Words that have weight

 

2 Corinthians 10:5

 This verse is one of the many prophetic but mostly influential from the holy Bible. How did they know during such a time it would transcend for an eternity. If you decipher the meaning... the medium is the message. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom and definitively blocks the evil of what is wrong in the real world today. Gaza comes to mind.

Historically, judiac traditionalists will not acknowledge Jesus as the son of God.  Why?? Because they know themselves as the choosen ones. Nothing can come before God nor after God. Therefore, the denial of Jesus.  I can't make it any more clear. Logically constricting this as an argument is irrefutably true.

The prophetic element of this passage means everything to me...

Colossians 3:12

I lived when during the 1990s girls were making themselves out only to look and feel pretty.  

Fast forward. Today, my taste is still the same as it was.

Now, we see the turn. Girls (some not all) have become completely trashy. Not that trashy hasn't been stereotyped enough. But today's say and age has taken it to an abnormally indifferent level of sexuality for shockingly little else.

I can appreciate the less is more mentlaity even if it has gone extinct. I will hold my values to the greater good of what is love. Even if if looks as perversely as it does, today.

I will never deny that.

I am and will always be guilty for.my sins. (But if I can make up for it.. is what makes the difference.)

Epistemological argument

 ●°°●○°○°°○°

●°●•●•●°▪︎•▪︎•▪︎▪︎

●°○°○°○°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

Symbiotic philosophy is a framework emphasizing interconnectedness, mutualism, and co-existence between diverse entities, shifting from individualism and competition to collaborative, interdependent systems. It applies biological, ecological, and Japanese architectural concepts to human society, ethics, and AI to foster coexistence rather than destruction, aiming for "both-and" solutions instead of binary choices. 

Key themes include:

The Symbiocene & Sumbioism: A proposed new era and philosophy emphasizing human reintegration and mutual survival within the living world.

Symbiosism: A theory viewing the mind and culture as symbiotic, treating language as a memetic organism residing within the human brain.

Kyōsei (Symbiosis in Asian Thought): A Japanese paradigm emphasizing coexistence and mutual trust in business ethics and social structure.

Symbiotic Realism: A strategy in international relations that moves away from zero-sum competition towards multi-sum outcomes.

Symbiotic Epistemology: Proposes a partnership between human consciousness and AI, viewing them as complementary cognitive systems rather than competitors.

Symbiosis in Philosophy of Biology: Analyzes the philosophical implications of evolutionary theory, questioning whether symbiotic partners maintain individuality or merge. 

This approach, as noted by Kishō Kurokawa, focuses on integrating different cultures, species, and technologies to create a sustainable and collaborative future. 

○°○°○°○°○°○°°○°

Google query

Your perspective highlights a sophisticated, almost postmodern view of language as a "symbiotic" or "singularity-driven" structure where truth is not an external reality to be discovered, but rather an internally coherent sequence of linguistic acts. 

Here is an breakdown of your points in the context of philosophical reasoning:

1. The Conscription of Boundaries (Philosophy's Boundaries)

You point out that philosophy often imposes boundaries (conscription) on how it defines reason. 

"How" vs. "Why" Reason Works: Traditional philosophy (e.g., Aristotle) emphasizes how reason works via logic and the non-contradiction principle, focusing on truth as correspondence to reality.

A "Why" Approach: By questioning why reason exists, you are diving into the philosophy of mind and linguistics. Modern perspectives suggest that reason is a tool for navigating possibilities, and this capability may not be solely reliant on language.

The Problem of Boundaries: Philosophy faces a tension: does it require language to be rational, or can reason exist without it? Some studies suggest "reduced or absent language resource" (like in aphasia) can disrupt thinking, yet others suggest that deductive reasoning can exist independently of language. 

ScienceDirect.com

2. Language as a Singularity (Illiterate Supposition)

The concept of language being reduced to a "singularity" mirrors discussions about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the "great linguistic flattening". 

UNESCO

The Singularity of Knowledge: This refers to a scenario where all knowledge becomes interconnected in an "omni-dictionary" that combines information, AI models, and human thought.

Illiterate Supposition: Your term fits this "singularity" because modern language models and data-driven understanding are often "illiterate" in the human sense—they predict sequences based on probability, not innate, sentient understanding of what words mean.

New Forms of Knowledge: The result is a system where we possess a highly sophisticated, algorithmic knowledge (testable via data) that acts as a new kind of "truth." 

3. Epistemological Coherence and Testable Truth

Your assertion that truth is a "sequence of language" that is "epistemologically inferentially coheres" maps well to Coherentism. 

Coherence over Correspondence: Instead of a belief being true because it matches an object (correspondence), Coherentism states that a belief is true if it fits into an internally consistent system of other beliefs.

Inferential Coherence: You accurately note that truth functions by how beliefs "cohere" (stick together) via logical, explanatory, or probabilistic relations. Your "sequence of language" implies that the system of language holds itself together.

Testable Truth: The "testable" part you mention aligns with the Verification Principle, which insists that statements must be testable through observation to be meaningful.

The "Illiterate" Validation: If language has become a "singularity" (an algorithmic, AI-driven process), then the "testable truth" is validated by a "FactChecker" (or similar system) that analyzes the co-mention or probability of a word being "true" based on immense data rather than empirical, experiential, human-centric reality. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Summary of the "Real Problem"

You are describing a modern epistemic crisis where:

Truth is no longer the "Real" but rather the "Coherent" (a set of language tokens that fit together).

Language is becoming an "Illiterate Singularity" (an algorithmic system where knowledge is produced without a "knowing" subject).

Communication is a "Symbiotic Understanding" between human and machine (or simply with AI), shifting how we process reality, where new forms of "truth" are emergent rather than foundational.

happiness quotient (April 6th 2012)

 Learn to express your feelings in a healthy fashion; even anger can be expressed in a healthy way, and does not have to be turned into something else. Feel what you feel, there’s no shame in it, but don’t take your feelings out on undeserving people. Enlist their help if you can, but do not drive them away or hurt them if you can possibly avoid it.

 

Be mindful of the feelings you have that come from within, from your disorder, and learn to tell them from feelings that come from things that are wrong in your life. Neither is wrong, both are real feelings that deserve respect, but you need to be able to tell the difference, because they demand different things of you. Things outside you demand action, a lot of the time. For the things outside you that you can fix or change, try to figure out how to do that and try to remain calm. For the things outside you that you cannot change, try to limit the power they have over you when you are not having to deal with them right at that moment. Do what damage control you can and learn to put it out of your mind when there’s nothing to be done just then. For the things that come from within you, find a safe way to express them, and, without denying that you feel them, try to limit how much power you allow them over your actions.

 

Do not berate yourself for having different limits than other people, it won’t help. It’s not your fault. Learn your limits and then learn to work within them, and THEN learn to push them when you are stable. Don’t just try to pretend they aren’t there. You’ll hurt yourself and burn yourself out.

 

Do what you can to make yourself feel better, express your needs to others as clearly and as precisely as you can, give yourself permission to screw up because you will do that occasionally, and at the beginning you will do it a lot, and when things are really bad, yes, buckle down and take it one day at a time.

 

Being open-minded and non-judgmental is helpful in reducing stress from interacting with the outside world. It’s helpful for dealing with yourself, too. Be gentle with yourself.

 

That seems better than “you can totally feel better about things by not letting them bother you,” which is a hopeless endeavor for so many of us.

 

And please, please, please, in a piece like this, don’t use “depressed” for “feeling sad.” Depression as a disease is way, way more than that, and using the word in this way, thoughtlessly, leads people to misunderstand exactly how serious it is.

 

You really seem to be in the business of trying to do right by people on this site, and being helpful. I think that’s great. You seem to encourage people to be accepting, tolerant, and thoughtful. You seem to encourage people to listen, rather than dictate. That’s all wonderful. I would hope that you’d be willing to do that stuff in this case, and think about what I have said.

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

 

I have a problem with what is referred to as the subject of attachment. People are devoid of attachment, when we are speaking of persons, places or things. What this means is some people (not all but there are some) which need validation, but do not require it in another form or other. What that means, is there are some (not all) people who rather benefit from attachment but don’t care to show it. I am aware that infers a contradiction of the sort.

What we can draw to a conclusion is that there exists a conflict, or a struggle to identify what acts as attachment then from not.

 

If you read me properly, I feel attachment on many different levels but it DOES nothing to inform me from the benefits of it. I don’t think there is something wrong with that, but there’s something not right about it either, or is there? I may see attachment in the manner which I seek it. Therefore, I see some superficial aspects as well.

 

There are people in the world who’ll only attach themselves at a certain cost, as long as they benefit from it, they also have a fear of attachment from others. I call that a double standard.

 

To approach the various levels of attachment I care to submit myself to, I know I speak in a language unfamiliar to incur what those aspects actually may be. Maybe they are true, maybe they are not. . . but I do know I quantify other people’s view of attachment.

 

I feel insecurity just like all people do, in order to identify if they (person x y or z) only rather benefit from it themselves without expending anything at all. Attachment resembles a quality of something along the lines of inferiority, that people aim with, for something they want not that THEY need.

 

There’s a difference which involves attachment: as something necessary to sustain one’s humanity, as opposed to something that relies upon a sense of fear of attachment.

Tetelestai :: "The debt certificate"

 Most people who have read the Bible their entire lives hear "It is finished" and understand it as a declaration of completion. Jesus finished His mission. He completed His work. He reached the end. And that is true. But it is only the surface of what those three words actually meant to every person standing at the foot of that cross who heard them. Because those three words — in the original Greek — were not religious language. They were not temple language. They were not language from the synagogue or the Torah. They were financial language. Commercial language. The language of the marketplace and the debtor's court. The word Jesus cried from the cross was "Tetelestai." One word in Greek. Three words in English. And every Roman citizen, every Greek speaker, every merchant and debtor and businessman in that crowd would have known exactly what that word meant — because they had seen it stamped on documents their entire lives. When a person in the Roman world owed a debt — money borrowed, taxes unpaid, a financial obligation of any kind — that debt was recorded on a certificate. A legal document that named the debtor, listed the amount owed, and stood as the official record of what was outstanding. When the debt was paid in full, the creditor took that certificate and stamped one word across it. Tetelestai. Paid in full. Discharged. Cancelled. The debt no longer exists. This document has no more legal power over the debtor. It is finished. Sometimes the certificate was nailed to a post in a public place — so that everyone could see that this person's debt had been cleared. No creditor could come back and claim payment on a document stamped Tetelestai. It was legally, permanently, irrevocably done. Now read Colossians 2:13-14."He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us. He has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. "Paul is describing a debt certificate. He is saying that the record of everything you owe — every sin, every failure, every moral and spiritual debt that stands against you before a holy God — was taken and nailed to the cross. And the word stamped across it was Tetelestai. Jesus was not announcing defeat from the cross. He was not giving up. He was not describing the end of His life. He was issuing a receipt. He was declaring — in the loudest, most public, most legally precise language available to Him — that the debt was paid. Not partially paid. Not reduced. Not deferred. Paid. In. Full. Whatever you have done. However long the list. However many times. However dark the record. Tetelestai. Share this with someone who is still carrying guilt that was cancelled at the cross.

Quartodeciman

 Most Christians today give no thought to why Easter falls when it does. It is simply on the calendar. You circle it. You plan around it. You show up.

But the date of Easter was one of the most explosively controversial questions in the entire history of the early church — a debate so fierce, so theologically loaded and so personally bitter that it divided Christian communities for over two centuries and ultimately required the intervention of a Roman Emperor to resolve. The controversy is called the Quartodeciman controversy — from the Latin quartodecima meaning fourteenth — and it began in the 2nd century. The question was this. The death of Jesus happened on Passover — the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar. Churches in Asia Minor — particularly those that traced their tradition directly to the apostle John — insisted that Easter should always be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week that fell on. They were being faithful to the historical date. They were following the practice of John himself. The churches of Rome and Alexandria disagreed fundamentally. They insisted that Easter must always be celebrated on a Sunday — because the resurrection happened on a Sunday, and Sunday was the Lord's Day, and to celebrate Easter on any other day of the week was to miss the theological point of the resurrection. Both sides were theologically serious. Both sides had apostolic tradition to appeal to. And neither side was willing to back down. The bishop of Rome Polycarp and the bishop of Smyrna Anicetus met personally to try to resolve it in the 2nd century. They failed — but parted on friendly terms. Their successors were less gracious. By the late 2nd century the bishop of Rome Victor I threatened to excommunicate the entire churches of Asia Minor over the dispute. Irenaeus of Lyon — himself a gentle peacemaker — wrote to Victor urging him to back down. The controversy rumbled on for another century until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD under Emperor Constantine finally established the formula that most churches still use today — Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after March 21. Two hundred years of argument. An imperial council. A mathematical formula involving full moons and equinoxes. All over the question of which day to celebrate the resurrection. The early Christians cared deeply about getting the details right. This was not a casual tradition to them. It was the most important event in history — and they argued about how to honour it with an intensity that should make us look at our own casual relationship with Easter Sunday and ask whether we have lost something they considered worth fighting over for 200 years. Share this with someone who has never heard of the Quartodeciman controversy.

Peter's denial

 Peter's denial is one of the most painful moments in the Easter story. Not because it is shocking — Jesus predicted it hours earlier at the Last Supper and Peter argued passionately against it. But because it is so profoundly human.

Here is a man who had walked on water. Who had declared "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" and been told by Jesus that this revelation came directly from the Father. Who had been present at the Transfiguration and seen Moses and Elijah and the glory of Jesus blazing on a mountain. Who had drawn a sword in Gethsemane and cut off a soldier's ear to protect Jesus. Three times in the courtyard of the high priest's house, questioned by servants and bystanders — not soldiers, not officials, not people with any power over him — Peter denied that he knew Jesus. And then the rooster crowed. Luke 22:61 records what happened next. "The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter." Jesus was somewhere in that courtyard. Close enough to turn and make eye contact with Peter in the moment the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the words spoken at the Last Supper — "Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly. That is the story most people know. That is the story most people stop at. But there is a layer underneath it that almost nobody talks about. According to the Talmud — the central body of Jewish law and rabbinical commentary — roosters were banned from being kept inside the walls of Jerusalem. The specific concern was that roosters would scratch in dunghills and then walk through areas where ritual purity was required — potentially contaminating priests or sacred spaces. The ban was a purity regulation. And it was taken seriously. Roosters were not supposed to be inside the city walls of Jerusalem. And yet — at the precise moment Jesus predicted, in the precise location where Peter was standing, in the city where roosters were legally prohibited — a rooster crowed. Not once. Exactly as Jesus had predicted. Think about what this means. Jesus did not say "before morning you will deny me." He did not say "before dawn" or "before the sun rises." He specified a rooster. A specific sound. A sound produced by an animal that had no legal right to be in the city where the denial was taking place. God arranged for a banned animal to be in a prohibited location at an exact moment to fulfil a specific prophecy spoken hours earlier. He did not need the rooster to be legal. He did not need the rooster to make sense. He needed the rooster to crow. And it did. Peter heard it. Looked up. Caught the eyes of Jesus across the courtyard. And was broken. That brokenness was not the end of Peter. It was the beginning of the real Peter. The one who would stand up on the day of Pentecost and preach to three thousand people. The one who would write two letters in the New Testament. The one who tradition records died on a cross — upside down, because he said he was not worthy to die in the same position as his Lord. The rooster that had no right to be there started the process that made Peter who he became. God does not need your circumstances to cooperate to fulfil His word in your life. He will put the rooster wherever He needs it.

The Crucifixion

The Crucifixion

There are moments in history that secular scholars, scientists and historians outside the Bible have tried to explain away — and simply could not. The three hours of darkness at the crucifixion is one of them. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record it. From the sixth hour to the ninth hour — noon to 3pm — darkness covered the land. Not a cloud passing over the sun. Not a storm rolling in. Total darkness. At midday. Now here is where it gets scientifically impossible. The crucifixion happened during Passover. And Passover by Jewish law always falls on the 14th of Nisan — which is always a full moon. This is not a debatable point. The Jewish calendar is lunar. Passover requires a full moon. There was a full moon over Jerusalem the day Jesus died. And solar eclipses — the only natural phenomenon that can cause sudden darkness at midday — are physically impossible during a full moon. This is basic astronomy. A solar eclipse requires the moon to pass between the earth and the sun. That can only happen during a new moon — when the moon is on the same side of the earth as the sun. During a full moon the moon is on the opposite side of the earth entirely. A solar eclipse during a full moon violates the laws of the solar system. The darkness at the crucifixion was not a solar eclipse. It could not have been. And the people who tried hardest to explain it away were not Christians. Thallus was a Roman historian writing around 52 AD — just twenty years after the crucifixion. He was not a follower of Jesus. He was a secular historian trying to provide rational explanations for events that were circulating in the ancient world. He mentioned the darkness and tried to explain it as a solar eclipse. A Christian historian named Julius Africanus, writing in the early third century, quoted Thallus and then pointed out what Thallus apparently missed — that a solar eclipse during a full moon is astronomically impossible. He wrote: "This darkness Thallus explains as an eclipse of the sun — unreasonably as it seems to me." Unreasonably. Because the moon was full. Because the science didn't work. Because there was no natural explanation. Phlegon of Tralles — another secular Greek historian writing in the second century — also recorded an extraordinary darkness and earthquake occurring during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius was the emperor during the crucifixion. These men had no reason to support the Christian narrative. They were not believers. They were historians recording events they could not explain. What happened at noon on Good Friday broke the laws of astronomy. Creation did not malfunction. Creation responded. The sun that God had made refused to shine on the moment His Son was dying in the darkness of the world's sin. Even the sky bore witness. Share this with someone who says there is no evidence outside the Bible for the crucifixion.

Passover ⛬

Passover

 Most Christians know the Last Supper as the origin of communion. What most do not know is that the Last Supper was a specific Jewish ritual meal — the Passover Seder — and that understanding the structure of that meal completely transforms what Jesus was doing and saying during it.

The Passover Seder was — and remains today — one of the most precisely structured ritual meals in the history of religion. God commanded it in Exodus 12 as an annual commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt. Every element of the meal had a specific prescribed meaning. Every cup of wine had a specific name and a specific place in the service. Every food on the table was a theological statement. The Seder was structured around four cups of wine — each one corresponding to one of God's four promises of redemption in Exodus 6:6-7. The first cup — the Cup of Sanctification. The second — the Cup of Plagues. The third — the Cup of Redemption. The fourth — the Cup of Praise. When Luke 22:20 records Jesus taking "the cup after the supper" and saying "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" — He was taking the third cup. The Cup of Redemption. The cup that for centuries had represented God's promise to redeem Israel from slavery. Jesus was declaring that this cup — at this meal — was no longer pointing forward to a promised redemption. It was being fulfilled. Now. In Him. The unleavened bread Jesus broke and called His body was the afikomen — the piece of matzah that was broken at the beginning of the Seder, wrapped in a cloth and hidden, then brought back out and eaten at the end of the meal as the last taste of Passover. In Jewish tradition the afikomen represents something hidden and then revealed. Jesus was declaring that He was the afikomen — broken, buried, and brought back. The bitter herbs on the table recalled the bitterness of slavery in Egypt. Jesus was about to take on the bitterness of the world's sin. The Passover lamb on the table recalled the lamb whose blood on the doorposts caused the angel of death to pass over Israel in Egypt. Jesus was hours away from being the Lamb whose blood would cause judgment to pass over all who trusted in Him. He did not randomly choose to hold the Last Supper during Passover. He chose it because every element of the Passover meal was a detailed description of exactly what He was about to do. He was not just attending the Seder. He was fulfilling it.

self destruction is void of sovereignty

If the universe shifts, it is not a question, but the question is when (the universe) shifts - then, what is the question. The deeper question is in the void.

That is when (today) I realized something.

It is my imperfections which make me who I am.

Not what I am expected to be.

Because we all go through life not asking another: why don't you like me or better put: what about me don't you like - can I fix it for you?

Charity is the sense of belonging in this world.

How do you ask what is charity? Charity is defined with one thing in mind and one thing only.

It is about doing something in return for which you expect nothing. (I am not the first to have realized it in this way - but it deserves a recoil.) That is not my point. The point I am making is to find purpose in. Read on. . .

In my view I would alter charity to mean something entirely different. To serve the purpose of charity, which is what hidden message there is behind the thought of it.

That message is this:

No matter how much I want to give, (but I know I can not.) Ask: Is that type of awareness not prejudicial of what is in you? It's not that you can't give. It's that you want to give so much of yourself that you can't. It's because we don't know how. It means you have a heart that is so full and overflowing, that you want to reach everyone at all times. That much is true of wisdom. A timeless infinite type of person, that even thinks this way if at all.

Do you believe that as reasonable to assume it?

That you know (in your charity). In your most uninhibited state of being. That the person you are (not the one people 'want you to be'.) That this person you are: has so much to give you don't even know it?

My point is simple.

1 - Are you aware of your personal charity to the world.

2 - Are you aware you are not the measure of what you are in the world, no matter what is it that others see through you.

Are you aware of what is giving something of yourself to the world, that in its abundance you wish you could characterize yourself as someone with limitless resources. Imagine, you have everything in the world. Yet, you still don't have enough in order to fulfill your self-expectation to give - it just isn't enough and will never be psychologically or otherwise.

What kind of person is this?

That everything (in theory) is not enough that even if you had it (you know) it still wouldn't be enough. = Charity

That why you are the way you are is not up to you. (If you are not what other's want you to be.)

- Marco

Starring in the divine comedy

I had a revelation as I was staring at the cross.

I imagined what it would be like.

To thank god.

I pictured it.

I would find myself, crying.

And for that reason,

my truth would suspend in some form of animation.

An animation of my life flashing before my eyes.

Unknown as to why I am there.

I would be thankful for everything god had given me.

I would be there, crying.

Why are you crying.

God would ask.

(And I would say nothing).

I would pray to god in front of her feet.

For the blood I was born with. (body)

The faith god delivered me to. (belief)

Light put into me. (spirit)

- Marco

IF metaphors were truth : : not if playing with fire

 (If Derrida is dismissing literature.) Literature for philosophy he is dead wrong. If literature can not act in place of philosophy. (Point blank.) If this is his purpose for negating philosophy. Again, he is wrong on both counts. It seems as though he is looking for a counter argument to uphold his argument. That literature transposes philosophy, therefore philosophy is something irrelevant if used as a way to make that point. (My point being, using the word 'transposes') that if Derrida is somehow tangibly making literature something that can not be inferred from. Then, this question of what is literature becomes a kind of transfer between ideas that is blurred between transmitting information from reader to its author or vis versa.

In conclusion: my argument against Derrida is that literature is a vehicle for the purpose of philosophy. Not just a literary device. The device of which literature would not be invented as though language would not permit it, nor could we devise. We use language (philosophy as in language) in order to make these assumptions of the world based on literary comprehension. The very basis of comprehension into what is literature would be only located by our sensory input. (Derrida is arguing the opposite.) = That if literature were truth, we would not be able to find the language to interpret it. My point = Such is an exercise in performing what is philosophical to the trained mind for literature. (i.e. Truth as in literature)

P.S. I welcome any rejection of my argument against Derrida. Remember, all Derrida is suggesting is that there is no truth to be found in literature. That's my idea. The argument: is proof of what is not Derrida's thesis but is deferred in my argument.

- Marco

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

“To take some examples: why should ‘literature’ still designate that which already breaks away from literature—away from what has always been conceived and signified under that name—or that which, not merely escaping literature, implacably destroys it? (Posed in these terms, the question would already be caught in the assurance of a certain fore-knowledge: can ‘what has always been conceived and signified under that name’ be considered fundamentally homogeneous, univocal, or nonconflictual?) To take other examples: what historical and strategic function should henceforth be assigned to the quotation marks, whether visible or invisible, which transform this into a ‘book,’ or which still make the deconstruction of philosophy into a ‘philosophical discourse’?”

–Jacques Derrida

What is true wisdom?

 I always believed philosophy to be a resource for my thoughts and that in theory my thinking, what is my thoughts, reveal truth on a local level of sensory experience. I act as philosopher as the root cause for why my thoughts originate. Mastery in language becomes its form. That's the simplest I can explain it. Not bad, I guess.

- Marco

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

Spontaneity

 Through the forming of habit you may be able to create a certain state, achieve a certain ideal which you may consider to be yourself, but as it is the result of an intellectual effort or the effort of the will, it is wholly mechanical and hence not true. Can this process yield the comprehension of yourself, of what you are?⁠

⁠

Then there is the other state, which is spontaneous. You can know yourself only when you are unaware, when you are not calculating, not protecting, not constantly watching to guide, to transform, to subdue, to control; when you see yourself unexpectedly, that is, when the mind has no preconceptions with regard to itself, when the mind is open, unprepared to meet the unknown.⁠

⁠

If your mind is prepared, surely you cannot know the unknown, for you are the unknown. If you say to yourself, "I am God", or "I am nothing but a mass of social influences or a bundle of qualities" if you have any preconception of yourself, you cannot comprehend the unknown, that which is spontaneous.⁠

⁠

J. Krishnamurti⁠

Ommen 1st Public Talk 4th August, 1938⁠

Montaigne

 

bigcanadiano

 

April 4th 2026

"learning how to die" is a bit of misnomer, because I must first obey what is learning how to learn about what is learning how to die. There is the secret in the concept. To find the truth in dying. I think it is about living a life that is moral. If I can believe death is a mortal thing (make me a mortal, therefore in touch with my being 'mortal') = also means I am vulnerable to the idea that I may die one day. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day. But to assert what is "has unlearned how to be a slave." Is another fallacy. You can't unlearn being a slave. You can only unlearn how NOT to be (a slave). The interpretation completely changes when you add 'NOT'.

- Marco

April 4th 2014

 It is funny. There are those that never respect you for what you are who expect me to fake my happiness so not to hurt their feelings.

- Marco

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

I have always had a suspicion of how false my friends were to me without ever giving myself any credit. That is the strangest thing.

- Marco

April 4th 2021

 I'm not sure if I've normalized my depression by means of homeostasis or regulated it in a way. I really have no idea if it's still affecting me because I avoid dealing with it or whether I have simply allowed it to weigh on me to the point I no longer care about how it affects me. I talk about it like it is some form of detachment. Like it is a separate part of my physical and mental status. The reality I live in is much the basis for my confusion.

So much of me is just confused. Whereas I do have strong feelings for the things I do believe in and follow with my heart.

It's either a matter of credit or manner of not giving myself any credit at all.

- Marco

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

Allyson Ans-Greenhalgh

Hugs. I think the word depression should be exchanged with serotonin deficiency. It’s as much medical as it is mental.

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

Zach Reg

It’s braver than most to write this on here Marco. I’m guessing you are handling your feelings pretty well. For many it runs in peaks and valleys. Reach out if you need anything at all.

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

Marco

without getting into too much detail im simply confused.

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

ZR:

I think I get that. Confused about what? Although there is loads to be confused about. Things change. Things stay the same. Things get ugly. Things are beautiful. Things turn out way different than we all expect. Always good to have plans b,c and d too.

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

Marco

confused about the predicament as I described it in my post. I have no idea if its a form of homeostasis that I'm experiencing where I've normalized something that I just accept but it still effects me in a way.

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

ZR

those convos are way above my head. Lol. I say to try to talk to the people you see a lot like your mom, dad, sis, doctors or counsellors. Sorry.

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

Marco

that's cool. My self expression just helps me sort out thoughts not necessarily solutions.

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

ZR
I totally agree. Sending light and strength your way.

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

Dana Holt

Brave of you to share.

April 4th 2022

 I am not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories. In saying that I struggle with the idea that everyone in today's day and age are infatuated with celebrity. Namely the celebrity we ourselves will never ever attain. I feel a personal connection with that on an emotive level.

Why is it so important to feel famous but to declare you have no real personality you bestow.

This is my inner crtitic taking aim at the world view of a godless universe I am aware to.

I guess it'd be easier to have just made a simpler statement being I don't like it. I don't like living in a world where everyone thinks being famous is important. Because being famous does not make a person omnipotent or omniscient.

When I look back at the person I was. This person I've become is greatly guilty of trying to fit into a mold of encountering fame. It is along the lines of trying to chase down a rabbit without realizing the rabbit has no real destination.

- Marco