Moral obligation and the revisionist sentiment [contrition, awareness & autonomy in history]

 °●°○°○°○°▪︎°▪︎

This is my final installment on the subject of history as I discuss, which makes history a more personal description to it. Also, refer to the title change that the three postulates [contrition, awareness & autonomy] relate. When you are introducing history as a result of your emotion, very different rationality emerges, that is the point of this lecture:

"I examine history on a subjective level that is tempting of fate, not as history is automatically fatalist in its origin, as such, awareness living in a vacuum. I argue on terms of autonomy in history being more important than virtue itself." - Marco Almeida, 2013

Added some new material to consider: 

 1- typically abstract » ideas 2- predictable » logic 3- mental in relapse » movement 4- withdrawal » time and space. 5- eccentricity » belief 6- trust » irony 7- perverse » reality (Remember these are things which inform your personal awareness, not in assigning history, but carries a property subject to human error. Think of flirting with history in kindness. That is how to assess history, through objections, affiliation, and acts of attrition.)

°●°○○°○○°○°

I make an exclamation designating history is based on impervious societal affluence, political discourse, social or economical - that in order to examine history is not in the corrupt (impartial) view of life, but an acclimation of moral (virtual) veneration. History is a reconstructing of our ability rather than its destruction (diabolical), to enable ourselves by its assurance. 1- This in theory would state that history is the fascination of how incapable we are. 2- It is an anti-thesis to the fallibility (insurance) of what we already know. History typically entails how venerable we are, concerning the influence or model by design behind it. My approach is indifferent to recording history, on a more surreal (romantic) level, rather than its superfluous state of x, y, z happened for reasons a, b, c - [dialectic or pragmatic awareness is two fold]. Therefore, the particularity of history does NOT become expressed with a PRACTICAL meaning to it. This follows understanding history should be an impractical look into that which we escape from to the use of language as result. The objective is to change the way history is told. The goal in other words is not to allow history as a construct of what reality is made. I would call it a hyper-extension of metaphysical reactions. Basically this argument is made that eliminates the discourse of how history has been conventionally taught, as an intention to create the imperialist state of culture we are living in today. - Marco Almeida, 2013

Oscar Wilde - "The very essence of romance is uncertainty."

°●°○●°○°○°○°

Oscar Wilde

"Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good."

 --from "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" (1895)

========

I make an exclamation designating history is based on impervious societal affluence, political discourse, social or economical - that in order to examine history is not in the corrupt view of life, but an acclimation of moral (virtual) veneration. History is a reconstructing of our ability rather than its destruction (diabolical), to enable ourselves by it. 1- This in theory would state that history is the fascination of how incapable we are. 2- It is an anti-thesis to the fallibility of what we already know. History typically entails how venerable we are, concerning the influence or model by design behind it. My approach is indifferent to recording history, on a more surreal (romantic) level, rather than its superfluous state of x, y, z happened for reasons a, b, c - [dialectic or pragmatic awareness is two fold]. Therefore, the particularity of history does NOT become expressed with a PRACTICAL meaning to it. This follows understanding history should be an impractical look into that which we escape from to the use of language as result. The objective is to change the way history is told. The goal in other words is not to allow history as a construct of what reality is made. I would call it a hyper-extension of metaphysical reactions. Basically this argument is made that eliminates the discourse of how history has been conventionally taught, as an intention to create the imperialist state of culture we are living in today.

"The breakthrough in reality is a smashing of conventional wisdom, shattered memories, that breaches this inherent awareness from a white dominated inbred type psychology to our modern world, and imperialist ideology that history is made." - Marco Almeida, 2013

°●°○°○○°○°○°○°