The truth about love

 What is love actually?

○°○°°○°○°○°▪︎

My answer is: I don't know what love is.  (Therefore, never know.)

- Marco

 A philosopher by nature is legally insane. But not in the psychiatric sense, which rationalists often try to impose as a label on philosophical thought that deconstructs their "tablets." Stigmatizing the bearer of uncomfortable thoughts is the hallmark of rationalists.

A philosopher is legally insane because it is impossible to impute guilt for the freedom of their thought. Nietzsche is not to blame for Hitler's distorted interpretation of him. Free philosophical thought should not "look back" to see how it will resonate in the souls of rationalists, because they will inevitably turn it into a "straw man" that serves their pragmatic goals.

If a philosopher acquires "responsibility" for freely expressed truth, then they are no longer a philosopher but an ideologue. Philosophy itself is not communicative; it merely states what is, without any intention to explain or prove anything to anyone. But if such an intention exists, then philosophy is absent — it is, again, pure ideology.

In this sense, Marx is not a philosopher but a pure ideologue... He is accountable, and he can be held to account... But what can you take from a philosopher who sits in a barrel or does not try to step into the same river twice?

°●●•○°▪︎°▪︎•○°°▪︎

My rebuttal:

What is I see in your dissertation has elements of contradictory supposition, bearing in mind this is only criticism of my own. But because I see what you define as a philosopher being legally insane is that supposition, which alter my course of seeing. What I did not agree with are your reasons behind the genius of your idea. I do see that uncomfortable thoughts made by pragmatists in defiling the causes of one philosophy or making example of the philosopher by perjury. Why not just deem "all philosopher are absurdists" to qualify the same name of said criticism. My point here is: unless you are acting as a critic to inform the philosopher of his or own vices? If you do that, you are equalizing their idea by dismissal. Through that dismissal does not make the argument nor the arguer any less valid than a fallacy if or when committed. It is there that dogmas become the ideologue's domain. My point here is that it is a philosopher that has skill to, whose ideas stand against the truth which tests the ideologue. Fallacies are prevalent in logic. A philosophical end. The philosopher is to identify the error.

In conclusion: marx is a genius whose ideas are highly complex but set our understanding of how our means to perform as societal creatures, the social influx depends on capitalist alienation which his theory will adorn. To outright deny Marx is a strech of intellectual dishonesty.

- Marco

One of the biggest questions in philosophy :
Is reality exactly as we perceive it, or is our mind constructing it?

What do you think?

 I think the answer is found in: how can one perceive anything that does make a philosopher without mind constructing what the philosophy may be. My point is: the construct is evidence of the perception and vise versa. This is also a question of the observer being the observed in all inclusivity into what acts as philosophy vs opposites (i.e. ideologue). My cause is to act as a philosopher to the end that my mind reveals that there is truth in my projection of things. Therefore, the question we are answering is relevant to understanding another form of what this discipline entails: the question then is, how do we know what we know. That is why language is the critical element in all of philosophy with credit to critical thinking and the inception of why words have meaning.

- Marco

March 10th 2014

 When you get to know yourself - that is true wisdom. It is the most fundamental aspect to the human existence as Socrates poignantly stated. So this begs the question, what is the definition of truth, not so much the value of it but its morality. This is the discussion of philosophy in its most leisure - experimental - than finally mastered phase. (The three stages of pique interest.)

Here is a good working definition of philosophy/truth:

If someone says thank you is it suppose to have an actual effect; however they do not really mean it. Does this also not make them truthfully ungrateful. Therefore morality is defined by one thing and one thing only - deny no one the right that pushes your limits.

Who pushes your limits?

Answer: not only do you push limits you test them against moral ambiguity and reset yourself against the false convictions of others. You are programmed to do this and abort it.

- Marco

Frankenstein as myself

 March 9th 2009

There are few things that serve purpose, as there are fewer still that serve us no purpose whatsoever, but is there anything more substantial to live upon then is the particular chance of uninhibited freedom. Perhaps - this is my illusory, shall we say, 'purpose' of a lesser form.

Truly, I am baffled at the thought of just how immune my senses avail to the point, of something that is 'unclear' to the better of my knowledge. Understanding that in doing so so my vision in this sense of what future I have may be. The reality is somewhat undertaken a shallow route onward, to the best of my intentions, that my shallowness has prevented depth from.

It is from this degree my own trivial pursuit of happiness, has taken a dramatic turn, though is right on its course. . . I would suppose of it.

Being that is myself to proclimate - my own self-deception - could certainly relate to Mary Wollstonecraft's homage of Frankenstein - her main character in my adaptation (as a self-righteous monster), as it could also relate to the self-image of ones own fascination in. Frankenstein is quite a brilliant piece of literature, simply based on the premise that man is only equal to himself that he is bound by no "outer limits" that can purge upon him.

As important as this truth in Frankenstein's novice , truly brilliant as Wollstonecraft is its author, the same can be said is true of postulating how mans boundless limit of necessity can equate. In such a devious role, a monster, (as Frankenstein would have), speaks of no direct characterization. From which part does the reader think of a Modern Prometheus, acceptable, if not on terms of extreme disbelief. Are they not thinking the opposite of thereby humanly acceptable? I would say the answer to this particular question is 'yes'.

So, if Frankenstein's image of himself is in fact a monster, which is also in fact the likeness of his own image (. . .as I've argued the monster is per se) we can also deduce the human element is equally present as Wollstonecraft never commited a dual act of "the monster" representing human characteristics. Therein lay the fundamental aspect of mans vice, against the monster, as Frankenstein himself is in man. Frankenstein and 'monster' are one in the same with respect to all.

So much of my efforts go into, go as my own, virtue of what vices I have toward others. Not I myself would impose upon my vices as these are instead personal intellectual property, however, all one can do is relate to them - as I have learned though studying the metaphorical value of Frankenstein's story as told by Wollstonecraft.

I support this kind of cultural based criticism, fueled because of the relevance if one were to leave behind a trail.

I choose 'not' to live in a world of conceit, or superficial boundaries that so much of I see myself as a victim of condescending virtue, (if there ever was such), or the manipulating forces of competition in lieu of one-upmanship for no benefit to me.

In short, my conclusion is simplified tenfold, that straightforward is my thinking, when I see such exhibition of 'hipster culture' I immediately think of Frankenstein - than - embrace my inner monster. It is a tribute to Wollstonecraft, (her genius goes far ahead of her time) genius which goes underestimated in this day and age. For each and every time I see a person I know at a public place, wanting to exhibit how 'cool' they are. You know they're out there waiting. They're afraid of Frankenstein.

Over-abundance & its ideas: [An unawkward sense of clarity]

March 9th 2013

What is the condition of dreams which are based on necessary means; if not to create ideas that abort without translating into wisdom.

“All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake up in the day to find it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”
― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

All men dream: but not equally. (Then you know there are lies.) The rest is failure. If all men did was dream, we would live in a radically different space in time. What a concept. (MA2013)

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

It is something to consider when speaking in the first person, as opposed, to a third person singular. When you combine the two ideas together, into a "sense" of past-tense, so to examine something. As you create this type of conscious ability, you create a fictional reality. These next entries, are proof of that present mentality in a future-tense. That what you see today, written on the basis of intended transformation, will be your biographical artifact, of expression, of reason, of condemnation I have suffered due to creating a writing style unseen or unheard of before. - Marco Almeida

=========
Retweeted Norhane (@NorhaneSamy):

Weird is better than boring.
==========

I spoke with someone that recognized my ability of a visceral nature. She had said something along the same lines that deserved some grave sense in her guarded optimism, which became all too familiar to me. In it I found how not to justify my actions, a rather ominous position, was the manner which I felt. To come from a place of feelings. (MA2013)

"A dark night of the soul is a very specific experience that some people encounter on their spiritual journeys. There are people who never encounter a dark night of the soul, but others must endure this as part of the process of breaking through to the dawn of higher consciousness.
The dark night of the soul invites us to fully recognize the confines of our egos identity. We may feel as if we are trapped in a prison that affords us no access to light or the outside. We are coming from a place of higher knowing, and we may have spent a lot of time and energy reaching toward the light of higher consciousness. This is why the dark night has such a quality of despair: We are suddenly shut off from what we thought we had realized and the emotional pain is very real. We may even begin to feel that it was all an illusion and that we are lost forever in this darkness. The more we struggle, the darker things get, until finally we surrender to our not knowing what to do, how to think, where to turn. It is from this place of losing our sense of ourselves as in control that the ego begins to crack or soften and the possibility of light entering becomes real.
Some of us will have to endure this process only once in our lives, while others may have to go through it many times. The great revelation of the dark night is the releasing of our old, false identity. We finally give up believing in this false self and thus become capable of owning and embracing the light." (Anonymous) Author - unknown

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

Canadian society is so frustrating, we can be so much more in terms of culture, but fear our natural sense to independence as unimportant. (MA2013)

Re; Cnd society / we can become active participants in procurement 1- to create something 2- rather than fake what we take for granted (living) in a box. (MA2013)

==========

Why people fail most is because they get in the unconscious habit, set up their traps, with no real understanding of self concept. - Marco Almeida

==========

That is either the most absurd intolerable notion one can have, or it is deliberately made to be vague in its deception. > : "The Christian knows that history is already saved, that therefore the outcome in the end will be positive." - Pope Benedict XVI

=========

Sometimes the only risk you will ever have to take - is the calculated risk itself - not taking any risk at all. Then, as it turns out, even if the nature of risk is concerned - sounds unreasonable, or defies logical consequences. Therefore, maybe not taking risks is the only risk worth taking. (MA2013)
========

Marco Almeida: wrote,
So true. > "Second chances are like giving that person another chance to hurt you." (anonymous) - Author unknown
"that life is short and a season for my soul. The real eternal dwelling is yet to come." (KH2013)

I think I learn best about myself, knowing that my prejudices in life are made from my common sense approach to reason, how people fail in their generalities using 'risk'. To adopt "Life is a risk", is intentionally fear based. It is in how you think of risk (not life) that defines you.
-Marco Almeida
=============
This is a fitting proof of, truth enabling accomplishment. (MA2013)

The one who follows the crowd will usually go no further than the crowd. Those who walk alone are likely to find themselves in places no one has ever been before.

~ Albert Einstein
===========

Re; women's day Not that is it necessary, as much is it justification to lessening what women want. Plenty of women have refused me; held against my own sensitivity as a man. Therefore, all people misrepresent their respective gender into classifying them as stereotypes. A tolerable sense of gender equality, can be both good or bad. Women's Day is not necessary as much as the morality of it is. Are men hated. How do I know.

-Marco Almeida

==========

How does scientific study serve its findings to a 10sec. scale of the brains actual ability (a) conveys, (b) interprets (c) records into memory what we already know. 10sec can equal ten minutes, ten minutes can equal ten hours etc. (MA2013)

An interesting new study shows that our minds can sense future events 2-10 seconds before they take place. This study called "Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis" shows that your mind actually has an energetic reaction to the future before it happens and before you are even aware of it. They concluded that " the results of this meta-analysis indicate a clear effect, but we are not at all clear about what explains it". Once again, we have mainstream scientifically stable studies that give credence to the psychic aspects of the mind and the paranormal abilities of the brain.

The next time you have a thought about something before it actually occurs, that's because your brain really is picking up on it energetically in a way we can measure. Can this be explained by the pineal gland or the consciousness field as discussed in previous posts? Is time actually non-linear?
==========

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go."
-- Oscar Wilde

=========
When you sense something - those are my feelings as are yours. If you have self-regard you limit yourself to the experience of emotion. - Marco Almeida
==========

Faith in my vision.

"I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being."
-- Oscar Wilde
===========

Einstein is wrong.

We live in a world that abuse to the idea of intuition is not given, this sense of loss (a gift in its own right) is taken for granted. Therefore, it is the act of betrayal (the will of the many so much the few) as society we are immunized.

Oblivious - as an alibi is to its 'secrecy' involved, this hereditary notion we are made fools in patterning behavior of the unconscious mind.

That is the true metaphysical nature of all thoughts combined into one exponential whole and qualitative value.

- Marco Almeida (2013)

http://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=543540945686399&id=210238862349944&set=a.224942914212872.59713.210238862349944&refid=52&_ft_=fbid.351704391600749

==========

^I ask you, how many times have people DELIBERATELY failed your intuition. Now, read my answer.

===========

"Children begin by loving their parents; after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them."
--Lord Illingworth from Act 2 of "A Womanof No Importance,"

=========

Science is not spirituality guided by human influence or tactical errors. Though my sense of concept is intended to seek it, my virtue, mystery of the unknown, as in my personal nature - my mental state of awareness - my embodiment of the universe as a whole working psychic experiment.

-Marco Almeida

==========

Namaste > http://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=542091509164676&id=210238862349944&set=a.224942914212872.59713.210238862349944&refid=28&_ft_=qid.5851679674301703303%3Amf_story_key.2153521459196503825

When science fiction becomes science fact. how about making human experience in the sense we can understand each other, without having to resort to its artificial means. > http://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=219103211562283&id=210238862349944&refid=28&_ft_=qid.5851678455057206209%3Amf_story_key.2291147367052654997

Something I only wish is true. > http://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10151540186767386&id=542197385&refid=7&_ft_=qid.5851674417678964807%3Amf_story_key.-5328110259364441326
===========
http://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=117574758428662&id=628100010&refid=17

"life is short and a season for my soul. The real eternal dwelling is yet to come."

Quite poetic, even inspired (maybe) is my guess. Inopportune and real. I like it. Bravo Kenia. Bravo.

Kenia, thank you for asking. If more people appealed to the inured sense I have, everything I say is knowledge based thinking. In other words: knowledge is critical thinking, not a learned ideology of 'things' accumulated over time.

I will make this as a three part answer:

1- Kenia asked me a trick question re; an examination the pope meant something.

2- I had already pointed out that the pointiff had created a fallacy, to which I appealed my own intuition...and­ I did so quite clearly.

3- So, in to ask me in retrospect to reiterate the same thing I had already done requires no further explanation.

Supposition:

I digress, I must introduce myself as no thoughtful medium in theology. To make myself perfectly clear, religion was made academic, it can only follow, that science is a branch of religious beliefs systems. Science creates a hypothesis to help cause or fulfill a duty to prove it. To say religion was born of science, and that science influence its branch of religious edifice is a broad notion of reality.

So to answer Kenia's question is hardly relative, because no matter what I say, the biblical tradition will not succeed me. The question is obviously done without the intention to believe what I say, no matter what I say, because I live on an island whereas everything else surrounds it. I am helpless to disprove Kenia's appeal to the pointiff's authority. (Another fallacy 'appeal to authority' reinforcing Pope Benedict's original salutation which I challenged.)

^All of which I introduced herein, is to provide sufficient evidence of what the pointiff claims carries meaning, which is not significant in that sense.

Therefore, "what I thought the pointiff meant" is a deliberate attempt in rebuke. What he is trying to say, is that 1- Christianity somehow sacredly balances our existence. 2- Then it can only be concluded that if you or I are to fail Christian belief (i.e. We are reduced to dogmatic relief, because Christian idiom characterizes all of history - ALL OF IT.)

My answer comes back to the same idea, that in Christianity, my personal faith of a divisive nature, is controlled by fate in the hands of god, praise be to god.

That is what the pointiff says is true.

I say it can only be false.

===========

Not since the untimely passing of our aunt, and cousin Benilde have I felt this despondent about how the universe functions in the name of its source. Tragedies of this nature, have nowhere to live, but to give place they can dwell their soul, kept safe in their sight - wild in wonder - flight of angels- I fight in courage their names etched in the grave of my beating heart. (MA2013)

Here is the thing about what is not revealed to us. The fact people are ignorant is the greatest mystery of all. This is all I have to say about that. When Benilde died I was infuriated. I cried for days. I cannot comprehend if someone I understand is sentenced to their grave, why can I not go with them. It is the reason, I have come to realize we live in a fucked up world. I am fearful for myself in this mosaic of such belaboring foresight. I am insulted why people turn to a false sense of felicity, then pass off as if it is suppose to outlast how people are of the same idea. (MA2013)

"False sense of felicity"^ the idea of abundance in life is ripe with its deception. I live in a community where I find so many people are in, that I do not feel are real in their decided roles. What I refuse to believe, is how these same people - do not characterize their self-doubt act complacent to this cause of a peculiar nature. (MA2013)

Carla Alexandra Pereira Silva: wrote,
"My heart just sank. I keep reading this over and over. There is so much we do not understand. I hear you..."

António Gonçalves Pereira: wrote,
"Unfortunately that's just the way it is. I'd really like to believe they're in a better place and all happy together, but it's so hard for those left in this unfair world. I really think that those that are good, kind and pure of heart are taken early, those who are cruel and sons of bitches live up to 100... It sucks..."

Kenia Hernandez: wrote,
"We'll get the answers to all our questions when we die. Meanwhile, what I tell myself is to believe that there is an afterlife. I don't know if a heaven and hell and purgatory per se, but an after life nonetheless. Now, if there is a hell, I do not want to go there. Nor would I like to be a ghost, a happy and a at peace one maybe. So I find hope in the christian teachings, that life is short and a season for my soul. The real eternal dwelling is yet to come."

===========
So true. > "Second chances are like giving that person another chance to hurt you." (anonymous) - Author unknown

Kenia Hernandez: wrote,
Life is a risk.

Marco Almeida: wrote,
The reality of that concept should tell you RISK is life. Huge difference. Read it again.

Case in point, do not treat life as a risk, think about risk as in leading life.