March 30th 2013

 A random four part syllogism:

"Either I find out by myself or I will never know."

"And today, within this circle, I have traveled in all directions, at least I know where the wall and boundaries are situated."

"No one can proceed further without this knowledge."

"The difference between the circle and the spiral."

- Jose Saramago

Tia (March 30th 2020) 'Marco's angel'

 

 We never see because we have opinions about what we see -- jiddu krishnamurti

________________________________

Your eyes don't see -- dr. Joe dispenza

Believing is seeing -- dr. Michael Gullien

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

March 30th 2024

 In a world made of gambling pieces; sometimes the worst gamblers take the pot. That is the root of all corruption.

- Marco

"There is no self-contradiction" why Liberalism is an art : : (by: Marco Almeida)

 The following is an extremely important conversation to learn from.

°●°°●°●●°●°°○°°

Liberalism is an art. That is the truth. The other side of that is anything that poses as anything less than Liberalist ideology is not even a counter approach to reason. Quite simply anything dissociative of this acts as an antithesis to Liberal ideology. The philosophy against Liberal principles, is not a sure thing as merely to denounce from it a position of insatiability.

"An anti-liberal theory on the rise..." does NOT constitute a philosophically plausible end game.

How Liberalist philosophy is proving to become nihilism is without validity. An indivisible slippery slope. Nothing to compete with there. It is simply peak anti-intellectual in the event that you are being censored if you speak Liberalist truth. (As herein...) "pretends to represent universal reason" is a laughable contradiction to all philosophy. Not just Liberalism. If pretending to reason, is predicated as Heidegger, you are instead - in fact - a lost soul. A vagabond.

Marco Almeida 2025

-The Peg

°□●•●●°•□●•●°●

Interlocutor:

An extremely important component of Professor Alexandr Dugin, alongside his criticism of the Western belief in "Progress", is that Liberalism is rooted in Medieval Nominalism. Nominalism being the doctrine that rejects Platos Theory of Universals and proclaims that there are no such thing as groups of things with identifying characteristics but that there are only individual material things. This is essentially where the Nihlism of Liberalism is rooted.

°□•¤•□《•□•□•

Prove to everyone that nihilism is Liberalism in principle. Unless you are informing me with presumptuous abstract philsophically aburdist ideals. Anyone, can try to do that. Categorically philosophy is meant to be debunked in such fashion. That is it. Your entire argument is a slippery slope.

MA2025

°•●•●•●•●••

Absolutism is a form of superlative, where conditioning is meant to inform the masses of what they think, and is a classic form of propaganda. Speaking as a philosopher, you should know that.

What you refer to right off this same interjection is what we can infer (is Liberal individualism) as a misnomer. It is such toothless approach to reason with - FYI. Empirically invalid, in defense of characterizing liberal ideology. This is outlandish communist idealism.

Further to not providing evidence that Liberalist notions are invalid... deserve a proper funeral. But not on Putin's watch and not while right wing idelaism exists. This follows...

I as a Liberalist take a counter revolutionary appraoch as Zelensky is with Ukraine.

To further contrast your description of "liberal individualism" - yes - things change. Times change. But thinking? No.

You are referring to liberals using a false dichotomy. Wait. Wait a minute... what if. What if what you are saying is categorically true.

The whole arguement: Katian ethics wouldn't even begin to acknowledge, that an incomplete theory in trying to negate the other, does NOT reduce Liberalism to a irrational stereotype. What on earth does ANY system that moral and ethical peoblems not arise? A dictatorship? A fascist state? A socialist form of government?

Let's not bullshit here. The illogical contractions embedded in communist ideology, is Putin trying to philosophically maneuver his ideas into the history thereof. If his shrills couldn't do it, then why not put the furtive together? How else is your message eliminating Liberalism.

I just have to know.

Marco Almeida 2025

-The Peg

°°●●°°●°●°▪︎°

Interlocutor:

Liberal Individualism constitutes a philosophical system wherein moral and ethical considerations are relegated to individual discretion, as opposed to being recognized as absolute truths embedded in the values of the society and civilization into which one is born and raised. This system is tantamount to a philosophy of Moral Relativism, which underlies the Liberal assertion that 'morality cannot be legislated.' In practice, it is impossible to reconcile Liberalism with a concrete, non-relative morality. This, in turn, deprives individuals of a sense of sacrality and absolute truth, culminating in an existence characterized by meaninglessness and atomization.

My response:

1- "This system is tantamount to a philosophy of Moral Relativism, which underlies the Liberal assertion that 'morality cannot be legislated.' In practice, it is impossible to reconcile Liberalism with a concrete, non-relative morality."

No. This fallacy is wrong. How is that you are describing a Liberal assertion. Prove it. In what are you deducing legislation, cannot be morally renounced??? That is beyond absurd. We are not on the same page if at all!

2- "This, in turn, deprives individuals of a sense of sacrality and absolute truth, culminating in an existence characterized by meaninglessness and atomization."

Metaphysical interpretation takes art. In what world should censorship be allowed.

Marco Almeida 2025

-the peg

March 29th, 2025

 I know. I know I have a big heart. I come from a lineage of influence both genetically and environmentally. The affluence I have over others has nothing - absolutely nothing to do with anger. Anger turned inward is not a healthy habit. Psychologically, a intelligent cognizant individual looks to signs. These signs act as a cursor to what I believe channels emotions. All anger is - is an emotion that you train the mind to think. It is a form of emotional intelligence. I don't think Patterson is a credible source to claim otherwise.

- Marco

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

Jordan Peterson

March 29th, 2010

 The most extraordinary of talents ever raised; is the discussion between deception and self-deception. (Nietzsche has himself all wrong from the get-go.)

- Marco

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

For anyone I know who acts out of character, are the usual suspects of uncharismatic wanna-be archetype.

The rule of all rules to love by. . .

 "The fact is that men should never try to dictate to women. They never know how to do it, and when they do do it, they always say something particularly foolish."

--Cecily Cardew from "The Importance of Being Earnest"

March 29th 2014

 I have worked tirelessly to defend myself from the rental aspect of others ignorance toward me. It is a battle to do so.

-Marco

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

I have learned to view people that think they can take a lease out on my qualities then make me feel bad for it.

- Marco

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

I find it highly ambitious of others that treat me for a fool yet underestimate my own unadulterated ability to see right through themselves.

- Marco

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

Oscar Wilde

"There are moments when one has to choose between living one's own life fully, entirely, completely, or dragging out some false, shallow, degrading existence that the world in its hypocrisy demands."

March 29th 2022

 I just have this feeling of nostalgia in certain moments where I feel a place I want to go back to. Today is no different. I drift my thoughts back to when I was I university. I spent the best years of my life going to the University of Winnipeg during that time. It is not a manner of wanting to go back to change something but a matter of revisiting that past. I loved going there. I had a fascination with learning even if I was only unconscious of it. You would probably equate the feeling of love with the thought of nostalgia. University was a defining period in my personal life. I met my true self in return. That is what I need to recall right now.

Marco

Hegel by necessity

I am not sure Hegel is stating war is based on necessity. Why. Because that is a fallacy. My belief is that Hegel simply states a blueprint from what is war and to the benefit of identifying what is the cause. The root of the problem is not that conflict is a good. But that conflict as an end requires action. It is how I believe conflict originates. The object (as per Hegel) is to war what to is to war is to circumvent itself.

Note: although logic dictates argument my argument is that although Hegel uses necessity as fallacy. HE is committing the fallacy from necessity used to seed his point. That conflict abets war.

- Marco

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

Tosin Olufeyimi

*Is Conflict the Engine of Human Survival? Hegel Says Yes.

Most people treat peace as the highest political ideal. Hegel thought that was a dangerous illusion.

In Philosophy of Right (1820), §324, Hegel argues that war is not merely a political tragedy to be avoided. It is an ethical necessity. A nation that grows too comfortable, too reluctant to face opposition, too settled in its contentment, begins to die from within. Civic virtue, national identity, and collective purpose all require the pressure of conflict to remain alive.

His logic follows directly from his broader dialectical framework. Nothing evolves without opposition. Thesis meets antithesis before any synthesis becomes possible. Remove the antithesis and you do not get peace. You get stagnation dressed as stability.

This is why Hegel was deeply skeptical of Kant's vision of perpetual peace among states. To Hegel, a world without war between nations was not a utopia. It was a graveyard of ambition, identity, and historical movement.

The argument extends beyond nations. Men who become too contented with their environment stop growing. Nations reluctant to wage war stop mattering. History, for Hegel, has no patience for the comfortable.

The debate question is this:

Was Hegel right? Is conflict genuinely necessary for human and civilizational evolution, or is this philosophy simply intellectual cover for glorifying violence and domination?

And if he is right, what does that mean for a generation that increasingly treats comfort and safety as the supreme human values?

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

March 28th, 2010

 To the untrained eye, literature only if it appears to be run amok - is nothing short of ideas.

Wow'z, ^they once thought romantics somehow. . . lost their way. . . out of history (not making it themselves).

Marco 

 Intelligence demands doubting, questioning, not being impressed by others’ enthusiasm or energy. Intelligence demands that there be impersonal observation. — Krishnamurti

March 27th, 2010

My own ego no longer dazzles (myself) anymore than it used to, lord knows I've tried very hard at it. It's funny, how deformed my 'huge' sense of ego becomes over-inflated, how huge is huge is another matter entirely.

°●°○•▪︎°▪︎•▪︎•

Marco

March 27th, 2011

 What does man reveal most, about man himself; if not (man in a singular sense) 

(a) his insecurity or (b) inner-workings of what he or (c) something else greater cannot reveal (the least) about his own admission.

••○●○•○○●●•

Marco

March 27th, 2020

 I feel revelation at a time like this in my course of life. My personal history. I am living in a very small bubble as result of my own.

I just wonder, as if by some magical stroke of genius.

What has happened to me or better thought as who am I.

I see myself without an ego and strip my senses bare. It comes to me from a place I use to think I had some form of objective which perhaps the universe conspired.

I am a person not guilt free from what has brought me to this point.

I simply serve an important message that has rapidly traveled though the instruction orbiting my mind.

That no matter what I think, is out of my control. People who have touched me in ways that I only hope something connected no longer exist.

I have self respect and that my self respecting nature exalted all forms of needs. Mainly, the need for love.

I guess I've dabbled in experiencing love at the same time being taken for granted. I just don't know what I have realized set me apart.

I miss a lot of what used to be.

So sitting here purging myself of what has been not meant to be or to be.

What I am ultimately trying to share is my vestige.

That somehow throughout time did I cease to exist and no one else noticed.

I suppose that is experimental in light of what we see say or do.

But at what point did people forget to notice.

I am talking about my image.

Where at some place else in my life's journey has the apple dropped, figuring out who I now am.

As the past has unraveled it takes us to never never land never really knowing who would become what.

All I now know is how really fragile I feel at times.

And that fragility is what keeps me trapped in a bubble my ego subsides.

I cannot blame other people I used to know who no longer see me for what I am. I know that much. I also know I feel what people see me exist in some level of mastery and those who have no intent of a connection.

Reality is very superficial in how some of us survive though things we can afford. So I've learned that people cut their losses even at my expense.

I never truly truly knew that until now.

I always thought people would just fall in love with me for no better reason. They would envy myself in some psychological state of euphoria. I am indeed very naive of me.

So I take a deep breath and now that I realize I no longer exist to some people I don't know what is left for me to offer in life.

I am not so certain of myself as I once lead myself to believe.

There is no comfort in being forgotten. So maybe this sadness has evolved over the years. It has caused great depression and impartial weight gain. I am not proud in that respect.

I simply wish I were seen or then maybe made not to be. That is paradox. How do I make people feel is not up to me. How I exist is not up to me. Why I am forgotten is not up to me.

I just know how scared I've become to witness it all.

°○°○°°○°○

Marco

How to unearth the glow

 

Disambiguation and its only reason

 

Self respect vs its mastery

 

Thought itself has divided the outer and the inner. The function of thought is to divide. Thought is the past, and so there is the past, the present and the future. Thought has divided life as the past, the present and the future. Thought has divided the inner and the outer, and says, ‘How can I bridge the two and act as a whole?’ Can thought do this? Thought itself is the factor of division.

From Public Talk 4, Santa Monica, 8 March 1970

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

March 26th 2024 [AI vs man]

 What separates all technology from the human mind? What is the truth for all AI.

What are laws which are not man made if passion is of the flesh as from one's place in origin. It's not the mother's womb that as it is - were to make you your prison to God. If these words are true the miracle of creation is in and of itself in wonder. It is nothing short of a miracle. The machine life is a prison of itself. Can you see the difference? Is this difference understood or understated as is...

I say it's this common denominator that we can agree on by definition. The flesh makes a human weak. The machine life makes a person futile. One is made by the mystery of creation and begins in the womb. The other is man made and infiltrates our own inbred understanding for making "the world" obsolete. The world: being earthly. Understanding this concept illustrated is our womb.

What happens to our thinking originally and our language poetically speaking. The very foundation that is inherent of every living thing. The brain: that is fundamental to everything in questioning whatever the universe allows. This my friends is what separates AI and our future.

It needs a beginning and an end.

- Marco