A short but effective introduction to myself

 October 6, 2012

 

If philosophy were a necessary evil, my own renunciation against (a) hypocritical (b) anti-climatic (c) melodrama would cure everything being more or less predictable.

===============

I love irony, because I am way fucking good at it.

Bahar @Vancougarmama

Be grateful that life handed you someone to love. Never take it for granted. True Love never plays with the heart.  #Transparent

Amber @anettles011

it's annoying because you can't say it in person

Amber @anettles011

and sometimes I wonder, why we care so much about the way we look, and the way we talk and the way we act

"She is clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs without fear of the future." -Proverbs 31:25

My dog is the greatest blessing in my life.

• 13y

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

 September 12, 2013

 

I refer to history as 'The global lecture' re; an autobiographical account of my Emotional achievements [a relationship between memory & its capacity] Vs. how we use history as a science. Science after all is justification for a sequence of ideas turned into an event, that became knowledge based on the premise of defense, and defense is the master thesis to all things both moral and immoral.

 

Consider the following statement:

 

The only thing worse than an apology, is an apology you do not know what for and dependent on what you enable it to signify. This is history and science.

 

Never under any circumstances will I run away from a fight based on living a lie between confrontation (confession) and conflict (guilt).

 

How do you inform (focus) your mental awareness onto things, without limiting yourself to a double standard in self judgment (i.e. trial and error, appeal to fallacy, hypothesis, cognition, research, deductive reasoning, denial). The proof this comes as, is in a form of these same variables (a) characteristically acting on factual terms (b) to which sources that need be applied. Examples of the attributes mentioned above are as follows; 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.)

All this entails is the appeal to popularity, speaking as in what is more important than 'average' subjectivity.

 

Therefore history as it ought be thought as, is an incomplete journey that predates the concept of freedom of an intellectual nature.

 

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.

 

I define everything I know as an emotional achievement 1- [a relationship between memory] 2- [its capacity] & 3- [reproach]. This is how I use my ability in a scientific yet causal sense that characterizes history not simply with details but on a much broader scale.

============

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 (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 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.

---------------------

It is important to note I feel the terms I make are not mutually exclusive that are in contradiction to each other.

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.

--------------------

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.)

---------------------

Updated: Sept. 12, 2013

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."

----------------------------

"Therefore history as it ought be thought as, is an INCOMPLETE JOURNEY that predates the concept of freedom of an INTELLECTUAL NATURE." Marco Almeida, 2013

Diane Gall: I thought of you when I wrote this.^ I am challenging the quotient of purists that insatiably create tradition such as Plato. One of the better things I have thought, in the course of an anti-thesis. Where does intellect begin, awareness, morality, etc.

 Silence is deafening.

There is no formal competition in government that gives us the right to say when that form of government abuses its power, it infringes on the will of a people. Competition = the removal of a two party system no less than 1. ICE has been given the right to purge minorities into submission on no equilateral grounds.

Now we see the MAGA movement for what it is.

The revolution will not be televised, but I am ready for what is next.

Fear will not win.

The insanity that is taking place in the US must be prevented from coming here. But there are those of us that racism runs deep.

I am not anti-American. I am pro Canadian.

There's a difference in who and how when one says jump and the other says how high. No matter the subject matter.

It is a mental exercise that dictates the norms.

And Trump has his muti-nationals in play. The more the government entices violence and captures innocent people for not being elitist white national christo-facists, he wins.

The minute any military intervention occurs as martial law takes precedent, all bets are off. That is the cause and effect of a dictatorship. Enticing violence as though the culprits are those who want to fight back, without the intention to radicalize themselves into MAGA zombies.

Trump acting without thinking is the cause, and the effect that he is trying to out think us in a rate that it happens faster than we can care to stop it from happening.

These are gestapo tactics. We are living during a time that we must be vigilant in our efforts.

Vigilant in the name that those who want to fight on the right side of history - only can.

Do not be fooled.

Israel obliterating Gaza was a precursor to MAGA and the anti-woke movement.

Putin's army invading Ukraine is unchartered territory. The face of Russian aggression has made itself an enemy to the free world. Russia = oligarchy.

What's needed is not vengeance. I want to fight.

I don't care who. I just want to fight. I'm not afraid to the anti-woke mob that think antifa are the bad guys.

I am not afraid to say it. I am a Canadian one man army.

If people don't see it. . . that my friends is wrong. Think for yourselves. Don't allow for this to happen to us. Canada forever is the resistance that we were born from.

If retribution is what scares you, don't let it be your inside voice threatening you not be on the side of taking direct action.

Nothing tells you what side you're on. (Who cannot decide is a corrupt form of government - lead by charlatans wearing their political dress in the pockets of multinationals.)

The radicals do not exist in this, anymore than lines being drawn which look imaginary.

The emperor has no clothes.

I am just going to say it: I am made to die with honor.

If Trump isn't stopped from nihilating his "enemies within" then the story never ends. Trump wants to be in control of everything, that borders on a fringe corner of time where it backs history repeating itself. This means he has the mentality that if other people would do it, then he is justified in his own actions.

We can't just sit on our laurels.

- Marco

The manual application of face paint [a tribal effect]

 There are one of two things I hate: where someone's only purpose is to make you weaker putting yourself at their disadvantage.  The (first) most obvious form of this is someone's passionate display toward 1- what are their expectations to 2- something atypical as in the nature of your personal beliefs 3- that those demands are met. Think about it this way: you need a permit to be deemed 'unhealthy' if it meant you were to refuse to go to your place of employment that (certifiably) keeps you from performing. I think of this in terms of a pseudo-effect - a relationship that has no real connection between someone's personal boundaries (spirituality) or possession exists.  I consider that type of person is nihlist both the politcal and the legal.  Nihilism whether you identify with it or not exists.

=====

The second most obvious form of expectation is the trace of taking one's mind hostage.   It is a form of defense that you see happening as in hunger, disease, or famine results in the mental images your brain has kept track stored deep in the unconscious. This footprint is often confused with assimilation and the declaration of insanity ON a GLOBAL scale. If you think of a world that has lost in its abundance cannot satisfy hunger, cannot cover its population in need of medication, or its exapansion of severe drought.  What results is segregation between avidity of individuals. (i.e. insanity, chaos, etc.)  Now think of it this way: you are certifiably insane if your feelings do not coexist in a world that sees you as a hazard or worse, this leads us to a classification of individuals. That those individuals are subjects related to war and such as in war - war is based on attrition. Therefore, the minute you are seen as a threat to the commune - justifies its immunity.  Then and only then can you be seen as a person.  Your entire existence DEPENDS on it. This is a nihilist's point of view.

======

If you see nothing wrong with what you just read - believe me - sadly you are not alone. 

==========

Nihilism:

a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility.

The case and point I make re; societal norms in place of ourselves is that if we lived in a world without basic necessities in life, we follow false expectations related to needs we don't really have. That can only follow one thing and one thing only, our moral attributes signal to things worth more than commodification would allow. Therefore, necessity is something we do not see as in ourselves, necessity is the danger we live in with risk of its loss, things such as food, health, shelter - are no longer seen as a god given right.

---------------------

It is interesting to point out that the philosophy re; St. Francis of Assisi are completely oblivious to my point of view. I would accuse St. Francis of Assisi related theory to the absolution of nihilism.

in ideological synchronizing the existentialist idiom

October 4, 2008 ·

so there we have it. Sarah did me proud during her performance of the vp presidential electoral debate. To be honest, I expected nothing more from Palin than giving herself a fighting chance, and that she did. Palin executed some improper forms of reasoning with which intellectuals will hang themselves over, but in the grand scheme of things, so did Margret Thatcher's liberals as the Iron Lady of all time. That being said, I cannot vouch for how big a blow this is to the Obama camp. They seem like an odd mismatch between two very shrewd mortals. Hillary Clinton at least gave Obama the worse of herself as an enemy, compared though to Palin, Palin nearly deflected all of the criticism in her short-bed-fellow Republican running mate John McCain. The 700bil$ mugging of taxpayers dollars should help vault voter confidence toward the Republican platform.

The cnd debate between Jack Layton and whatever-her-name-is. . . oh yeah, I wannabe a rockstar Elizabeth May served nothing worth even mentioning. Stephen Harper I thought was going to turn into a fiddle drivel of banality with the onslaught of insults coming in his direction. Harper least impressed me most - and in this debate - probably the worst I have seen by far. Stephen Dion literally had nothing to work off in this debate, because Harper enjoyed his own unstrategic window of glory, which really cannot be taken into the consideration of cnd conservatives within. Harper did absolutely nothing, and Dion wasn't willing to sound as idiotic as Jack Layton did with all of the talking.
What an utter embarrassment for Cnd voters. Simply pathetic leaders at that table. They can beat each other though.

-----------------------

I saw the movie blindness - with mark ruffalo/ julianne moore. This pic is very avantgarde, but well adapted for the screen. It touches on some of the more sensitive subject matter as topics that are deeply embedded within the film. It is the kind of material that will provoke thought, and is very existential in its view. Therefore, it will be quite hard to digest for the average viewer.

================

The movie blindness is very special to me. It really takes courage to evaluate it's obvious metaphors within the context of an abstract model, of an imperfect universe which we fail to grasp. We live within the framework of such incredulity, which to me, can vary in the opposite discretion of its viewer. Essentially, this is the task which one must dictate if one is to personify the meaning behind (author) Jose Saramago's intent within the story.

Imagine, if you were blind in a world filled with white, where everything and everyone around you.

Within that construct of propter being 'blindness' whcih confronts a make-shift reality, there is a vision of what might humanity appear to be through a historical revision of the facts?

Essentially, the thought process of the films viewer is met with hostile often rigorous misfortune over. What could possibly serve this film to its viewer, that warrants such a displacement of our basic human desires? How is that even debateable less profitable?

Saramago's ingenious method of the metaphor which creates this drudgery of inhumanity, is a reflection of the trivial aspects society has been elevated on - though not by choice. I think what Saramago is commenting on, is a view of life as we believe it is compared to the knowledge within a world of deceit. A world of blindness that our contempt to it, might actually result in our stripping away of the evolution between humanity and ambition be it based on survival benefit.

The true element which 'blindness' is prevalent, is to answer the question, can you be faced with the cruelties which have shaped the world we live in today. That tomorrow, you realize everything is not what it once was.

Part of Saramago's characterization of the 'magic' boy is a symbol of irony, that ones innocence is undying. That blindness is not a cureable disease, but a commodity of the ruthless suffering throughout much of our world's ignorance to it.

-----------------------

He talks about genocide, the dictatorships that conquer man, the insitution of marriage, control, lust, greed. Community. The abolition of the state. Anarchy. Communist regime changes, rationing, martial law.

These are mere fragments that polarize the human condition, though illegitimate as blindness may be to those that are dually unaware.

the judging empathy of - of sociopaths

 I am not so certain, why is it people fail to realize there is so much as resolve, of their own insecurities whilst placing those inner working of self into others.

 

I have grown a considerable amount, even while writing this entry down, knowing full well how inopportune people feel unless they can get their way.  Which to the nature of this narrative, I can only see, unless people otherwise do not fear control - but resist it.  This is as it appears to me anyway.

 

Part of that reasoning, may suggest how insecure a person is around others; where the problem is created to a fault of one's own.  The real nature of this is simple, that through the course of examining the thoughts of a persons behavior, at what point do you forget about yourself in that process of amenity.

 

Truly - the greater truth in all of this.

---------------------

How none of you even care to acknowledge a passage as thoughtful as this, contrary to your own positions - whether or not you can agree or disagree?

I mean really, do you really think all I believe in saying, is to grab your attention or to get a reaction??

I have no idea, how narrow minded people really are, but when something as important as this doesn't even garner your insightful selves, tells me you're all just a bunch of moochers.

-----------------

Honestly, I have lived my whole life to this point to get to this level of intellect. No wonder this world fucking sucks.

-----------------

Like somebody tell me that subject matter isn't the most out and out best thing you've read in your life? I'm right here waiting for it.

October 4, 2012 ·

 People are not born with a low tolerance of others that if they see themselves dishonestly, therefore making it a much more personal issue. - Marco

-==-

If you actually understand what I stated, what I said is that most people have adopted intolerance only to spread such intolerance with the same intention. Even if that intolerance is not justified. Therefore, as I had put it. . . no one is born with intolerance, because true tolerance is a virtue. If someone that use their intolerance as a grievance, it is evidence of the issue. Is the issue worthy of intolerance.

Any fool can be intolerant, the point I'm making is that if I am a tolerant person, can I act as an individual who without thinking makes a value judgment.

An accurate value judgment in my estimation is one that sees the cause and effect of a foul whereas committed.

We are living it.

During this point in history there exists the conscious class struggle.

Trump is implementing corporate welfare as dominant.

This points to oligarchs from which the monopoly arises and is being protected.

This projection of corporate welfare is creating a mass class struggle that Trump wants to divide and conquer.

If we become tolerant of what Trump is doing, Canadians have an obligation to learn from the dystopia Trump is creating and defend our own sovereignty through reasonable aims.

- Marco

Opposition [the debonaire of utilitarianism]

October 4, 2013 ·

 Do something people - read it a few times - look for the words in how I apply them to understand it.

"Utilitarianism is the act combined with the source that each individual is not zero-tolerant of what entitlement they have independently. Therefore, they act toward a source of a problem with the same goal in mind based on the same admission." - Marco Almeida, 2013

This is the best definition of Utilitarian philosophy that I created.^ Some clown made fun of my facebook entries by saying fuck you over confrontation I welcome. The utilitarian wins every time. Think about that.

==================

I believe there is irony in everything.

====

It is the only way to make sense of what we are faced with when examining things from an utilitarian perspective.

====

You must expect that in something no matter 1- its objectivity or lack thereof you are 2- aware of how that other half acts 3- is direct in its response 4 - though not impartial.  This is how utilitariansim works.

==== 

What I feel for myself better enables the intentions of others that would not otherwise 'care'. (Keep this in mind as to the conclusion of this narrative.) The archetype is easy to identify. However, utilitarianism is often confused with the premise that if you are inclined to commit to something in a typically pragmatic manner, your expectation rests in conforming a kind of incestuous nature. This means that the expectation if someone were to rape another person, that utilitarianism predicates the fact you have willingly enabled such an act. In such a definition of utilitarianism, you are justified in expectation that the other person is complacent. That is of course, as I argue, the falsification of what utilitarianism truly entails is misrepresented as an idea of extortion. Person 'x' is doing something that must be satisfied by person 'y' = this is not utilitiarianism but is exponentially classified as.

====

Utilitarianism is the act combined with the source that each individual is not zero-tolerant of what entitlement they have independently. Therefore, they act toward a source of a problem with the same goal in mind based on the same admission.

====

In all of this, beautification is the result of true utilitarian perspective. It helps to identify the real cause of it as a partnership whereas one sided it may be. The utilitarian model should not be decimated but a condemnation of intercepting how the same idea is not to disable it. For example: if my life depended on being a charity case, does this also mean I expect the world to cater to my needs. I would answer the ability to 'care' is much more appropriate a term when looking to an unstable kind of world we live in. The utilitarian perspective is present in everything we do as result.

==================

This is a very important disparity to consider: Utilitarianism is very powerful, but it is negated because of the impervious view that if an utilitarian has the intention to be altruistic, this also means they can defile their victim in a case such as rape. The point of utilitarianism is not that you are enabling for the sake of utilitarian motives - but that your INTENTION is the one in the same thing.

Please read this entry carefully - you might learn something. It has urgency in the language when you see the true nature of utilitarianism. I make an anti-thesis to prove the validity of its main purpose with respect to the classic debunking, "Utilitarians are so typical, they think they can enact something such as incest and think that is okay." My point is that utilitarians have to INVOKE the intention of others that might want to put you at a disadvantage.

If you learn how to identify true utilitarian principles, this is invaluable to you.

------------------------

"The utilitarian model should not be decimated but a condemnation of intercepting how the same idea is not to disable it." - Marco Almeida, 2013

You as an utilitarian is not subject to perjury based on another persons intentions. The act of utilitarianism is to inform you from any liability as something passive. Nihilists would argue that as an utilitarian you are in breach of your being passive. Nihilists are anti-utilitarian.