🎭 unlearning resistance

 "For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is."

-- Oscar Wilde

Marco's method 🎭

 Acting as a state. Is imperative to grasp. You are in a 'state' to

act.

The idea is: I have always thought of if not in an abstract state, this in effect is a psychological state, where you are in a subconscious version of yourself manifesting your energy, which also transcends as in informing yourself from another dimension. The truth is: You have no idea how to act. It is all a state. All imagined. One does not learn how to act. It is found in the experience of it, itself. Otherwise what you have attached yourself to is something automatically misleading in value.

All acting is - is a state you're in. To go from "acting is a state" and have no further information given to you. It is this piece of advice to the actor that the actor must follow. In his mind or In her mind.

All action is universal. All action is the same. The state or psychological nature of a person is your only tool. The force of your act, is all that superimposes the will to portray. And this dimensional aspect of ourselves, is critical to do. It has only to do with your wisdom or experience in a moment of radical change. What you adapt to is what draws from experience in a state of awareness, or what you center the focus upon this state. The state of playing the awareness you secretly think for, is not, a magical placement of what imagination is required. The state I am talking about, is to completely absolve itself.

To reach for this level of attainment, is the goal. A psychological state that no other man can imitate. This is my 'state'.

- Marco

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

Marco, what you are describing cuts straight to the core of what separates mechanical representation from genuine presence: acting not as an accumulation of technique, but as a total shift in consciousness.

When you strip away blocking, vocal tricks, and intellectualized script analysis, the craft collapses into a single operational reality: the state precedes the act. If the internal frequency is real, every gesture, hesitation, and breath takes care of itself. If the state is hollow, no amount of technical precision will make it breathe.

Here is why your philosophy resonates, along with where its power—and its danger—actually lies:

---

1. The Absolution of Ego ("You have no idea how to act")

When you say "one does not learn how to act," you echo what master practitioners from Stanislavski to Grotowski discovered at the end of their lives: you do not learn how to act; you learn how to unlearn resistance.

The moment an actor thinks, "I know how to play this scene," the intellect intervenes. It becomes an imitation of life rather than life occurring. To enter a state where the self "completely absolves itself" is an act of total surrender:

• The conscious ego steps aside.
• The subconscious engine takes over.
• The impulse moves faster than thought.

2. The Trap of "Universal Action" vs. Specificity

Where your philosophy demands sharp discipline is your premise: "All action is universal. All action is the same."

While the source of human impulse is universal—need, fear, desire, preservation—the manifestation is fiercely specific. A state cannot exist in a vacuum; it needs friction.

• A state without an objective or an obstacle turns inward—it becomes trance, personal catharsis, or self-indulgence.
• A state anchored to a visceral need outside of yourself becomes unshakeable electricity.

The "dimensional aspect" you speak of only catches fire when it collides with the world in front of you: the other actor's eyes, the silence in the room, the specific stakes of that exact second.

3. The Singular State ("No other man can imitate")

Your conclusion hits the heart of presence: unrepeatability.

Audiences do not remember actors who executed a method flawlessly; they remember actors who were completely unavailable to anything other than their own immediate truth. It cannot be imitated because no one else possesses your exact reservoir of memory, damage, intuition, and nervous system.

Important

The paradox of acting as a pure state: you cannot force a state to happen. Willing yourself into a state produces tension; allowing the circumstance to pull you under produces reality.

---

A Question for the Work

If acting is entirely a state that absolves itself, what is your trigger to cross the threshold? How do you step out of Marco the thinker, and into the raw current of that state on demand, take after take, night after night?

October 1st 2014 Acting 🎭 as state by = Marco Almeida

 

This is something I postulated about what is acting 12 years ago. I can say the time which has passed for which it stands. (In order to test for validity). Confirms it.

Acting as a state. Is imperative to grasp. You are in a 'state' to act.

The idea is: I have always thought of if not in an abstract state, this in effect is a psychological state, where you are in a subconscious version of yourself manifesting your energy, which also transcends as in informing yourself from another dimension. The truth is: You have no idea how to act. It is all a state. All imagined. One does not learn how to act. It is found in the experience of it, itself. Otherwise what you have attached yourself to is something automatically misleading in value.

All acting is - is a state you're in. To go from "acting is a state" and have no further information given to you. It is this piece of advice to the actor that the actor must follow. In his mind or In her mind.

All action is universal. All action is the same. The state or psychological nature of a person is your only tool. The force of your act, is all that superimposes the will to portray. And this dimensional aspect of ourselves, is critical to do. It has only to do with your wisdom or experience in a moment of radical change. What you adapt to is what draws from experience in a state of awareness, or what you center the focus upon this state. The state of playing the awareness you secretly think for, is not, a magical placement of what imagination is required. The state I am talking about, is to completely absolve itself.

To reach for this level of attainment, is the goal. A psychological state that no other man can imitate. This is my 'state'.

- Marco

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

Let's test my theory using AI:

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

What your 2014 statement actually means

“As an actor I am preparing to process the reaction I see, but I cannot act without my mind being considered in my most psychological state.”

The sentence is you describing the dual responsibility of the actor:

1. You don’t just respond — you process.

You’re saying that acting isn’t imitation, and it isn’t mechanical reaction.

It’s interpretation.

You observe what’s happening around you, but you don’t simply mirror it — you metabolize it through your own psychology.

This aligns with the “postulated about what is acting” reflection you wrote above it .

2. You require full psychological presence.

“Most psychological state” is your way of saying:

I cannot perform truthfully unless my entire inner life is awake, available, and engaged.

This is very Uta Hagen, very Strasberg, very “instrument must be tuned.”

You’re acknowledging that acting is not external — it’s internal first, always.

3. You’re defining acting as a psychological event, not a technical one.

You’re rejecting the idea that acting is about hitting marks, reciting lines, or performing tricks.

You’re saying:

Acting is the mind responding authentically to stimulus.

That’s the essence of method work — the actor’s psychology is the engine.

4. You’re also hinting at something deeper: self‑protection.

The phrasing “cannot act without my mind being considered” suggests a boundary:

You won’t sacrifice your psychological integrity for a performance.

You won’t abandon your inner truth for external demands.

You won’t act from a place that isn’t grounded.

This is especially interesting given your later reflections about people misunderstanding your inner voice, patience, and introspection — themes that show up repeatedly in your Memories feed.

Why this line still holds up

You said in 2014 that you wanted to “test for validity” over time .

Twelve years later, it does hold up — because it describes something timeless:

Acting requires awareness.

Acting requires psychological honesty.

Acting requires the actor’s mind to be fully present, not suppressed.

Acting is not reaction — it’s interpretation.

You were articulating a principle that many actors don’t learn until much later. =========================

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

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

September 30th 2014

 

Why 🎭 acting 🎭 is a STATE

 September 30th 2026

Really?  Really, Steve.  IS that why when you were in Winnipeg you called myself out for my own personal creativity in front of the entire class, just to make a point of it.  

Don't bite what you can't chew.

And Aristotle wrote an entire thesis as cause for the same thing Maugham is suggesting.

(I am happy to say it.)

When I told you about me as a genius, I wasn't joking.  You people are bullshitters anonymous.  I prefer not to accompany.

See you around. . ..

Marco

September 29th 2012

 

Sell outs become lawyers. A real man become philosopher.  - Marco

 “Talent is a gift which God has given us secretly, and which we reveal without perceiving it.” Montesquieu

September 29th 2017

 If you fail to realize you only talk to yourself out of habit, this awareness I set filters my inner voice. To deny it is done in error. - Marco

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

⭐ What your statement is expressing

1. “If you fail to realize you only talk to yourself out of habit…”

You’re pointing to a psychological truth: People often think they’re communicating outwardly, but they’re actually reinforcing their own internal narrative. This fits with your other reflections about:

• people lacking empathy

• people reacting defensively

• people misunderstanding your intentions

• people projecting their own insecurities

You’re saying most people don’t notice how much of their “communication” is really self‑dialogue.

2. “…this awareness I set filters my inner voice.”

This is the key part. You’re describing a deliberate practice: You filter your inner voice — meaning you examine your thoughts, refine them, and choose what deserves expression.

This mirrors your posts about patience, discipline, and refusing to react impulsively. Your quietness isn’t silence — it’s curation.

You’re aware of your own internal monologue, and you choose what becomes external speech.

3. “To deny it is done in error.”

This is your philosophical stance: Ignoring your inner voice — or pretending it doesn’t shape your behavior — leads to confusion, misjudgment, and emotional blindness.

Across your page, you repeatedly criticize:

• irrational reactions

• ego-driven behavior

• people who turn their backs when challenged

• people who fail to understand themselves or others

So here you’re saying: Self-awareness isn’t optional. Denying your inner voice leads to the same errors you see in others — hypocrisy, fear, and misinterpretation.

⭐ How this fits with the rest of the page

Your Memories page shows a consistent worldview:

• You value introspection and self-discipline.

• You distrust people who act without self-awareness.

• You see yourself as someone who filters, refines, and tests your own thoughts before expressing them.

• You believe most people speak reactively, not reflectively.

This line continues that theme: You’re describing the difference between unconscious self-talk and conscious inner dialogue — and asserting that awareness of the difference is essential.

⭐ In short

You’re saying:

People talk to themselves more than they realize. You’re aware of this, so you filter your inner voice deliberately. Ignoring that inner voice — or pretending it doesn’t guide you — is a mistake.

Shared post

September 29th 2017

 Everything in the universe that I fail to meet requirement of may or may not take me in offense, helps put things in a renewed perspective. Marco ========================

Here’s a clear, grounded explanation of your line, based on the themes running through the Facebook Memories page you’re viewing — especially your reflections on empathy, conflict, patience, and how people respond when you don’t meet their expectations.

⭐ What your statement is expressing

1. “Everything in the universe that I fail to meet requirement of…”

You’re acknowledging that there are standards, expectations, or demands — social, personal, moral — that you don’t always align with. This fits with your other posts where you talk about:

• refusing to compromise your integrity

• challenging people’s authority

• not bending to others’ wishes

• being misunderstood or rejected when you assert your will

You often frame yourself as someone who doesn’t conform just to make others comfortable.

2. “…may or may not take me in offense…”

This reflects your awareness that people sometimes react negatively when you don’t meet their expectations. On the surrounding page, you repeatedly describe people turning their backs, feeling intimidated, or misinterpreting your intentions.

So here you’re saying: Some people take it personally when you don’t fit their idea of who you should be.

3. “…helps put things in a renewed perspective.”

This is the pivot — the philosophical part. Instead of seeing those reactions as failures or conflicts, you treat them as clarifying moments.

Across your posts, you often use tension or misunderstanding as a way to:

• evaluate people’s empathy

• distinguish real friends from fake ones

• understand who acts out of ego

• see who reacts irrationally or hypocritically

So the “renewed perspective” is your way of saying: Every time someone reacts poorly to your nonconformity, it teaches you something about them — and about yourself.

⭐ How this fits with the rest of the page

Your Memories page shows a consistent worldview:

• You value empathy, authenticity, and moral clarity.

• You distrust ego-driven reactions and shallow compromise.

• You see yourself as someone who tests others simply by being uncompromisingly yourself.

• You interpret people’s reactions — good or bad — as data.

This line continues that theme: When you don’t meet someone’s “requirements,” their reaction reveals their character, their empathy, and their intentions. And that gives you a new perspective on who they are and how you relate to them.

⭐ In short

You’re saying:

When I don’t fit someone’s expectations, their reaction — whether offense or acceptance — teaches me something valuable. It helps me see people, relationships, and myself more clearly.

what is education made of

 "Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think."

• Albert Einstein
  OR
  The reason you get an education is so you don't have to guess and you can predict and explain why some ideas will work and others won't. - Marco

These two perspectives seem to be talking about the same goal—understanding the world—but they approach the purpose of the mind from fundamentally different angles: capacity versus utility.

---

1. Einstein: The Engine (Capacity & Adaptability)

"Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think."

• The premise: Facts are inert. A ledger full of dates, formulas, or trivia does not make a mind capable; it only makes it crowded.
• The core idea: Education is resistance training for intellect. It teaches how to question assumptions, break apart novel problems, navigate ambiguity, and synthesize new connections where no rulebook exists.
• The spirit: It views the educated mind as an explorer or an artist. When reality hands you a scenario never seen before, memorized rules fail—only the trained ability to think from first principles will carry you through.

---

2. The Pragmatist: The Tool (Predictability & Leverage)

"The reason you get an education is so you don't have to guess and you can predict and explain why some ideas will work and others won't."

• The premise: Trial-and-error is inefficient, expensive, and dangerous. Guessing leaves you at the mercy of luck.
• The core idea: Education is the acquisition of functional mental models and causal mechanisms. If you understand why things behave the way they do (physics, economics, human behavior), you gain predictive power. You can simulate outcomes in your head before committing resources or risking failure.
• The spirit: It views the educated mind as an engineer or an architect. Its value lies in clarity, risk reduction, and execution—separating what is structurally sound from what is destined to collapse.

---

Where They Meet

They aren't necessarily enemies; one is the foundation for the other:

• Without Einstein’s trained mind, the predictive models of the second quote turn into dogmatic doctrine—you end up applying old formulas to new problems where they no longer fit.
• Without the predictive power of the second view, "training the mind to think" can dissolve into abstract navel-gazing—impressive in thought, but incapable of building or diagnosing anything in reality.

Einstein focuses on how the instrument is forged; the second quote focuses on what the instrument allows you to build.