Dialectic philosophy is my idea of language as it acts in non contradiction as formally presented logic. . . which the purveyor interprets as either empirical or not. What I am suggesting is that comparing opposing ideas comes across as fallacy not objective truth. Therefore, my conclusion is that to determine how language records ideas, its primary function is a negation. "The truth must be (this) therefore it is or is not. Not here nor there dependant of evidence." = dialectical theoretical application.

Maybe the better definition is presented in that way.

Dialectic is ascertainable truth which may or may not emerge based on a theoretical construct of language. Concepts are valid only if those concepts can be tested by means of dialectical theory = language itself.

My argument being, dialectic theoretically can only be defined through use of language strictly based on its idiosyncratic function.

- Marco 

 December 5, 2010

Life is all about escaping from those you least admire; and sharing with those you most enjoy. - Marco

 1- superlatives 2- the dynamic of nature 3- relevant discourse 4- super semantics (disambiguation)http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideograph_(rhetoric)

enmity

"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others."

-- Oscar Wilde

 December 5, 2012

There is so much I need to say, with regard to my acting. The fact my scene partner thought I was lagging behind in the scene - really said something to me. In all honesty, I was trying to find myself (in a manner of speaking), from an 1- emotional stand point 2- to a time and place I was vulnerable in my personal life 3- this particular scene is anonymously unrelated with how sensitive am I.

I was trying to show myself as a person, as opposed to what the character may have demanded. That is the antithesis of method acting.

I was trying to tell a story about myself through the character, a man, revealing his infatuation toward a woman, although she has no real feelings for me.

All of this is significant, because it plays a prominent role in my identity.

That same idea is as to why - my true sense of self has made a character.

I work on acquiring the sense of skill, that demands myself living a secret lie.

==========

Tonight could have been more special than it was. In the scene I feel apart from myself, a repressing urge, that the outside world rejects of me. My scene partner kept acting in the scene, though I am not sure knowing how vulnerable I was portraying my character. (I.e. I was in character based on my vulnerability as a human being). What my character wanted was to be loved, and my scene partner completely rejected that. I tried my best to establish my character in the scene (the key word being 'share') to the other character without over acting.

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

I invested so much into the scene I felt as though, I truly feel that I am a capable actor, without pulling a disappearing act. It is curious to me how actors behave in scenes, without the believability, fail in getting away from the scenes real purpose. There are two parts to scenes, 1- a reality that does not exist, (belief) 2- everything before the scene actually happens (situation).

Credibility as an actor is to develop my own skill, in training I possess any language as my vehicle, to provide, process the intimate knowledge necessary, in learning how the brain functions. So dividing reality devises strategies to master the art and quality of each scene I create - becomes that character.

I felt that I settled into my character, connected with the other persons character, and understood my complexity of the situation.

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

December 5, 2012

I had someone tell me something. Naturally, I found it unusual, if not modifyingly abnormal how uncaused intolerable sarcasm can, be mislead, be misdirect, be unintended, even in my silent understanding of it, is a general misrepresentation of true infallibility. My broken sense of rules being nakedly exposed. As an actor, I now am able to spot all of it, why the worst actors actually have no concept of their own. This is my private nature, coming out- in a perfectly stainless manner.

And to that person who insulted me yesterday, here is a hypothetical for you - you claim you read what I have to write is somehow or other a collection of words, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, pro nouns, all because you make the effort to find fault with me. I am afraid you are in error, my language is far too revealing to incorrect you. Therefore, you act like somebody unworthy of your time. I am "trying too hard" - well I have news for you, I can make myself sound a lot smarter if you knew what that takes. Now kindly fuck off.

^If people know how to use language to further the rhetorical fabric of its society, we would be living a renaissance. However, people rather pretend to act content with nothing worth having. Only a fool cries wolf with an empty howl.

Marriage between words

 Transcendence between metaphor and what acts as the particular is, in fact, metaphysical thinking that translates thoughts into words, words into meaning, what is meaning as creative self-expression, and this exploration or experiment is ultimately truth. Truth in writing what we feel = duality. As I said: metaphysics is the transcendental experience of what it is we think translated into words. How it's interpreted is its function.  I have done philosophy for years and this is the way to enlightenment.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DR41A5fDalz/?igsh=eWl4ZmM4YXVheW41

the political arcade

December 4, 2008

The very existence of democracy is almost unpronounced, it becomes a difficult thing to manage, which it is in the interest of ones civil authority to examine our place within the exact time from which one operates. I suppose the dynamics are similar to ancient predecessors from which all good things come, we are entertained in the view of secular beings thrust into a spotlight whether evil or not is no great matter. Further to this thought of many embodied prudent in our idea of government, perhaps we jump at the word 'inaction'. Which to my surprise I've observed countless, perverse, petulant, inferior, models for. Part of me realizes this, the other simply takes inventory to make sense of my own necessity in life. In short, to give this any meaning or hitherto my personal lack of clarity, my voice remains in tact - as opposed to a personified style in manipulation. In so many other words, it is this act I carry within no short order no man that is so called making superior judgments on my own behalf can allow.

When you attempt to identify with government, strange things may result, due to the power struggle which implies accountability. In this country of ours, responsible or reasonable accord should act in such parameters that laws are made just so. This is to say, what resembles any opposing forces in contradiction to the laws, are made prevalent as to be represented by those chosen to administer the assembly of we the people.

^This is in fact democracy, within a written framework of constitutional reform.

To make such claims are in search of the ambiguity that takes place in the political referendums, without being asked about or brought into our daily lives.

What is sought when the afflicted political parties are no longer engaged in political welfare, is no cause for alarm, either, or that in and of itself belongs.

Therefore, we can determine that those in power reflect a need of so little satisfaction, they've already dropped a confession of how innocent they clearly are. The troubling thing is, no matter how hard you try to look for the answers, sometimes there really are none. In politics, the political landscape in Canada has taken a nose dive that much more could be said about the Conservative dichotomy, about how Conservative values are not truly being made as promise. It is a difference in disguising the fact that incompetent leaders run - but - they can't hide.

We see instead the lawyers which to some may be common knowledge, that promise to return results, but alas cannot indeed make soup without a broth.

This infers my most previous form of argument: that in turn, nothing can replicate my right as an individual, no law can truly protect me against my enemies - which only I can avow is my choice not to raise white flags. In this case the color Red which symbolizes the maple leaf may be one of resistance. In that case there is something Stephen Harper himself may have been able to avoid, however, it is crystal clear that so many before. In and of itself, the government circa 2008 has never really been given a seal.

I can say I am certainly happy with that.

Again - when we see politicians arise playing a game of monopoly, which behind the scenes do not decree the average citizen, it makes you wonder do we find ourselves guilty of? It is not that politicians wake up every morning only to realize what they're trying to get away with is it, or is that something normal in throughout life's history of magicians.

There is no evidence of a political dichotomy being worn down, or the gavel being thrown at, it is a rational piece of resistance that we are blind to behind closed doors. Again - that only lawyers can see through facts, but facts cannot see us through due to one reason.

I do not see Stephen Harper as a true Conservative. I believe if he were, Harper would've been unequivocally elected as PM.

 If the brain does not function at its highest capacity, it is not capable of being free. Because a dull, shallow, limited, narrow, petty mind merely reacts to its environment, and through that reaction it becomes a slave to that environment. And from this arises the whole problem of extricating oneself from the environment, and not being a slave to every form of influence, direction, urge. So what is important is the quality of feeling to be utterly free.

There are two kinds of freedom: one is the freedom from something, which is a reaction; and the other is not a reaction, it is 'being free'. The freedom from something is a response, depending on our choice, on our character, on our temperament, on various forms of conditioning. Like a boy who is in revolt against society - he wants to be free. Or like a husband who wants to be free from his wife, or a wife from the husband; or free from anger, jealousy, envy, despair. Those are all reactions, responses to given circumstances, which prevent you from functioning freely, easily.

We want personal liberty. And that liberty is denied in a society where the mores, the customs, the habits, the traditions are tremendously important; then there is a revolt. Or there is a revolt against tyranny. So there are various forms of revolt, responses to immediate demands. Really that is not freedom at all, because every reaction breeds further reactions, which create further environment through which the mind becomes a slave again, so there is a constant repetition of revolt, being caught by circumstances, revolt against those circumstances and so on, endlessly.

We are talking of a freedom which is not a reaction. The mind that is free, is not a slave to anything, to any circumstances, to any particular routine; though it is specialized to do a certain functional job, it is not a slave to that, it is not held in that groove; though it lives in society, it is not of society. And a mind that is emptying itself of all the accumulations, of every day reactions, all the time - it is only such a mind that is free.

J. Krishnamurti

Public Talk 3 Bombay (Mumbai), India - 16 February 1964

improvement '1' - '0' attitude = . . .a ratio to live by.

 When a man fails to honestly look me in the eye, they are asking forgiveness based on unqualified measure of guilt, yet, I can still shake that hand - no matter how inferior the pretension, no matter how retentive the cause. - Marco

The only real product of a man is the nature of his virility; the only true concept of a man is his fraudulence; the only real crime of a man is his mental ability. - Marco

I had a dream in my sleep about a job interview. What happened to me in the dream was easy. When I was asked, what do I think I could bring to the job, I made it a two part answer: I said, let me jump to the question that you ask me, what flaws do I think I possess. Now, I can tell you I honestly already hate this job, however, why won't you ask me, rather than what I 'hate' - tell you about things I do not necessarily enjoy. (This answer is simple -if they fail to understand its question, I can automatically assume they are uninterested in the false interpretation of reality.)

December 3, 2009

improvement '1' - '0' attitude = . . .a ratio to live by. -Marco

°•●○•°°°

“If one understands the nature of violence – understand in the sense not ideally, or turning it into an idea, but actually letting this violence in you unroll – then that affects the body. That means you have no conflict. If you have no conflict in your life, your body becomes an extraordinary instrument, very sensitive, very alert, and it has its own intelligence, not the intelligence thought imposes on the body.”

From an Interview by Mary Zimbalist, Ojai, 29 March 1985

December 3, 2012

 "Religions die when they are proved to be true; science is the record of dead religions."

--Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young, by Oscar Wilde

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

Try to make sense of any religion that disprove the existence of what is truthful, there is no such thing. Therefore, its meaning as a lost art, is what we should truly be conscious of ourselves - ourselves. There is no truth to a make believe set of beliefs that promote the mystery of ones demiurge. Oscar Wilde is saying to purposefully adhere to the false idea of god, represents a positive affirmation, of my own idea god as reality, can only be known as false. This follows your view is scientifically viable, only as, it is personally superficial - although not its real life pedagogy. God can only be if it is falsely based ideologies. It is your representation of the idea god exists, that is equally foreign as foreign is science (I.e. Intellectually based thought). God as an intellectual is far more a belief riddled idea. The tool is the minds material artifice. That is in science of brain functioning, that even the idea of god is man made. That the idea is made to reinforce our personal beliefs - into reasons.

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

The idea the man is god made is not true. If that 'idea' is false of me to say, then it also must be true that god is not man made. Therefore both ideas (a) man is god made must be true follows (b) god is not man made must also be true as well. Now go ahead and ask yourself: which of 'a' and 'b' is false. It is logically impossible to negate. In 'a' you believe man is god made MUST be true, that follows, you can also prove it - which is false. In 'b' god is not man made, you believe god is not an idea, it is a reality that god exists in spite of man himself. This is also false.

Marco Almeida

"This follows your view is scientifically viable, only as, it is personally superficial - although not its real life pedagogy. God can only be if it is falsely based ideologies. It is your representation of the idea god exists, that is equally foreign as foreign is science (I.e. Intellectually based thought)." (MA2012)

How do you believe in god if god does not exist. That is the subject matter of life's eternity. Can it not be proven that god does not exist - it is impossible to predicate into logic, but it can be used as a 'tool'.

- Marco