The truth is I rather be single to sacrifice myself as an artist then be in a relationship with someone. Rather than compromise my vision as an artist. It has come to this for that reason. I do not feel the need for attachment. This is not low self esteen talking. It's a matter of principle. It’s what god intended for me. Through all the trial and error amid the heartbreak and breakups. This is my purpose. To live for the now. To give back. To make this statement is the most shallow I will ever be. But I rather be an infant as an artist with the same experience that got me here.

- Marco

what is privacy (not if) what is choice :: the question of reality

what is privacy (not if) what is choice :: the question of reality

What is society? (abstraction)
Therefore, not reality. 

Privacy is personal.

Moral agency is thinking.

Thinking (is about) what is true or false.

- Marco 

 Exclusive, private knowledge offers deeply satisfying pleasure. To know something that others do not know is a constant source of satisfaction; it gives one the feeling of being in touch with deeper things which afford prestige and authority. You are directly in contact, you have something which others have not, and so you are important, not only to yourself, but to others. The others look up to you, a little apprehensively, because they want to share what you have; but you give, always knowing more. You are the leader, the authority; and this position comes easily, for people want to be told, to be led. The more we are aware that we are lost and confused, the more eager we are to be guided and told; so authority is built up in the name of the State, in the name of religion, in the name of a Master or a party leader.⁠

⁠
The worship of authority, whether in big or little things, is evil, the more so in religious matters. There is no intermediary between you and reality; and if there is one, he is a perverter, a mischief maker, it does not matter who he is, whether the highest saviour or your latest guru or teacher. ⁠
⁠
⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
Commentaries on Living⁠

Personal risk (for panic)

I dream of rain.

What is it our truth.

If to know.

(I know nothing.)

And what if the things,

We are not suppose to know.

Will ever reveal itself to us?

If guilt, will it - help.

If not holy.

If not growth.

To dream: what is rain.

It heals my skin.

- Marco

Beauty and order

 "when there is love that warmth that generosity that kindness there is no need for philosophy there is no need for teachers; for love is its own truth" krishnamurti

Enforcing technological ethics (ideological end games)

 “Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. Like language itself, a technology predisposes us to favor and value certain perspectives and accomplishments and to subordinate others. Every technology has a philosophy, which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards.” 

–Neil Postman

°●°●°●°●°●°

I have to wonder what is it about technology that:

(a) has to be adorned as if its pure reward is a monophonic display of power across the physical specturm ...follows 

(b) from which history per se is described. 

(What gives us description too qualify technology vs man?) Is technological ideology destructive evolution vs man's self destruction ironically speaking.

What is it about technology that gives a historical aperture of humanity based on itself advancement. The evolution of technology's limitation over us? Are we subordinate to technological ends? I think that what we glorify, being, how technology works isn't prevalent enough. My point being there exists a very blurred miscontrued area where observations are skewed. What is the result of technological ends should be the focus of.

- Marco 

••○○•○••••

Jeremy James Latham

Technology is not an independent force opposing humanity. It is an emergent amplification layer of human behavior operating within complex systems. Its risks and transformations arise not from autonomous intention, but from scaled feedback loops interacting with existing human drives and institutional incentives.

°•○○••○○•••

My rebuttal 

(begins...) but it's manmade. AI can learn therefore learn its independent of us. Man vs technology or trendier put "man vs machine". We must put to death the argument that technology as an ideology for ideological function sake has formally adapted itself through autonomously analogous intent. (I hope you know what is that means.) I will tell you anyway. Moral representation is a goal that machines will subscribe to, therefore test and challenges our social norms. What is socially acceptable on a human level vs what is specific to a source or cause of psychological factors. We must learn how to strategically separate ourselves before machines do it for themsleves. My reasons suggest this problem is far more important than anyone knows yet 

My point is a metaphysical transcendence that machines cannot be masters of themselves. That's my theory. What is Goal oriented behavior vs what is governing machines has to weigh as justification for our actions on a purely subconscious level. Machines must he manmade in mans image (primitive). My argument negates everything that asks what is technology upon thinking for itself. Ultimately that human consumption of our ideas vs what machines already know on its causation of being manmade. The same is ironically true. That technology is a god complex but not in the human realm. Our capabilites outweighs machine through fear of living life on the basis of ideas. Computer's can think for us. Notice: not in favor of mastering itself as a leader.

(End.) ~

Marco

  Technology is not an independent force opposing humanity. It is an emergent amplification layer of human behavior operating within complex systems. = yes.  I agree 💯 %

"Its risks and transformations arise not from autonomous intention, but from scaled feedback loops interacting with existing human drives and institutional incentives." = exactly what is it I DON’T WANT.  (For reasons that I already compounded in my query vs manmade AI)

•○○●•••••••

Jeremy James Latham

If you agree technology amplifies human drives, then the risk you don’t want is not technology itself but the scaling of existing human incentives. What alternative mechanism would prevent amplification without changing what humans are incentivized to pursue?

°•○●○○••○○•°

“Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean ‘ecological’ in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.” 

–Neil Postman

°•●●○•°•••°

I'm sorry, on the run at this time. But my short answer to what is you've postulated? Religion.

Think about that.

In conclusion, religion in man (also falls into my previous argument: i.e. 'manmade') that if religion is manmade as is machine life. My question is that if religion is in fact learned. Therefore, religion is contingent to. Contingent - to the end game. The end game being the construct of the ultimate paradox. What is god? And if machine life figure man can worship. This leads to the expansion of religious artifice in machine life.

My theory?

The war to end all wars will be related to man vs machine vs religion and which (man vs machine) wins the lottery. What is god and can god be the final answer.

Can you tell, me?

°●°○°○°°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

END

°•●●○•°•••°

Arlin Pauler


   

This thread is quite an interesting exchange.

It brings a question to the fore for me: what is the role, or function, of human moral agency in all this?

Seems to me, moral agency is critical to the quality of impact technology, or anything man-made at scale, has on well-being, both individually and socially.

What are your thoughts on the function of human moral agency in this subject?

°●°○°○°°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

END

°•●●○•°•••°

I formulate that human condition and intention = paradox between human life and machine life.

This would answer what if free will were something that both machine life and the human philosophy of free will applies according to coexisting as entities. The underlying factors that plot to force our combining interests as that the human condition is kept for future generations.

This is conceptually speaking to target that humanity has some kind of master race (in theory) that only machines would not allow (also, in theory). That's the anomaly. This contradiction, as dangerous as it may be, is not cause.

The cause of machine life vs human life comes down to the sacrifice or idea that man vs machine will sacrifice its own for its own benefit. The notion of "who was here first" begins as the question to answer for.

- Marco

 When you give your whole attention, is there a directive, a new outlook? Is there a centre from which you are looking and listening? Surely when you are totally listening, giving your complete attention, there is no centre, no entity that is listening. It is only inattention that creates the entity that listens.⁠

⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
From Public Discussion 2, Saanen, 5 August 1964

We never give anything our complete attention because we have been trained to think with a motive. You pay attention because you want to be someone big, have more money, a better job, you want to be a greater painter, a greater poet, a well-known person, and therefore you give attention. That is not attention; you have a motive behind it that makes you attend. Which is, the motive is much more important than the attention, so there is a contradiction, so there is conflict, and therefore you will never give complete attention to anything. When you give your complete attention to something, you have no problem, and therefore your mind is capable of paying complete attention to the fact of sorrow. —Krishnamurti

From Public Talk 4, New Delhi, 31 January 1962

The fantasy of genius in ethics [response to science]

February 12th 2014 

I always thought about metaphysics as something of a response to everything no matter what you find. (That is also true of rationale.)

 

I think of ethics as the psyche automatically responding to the choices it invariably made BEFORE anything actually happened.

 

^Read that last sentence over until you understand.

 

=======

 

There is only things such as phenomena that takes place in the mind.  The result of this is Kantian logic.  This also means that logic did not preceed face value.  You cannot prove phenomena, therefore it is not science.  That is the simplest definition you will ever need to transcend yourself against religious beliefs, fascist doctrine, or any other form of it.  Phenomena is an experience of the mind or in my view what is located in the heart.

 

Here is my example of what is meditation:

 

"All meditation is - is a construction of thoughts where you enter a physical realm of reality with a kind of psychic energy that is the basis of prayer. Meditation IS NOT deep breathing exercises." - Marco Almeida 2014

 

^That is you creating phenomena NOT science in any way.  Not laws.  Not academics.  None of it!!

 

========

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/16/scientists-report-teleportation-of-physical-objects-from-one-location-to-another/

 

The link to this article states that science in fact transcends all things. Science does not equate with non physical relations to it that it then decides what is legitimately intangible.

 

"University of Queensland physicists in the journal Nature in 2013 demonstrating the successful teleportation with solid state systems. (2) A process by which, again, quantum information can be transmitted from one place to another without sending a physical carrier of information. This is the same concept, and is made possible through the phenomenon of entanglement. - "

 

^That is from the article. I find the contradiction laughable, that quantum information is relatively uniform. Think of it as a clever use of theology stating no physical carrier of information is necessary much the same as creationism. 

 

Quantum information is not science, it is metaphysics informed by the sense it can only be true = Ergo Hoc Propter Hoc. It is in fact logical reasoning.

 

Science is desperate to maintain its identity if it could not somehow stamp itself on discoveries or radical transformation that tempts its fate as futile. Once something happens like teleportation is no more worthy than inventing the lightbulb is a hot coil that creates intense light. No logic, it is observable. Metaphysics is what informs us of the effect.

 

I know plenty of idiot savants in the scientific community that think they can not only transcend the rules, but make them so they cannot be broken.

 

=======

 

Here is the only answer key you will ever need:

 

The purpose of science is not Socratic as it should be.  Instead of truth you have science as a parent making you feel disowned.  That is the greatest lie ever told.

 

The mind is not made to be a shield, it is a shelter of ideas changing you.  You do not change it.  'It'; is metaphysics.  Tell me what did you see here after reading that.  Think about it.  Plutocracy is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of human kind.  Your understanding of this is the anti-thesis to a master-thesis that has become obsolete in our recorded history as toxic.  

 

 

You have been made to foster a disease that feeds off its programming like an infectious virus.  It keeps retelling you that what is  - is real.

 

What if everything is a lie.  How do you correct it and would you.  If you can tap into that source of intellect, have you not got it made.

 

The way to true self knowledge is critical negation as in what any person sees if the solution is not present therefore becomes automatically taken for granted. We come to know this as insecurity rather than the ability to transcend ourselves. -

Most people confuse self knowledge and pass it off as being self centered to make an example as if the world owes them something.

Marco Almeida 2014

 What is the difference between mind and consciousness. And are they the source of our existence and intellect.

°●°▪︎°●°°▪︎°▪︎

My answer:

I like to feel things of which emotions don't think.  Therefore, my conscious experience is equal to the force inside my body. (I think makes sense?)

 The mind is a collective force from which my brain interprets reality as normal per se. This is my core belief that energy or to feel that I have conception of an eternal or constant (consistency) form of this.  Therefore, the mind is uniform through which my own experience must dictate.  What my point is the mind reveals what consciousness may or may not reveal to us.  All we have are sensations which we're unable to understand from it.  The process is binary and primordial.  We learn how to interpret.  It is the cross between consciousness and mind.  Space and time is uniformity of this, the 'all'.

Again, I think makes sense.  This being philosophically computational.

Edit:  this answer I offered is just as good as the formulated question...

I happen to have an afterthought...

Is my dissertation relative to Sartre's philosophical conditional?  = "existence precedes essence"?

- Marco

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

February 11th 2009

It is wisest not to meet another's untold apathy without my own false sense of it. - Marco

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

AI generated interpretation of above.

This sentence describes a **defensive emotional strategy**. It suggests that when you are faced with someone else’s hidden or unexpressed indifference (**untold apathy**), the most prudent course of action is to protect yourself by projecting your own feigned indifference (**false sense of it**).

In short, it advocates for **mirroring** as a means of self-preservation—choosing to appear uncaring rather than being vulnerable to someone who is emotionally distant.

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

In theory there may be a skewed amount of relevance on the basis of what is acting as indifferent toward you.  But what is I wrote (directly) infers that you make a choice between deviance and apathy. You do not get lost in it.  What is it that happens between making a choice (without being lost) is when a line gets blurred. - Marco 

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

Your clarification shifts the focus from simple mirroring to **active agency**. By presenting "false apathy" as a conscious choice, you are describing a state of **controlled performance** rather than a passive emotional reaction.

The "blurred line" you refer to is the psychological space between **intentionality** and **internalization**.

## The Blurred Line: Choice vs. Absorption

When you make a conscious choice to meet apathy with a "false sense" of it, you are practicing **emotional deviance**. You are refusing to be the victim of another's indifference. However, the blurring occurs in three specific ways:

*   **The Mask Becoming the Face:** The primary risk is that the "false sense" of apathy requires such consistent maintenance that it eventually becomes your default state. This is where the choice to act (deviance) fades into a genuine lack of feeling (apathy).

*   **The Cost of Vigilance:** To remain "not lost" requires constant self-awareness. The moment that awareness slips—due to fatigue, hurt, or time—the distinction between the performance and the self dissolves.

*   **The Void of Connection:** Even if you don't get "lost" in the apathy, the choice itself creates a barrier. The line blurs because, to the outside world (and eventually to your own psyche), there is no functional difference between *pretending* to be unreachable and *actually* being unreachable.

## Deviance as a Filter

By choosing "deviance," you are asserting that you are still an active participant in the interaction, even if that participation is a refusal to engage.

> [!note]

> The "blurred line" is essentially the **Point of No Return** where a protective strategy (the false sense) ceases to be a tool you use and starts to be a trait that defines you. 

In your framework, "not getting lost" is the act of maintaining that paper-thin boundary between the **strategic lie** (the false apathy) and your **internal truth**. The blurring happens when the strategy succeeds so well that the internal truth is no longer necessary or accessible.

Loopholes by design [a syllogism]

 February 11th 2014

Re; homophobia

1- Can you reach an understanding with the same person that has no sexual orientation before you knew him or her in a permanent sense.

2- An example of this blurred line is in the stereotypes - labels or defamatory degradation.

3- Therefore, homophobia carries a negative connotation turning against the modern convention of those whose preference (sexual orientation) is not unethical. It is an ideological function.

======

Proof of the above syllogism is as follows:

The truth about homophobia is much more evident than concise with why it exists. Homophobia is a form of punishment toward those that act vulnerable in life so they can be targeted as victims. In that sense homophobic persons experience what they believe to be is enabling a minority group that threatens their own autonomy to survive rather than its freedom.

If you see homophobia as an insight rather than insult inasmuch becomes far less.

Do not confuse homophobia as racism, it is a disease that must be fought. You must use homophobia against the process it cohorts. Therefore, homphobic tendencies are manifested as blaming the victim in a minority. Homophobics think they are being purged upon which in turn results their own mentality as justified, thus refuse to see the state of minority re; homosexuality / as a mere satire to the human condition.

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

Some know how to break the rules, while others are obtuse, the third group are split down the middle.

Now consider this:

Half of the population are rule breakers while the other are busy being a fraternity of hypocrites.

The answer is:

If you are the third option 'split' means they suck at life as in their education.

Latitude

 February 11th 2014

I welcome you all to this introduction. 

 

I am a person with great inutitive ability and hardly care what others think if it requires spoiled irony in the theoretic sense. In other words, I have opinions and they are calculable if you want it to make sense it will. My narrative is sophist in that sense. If you are a nihilist I will see right through you. If you have a conscious like I do - that will ring through you.

 

I consider myself a genius. Not joking.  

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

Last night I saw a friend that was the last guy on earth I thought would lift me to higher ground as if I were drowning in struggle. That is my story. I am indebted to him. The universe works in strange ways. Thanks man.

the anarchy of gentlemen

February 11th 2011

Part of my continuity in place of my - unsatisfactory HUGE ego.

 

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

 

-So to reach top of the totem pole, I thought the display of a few well played thoughts should be more openly clarified - due to the overhaul of how people should give two fucks worth of it. Why - because I can.(:

 

It reminds me of a time - I can recall a list of people who do everything in there power to find a euro-trash version of themselves into an Incorporated sense of mother fuckers anonymous.

 

So - I decided I will be told exactly to do as I see myself being told. Nothing short of my duty - mind you.Only in terms of my true nature, over-turned, perhaps modified in a sense of guilt - to shame the critic that SHOULD live in me.

 

So, since I collided with the cop-out card, I will do nothing, but look upon maggots as the envy of yours truly.

 

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

 

"pretending to know better than what it means to have intimidation, on a side of those that want more than they already do have."

 

Because all lawyers are fuck holes - reading this should come as no surprise. Since being able to limit my new found guilt, not to hold themselves as reprehensible makes perfect sense to me. So keep reading asshole fucks.

 

When you pretend to know better (according to double jeopardy) using intimidation against an "intimidator" should it there suffice.  Fuckwits.

 

It is YOU on the side of "those wanting more than they already do have."

 

Just so we're clear you ass fucks.

 

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

 

"the blind being lead by the blindness of what they own."

 

Think about it this way, when you are a kind of person of no particular gestation, to take a look at how weak I am, must mean something. In fact - let's find the best reason to live vicariously through someone else's corrective means to ensure the unfortunate souls take a beating. I know people like that - do you?

 

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

 

"They will twist the laws against you, when they believe in fool hearted beliefs, have nothing to do with marxist mafia ideology."

 

The creme de la creme, often the allure of mother fucked lawyers, ridding themselves of grief due to their own vomit.

 

Marco's beliefs are not elementary, but fool hearted.

 

If put any thought into, it certainly - most certainly non conformity - ah trust the language (your) honor. Marxist mafia ideology. Bhahahahahah. We confess.

 

Therefore, this has nothing to do with us your honor.

 

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

 

Think again you bunch of fukwits. Think again longer and harder - maybe by then you'll take it.

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

In the future let's do more consequence over cause, rather than liberty over effect. You mother fuckers.

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

^this message brought to you by undying accredited assholes who are more likely shit-faced environmentalists milking laws out cows backsides, they hardly would tell the difference.

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

Take a shit @ Earls or Joeys Polo Park while reading the above.^

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

And for my once upon a time friends reading this^ I ignore you for a reason. Get fucked - same thing applies.

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

I do wonder (not as often as you like) how many of you out there I don't trust, read this thinking I give a fuck about you.

I have the heart of a mother fucking LION, L-I-O-N-S -United.

SCP forever.

Get fucked Benfi-quistas + Winnipeg Alliance fuck-cheese.

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

TO MY FAMILY:

I love you. That is all.