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

Democracy :: [in argument]

 The truth is I am in agreeance with those ideas. That the description you've provided does follow a pattern. Therefore, a good linear form. It provides a solid conceptual framework into how government operates. What doesn't work for me is the mixed signals.

I did understand the notions as presented as they are valid therein. Although, at times some vague or ambiguous generalizations which you properly inform us with as refutation to what Plato is demonstrating... offer no true misrepresentation thereof. My point here?? (I think) I would accuse Plato of disguising some elements and we are supposed to classify democracy as inoperable? This in my view, Plato raises alarms or does not address at all! Therefore, Plato red flagged everything as you introduced us to to do with democracy.

1- Democracy will almost certainly always trend downward.

2- And thus we are the targets meant to follow the leaders.

3- There is no escaping from that which democracy follows. (That much is clear.)

What I found in the transitions between Plato and the dialogue you use happens to put into question what is a dictatorship or better asks; what a dictatorship 'is' (as in) what a dictatorship can be. Note: not what a dictatorship should be but what dictatorship looks like. It categorically all falls under the same umbrella.

Conclusion:

So, I suppose fascism supports this kind of an argument. Which is probably what Plato is getting at without suggesting Fascism as a cause of unity. Problems arise because of democracy. Though not in spite of what we carry on in its history.

Marco Almeida 2025

-The Peg

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

Kirk Lazenby

The threat to our democracy, is democracy

US and UK democratic systems are regulated by their overruling constitutions. The former being a constitutional republic and the latter a constitutional monarchy

In the absence of these respective constitutional frameworks, democracy is unsustainable

Plato’s arguments against democracy:

In his central work, The Republic, Plato delves into the ideal state and its governance.

His argument is a critique of democratic government, a form of rule that he viewed as inherently flawed and unsustainable.

Plato's classification of government types:

Aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.

Timocracy refers to the rule of a few individuals who prioritize honor and glory as the highest virtues.

Oligarchy involves the rule of a few where wealth serves as the primary criterion for attaining power.

Democracy represents majority rule, where freedom and equality hold paramount importance in political positions.

Lastly, tyranny represents an entirely unjust form of rule where the whims of a single ruler become law for the subjects.

Plato’s classification suggests a causal sequence where the regimes appear to arise from one another, with a descending order from a value standpoint.

It appears as if the ideal regime succumbs to timarchy, which then leads to the emergence of oligarchy and so forth.

Timarchy and oligarchy are considered less just than aristocracy, while democracy and tyranny are generally regarded as unjust regimes, with tyranny being the worst form.

the emergence of democracy from oligarchy occurs when the poorer class revolts against the wealthy minority.

This revolt is typically led by someone who betrays the oligarchic class but possesses the talent to rule and manipulate people, often through persuasive speeches.

This individual is known as a demagogue.

With a demagogue at the helm, the masses seize power, often through violence, killing some, expelling others, and forcing the remainder to coexist.

In this regime, everyone is granted equal rights to everything

— it is a regime in which the government is chosen by lot.-

Plato’s description is primarily inspired by the Athenian democracy of his time, and he highlights everything that he considered to be problematic with it.

Democracy, is characterised by equality and freedom, but also the right to publicly say whatever comes to one’s mind, as well as the right to lead a life as one wants.

Democracy fosters a wide array of lifestyles, and because of that, every other form of government can be found in democracy to a certain extent.

This occurs because individuals in a democratic society are not guided by an understanding of what is truly good. Instead, they succumb to the notion that all pleasures hold equal value.

Consequently, they lack the ability to discipline their lives and mindlessly pursue the satisfaction of every desire and passion that arises within them or is propagated by demagogues as the common good. Rather than leading to knowledge, this pursuit of freedom distances individuals from wisdom.

The danger of a demagogue who rises to power by pleasing the crowd and, in doing so, commits terrible acts of immorality and depravity.

This ultimately leads to the complete collapse of the democratic order, which results in tyranny.

Tyrannies arise when powerful groups or individuals separate themselves from the democratic regime and become uncontrollable forces.

August 28, 2012 at 4:36pm

 "In every instance I inform myself I believe my truth to reason is consequential to each moment a thought is born." - Marco Almeida 2012

Romanticism

 Re; romanticism

". . .which prized intuition and emotion over the rationalism of the Enlightenment"

The concept of the genius, or artist who was able to produce his own original work through this process of "creation from nothingness", is key to Romanticism, and to be derivative was the worst sin.[10][11][12][13] This idea is often called "romantic originality."[14]

Romanticism (link)

Saramago: a well constructed syllogism (March 26th 2013)

 A syllogism provided in four parts (as opposed to '3'... a-b-c-d), its use explains the parody, the irony, and the accreditation of myself to the world.

1- "In fact, everyone (or nearly everyone in the group, because I consider myself an exception) is forever being affectionate and sentimental with just enough cynicism to make it clear we are playing a game. As if we were constantly explaining to each other: Believe what I am about to tell you in such a way that it seems I do not want you to believe me."

2- "And besides: If you don't believe what I am telling you, even while appearing not to want you to believe me, I would know you don't value me, because if you were to value me you would also know that this is the manner in which intelligent people confide in each other nowadays."

3- "And besides, any reaction other than this one would be a sign of discourtesy, of backwardness and a lack of sensibility."

4- "Antonio looked on as we played out this farce and preferred to remain silent. I think back, see him with new eyes, try to feel his presence, to reconstitute certain words and phrases he used throughout all those years, only to discover someone who did more listening than speaking."

Curator of syllogism by; Marco Almeida

Author: Jose Saramago

"By provoking me, he had exposed my inferiority;"

"...things subsequently turned out in such a way that this supposed inferiority became clear to all, and all the more clear as the humiliating situation in which he had left me became more obvious."

"But it was inferiority (this is an assumption rather than a statement of fact), then perhaps at the time he had no other outlet: his suppressed aggression finally surfaced."

Fire and movement

 Fire can equate to physical activity. However, it does not in any way shape or form qualify as a purpose. Athletes push themselves, yes, but even fire can lead to failure. Practicing anything, leads to passion leading further to push yourself. Fire should be the goal. What turns is pursuing fire, only then are you consciously aware. This awareness is also - what we see is fire in our being.

-Marco

movement in fire

 March 26th 2026

I read this that I had wrote back in 2024 and it reads perfectly.

I happened to have the exact conversation about the exact same thing (ironically) this morning with someone I know, before I came across this piece of writing (today).  

The reason is simple.

I have been around the acting block and I know my stuff.  I have studied and studied and I have a frame in which my soul is.

Apart from that, my point is that unless you are in acting I have formulated only one and one rule only which universally applies for anyone that cares to learn.

The rule is if you are not in the business of acting with the purpose to make another person better than they were.  YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS IN ACTING!!

That's how I roll.

I have crossed paths with those I shall not name.  They claim to be involved yet do it for the wrong reason, are typical and superficial in their guise. I know what to look for and their aims are selfish rather than selfless.  But even when they know exactly what is I believe, every single word is true.

I only insist on this.  I play by this decree.  Everyome knows it and I tell it.  My point here is: if you don't have the guts you're hardly worth the pedigree.

- Marco

○°°○°°○°▪︎°▪︎▪︎

March 26th 2024

This is another PSA for reasons of my own. This subject is why I'm not in acting. 

I feel a betrayal. I'd love to be an actor. I don't want to be one unless the right reasons are in place. I won't be purged upon. I think that makes sense.

It's all about being in game I refuse to play into. Why. Because I an not in any way shape or form a manipulative individual. I prove to lead myself by example... what this equates to is being kind to others. Which is my greatest virtue.

I would describe the acting industry as a virus. It needs to be tampered with without a antidote.

The feelings I have are a refusal of playing that game. It seems to me that unless you can play a game within the game, your center offsets. The reality is a superficial one. 

What I've been able to do for myself up to this period. This point and time is not secret. 

I am no longer hiding or throwing shade at it.

I've never been happier in my life.

I set principles above everything and I know I am a good person. 

I am enough.

I'd love to be an actor but not at the expense of not looking at myself.

I've reset. I'm happy. I have my family. I love it all. When I was trying so hard. I lost sight of the shore.

But when I really set sail. The stars are my guide and I realized they're looking down on me....

On this lighter side of my obsession (March 24th 2010)

 I've been watching a ton of Bret's footage on youtube. The video research I've come up with, gave me many different angels, to choose, as a matter of speaking to non-factual opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBWR1OODtCg&feature=related

His theme music in WCW f'ing rocked house^. Since Vince owns the rights, it's his to use.

This 'video research' deserves some response, I'd like whoever, to affirm or not - that Vince played heel (for the first time) with an actual wrestler? (Does this exclude Steve Austin, I mean how can austin count, if Austin always copped out - yes copped out on an attitude.) Let's face it, Hart consumated that image, Stone Cold ripped off so much of Bret's maneuvers, Austin looks like a ~itch himself. Like I said before. Austin sucks. It's hilarious to watch Vince McMahon crapping his pants while Bret quitting, totally unreal, Bret's acting is totally convincing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiJxXQDh2U

This is clearly Austin's mocking of Bret. (Later on in Austin's noteriety in wrestling, notice how Austin totally rips off Bret's mic work compared to this. . .) ^ Austin is a faker in wrestler's terms. No obvious bias here. This was Bret's 'I quit' 2:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxCDDlSw9-A

@ :50seconds in (BH shoves McMahon) this is awesome. His passion made the ^hitman who he truly is. ~uckin awesome. This whole sequence delivers the hitman. Just unreal wrestler. A jealous Austin (surprise, surprise it's the undertaker. . .)
This is wrestling the way it was meant to be, one of the best clips in history for sure!
At 4:01 McMahon denies conspiracy, which is obviously proactive, (Bret watching this later) knows that the gig is up, McMahon is in love. This is very conclusive evidence.

I hope you guys are enjoying this????

=----------------------=


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ria8ClDBgW4
2:22 is the best evidence to show my description. . . I'm a theatre major phil. minor, could have pulled in the double major, but failed to do so based on my own endeavor's. (graphic artistry eh?) Brett decided to do his submission moves at a grade 3 level which actually translated into horrifically firghtened "trained experts" of MADtv actors. I don't think Brett even realized it was going to happen the way it did, but Brett cruised through it like a pro, it proved to me what kind of an actor he can deliver, McMahon really did screw McMahon. EVERYONE f'~in freaked, I swear to you, Bret is the only guy who's acting, this is the funniest ~hit I've ever seen on television. I remember I saw this clip on a Sat. night the day of it airing. I went to a friend's house, saying what happened, convinced the actors stopped acting. Nobody believed me. Pain threshold anyone??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl1fjVs_Ulg

Killer Kowalski is a monster. Just a monster, with quicker moves than most of today's wwe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SspqgtefCrk&feature=PlayList&p=A1DC644A0913219D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14

^The most respect I found of Brett came at 6:20 of his hall of fame speech, when he says "I've never injured a wrestler" which in his mind was saying, he knew what wrestling was about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIgRSmb_BaE&feature=related

The one and only Curt Henning (3:40) "Bodybag comment", I saw this on a 58'flat, from what I saw ddp look f'd. (I think it gives you a better idea than the smaller version.)

(I hope you guys enjoy. . .)