Liminal Spaces and Type

[squishycans]

How do they make you feel?
I love Backrooms content. It all feels very intriguing, even though it's dangerous and I'd probably die. I think I subconsciously suspected this might be an Si-valuing view, but I don't know.

[squishycans]

I used to like doing this as a kid. We had woods behind where we lived in pennsylvania and we'd go back there and just explore everything. I remember one time my parents got mad at me for coming home late after dark. They asked what I was doing and I said "hunting fireflies". We were waiting for them to light up in the darkness and then try and catch them in our hands and watch them glow.




I've always fantasized about taking places like these and renovating them into a place where you can work, live, play, and farm. Like a Heavenly place separated from society. Just make them beautiful, almost transforming the ugliness they were intended for into something much more emotionally luminous.

According to google (https://www.verywellmind.com/the-imp...s%20threshold.) Liminal spaces are
"A Transitional Place or Time That Can Feel Unsettling"

That's interesting. For me it's a place of exploration or a nice time-out from reality. It's more comfortable than uncomfortable or unsettling.

[pzombieLIT]

Oh man, I remembered something -


This is it. This is what I was searching for. This is the feeling. The way everything changes, the obscure dreams played out in the game, how happy memories turn bad later, how memories fade and even change and the ambience of it all, the darkness in all of it where christmas goes from being happy to sad, or the empty cribe symbolizing loss or never having a kid, and the ultimate futility, yet meaningfulness of it all...

I bought House of Leaves, but I'm afraid to start reading it. I just know I'm going to sit down and read it from beginning to end, then research everything about it, possibly read it again, and end up questioning if I'm even sane anymore.

It's like, Liminality, this word, it's in everything. But it also makes everything not feel quite real, like really we are some kind of dream. From dualistic aspects of Jungian psychotypes (where you can't really isolate things exactly in Information Metabolism without losing this liminal contextual meaning), Samsara in Buddhism (where impermeance and process cycles are huge aspect of enlightenment), even in physics. Fuck, don't get me started on physics. I had this thought a long time ago about time. I wanted to know what it was, but I couldn't figure it out. And eventually I realized something, if you could literally "pause" time, no one would be anything. It's only when things change do they become something unique and separated in reality. This change, it's literally liminality. It's like the chicken and the egg or cause-and-effect problem of what comes first (https://philosophyterms.com/paradox-...inite-regress/). But if you can just accept that reality is liminal, it's merely about how things change that gives meaning and it's not about start and end. A clock doesn't really exist. Forward and backward are illusionary. There's just the moment as a liminality of existence. I think this is why I'm starting to really find the appeal in Buddhism...


And, speaking of liminality, take Einstein's relativity. He imagined that if you are in motion and light is always traveling at the same speed, there's a problem. The light should speed up in front of you and slow down behind you, but it doesn't. Instead, you measure that light in front of you at a slower rate than before, so it keeps the same speed. And behind you, you measure at a faster rate, so it keeps the same speed. Blue-shifting and red-shifting respectively. Einstein stumbled upon the liminality of physics!
What's weirder is the implication of space contracting in front of you and expanding behind you and what that means for length contraction. When I tried to make sense of it, I kind of assumed the whole thing was analogous to a racecar hitting wind resistance, causing the car the compress and buckle (length contraction?), while also compressing what's in front of you (blue-shift). But phsycists didn't like me trying to make this comparison. I got immediately censored on the physics forums. In college my physics professor told me not to try and make sense of it. Reminds me of this video, but about mathematics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt1nUfskq9E. I HATED this. I sometimes want to go back to college to use my GI Bill, but I HATE academics so much. Another person online, presumably ILI, tried to say this can't be right because the "ether" doesn't exist. But now quantum physicists agree that the vacuum of space is made up of "quantum stuffs" and isn't really empty...and even Einstein said in a letter that he thought there has to be something regardless for relativity to make any sense!

Like today I watched this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M&t=21s and I just don't know what to think. I should probably look at the math, but the idea that you can have a singularity, I don't think makes any sense. Einstein used Black Holes and White Holes to act as theoretical limits or extremes for relativity. If we say a black hole exists then when you go into a singularity, time stops for you relative to time outside the black hole, meaning that everything out of the black hole goes through infinite time! But this isn't what happens with Hawking Radiation where he says Black Holes shrink over time. I think they might be getting too obsessed with the math. For any of this to even be possible, light has to be curved infinitely. BUT they seem to be assuming the light is not JUST refracted by gravity, but also pulled in (https://youtu.be/6akmv1bsz1M?t=518). But do we know that? Is this an assumption? I can't find anything online of anyone even talking about, but this seems to imply it's just refracted or curved and not pulled in due to gravitation because it is thought to have no "mass" - https://www.pbs.org/video/how-does-g...-light-zx47ji/.
Oh, and the mass problem! I'm not getting into that here...there's a question of what does it mean for something to have mass or what does it mean for something to be an anti-particle, but I seem to really piss off people the few times I tried to talk about it and academics actually steered me away from going to school because of this! I SWEAR academia and physics is comprised of mostly STs...I mean there has to be physicists that have thought about this? Why can't we hear from them sometimes. I don't care about just modeling the facts and seeing probability distributions. There's a whole world of questions, mystery, and intrigue, people seem reluctant to want to explore.

Anyway, I might be insane. But I don't think so...oh actually, that's one thing, is Jungian ego is a kind of liminal insanity? It seems like it could thought that way. Through the process of individuation we realize how insane we are and become self-aware, so we can learn how not to be insane (or manage it better..)! Hah. Maybe...

[SacredKnowing]

I bought House of Leaves, but I'm afraid to start reading it. I just know I'm going to sit down and read it from beginning to end, then research everything about it, possibly read it again, and end up questioning if I'm even sane anymore.

It's one of those books you can only read once and then never revisit. Like the Holders series of creepy pastas. It's about that quality.

If you can read his subsequent book Only Revolutions then you are a true humanist!