “tongue; speech.”
Dnghu is the “tongue” that is “captured” and “set a certain way”. It is “prescribed speech”, that is, and has always been manufactured, in this era, by the Magi, the Magus, the cultural enforcement of the Society Advanced through the Majority from its elites, or its “overlords”.
Etymology of verbiage (n.)
“abundance of words,” 1721, from French verbiage “wordiness” (17c.), from verbier “to chatter,” from Old French verbe “word,” from Latin verbum “word” (see verb).
Etymology of verb (n.)
“a word that asserts or declares; that part of speech of which the office is predication, and which, either alone or with various modifiers or adjuncts, combines with a subject to make a sentence” [Century Dictionary], late 14c., from Old French verbe “word; word of God; saying; part of speech that expresses action or being” (12c.) and directly from Latin verbum “verb,” originally “a word,” from PIE root *were- (3) “to speak” (source also of Avestan urvata- “command;” Sanskrit vrata- “command, vow;” Greek rhētōr “public speaker,” rhetra “agreement, covenant,” eirein “to speak, say;” Hittite weriga- “call, summon;” Lithuanian vardas “name;” Gothic waurd, Old English word “word”).
The uttered and etched expressions of the Vir were based in what was called Vrta, which would become reduced, with the elimination of the V, to that of Rta. Rta is the foundation for “Ratio”, and “Ratio” for “Reason”. Rta too, would become replaced with LoGos.
Lo Go Se;
And the “Word of God”, and that of “methodical wording” would all be captured under this term, in Greek of “Logos”. “Logic” would be given its title and name, over that of “Ratiocination”.
With this added degree of realization, a reader and proper thinker would then see, at this time, the need to change the Third Discipline of “Mind” according to the Vir, from that of “Logic” to “Ratiocination”, and/or “Dialectics”.
-
Ipseity
-
Epistemology
-
Ratiocination
-
Ethics
-
Virtue
-
Jurisprudence
-
Warfare
By degree of a sense of all this, the one who is stunted, when asked of the Third Discipline, will say “Logic”, from “Logos”. They would think, and say... “But, you said... so many places... three is 'Logic'”. Yes, in this realm of building bridges through figurative and corrupted language, I have had to begin in “corruption”.
But the actual near character, for the Third Discipline, is “Ratiocination”, “Ratiocinate”, and so on.
“Logos” gives both the sense of the “divine word” and that of “Got”, or “God”, liken to the word “God”, at it is under the realm of the Magus. They are the “priest of language”, as they are the “priest of culture”, and have been, over Humanus, for a few thousand years.
They, the Magus of the Harya, the Hayyin, the Hama, the Haima... had a language that was difficult for most to “utter”, with its more “gutter” sounding, rather foul sounding annunciations. Those of this stock had to come at what was once the “one language”, in which all were being led through their minds with. The “one language” to “rule them all”, but in that... “they would rule themselves”. The “language” was not what it was. It was the Verbiage, that carried the Verbs, the Vrata, the “Commands” and the “Vows” needed for “mental liberation”. “Vocality” of the Vir.
In what is today called the “Middle East”, it was referred to with localized names by the Ancients. Historians call the region “Mesopotamia”, in the sense of the Greek term of the land between the two rivers.
However, what is today called the Sumerians, the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians... had their own way of expressing regional names. Mostly, they called the lands by the motion phonetics of Ki... but it was not the land, such as humus or the actual terrain, they were speaking of.
It was more like “Jurisdiction”, or the “Motions of Authority” over, thus elevated. And those to whom had “Authority” were called “Lugal”. Modern “experts” suggest, this would mean something like the “Big” or the “Great Man”. Now, oddly... phonetically, one can think of “gallant”, as an English term.
But experts, scholars, academics would all suppose that these languages were not using the same phonetics. Somewhere near the Black Sea, and Caspian Sea, there was the development of what would spread as the supposed “Proto-Indo-European” branch of languages.
It's like a “ghost language” that was the “one language” over them all, before division in dialects and regions began to occur. But then, it is supposed, another branch of languages was developing out of the Northeast region of the continent of “Africa”.
They call this “Afro-Asiatic language branch”, or at least, I think this is the case. In what they call Mesopotamia, they would say the language phonetics were “Afro-Asiatic”. So, though lugal had to do with overlords, or the “big” or “great men” ruling over the Ki, or the region... YOU... Mr. and Ms. educated would be warned to avoid thinking, lugal shares phonetics with “legal”, and “legislation”.
The terms are from two different branches of language, that somehow are not supposed to be observed and thought of as having collided with each other in these regions, thus defining the development of the phonetics found in all dominant languages today.
Just like I had shown “yin” being traceable now to the East among the Han, still present in “yearn” in English, but these all being seen to be “coincidental”. It is a “coincidence” that lugal, that of the “civilized overlords”, sounds a lot like “legal”. Seen as “civilized Lords”, lugal used “legislation”, or “legal” machinery to “govern”.
My “speculations” about the “Tower” in Shinar
You are not supposed to think all of these terms are correlates. Compartmentalization is the key to keeping everyone stupid. The Peoples of the Book have a story about a “Tower” that was being constructed in what they would call “Babylon”.
They say, the “Lands of Shinar”, and until now, theories on the meaning of “Shinar” have not been soundly proposed. Now, I must call this a theory, if even able to reach that level. Perhaps it ought to be seen as “my speculations” on the meaning of “Shinar”, more than a theory, or even a hypothesis.
I am affirming in my own Authority the meaning of this phonetics of the arrangement of “Shinar”. In the first, those to call it this were foreign to the local languages. If they were of the “Afro-Asiatic” languages, they would have delivered the alternative Sh to the phonetics often connected with K, found in Ke. Ke had dialects uttering it Sh as well. Just like how B and W could, and would be V, so then is Ke sometimes rendered Sh.
Now, I can show this in English and PIE roots, and will. But the key here, for this tale of the Tower, is that those in the lands of “Shinar” were building a Tower that was seen as “prideful”, “disobedient”, and “contrary” to the claims of the “Will” of those affirming their “God”, or “gods”.
Meaning, there were two sides to the issue. In the Bible, the sides are seen as humanity, and God, or the gods. The Tower was being said to be built to “ascend” into the “Heavens”.
Physically, if accounts are honest, humanity is now up in space beyond the planet, having been out to the moon... with “eyes” extended into the Solar System. This is, of course, if the accounts are real, and not artificial and the works of propaganda. I can neither say, yay, nor nay, and any who thinks they can... is arrogant.
It is a claim... all those things which I can not verify myself, and those claims require faith in those making the claims. I do not put faith in Humanus to engage in accuracy and straight talk, but prima facie, I suspect deception.
For the sake of this presentation, I will act as if they are being honest, and say... No God or gods interfered with modern Humanus going into space. So then, the “Tower of Babylon” and its demise is either about now gone “God”, and/or “gods”; or it was not really about the material building of the Tower, and its extension into the Heavens... but instead, the Tower, though likely having material presence, meant something “Paternal”, or Patterned based, thus figurative in Pattern, and analytical in Pattern.
The Magus always claims things on the side of the “name” of their “God”, and/or “gods”. A Magus is not by presumption monotheistic.
They will mostly move their pantheon to a single God or attribute, being that of tyranny, they call “authority”, but at times, they move out to, and make use of polytheism.
Magus also strongly promote scientism towards atheism. Magus are inclined towards atheism. They “use”... religion on those religion can be used on. Religion is machinery with mechanism, for the Magus. A Magus does not have attributes and traits such as Vovere, or that which leads to “devotion”.
Now, the reader by degree knows, whenever I have written “Devotion”, and “Confidence” as the transmuted emotion from that of “diffidence”, that the actual native term, for the Vir, would be from Vrta, that of Vrata. Vrata is not only correlated to language in the realm of the “Verb” and “Verbiage”, but it is as Vrta a “Force”, as in an emotion. For the Vir, it is the birth of Command and Devotion. More on this elsewhere, when the conditions are right. I return now to the original session.
A Magus uses the machinery in others that had an inclination towards devotion. They use the words and the wrappings of “God”, “gods”, and “spiritualism” as a means to control the narrative, and Frame of Mind of their subjects, thus maintaining them through Amusement and Seductions.
Magus always lead, in speaking for God, gods, and atheists alike. They dominate the whole argument, as they dominate the whole language, which is their language.
Seth, among the biblical people, is the “father” of the lineages of priests, and to the “Sethites” of old, Iesus or “Jesus” was the reappearance of Seth.
Seth is a very important figure to the biblical peoples, who know their Bible, or “Book”. Seth was the newest of the lineages to be born.
Cain, or Qayin, was the First, and Abel was the Second. The kind of Cain was said to remove the kind of Abel. The kind of Cain was then forced to wander, and stripped of the lands, and their cultivations. They became the first “outlaws”.
In the Bible, the “Sethians”, a figurative name for the Magus, say their God said this and that, and did this and that. Only in your faith and your rejection of observable data can you conclude they were telling the “truth” about the source being “Divine” in all this. But if you have been observing, investigating, and analyzing, then you can not conclude that there is evidence of the “Divine” work behind priests, shamans, and Magus.
Instead, what is obvious, when analyzed, is that these are claims of “authority”, that only reveal human actions, desires, interest, and plays of “achievement”. Meaning, just as in modern times, you can not point to action and reaction, and causality, and find “God”, and “gods” moving the pieces on the board.
You see instead only the claim of deviants, that “God” and/or “gods” are “working through others”. This claim is not the “ancient claim”.
In the most ancient tales, the God and gods were among, and walking among that of Humanus. They waged war from war tents, and their minions, or “angels” fought in battles with superior abilities. They were materialized in these tales, not metaphors, allegories, and other figurative forms. They were treated as “persons”, or beings personified.
Now, one can not make these claims in modern industrial regions, or Ki, because there is the new demand — and it is new — of “SHOW ME”.
People can at the same time demand that of “show me” about things stated now, and yet, have faith in the extraordinary claims of the ancient world that do not have anything to “show for”, but that of just that... CLAIMS.
So claims are sufficient for mental midgets concerning ancient tales, but claims alone, in modern conditions, would rarely ever suffice, with a greater repugnant demand, often aggravated, of “show me”.
What can be shown with modern standards, today, is the OBVIOUS. If a tower was being built in “Shinar”, the land of Shinar, it was being built by those liken to who build today... MIN.
If something, or someone then had a problem with this building and came to bring its fall, and disrupt it, that something, and someones, were also MIN. These are stories of MIN on MIN conflict, and the ones who claim their side is affirmed through a “God”, or gods, were called “Sethians”.
But there is a phonetical issue here, in that “Seth” is from Sheth. Oddly, it's also from Shith, or at least they say it is. Like lugal, the term means “to put, to set”. Notice the phonetical relationship still maintained. Why does “Seth” still match the English term “set”?
The type of “setting” or “set” in which Sheth implies, is the kind called “appointment”. It is one who is “appointed”; and what they are appointed for in this case, is the carrying of the name, or the “Will” of God, or gods. A Magus would seem to be, then, a Shethian.
However, Sheth was a foreign phonetics, designating those with oversight of the Ki, or region, these ones called “Shinar”. Magus take titles, and phonetics from regions they conquer, and they flip them, to use them to then establish lugal, or legal jurisdiction, or the dictation of “law” over the regions, loosely called “lands”.
Another name for the region or Ki of Shinar was that of “Khirnar”. This, however, has been entirely lost to records. Instead, the “Egyptians” preserved elements of this event, and localized it in the name of their city... Cairo.
The Egyptian preservation of Khirnar was Khere-ohe. This was called “the place of combat”, and it is known in their cosmology, or accounts, in reference to a battle between the gods “Seth” and “Horus”. Remember, Seth is the first priest in the biblical sense, the son of Hawwah, or Eve.
Now, of course, these phonetics are coincidental. The Seth of the Egyptians can not be anything related to the Seth of the Bible.
Etymology of Cairo
city in Egypt, from Arabic al-Kahira “the strong,” the name given 973 C.E. to the new city built north of the old one, which was Egyptian khere-ohe, said to mean “place of combat” and to be in reference to a battle between the gods Seth and Horus that took place here. Related: Cairene.
Kahira is strength, or “fortification in light of the Ha”. It is “fortified” more than “strength”, or “the strong”. It is “the fortified”. A “tower”, in any ancient sense, would have been a fortified watchtower. It would not just be some tall structure, for no reason.
From Seth, comes In She, or ins, that of “men” and “people”. They are from Seth. Nashim is “women”. These “men” and/or “people” start with the son of Seth, called Enos. You know there is a letter missing from this, but I will not deviate.
Etymology of Enos
masc. proper name, in Old Testament the son of Seth, from Greek Enos, from Hebrew Enosh, literally “man” (compare nashim “women,” Arabic ins “men, people”).
A lineage was coming out of Seth, and down through Enos, defining the peoples collectively.
I will produce the etymology of “fix”, like in “to set one's mind to”, or “set one's eyes upon”... to draw attention to the root dheigw. I might not be able to get to this, in securing the route, but will return to it at a later time. All of this “language” or Verbiage is being presented for future use. It's all needed, in order to think on the more complex narratives that will follow.
Etymology of fix (v.)
late 14c., “set (one's eyes or mind) on something” (a figurative use), probably from Old French verb *fixer, from fixe “fixed,” from Latin fixus “fixed, fast, immovable; established, settled,” past-participle adjective from figere “to fix, fasten, drive, thrust in; pierce through, transfix,” also figurative, from PIE root *dheigw- “to pierce, stick in;” hence “to fix, fasten.”
Sense of “fasten, attach” is c. 1400; that of “to make (colors, etc.) fast or permanent” is from 1660s. The meaning “settle, assign” evolved into “adjust, arrange” (1660s), then “to repair” (1737), but this sometimes was objected to (see below). Sense of “tamper with” (a fight, a jury, etc.) is from 1790. As euphemism for “castrate a pet” it dates from 1930. Related: Fixed; fixing.
To fix is to make fast, or permanent; to set immoveably, &c.: hence, to fix a watch, is to stop it, or prevent it from 'going;' which, it must be admitted, is a very unsatisfactory mode of repairing that article. [Seth T. Hurd, “A Grammatical Corrector; or, Vocabulary of the Common Errors of Speech,” 1847]
Hawwah, as the matriarch and first mother, is made to be the mother of a son who is later named through local convention, in likeness, to localized Magus narratives of Gods; Sheth, from that of the foreigners.
Hawwah's actual emissary was called “Dawwah”, in the same naming convention as “Hawwah”. This would later, phonetically, change to Dawwid, and then to David. The sense of the name aspect would have the meaning be “one who is loved”, and this of course seems to differ from the trait of “appointed”, of course, unless one understands nepotism.
But Dawwah is rooted in dheigwah, or dheigw, which has the traits of “to stick, fix”. This all correlates with terms that were used for fortification, and walls.
Etymology of *dheigw-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to stick, fix.”
It forms all or part of: affix; crucifix; crucify; dig; dike; ditch; fibula; fiche; fichu; fix; fixate; fixation; fixity; fixture; infibulate; infibulation; microfiche; prefix; suffix; transfix.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit dehi- “wall;” Old Persian dida “wall, stronghold, fortress,” Persian diz; Latin figere “to fix, fasten, drive, thrust in; pierce through, transfix;” Lithuanian dygstu, dygti “germinate;” Old Irish dingid “presses, thrusts down;” Old English dic “trench, ditch,” Dutch dijk “dam.”
Etymology of David
masc. proper name, in Old Testament name of the second king of Israel and Judah and author of psalms, from Hebrew Dawidh, literally “darling, beloved friend.” The name was common in England and Scotland by 12c. but was popular much earlier in Wales. A nickname form was Dawe, hence surnames Dawson, Dawkins. A top 10 name for boys born in the U.S. from 1934 to 1992. Related: Davidic; Davidian.
Again, if I traverse these figurative plains for too long, the mud will be extensive. It is not my aims to reveal the Esoteric nature of the Peoples of the Book and their writings. However, I can not engage this narrative without these corollaries, as they will define the attributes and the traits in which I shall make use of... to tell the other side of the narrative.
So for now, I will produce the etymology of Uriah, as this plays a role.
Etymology of Uriah
masc. proper name, in Old Testament, the Hittite husband of Bathsheba; of non-Hebrew (possibly Horite) origin, but explained by folk etymology as Hebrew Uriyyah, literally “flame of the Lord.” Uriah Heep, character from Dickens' “David Copperfield” (1850) sometimes is invoked as the type of a hypocritically humble person.
You are not supposed to see the phonetics of “Uriah” and then that of the “Horites”, and how this is close to that of the “God” and his name “Horus”. Horites were called liken to the Anakim. You are not supposed to then consider, who were the Anakim.
There are accounts of how those of the “Book” saw themselves as a shorter Min, to that of those whose regions they were given Command over by the “Will of their God”, and it alone, for them to commit genocide, and to engage in CONQUEST.
Youse, today, think of youse as “moral” and “righteous”, having some “Command” to conquer the “unrighteous”, and often, what made them “unrighteous” was their rejection of the name, the authority of your god, thus, your RULE, or Jurisdiction.
The Anakim were in Canaan. And Canaan was the land of the Phoenicians. Canaan is so said named of a Canaan from the line of Seth, not the line of Cain, though the phonetics line up. But it is these short Min, compared to the Anakim, from the Nephilim, that were carrying the name, and thus “Authority” of some “God mentality”.
The Bible is their story; however, with lots of midget flipping going on with names, titles, regions, and accounts. They are not characterized often as forthright and Valid in their narratives. They use narratives for gain, and when a narrative interferes with a gain... they alter the narrative towards this aim... the “gain”.
The buried path from K, to S, to V
In the past, by degree, I began this long language production with terms such as “Seer”, “Sage”, “Muni”, “sramana”, “shaman”, the “Wise”, or “Vi”, “Se”, and so on. The dominance of the S here, in these terms, minus muni, provides out. But so will the connection the K has to S, which is a distance created. Ka, remember, was a phonetics of awareness, and its phonetics came before the form of Sense of Self, I call... Se.
Me
Se
Ve
Mer
Ser
Ver
Mi
Si
Vi
The K, phonetically, becomes expressed in the S, as a medium movement or direction. But the S had the breath of the H, not the phonetics of the H. It has Sha, more than Sa, so to say. Shebelath.
In back formation, the Verbiage of the Vir would use Kava, Kavi, Kave, and SaKa, Seka, Sika. Depending on the regional dialect, that can be Shaka, Sheka, Shika. Shiva can be Kaiva, and Kiva. Knowing this can lead to some amazing linguistical discoveries. This gives the sense of a means to decode and track the flow of terms, and their phonetics.
Before there was Vid for that of “Sight”, there was “Keu”.
Etymology of *keu-
also *skeu- Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to see, observe, perceive.”
This too, has been preserved in that of the English trait of “caution”. “Caution” is the trait a Vir has, more so than “concern”, so long as... it is defined in this manner.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit kavih “wise, sage; seer, poet;” Avestan kauui- “seer, poet, wise man;” Middle Iranian škoh “splendor, majesty;” Latin cautio “care, foresight,” cautus “careful, heedful,” cavere “beware, take heed;” Greek kydos “glory, fame;” Lithuanian kavoti “tend, safeguard;” Armenian cucanem “I show;” Old Church Slavonic čudo “wonder;” Czech (z)koumati “to perceive, be aware of;” Serbian čuvati “watch, heed;” Old English sceawian “to look at,” Middle Dutch schoon “beautiful, bright,” properly “showy,” Old High German scouwon “to watch.”
As a side note; recall the phonetics of “Khattiya”, and “Satrya”. The phonetics of the K, and S, interchanged, is clear here. Some would say “Satra”, like in a “satrap”, and some would say “Katra”, and later, comes a “King”, and a “Kingdom”. But the Summerian, Akkadian, and so on, sense of “region” as Ki would be argued unrelated. How many ancient languages must one be familiar with, to have a sense of “one language” by way of the universally presented phonetics?
The answer is seven.
-
Pali
-
Sanskrit
-
Greek
-
Avestan
-
Latin
-
Germanic
-
Ghost PIE
The Keu form of “Sight” would be the precursor to that of “Vigilance”. Vigilance is more advanced than Keu, but Vigilance has the “Caution” element to it, at its foundation. A Cautionary Sight, but rooted in Vrta, or Validity. This changes the flow, a great deal.
Etymology of caution (n.)
c. 1300, caucioun, “bail, guarantee, pledge,” from Old French caution “security, surety” (13c.), from Latin cautionem (nominative cautio) “caution, care, foresight, precaution,” noun of action from past-participle stem of cavere “to be on one's guard” (from PIE root *keu- “to see, observe, perceive”).
The Latin sense re-emerged in English as “prudence in regard to danger” (1650s). The meaning “word of warning, monitory advice” is from c. 1600. The meaning “anything which excites alarm or astonishment” is U.S. slang, 1835.
The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *“keu-” or *“skeu-” is indeed associated with the general concept of “to see, observe, perceive.” This root has led to the development of various words related to vision and perception in several Indo-European languages. Here are a few examples:
Greek: The Greek word “skopein” (σκοπεῖν) means “to look at” or “to observe.” The term “scope” in English, such as in “telescope” or “microscope,” is derived from this Greek root.
Latin: The Latin verb “specere” means “to look at” or “to see.” From this root, English words like “spectacle” and “inspect” are derived.
English: Words like “see,” “sight,” and “vision” in English also have connections to this PIE root.
The path for conceiving of this well is tumultuous. The clues are there. The K, to the S, to the V. This is buried in those languages connected to the ghost tongue now called PIE. These roots have been detected, and sussed out of hiding, but all such work is considered speculative... till it is not.
When this is realized, it can be thought of that before there would be “Sheth” or “Seth”, there would be “Kheth”, and/or “Ket”. But I have gone too far down the “rabbit hole”, and must S, or “spin” it all back.
Etymology of spin (v.)
Middle English spinnen, from Old English spinnan (transitive) “draw out and twist (raw fibers) into thread,” strong verb (past tense spann, past participle spunnen), from Proto-Germanic *spenwan (source also of Old Norse and Old Frisian spinna, Danish spinde, Dutch spinnen, Old High German spinnan, German spinnen, Gothic spinnan), from a suffixed form of PIE root *(s)pen- “to draw, stretch, spin.”
The intransitive senses of “form threads from fibrous stuff; twist, writhe” developed in late Old English. Figurative use, “to fabricate or produce in a manner analogous in some way to spinning,” is by 1550s (also compare yarn). Of spiders from late 14c. In reference to insects (silk worms) by 1510s.
The transitive sense of “cause to turn rapidly” is from 1610s; the intransitive meaning “revolve, turn around rapidly” is recorded by 1660s. To spin out in a motor vehicle is by 1954. To spin one's wheels in the figurative sense of “do work but get no result for it” is by 1960. The meaning “play a phonograph record” is attested by 1936 (Variety).
The meaning “attempt to influence reporters' minds after an event has taken place but before they have written about it” seems to have risen to popularity in the 1984 U.S. presidential campaign; as in spin doctor, which was prominent in newspaper accounts of the election from c. Oct. 23, 1984.
[Joe] Jamele insists his job is just to go for coffee. But others call him a “spin doctor,” a Reagan camp term for a person who tries to influence the proper “spin” in news stories. [Rutland, Vt., Herald, Nov. 2, 1984]
In the Middle English phrase When adam delf & eue span (which concludes variously), “in the earliest times,” span is the old past tense of spin (along with spanne, spane; spunne, sponne); the reference is to his digging and her spinning as characteristic occupations (compare distaff).
Youse know that narratives are very much often infected with “spin”. Youse will hear this, even say this, in modern sense of things, but NOT have any realizations just how ancient all of this “English” speak is.
You will feel “modern” and “new” because you are relatively young in your “travels”. The age of the “conceiving mind” is not based on the years in how long the body has been “breathing”. “Years” mark the age of the body; concepts, notions, ideas coded in Verbiage mark the age of the mind.
The mind's age is determined by its narrative, and the complexity of the vocabulary in which it is composed of. A low set inner vocalized narrative becomes the character of a “mental midget”, in that, the language is not present to think the needed “high” thought. Midgets in mind, versus “Giants” in Mind, who build “fortifications” to reach the heights of their thought.
“Spinning the yarn” was an expression concerning “telling tales”, or “to tell a story”, and “yarn” comes from ghere, and how it relates to the intestines, the guts, and entrails.
Etymology of yarn (n.)
Old English gearn “spun fiber, spun wool,” from Proto-Germanic *garnan (source also of Old Norse, Old High German, German garn, Middle Dutch gaern, Dutch garen “yarn”), from PIE root *ghere- “intestine, gut, entrail.” The phrase to spin a yarn “to tell a story” is first attested 1812, from a sailors' expression, on notion of telling stories while engaged in sedentary work such as yarn-twisting.
Using this PIE root... observe all the phonetics I have been elaborating on, expounding on. Just one more example of this “universal use” of phonetics in all the terms you have “grunted”, thus far.
Etymology of *ghere-
*gherə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “gut, entrail.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit hira “vein; band;” Latin hernia “rupture;” Greek khorde “intestine, gut-string;” Lithuanian žarna “guts, leather bag;” Old English gearn, Old High German garn “yarn” (originally made of dried gut), Old Norse gorn “gut.”
The “vein” began to receive the H phonetics, in that the Haima, which was Min, before symbolic thought, engaged in intoxicants, and they would “rupture” the vein through cutting. The Haima would rupture the hira. To have detected them, one looked to their hira, their veins, like someone today can do, in detecting the use of needles to puncture, and inject certain intoxicants. The Haima often had cuts along its veins.
They had hira; “We”, the Vir, have “Veins”.
From this life source, the blood instructions are carried, and carried in the “Vessel”. Like waterways, it increases locomotion; and disrupting locomotion and/or expression disrupts the flow of information, and what is being “informed” is innate traits and attributes... leading to “natural ability” and “interest”.
Etymology of vein (n.)
c. 1300, from Old French veine “vein, artery, pulse” (12c.), from Latin vena “a blood vessel,” also “a water course, a vein of metal, a person's natural ability or interest,” of unknown origin. The mining sense is attested in English from late 14c. (Greek phleps “vein” had the same secondary sense). Figurative sense of “strain or intermixture” (of some quality) is recorded from 1560s; that of “a humor or mood, natural tendency” is first recorded 1570s.
Etymology of intravenous (adj.)
“in or occurring within a vein,” 1847, from intra- “within, inside” + Latin venous, from vena “vein” (see vein). Related: Intravenously.
The phonetics come back to keue in regards to “swelling” around what was once “fortification” in “caution”; “vault, hole”.
Etymology of vena cava (n.)
Medical Latin, from Latin vena “vein” (see vein) + cava, from cavus “hollow” (from PIE root *keue- “to swell,” also “vault, hole”).
When the Harya came, they came to defile the hira, to “rupture” the “veins” of those “fortified”, and watchful. They came to “whip”, to “thread” themselves, and “file” in. This was captured in the trait gwhi.
“Rank and file”, to rupture.
Etymology of *gwhi-
*gwhī-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “thread, tendon.”
It forms all or part of: defile (n.) “narrow passage;” enfilade; filament; file (v.1) “place (papers) in consecutive order for future reference;” filigree; filipendulous; fillet; profile.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Avestan jya- “bowstring;” Latin filum “a thread, string;” Armenian jil “sinew, string, line;” Lithuanian gysla “vein, sinew;” Old Church Slavonic zila “vein.”
Etymology of defile (n.)
“narrow passage in a mountain region,” 1640s, especially in a military sense, “a narrow passage down which troops can march only in single file,” from French défilé, noun use of past participle of défiler “march by files” (17c.), from de- “off” (see de-) + file “row,” from Latin filum “thread” (from PIE root *gwhi- “thread, tendon”). The verb, “to march off in a line or file,” is by 1705, from French défiler.
Harder to connect is the phonetic route that lends to the English term of “kudos”, as a noun.
Etymology of kudos (n.)
“fame, renown, glory,” 1799, probably originally in university slang, from Greek kydos “glory, fame,” especially in battle, “a poetical word, found chiefly in the Iliad and Odyssey” [Century Dictionary], literally “that which is heard of,” perhaps from PIE root *keu- “to see, observe, perceive.” In form the word is a Greek singular noun, but the final -s often is mistaken as a plural suffix in English, leading to the barbarous back-formation kudo (attested by 1936).
This correlates to the lugal sense out of the West, or “Afro-Asiatics”. This regional dictate of the language is absurd, as is “PIE” named on account of regions.
On the notion of Entertainment in this “Way”
10-20-2022
The Seven Emotional Kinetics are primary for one's learning of the “Way”, that is “This Way”, that is the Way of the Vir, and/or Vehrka.
The ideas that follow from this “Way” are chronological in use, but not from One to Seven.
The Seven Disciplines, in the Sevens, do not come till later.
-
Diffidence
-
Anxiety
-
Repugnance
-
Disgust
-
Despair
-
Discertainty
-
Entertainment: Amusement, Seduction, Engagement
-
Ipseity
-
Epistemology
-
Ratiocination
-
Ethics
-
Virtue
-
Jurisprudence
-
Warfare
Ipseity is where the Emotional Kinetics are most covered and explored, as they form the BASES for the SENSE of SELF, in the most PRIME sense of senses, with feelings, passions, urges, impulses, cravings, wants, desires, and will... from that of the fundamental MIN identity universal to all, down to the specific species in which one is, of the three, in Min:
-
Humanus
-
Manu, Arya
-
Vir
General forms of Min are shared by all three of the species, though at times, it is said that 2 and 3, Manu and Vir, came from Humanus. This is not likely the case. They came from Min; Humanus is not likely the foundation. This will require a separate work, called The Advent of the Kinds.
In The Advent of the Kinds, it is not “caste” that is being promoted, though the foundation of natural caste is being proposed, in that, there are stocks, and/or kinds among Min, suited best and least for certain activities and roles in greater social orders, that all fall under the EMOTIONAL KINETICS of the Seventh, that of ENTERTAINMENT.
“Entertainment” means “to maintain a CERTAIN FRAME of MIND”.
The expression is “where you are coming from, can be used to aid in this thought.”
Etymology of entertain (v.)
late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support” (12c.), from entre- “among” (from Latin inter; see inter-) + tenir “to hold” (from Latin tenere, from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
Sense of “have a guest” is late 15c.; that of “gratify, amuse” is 1620s. Meaning “to allow (something) to consideration, take into the mind” (of opinions, notions, etc.) is 1610s. Related: Entertained; entertaining.
Entertainment, and to entertain, are not defined by that of one's “entertainments” in the sense of leisure, in the sense of pleasure, or pastimes.
What has been entertained and is entertained, is the “certain frame of mind” one carries with them, at all times.
Etymology of *ten-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to stretch,” with derivatives meaning “something stretched, a string; thin.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit tantram “loom,” tanoti “stretches, lasts,” tanuh “thin,” literally “stretched out;” Persian tar “string;” Lithuanian tankus “compact,” i.e. “tightened;” Greek teinein “to stretch,” tasis “a stretching, tension,” tenos “sinew,” tetanos “stiff, rigid,” tonos “string,” hence “sound, pitch;” Latin tenere “to hold, grasp, keep, have possession, maintain,” tendere “to stretch,” tenuis “thin, rare, fine;” Old Church Slavonic tento “cord;” Old English þynne “thin.”
The notion of “entertain” is most revealed with this root ten, of tenere. Other terms can help grasp the action significance of this term, like the term “abstain”, using the same root.
Etymology of abstain (v.)
late 14c., “avoid (something); refrain (oneself) from; keep free from sin or vice; live austerely, practice abstinence or asceticism; be sexually continent,” from Old French abstiner, abstenir (14c.), earlier astenir (13c.) “hold (oneself) back, refrain voluntarily, abstain (from what satisfies the passions), practice abstinence,” from Latin abstinere “withhold, keep back, keep off,” from assimilated form of ab “off, away from” (see ab-) + tenere “to hold” (from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”). Specifically of liquor from late 14c. Meaning “refrain from voting” is from 1796. Related: Abstained; abstaining.
The perceptual level of the term is about “one's holdings”, like the notion of “grasping”. The frame of mind is one's mental holdings specifically. When the term “joy” is used by the academics as the 6th emotion in their list, they are madly mistaken.
The last emotion, and the one that is least experienced compared to the others, is a product, a result of the mitigations, the management, the assurance, and the relief correlated to the other six. How your conditions favor your nature, or impede it, combined with your will to fight is key to determining where you “dwell” your “house of Entertainment”, or more so... the “STRING”, the “CORD” in which you “SOUND” from, be it ACCORDANT or DISCORDANT.
There is a parallel to mention briefly here, to the simile, and allegory presented in the Siddhartha myth of Buddhism, where during “stillness” training, that the foorus call meditation, Siddhartha had heard a passing boat, with a maestro of music, with a student, having a lesson contained within its row. It was about the tightness of a cord or string on the instrument, and having it just right. Not too tight, not too loose.
This cord element, and the notion of a string and this being about the mind, is retained in the term tenere. The term “tone” has application here.
Etymology of tone (n.)
mid-14c., “musical sound or note,” from Old French ton “musical sound, speech, words” (13c.) and directly from Latin tonus “a sound, tone, accent,” literally “stretching” (in Medieval Latin, a term peculiar to music), from Greek tonos “vocal pitch, raising of voice, accent, key in music,” originally “a stretching, tightening, taut string,” which is related to teinein “to stretch” (from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
The sense of “manner of speaking” is from c. 1600. In reference to firmness of body, from 1660s. As “prevailing state of manners” from 1735; as “style in speaking or writing which reveals attitude” from 1765. Tone-deaf is by 1880; tone-poem by 1845.
When, in the Seven Emotional Kinetics, the term “Entertainment” is used, “emotional tone” comprised of the six, and their kind... is of the strongest meaning. The “string” or the “cord” is the mindset, the frame of mind that defines the attitude and its expression.
Etymology of attitude (n.)
1660s, “posture or position of a figure in a statue or painting,” via French attitude (17c.), from Italian attitudine “disposition, posture,” also “aptness, promptitude,” from Late Latin aptitudinem (nominative aptitudo; see aptitude, which is its doublet).
Originally 17c. a technical term in art; later generalized to “a posture of the body supposed to imply some mental state” (1725). The sense of “a settled behavior reflecting feeling or opinion” is by 1837. The meaning “habitual mode of regarding” is short for attitude of mind (1757). Connotations of “antagonistic and uncooperative” developed by 1962 in slang.
Attitude is generally studied for the sake of looking graceful ; hence it is sometimes affected, the practice of it being then called attitudinizing. An attitude is often taken intentionally for the purpose of imitation or exemplification ; generally attitude is more artistic than posture. [Century Dictionary]
Etymology of aptitude (n.)
early 15c., “tendency, likelihood,” from Late Latin aptitudo (genitive aptitudinis) “fitness,” noun of quality from Latin aptus “joined, fitted” (see apt). The meaning “natural capacity to learn” is by 1540s; that of “state or quality of being fit (for a purpose or position)” is from 1640s. Related: Aptitudinal. A doublet of attitude.
The three options in the realm of “Entertainment” or “mental tone” are:
Amusement
Seduction
Engagement
This Way, the Way of Vir, deals in the third, and it is not of the “Way” for “mental tones” to be in participation in the first and second, Amusement and Seduction. However, those who are in these modes of “mental tones” with their attitudes, will filter the acts, and presence of others, to meet needs in these modes, these tones.
So this means, where one is of the “Way”, and the “Way” is of Engagement and Advancement, they can not come to others in Amusement or Seduction, engaging. Instead, those “stuck” in those tones, tuned too loosely in Amusement, and too tightly in Seduction, are out of tune, and discordant. Engagement is when the “cord” is made sound and Accordant.
Etymology of accord (v.)
early 12c., “come into agreement,” also “agree, be in harmony,” from Old French acorder “agree, be in harmony” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *accordare “make agree,” literally “be of one heart, bring heart to heart,” from Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + cor (genitive cordis) “heart” (used figuratively for “soul, mind”), from PIE root *kerd- “heart.” Compare concord, discord. Related: Accorded; according.
The kerd aspect, here, is more akin to “core”, even though “heart” is the perceptual “core” in the human body.
Etymology of core (n.)
early 14c., “heart or inmost part of anything” (especially an apple, pear, etc.), of uncertain origin, probably from Old French cor, coeur “core of fruit, heart of lettuce,” literally “heart,” from Latin cor “heart,” from PIE root *kerd- “heart.”
Meaning “a central portion cut and removed” (as from a tree, soil, etc.) is from 1640s. Meaning “internal mold of a casting, which fills the space intended to be left hollow” is from 1730. Nuclear physics sense “portion of a reactor containing the nuclear fuel and where the reactions take place” is from 1949.
The phonetic force here, liken to those mentioned previously, is that of Ker.
Ker is the force of observing the core of a thing. The core of a thing is its central essence, its nature, its “seed”, its origins, prior to manifestation, but deduced from manifestations. The Reasoning track is therefore deductive at first. But then when the core is discovered, this means, the traits and attributes of a thing, essential to it, that without such traits and attributes, the thing would not be what it is. What can be taken out of it, leaving it still as it is “IS”, in IDENTITY, is not its core, that makes it “individualized”.
This can be thought of with a collective sense, versus an individual sense in the realm of “persona”. That which one has only as their frame of mind from their collective shared, if removed, what remains... is their individuality.
When there is nothing but the collective frame of mind, one is a collectivist, and their persona belongs to the collective.
The etymologists have not retained a direct notion of the force behind the term “core”, and “care”. It has been lost. But the term “care” has the FORCE of KER at its “core”. It is HEART that is distressed, and the emotion of a distressed heart is anxiety. This is the physiological sense, though the mind and its “cord” is the true starting realm. It is an unsettled and disturbed mind. This is the meaning of the term “care”.
It is Ker as a force coming through the mind as cries, as sorrows, as suffering. The CORE of the individual and/or collective is disrupted, is discordant.
Etymology of garrulous (adj.)
1610s, from Latin garrulus “talkative, chattering,” from garrire “to chatter,” from PIE root *gar- “to call, cry,” of imitative origin (compare Greek gerys “voice, sound,” Ossetic zar “song,” Welsh garm, Old Irish gairm “noise, cry”). Related: Garrulously; garrulousness.
The etymologists lose their way, on this path, not finding the prime and deviating term for how this connects to the core. The missing root is that which is found in “goad”, and “gar”.
Etymology of goad (n.)
Old English gad “point, spearhead, arrowhead, pointed stick used for driving cattle,” from Proto-Germanic *gaido “goad, spear” (source also of Lombardic gaida “spear”), which is perhaps cognate with Sanskrit hetih “missile, projectile,” himsati “he injures;” Avestan zaena- “weapon;” Greek khaios “shepherd's staff;” Old English gar “spear;” Old Irish gae “spear.” Figurative use “anything that urges or stimulates” is since 16c., probably from the Bible.
Etymology of goad (v.)
1570s, from goad (n.); earliest use is figurative, “incite, stimulate, instigate.” Literal use by 1610s. Related: Goaded; goading.
“To care” is that of a “goading heart”, that in its unsettled and its disturbed state, it takes up the “spear” that is the tool used for benefit, and it turns the “spear” on its own and/or others. From its pain, its sorrow, its suffering, it begins “goading” others. With “care”, the individual drives others, versus drives oxen. It drives others, in the name of care, its anxious concerns.
It is this type of “goading” that defines the following emotion of repugnance.
Goading oxen, or driving oxen, was seen as advantageous, as beneficial, and this was the purpose of the spear. One was Accordant in their ways when using tools for advantage. But goading others, and turning them on others, was discordant, but this discordance began at the core, the kerd of the individual that infects their mind and attitudes, and establishes their “tone” in which others can observe.
“They are wound too tight”, as has been retained in common speech. “They are high strung”, which has been retained in common speech. “They are about to snap”, on account of this tightness, as has been retained in common speech.
This “cord” that is either Accordant or discordant is core to that of the Way of Vir. The Way of Vir is devoted to making this core Accordant, and when it is Accordant, it is not moved off course, but becomes immovable towards those things that try to make it loose, or try to make it tight.
The way in which Humanus speech is most inclined is towards that of “loosen up”, and they do not mean merely from a tight position. They see all seriousness and focus as tight, whether it is agitated or not, consistent or disturbed.
“Loosen up” is the nature of repugnance found in Amusement as the frame. “Loosen up from reality” is found in the avoidance of repugnance in that of Seduction. Either way you look at it, the HUmanus, with their emotions, aim to relieve tension, to release tension, to loosen up. This does not mean from a “high strung” notion, but this means from any position of standard, reliability, and quality.
LOOSE is the nature of Humanus, but tight is not the nature of the Vir. This is a false dichotomy. The Mytho Buddhists called their “Way” the “Middle Way”, refuting the false dichotomy. The Way of the Vir is not the Middle Way, for such a category legitimizes the notion of reacting to tight and loose as ways. They are barely ways.
The Way of the Vir is the Accordant Way, and resting cords, and disturbed cords are both discordant.
VIGILANCE in the CORD, the kerd, the CORE, is the force that drives the Way of the Vir. The Way of the Vir is not in the middle, it is not in the line, or the frame in which the Humanus emotions can dictate. ACCORDANT is the Way of the Vir. Discordant is the way of Humanus, and to infect others with their discordance, they say... “you need to loosen up”, and you do this through Amusement and Seduction as two forms of Entertainment.
To be “engaged” in Engaging Entertainment, you need to “tighten things up”, and this, often by way of what is called “discipline”. Discipline orders things, tightens them up, according to a “teaching”, be it those teachings are Valid or invalid. With discipline, it means “according to this and/or that teaching”. One is then tight in their “relationship” to that teaching. Accordant to it. It does not mean “Accordant” in the CORE sense.
Etymology of discipline (n.)
c. 1200, “penitential chastisement; punishment for the sake of correction,” from Old French descepline “discipline, physical punishment; teaching; suffering; martyrdom” (11c., Modern French discipline) and directly from Latin disciplina “instruction given, teaching, learning, knowledge,” also “object of instruction, knowledge, science, military discipline,” from discipulus “pupil, student, follower” (see disciple (n.)).
The Latin word is glossed in Old English by þeodscipe. The meaning “treatment that corrects or punishes” is from the notion of “order necessary for instruction.”
Meaning “branch of instruction or education” is first recorded late 14c. Meaning “system of rules and regulations” is from mid-14c. Meaning “military training” is from late 15c., via the notion of “training to follow orders and act in accordance with rules;” that of “orderly conduct as a result of training” is from c. 1500. Sense of “system by which the practice of a church is regulated, laws which bind the subjects of a church in their conduct” is from 1570s.
This term and its connection, or root in “disciple”, has had some rough recording histories, in that etymologists have lost their way, in identifying the roots.
Rooted in “disciple”, the notion is that it is from Dis and Kap as forces, meaning “to grasp”. This force is certainly connected. But the force Krei, “to sieve”, is at the root; therefore, from my AUTHORITY, I correct this. A disciple is one who is devoted to the learning and practice of DISCERNMENT. I am hereby, for the reader and/or listener, connecting these three terms: discipline, disciple, and discernment.
This does not remove the force of “grasp”, that of Kap, for “mental grasping” is at the root. The three forces here are:
-
Ker
-
Kap
-
Kre
-
Core
-
Grasp
-
Discern
The way to think of these forces, is that, the core or identity of the thing is “grasp mentally”. And when there are other things, they are then distinguished from that originally grasped, and in contrast, and difference, they too are grasped mentally. Once this occurs, there is categorization.
The “sieve” element is a pollutant mixed with this term. Krei was not “to sieve”, but se ib, or seib retains that notion, and is far more loose.
Etymology of *krei-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek krinein “to separate, decide, judge,” krinesthai “to explain;” Latin cribrum “sieve,” crimen “judgment, crime,” cernere “to sift, distinguish, separate;” Old Irish criathar, Old Welsh cruitr “sieve;” Middle Irish crich “border, boundary;” Old English hriddel “sieve.”
It forms all or part of: ascertain; certain; concern; concert; crime; criminal; crisis; critic; criterion; decree; diacritic; discern; disconcert; discreet; discriminate; endocrine; excrement; excrete; garble; hypocrisy; incertitude; recrement; recriminate; riddle (n.2) “coarse sieve;” secret; secretary.
In the most primal of times and their conditions, “sieve” was still connected to the core of Krei, but then, as more refinement occurred, krei replaced the foundation of si eb, and si eb moved along the line of the Magus.
The Vir discerns; the Magus sifts.
Etymology of sift (v.)
Middle English siften, from Old English siftan “pass or scatter (the finer parts of something) through a sieve,” from Proto-Germanic *sib- (source also of Dutch ziften, Middle Low German sichten, German sichten “to sift;" see sieve (n.)).
The intransitive sense of “pass loosely or fall scatteredly” (of snow, light, etc.) is from 1590s, as is the meaning “clear or cleanse of impurities.” The figurative or metaphoric sense of “look carefully through” is recorded by 1530s. Related: Sifted; sifting.
“pass loosely or fall scatteredly”
And there is the added notion of “clear or cleanse of impurities”. This is not a part of Krei. It is not Ker Kap Kre.
The clear and cleanse aspect of impurities, is that of the Magus. It is about “filtering” about “cherry picking”, about “subverting”, “undermining”, and “removing”. Sifting through things to eradicate the parts that do not fit their frame of mind.
These two kinds of discernment differ, on account of this added filter element. Discernment does not, in and of itself, include the process of inclusion or exclusion. Discernment is categorical thought, concerning the identity, the Ker of a thing.
The notion of Ker used to be so strong, that it would not be a phonetics that the Magus could erase. So instead arose “care”. More accurately, it ought to have the C replaced with a G, and then it is more phonetically accurate. One ought to say “gare” for something, where they “cry out” internally and externally for that which they crave and/or fear the loss of. This is more the essence, the Ker, the core of what is meant.
“Care” is not a term denoting a state of Accordance in this “Way”. Care is a “discordant heart”, a “disturbed heart”, that is deceptive, that is manipulative and:
Etymology of garrulous (adj.)
1610s, from Latin garrulus “talkative, chattering,” from garrire “to chatter,” from PIE root *gar- “to call, cry,” of imitative origin (compare Greek gerys “voice, sound,” Ossetic zar “song,” Welsh garm, Old Irish gairm “noise, cry”). Related: Garrulously; garrulousness.
Remember reader, and/or listener, the way one often shows they “care” so much, is they CRY. When they truly “care”, they “cry”, while they “talk” and “chatter”.
Those around you who cry and chatter are garrulous. They are engaging in care, not Ker.
From the etymology of care (v.)
Positive senses, such as “have an inclination” (1550s); “have fondness for” (1520s) seem to have developed later as mirrors to the earlier negative ones.
Negative senses were originally at the core (Ker), because the core was in error, suffering. Suffering was not seen as NOBLE. The change occurs with an easy observation of Humanus females gaining greater ground of defining the morals, the worth codes of the society and the home. It is effeminate to use the term “care” in a positive portrayal.
Ker, for “core”, is phonetically Keer, or Kier. They are not pronounced the same.
Ker is from the phonetics of Ke.
The force arrangement is:
Ke
Ki
Ka
The R is additive, and means “at the”.
So Keh is how it sounds, as a force.
When the R is added, it sounds like Keh-eer.
This R sound, with the phonetics of eer, or ier, is flight, motion, expression.
Ker is the expression of the core, or the core as it can be observed in flight.
One's frame of mind is their Ker.
Observing these terms, now... let it be clear that the words in this “Way”, though in English, actually have embedded the code of the “Original” tongue of those who first came to mind to sound out the forces. These forces are prime in phonetics.
I use the expression, for “ignorance” or “surprise”, in the Emotional Kinetics, of “favored uncertainty”, or discertainty.
Etymology of ascertain (v.)
early 15c., “to inform, to give assurance” (a sense now obsolete), from Anglo-French acerteiner, Old French acertener “to assure, certify” (13c.), from a- “to” (see ad-) + certain “sure, assured” (see certain). The meaning “find out for sure by experiment or investigation” is attested by 1794. Related: Ascertained; ascertaining.
The terms “DISCERNMENT” and “CERTAINTY” are primary in this Way of the Vir. They are RELIGIOUS terms of DEVOTION.
The faculty of discernment is a capacity in all Min. Its level of potency in habit, or repetition, determines the ability.
Capacity, versus ability. Capable, versus able.
The ability of discernment, made potent, is called “Reasoning”, and its potency is determined by the quality of the method. Method follows discernment, and begets Reasoning.
Not reasoning, which is liken to justification. But Reasoning with a capital R. But because this term Reason is used like justification, and that of mental preferences and conjecture, “We” of this “Way” do not say Reasoning is methodical discernment by a standard.
Instead, Reasoning is not a word or term that has prominence in this “Way”. Instead, the term “Ratiocinate” means to “Reason by a method”. METHOD is sacred and devotional in this “Way”. Not one method for one way, but method for ALL WAYS, to which all things have. METHODICAL IN ALL is the religious Way of this “Way”, the Way of the VIR.
This is called RATIOCINATION.
“Ratio” is the term that means “exact, accurate, and precise ACCOUNTING”. ACCOUNTING is in CERTAINTIES; not that of messed in UNCERTAINTIES.
Etymology of certain (adj.)
c. 1300, “determined, fixed,” from Old French certain “reliable, sure, assured” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *certanus, extended form of Latin certus “determined, resolved, fixed, settled,” of things whose qualities are invariable, “established,” also “placed beyond doubt, sure, true, proved; unerring, to be depended upon” (also source of Old French cert, Italian certo, Spanish cierto), originally a variant past participle of cernere “to distinguish, decide,” literally “to sift, separate.” This Latin verb comes from the PIE root *krei- “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish,” which is also the source of Greek krisis “turning point, judgment, result of a trial” (compare crisis).
The transferred sense, in reference to persons, “full of confidence in one's knowledge or judgment, made certain in reference to a matter or thing,” is from mid-14c. (it also was a sense in Latin). The meaning “established as true beyond doubt” in English is from c. 1400. The meaning “indefinite, not specifically named, known but not described” is from late 14c.
Different as this seems to be from sense I, it is hardly separable from it in a large number of examples: thus, in [ a certain hour], the hour was quite 'certain' or 'fixed', but it is not communicated to the reader; to him it remains, so far as his knowledge is concerned, quite indefinite; it may have been, as far as he knows, at any hour; though, as a fact, it was at a particular hour. [OED]
Lewis & Short write that Latin certus also was sometimes indefinite, “of things, the certainty of whose existence is given, but whose nature is not more definitely designated, or comes not into consideration ....”
Hence the euphemistic use, attested from mid-18c., as in woman of a certain age “an old maid;” woman of a certain description “disreputable woman;” in a certain condition “pregnant;” a certain disease “venereal disease;” of a certain weight “obese.” Used with proper names from 1785, “often conveying a slight shade of disdain” [OED]. Certainer, certainest were common to c. 1750, but have fallen from proper use for some reason. Expression for certain “assuredly” is attested by early 14c.
The force here is Ke, with the R of Ker, altered.
The R follows the K, making Kre for “sieve”, or “sift” actions, not to mean seib, but a discernment that is precise and accurate, that introduces the force of Re.
It is Ke Re, to make Krei.
Etymology of re
“with reference to,” used from c. 1700 in legalese, from Latin (in) re “in the matter of,” from ablative of res “property, goods; matter, thing, affair,” from Proto-Italic *re-, from PIE *reh-i- “wealth, goods” (source also of Sanskrit rayi- “property, goods,” Avestan raii-i- “wealth”). Its non-legalese use is execrated by Fowler in three different sections of “Modern English Usage.”
Etymology of re-
word-forming element meaning “back, back from, back to the original place;” also “again, anew, once more,” also conveying the notion of “undoing” or “backward,” etc. (see sense evolution below), c. 1200, from Old French re- and directly from Latin re- an inseparable prefix meaning “again; back; anew, against.”
Re is the force of INVESTMENT. It is that of “repetition”.
Etymology of repeat (v.)
late 14c., repēten “to say what one has already said,” from Old French repeter “say or do again, get back, demand the return of” (13c., Modern French répéeter) and directly from Latin repetere “do or say again; attack again,” from re- “again” (see re-) + petere “to go to; attack; strive after; ask for, beseech” (from PIE root *pet- “to rush, to fly”).
Meaning “say what another has said” is from 1590s. As an emphatic word in radio broadcasts, 1938. Meaning “do over again; do, make, or perform again” is from 1550s; the specific meaning “to take a course of education over again” is recorded from 1945, American English. Intransitive sense of “perform some distinctive (but unspecified) function again or a second time” is by 1714. Related: Repeated; repeating.
*pet-
Also petə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to rush, to fly.”
The force is Pa, to “go out”, and the force of Pe is to “go out with the force of speed”, from above, gained while “going downward” like in “flight”. The speed of a leaf falling from a tree captures this force, and the sense of it. That, it is a “falling” speed, but not “fall to peril” sense.
A repetition, or that of coming back again, turning back again towards going out, has it to where an ease comes to occur, and the speed or productivity increases the “wealth”, the “goods”, the “gains” of the action. Repetition, from the force of Re Pe, is key to mastery, and that of advantage. Advantage through repetition.
This force was REASONED in the methodical sense. A method is repeated.
The force of Re came after the force of Ar, having Ar and Ya spoken of previously as chronological forces.
Etymology of *re-
*rē-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to reason, count;” a variant of PIE root *ar-, also arə-, “to fit together.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit radh- “to succeed, accomplish;” Greek arithmos “number, amount;” Latin reri “to consider, confirm, ratify,” ritus “rite, religious custom;” Old Church Slavonic raditi “to take thought, attend to;” Old Irish im-radim “to deliberate, consider;” Old English rædan “to advise, counsel, persuade; read;” Old English, Old High German rim “number;” Old Irish rim “number,” dorimu “I count.”
Te is a force appertaining to the quality and/or condition of the core of a thing.
Ri is the force of gains, that can be seen in their material sense of “goods”, of “wealth”, of “riches”.
Etymology of rich (adj.)
Old English rice “strong, powerful; great, mighty; of high rank” (senses now obsolete), in later Old English “wealthy;” from Proto-Germanic *rikijaz (source also of Old Norse rikr, Swedish rik, Danish rig, Old Frisian rike “wealthy, mighty,” Dutch rijk, Old High German rihhi “ruler, powerful, rich,” German reich “rich,” Gothic reiks “ruler, powerful, rich”), borrowed from a Celtic source akin to Gaulish *rix, Old Irish ri (genitive rig) “king,” from Proto-Celtic *rix, from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule” (compare rex).
The form of the word was influenced in Middle English by Old French riche “wealthy, magnificent, sumptuous,” which is, with Spanish rico, Italian ricco, from Frankish *riki “powerful,” or some other cognate Germanic word. Old English also had a noun, rice “rule, reign, power, might; authority; empire” (compare Reich). The evolution of the word reflects a connection between wealth and power in the ancient world, though the “power” sense seems to be the oldest.
In transferred and extended senses from c. 1200. The meaning “magnificent” is from c. 1200; that of “of great value or worth” is from mid-13c. Of food and colors, “having an abundance of a characteristic quality that pleases the senses,” from early 14c.; of sounds, from 1590s; of soils from 1570s. Sense of “entertaining, amusing” is recorded from 1760. The noun meaning “the wealthy” was in Old English.
English once had a related verb rixle “have domination, rule,” from Old English rixian “to rule.”
Re Ri is “economical goods” or “goods” that were acquired through methodical repetition, that are signs of “successful”.
“Successful accounting”.
The force of Re, and the force of Ri are not the same. The quality of Ri is defined by what force precedes it.
Etymology of rex (n.)
“a king,” 1610s, from Latin rex (genitive regis) “a king,” related to regere “to keep straight, guide, lead, rule” (from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule;” source also of Sanskrit raj- “king;” Old Irish ri “king,” genitive rig).
When Ri is used as a force, by itself, and used to describe a “figure” such as a being with expression, it is “one who holds the goods”, and presumingly far more than others.
On the surface, because of the continued alterations in the language, it would seem no discernment should be used in the phonetics. At times, there are RE and RI mixing that seem the same. This is modern. This is not how it was treated before the Magus.
Re Ri differed from Reg Ri.
The G sound was strongly correlated with “ne-gation”.
A force that will be very difficult to trace in the etymologies is that of Ga, which is retained in “Gaia”.
Ga is the force of the EARTH, that keeps one materially bound in what is seen as an exact and fixed... or “straight line”.
Ga, as a force of the Earth, is also the FORCE of WORSHIP in the most basic sense. WORSHIP does not exist in the Way of the Vir, and the force of Ga, in the Way of the Vir, is seen as a “NEGATIONARY” force. In a way, this seems like the force that says NO to all things meant to be affirmed, but the Ne has double meaning. “They”, those of Ga, of the Earth, have in re-pug-nance the force of resistance, the force of undermining, and the force of reactionary fight. They are called “negationary forces”.
The G sound, when present, meant “their thing” of Ga.
Etymology of Gaia (n.)
Earth as a goddess, from Greek Gaia, spouse of Uranus, mother of the Titans, personification of gaia “earth” (as opposed to heaven), “land” (as opposed to sea), “a land, country, soil;” it is a collateral form of gē (Dorian ga) “earth,” which is of unknown origin and perhaps from a pre-Indo-European language of Greece. The Roman equivalent goddess of the earth was Tellus (see tellurian), sometimes used in English poetically or rhetorically for “Earth personified” or “the Earth as a planet.”
I will not deviate to secure this term, but will add it for future reference. A “game” is that of “worship through Amusement”, the “coming together under that of the Ga”, as its mann, in the Germanic sense of the term “man”. “Man under Ga, amused”... is the meaning of “game”.
Etymology of game (n.)
c. 1200, from Old English gamen “joy, fun; game, amusement,” common Germanic (cognates: Old Frisian game “joy, glee,” Old Norse gaman “game, sport; pleasure, amusement,” Old Saxon gaman, Old High German gaman “sport, merriment,” Danish gamen, Swedish gamman “merriment”), said to be identical with Gothic gaman “participation, communion,” from Proto-Germanic *ga- collective prefix + *mann “person,” giving a sense of “people together.”
The -en was lost perhaps through being mistaken for a suffix. Meaning “contest for success or superiority played according to rules” is first attested c. 1200 (of athletic contests, chess, backgammon). Especially “the sport of hunting, fishing, hawking, or fowling” (c. 1300), thus “wild animals caught for sport” (c. 1300), which is the game in fair game (see under fair (adj.)), also gamey. Meaning “number of points required to win a game” is from 1830. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.
For Humanus of Min, in the Seven Emotional Kinetics... they have only six, from their Magus academics, and the sixth is called “joy”, and seen as “pleasure”. The main forms of “joy” or pleasures among Humanus are born out of Amusements. And this has always been the case.
A key element or cheat to consider, when one sees the G letter, and/or the sounds, the question is... what is central? Now, this is the Ga force. This includes the Freemasonic G, and Isis worship, and that of their “wives at home”. They are centered in the G, the Ga force.
To be a “good”, yes, notice G here in “good man”, is to be in service to a family, which is centered around the Ma, Ga forces. The Mother Earth forces, and her offspring.
This is the way of HUmanus, but this is not the Way of Vir.
How can the term “good”, then, be seen as “bad”?
Etymology of good
Old English gōd (with a long “o”) “excellent, fine; valuable; desirable, favorable, beneficial; full, entire, complete;” of abstractions, actions, etc., “beneficial, effective; righteous, pious;” of persons or souls, “righteous, pious, virtuous;” probably originally “having the right or desirable quality,” from Proto-Germanic *gōda- “fitting, suitable” (source also of Old Frisian god, Old Saxon gōd, Old Norse goðr, Middle Dutch goed, Dutch goed, Old High German guot, German gut, Gothic goþs). A word of uncertain etymology, perhaps originally “fit, adequate, belonging together,” from PIE root *ghedh- “to unite, be associated, suitable” (source also of Sanskrit gadh- “seize (booty),” Old Church Slavonic godu “favorable time,” Russian godnyi “fit, suitable,” Lithuanian goda “honor,” Old English gædrian “to gather, to take up together”).
Irregular comparative and superlative (better, best) reflect a widespread pattern in words for “good,” as in Latin bonus, melior, optimus.
Sense of “kind, benevolent” is from late Old English in reference to persons or God, from mid-14c. of actions. Middle English sense of “holy” is preserved in Good Friday. That of “friendly, gracious” is from c. 1200. Meaning “fortunate, prosperous, favorable” was in late Old English. As an expression of satisfaction, from early 15c. Of persons, “skilled (at a profession or occupation), expert,” in late Old English, now typically with at; in Middle English with of or to. Of children, “well-behaved,” by 1690s. Of money, “not debased, standard as to value,” from late 14c. From c. 1200 of numbers or quantities, “large, great,” of time or distance, “long;” good while “a considerable time” is from c. 1300; good way “a great distance” is mid-15c.
Why then, can one desire too much of a good thing. [“As You Like It”]
As good as “practically, virtually” is from mid-14c.; to be good for “beneficial to” is from late 14c. To make good “repay (costs, expenses), atone for (a sin or an offense)” is from late 14c. To have a good mind “have an earnest desire” (to do something) is from c. 1500. Good deed, good works were in Old English as “an act of piety;” good deed specifically as “act of service to others” was reinforced early 20c. by Boy Scouting. Good turn is from c. 1400. Good sport, of persons, is from 1906. The good book “the Bible” attested from 1801, originally in missionary literature describing the language of conversion efforts in American Indian tribes. Good to go is attested from 1989.
In all of that etymology, one should by now have detected a trend. I point to Proto-Indo-European roots, and that of Sanskrit, and Latin, then Greek. Of the languages of interest to me, these are the languages used for decoding. The Sanskrit gadh- has the element “seize (booty)”. The essence of “to gather” and “to take up together” is a key component of what is “good”, and this was most manifest in that of shared conquest over “goods”.
Ghedh, a more complex PIE root, is on account of the ways of those of Ga. The forces, and their descriptions had to change, to match their ways, on account of the lack of Accordance. The Ga are, and always have been “unified” around the Ma, and in service to the Ut, and the way in which they serve, is they “unify” against others, to “seize their goods”, and this is “good”. Living with favor is “favored by goods”. What was seen as “excellence”, in this sense, or “good”, was the ability to conquer others, and seize (booty).
The word “Virtuous” does not belong in there at all. Humanus deals in what is “good”, in worship to Ga, in service to Ma. Now, remember right here, and right now, “CARE” I had stated ought to be called “gare”. This would make it Ga Re. All Re that comes from Ma Gu S has the force of Ma Ga before it. Ma serves Ga, and Ga is the main worship.
Ar is a force that can be before Re, making it Ar Re, and then, Ar Ri, and then Ar Ya.
These are force formulas that can be used to piece together attributes and traits. Attributes and traits are forces seeking to be affirmed. The affirmative force of Ga is a “negatitive” force upon that which is affirmed. It is a “taking” force, that causes the Ut to be served by the Ma, and the female of Humanus serves the Ma, and becomes seen as the Ma — though “she” Se is not. “She” the female is bound to the Ma, and the Emotional Kinetics are the mechanisms that bind her. She too, is serving the UT forces of replacement and replication, in the name of this kind of nature. This kind of nature... is called Ga. This is why in English, it is not the De forces, in De Us, that carry over, but it is the Ga forces, in “God”, that carry over.
GOD, as Ga Od, is Ga Ut.
Ga is not a female, nor is it male. These are the “sexes”, or the “cut differences” of the Min by order of the process of replacement and replication. REAR.
Ga is the force that orders Ma around Ut. From Ut Ma Min, is Mi Ma. Mi Ma Mi Mu Ut. Read then right to left, is Ut as the directive that causes the condition of the bodies of Ma, and Mas, to serve it. So it is Ut Mu. The uterus centered condition.
This is both the physical body, and that of the conditions designed based on the cravings. Ut Mu is the condition. Ut Mu Mi means Mi, as them, under this condition. Ut Mi Mi Ma means that “them” is a female, versus Mas, which is the male. Ut Mu Mi Ma Mi Mi Mas would be the male aspect in the hierarchy. This is the natural order of GA.
The VIR are not a part of the natural order of GA. They do not have the same hierarchy. The Vir are of the order of Re... sort of. It is because of this, that the DIVINE faculty that governs the Way of the Vir, is called “Ratiocinative”. The Ratiocinative faculty of the Vir is its LIFE, its primary force, that orders then its physical, and conditional forces.
The Vir was not “born” until this force of Re entered into the form of Min. The force of Re does not exist as a sole force among the Ma Gu S. The force of Re, among the Magus, is Ut Re, or Ut Il Us.
It is a lower force than Re. It is Ut.
Ga is not the force opposite of Re, when it comes to the bodies. Vi is the opposite force. But manifest in form, it is Humanus with Ut, and Vir with Re. What appears to be Re among Humanus is not Re, and that is why it is UTILITY and USEFULLNESS, and not REASONING, Or RATIOCINATION.
The forces of:
De
Da
Di
become then connected with “bestowment”.
To circle now back to that of Reg, the added G that came before it being “rex” was saying, the “relation to Re, of those of Ga”. This would later become Utilis, but this connection is lost.
Etymology of *reg-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by:
Sanskrit raj- “a king, a leader,” rjyati “he stretches himself,” riag “torture” (by racking); Avestan razeyeiti “directs,” raštva- “directed, arranged, straight;” Persian rahst “right, correct;” Latin regere “to rule, direct, lead, govern,” rex (genitive regis) “king,” rectus “right, correct;” Greek oregein “to reach, extend;” Old Irish ri, Gaelic righ “a king,” Gaulish -rix “a king” (in personal names, such as Vircingetorix), Old Irish rigim “to stretch out;” Gothic reiks “a leader,” raihts “straight, right;” Lithuanian raižytis “to stretch oneself;” Old English rice “kingdom,” -ric “king,” rice “rich, powerful,” riht “correct;” Gothic raihts, Old High German recht, Old Swedish reht, Old Norse rettr “correct.”
Ri Ag, TORTURE.
“Discerning the SOURCE”, “THEY, THEM, YE”, was the source of “RULE and govern by torture”, or inflicting pain, or harm.
The Ri element used to describe the “way of them”, that of Humanus, was only retained without the previous forces, with the shorthand being the advent of G, phonetically.
This was on account of their phonetics that favored this phonetics. They favored Yu and Uh phonetics, and Ga, Gu, and Go. Later, they would favor Sc, and Sh, and so on, with the S, and they would often hiss it. This led to metaphors of the snake, and would later influence the writing of the letter G. The letter G and S are both “snake” manifestations. But the letter S was a more controlled snake. The letter V was from the spear, and the arrow of those phonetically called “VehrKa”.
Ve Ka
Ve Re Ka
Ve r Ka
Ve r
Vi r
This is how the force term “Vir” is derived. It is Vi Re, that is Vital Ratiocination. Which once had the accompanied force called Ka stated... which meant alertness and attention forces, and was mistaken to mean “wolf” and “dog”, on account of all instructions given to the accompanied “CA-nine” or “kanine”, starting with Ka stated, and then the “wolf dog” would look, and receive its alerts. So then it was presumed, in naming, it was Ka, so named.
But it was originally the alert and Vital Ratiocinative kind. Vehrka would then be taken like “Qayin” to be thought of as “Man (Vir) wolf (Ka)”.
The two terms would be deliberately divided, because the aim from the Ma Gus was to always divide and conquer the Vehrka. Their favored plant was often called “dogbane”, on account that they used it for their ritual hallucinogenics, but also to poison the dogs of the Vehrka.
“Vehrka” would fall out of use in all but one place, among the Avestan, to mean “wolf”, being the last place where it can be correlated. “Canine” would become the term for “dog”, and “Vir” would fall into general use among the Latin languaged kind, as being nothing more than a “courageous Man”, thus defining the notion that “Virtue” means “manliness”. That the Vir were a kind would then become forever hidden and lost.
TILL now.
THIS IS THE WAY
THIS IS THE WAY of the VIR.
The Reg force was that of RULING over others through Ga.
It did not mean general govern, or rule. There is no such thing as a Vir king. It is Humanus, and only Humanus who would have kings, who rule over others on “agound” of goad, their goods, their seized booty, then in “grace” disseminated among subjects, like children of Ma.
The etymology of the term “rite” links the Ri to that of Re, to “Reason” and to “count”. However, throughout the development of “rite”, and “ritual”, accurate and precise accounting has never been the nature.
This error is because they are missing a letter. They are missing the letter G. It is not Re from whence Ri in “rite” comes from. It is Regte.
Ritus is where “rite” is derived. The force is Us.
The connecting term is “usage”.
Etymology of usage (n.)
c. 1300, “established practice, custom,” from Anglo-French and Old French usage “custom, habit, experience; taxes levied,” from us, from Latin usus “use, custom” (see use (v.)). From late 14c. as “service, use, act of using something.”
It is a force of servility. UTILIS, remember, is a primary element under Ut, the force of uterus.
Etymology of customary (adj.)
1520s, “liable to customs or dues;” c. 1600, “according to established usage, habitual,” from Medieval Latin custumarius, from Latin consuetudinarius, from consuetitudinem (see custom (n.)). In Middle English it was a noun, “written collection of customs” of a manor or community. Earlier words for “according to established usage” were custumal (c. 1400, from Old French), custumable (c. 1300). Related: Customarily.
Etymology of use (v.)
c. 1200, “employ for a purpose,” from Old French user “employ, make use of, practice, frequent,” from Vulgar Latin *usare “use,” frequentative form of past participle stem of Latin uti “make use of, profit by, take advantage of, enjoy, apply, consume,” in Old Latin oeti “use, employ, exercise, perform,” of uncertain origin. Related: Used; using. Replaced Old English brucan (see brook (v.)). From late 14c. as “take advantage of.”
Ut I.
Etymology of use (n.)
c. 1200, “act of employing,” from Anglo-French and Old French us “custom, practice, usage,” from Latin usus “use, custom, practice, employment, skill, habit,” from past participle stem of uti “make use of, profit by, take advantage of” (see use (v.)).
Etymology of uterus (n.)
“female organ of gestation, womb,” late 14c., from Latin uterus “womb, belly” (plural uteri), from PIE root *udero- “abdomen, womb, stomach” (source also of Sanskrit udaram “belly,” Greek hystera “womb,” Lithuanian vėderas “sausage, intestines, stomach, lower abdomen,” Old Church Slavonic vedro “bucket, barrel,” Russian vedro).
Ut Er Us
There are two force components in this etym., that have force presence throughout the terms in which I have illuminated. This is not folk etymology. Though it may not pass the academic Magus sense of etymological discoveries, it must be noted... it was not their language.
They are guessing. I am Authoring. I do not have the requirement to evidence it with precision, in the face of US-ing their sources.
In the sense of the forces as they concern craving and consumption, that of “eating” for the “belly”, in the sense of need and strength, is the force:
Ad
Ed
But the force Ut I is that eating by way of “useful”, in how you have been taught to see this term.
Eating for emotional assurance, and relief, is not Ad force. This is “eating to be strong”.
Etymology of *ed-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to eat,” originally “to bite.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit admi “I eat;” Avestan ad- “to eat;” Greek edo “I eat;” Latin edere “to eat;” Lithuanian ėdu “I eat,” ėdžioti “to devour, bite;” Hittite edmi “I eat,” adanna “food;” Armenian utem “I eat;” Old Church Slavonic jasti “to eat,” Russian jest “to eat;” Old Irish ithim “I eat;” Gothic itan, Old Swedish and Old English etan, Old High German essan “to eat.”
In observation of “them of Ga”, it was seen that they “eat” for Ut.
The force On enters later. But they were called:
Ga Ut On.
This is retained, as I have illuminated, vigilant over the G, in that of the term “glutton”.
Vi Gi La n Te. Decode this with what has been shown. Is there VIGILANCE, without the G? Is their Vi Gor, without the G?
When conditions are adverse, they require Vigilance, and Vigor. When they are favorable, these two forces would be seemingly wasteful. But Vigilance demands constant watch. Vigilance and Vigor are around the G for a reason.
Vitality and Valiance are not.
These are how they are paired in this “Way”.
Vitality and Valiance
Vigor and Vigilance.
Etymology of glutton (n.)
“one who eats and drinks to excess,” early 13c., from Old French gloton “glutton;” also “scoundrel,” a general term of abuse (Modern French glouton), from Latin gluttonem (nominative glutto) “overeater,” which is related to gluttire “to swallow,” gula “throat” (see gullet). General sense in reference to one who indulges in anything to excess is from 1704. Glutton for punishment is from pugilism; the phrase is from 1854, but the idea is older:
Thus, Theocritus, in his Milling-match, calls Amycus “a glutton,” which is well known to be the classical phrase at Moulsey-Hurst, for one who, like Amycus, takes a deal of punishment before he is satisfied. [Tom Moore, “Tom Crib's Memorial to Congress,” 1819]
When the Vir eats, the Vir:
Re Vi Ta Ad.
When the Ma Gus eats, it does so:
Ga Ut On.
Etymology of gullet (n.)
“passage from the mouth of an animal to the stomach,” c. 1300 (as a surname), from Old French golet “neck (of a bottle); gutter; bay, creek,” diminutive of gole “throat, neck” (Modern French gueule), from Latin gula “throat,” also “appetite,” which is related to gluttire “to gulp down, devour,” glutto “a glutton.” De Vaan writes, “We seem to be dealing with an onomatopoeic formation of the form *gul- / *glu-.” Compare Old English ceole “throat;” Old Church Slavonic glutu “gullet,” Russian glot “draught, gulp;” Old Irish gelim “I devour.”
The Ut force is centered around the stomach. The uterus is so centered in the female. Feeding, cravings, and desires begin in the eyes, but serve the purpose of the stomach, and the womb follows the stomach. The central feeding aspect serves the central birthing aspect. The Ma, or female has both the feeding and the birthing. The Mas, or male has feeding and seeding. The Ma is feeding and taking, or receiving. The Mas is feeding and giving, that is serving.
Moods, energetics, and mental confusion and clarity are often linked to “diet”, that is, how one feeds. De Ut. It can also be how one “shines”, depending on the forces in the arrangement. Dyeu, which is quite similar to De Us, had to do with shining.
Etymology of *dyeu-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to shine,” in derivatives “sky, heaven, god.”
Deus was “the shining one”, that of “God”.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit deva “god” (literally “shining one”); diva “by day;” Avestan dava- “spirit, demon;” Greek delos “clear;” Latin dies “day,” deus “god;” Welsh diw, Breton deiz “day;” Armenian tiw “day;” Lithuanian dievas “god,” diena “day;” Old Church Slavonic dini, Polish dzień, Russian den “day;” Old Norse tivar “gods;” Old English Tig, genitive Tiwes, name of a god.
It forms all or part of: adieu; adios; adjourn; Asmodeus; circadian; deific; deify; deism; deity; deodand; deus ex machina; deva; dial; diary; Diana; Dianthus; diet (n.2) “assembly;” Dioscuri; Dis; dismal; diurnal; diva; Dives; divine; joss; journal; journalist; journey; Jove; jovial; Julia; Julius; July; Jupiter; meridian; Midi; per diem; psychedelic; quotidian; sojourn; Tuesday; Zeus.
Two words, spelled exactly the same way, capture two different meanings:
Etymology of diet (n.1)
c. 1200, “regular food,” from Old French diete (13c.) “diet, pittance, fare,” from Medieval Latin dieta “parliamentary assembly,” also “a day's work; daily food allowance, food,” from Latin diaeta “prescribed way of life,” from Greek diaita, originally “way of life, regimen, dwelling,” related to diaitasthai “lead one's life,” and from diaitan, originally “separate, select” (food and drink), frequentative of *diainysthai “take apart,” from dia “apart” (see dia-) + ainysthai “take,” from PIE root *ai- (1) “to give, allot.”
From late 14c. as “customary way of eating,” also “food considered in relation to its quantity and effects,” and “a course of food regulated by a physician or by medical rules,” often a restriction of food or certain foods; hence to put (someone) on a diet (mid-15c.). The adjective in the sense of “slimming, having reduced calories” (Diet Coke, etc.) is attested by 1963, originally in American English.
Etymology of diet (n.2)
“assembly of delegates, etc., held from day to day for legislative, political, or other business,” mid-15c., from Medieval Latin dieta, variant of diaeta “daily office (of the Church), daily duty, assembly, meeting of counselors,” from Greek diaita “regimen” (see diet (n.1)), but associated with Latin dies “day” (from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine”). Since c. 1600 used by English and French writers of the legislative assemblies of Germany and Austria.
Etymology of diet (v.)
late 14c., “to regulate one's diet for the sake of health,” from Old French dieter, from diete “fare” (see diet (n.1)); meaning “to regulate oneself as to food” (especially against fatness) is from 1650s. Related: Dieted; dieting. An obsolete word for this is banting.
The force that the two of these terms share is:
De
Da
Di
And in this correlated sense, they retain the Di force, taken often in numbering to be the force of “two”, in the sense of options. Correlate this phonetically to discern. “To cut through”, “to divide the two”.
Etymology of dia-
before vowels, di-, word-forming element meaning “through, in different directions, between,” also often merely intensive, “thoroughly, entirely,” from Greek dia “through; throughout,” probably cognate with bi- and related to duo “two” (from PIE root *dwo- “two”) with a base sense of “twice.”
Etymology of *dwo-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “two.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit dvau, Avestan dva, Greek duo, Latin duo, Old Welsh dou, Lithuanian dvi, Old Church Slavonic duva, Old English twa, twegen, German zwei, Gothic twai “two;” first element in Hittite ta-ugash “two years old.”
The correlation to De Us, and De Ut, and so on... correlates to the CONTRAST of Earth and Heaven. Ga, and Re.
Etymology of ray (n.1)
“beam of light, light emitted in a given direction from a luminous body,” early 14c., rai, from Old French rai (nominative rais) “ray (of the sun), spoke (of a wheel); gush, spurt,” from Latin radius “ray, spoke, staff, rod” (see radius). Not common before 17c. [OED]; of the sun, usually in reference to heat (beam being preferred for light).
Ray is usually distinguished from beam, as indicating a smaller amount of light; in scientific use a beam is a collection of parallel rays. In ordinary language ray is the word usually employed when the reference is to the heat rather than the light of the sun .... [OED]
Science fiction's ray-gun is recorded by 1931 (in Amazing Stories; electric ray gun as an imaginary weapon is from 1924; death-ray gun from 1926 as a prop in a vaudeville act), but the Martians had a Heat-Ray weapon in “War of the Worlds” (1898).
Re
Ri
Ra
Ra Di Us
Di Us
Ra Di Us:
To feed on, the cutting of light from dark, Heaven and Earth.
Of the two, “We” feed on Heaven.
This can not be resolved without the “straight line” at the center drawn across the circle. Reg, to regulated.
The regulation is between Ga and Re, the ray of the SUN, the Solar, versus the Earth.
Radius is the code, De Us, and Di Us is a removal of the code, leading to Gaia.
Only because of G, do we have Reg Ul Ate.
Us, Ul, Ut.
What will be at the center for consumption of the two... Earth, or Heaven?
Stomach, or mind?
Centered in appetite, in hunger, in cravings, or centered in the mind?
Of the order, is it Ra of the two, or Us of the two? Many times over, what is better Reasoning may prove least useful. The same can then be said of ethics later on. What could be considered the Virtuous thing to do does not get you fed, but starved.
This too correlates to short “gains” and “goods”, to that of long-term delay of instant gratification for gains.
Notice how the subject material shifted with ease over to the G terms. “Gratification”, and “gains”.
GA
Ti
Ga r
Gr a
Ut and Us are about central consumption and cravings. Ut then goes on to regulate the emotions, to serve in FEEDING. Every emotion is something seeking to consume something. The name of the emotion is the name of the FEEDER. It will either be “satiated” or “hungry”.
When an emotion is satiated, it is called “rested”.
When an emotion is HUngry, it is called “aroused”, or “disturbed” relatively.
Etymology of rest (v.2)
[be left, remain] mid-15c., “remain, continue in existence,” from Old French rester “to remain, stay” (12c.), from Latin restare “stand back, be left,” from re- “back” (see re-) + stare “to stand” (from PIE root *sta- “to stand, make or be firm”).
It has been largely confused and partly merged with rest (v.1), which, however, is Germanic.
The meaning “be in a certain state or position” (of affairs, etc.) is from late 15c. The older sense of “to continue to be” is rare but in phrases such as rest assured. To rest with “be in the power of, depend upon” is by 1819.
The transitive sense of “to keep, cause to continue to remain” was common in 16c.-17c., “used with a predicate adjective following and qualifying the object” [Century Dictionary]. Hence the phrase rest you merry (1540s, Shakespeare also has rest you fair), earlier rest þe murie (mid-13c.), as a greeting, “rest well, be happy,” from the old adverbial use of merry. The Christmas carol lyric God rest ye merry, gentlemen, often is mispunctuated.
The term “rest” has two forces:
Re
Sa
with Te added to the S;
Thus,
Re
Sta.
Re Sta was as opposed to Re Ap.
Ma was at Re Sta in the settlement.
Mas was Re Ap Pa, out in the field.
“Rest”, in this second verb, is how the term is being used, with its Re Sta element made clear.
Se
Sa
Si
Are forces of Pre-se-nce.
Te
Ta
Ti
Are forces of condition.
Both of these forces are combined in:
Ste
Sta
Sti
Etymology of *sta-
*stā-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to stand, set down, make or be firm,” with derivatives meaning “place or thing that is standing.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit tisthati “stands;” Avestan histaiti “to stand;” Persian -stan “country,” literally “where one stands;” Greek histēmi “put, place, cause to stand; weigh,” stasis “a standing still,” statos “placed,” stylos “pillar;” Latin sistere “stand still, stop, make stand, place, produce in court,” status “manner, position, condition, attitude,” stare “to stand,” statio “station, post;” Lithuanian stojuos “I place myself,” statau “I place;” Old Church Slavonic staja “place myself,” stanu “position;” Gothic standan, Old English standan “to stand,” stede “place;” Old Norse steði “anvil;” Old Irish sessam “the act of standing.”
Rest is accounted in being “still standing” or “still set down”, hence “settled”. The forces differ here, in Sa, versus Se.
But I can not secure that route at this time and condition.
Etymology of settle (v.)
Middle English setlen, “become set or fixed, stable or permanent; seat, place in a seat; sink down, come down,” from Old English setlan “place in a fixed or permanent position; cause to sit, place in a seat,” from setl “a seat” (see settle (n.)). Compare German siedeln “to settle; to colonize.”
From c. 1300 in reference to birds, etc., “to alight.” From early 14c. of ground, etc., “to sink down, descend; cave in.” By early 15c. (Chauliac) in reference to a liquid, “change from a disturbed or muddy condition to one of cleanness.” By 1570s, of persons, “change from a disturbed or troubled state to one of security.”
It is attested by 1520s as “become calm” (but c. 1600 it also could mean, colloquially, “knock down dead or stunned”). The meaning “decide, set or fix as by purpose or intention” is by 1620s. The meaning “secure title to (property, etc.) by means of a deed, etc.” is from 1660s. It is attested by 1733 as “put beyond dispute or establish by authority or argument;” hence “resolve, determine, come to a decision” (1782).
The sense of “establish a permanent residence” is recorded by 1620s; that of “plant with inhabitants, colonize” is by 1702.
The old meaning “reconcile” (a quarrel, differences, etc.) perhaps is influenced by or merged with Middle English sahtlen “to reconcile,” which is from Old English saht “reconciliation,” from Old Norse satt “reconciliation.”
To settle down (intrans.) as what married couples do in establishing a domestic state is by 1835 (settle alone in this sense is by 1718). The transitive sense is by 1520s. To settle for “content oneself with” is from 1943; Middle English also used settle (v.) in an intransitive sense of “come down in the world, become lower in estate” (mid-14c.).
Etymology of settled (adj.)
1550s, of mental states, “quiet, orderly, steady;” by 1640s of objects “firmly fixed or established;” past-participle adjective from settle (v.). The meaning in reference to matters in dispute, etc., “determined, decided, or agreed upon” is by 1570s; hence settled matter (by 1790), etc., implying no room for doubt or question. Related: Settledness (for which see settlement).
Etymology of settlement (n.)
1620s, “act of clarifying, fixing, or steadying;” 1640s, “the placing of persons or things in a fixed or permanent position;” from settle (v.) + -ment. The meaning “a colony,” especially a new one, “community of subjects of a state settled in a new country; tract of country newly colonized” is attested from 1690s; that of “small village on the frontier” is from 1827, American English.
The legal sense of “a settling of arrangements” (of divorce, property transfer, etc.) is from 1670s. The sense of “payment of an account, satisfaction of a claim or demand” is by 1729. The meaning “determination or decision of a question, etc.” is by 1777.
Alternative settledness for “state or quality of being settled” (1570s) was “frequent in 17th c.” according to OED. In late 19c., settlement also was used by Christian socialists for an establishment in a poor neighborhood where middle-class intellectuals live daily among the working class for purposes of cooperation and social reform, as better than charity in any case; hence Settlement House, etc.
Settlements are for settling the minds of those who are in a “fixed” position, or “standing”, which is “in line” or “along the line” that is established by “rule” and “regulation” through that of a Reg form of collective.
The Reg, that is the “regulator”, establishes the flow of goods, and “right” and “good” in the “Ways”.
Etymology of regulator (n.)
1650s, “one who regulates” in any sense, agent noun in Latin form from regulate. In English history from 1680s; in American history from 1767, applied to local posses that kept order (or disturbed it) in rural regions. From 1702 as “device for controlling machinery in motion;” the specific sense of “mechanical device or clock used to set the time of other pieces” is from 1758.
Etymology of governor (n.)
c. 1300, gouernour, “personal keeper, protector, guide;” late 14c., “one who governs, a ruler,” from Old French governeor “prince, ruler, administrator; helmsman” (11c., Modern French gouverneur) and directly from Latin gubernatorem (nominative gubernator) “director, ruler, governor,” originally “steersman, pilot” (see govern). Meaning “subordinate ruler; head of a province, etc.” is from late 14c. Meaning “one charged with direction or control of an institution, etc.” is from late 14c. Mechanical sense of “self-acting regulator” is from 1819. The adjective gubernatorial remembers the Latin form. There is a record of English governator from 1520s.
Reg Ul At
Etymology of regulate (v.)
early 15c., regulaten, “adjust by rule, method, or control,” from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare “to control by rule, direct,” from Latin regula “rule, straight piece of wood” (from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule”).
Meaning “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s. Sense of “adjust (a clock, etc.) with reference to a standard of accuracy” is by 1660s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
Late Latin regulatus; Reg Ul At Us.
Is this merely wordplay in your mind, a form of Amusement or Seduction, or is the code becoming apparent, regardless of what the academic Magus would say?
This is why one can “REGULATE their DIET”. This term “REGULATE” will always be around material, and resources, with others too... themselves, being a servile “resource”.
One comes to REGULATE, that is GOVERN others, for the sake of Us. For the sake of their own stomach and “central” interest.
The collective is Us. The interest of the collective is Us to Ut.
Etymology of us (pron.)
Old English us (cognate with Old Saxon, Old Frisian us, Old Norse, Swedish oss, Dutch ons, German uns), accusative and dative plural of we, from PIE *nes- (2), forming oblique cases of the first person plural personal pronoun (source also of Sanskrit nas, Avestan na, Hittite nash “us;” Greek no “we two;” Latin nos “we, us;” Old Church Slavonic ny “us,” nasu “our;” Old Irish ni, Welsh ni “we, us”). The -n- is preserved in Germanic in Dutch ons, German uns.
But the forces exist of:
Ne
Ni
Na
And these forces are counter not to what is affirmed, but more often than not, that which is engaged in “negationary” charges.
On its face value it is “not affirmed”. But add the G, and it is no to the negated, coming from the G, the Ga.
Negation more often than not is on behalf of Ga, and this is through the emotion of diffidence, which is fed on uncertainty, appearing assured in certainty, only so much as the appearance is on account of some servant, feeding the fear and insecurity.
Ni, for “we” and/or “us”, is “we not them”. There is a “them” implied, in the use.
“Us” is “we who feed together”.
When normies congregate, they place a si-g-ni-fi-ca-nce on that of meals, of that of feeding over dinners, together, often lacking any unified objectives, and missions. Simply, what does your family or familiars bond over? Name the missions you have completed with your familiars.
Amusement, and/or feeding. This is the way of familiars. This is one's “us”, that being those whom they dine with, the company they keep around their cravings, their hunger, and their levels of ability to be satiated, that is “rested”, versus “aroused” and/or hungry or disturbed.
Etymology of arouse (v.)
1590s, “awaken, stir to action” (transitive), from a- (1) “on” + rouse. Related: Aroused; arousing.
Etymology of on (prep., adv.)
“in a position above and in contact with; in such a position as to be supported by;” also noting the goal to which some action is or has been directed; “about, concerning, regarding; in a position to cover;” as an adverb, “in or into a position in contact with and supported by the top or upper part of something; in or into place; in place for use or action; into movement or action; in operation,” Old English on, unstressed variant of an “in, on, into,” from Proto-Germanic *ana “on” (source also of Dutch aan, German an, Gothic ana “on, upon”), from PIE root *an- (1) “on” (source also of Avestan ana “on,” Greek ana “on, upon,” Latin an-, Old Church Slavonic na, Lithuanian nuo “down from”).
Also used in Old English in many places where we now would use in. From 16c.-18c. (and still in northern England dialect) often reduced to o'. Phrase on to “aware” is from 1877.
An Ro Us
Etymology of rouse (v.)
mid-15c., rousen, intransitive, probably from Anglo-French or Old French reuser, ruser; Middle English Compendium compares 16c. French rousee “abrupt movement.” Sometimes also said to be from Latin recusare “refuse, decline,” with loss of the medial -c-. Originally in English a technical term in hawking, “to shaking the feathers of the body,” but like many medieval hawking and hunting terms it is of obscure origin.
The sense of “cause game to rise from cover or lair” is from 1520s. The word became general from 16c. in the figurative, transitive, meaning “stir up, cause to start up by noise or clamor, provoke to activity; waken from torpor or inaction” (1580s); that of “to awaken, cause to start from slumber or repose” is recorded by 1590s. Related: Roused; rousing.
Ro Us
To shaken the hunger, the cravings. This implies, it is not satiated or fed.
Sa Ti At Ed
Etymology of sated (adj.)
“glutted, satiated,” 1690s, past-participle adjective from sate (v.).
Etymology of satiate (v.)
mid-15c., saciaten, “fill to repletion, satisfy, feed or nourish to the full,” from Latin satiatus, past participle of satiare “fill full, satisfy,” from satis “enough” (from PIE root *sa- “to satisfy”). By 1620s in a bad sense, “to fill beyond or over natural desire, weary by repletion.” Related: Satiated; satiating.
From Latin satiatus;
Sa Ti At Us
Etymology of *sa-
*sā-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to satisfy.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit a-sinvan “insatiable;” Greek hadros “thick, bulky;” Latin satis “enough, sufficient;” Old Church Slavonic sytu, Lithuanian sotus “satiated;” Old Irish saith “satiety,” sathach “sated;” Old English sæd “sated, full, having had one's fill, weary of.”
Correlated term that I will not provide expounding on yet, is “SPEED”.
Etymology of speed (n.)
Old English sped “success, a successful course; prosperity, riches, wealth; luck; opportunity, advancement,” from Proto-Germanic *spodiz (source also of Old Saxon spod “success,” Dutch spoed “haste, speed,” Old High German spuot “success,” Old Saxon spodian “to cause to succeed,” Middle Dutch spoeden, Old High German spuoten “to haste”), from PIE *spo-ti-, from root *spes- or *speh- “prosperity” (source also of Hittite išpai- “get full, be satiated;” Sanskrit sphira “fat,” sphayat “increases;” Latin spes “hope,” sperare “to hope;” Old Church Slavonic spechu “endeavor,” spĕti “to succeed,” Russian spet' “to ripen;” Lithuanian spėju, spėti “to have leisure;” Old English spōwan “to prosper”).
Meaning “rapidity of movement, quickness, swiftness” emerged in late Old English (at first usually adverbially, in dative plural, as in spedum feran). Meaning “rate of motion or progress” (whether fast or slow) is from c. 1200. Meaning “gear of a machine” is attested from 1866. Meaning “methamphetamine, or a related drug,” first attested 1967, from its effect on users.
Speed limit is from 1879 (originally of locomotives); speed-trap is from 1908. Speed bump is 1975; figurative sense is 1990s. Full speed is recorded from late 14c. Speed reading first attested 1965. Speedball “mix of cocaine and morphine or heroin” is recorded from 1909.
One can observe this, and perhaps piece together on their own the point.
This has all been the route being secured to broach the middle factor before that of Entertainment, and that factor is “RITE” and “RITUAL”.
In the Way of the Vir, it does not deal in rites and rituals.
“Rite” is not from Re, as a standalone force.
“Rite” is from Reg Te. It is correlated to regulated, repeated, customary behavior. It is not to be attached to REASON or Ratiocination as the same. It only shares in repetition as a trait. A rite is repeated customs. A Ratiocination is repeated methods of Reasoning towards precise and accurate outing of the core, or nature of a thing.
RELIGIOUS RITES do not exist in the Way of the Vir. A custom can be well Reasoned, but they often are not, and do not require the carrying over of the Reasoning and origins in order for the custom to be replicated. Rites concern replicating customs.
Etymology of rite (n.)
early 14c., “formal act or procedure of religious observance performed according to an established manner,” from Latin ritus “custom, usage,” especially “a religious observance or ceremony” (source also of Spanish, Italian rito), which perhaps is from PIE root *re- “to reason, count,” on the notion of “to count; to observe carefully.” Rite of passage (1909), marking the end of one phase and the start of another in an individual life, is translated from French rite de passage, coined by French anthropologist Arnold van Gennep (1873-1957).
Reg Ta Us
are the forces of “rites”.
Etymology of ritual (adj.)
1560s, “pertaining to or consisting of a rite or rites,” from French ritual or directly from Latin ritualis “relating to (religious) rites,” from ritus “religious observance or ceremony, custom, usage,” (see rite). By 1630s as “done as or in the manner of a rite” (as in ritual murder, attested by 1896). Related: Ritually.
The terms “rite”, and “ritual” are characteristically “regulations of religious and/or social observance, or ceremony, custom, usage”.
The question of if a rite is being expressed, or a ritual is present, is based on these traits.
Etymology of ceremony (n.)
late 14c., cerymonye, “a religious observance, a solemn rite,” from Old French ceremonie and directly from Medieval Latin ceremonia, from Latin caerimonia “holiness, sacredness; awe; reverent rite, sacred ceremony,” an obscure word, possibly of Etruscan origin, or a reference to the ancient rites performed by the Etruscan pontiffs at Caere, near Rome.
Introduced in English by Wyclif. Also from late 14c. as “a conventional usage of politeness, formality.” Disparaging sense of “mere formality” is by 1550s.
“Ceremony” means regulating the hearts or the centers of others with the use of rites and rituals, such as customs, traditions, and usage established from Us.
There are no ceremonies in the Way of the Vir.
There are not rites, and there are no rituals.
Correlated to “ceremony” is:
Etymology of solemn (adj.)
mid-14c., solemne, solempne, “performed with due religious ceremony or reverence, sacred, devoted to religious observances,” also, of a vow, etc., “made under religious sanction, binding,” from Old French solempne (12c., Modern French solennel) and directly from Latin sollemnis “annual, established, religiously fixed, formal, ceremonial, traditional,” perhaps related to sollus “whole” (from PIE root *sol- “whole, well-kept”).
“The explanation that Latin sollemnis was formed from sollus whole + annus year is not considered valid” [Barnhart], but some assimilation via folk-etymology is possible. In Middle English also “famous, important; imposing, grand,” hence Chaucer's friar, a ful solempne man. Meaning “marked by seriousness or earnestness” is from late 14c.; sense of “fitted to inspire devout reflection” is from c. 1400. Related: Solemnly.
This religious component does not exist in the Way of the Vir, though Vows are taken by the individual for themselves, towards that of Validity. Vows are not taken “in”, nor for the Religion of the Vir, that is the Way of the Vir. One does NOT vow towards the Way of the Vir. One is not of the Way of the Vir if they are not with Vows towards the Emotional Kinetics at the core of the Way of the Vir.
-
Vovere (confidence, vow)
-
Vitality, Vincere (overcome), Invincibilis (unconquerable)
-
Valiance (martial Valor)
-
Veracity (affirming Validus with Valor)
-
Vigor, Vigilance (guardianship, watchful, alert, awake, situational awareness).
-
Validus (certainty, knowledge favored)
-
Venture (Engagement, Advancement, martial Entertainment of skilled body, mind and Intellect)
These are the Emotional Kinetics in which the Votary has vowed to discover, cultivate, and sustain in habit, as VIRTUES, or that of The Way of the Vir, or “Virness”. They are embodied by a Vir, and cultivated by a Votary. These are the Solar traits.
When the expression is, “the Vir are Solar”, what this makes use of is the ancient notion of “Sol”, not the later notion. This meant Invincibilis, or “unconquerable”, “not wounded”, “whole”, and “well-kept”.
Etymology of *sol-
also solə-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “whole, well-kept.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit sarvah “uninjured, intact, whole;” Avestan haurva- “uninjured, intact;” Old Persian haruva-; Greek holos “whole;” Latin salvus “uninjured, in good health, safe,” salus “good health,” solidus “solid;” Armenian olj “whole, healthy.”
The Ha force in this correlates to “blood”.
The sense of rite and ritual is a different course set by the Magus, and its affairs. Magus engages in rites and rituals; a Vir, and/or a Votary DOES NOT.
The notion that “we” all do rituals is the projection of a Magus subject on the rest, where their own ineptitudes are presumed to be universal.
Ritual feeding, without a doubt, exists as a universal among HUmanus. Humanus is ritualistic, and ritualistic, more often than not, conflicts with Virtue, and is an antonym. Rituals are often present to feed the hungry and crying Emotional Kinetics of the Humanus.
This is not the Way.
“Going” and “coming” have their roots of first detection upon the coming of those with Ga, as it differed from those who “came”, and went with Ka. Ka, as a force. Ga lacks alertness, lacks Vital and accurate sense of things. Ka is Vital and accurate sense of things, not Reasoning. It's the senses.
The Vir Ka Mu that is moved through the condition, Mu, alert.
The Ga were Ga Mu, that is, in the condition, focused on their bindings.
Etymology of *gwa-
*gwā-, also *gwem-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to go, come.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit gamati “he goes,” Avestan jamaiti “goes,” Tocharian kakmu “come,” Lithuanian gemu, gimti “to be born,” Greek bainein “to go, walk, step,” Latin venire “to come,” Old English cuman “come, approach,” German kommen, Gothic qiman.
⚔⚔⚔
10-21-2022
I had begun the previous session securing the route around the notion of Entertainment and how it applies in “This Way”, the Way of the Vir.
When one hears this word, “Entertainment”, no doubt, what arises in most is that of EXAMPLES of MEDIA, and external forms of arousal or excitement in interest. Moving pictures, or movies, audio recordings, such as music, talks, and so on. The examples are many. Amusement parks, movie theater, theater, outings.
But most examples will be indeed externally derived. One does not think often of, if at all, the notion that ENTERTAINMENT is the “maintaining of a certain FRAME of MIND”.
Etymology of entertainment (n.)
1530s, “provision for support of a retainer; manner of social behavior,” now obsolete, along with other 16c. senses; from entertain + -ment. Meaning “the amusement of someone” is from 1610s; sense of “that which entertains” is from 1650s; that of “public performance or display meant to amuse” is from 1727.
There is a return to the Te Ta Ti notion of forces within this “Way”.
Etymology of entertain (v.)
late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support” (12c.), from entre- “among” (from Latin inter; see inter-) + tenir “to hold” (from Latin tenere, from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
Sense of “have a guest” is late 15c.; that of “gratify, amuse” is 1620s. Meaning “to allow (something) to consideration, take into the mind” (of opinions, notions, etc.) is 1610s. Related: Entertained; entertaining.
The string, the “stretching” of that string, wound tight, or loose. Such metaphors explored already.
When you come before another, be it that they are foreign or familiar to you, you are not engaging them in their emotions direct. This means the Emotional Kinetics of 1-6, that of diffidence, of anxiety, of repugnance, of disgust, of despair, of favored uncertainty, are not directly before you to be considered. Often, the individual is in a “resting” position, posture, or stance.
They are not often “aroused” or “moved” in an easy to identify emotional state. They will seem at first “calm” or “stable”. This “resting” position indicates that at the moment of contact they do not have an apparent hunger that is seeking to be satiated . Presumption then, would be... they have already fed the craving.
More often than not, to fill the air with chatter, folk will begin by complaining about something. They will speak often of how things are “going wrong” here and there. It is not as often that someone speaks of Victories, because it is not of the commons to have Victories.
I was asked just yesterday, how the “world was treating me”, and my response was “same as usual, because it does not treat me any way it sees fit”. I said... “Everything is always 'good' with me, because I make good decisions in life.”
There was nothing to complain about.
Complaints have Value. That Value is for them to point out to others, who may not know that there is a PROBLEM that needs to be resolved. When there is no aim to resolve the problem, and complaining itself is the primary... this is repugnance, as an emotion, underlying the Entertainment in which complaining provides. That form of Entertainment is called AMUSEMENT.
Etymology of amusement (n.)
1640s, “diversion of attention,” especially in military actions, from French amusement, noun of action from amuser (see amuse).
And because all bold and irreverent Speeches touching matters of high nature, and all malicious and false Reports tending to Sedition, or to the Amusement of Our People, are punishable ... (etc.) [Charles II, Proclamation of Oct. 26, 1688]
Meaning “a pastime, play, game, anything which pleasantly diverts the attention” (from duty, work, etc.) is from 1670s, originally depreciative; the meaning “pleasurable diversion” is attested from 1690s. Amusement hall is by 1862; amusement park is attested by 1897.
Etymology of amuse (v.)
late 15c., “to divert the attention, beguile, delude,” from Old French amuser “fool, tease, hoax, entrap; make fun of,” literally “cause to muse” (as a distraction), from a “at, to” (from Latin ad, but here probably a causal prefix) + muser “ponder, stare fixedly” (see muse (v.)).
The original English senses are obsolete; the meaning “divert from serious business, tickle the fancy of” is recorded from 1630s, but through 18c. the primary meaning was “deceive, cheat” by first occupying the attention. “The word was not in reg. use bef. 1600, and was not used by Shakespere” [OED]. Bemuse retains more of the original meaning. Greek amousos meant “without Muses,” hence “uneducated.”
The opposite of “amuse” is “muse”.
Etymology of muse (v.)
“to reflect, ponder, meditate; to be absorbed in thought,” mid-14c., from Old French muser (12c.) “to ponder, dream, wonder; loiter, waste time,” which is of uncertain origin; the explanation in Diez and Skeat is literally “to stand with one's nose in the air” (or, possibly, “to sniff about” like a dog who has lost the scent), from muse “muzzle,” from Gallo-Roman *musa “snout,” itself a word of unknown origin. The modern word probably has been influenced in sense by muse (n.). Related: Mused; musing.
One first begins tracking by trying to regain the sent, like a dog with its nose in the air. An interesting reference and connection here to the energetic forces of Ka, in “This Way”.
To become alert, and absorbed in thought, versus distracted, and diverted in one's attention.
To “bemuse” gives a deeper sense of what thoughts are around this term. “To reflect, to ponder, to meditate” loses its place, and it has more to do with “ponder, dream, wonder; loiter, waste time”. It becomes more centered around one's fancy versus that of “useful” thought, and aims.
Etymology of bemuse (v.)
“to make utterly confused, put into muse or reverie, muddle, stupefy,” from be- + muse (compare amuse); attested from 1735 but probably older, as Pope (1705) punned on it as “devoted utterly to the Muses.”
Etymology of Muse (n.)
late 14c., “one of the nine Muses of classical mythology,” daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, protectors of the arts; from Old French Muse and directly from Latin Musa, from Greek Mousa, “the Muse,” also “music, song,” ultimately from PIE root *men- (1) “to think.” Meaning “inspiring goddess of a particular poet” (with a lower-case m-) is from late 14c.
The traditional names and specialties of the nine Muses are: Calliope (epic poetry), Clio (history), Erato (love poetry, lyric art), Euterpe (music, especially flute), Melpomene (tragedy), Polymnia (hymns), Terpsichore (dance), Thalia (comedy), Urania (astronomy).
If the Muses inspired thought in their particular area, stimulating the thought to manifest in productions, then Amusement is the opposite of that, correlated to “bemuse”, in that it is used to make utterly confused, to muddle, to stupefy. It is about diversion, and it is about deludedness, mockery, making light of.
At the center is the presumption of Reality or Actuality, or things as they seem and are, versus fantasy. This is to say, the target of Amusement is not fantasy, that belongs in Seduction, but instead, the sense the individual or collective has about themselves and/or the condition.
The condition here has the element of force MU, in it, to begin the force relation. Mu is force condition. It is the forces of the external that play a role upon the individual and/or the collective, that shape their Sense of Self.
The two forces having been covered previously are:
Mu
Se
Me
Ma
Mi
Mu
Se
Sa
Si
Su
Etymologists have the root as *men-, meaning “to think”. This is incorrect. The Mu force, as condition, has the Se force added to it. The forces of Mu Se are the key elements here.
However, the way it can correlate with *men- is in the sense of a “thinking condition”, or “thoughts that act on the condition”, versus thoughts merely retained, and acted on, or through the emotions contained, which often lead to the notion of “mania”. But even then this is Ma Ni. Not then what follows as Mu Ni. The forces are using different roots, and the added force of:
Ne
Na
Ni
The force of Ni is “downwards”.
Etymology of nether (adj.)
Old English niþera, neoþera “down, downwards, lower, below, beneath,” from Proto-Germanic *nitheraz (source also of Old Saxon nithar, Old Norse niðr, which contributed to the English word, Old Frisian nither, Dutch neder, German nieder), from comparative of PIE *ni- “down, below” (source also of Sanskrit ni “down,” nitaram “downward,” Greek neiothen “from below,” Old Church Slavonic nizŭ “low, down”).
Also an adverb in Old English and Middle English. It has been replaced in most senses by lower (adj.). Of countries, “situated on lower ground” (late 14c.). In Middle English (and after) used also of body parts.
Etymology of beneath (adv., prep.)
Middle English binethe, from Old English beneoðan “under, below, in a lower place, further down than,” in late Old English “lower in rank, degree, excellence, etc.,” from be- “by” + neoðan “below, down, from below,” from Proto-Germanic *niþar “lower, farther down, down” (see nether).
The meaning “unworthy of” is attested from 1849 (purists prefer below in this sense). “The be- gave or emphasized the notion of 'where,' excluding that of 'whence' pertaining to the simple niðan” [OED].
The notion of Ni, here, was not a ranked element of expression. By saying “under” and/or “below”, it could also act as a placement of the component that came before it. For example, the Ma Ni A of “mania” was correlated to “under the pressure of female” in the Emotional Kinetics.
The state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/or energy levels. Ma as forces, given clarity earlier, combined with Ni, is meant to show a disruption in the force that preceded it. It does not mean “not Ma”, nor does it then mean “not Mu”, with Mu Ni in simple sense.
The downward element, here, or sitting down beside, has the notion of beside the condition, that of Mu, and unphased. Mu is present, but the Ni force is, the Mu does not move one. That is a far correlation, however, but made clear in the sense of what a Sage is, or that of a Muni. Muni more than Sa Ge.
Etymology of nisi (conj.)
Latin, “unless,” occurring in legal and administrative phrases used in English, from ni “not “ + si “if.”
Etymology of soke (n.)
“right of jurisdiction,” Old English socn “jurisdiction, prosecution,” literally “seeking,” from Proto-Germanic *sokniz, from PIE *sag-ni-, from root *sag- “to seek out” (see seek). Related: Sokeman; sokemanry.
A Mu Ni has the implied trait of upo, where they are “sitting down beside” and/or “up from under” that of the Mu, the condition. But in the absence of upo, this can not be deduced from the word by itself.
This can be seen in the notion of:
Etymology of Upanishad (n.)
one of a class of speculative treatises in Sanskrit literature, 1805, from Sanskrit upa-nishad, literally “a sitting down beside.” From upa “near to” (from PIE root *upo “under,” also “up from under,” hence also “over”) + ni-shad “to sit or lie down,” from ni “downward” (from PIE *ni-, see nether) + -sad “sitting,” from PIE root *sed- (1) “to sit.”
Ni has a hidden meaning to it as well, exhibited in Ni Oh, or Ni o of the East. The way in which this phonetic force would be carried out by the Vir would come to differ. It has the sense similar to that of Up. Up Ni trait is exactly that of two becoming one, or coming from “out beneath” a thing. It has the force sense of overcoming. The Ni here, as a force, precedes the Vi force.
It was a needed force for this “evolution”. Ni was a precursor to Vi, and it was retained as the notion of Ren in the East, where it was kept Re as a force, and advanced only in a specific area, or jurisdiction, where it was able to become advanced with another set of forces.
In the correlation of Ren and Ni in the East, there are signs of these force relationships in which I speak of.
These two terms are covered to some degree in my work Niō Zen, Beyond Sissy Buddhism.
Mu Ni, in its order, says condition, and rather the collective, either made to be beneath one's individuality, thus, the two becomes the one; or it means, one comes up from below the Mu, the condition, and over it. This can also be said to be a puzzle of, read by the collectivists from left to right, Mu, over Ni; or read from right to left, where Ni comes from below, and up and over that of Mu, the condition.
Mu Se has the forces of condition, in the first, and the “self” in the second. The Se category of self differs from the Mi category of self.
Etymology of se-
word-forming element in words of Latin origin, “apart, away,” from Latin se-, collateral form of sed- “without, apart, aside,” probably originally “by one's self, on one's own,” and related to sed, Latin reflexive pronoun (accusative and ablative), from PIE *sed-, extended form of root *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (source also of German sich; see idiom).
Se is not from sed, but sed is from Se. Sed has the element of “to sit”, and to be “beside”, as previously shown in the correlated etymologies.
Etymology of *sed- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to sit.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit a-sadat “sat down,” sidati “sits,” nidah “resting place, nest;” Old Persian hadis “abode;” Greek ezesthai “to sit,” hedra “seat, chair, face of a geometric solid;” Latin sedere “to sit; occupy an official seat, preside; sit still, remain; be fixed or settled,” nidus “nest;” Old Irish suide “seat, sitting,” net “nest;” Welsh sedd “seat,” eistedd “sitting,” nyth “nest;” Old Church Slavonic sežda, sedeti “to sit,” sedlo “saddle,” gnezdo “nest;” Lithuanian sėdėti “to sit;” Russian sad “garden,” Lithuanian sodinti “to plant;” Gothic sitan, Old English sittan “to sit.”
Se
Sa
Si
Su
In the etym. above, the relationship to Ni can be seen, in how it augments the place, or position of the force.
De
Da
Di
Du
The Ha component can be seen as well, as this pertains to “other folk”, and not the folk to whom the tongue belonged. It is not merely “abode” to say hadis, which is liken to “house”, but it is to say, the abode of the Ha, and the Ha were the Haima. It is with them that this Ha relation had begun.
If one recalls, it is the Haima that are seen as the “householders”, when in essence, speaking in contrast to the Mu Ni, who is supposed to “wander”. This is a dichotomy in kinds. Those who first sed or settled did so around their plants, their intoxicants, while the disposition of the other forces were Pa, or outward.
Ha, like in “house”, is inward, and still. It is not an outward force, and when it appears outward, this is not by choice, but often some compulsion.
The Haima were 40-100 thousand years ago, and when they “wandered”, it was on account of expulsion.
He
Ha
Hi
Hu
The force of Hu would later come from the Haima, as their traits would be most inherited. HUMANUS is not merely “mud”, “soil”, that of “dirt” and “earth”. Hu Ma Us are the forces. Hu has Ha before it, and thus in it, and this correlates to “blood mud”, “blood in the soil”, “blood in the dirt”, and “blood Earth”. The blood component, as their life component, is always implied. Humanus is not merely “mud people”, but Humanus is “bloodied mud people”.
Se Da Te,
as three forces, compose the early term “sedate”.
Etymology of sedate (adj.)
“calm, quiet, placid,” usually of persons or temperaments, 1660s, from Latin sedatus “composed, moderate, quiet, tranquil,” past participle of sedare “to settle, make calm,” causative of sedere “to sit” (from PIE root *sed- (1) “to sit”). Related: Sedately; sedateness (1640s).
With these force formulations, one ought to begin seeing that there is a language here, that is the first tongue. It would begin to be full terms, with added vowels, and other letters, more the construct of ease of expression, and flow of sounds. That is why at times I remove a vowel.
There are writings that have existed in the past, that did not have the vowels, that were often spoken. A later language tech allows for altering the sense of the force and its direction, from left to right, or right to left. This expression about direction was inherent in early thought.
Take this sense of insult... “coarse”.
It has Co Ar Se.
Etymology of coarse (adj.)
early 15c., cors “ordinary” (modern spelling is from late 16c.), probably adjectival use of noun cours (see course (n.)). Originally referring to rough cloth for ordinary wear, the sense of “rude, vulgar, unpolished” developed by c. 1500 and that of “obscene” by 1711.
Perhaps via the notion of “in regular or natural order,” hence “common, vulgar” (compare the development of mean (adj.), also ornery from ordinary). Or it might be via the clothing sense, and the notion of “wanting fineness of texture or elegance of form.” Or both, and there might be also an influence, via metathesis, of French gros (see gross (adj.)), which underwent a similar sense development. Related: Coarsely; coarseness.
This would be read either from the left to right, which is the insult, or from right to left, which changes the meaning.
The actual force is not Co, but is Ke, from *kers-, to run.
So it is Ke Ar Se, for that of Co Ar Se.
Co Ur Se would then be Ke Ur Se, and this is “course”.
Etymology of course (n.)
c. 1300, “onward movement, motion forward, a running in a prescribed direction or over a prescribed distance; path or distance prescribed for a race, a race-course” from Old French cors “course; run, running; flow of a river” (12c.), from Latin cursus “a running; a journey; direction, track navigated by a ship; flow of a stream;” from curs- past participle stem of currere “to run” (from PIE root *kers- “to run”).
Also from c. 1300 as “order, sequence;” meanings “habitual or ordinary procedure” (as in course of nature) and “way of life, personal behavior or conduct” are from early 14c.
Most of the extended senses developed 14c. from notion of “line in which something moves” (as in hold one's course) or “stage through which something must pass in its progress.” Thus, via the meaning “series or succession in a specified or systematized order” (mid-14c.) comes the senses of “succession of prescribed acts intended to bring about a particular result” (c. 1600, as in course of treatment) and the academic meaning “planned series of study” (c. 1600; in French from 14c.), also “that part of a meal which is served at once and separately” (late 14c.).
Meaning “the flow of a stream of water” is from mid-14c.; that of “channel in which water flows” is from 1660s. Courses was used for the flow of bodily fluids and 'humors' from late 14c.; specifically of menstrual flux from 1560s.
Adverbial phrase of course “by consequence, in regular or natural order” is attested from 1540s, literally “of the ordinary course;” earlier in the same sense was bi cours (c. 1300). Matter of course “something to be expected” is by 1739.
Make the observation, “hound” is in the verb, as a metaphor.
Etymology of course (v.)
mid-15c., “to pursue, hound” (obsolete); 1530s, “to run, pass over,” from course (n.). Related: Coursed; coursing.
Ke
Ka
Ki
Ku
Etymology of *kers-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to run.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek -khouros “running;” Latin currere “to run, move quickly;” Lithuanian karšiu, karšti “go quickly;”Old Irish and Middle Welsh carr “cart, wagon,” Breton karr “chariot,” Welsh carrog “torrent;” Old Norse horskr “swift.”
Ut
Us
Ur
Up
Ud
This is the force order of “motion”.
Ut is the primary “outing” or “coarse”. Out of the matrix, or the mother's womb. This is the first outing.
This is the original, the earliest, the primal. Ut is of origination, from whence one has moved “out” of, for a purpose.
Origination here is of the Ma, which is characterized by the term “material”.
Because of this, there is an alternative term for the Vir and its origination.
The Ma and Mas forms are originated in Ut.
The Vi R, of Vir, is originated in Vy.
Vy
Ve
Va
Vi
Vu
Vo
Etymology of ur-
prefix meaning “original, earliest, primitive,” from German ur- “out of, original,” from Proto-Germanic *uz- “out,” from PIE *ud- “up, out” (see out (adv.)) At first only in words borrowed from German (such as ursprache “hypothetical primitive language”); since mid-20c. a living prefix in English. Compare also Urschleim under protoplasm and Urquell under Pilsner.
Ur has origination from Ut and Us. The roots of this are carried over into the English term “out”. “Out” is Ut.
The term “out”, retained in the common tongue, is far more richer than one uses it for.
Etymology of out (adv.)
expressing motion or direction from within or from a central point, also removal from proper place or position, Old English ut “out, without, outside,” from Proto-Germanic *ūt- (Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Gothic ut, Middle Dutch uut, Dutch uit, Old High German uz, German aus), from PIE root *uidh- “up, out, up away, on high” (source also of Sanskrit ut “up, out,” uttarah “higher, upper, later, northern;” Avestan uz- “up, out,” Old Irish ud- “out,” Latin usque “all the way to, continuously, without interruption,” Greek hysteros “the latter,” Russian vy- “out”).
Sense of “to a full end, completely, to a conclusion or finish” is from c. 1300. Meaning “so as to be no longer burning or alight; into darkness” is from c. 1400. Of position or situation, “beyond the bounds of, not within,” early 15c. Meaning “into public notice” is from 1540s; that of “away from one's place of residence,” c. 1600. The political sense of “not in office, removed or ejected from a position” is from c. 1600. Meaning “come into sight, become visible” (of stars, etc.) is by 1610s. In radio communication, a word indicating that the speaker has finished speaking, by 1950.
As a preposition, “out of; from, away from; outside of, beyond; except; without, lacking;” mid-13c., from the adverb.
Meaning “from harmonious relations, into quarreling” (as in to fall out) is from 1520s. Meaning “from one's normal state of mind” (as in put out) is from 1580s; out to lunch “insane” is student slang from 1955. Adjectival phrase out-of-the-way “remote, secluded” is attested from late 15c. Out-of-towner “one not from a certain place” is from 1911. Out of this world “excellent” is from 1938; out of sight “excellent, superior” is from 1891. To (verb) it out “bring to a finish” is from 1580s. Expression from here on out “henceforward” is by 1942. Out upon, expressing abhorrence or reproach, is from early 15c.
The term “out” retains the force Ut, and the added terms like to “fall out” is to “fall from Ut”. To “be out of” is to “be away from Ut”. “Out” or Ut is not the condition, or Mu of being away, but it is the target in which one is away from, and/or out of connection to. It is what one is supposed to have as their course setting force.
Ur is the directive to AIM, and get back to Ut.
Ke Ur Se is about being in motion, or upon the “course” of getting back in “sitting” and “settling” in Ut, which is the “original” and “earliest” stage of one's being, and this is through Ma.
The Vir has a different direction. Oddly, this is retained in the term “clever”, which is Ke Ve, and Ke Ver. Motion of the Vir. This is a skilled, and intelligent motion, and the sense of “origination” that the Ve directs, with the R added as “flight” and “shine”, is that to Vy.
Etymology of clever (adj.)
1580s, “handy, dexterous, having special manual ability,” apparently from East Anglian dialectal cliver “expert at seizing,” perhaps from East Frisian klüfer “skillful,” or Norwegian dialectic klover “ready, skillful,” and perhaps influenced by Old English clifer “claw, hand” (early usages seem to refer to dexterity). Or perhaps akin to Old Norse kleyfr “easy to split,” from Proto-Germanic *klaubri- from PIE root *gleubh- “to tear apart, cleave.” Extension to intellect is first recorded 1704.
This is a low word, scarcely ever used but in burlesque or conversation; and applied to any thing a man likes, without a settled meaning. [Johnson, 1755]
The meaning has narrowed since, but clever also often in old use and dialect meant “well-shaped, attractive-looking” and in late 18c. and 19c. American English sometimes “good-natured, agreeable.” Related: Cleverly; cleverness.
Etymologists have never detected the phonetic forces of this term, wrongly asserting it is connected to gleubh. Often, when a term is an insult towards the Vir, there is a G element to it. This shows tampering.
One can look back through that root and see the
Ke
Ka
Ki
Ku
roots.
But what is clear when a consonant breaks the force chain, and/or a vowel is added, is that one is looking at later usage terms.
Etymology of *gleubh-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to tear apart, cleave.”
It forms all or part of: cleave (v.1) “to split, part or divide by force;” cleft; clever; clevis; clove (n.2) “slice of garlic;” glyptodon; hieroglyphic; petroglyph.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek glyphe “a carving,” glyphein “to hollow out, cut out with a knife, engrave, carve;” Latin glubere “to peel, shell, strip;” Old High German klioban, Old English cleofan, Old Norse kljufa “to cleave,” Old Norse klofi, Middle Dutch clove “a cleft.”
The sense of the Vir as skilled craftsman is from the start. The force trait that was learned of early on by outsiders was Ka, and on account of this, they called the Vir, when they were Vehrka, that of Ka Yi n. Qay-in.
They would then translate this Ka force as “skill”, as “crafty”, as augmentative abilities, because the Vehrka were the first metalworkers. “Clever” retains the Ka Ver element, and is a reversal of Ver Ka. It was “clever” to reverse “clever”, so that the obvious would not be detected.
The insult found in the term “clever” can be found in connection with the term “sophist”.
Etymology of sophist (n.)
“one who makes use of fallacious arguments,” mid-15c., earlier sophister (late 14c.), from Latin sophista, sophistes, from Greek sophistes “a master of one's craft; a wise or prudent man, one clever in matters of daily life,” from sophizesthai “to become wise or learned,” from sophos “skilled in a handicraft, cunning in one's craft; clever in matters of everyday life, shrewd; skilled in the sciences, learned; clever; too clever,” of unknown origin. Greek sophistes came to mean “one who gives intellectual instruction for pay,” and at Athens, contrasted with “philosopher,” it became a term of contempt.
Sophists taught before the development of logic and grammar, when skill in reasoning and in disputation could not be accurately distinguished, and thus they came to attach great value to quibbles, which soon brought them into contempt. [Century Dictionary]
“Clever” is a now slur term, and it is often applied from those who seek to enslave others who defend themselves with intellect. Cutting through, “cleaving” through their Controls.
Etymology of smarty (n.)
“would-be witty or clever person,” 1854, from smart (n.) + -y (3). Extended form smarty-pants first attested 1939.
Etymology of slick (n.)
1620s, a kind of cosmetic, from slick (v.). Meaning “smooth place on the surface of water caused by oil, etc.” is attested from 1849. Meaning “a swindler, clever person” is attested from 1959.
The difference between “course” and “coarse” is in the middle phonetics.
Ar is a force that is not in service to Ut.
Ar is that force that sends one “out” from Ut, and towards that of Vy and Ve.
The force and notion of Vy still exists in the modern tongues, but like that of the term “clever”, it has been bastardized, and used to slander the force.
To strive in competition or rivalry with another; contend for superiority.
Vye is the old form of vie. However, the letter Y still appears in “vying”, which is the root of the confusion.
To strive for superiority: contend, compete,
is the character correlated with Vy, but it is far from correct. It is a collective sense of the term.
They connect this force to the realm worse for it to be: Amusement, and card playing.
Etymology of vie (v.)
1560s, “to bet, make a bet,” (literally “make a vie”, the noun attested from 1530s in cards), especially in card-playing, “to wager the value of one's hand against an opponent's,” shortened form of Middle English envie “make a challenge,” from Old French envier “compete (against), provoke; invite, summon, subpoena;” in gambling, “put down a stake, up the bet;” from Latin invitare “to invite,” also “to summon, challenge” (see invitation). Sense of “to contend (with) in rivalry” in English is from 1560s; that of “to contend, compete, strive for superiority” is from c. 1600.
When in actuality, its character is revealed in “Viable”, and the root is made very clear.
Etymology of viable (adj.)
1828, from French viable “capable of life” (1530s), from vie “life” (from Latin vita “life,” from PIE root *gwei- “to live”) + -able. Originally of newborn infants; generalized sense is first recorded 1848. Related: Viably.
Notice this connection to the G terms, for some of the important elements that are V terms. This is the timing of the alterations, in the name of the Ha, who became the Ga.
The element of the G, here, is deceptive, and the correlated terms exhibit this deception. V is the term they are rooted from.
Etymology of *gwei-
also *gweie-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to live.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit jivah “alive, living;” Old Persian *jivaka- “alive,” Middle Persian zhiwak “alive;” Greek bios “one's life, course or way of living, lifetime,” zoe “animal life, organic life;” Old English cwic, cwicu “living, alive;” Latin vivus “living, alive,” vita “life;” Old Church Slavonic zivo “to live;” Lithuanian gyvas “living, alive,” gyvata “(eternal) life;” Old Irish bethu “life,” bith “age;” Welsh byd “world.”
Vi is life, in this sense.
Vie is Vy, but they are not the same. It is Vi e.
To Vie is NOT to “live out one's life”.
To Vie is towards what is “Viable”.
The term “Viable” has retained this character.
capable of working successfully; feasible.
(of a plant, animal, or cell) capable of surviving or living successfully, especially under particular environmental conditions.
Etymology
From French, from Medieval Latin *vītābilis (“capable of life”), from Latin vīta (“life”); see vital.
Adjective
viable (comparative more viable, superlative most viable)
Able to live on its own (as for a newborn).
Able to be done, possible.
a viable option
(biology) Able to live and develop.
Antonyms
inviable
To Vie for something is to “aim to conquer it or overcome it, for one's own, in this sense, as that of a thing added to one's life to advance one's Control and Command.
Viability, then, differs from utility, in this esoteric sense of the forces.
Where Humanus is in Utilis, the Vir is in Vītābilis
Noun
viability (countable and uncountable, plural viabilities)
The property of being viable; the ability to live or to succeed.
Success here is what is meant by “Victory”, in the notion of Vincere.
Vincere:
Vi
Ke
Re
Do not let the consonant N disrupt the obvious.
To Vie, towards the Viable, in Viability. This is the set of forces that drive one towards Validity. Validity is the Way of Viability.
Etymology of valid (adj.)
1570s, “having force in law, legally binding,” from French valide (16c.), from Latin validus “strong, effective, powerful, active,” from valere “be strong” (from PIE root *wal- “to be strong”). The meaning “sufficiently supported by facts or authority, well-grounded” is first recorded 1640s.
Va Le Re are the three forces used to describe strength.
Va, of the forces of life in motion internally versus externally, thus, inner strength, is then combined with the middle force of “loosening” the “power”, avoiding “tightness”, so that one has Equanimity. They then “shine” through, with this Va Le, this “moderated” force of power.
Compare the Greek force notion of praus. The English term “meek” is not the best term to translate this. But why translate instead of force relate.
Pa Us would be different from Pra Us.
Outward flight before the Us, the return to origination of the Ut.
The Pra force component is the essential component here defining the stage of expression. It is not the same as Va Le Re, because of the development from Pa, far to that of Va. So they are not the same.
Pa becoming Pra is a stage of its development of Patterning out, and away. Us, as a force, is what it is flying from, but still for. It still serves Us, but the key is... not through the force of Us, but the force of Pa, in flight, or mobilized. But on behalf of Us, it has “regulated” forces.
There are connective terms here: prautēs and praus.
Take note, in Pra Ut Es, there are three force relations.
Pa Ut Es are here with clarity. Observe how across a few certain languages, these forces are undeniably denoted. Because the method in which I am using to expound on language would never meet academic standards, this can easily be dismissed.
Ut is retained in this notion of praus. It ought to be clear above in the two terms. Us is of the forces of Ut. The connection is clear. The Pa component was first in service to the Ut. Patterns are in service to the Ut. Validities are not. This is where there is change. The strength and power, in praus, is not regulated by Le, which is a force of “loosening”, so to say, or “calming” the Va, which is Ve, and inner. It is Va Le, that begets Vi. Le is centering Va, in Vy. When one Vies, they do so with Va Le Re, that is inner strength and fortitude, that is KI to Vi.
Most will recall the term praus as connected with the Christians' sense of “meek”, and Iesus or Jesus said of himself he is praus. When one argues that it is not a feminine Virtue, for starters, there is nothing Vir about praus, and the term “Virtue” is being wrongly used, per usual; but second, Us, if it is to be considered feminine or masculine, it is Ma throughout.
Meaning, Mas goes through Mu, Mas Ma, and with Ma, is Us, to Ut. Pra Us is Patterns or outward going in the “pastures”, in service to Us, and thus, on its way to Ut.
However, in most use of the term “masculine”, the characteristics are about serving a female and her offspring as a “good provider”. These are “masculine” traits. If then this is how “masculine” is defined, then praus is ultimate masculinity. However, if serving female interest and offspring is “feminine”, then something is more “feminine” than being “masculine”, if one is a Mas.
The errors here are in the delusions, in what all these terms mean.
Va Le Re does not have Us, and Ut as service.
Pa, and Pha, in their roots with “Pattern”, are Utilis based at their core. However, Patterns are the key to Ki, and what develops later. It is chronological. Pra is chronological to Pa. It is more advanced than Pa.
“Meekness” is not a good term for prautēs.
Prautēs is provisionary towards the Ut, via the use of war, and more often than not... raiding.
“Meek” as praus, too then, has the same notion.
When one uses “force revelations” to decipher these terms, praus is “Patterned utility”.
Praus, and that of prautēs have a correlation with that of an avoidance. It is about regulating the presence of Patterns and their unfoldment, so as to not startle, or disrupt, disturb, or arouse the temperament of a thing, while it is being “tamed”. It is regulation in avoidance of strength and power accepted in conflict, and thus in the fields, so as to work with beasts often of burden.
But it is also the way in which a Mas would interact with the Ma, or the females of the settlement. In the settlement, one is to show restraint, and not target their own with the Patterns used for targeting. In many ways, it is a response to a demand for yielding, or deference.
To be praus is to be “soothing” and “calming” in one's demeanor, though they can be forceful. Just because force can be applied, does not mean it ought to be. In the name of the Us and Ut, such force is not to be applied, but it is to be “smoothed out”, and made “soothing” for those not equipped to handle the rugged and the harsh.
Praus being “Patterned usefulness” is not necessarily then useful at war, or in the sense of a sword and conflict. The useful, or Utilis element is not stated in the word itself. Only that a Pattern is present and able to be useful.
The path to this was long held that the Utilis force in the individual was best brought about after exhaustion. So then, to get to praus, the forces needed to be run to exhaustion. This can be seen in how animals are “tamed”. They are “Patterned useful”. This is done through running them to exhaustion.
The same thing happens in the hadis, the house. The Mas, if not exhausted out in the field, will become exhausted by the chatter of the Ma and her concerns, or what labor she sets out to him, in the hadis, the house.
All modern Ma, and Mas are in a state of “Patterned usefulness”, but by degree is the sense of praus. Praus is the degree where one needs to be “run” and “exhausted”, because they have far more energetics. Most are not in this state. One who is praus has far more energy to be useful.
The notion of praus, with warhorses, and/or the restrained hand of a swordsman, did exist to the degree that the warhorses were chosen based on their energetics being far more, and running them more to a tamed state demanded more, and once tame, they would still have these energetics released at the Command of the rider.
The same about soldiers or swordsmen. They would be trained and moved to exhaustion, to tame their own animals, but not lose the energetics, and release it upon Command of the Commander. The key here, is, they do not lose the energetics. They loosen the energetics, and reserve and restrain them, able to pull them out at will.
This praus, then, or Patterned Utilis, or utility, then implies energetics of “power”, or potent ability, that is at times restrained, and governed, more often than not, not by the individual, but an external controller, such as a wife, a manager, a Commander. One is, with praus, certainly useful to others, in service to others, and rarely then does this trait transfer back to service to self. It is Us, and Ut centric.
Etymology of *lē-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to let go, slacken.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek ledein “to be weary;” Latin lenis “mild, gentle, calm,” lassus “faint, weary;” Lithuanian lėnas “quiet, tranquil, tame, slow,” leisti “to let, to let loose;” Old Church Slavonic lena “lazy,” Old English læt “sluggish, slow,” lætan “to leave behind.”
There are similarities to lē, “lenient”, and that of praus.
Etymology of lenient (adj.)
1650s, “relaxing, soothing” (a sense now archaic), from French lenient, from Latin lenientem (nominative leniens), present participle of lenire “to soften, alleviate, allay; calm, soothe, pacify,” from lenis “mild, gentle, calm,” which probably is from a suffixed form of PIE root *lē- “to let go, slacken.”
The usual modern sense of “mild, merciful” (of persons or actions) is first recorded 1787. In earlier use was lenitive, attested from early 15c. of medicines, 1610s of persons. Related: Leniently.
What augments this term is the Va, and the Re that is before, and that follows.
The notion is given the example of, when upon a horse, one can pull fast and tight to force the horse in a move, or they can slacken the line, and use subtle movements that are Accordant, versus disruptive. This is what it means “to slacken”, in the sense. It is to do what is Accordant adjustments, versus abrupt and discordant.
Strength, and grace, as some might say.
Etymology of lenitive (adj.)
“assuaging, palliating,” early 15c., from Medieval Latin lenitivus, from Latin lenitus, past participle of lenire “to soften, alleviate, pacify” (from PIE root *lē- “to let go, slacken”). As a noun, “a lenitive medicine,” from early 15c.
These terms to “pacify”, “calm”, and “gentle”, and so on, are incorrect English renderings. It is to “adjust”, to “Manage”, to “Control”, and to “augment” based upon Viability, the notion of success. The opposite is repugnant Management and Control.
When one's emotions govern the pull, and not Reasoning towards aims, more often than not, the notion of “pacifying” some force is on account of that force being emotionally driven, not in the name of success or Victory, but left to express wild for its own sake.
There is then the combination of the two forces to illustrate the difference:
Le Ge
In that exemplified in “liege”.
Etymology of liege (adj.)
c. 1300, of lords, “entitled to feudal allegiance and service,” from Anglo-French lige (late 13c.), Old French lige “liege-lord,” noun use of an adjective meaning “free, giving or receiving fidelity” (corresponding to Medieval Latin ligius, legius), a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps from Late Latin laeticus “cultivated by serfs,” from laetus “serf, semi-free colonist,” which probably is from Proto-Germanic *lethigaz “freed” (source also of Old English læt “half-freedman, serf;” Old High German laz, Old Frisian lethar “freedman;” Middle Dutch ledich “idle, unemployed”), from extended form of PIE root *lē- “to let go, slacken.” Or the Middle English word might be directly from Old High German leidig “free,” on the notion of “free from obligation to service except as vassal to one lord,” but this reverses the notion contained in the word.
From late 14c. of vassals, “bound to render feudal allegiance and service.” The dual sense of the adjective reflects the reciprocal relationship it describes: protection in exchange for service. Hence, liege-man “a vassal sworn to the service and support of a lord, who in turn is obliged to protect him” (mid-14c.).
They do not know the origins, because they do not have force revelation on these phonetics.
They are able to identify the Le, but not the Ge.
Le
La
Li
Lu
Ge
Ga
Gi
Gu
The I added before the E, augments it with other forces.
Etymology of liege (n.)
late 14c., “vassal of a feudal lord,” also “a feudal sovereign, a liege-lord,” probably from liege (adj.)) or from a noun use of the adjective in Old French or Anglo-French. A fully reciprocal relationship, so the adjective could apply to either party. Old French distinguished them as lige seignur “liege-lord” and home lige “liege-man.”
Etymology of allegiance (n.)
“ties or obligations of a citizen or subject to a government or sovereign,” late 14c., alligeaunce, formed in English from Anglo-French legaunce “loyalty of a liege-man to his lord,” from Old French legeance, from liege (see liege (adj.)). Corrupted in spelling by confusion with the now-obsolete legal term allegeance “alleviation, mitigation” (for which see allay (v.)). The general figurative sense of “recognition of claims to respect or duty, observance of obligation” is attested from 1732. French allégeance in this sense is said to be from English.
The notion is that the Le, the sense of tightening or loosening, is under the Control of another. This other is represented by the G force terms.
Etymology of geo-
word-forming element meaning “earth, the Earth,” ultimately from Greek geo-, combining form of Attic and Ionic gē “the earth, land, a land or country” (see Gaia).
Etymology of geomancy (n.)
“art of divination by means of signs derived from the earth,” late 14c., from Old French géomancie, from Medieval Latin geomantia, from late Greek *geomanteia, from geo-, combining form of gē “earth” (see Gaia) + manteia “divination” (see -mancy). Related: Geomantic; geomantical.
Etymology of gehenna (n.)
“hell,” 1620s (earlier “a place of torture,” 1590s), from Church Latin gehenna (Tertullian), from Greek geenna, from post-biblical Hebrew gehinnom “Hell, place of fiery torment for the dead,” figurative use of the place name Ge Hinnom “the Valley of Hinnom,” southwest of Jerusalem, where, according to Jeremiah xix.5, children were sacrificed to Moloch. Middle English had gehenne (late 15c.) from French gehenne.
Etymology of geodesy (n.)
1560s, “the art of land surveying,” from Modern Latin geodaesia, from Greek geodaisia “division of the earth;” ultimately from gē “earth” (see Gaia) + stem of daiein “to divide,” from PIE *dai-, extended form of root *da- “to divide.” In modern use it refers to mathematical calculations derived from measuring large portions of the earth's surface. In this sense, in reference to structures, from 1936.
Etymology of George
masc. personal name, from French Georges, Late Latin Georgius, from Greek Georgos “husbandman, farmer,” properly an adjective, “tilling the ground,”from gē “earth” (see Gaia) + -ergos “that works,” from ergon “work” (from PIE root *werg- “to do”).
The name introduced in England by the Crusaders (a vision of St. George played a key role in the First Crusade), but not common until after the Hanoverian succession (18c.). St. George began to be recognized as patron of England in time of Edward III, perhaps because of his association with the Order of the Garter (see garter). His feast day is April 23. The legend of his combat with the dragon is first found in “Legenda Aurea” (13c.). The exclamation by (St.) George! is recorded from 1590s.
The cult of George reached its apogee in the later Middle Ages: by then not only England, but Venice, Genoa, Portugal, and Catalonia regarded him as their patron: for all he was the personification of the ideals of Christian chivalry. [“The Oxford Dictionary of Saints”]
Etymology of governor (n.)
c. 1300, gouernour, “personal keeper, protector, guide;” late 14c., “one who governs, a ruler,” from Old French governeor “prince, ruler, administrator; helmsman” (11c., Modern French gouverneur) and directly from Latin gubernatorem (nominative gubernator) “director, ruler, governor,” originally “steersman, pilot” (see govern). Meaning “subordinate ruler; head of a province, etc.” is from late 14c. Meaning “one charged with direction or control of an institution, etc.” is from late 14c. Mechanical sense of “self-acting regulator” is from 1819. The adjective gubernatorial remembers the Latin form. There is a record of English governator from 1520s.
In this etymology, note the message of the shift from K, to G.
Etymology of govern (v.)
late 13c., “to rule with authority,” from Old French governer “steer, be at the helm of; govern, rule, command, direct” (11c., Modern French gouverner), from Latin gubernare “to direct, rule, guide, govern” (source also of Spanish gobernar, Italian governare), originally “to steer, to pilot,” a nautical borrowing from Greek kybernan “to steer or pilot a ship, direct as a pilot,” figuratively “to guide, govern” (the root of cybernetics). The -k- to -g- sound shift is perhaps via the medium of Etruscan. Intransitive sense from 1590s. Related: Governed; governing.
Without the shift, two force components can be identified: Ko Ve R. They become Go Ve R.
Yes, cybernetics is indeed worth covering:
Etymology of cybernetics (n.)
“theory or study of communication and control,” coined 1948 by U.S. mathematician Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), with -ics + Latinized form of Greek kybernetes “steersman” (metaphorically “guide, governor”), from kybernan “to steer or pilot a ship, direct as a pilot,” figuratively “to guide, govern,” which is of uncertain origin. Beekes agrees that “the word has no cognates” and concludes “Foreign origin is probable.” The construction is perhaps based on 1830s French cybernétique “the art of governing.”
The future offers very little hope for those who expect that our new mechanical slaves will offer us a world in which we may rest from thinking. Help us they may, but at the cost of supreme demands upon our honesty and our intelligence. [Norbert Wiener, “God and Golem, Inc.,” 1964]
Etymology of guide (v.)
late 14c., “to lead, direct, conduct,” from Old French guider “to guide, lead, conduct” (14c.), earlier guier, from Frankish *witan “show the way” or a similar Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *witanan “to look after, guard, ascribe to, reproach” (source also of German weisen “to show, point out,” Old English witan “to reproach,” wite “fine, penalty”), from PIE root *weid- “to see.” The form of the French word influenced by Old Provençal guidar (n.) “guide, leader,” or Italian guidare, both from the same source. Related: Guided; guiding. Guided missile, one capable of altering course in flight, is from 1945.
What then is the chance that the PIE root has a dominant V, in the place of this G, liken to how K too would be replaced by G.
The G replacements are seen as latter and “foreign” alterations to the language.
Etymology of *weid-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to see.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit veda “I know;” Avestan vaeda “I know;” Greek oida, Doric woida “I know,” idein “to see;” Old Irish fis “vision,” find “white,” i.e. “clearly seen,” fiuss “knowledge;” Welsh gwyn, Gaulish vindos, Breton gwenn “white;” Gothic, Old Swedish, Old English witan “to know;” Gothic weitan “to see;” English wise, German wissen “to know;” Lithuanian vysti “to see;” Bulgarian vidya “I see;” Polish widzieć “to see,” wiedzieć “to know;” Russian videt' “to see,” vest' “news,” Old Russian vedat' “to know.”
The notion of “Wise” is from the forces of:
Vi
Se
“Advice”, in contrast with “guide”, is:
Etymology of advice (n.)
late 13c., auys “opinion,” from Old French avis “opinion, view, judgment, idea” (13c.), from phrase ço m'est à vis “it seems to me,” or from Vulgar Latin *mi est visum “in my view,” ultimately from Latin visum, neuter past participle of videre “to see” (from PIE root *weid- “to see”). Meaning “opinion offered as worthy to be followed, counsel” is from late 14c.
The unetymological -d- (on model of Latin words in ad-) was inserted occasionally in French by scribes 14c.-16c. and was made regular in English 15c. by Caxton. Substitution of -c- for -s- is 18c., to preserve the breath sound and to distinguish from advise. Early Modern English tended to alternate -ce and -se endings in otherwise confusable noun-verb pairs, using -se for the verb and -ce for the noun: devise/device, peace/appease, practice/practise, license/licence, prophecy/prophesy.
“Entertain” is where the FORCE In from En is accounted for:
En
In
An
On
Il
Etymology of *en
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “in.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit antara- “interior;” Greek en “in,” eis “into,” endon “within;” Latin in “in, into,” intro “inward,” intra “inside, within;” Old Irish in, Welsh yn, Old Church Slavonic on-, Old English in “in, into,” inne “within, inside.”
Etymology of entertain (v.)
late 15c., “to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind,” from Old French entretenir “hold together, stick together, support” (12c.), from entre- “among” (from Latin inter; see inter-) + tenir “to hold” (from Latin tenere, from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
Sense of “have a guest” is late 15c.; that of “gratify, amuse” is 1620s. Meaning “to allow (something) to consideration, take into the mind” (of opinions, notions, etc.) is 1610s. Related: Entertained; entertaining.
Back to the root “to stretch”, we have these additional terms to grasp this better:
Etymology of tenable (adj.)
“capable of being held or maintained,” 1570s, from French tenable (12c.), from tenir “to hold,” from Latin tenere “to hold, keep” (from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
Etymology of tenant (n.)
early 14c., “person who holds lands by title or by lease,” from Anglo-French tenaunt (late 13c.), Old French tenant “possessor; feudal tenant” (12c.), noun use of present participle of tenir “to hold,” from Latin tenere “hold, keep, grasp” (from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”). Related: Tenancy. Tenant-farmer attested from 1748.
Now, a strong term that has been used all of your life around you, treated as mere “presence” and “stance” is that of “attend”, and its connection here. Entertained requires being “in attendance”.
Etymology of attend (v.)
c. 1300, “be subject to” (obsolete); early 14c., “direct one's mind or energies” (archaic), from Old French atendre “to expect, wait for, pay attention” (12c., Modern French attendre) and directly from Latin attendere “give heed to,” literally “to stretch toward,” from ad “to, toward” (see ad-) + tendere “stretch” (from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”). The notion is of “stretching” one's mind toward something.
The sense of “take care of, wait upon” is from mid-14c.; that of “endeavor to do” is from c. 1400. The meaning “to pay attention” is from early 15c.; that of “accompany and render service to” (someone) is from mid-15c., as is that of “be in attendance.” The meaning “to accompany or follow as a consequent” is from 1610s. Related: Attended; attending.
Etymology of attendant (n.)
“one who waits upon another,” early 15c., from the adjective or from French noun use of present participle of atendre (see attend).
Etymology of attention (n.)
late 14c., attencioun, “a giving heed, active direction of the mind upon some object or topic,” from Old French attencion and directly from Latin attentionem (nominative attentio) “attention, attentiveness,” noun of action from past-participle stem of attendere “give heed to,” literally “to stretch toward,” from ad “to, toward” (see ad-) + tendere “stretch” (from PIE root *ten- “to stretch”).
Rare in English before 17c. The meaning “consideration, observant care” is from 1741; that of “civility, courtesy” is from 1752. The meaning “power of mental concentration” is from 1871. It is used with a remarkable diversity of verbs (pay, gather, attract, draw, call, etc.). As a military cautionary word before giving a command, it is attested from 1792. Attention span is from 1903 (earlier span of attention, 1892). Related: Attentions.
Entertainment is about that which “holds” one's “attention” in “attendance”, which is under subjugation. This term is not a bad term, used here. It means, the source or the thing of Entertainment has primary point and purpose, and one aims, or gives their attention to it.
Engaging Entertainment is that form of Entertainment whereby one is improved afterwards, by giving it their attention.
Seductive Entertainment is that form of Entertainment whereby one is distracted, and/or relieved from their emotions or conditions, by giving it attention.
Amusing Entertainment is that form of Entertainment whereby one is diverted, and deluded in their emotions or conditions, with their attention being that which was diverted.
When one encounters others, it is said... one is “with them” in their Seventh. The Seventh of the “individual” is where one encounters their “character”. The character, I used to call the “sum of one's Values”. I no longer do this.
I have come to realize that Values was how I saw pursuits. But the term “worth” may be better for that of Humanus. “Value” has “Valid”, and “strength” as a part of it. This was always a problem for me, in saying “everyone has Values”, with the only thing strong, being their pursuit, and not the actual thing. This was in error.
“Worth”, from that of wer, meant “to turn, bend”, and this can be taken as “towards”, or “away”, correlated to context.
But as a V term, originally, it was used to describe those who “bent away from the Vir”, “turned away from the Vir”, or in “opposites”. It has a notion of “versus” in it.
Etymology of *wer- (2)
Proto-Indo-European root forming words meaning “to turn, bend.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit vartate “turns round, rolls;” Avestan varet- “to turn;” Hittite hurki- “wheel;” Greek rhatane “stirrer, ladle;” Latin vertere (frequentative versare) “to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed,” versus “turned toward or against;” Old Church Slavonic vrŭteti “to turn, roll,” Russian vreteno “spindle, distaff;” Lithuanian verčiu, versti “to turn;” German werden, Old English weorðan “to become;” Old English -weard “toward,” originally “turned toward,” weorthan “to befall,” wyrd “fate, destiny,” literally “what befalls one;” Welsh gwerthyd “spindle, distaff;” Old Irish frith “against.”
When the term “worth” is used, it is taken as synonymous with “Valuable”, and “Value” — yet, here it is a different word, rooted in the V, defined by the forces at the end of Ve, Vi, Va.
Etymology of worth (adj.)
Old English weorþ “significant, valuable, of value; valued, appreciated, highly thought-of, deserving, meriting; honorable, noble, of high rank; suitable for, proper, fit, capable,” from Proto-Germanic *wertha- “toward, opposite,” hence “equivalent, worth” (source also of Old Frisian werth, Old Norse verðr, Dutch waard, Old High German werd, German wert, Gothic wairþs “worth, worthy”), which is of uncertain origin. Perhaps a derivative of PIE *wert- “to turn, wind,” from root *wer- (2) “to turn, bend.” Old Church Slavonic vredu, Lithuanian vertas “worth” are considered to be Germanic loan-words. From c. 1200 as “equivalent to, of the value of, valued at; having importance equal to; equal in power to.”
“Worth”, with the sense of “to become”, “to turn into”, “to turn, bend”, as a verb, illustrates that neither strong nor weak is presumed. It is presumed in the above when it says “Valuable” and “Value”, if one sees these mean “turning to the strong”. But this is not how it is taken.
Instead, it is merely what one moves towards in becoming, what they turn, or bend towards, or away from.
Etymology of worth (v.)
“to come to be,” now chiefly, if not solely, in the archaic expression woe worth the day, present subjunctive of Old English weorðan “to become, be, to befall,” from Proto-Germanic *werthan “to become” (source also of Old Saxon, Old Dutch werthan, Old Norse verða, Old Frisian wertha, Old High German werdan, German werden, Gothic wairþan “to become”), literally “to turn into,” from PIE root *wer- (2) “to turn, bend.”
Etymology of worth (n.)
Old English weorþ “value, price, price paid; worth, worthiness, merit; equivalent value amount, monetary value,” from worth (adj.). From c. 1200 as “excellence, nobility.”
Etymology of self-worth (n.)
also self worth, “worth inherent in oneself,” 1650s, from self + worth (n.).
One's character, which is symbolic then, is the “sum of their sense of worth, and/or Values”. This sense is only made evident through SEEKING, that is ACTIONS towards:
-
Gaining and/or Maintaining
-
Cultivating
-
Defending
These three categories are used to ask questions. If one observes in ACTIONS that one is seeking to gain a thing, it must be said, it is worth something to them. If they turn and say, it is “worthless”, then their actions are honest, and their words are dishonest.
When one maintains a thing, this proves worth. If they say that which they are maintaining is worthless, then their actions are the valid source of judgement, and their words are fraudulent. Cultivating, or advancing a thing, is investment, and that shows worth. Ultimate worth is in defense.
When the words an individual produces claim to find worth in things they are not gaining and/or maintaining, they are not cultivating, and they are not defending, then by degree, it can not be said their Sense of Worth expressed is Valid to their living. It is called “fantasy worth”, when neither of these three are engaged, making worth “evident”.
Etymology of evident (adj.)
“plainly seen or perceived, manifest, obvious,” late 14c., from Old French evident and directly from Latin evidentem (nominative evidens) “perceptible, clear, obvious, apparent” from ex “out, out of, fully” (see ex-) + videntem (nominative videns), present participle of videre “to see” (from PIE root *weid- “to see”).
These three descriptions of kinds of SEEKING in worth or Values are kinds that can be observed and found evident. When one speaks their ways, and their worth, and their “Values”, and what is spoken makes no evident display, then one is either amused or seduced, and their character is that of a charlatan.
Ask what one has gained, and there is their worth.
Ask what one is maintaining, and there is their worth.
Ask what one is cultivating, and there, their worth.
Ask what one is defending, and here is one who is worthy.
Do not listen to others, about their “CHARACTER”. Listen to others about reports and accounts of their gains, maintenance, cultivation, and defenses... and then observe in the Actual if there are artifacts, or manifestations that corroborate these claims. In absence of corroborative observables, do no think their accounting is “verified”, for it is not.
A Ver would never have Fi or “fidelity” in that which they can not account for, as demonstrated. Odd, how “verified” is a thing a Ver would do.
Etymology of verify (v.)
early 14c., from Old French verifier “substantiate, find out the truth about” (14c.), from Medieval Latin verificare “make true,” from Latin verus “true” (from PIE root *were-o- “true, trustworthy”) + combining form of facere “to make” (from PIE root *dhe- “to set, put”).
Ver Us is not “truth”. Ver Us is “Valid observation of Mu, Us, Ut”, and this is why it is material grounded.
It is Ve De... Mu Ma Us Ut.
Etymology of *were-o-
*wērə-o-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “true, trustworthy.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Latin verus “true;” Old Church Slavonic vera “faith,” Russian viera “faith, belief;” Old English wær “a compact,” Old Dutch, Old High German war, Dutch waar, German wahr “true;” Welsh gwyr, Old Irish fir “true.”
It forms all or part of: aver; Varangian; veracious; veracity; verdict; veridical; verify; verisimilitude; verism; veritas; verity; very; voir dire; warlock.
Etymology of verism (n.)
“the theory that art and literature should strictly reproduce truth,” 1892, from Italian verismo, from vero “truth,” from Latin verus “true” (from PIE root *were-o- “true, trustworthy”) + -ismo, Italian form of -ism.
Verism is the position that all things produced from all sources ought to Accord with Actuality.
The force of “production” belongs to the forces:
De
Da
Di
Du
Do
Etymology of *dhe-
*dhē-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to set, put.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit dadhati “puts, places;” Avestan dadaiti “he puts;” Old Persian ada “he made;” Hittite dai- “to place;” Greek tithenai “to put, set, place;” Latin facere “to make, do; perform; bring about;” Lithuanian dėti “to put;” Polish dziać się “to be happening;” Russian delat' “to do;” Old High German tuon, German tun, Old English don “to do.”
This is often why a “way” would be called DO, liken to the Japanese sense, and doing is implying “something” is being “done”, and to have something done, on “account of something”, is “due” to something then identified. And when someone had “done” something, they “did” something. And risky doing, is “danger”. And to “produce” is also to “develop” something.
“A way”, or a Do, or Dao, is the “setting out”, and in place, “that which is produced” in the name of “doing what needs to be done”, and not on account of the end result.
Entertainment has central to it... a frame of mind, or this can be called a narrative, and that of things having been “done” or “produced” for a reason.
When one gives the source of Entertainment its attention, it is attaching itself to the “wire”, the “line” being “stretched out”, or “bent”, or “turned” in this or that way.
One's mind is shaping towards the core narrative of the Entertainment.
Schooling, though perhaps not found to be entertaining to some, most certainly was, no matter their thoughts on it. Entertainment does not equal joy, and pleasure. It is about “maintaining a certain frame of mind”.
This means worth in the first is established; that of gaining and maintaining.
Through legislation of compulsory education, you were “gained” and compelled to be in “attendance”. This sentence should now be far more deeper to the reader than it would have been, had I not secured the route.
Etymology of gain (n.)
c. 1200, gein, “advantage, benefit; help,” c. 1300, “reward, profit, that which has been acquired” (possessions, resources, wealth), from Old French gain, gaaigne “gain, profit, advantage; work, business; booty; arable land” (12c.), from Germanic, and from Old Norse (see gain (v.)). Meaning “any incremental increase” (in weight, etc.) is by 1851. Related: Gains. The French word enfolded the notions of “profit from agriculture” and “booty, prey.”
We have but once again, a counter force in G from that of V. Those from the force of V have Vitality, have Vigor, have Virility, but those of G will more often than not have a “taking” notion. There will be plunder, and raiding permitted. It is not the same.
Etymology of gain (v.)
1520s, “obtain as profit,” from French gagner, from Old French gaaignier “to earn, gain; trade; capture, win,” also “work in the fields, cultivate land,” from Frankish *waidanjan “hunt, forage,” also “graze, pasture,” from Proto-Germanic *waithanjan “to hunt, plunder,” from *waithjo- “pursuit, hunting” (source also of Old English waþ “hunting,” German Weide “pasture, pasturage,” Old Norse veiðr “hunting, fishing, catch of fish”).
This is from PIE root *weie- “to go after, strive after, pursue vigorously, desire,” with noun derivatives indicating “force, power” (related to *wi-ro- “man;” see virile). Cognates include Sanskrit padavi- “track, path, trail,” veti- “follows, strives, leads, drives;” Avestan vateiti “follows, hunts;” Greek hiemai “move oneself forward, strive, desire;” Lithuanian vyti “to chase, pursue;” Old Norse veiðr “chase, hunting, fishing;” Old English OE wað “a chase, hunt.”
Meaning “obtain by effort or striving” is from 1540s; intransitive sense of “profit, make gain” is from 1570s. Meaning “arrive at” is from c. 1600. Of timepieces by 1861. Related: Gained; gaining. To gain on “advance nearer” is from 1719. To gain ground (1620s) was originally military.
The forces here are NOT Ve Va Vi Vo.
The forces here are Ge Ga Gi Go.
They are opposing, and versus forces.
When the G replaces the V, this is turning the notion upside down.
Etymology of virile (adj.)
late 15c., “characteristic of a man; marked by manly force,” from Old French viril (14c.) and directly from Latin virilis “of a man, manly, worthy of a man,” from vir “a man, a hero,” from PIE root *wi-ro- “man.” Virile member for “penis” is recorded from 1540s.
Etymology of *wi-ro-
*wī-ro-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning “man.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit virah, Avestan vira-, Latin vir, Lithuanian vyras, Old Irish fer, Welsh gwr, Gothic wair, Old English wer “a man.”
Vir does not mean “man”. It is not a description of a physical form. It is about forces within one.
Vy forces
versus
Gy forces.
One who has been compelled to school — which is all of youse in the “Americas”, and in most industrial nation-states — has been “obtained” by the schools; has been “acquired” in “attendance”, in subjugation, to and by the schools. And it is here more so than your hadis, your house, that your certain frame of mind was “bent”, or formed.
Entertainment thought of only as pleasure, joy, and excitement, is inept. EVERYTHING is under the category of ENTERTAINMENT, when all those things are symbolic. One's symbols represent their frame of mind.
The Seventh is where all interactions are occurring with another. You are either with them in AMUSEMENT, SEDUCTION, or ENGAGEMENT.
A simple example is one's WORK. More often than not, their attention is diverted and deluded in their own affairs, or from their own affairs, to that of the interest of the “guides”, called poorly “managers”. One has their attention “governed” in the name of “productivity”, in the interest of others.
In exchange, there is monetary reimbursement for time and/or product. One does not get this during the diverting of their attention, but after the fact. One does not call this “amusing”, because it does not bring them joy and pleasure. It is called “work”. But the error here, is in mistaking Entertainment as that which manages your joy, pleasure, and excitement.
A place of work is best governed when there is a fantasy element, or ideological element to it, and one believes they are part of something bigger than them. This is not diversion then, but distraction in fantasy. This is Seduction. They work towards a fantasy aim, and believe the end result is a part of them.
Versus the amused, realizing, in actuality, their work has nothing to do with anything but a paycheck. Fantasy does not mean, it's all fake. It means, there are distractions and relief along the way, to make the work function better.
However, more often than not, the narrative or the frame of mind is artificial, and it is not grounded in Actuality. All politics rely on FANTASY.
It is the “governing” of roles, titles, and Controls that are not founded upon anything but the use, or the threat thereof... of FORCE. The FORCE is the only ACTUAL variable, that is VALID.
But it is not from this “force” in which the orders operate, but instead, politics uses SEDUCTION to get the SUBJECTS to play along, so that the need for force is removed. So long as the subjects play along in the fantasy, force will not be used on them, but instead, on their opponents.
CHAPTER 7
The Advent of the Vir
12-07-2023
This essay is part of the greater scope of the treatise called Advent of the Vir. The Advent of the Vir is written with a set of essays developing out its form. The subject Patterns have a historical sense to them that is “Religious Legend”. Because of this, the Patterns are, in this phase, rather messy, and being rushed for the sake of presentation, during what could be a limited amount of time... to be published.
As “Religious Reconnaissance”, these works are “Religious”, and thus, the “Authority” for the Voltnetiks, Voltential, and Viritus structure of Religious thought.
The “constructs” of Voltential are not “Via” routes traditionally associated with religion, such as Messiah, and/or prophecy based notions. Viritus is not a “Revealed Religion” in its depths; however, in this stage of consideration that is rushed, it will have the appearances of being a “Revealed Religion”.
The “Revelations” of its Patterns, however, are only that of “Revealed” in, and through dialectics, that is “Methodical Reasoning”, using phonetics, and “past inquiries”, or inquiries into the past that have strong legitimacies.
There is a collection of notions in which I am writing and speaking on, with such expressions becoming the core of Viritus. These “gathered words” that have been picked out and chosen with precision and deliberation can then be said to have come to form the “Legends” of Viritus. Legends, as this term means “Religious Accounts”, versus that of declaring them to be “historical” in regards to the material and reductive sciences.
As “legends”, with the G ever so present in the word's phonetics, there is the existence of the Ha, the Ga within the account... in that, such legends are used for Vigilance. It is “learning” from these constructs, to inform one's decision making process, so as to advance in levels of Control and Command over their conditions.
These “Legends”, then, serve in the building out of “profiling systems” that can be used to assess the battlefield, and determine the Identity of opposing and impeding, hindering forces.
Thus, it is the Religious Duty of all Votaries to have a clear and precise sense of these Legends, to be held as their “Cultural and Religious Legends” concerning constructs that have a “historical” sense of utterance and expression.
But a Votary is not to affirm that these Legends are the same as “histories”, just as, in many ways, most of what passes as “histories” is itself legends and accounts affirmed, often without evidence. As “Legends”, historical evidence has no say in the matter, and certainly, no say in that of the Patterns.
Legend first; historically possible, second. However, for the Vir, this is all an Account most certainly of the “past”. It is not an “inquiry into the past”, and thus, it is not a “history concerning the past”. It is an Account. To the Vir, that Account is Valid, but the Vir can not source out that Account to the other kinds; and thus, the Vir comes with the appearance of “Revelation”, as it becomes the only source of the Account's transmission.
On the surface, this is acceptable by degree to be believed, until one can advance in their degrees of both “recollect” and analysis, to come to conclude the dialectical degrees of evidence are present, and thus, integrate the Legends into their sense of “histories”.
That now having been said, I will proceed.
Summary
I will first provide a summary, without expounding too deeply on the route from which the Vir, as a Kind, a stock, a “Cognitive Species” has so formed.
For deeper expoundings on some of the terms, refer to my body of works as a whole, and not in parts.
Min is the general category for all hominids that exist, and have existed in the past. So it is past, present, and future states of Min, as a general category.
Min share the general traits of having:
-
Erect carriages, being bipedal.
-
Freed up arms, with hands with opposable thumbs.
-
Forward facing, predatorial targeting eyes.
-
Mental form of abstract thought or symbolic thought, with symbolic communication provoked.
-
Hyper sociability
-
Heterotroph, like that of all the animals
-
Architecture of urge and impulse, or emotional body... formed from the Seven Base Emotions of;
-
Diffidence
-
Anxiety
-
Repugnance
-
Disgust
-
Despair
-
Discertainty
-
Entertainment: Amusement, Seduction, Engagement
All MIN have as the starting foundation, these seven general traits, and begin in the seven base kinetics, called “Emotional Kinetics”.
The First Kinetics of diffidence establishes the “attachments”. The attachments are listed as “Falls” around fears and insecurities. Attachments come to exist at the base for relief of the fears and insecurities, or the “Falls”.
7 Falls:
-
Fall in regards to heights, and the arms of their caregiver;
-
Fall from the group, in that of banishment, or exclusion;
-
Fall from that of reputation among the group, and how they are thought of;
-
Fall from navigation, mobility and locomotion among the group;
-
Fall of loss of control of their faculties among the group;
-
Fall in defense of their limbs, and their control over pain;
-
Fall from existence and presence, that is often mistaken as “fear of death”.
7 Insecurities:
-
Fear and insecurity around PHYSICAL PROXIMITY FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around RELATIONAL, MENTAL PROXIMITY FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around role, and REPUTATIONAL, OUTCASTED PROXIMITY FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around COGNITIVE FALL, or loss of mental functions;
-
Fear and insecurity around loss in expression, and LOCOMOTION CONTROL FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around MUTILATION, INJURY and HARM to BODY and LIMB FALL;
-
Fear and insecurity around PERMANENCE and LOSS, EXISTENCE, and CEASING to EXIST. Fear of ENDING, FALLING from BEING.
These Seven Falls, and Seven Insecurities form the foundation for the attachments in which diffidence is by default generated around, for with such kinetics, then, through nature, and its “affirmation” through replication, the Min then begins a loop or a cycle of living for sustainment.
All attachments that follow, then form its behavior, and collectively, its repeated behavior forms its habit/Vigor. For Humanus it is “habit”; for Vir, it is their “Vigor”.
All Min are based in these categorical forms. However, there are three “phases”, and thus, “Cognitive Foundations” to different types of Min.
They are rooted in the phonetics, in regards to Sense of Self, as 3:
-
Me
-
Se
-
Ve
One is born of one of these three.
From these rooted Sense of Self forces are:
-
Collectivist
-
Individualist
-
Philanthropist
That third category is a placeholder. It means an individualist, who then affirms its Advancing nature onto the condition, as a means to aid in the Advancement of others. To advance others, then, has the cycled back effect of advancing the conditions; thus, advancing one's conditions for self. That is the Pattern.
From Me, Se, Ve, when they are actualized in conditions, habits, and Vigor, comes that of the three kinds correlated:
-
Mer
-
Ser
-
Ver
In other parts of the body of my work, I used “Humanus”, “Manus”, and “Vir”.
“Humanus” and “Manus” are inferior terms, by degree, to “Mer” and “Ser”. But they are needed in the building of bridges. By degree, then, one who uses “Humanus”, or “Manus”, is inferior in expoundings to one who comes to integrate the notion, more exact, of Mer and Ser, for that of Humanus and Manus.
“Degree” concerning inferior and superior is not a status. It simply means, where one is on the “bridge”, or transmutative order of integration differs, in that, one is starting off, or one is along the “Way”. This is all called the “Investigation”.
One still in the early degrees is Ludus staged, or “flirtative”, and not to be considered with the integrative sense of a Vespillo, and Votary, who are to be observed in behavior in the Phila-utia stages of “affections” and “attractions”.
Refer to my body of work as it deals with the use of the Greek and Latin terms for the “Seven Affections”, or the “Seven Worths” of:
-
Eros
-
Ludus
-
Storge
-
Pragma
-
Agape
-
Phila-utia
-
Philia
For the Min Emotional Kinetics, these Seven Worths or Affections correlate to the Seven Falls, and fears and insecurities. Meaning, these are stages in which attachments develop out, or become stunted.
Mer rarely if ever traverses past Pragma, as Pragma is tied to Storge. Thus, Mer has the mer limits of Pragma Storge.
Ser is that which, in Se, or “Centered Self”, enters into the attachments and affections of Phila-utia, thus developing “self-worth”. One who is not engaged in self-worth as a primary in central position, does not have the needed Se component, or Force in them to become individualized.
A Me force can not become individualized, but is limited to a collective sense throughout its living, and habits. Thus, a Mer is by default limited to collectivism, and can not conceive of actual individualism.
A Se varied being is not by default individualized. They are ATTRACTED to the Force direction, but must contend with attachments and impediments. They must battle with this attraction, and they can either be defeated, or Victorious. This is correlated to by what degree the Se component was present.
Me is adverse to Se, and Se is adverse to Me. This is the base of most social conflict with the kinds. They are not compatible.
Legendary Timeline
Se is about 30 thousand years in the making.
Me is about 2.5 million years in establishment, with precedence and familiarity, through mimicry, and repetition.
Ve is perhaps 6 thousand years in the making.
Thus, the oldest of kinds are based in Me. Oldest, but also, the masses, the many, the multitudes.
Me is the foundation of Min.
Me is not the foundation from whence the abstract thought faculty arose. It was through Se that the abstract thought faculty began to develop out. The abstract thought faculty gave rise to the Se, and the Se, to it. The abstract thought faculty is perhaps 30 thousand years in the making, and is thus relatively still young.
The abstract thought faculty is a “seed”, as a trait and attribute. Earliest Min, prior to 30kya, or 30 thousand years ago, did not have this trait or attribute, and as Min, were more liken to that of the Pan classification, with troglodytes and bonobos as examples. From Min came the “Seed of the Venator”, or that is the “Seed of the Advanced Hunter”.
For the figurative sense of this development, the reader and/or listener can think of cavemen in harsh conditions, and short and simple jungle, and near plains, gathering and scavenging kinds. Scavenging and opportunistic exploitation of the animals for their meat, not that of hunting.
This level of Min, for categorical sense of reference, I shall call the “Mayyin”, as a stock, a kind, a breed, a type of being with a generally shared character.
The Mayyin are pre-abstract-thought faculty.
In my works, it is important to note that I am avoiding the speculative grounds of referring to ancient Min with scientific taxonomy. I am not convinced the naming of ancient hominids and their descriptions are accurate, but instead, there will likely be future evidence of a great deal of “ghosts”, or that is, lost notions of hominids that contributed to the development of what “moderns” call the Homo sapiens sapiens, or “anatomically modern humans”.
The academics place anatomically modern humans at 300kya to present day, and agree mostly to the most impactful development occurring during what they call the “Upper Paleolithic period”. It is during this period, that is 50-10kya, or thousand years ago, that it is stated crucial behavioral associations occurred, with abstract thought coming about and made evident in cave art and burial practices.
Keeping with this general timeline, for now... all Min, prior to the advent of the Se component, that correlated with coadaptation with the “wolves”, or the Vek of sorts, were “Mayyin”. This means, including the ghost hominids that only show themselves in the genetic code of modern-day so-called Homo sapiens.
Though showing up in the genetic code as ghost ancestors, these ghost ancestors have not left behind fossil evidence of their existence. With this being known, it ought to be considered “haste” and “waste” to develop narratives based entirely on “what has been left behind”.
For this reason too, notions of region of origination are not a part of our Legends. I do not come to suppose that where ancient remains were found, somehow designates a region of origination, when the variable of migratory behavior is clear, and evident. Such a position established based on where something is found, is erroneous.
Mayyin is all MIN prior to the “Sayyin”, as they shall be called, who had mutual adaptation with “wolves” during harsh climatic stimulations to both the body and the mind of particular Min.
The Sayyin would be the first to develop abstract thought over perhaps a very long period, but on account of, and along the side of... that of the Vek, the like wolves species, that too, has not left behind fossil evidence. For now, they will be called “wolves”.
If this event of coadaptation did not occur, with the Vek, there would be no abstract thought, less it be a similar event took place. Mayyin had those among them with higher degrees of eligibility of adaptation. Meaning, not all Min had the same level of adaptability. Those often more adaptive will separate from the masses, the many, the multitudes they come from, and have differing behavioral Patterns that set them apart, and on a redirected course, in habits/Vigor.
Mayyin was the baseline from whence two other branches of Min came to be formed.
-
The Hayyin
-
The Khayyin
In the Hayyin, there were higher levels of diffidence, and thus, anxiety concerning the unknown, and moving “locomotively” too far away from their burrows, or their holes. Mayyin often dug holes for hiding, in forested, jungled borderline, plain biomes. It would use the trees and burrows to bed, and avoid conflict.
This is the roots of the Hayyin prior to abstract thought. This is when one would use the designator Hayyin Mayyin, and not Hayyin by itself, which would come later. The same then can be said about Khayyin. It would be Khayyin Mayyin, and not Khayyin by itself, which it would become later.
The Mayyin component gives indication to the period in which neither of the two had abstract thought. But on account that the accounts are back formations, the same phonetics are used to speak about the kinds. Hayyin, with abstract thought, and Khayyin, with abstract thought, would come to exist in a more near period, within that 50kya, to 10kya ago.
The Khayyin were the ancestors of those who would develop agriculture, and thus, the first signs of advanced behaviors correlate to their spreading of this ancient technology and advancements, the so-called “Agricultural Revolution”. The Khayyin, by this period, had abstract thought in its most early stages, before the Ve Ratiocinative thought could occur.
In order to not confuse the periods of events and development of the traits and attributes, I will try to speak of these kinds with additional terms.
These two branches, in phonetics and terminology, shall be referred to as:
-
Hama = Hayyin Mayyin
-
Kama = Khayyin Mayyin
So then, in reference, Hama are the settled, higher in diffidence and attachments ones... and Kama will be the designation for those that were with less diffidence, more Vitality, and attraction to tracking and targeting.
But both are to be thought of as Mayyin, and not the later kinds. Hayyin and Khayyin are better terms for when they are no longer the Mayyin, and for the most part... there are no longer Mayyin to even refer to.
Mayyin is the base from whence “moderns” all came from. But over time, so much fusion of kinds would occur, that to think of a Mayyin liken to yourself would be far from an accurate characterization. A Mayyin, though it would develop through cultural stages, along the same lines, influenced by the new kinds, it was... very primal, by comparison.
The Kama of the Mayyin always pushed their locomotion further. They had an attraction to finding targets that were bigger, to take them down, and feed on them, to increase their locomotion.
The attribute or trait of locomotion is in all Min, as it is the animal genus from whence Min is derived. Locomotion serves the purpose of feeding. Feeding serves the purpose of replicating offspring. Feeding to “feed” is not the purpose. Feeding to replicate is Nature's Prime Directive with the animals, and thus, why they breathe, or have animus.
Mayyin, through perhaps the time period or conditional period of the Pleistocene epoch, from 2,6 million, to 11,700 years ago, developed out towards the Kama course. The Kama physiological development was towards endurance hunting.
Hama tended to remain as dominant trait within the female Mayyin, on account that with wombs, they were often kept away from threats and risk. Hama traits and characteristics would become characterized as risk-averse, whereas the Kama traits would become risky, in that endurance hunting would lead to their development, and repeated expression.
Thus, the first of habits is Hama. The first of Vigor is Kama. “Habit” and “Vigor” are not the same thing. But “habit” is the catch term used to often speak of repeated behavior that forms character, or one's character.
The “character” of an “individual” is the sum of their Sense of Worth, also catch-all called “Values”. “Habit” is supposed to be worth sought after, repeatedly... whatever that worth is. Rituals, when bringing about conformity, strongly determine habits. It does not mean, however, those habits are based on the essence of the being, versus that of culture and conditional conformity.
There are those with Hama who have ritualized behavior born out of Kama. There are those with the essence of Kama who are by compulsion and condition, required to be of “rituals of Hama”. Domestication is Hama heavy, with field, nomadism, hunting, and battling as Kama heavy.
The Hama behaviors and Kama behaviors are most ancient in reference to Min, and its adaptive course through the material realm. It is pre-mental, because they are pre abstract thought faculty. Pre-language, thus, pre symbolic communication, and narratives. There was simply being a heterotroph animal, that would become bipedal.
But the bipedal aspect of Min came from the Kama Vigor. It would not have arrived to the genus of Min, without the Kama forces provoking endurance hunting. Hama Mayyin would have remained more liken to the bonobos, with rare bipedal behavior, if without the Kama traits being provoked, in the elite few, who would then become the paternal lines to the whole, producing the most offspring.
The bipedal Vigor of the Kama often meant they were able to move out, with packs, and settle new and safer areas for breeding. Breeding or replicating offspring is the core motivation, and premise for the existence of ALL animals, including this genus of Min, confused with abstract thought telling it, it ought to have another purpose.
Hama traited kinds do not have another purpose. Early Kama traited kinds did not have another purpose. The difference between the Hama traits and Kama traits was the stimulation to locomotion, and that of its relationship to risk, or threats. Risk-averse to threats, and risk attraction to threats. Hama was averse, and thus, less locomotive, and Kama was attracted, and thus, more freely locomotive.
Over breeding periods, the offspring would develop bipedal disposition, on account of the paternal lines being highly locomotive in their risk attraction to threats, that would become food in their adversarial feeding chains of the heterotroph.
Both Ma (female), and Mas (male) would be born over time as offspring to the lines of Hama Ma, and Kama Mas. In all Mayyin, by degree of habit or Vigor, these two sets of differing characteristics would determine the survivability of the species.
Increased locomotion, with being bipedal, also led to the Kama set of traits called “situational awareness”, with the disposition of swivelling the head more often to scan the environment. The Kama set of traits led to the physiology all MIN have in modern conditions.
All Min traits were based upon these ancestors having increased locomotion, in being bipedal with an upright carriage, designed with neck and head ratios for the purpose of situational awareness and scanning the environment, making what would become the most advanced predator and kind among the animals.
It would not be “ferocity” that would lead to Mayyin hunting supremacy. It would be awareness and accountability, later combined with “forethought”, or foresight, or Prudence. Predicative formatting, based upon advanced recollect would come to develop the mental sphere of Min, to cause it to become dominant over the planet.
The Kama set of traits and attributes would come to define the physical carriage of all Min, as these Kama Mas would be selected by the Hama Ma for replication, or that is procreation. The Kama Mas would outcompete the Hama Mas, and more often than not, the Hama Mas would separate, and with their Hama Ma, stay in more bountiful seeming conditions... that would soon become harsh, and without the Kama traits, the Hama Mayyin would die out.
The coupling of Mayyin that were Hama Ma, coupled with Kama Mas, had the highest chance of surviving to replicate, and in replicating more, increase the strength in numbers for intimidation that can be used against would-be threats in other predators. The Hama Ma, Kama Mas coupling increased their labor and defensive force capabilities.
The animals that were bigger would often roam further and faster. But more often than not, their mode of thermoregulation was through panting from the mouth.
Among primates, other than Min, generally they have fewer sweat glands. Min has a great deal of sweat glands, in regards to how it thermoregulates, and this system of thermoregulation is on account of Kama trait expression and adaptation. The other primates show what would have been Hama attributes and traits, if without the Kama adaptive eligibility. The Kama Mas were likely a different Mayyin entirely, that lost its Kama Ma, and came to mix in with the Hama lineages of Ma.
Of the mammals, horses have more sweat glands than others, but still, not liken to the amount of Min. As do cattle in lower amounts, pigs, and with dogs, who mostly pant, they do have sweat glands in their paws.
Baboons and macaques do have sweat glands on their bodies, but what is the most important takeaway here, is that... the cooling system of the genus Min, through the dense presence of sweat glands, is one of the most advanced biological systems there is. It's an advanced mode of thermoregulation, by comparison to the other mammals.
This was developed out along the Kama attributes and traits, adapted through Vigor, not through “habit”. It is important for me to establish the Kama traits, as the traits that define Vigor itself.
One can have habits that do not express this ancient advanced hunting system. Those who avoid sweating, and avoid the locomotion that induces it, and do not through attraction push their endurance, are NOT THOSE, then, who could say... they engage in VIGOR.
They have habits, but perhaps not VIGOR. Vigor, in both body and mind, plays on these Kama mechanisms. That is why it is an essential starting point, in defining the Way of the Vir. Though there were no Vir yet, in this period and its conditions, it is through the KAMA traits, a Vir was planned in the Architecture, and it was not in the Hama traits and attributes such would be derived.
Mayyin would become defined in whole by which of its members increased survivability, and thus replication, and therefore, came to number the most. Of this, it would be those pairs of Hama Ma, and Kama Mas.
It is essential to understand that the physiology of their offspring would receive the competitive selected genes of the Kama Mas, but through the maternal lines, the Hama set of traits and attributes would be in continuation, and their continuation would be in the position of the Emotional Kinetics, not the biological potential.
For this reason, modern Min, having come from Hama maternal lines, can have an emotional Sense of Self that overrides its carriage's potential. Meaning, one can be born with an Advanced Hunting Animal Baseline, and yes, be born with low sense of self-worth, on account of their emotional body.
This is why, in Ancient thought, the bodies were divided into three: Pathos, Ethos, Logos. However, this was the division as given to the Initiate, who is supposed Se, and thus, able to individualize.
Having to deal with most readers, and thinkers being of the Me set, and thus, Hama set of traits... I have brought forth the three bodies as Pathos, Ethos, Utilis. The Utilis body is that of the behavioral body, or the state of usefulness, or action. This too is why the female is called Ma, with no centered self, and the male is called Mas, as Ma Se, the “self” centered on the Ma, or the female.
In Hama hierarchies, the Ma is the center for that of replication, and the Mas is servile, or provisionary towards this aim. All Mas define themselves based on the selection of Ma. This is the way of the Hama traits. This is not the way of the Kama traits.
With Kama traits, a Ma and Mas define themselves and their worth, based upon the expression of individualized traits. They must desire to target, acquire targets, and engage targets, as an attraction. Their Sense of Worth is then derived from those actions, and expressions. However, this is not INDIVIDUALIZATION. This is still Mas, or that is “centered around Ma”.
But a Hama set, in say a Hama Mas, is more connected to the provisions for selection, regardless of what was needed to be expressed to be provisionary. Meaning, a Hama Mas just feels the need and attraction to provision, and not a need or an attraction to the process of targeting, and engaging. Often then, ease and anything, thus lacking in discernment, will occur. Provide by any means, “opportunistic” becomes the motto behind this set of provisionary habits.
Discernment is of the essence of “cutting” and “parting”. It is a Kama trait born out of scanning, awareness, and target prioritization. Discernment is not a Hama trait, and those more Hama dominant struggle with discernment.
The faculty of discernment was born out of the Kama Mas, and passed on to their offspring, of Hama Ma. All modern Min have the faculty of discernment, but by what degree that faculty is utilized will be correlated to the degree towards Hama, or Kama in each individual.
That degree is mostly correlated to the progenitors one has come from, and their ancestors, but can also differ in the Se “Seed”, if atavism is present. If atavism is present in the progeny, then this means they can be a throwback to any ancestral setting. ANY ANCESTRAL SETTING.
All present Se variations in Min are mostly atavistic, as there are no socially grouped and unified Min around Kama, and Se traits. All collectives are based in Me and Hama sets of traits, and attributes.
The physical carriage of Min has the easiest degrees of adaptability. The emotional body of Min is the most resistant to adaptation. The faculty of discernment can not be advanced when the Pathos or emotional body is at odds with the Eros, or the physical body. Eros, as the physical body, is a subcategory of the Pathos. It would be in classification Pathos et Eros.
Prima: Pathos
et
Secunda: Eros
Primarily, the Emotional Kinetics determine the character of all the other bodies.
In secunda, or second position out of the Pathos, is the flow of the form, or “body”, which is called a “corpus”.
I refer to the form of Min, separate from its emotional body, or Pathos, as that of Corpus Erectum Liberum. Erect form or body, freed up, in regards to the arms, hands, and feet... for locomotion or expression.
But this corpus, or body, was formed based upon the Emotional Kinetics, and these Emotional Kinetics, in the ancient Mayyin, could be classified with these two variations: the Hama et Kama.
In the Hama, diffidence is to the point, or that of “want of certainty” via lacking it... to this degree, that it makes the individual anxious, or agitated energetically. The agitation leads to an interference with discernment.
However, the Hama traited kinds do not detect that this is an issue, if they are being provided for through social structures of support. Instead, through escapism, the Hama traited kinds, imaginary in disposition, have an emotional position of “ill-certainty”, or “dis-certainty”, or “mal-certainty”.
Often, there is a favoring then of ignorance that would correlate to this. Language wise, this is if knowledge is considered “belief made certain through evidence”. When one comes to see the primary here is belief, and secundo, is certainty, the combination makes for the notion of knowledge. Belief, made certain. Not a certain kind of belief, but an elevated belief. Elevated through certainty.
Thus, ignorance and knowledge can then be placed on the left, and right of certainty.
I do not use my terms without deliberation. Because of this, I present the etymologies which do not limit my use of the term, but instead, begin the process of defining my specific use, and codifying it in the text as my lexicon, which in turn, becomes the lexicon of this Religion.
Thus, when these terms are used in my Religious Works, they have been well-defined as specific. Where the language such as English or Latin is not sufficient enough to convey the meaning I am aiming for, I will combine terms, perhaps in ways they have yet to be combined, to capture the meaning. In list form, my preference is single use terms.
Etymology of certain (adj.)
c. 1300, “determined, fixed,” from Old French certain “reliable, sure, assured” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *certanus, extended form of Latin certus “determined, resolved, fixed, settled,” of things whose qualities are invariable, “established,” also “placed beyond doubt, sure, true, proved; unerring, to be depended upon” (also source of Old French cert, Italian certo, Spanish cierto), originally a variant past participle of cernere “to distinguish, decide,” literally “to sift, separate.” This Latin verb comes from the PIE root *krei- “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish,” which is also the source of Greek krisis “turning point, judgment, result of a trial” (compare crisis).
The transferred sense, in reference to persons, “full of confidence in one's knowledge or judgment, made certain in reference to a matter or thing,” is from mid-14c. (it also was a sense in Latin). The meaning “established as true beyond doubt” in English is from c. 1400. The meaning “indefinite, not specifically named, known but not described” is from late 14c.
Different as this seems to be from sense I, it is hardly separable from it in a large number of examples: thus, in [ a certain hour], the hour was quite 'certain' or 'fixed', but it is not communicated to the reader; to him it remains, so far as his knowledge is concerned, quite indefinite; it may have been, as far as he knows, at any hour; though, as a fact, it was at a particular hour. [OED]
Lewis & Short write that Latin certus also was sometimes indefinite, “of things, the certainty of whose existence is given, but whose nature is not more definitely designated, or comes not into consideration ....”
Hence the euphemistic use, attested from mid-18c., as in woman of a certain age “an old maid;” woman of a certain description “disreputable woman;” in a certain condition “pregnant;” a certain disease “venereal disease;” of a certain weight “obese.” Used with proper names from 1785, “often conveying a slight shade of disdain” [OED]. Certainer, certainest were common to c. 1750, but have fallen from proper use for some reason. Expression for certain “assuredly” is attested by early 14c.
“Settled” is not the essence of “certainty”. That is the Hama sense of this term. The Kama sense of this term is in the “cutting” and the “separating” that connects this term to “discernment”, to “discriminate”, to “distinguish”.
Thus, certainty is about the process of discernment; thus, the faculty of discernment being utilized upon the conditions, to Advance one's “belief” or “narrative” about the conditions. But it has the hidden aim of: to inform the decision making process, to Advance in Control and Influence over that said condition.
In the Hama track of emotions, this pathway is often disrupted by anxiety around certainty. Diffidence is not merely lacking in certainty, but is a disrupted relationship with the faculty of discernment. It's a poorly operational faculty of discernment. Though the Emotional Kinetics will often be listed from 1-7, it is essential to realize, they are not actually in “parts”, but they are individual forces, fused into a whole.
This is why number Seven is “Frame of Mind”, captured with the single term “Entertainment”. Entertainment means “to maintain a certain frame of mind in another”. So the term is not “Frame of Mind” exactly, as it describes the “maintaining of a certain frame of mind”.
The term “mentality” can capture the full notion of “Frame of Mind” as a single term, but it's overused... so I have chosen “Entertainment” with its three “mentalities” made clear, in how the behavior manifests towards “diversion and delusion”, “distraction and relief”, or “Engagement”, with the three categories of Amusement, Seduction, Engagement.
Escapism, in the name of assurance, reassurance, and relief... plays a role in the first two heavily, and can, but is not required for the third, that of Engagement.
But for the first two, escapism, distraction for relief, is primary, not secondary.
Hama traits will push the mentality of the individual in attraction towards Amusements and Seductions. Kama traits push in attraction the individual towards Engaging mentalities.
The Hama attractions, however, are defined by the primary and secondary order being “aversions dictate attractions”.
The Kama attractions, however, are defined by the primary and secondary order being “attractions dictate aversions”.
This is how the two differ from each other. Avoidance is Hama; Engaging is Kama, in trait difference.
Thus, the two sets of forces determine the Sense of Life elements of “pleasure” and “happiness”.
For the Hama, happiness is found in RELIEF, and thus means “relieved”. What they are relieved of is the agitation of their emotional body. Relieved, through assurances, reassurances, and thus... primarily, the worthiness of “CARE”.
CARE is the Goddess of the Hama traits.
The Kama does not seek relief, but Engagement, and thus, what would be called happiness to the Kama would be called “expressive”, in actuality. Kama set of traits and attributes, in the Emotional Kinetics, is an attraction to the expression of the emotional pathways, towards targets, and objectives.
When the Hama set is seeking relief of itself, then this means the expressions are anxious, and they lead to disruptions and subversions. The Hama is trying to get out of discernment; the Kama is trying to express discernment.
In Mayyin, then, there were two divisions, socially, that naturally developed from these traits. Hama were those who remained semi settled under a “dome”, or that is protective shelter, such as cliff hangings, caves, or primitive structures. The Hama did not travel “unsecured” routes, or far from their burrows and beds. They would gather and scavenge nearby, often in numbers, feeling — which is all it is — safe and relieved that others were with them.
This feeling in the Hama, without Kama physiological change, was one of the reasons most of them got wiped out by conditional predators. Though they were with others in numbers, predators could still attack them, not being intimidated.
This, because when those of the Hama set of traits react to threats, they huddle together, and communicate their diffidence, their insecurities, and their fears to the predator. They also have their scent of stress come to the surface of their skin, instead of sweat in strong expression, and that stressed or anxious smell is detected as weakness by the predators. Just as a well expressed Kama has in its sweat that of intimidating smells, showing its health.
Hama would huddle with each other, and be wiped out by the predators. The proclivity to huddle in fear and insecurity is at the foundation of the Hama proclivity to hug.
Etymology of huddle (v.)
1570s, “to heap or crowd together,” probably from Low German hudern “to cover, to shelter” (of hens on chicks or nurses with children), from Middle Low German huden “to cover up,” which is probably a frequentative form from Proto-Germanic *hud-, from PIE *keudh-, extended form of root *(s)keu- “to cover, conceal.” Compare also Middle English hoderen “heap together, huddle” (c. 1300). Related: Huddled; huddling. The noun is from 1580s. U.S. football sense is from 1928.
Huddles would move collectively from the “huts” in the surrounding area to “harvest”, only in the arrogant sense, when in actuality, it was to “gather”.
Etymology of hut (n.)
1650s, from French hutte “a cottage” (16c.), from Middle High German hütte “cottage, hut,” probably from Proto-Germanic *hudjon-, which is related to the root of Old English hydan “to hide,” from PIE *keudh-, from root *(s)keu- “to cover, conceal.” Apparently first in English as a military word. Old Saxon hutta, Danish hytte, Swedish hytta, Frisian and Middle Dutch hutte, Dutch hut are said to be from High German.
However, it is the Kama who would “move”, not “huddle”, and they would “conceal” their movement, not “hide”. “Hide” and “conceal” are not the same thing.
Etymology of *(s)keu-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to cover, conceal.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit kostha “enclosing wall,” skunati “covers;” Greek kytos “a hollow, vessel,” keutho “to cover, to hide,” skynia “eyebrows;” Latin cutis “skin,” ob-scurus “dark;” Lithuanian kiautas “husk,” kūtis “stall;” Armenian ciw “roof;” Russian kishka “gut,” literally “sheath;” Old English hyd “a hide, a skin,” hydan “to hide, conceal”; Old Norse sky “cloud;” Old English sceo “cloud;” Middle High German hode “scrotum;” Old High German scura, German Scheuer “barn;” Welsh cuddio “to hide.”
Etymology of hide (n.1)
“skin of a large animal,” Old English hyd “a hide, a skin,” from Proto-Germanic *hudiz (source also of Old Norse huð, Old Frisian hed, Middle Dutch huut, Dutch huid, Old High German hut, German Haut “skin”), from PIE root *(s)keu- “to cover, conceal.”
Related prehistorically to Old English verb hydan “to hide” (see hide (v.1)), the common notion being of “covering.” The alliterative pairing of hide and hair (often negative, hide nor hair) was in Middle English (early 15c.), but earlier and more common was hide ne hewe, literally “skin and complexion ('hue')” (c. 1200).
The Hama phonetics correlate to what the most ancient terms were in how they referred to themselves, and others. In their phonetics, they were on the hid, or land, with their hiw, their family, of their hiwan, household, with a hiwo... husband, who provides.
This is the Hama track of phonetics, and the Hama would mix in phonetics from those “husbands” that were much later brought in as “slaves”.
Etymology of hide (n.2)
a measure of land (obsolete), Old English hid “hide of land,” earlier higid, from hiw- “family,” from or related to hiwan “household,” hiwo “a husband, master of a household,” from Proto-Germanic *hiwido-, from PIE *keiwo- (source also of Latin civis “citizen”), from PIE root *kei- (1) “to lie,” also forming words for “bed, couch,” and with a secondary sense of “beloved, dear.”
The notion was of “amount of land needed to feed one free family and dependents,” usually 100 or 120 acres, but the amount could be as little as 60, depending on the quality of the land. Often also defined as “as much land as could be tilled by one plow in a year.” Translated in Latin as familia.
I will not expound on it here, but take note of the etymology of kei.
Etymology of *kei- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to lie,” also forming words for “bed, couch,” and with a secondary sense of “beloved, dear.”
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit Sivah “propitious, gracious;” Greek keisthai “to lie, lie asleep;” Latin cunae “a cradle;” Old Church Slavonic semija “family, domestic servants;” Lithuanian šeima “domestic servants,” Lettish sieva “wife;” Old English hiwan “members of a household.”
The Hama did not have access to the behaviors and difference of the Kama among them. The Hama were semi settled, and only moved when the Kama would not return to the domos, or domed areas, or would move them for safety, and to traverse the lands for the Kama hunt.
The Kama were in the fields more often than the “houses”, or that is the hiwan. The hiwan was under the Control and Management of the Hawwah, that is the maternal leader of the Hama traited. More often than not, the Hama Ma was left behind, with the young, who were cradled and being relieved, or “cared for”.
Because of this separation of the traits, more Ma or females would develop out through behavior of Hama, and more ancient Mas would develop out more Kama traits, and attributes. However, more is not by much. Most Mas in the field were mimicking those with more potent Kama traits. It is not likely that most Mas had the Kama traits, but instead, were conditioned and cultured to be useful out in the fields, with those who did.
Therefore, there were those with the Kama traits, and those with the Kama “culture”, but Hama traits, that were Mas. If the Mas was too Hama, they were left behind with the Hama Ma.
When this would occur, it was observable that more Hama Mas and Hama Ma would be born than that of the advantaged Kama Mas. Meaning, the Hama Mas was taking advantage of access to Hama Ma, and becoming the source of the offspring, thus weakening the genus of Mayyin. Cycles of this would occur, causing constant strife between Hama Mas, and Kama Mas. Because the females, or Ma, were primarily Hama, they could not, and can not detect this issue.
Hama Ma and Hama Mas would then come to be dominant in numbers, on account of the activities of the Kama Mas. Because of the Hama “aversions dictate attractions”, and the Kama “attractions dictate aversions”, those most prominent in Kama traits would begin to be further, and further out into the fields, and return to the hiwan only to find that the conditions were neurotic. It would be liken to bonobo behavior, versus troglodytes.
Remember, at this time, Mayyin is pre abstract thought. The faculty of discernment is at a very low stage, in its development.
The Kama were able to see two kinds of conditions: the hiwan and the pasus. I will not treat this term “pasus” yet, but need to address it elsewhere. Think, “pasture” and “field”. The phonetics are Pa, Se, Us.
Hiwan = Huts, and semi settled households.
Pasus = Fields of locomotion, hunting, gathering.
The Kama saw both. They hunted the fields, were out for extended periods, and then returned to the hiwan. But the Hama of the hiwan did not have this diversity, in realization. The Hama did not know what life was like in the “fields”. They only thought, “gone”, and “here”, and had the correlation of “gone”, “get”, “gain”, “gather”.
To the Hama, the simple thought was, the Kama went out, and “gathered the meat”, like they would gather things nearby. The Hama did not grasp what went into the process, and they did not have some inner sense to “need to know, and consider”. To them, the Kama “gathered”, and that was it.
Notice, the phonetics and etymology show the connection a “husband” had with “one who gathers” or “gets” in the sense of “brings back”, and “unifies”. A “husband” was always a provider, as a primary, to the Hama. It is “he who goes get, and brings hither”.
Etymology of gather (v.)
Old English gadrian, gædrian “unite, agree, assemble; gather, collect, store up” (transitive and intransitive), used of flowers, thoughts, persons; from Proto-Germanic *gaduron “come or bring together, unite” (source also of Old English gæd “fellowship, companionship,” gædeling “companion;” Middle Low German gadderen; Old Frisian gaderia; Dutch gaderen “to gather,” gade “spouse;” German Gatte “husband;” Gothic gadiliggs), perhaps from PIE *ghedh- “to unite, join” (see good (adj.)). Change of spelling from -d- to -th- is 1500s, reflecting earlier change in pronunciation (as in father). Related: Gathered; gathering.
The hiwan was the place of “gathering”, and centered around this. Take away those who “go out to gather”, and the “gathering” would starve and die out.
Etymology of gathering (n.)
mid-12c., gadering, “an assembly of people, act of coming together,” from late Old English gaderung “a gathering together, union, collection, assembly,” verbal noun from gather (v.).
The going was þider towards that place, as opposed to hider, that of “this place”, or the hiwan, where there is the “gathering”.
Etymology of thither (adv.)
Old English þider “to or toward that place,” altered (by influence of its opposite hider) from earlier þæder “to that place,” from Proto-Germanic *thadra- (source also of Old Norse þaðra “there,” Gothic þaþro “thence”), from PIE pronominal root *to- (see that) + PIE suffix denoting motion toward (compare Gothic -dre, Sanskrit -tra). The medial -th- developed early 14c. but was rare before early 16c. (compare gather, murder, burden).
Do not ignore that last line of “COMPARE” that of “gather, murder, burden”.
Hama lacks diversity in consideration of “other things” at “that place”, or beyond, which is þider. Instead, in all things thought of about the “other”, they make hider... “liken to this place”. Their hiding place.
In modern Min, there is often a conflict with its Ma, and Mas, wherein the Ma (female), will demand of the Mas (male) that after he has been þider, or out there at that place, that is not hider, of the hiwan, her gathering and household, that he acts like her, and tends to the hiwan.
She will not think of how much he labored and/or dealt with þider, that other place. This is on account of Min with dominant Hama forces, and their traits within them. Because of the Hama lineage, where this is potent in the Min, it will not be “considerate”, in meaning, “consider” what “others” from that place are like and about, versus demand from everyone else, they consider only their hider, and hiwan.
This can be seen in how most of you Min relate to each other, by liking others on account that they listened to, and let you express the ways of your household that you carry in your character, but you did not likely get to know what makes them, them... if even they are anything more than a replicant from “yours”.
Meaning, they are likely of the same “gathering” as you, but as Hama kinds, you do not have the Engaged faculty to discern, and thus, determine if this is actually the case.
Hama Min trait, that is treat others as if they are a part of the same set of familiars, and thus hiwan. Hiwan would have been the word I would have used in ancient times to say “familiars”, liken to how I now use it. I would say of your “familiars”... hider hiwan.
The mindset, or mentality of the Hama was always far more limited than the locomotive, and “nomadically” inclined Kama. When the Kama would return to the hiwan, they would be exhausted, and only on account of their energetics, did the Hama back at the hiwan leave them be, to rest, and heal — while anxiously, the little Hama would run about engaging in resource management, and division, and transference of the “wealth”, or goods, throughout the familiars, or hiwan.
It would in appearance be that the Hama “gathered” the “goods”, and thus, were the source of it, on account that they managed it. They “guided” the “flow” of goods.
The Kama, mostly males, would then go into passive, and exhausted states, often fire gazing. But they earned the fire gazing and rest through exhaustion, and they were not restless. But the Hama often were restless, and then would use their energetics to manage the provisions, only when the provisions were produced by the Kama.
Thus, the energetics of restless and easily agitated would become Hama, and exhausted, expressed, and calm would become the traits of Kama.
The Hama would be aggressive, and agitated;
The Kama would be calm, cool, and collected.
The Kama forces were at the root, in the tree of traits, of what much later, led to Equanimity. Equanimity can only come from the Kama path of expression to the point of exhaustion, that leads to a “certainty” in “sense”, that leads to a calm, and that of Immovability. Hama sense of “calm” is relief. Kama sense of calm is through conquest of certainty.
However, on their own, because these Hama and Kama are begun through the forces of Me, and not yet Se, and Ve, they are foundational.
Me Hama et Kama
Differ from later
Se Kama
Et
Ve Kama
There is no Se Hama, or Ve Hama.
Hama is Me, in form.
Me Kama is the first kind of Kama, and this is why, it is still Kama. When Se and Ve forces augment Kama, it is not Kama, other than ancestrally so.
In Se form, Ka is present, but not Ma. In Ve form, Ka is present, but not Ma. However, it would be an error to think Ma factors not at all in the lineage of the forces, or traits and attributes I call Kama. In Ka, there is the ancestral forces of Kama. It is a “negation et affirmation” trend that occurs, not so much a removal. Ma becomes negated in force, in the affirmation of Ka.
Hama has aggressive Ma.
Kama, among the Mer, has “awareness” in the Provisionary and servile sense for Ma.
But it is not “individualized” in the Sense of Self, but collectivized.
Thus, these ancestral Mayyin Kama, with maternal Hama, were slightly “affirmed” more so than not in all these traits... not entirely aggressively so. This is Ki to recalling.