Truth of unlearning from collapse

 

The question left is unanswerable. Who does this as a purveyor of truth? Truth if left unmasked. Put the mask on. A total untruth emerges. Morality is therefore incomplete in its best for its least vulnerable. The invulnerability of mankind's thoughts is where we learn. Success is a price for it. We all live in evil if not clearly expressed or exposed as evil is. The outside forces that work in reality. That is what the truth is. Evil is all around us. How do we know? Kural gives a vaguely indiscreet proposition in the face of what is evil. My interpretation of it (if at all accurate) takes skill to produce on a philosophical level. Thriuvalluvar can't just open a pandora's box and expect the paradox I've explained fixes itself.

- Marco 

Heidegger and Being :: the question

 

Source: Facebook posted to
Philosophy Studies

Heidegger and the Question of Being: The Most Fundamental Question Philosophy Has Ever Asked

There is a question so fundamental that philosophy spent two and a half millennia largely forgetting it while busying itself with questions it assumed were more tractable and more urgent. Martin Heidegger identified this forgetting as the defining failure of the entire Western philosophical tradition and made the recovery of the forgotten question the central project of one of the most demanding and most consequential philosophical careers of the twentieth century. The question is simple to state and extraordinarily difficult to think through seriously: what does it mean to be?

Not what things exist. Not how we know what exists. Not what the properties of existing things are. But what is the Being of beings, what is it that makes anything that exists the kind of thing that exists rather than nothing, what is the meaning of Being itself? Heidegger argued that Western philosophy since Plato had systematically confused this question with questions about particular beings, about specific things that exist and their properties and relationships, while forgetting the more fundamental question of Being itself, the question of what existence as such actually is. He called this the ontological difference, the difference between Being and beings, and he regarded its consistent neglect as the source of the deepest confusions in Western thought.

His masterwork Being and Time, published in 1927, approached this question through what he called fundamental ontology, the analysis of the kind of being for whom the question of Being is itself a question, the kind of being for whom its own existence is an issue. He called this being Dasein, meaning being-there, and by it he meant the specifically human mode of existence, the existence of a being that does not simply occur in the world like a stone or a tree but finds itself always already in a world of meaning, always already thrown into a specific historical, cultural, and linguistic situation that it did not choose but within which everything it encounters shows up as already significant and already mattering in specific ways.

Dasein is not a subject confronting a world of objects. It is a being whose very existence is constituted by its being-in-the-world, by the practical engagement with a meaningful context that precedes and makes possible every theoretical reflection on that context. We do not first exist as isolated consciousnesses and then encounter a world. We are always already in a world, always already oriented by care, always already involved with things and with others in ways that give our existence its specific character and its specific possibilities.

What makes Heidegger's analysis so philosophically powerful and so personally demanding is its insistence that the question of Being is not an abstract academic puzzle but the most intimate question available to a conscious human being, because it is ultimately the question of what it means that I exist, here, now, thrown into this specific situation, moving toward a death I cannot escape, with a freedom I cannot surrender and a responsibility I cannot delegate. The forgetting of Being is not merely a philosophical error. It is an existential condition, the condition of a being so absorbed in the practical concerns of everyday life, so caught up in the anonymous expectations of what Heidegger called das Man, the they, that it has lost contact with the question of its own existence as a question, has settled into the comfortable inauthenticity of living as though the meaning of its own being had already been settled by the roles, the routines, and the social expectations that structure its daily life.

The recovery of the question of Being is therefore simultaneously a philosophical and an existential task, the task of a being that is willing to step back from the comfortable absorption of everyday life and confront, with genuine philosophical honesty, what it actually means that it exists at all and what it is going to do with the finite, irreplaceable, always-already-in-progress existence that has been given to it without its consent and that will end without its permission.

No philosopher of the twentieth century asked this question with greater depth or greater seriousness. And no reader who engages Heidegger honestly comes away from the encounter without being permanently changed in their relationship to the most fundamental fact of their existence: that they are, and that this being is a question.

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

Tom Sawyer

This is a compelling narrative, but once you frame the entire tradition as one that “forgot” the question, you’ve already conceded the point you’re trying to argue. The “question of Being” only becomes fundamental inside a subjectivist ontology where meaning and disclosure replace mind-independent being. Heidegger doesn’t recover a forgotten question - he generates a new one by redefining Being as intelligibility. That’s a theory of meaning, not a universal ontology. And once Being depends on Dasein’s structure, the ontological difference collapses: Being becomes dependent on one particular kind of subject. What you’re calling the “most fundamental question” is actually the most fundamental problem subjectivism creates for itself once it denies access to objective being.

Is there a final question, one question that will answer all questions? | J. Krishnamurti

 Is there a final question, one question that will answer all questions? | J. Krishnamurti

12 June 2016

 

16 July 1944 ~ Krishnamurti

 

12 June 2014

 

12 June 2022

 

12 June 2018

 

12 June 2023

 

Threatening me, is no threat to my character [divinity]

 One of the last reality checks I had came to me over this past week. I went to a semi-open to public though privately operated affair. 

It was there I realized that for my own sake, sadly, yet truthfully humbled by attending this... that so much of my past entered.

What was unmistakably although unescapable is how I've come face to face with.

Old friends that seemed more like stangers...

The relationship. The vibe. No longer there.

Present in me if the moral ties this altogether.

I have to let go. I cannot affrod to hang onto it. I have to let go of my grip. I refuse to pretend. I will not allow myself to be hurt - but I will acknowledge how the hurt makes me feel. 

It's a difficult thing.

But far more mature I can be proud of why this is.

- Marco

12 June 2023

 I question what is energy vs. what is force. Force cannot be made up of energy because it is not a property of force. Therefore, energy is not force.

Why I make that equation stems from Einstein theory of relativity. Trying to equate force vs energy.

If force Is a field from which gravity is proven to be a force then it is not energy. Why is that important to compound into an equation. One might think the theory of relativity is a proof of subatomic particles. But not because they are energy only because they are force. So,. I think it's important to infer from such as true.

So if force and gravity dictate how subatomic particles behave it is found in Einstein's equation. That no matter how we relate subatomic matter to energy. It is gravity and force that can determine why energy works the same way. Force is a factor in the universe that energy must behave in as a RESULT of why force interacts with subatomic particles.  

I would think all the focus should be onto why subatomic particles behave based on how it interacts with force. For example: light particles may/will travel at the speed of light as it is proven. However, once the speed of light is reached time dialates. Therefore, force must be combined with the same amount of mass a subatomic particle has in order to generate enough energy to produce nuclear fusion. A reaction so powerful that the energy it produces is equal to the force of gravity. 

We remember that in theory Einstein must have postulated all of this. My language is probably the scientific equation to the calculation.

Further to this discussion what mirrors gravity is force and time dilation because energy is needed in a vacuum to produce quantifiable evidence of subatomic particles. The way subatomic particles behave is a natural composition of light which happens to also be a form of energy but not equal to force. That is also true because light behaves differently on that subatomic level.

In conclusion what are the effects of force.

- Marco

Galatians 6:9

 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Galatians 6:9

June 12th 2023

 

My main recourse to reason is not about what I know; it is about that which I know nothing. To say I know what it is I am known for is quite stimulating to me. In my mind to know about how much one goes on or on about ones knowing in essence is not academic but it's tabulated. They rather quantify what it is they know rather than qualify its being. That is why and or how most people calculate and what they find will be only as disappointing. What comes in the true nature of response should never resort to political beauraucray or academic discourse. All of it unbequeathed.

- Marco

terrifyingly unneurotic

 June 12th 2026

We live in a world that ties together instant gratification on a societal level, with a neurotic disposition in order to attain happiness no matter what it looks like. These are facts in my mind. You can separate the two into those categorically. My point is I rather create genius on my own, in my manner of thinking, to eliminate causes associated to obtaining these aforementioned. To see things as they are but not necessarily what they are in return for knowing. The area between being unconsciously aware. an awareness inculpable to create your own way of thinking.

No one can tell me otherwise . That's the difference.

My point is, that I have to master it - all. There really is no in between wisdom where giving up or letting go. How do you tell someone who is a genius. They are not genius. The answer is: you can't. People in this day and age are cheating on this conceptually, out of using what acts as second hand in everything they see and do.


I have this much wisdom. Unless I impart it, there is no point withholding it.

- Marco

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

casting light on energy :: as secret element

 June 12th 2026

"Nietzsche observed humanity's eternal struggle to maintain personal identity against collective pressure. He believed societal forces often demand conformity, and true self-actualization requires the courage to forge one's own path, even if it means standing alone." ------> Are you sure the conformity of the wrong individual can not correlate to a tyrant that would interpret Nietzsche? Only to act as a nihilist that disreputably conforms to his own ideals rather than what a collective would? If a person that gains the proprietary aim of any collective and directs that control in a manner. A manner which the conformity of a collective must submit to in obeyance. Than that means Nietzsche has implemented philosophy to the same end. That whether a real hero identifies with courage to their own means. What that entails has to be something that historically matches the result. The result of how a ruler governs in democracy. Fascist ends also apply to what Nietzsche proposes. Which is my point.

- Marco

maturity as the me

 

I like people like me. Like those who care not only about themselves but have the empathy in mind to miss and vibe through others as they are. I've always possessed a natural conscience but as I've learned about how to think, it separates the need of not what to think. A person with a conscience is perpetually the rarest thing in any individual. - Marco =============

Falsifying for measure as propaganda transcends itself

 The appeal to popular opinion as argument that Israeli's under Netanyahu are trying. Is an attempt into justified propaganda only disguised to purge those who are antizionist into false confession of hating Jews. (The war is not measure for measure.) This is about demonstrated natural cause informing Jewish identity. That the victimization of civilian populations in the name of Judea is not nationalist in motive. Therefore, the cause is natural. Therefore, measures how antizionist rhetoric as something that is a cause which justifies their mission for statehood.

I HAVE TO make myself perfectly clear-er, here, opposite the victim card Netanyahu's use of proprietary propaganda instills is.

That an argument propositioning how woke critics are of Israel abhorrent conduct is, does not allow Jews to inform how others measure it. Do not measure me as antizionist because it equates to hate. Your cowardly arguments precedes all promise of human condition. Jews are not victims of the same false purpose into the propaganda they act with. = (The moral of the previous sentence means they say one thing but it means another.) To say I am antizionist that incites hatred toward Jews is one thing. I agree. (The irrational measurement is another.) It is the Jewish statehood that has club med attitudes. Not woke Liberals such as myself. Examine your elitism and tell. Tell me why I am unsubservient if it means someone getting what they want.

The Jewish state is modern day genocidal warfare while Netanyahu propagates it using propaganda to fit the mouths of fools that actually believe him.

- Marco ================

letting go of why

 

What is enough (is never enough) :: drawing the line freedom creates

 

A non-fragmented mind, a mind that is whole is in freedom. It does not know it is free; what is known is within the area of time, the past through the present to the future. All movement is time and time is not a factor of freedom. Freedom of choice denies freedom; choice exists only where there is confusion. Clarity of perception, insight, is the freedom from the pain of choice.

Krishnamurti

"Untold: brain matter" 1- art of the mind as a natural superconductor 2- in behavioral awareness [psychological time]

 

 I think there is a bigger truth to the meaning hidden behind the message. Being, that although we link ourselves to the premise of what is regarded with a true sense of prestige, our only aims are guarded from consequence over failed, either perceived or projected self achievements.

It's a mind hack or trick we play as our ego.

My question asks: if we have to do something, (think of it as though life or death,) would you?? Should we kill ourselves over something we can or cannot control. Turn over our souls to the devil in exchange of ideas over a cheapened sense of survival.

My point is we are all capable of brilliance. It can be very very small.

I myself - don't really care for what the statement reads in that meme. I found it curious because I am on a totally different path. I want to be original (curious) in a world that lacks curiosity (originality.)

My thoughts about how everyone should be effected by the same thing we look at, may be different than how it works in another persons perspective. But the time it took me to figure out not to believe everything you hear or see is a skill. Simply, to think of things differently takes greater homage.

My aim at this point in my life - if any of this makes any sense - is that I want to operate at a higher level. (This doesn't mean I want something MORE than what ANOTHER person wants.) I am on a type of spiritual ordeal, to be in touch with a higher role in life that isn't typical of life itself. I try to translate this into my thoughts, my actions, my words. I am also; not referring this to perfection. Perfection does not equal to what is honorable.

To do your life's work, in your personal space, on your terms. . . isn't made to suffer.

I see this in everyone.

=======

What is in my opinion the best trait or characteristic a person can think for themselves? It's having a clear intimate understanding that we live in a world that's worth dying for.

- Marco

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

When the mind is no longer resisting, no longer avoiding, no longer discarding or blaming ‘what is’ but is simply passively aware, then in that passivity of the mind you will find, if you really go into the problem, that there comes a transformation.
⠀
Longer passage: A quiet mind is a mind that is intent on understanding. It is not a mind that is exclusive, that is trying to concentrate—which again is an effort of resistance. If I really want to understand something, there is immediately a quiet state of mind. When you want to listen to music or look at a picture which you love, which you have a feeling for, what is the state of your mind? Immediately there is a quietness, is there not? When you are listening to music, your mind does not wander all over the place; you are listening. Similarly, when you want to understand conflict, you are no longer depending on time at all; you are simply confronted with what is, which is conflict. Then immediately there comes a quietness, a stillness of mind. When you no longer depend on time as a means of transforming what is because you see the falseness of that process, then you are confronted with what is, and as you are interested to understand what is, naturally you have a quiet mind. In that alert yet passive state of mind there is understanding. So long as the mind is in conflict, blaming, resisting, condemning, there can be no understanding. If I want to understand you, I must not condemn you, obviously. It is that quiet mind, that still mind, which brings about transformation. When the mind is no longer resisting, no longer avoiding, no longer discarding or blaming ‘what is’ but is simply passively aware, then in that passivity of the mind you will find, if you really go into the problem, that there comes a transformation. —Krishnamurti
⠀
From the book The First and Last Freedom

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

Semiconductor in negating materialism

 

🔮return of the Psychic hero in real time

 A psychic 🔮 return into the future (if not a poisoning of my minds eye).

This false reality you found,

when attention is paid.

(Psychological factors stop with rules to follow.)

Rewired.  I rewind the rational processes from memory.

Inside, it is my light shinning through a dark dark cloud,

I abandoned in thought.

Word's upon words that carry no meaning,

far from making any sense.

Takes a brilliant mind to create it.

- Marco 

A return into the future as false reality (retold)

 Unsure why I'm moved to share this. I find it speculative therefore incomplete. But the imaginative quality that this creation manmade might still be held together in over a length of time humanity might not exist. Yet, the information on it represents our extinction. That's what gets me. If it's discovered by another entity, the information on it seems unobvious (not curious) to the object that "finds" voyager over its subsequent journey once discovered. It's like a empty drink can on the street. Discarded like a thing that we once thought could excite us based on its discovery, only to be treated like space trash seems more likely. Is physics infinitely incomplete? What is the point. We travelled 200,000 years to prove nothing.

My question: what (if anything is worth knowing) forces us to believe that immortality is a natural cause for us as a species to act. Is this our mission or should we reconsider it?

ambiguity as silence

Steven Bernstein

June 8th, 2026 ○°○•○•• There is a paradox that lives between what is courage and what cowardice is. If you fail - you don’t find yourself in the irony of it, it is in the paradox (as mentioned), do you find yourself that makes for something personal. A great thinker percolates moment to moment. •°○°○°○° Marco from Winnipeg P.S. I have listened to everything you said. The key elements are how 1- transmission works if you are alone in your thoughts, (this is poetry) 2- relapse of memory is if you misplace value in oneself trying to justify something you cannot control, and 3- contrivance in general is the idea if you live to concoct a viscerally purposeless mode of convention. = We are all just copies of something else we haven't learned about ourselves yet.

- Marco

what is free from fear

 If there were ever an autopsy given, to report the sense between what self-doubt does or to a collective species everyone person pledges, to no surprise we are left to uncover the beautiful circumstances given to no conspiracy of our own.

-Marco

This is my translation of the discovery Darwin has made.^ It is my own interpretation, re; the author for evolutionary physics. It creates a story, more intricate than what religion professes as 'the fear of God', to which confessional 'god fearing' individuals supposedly replicate to inform truth from falsehood. (i.e. corruption, guilt, false truth's)

Perhaps the single most important theory since Genesis re-invented itself as the cause of human sacrifice.

A theory so complete in tracing Darwin's 'origin of the species', is to say a person's humanity makes no mention of a self-condemning plea, the truth in evolutionary physics (rather) is to offer an explanatory aversion which:

a) differentiates between natural causes (i.e.inform our association to each thing immaterial or otherwise as is 'unknown' )

b) bargaining a negotiation from condemnation. (i.e. lies, false dichotomies, devils advocacy etc.)

Chris Jericho

If Chris Jericho is not the best export to come out of Winnipeg ever, he is at the top of my list, and we hardly know it. Shameful.

- Marco

 

tying one on

Only love and right thinking will bring about true revolution, the revolution within ourselves. — Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

wise expectations